A good decision

THE Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) has made a well-merited intervention to stop the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (DGI&I) from exercising powers under SRO 48 (1), 2008, to detect tax fraud - a move that drew a collective voice of protest from the business community. The chambers of commerce and industry all over the country have been expressing apprehensions over a substantial increase in the powers of the DGI&I officers, especially the ones that authorised arrest of individuals, search of premises, and direct access to tax payers’ records. Hence, representatives of the business community did not surprise anyone when, opposing these provisions, they argued that junior staff of the directorate could use them for dishonest purposes. It is good to see that FBR lent a sympathetic ear to those concerns, and has now moved to address the same. DGI&I officers, including those serving at the level of deputy/assistant directors and appraisers, will not be able to exercise authority under SRO 48 (I) issued earlier this year. Without a doubt, the most important decision in this regard is the one that prevents intelligence officers from arresting a person under section 37-b of the Sales Tax Act. Such arrests can cause abiding embarrassment and humiliation to people who, given due process, may prove to be innocent.
We have one sad example from a few years back when a Faisalabad businessman was arrested and subjected to severe interrogation in an investigation centre, causing his death. There can be no two opinions on that all people must pay their dues to the state. And that those authorised to collect taxes need to take tough measures to curb unethical practices, of which there are aplenty in this society. But it is equally important to differentiate between toughness and high-handedness. The existing rules and regulations must be implemented without fear or favour. At the same time, no one should be subjected to unnecessary harassment or humiliation. The fact of the matter is that as long as people have coercive powers they will use them, too. It is only appropriate, therefore, that FBR has decided to restrict some of the excessive powers the intelligence directorate officials have been exercising over the business people’s affairs. The decision should also be helpful in creating a positive business sentiment when our economy is passing through a particularly difficult phase. A poor law and order situation together with some elements of political uncertainty continues to have a dampening effect on investor interest. Decisions and actions like the present one that encourage rather than discourage business activity are always desirable. At this point, they are the need of the hour.


Clinton’s threat to Iran

IF there were any doubt that if she made it to the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton’s term would be George Bush Mark III, the lady made it plain on the eve of Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary. Her campaign had already run TV advertisements featuring pictures of Osama Bin Laden and asking voters who they would really trust as their commander-in-chief, Clinton or Obama. Then Monday night, Clinton drove home her “toughness” by threatening to “obliterate” Iran if it launched an attack on Israel. Given the kind of foreign policy advisers she has (the same as those who paved the way for Iraq war), she may not wait for Iran to “attack” Israel. It can be a pre-emptive “obliteration.” This is the foreign politics of the madhouse. It demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush’s foreign relations. It offers only violence where there should be negotiations and war where there could be peace. At a stroke, Clinton demonstrated to everyone in this region that if she were the next occupant of the White House, Iraq-like death and destruction would be the order of the day. Even the Republican candidate, John McCain, has not been so war-like in his views of Iran. This experienced politician has at least had the good sense to leave open as many options as possible. And there is now a strong sense that if he were president, Barack Obama’s inclination would be to try to pick up some of the many opportunities for negotiation and peace-making that have been discarded by the belligerent Bush administration.
The pity of it is that Hillary Clinton’s last-minute fighting talk may have chimed in with the views of Pennsylvania’s voters. Her expected narrow victory has turned into a ten-point triumph over Obama. This said, when the two Democrat contestants began these hustings, Clinton was thought to hold a 20-point lead. Did she rescue her campaign with her rash talk or did she convince many potential supporters that she was not to be trusted with the direction of American foreign policy? There is little or no consideration of how simplistic Washington analysts actually plunged the region into chaos in the first place. America’s world outlook remains disturbingly black and white. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that even if she knows better, she is prepared to ride and exploit this mulish ignorance. The threat to “obliterate” Iran is dangerous folly. What though has this woman given to the implicit threat Israel makes to the rest of the region with its own nuclear arsenal? How does she imagine that such talk will play to those Iranians who want rapprochement with Washington? Clinton’s is ill informed and amoral politicking of the worst kind, even assuming that in the US Israel is a domestic, not foreign, policy. Faced with defeat in her bid for the Democrat nomination, she is prepared to up her already dirty political tactics by threatening with destruction another state in the Middle East that poses no threat to the US. This is a person who is barely fit to run for office, let along sit behind the most powerful desk in the world.

—Arab News