A parliamentary panel has questioned a government institute’s discrimantory role in human resource training programmes.
Senators came down heavily on an official of the Pakistan Manpower Institute (PMI) at a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Training recently for having an ‘unjust’ representation from smaller provinces and regions of trainees in the institute’s training programmes last year.
The committee members were unpleasantly surprised when Munir Qureishi revealed details of the province-wise breakup of the 478 participants of the training programmes at PMI during 2012-13.
The committee’s chairperson, Senator Abdul Nabi Bangash, lashed out at Qureishi when he informed the panel that 155 trainees were from Islamabad, 160 from Punjab, leaving only 47 from K-P, 11 from Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) and 37 from Azad Kashmir.
“Where are the people of Federally Administered Tribal Areas and why is it that the number of officers from Punjab equals those from the capital with a population of just three million,” Bangash asked the PMI official, adding that this ‘monopoly’ is unjustifiable.
Qureishi was at a loss for words, to which Bangash commented: “There is no need to complain about the state of affairs when you are treating smaller provinces and areas in the same
way as you did East Pakistanis”.
Why should Islamabad have so many and Balochistan and G-B so fewer trainees, asked Bangash, adding that those living in proximity to the centre of power should not trample the rights of the smaller provinces.
Qureshi informed the committee that the people of Fata were merged into K-P’s members, which Bangash termed as even more troubling.
Senator Ilyas Bilour and Najma Najam also criticised the discriminatory breakup of the trainees and directed Qureishi to ensure fair representation in future programmes and not have such a high number of officers from Islamabad.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 15th, 2013.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ