Centre ignored Sindh in PSDP schemes: Wahab

Provincial govt spokesman says Planning Development Minister Asad Umar has wrong figures


Our Correspondent June 08, 2021

KARACHI:

Sindh is the highest revenue earner for the federation, but the province is being ignored by the PTI-led federal government, said Sindh Government Spokesperson Barrister Murtaza Wahab.

Sindh recorded its written protest against the federal government's Public Sector Development Programme and Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah pointed out the unfair distribution in the federal PSDP, he said addressing a news conference in Sindh Assembly Committee Room.

Communication at different levels of the government is carried out in writing. When we received the details of the PSDP, we presented our protest in writing. The Sindh CM wrote a letter on June 5 informing Prime Minister Imran Khan about reservation over the development funds for the province.

Wahab said that the federal government had spent its funds on motorways in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa but for motorways in Sindh, it does not provide funds.

Strangely enough from the schemes of the Ministry of Communications, 22 schemes were allocated for Punjab, 21 for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and only six schemes were given to Sindh.

The province which gives 70% revenue was given only two schemes in the Federal Ministry of Finance and 18 schemes in Punjab. For Punjab's roads, the federation has given Rs35,600 million worth of development schemes. The federation is providing funds for the construction of bridges in Punjab. In Sindh, the federation has given UC-level drainage schemes.

Wahab said that Asad Umar had declared everything wrong on television appearance but when he was asked for details, he said that there were no details. Surprisingly, the Minister for Planning and Development did not have the details.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 8th, 2021.

E-Publications

Most Read

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ