PAKISTAN
The Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) suffered two shocks after its elections last year (2024) and thus stands as an organization eclipsed by grave uncertainty about its future. The first shock was that the council lost its fundamental ethos of being inclusive and consultative, and the second was severe allegations of misgovernance and absence of transparency in financial matters, which resulted in the constitution of a Ministerial Committee to scrutinize the council’s performance and determine if complaints lodged against it are based on facts.
The ironic part of the story is that the political bosses of engineers’ groups across Pakistan still seem to be digging fortunes for their groups instead of dwelling deeply on efforts to improve the functioning of the council and seeking advice and suggestions from engineers across the country. All such organizations across the world organize broader and more intense consultative meetings to face challenges they encounter in the wake of engineering aspects of the economy, engineering education and institutions, environmental disasters, and the onslaught of new technologies that have started swallowing traditional sets of engineering disciplines. However, the PEC seems negligent of all challenges and also real threats emanating from inside the council. In recent months, the council, as scores of engineers believe, has become a secret service-like organization, whose boss’s doorless office attracts a scant few of his cronies in running the affairs of the council.
Amidst concerns about the outcome of the Federal Cabinet’s Ministerial Committee, the council cared not to convene the meeting of the Governing Body (GB)—which, as per the Act of the council, is mandated to meet thrice a year—and take the elected members into confidence. “Why would he call the meeting?” asked one of his close allies, saying he is a manager, not a leader. A senior engineer who prefers to remain anonymous said, “He is an exclusionist; it’s his style, and that’s the reason he did not form committees, which is the mandate of the governing body. The chairman of the council cannot make committees as per the law,” claims another senior engineer. The committees that he called “working groups” are based on governing body members. None of these committee-cum-groups have come up with anything substantial. A member of such a group told Engineering Review that he was unable to understand the situation; no one was interested in working.
Interestingly enough, it’s been seven months since the PEC elections, and little less than half of the GB members hailing from The Engineers Pakistan (TEP), led by Engr. Jawed Salim Qureshi, stayed away from the meetings of the working groups. The reason is the alleged lack of transparency in the poll. “They shall not turn up unless their grievances are addressed,” they said. After the polls, many of these elected members fear drastic changes that may fall upon the council in the backdrop of the outcome of the Ministerial Committee’s hunt.
Some of these members believe the NEA, led by Engr. Qadir Shah, and TEP should sit together to save what they call the very existence of the council. But it seems less probable as Chairman Engr. Waseem Nazir has already appeased NEA’s Shah group by making a politically-driven committee led by Engr. Qadir Shah, whose prime objective, according to NEA insiders, is to place his men in the working groups and committees.
Engr. Nazir’s political move has helped him neutralize Engr. Mukhtiar Shaikh—in a marriage of inconvenience with Engr. Shah—since he cannot afford to face both Shah and Shaikh in the same line. Engineers close to Engr. Shaikh suggest he turned instrumental in launching a tirade against the chairman during a recent meeting of the Management Committee of the council. The chairman is said to have been alienated in the meeting, echoed by hot arguments, and finally called off without discussing the agenda.
The chairman’s style of running the affairs of the council and the post-PEC elections flurry of allegations of corruption leveled by Engr. Zahoor—a former member of the GB—have compounded into an impression across the country that the council has malfunctioned.
‘The council seems to have been paralyzed after its elections, especially,’ believes a GB member. Even the PEC chairman cared not to look into the allegations of a former GB member that damaged the image of the council, he stated. ‘The young engineers, already angry with engineering political groups led by veterans, contribute to the accusation game too.’
The image of PEC in the federal public sector organizations and the ruling circles has been tarnished, claims an engineer working with a federal government department at a higher position. “At any level, no one from the top of the council came forward to control the damage.” The council, though working under the Ministry of Science & Technology (MoST), is not synchronized with the relevant ministries so that they could be part of the overall development of the country, he argued, saying it’s for this reason that Engr. Jawed Salim’s complaints traveled to the federal cabinet.
With such an image in mind, a high-powered committee will assess the performance of the council, mandated to evaluate the performance of the Pakistan Engineering Council in accordance with its mandate, as outlined in the preamble of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act of 1975 and its functions as specified in Section 8 of the Act. It will also assess the authenticity of complaints received against the PEC and the validity of general dissatisfaction with the council, and review the PEC Act of 1975 to identify any gaps or weaknesses in the law that may be affecting institutional outcomes.
Although some in Engr. Qureshi’s camp believe the complaints lodged by them with the MoS&T, where an exercise of rightsizing departments is going on, may rebound on the complainants, ‘Instead of focusing on election-related complaints, the Ministerial Committee would look into many other things that may have a huge impact on the council,’ a TEP engineer says.
However, Engr. Jawed Salim Qureshi, talking to ER, said he welcomed the formation of the Ministerial Committee with a heavy heart. He demanded that first, it should be determined who brought the council to this point. “Our complaints on election transparency were not investigated properly, and now the culprits should be brought to the book. The council should be running as per the Act and Bylaws. No one other than the GB can constitute the committee.”
In TEP, there are many who predict the extinction of the council and see another mechanism to regulate engineering education and the industry. ‘Since the leadership of the engineers is weak, I don’t see the council in the future anymore,’ said another engineer.
The NEA leader Abdul Qadir Shah agrees with Engr. Qureshi regarding the potency of the leadership. He believes Engr. Nazir made a few mistakes at the outset, which worked as oil on the fire. However, he did not share the details of what exactly Engr. Waseem did that led to the situation reaching this extent.
The PEC headquarters, with few exceptions, seems content, and the officers and staffers welcome the scrutiny of the council’s performance by the Ministerial Committee, as they believe whatever may be investigated has to do with the doings of the elected members of the council. A few of them claim there is no ground for the allegations of Engr. Jawed Salim Qureshi, as these 760 votes were cast by veteran engineers, whose biometrics are not possible. ‘It’s a common practice in the elections, and even during the last elections, more votes were cast by senior engineers,’ claimed one.
Interestingly enough, the PEC headquarters also claims there is no proof that the Nadra System collapsed because of any problem in the PEC. Nadra, he said, had offered to conduct a reelection, but all parties agreed to go with the same election process.
Disagreeing or otherwise with Engr. Qureshi’s stance on the transparency of elections, senior officers, however, do find like the chairman monopolistic in his style. A senior officer said Engr. Zahoor’s allegations and the chairman’s autocratic style have caused real damage. ‘The council chairman should have come up with a plan to discourage the practices that harmed the council’s image,’ he suggested, alleging some of the chairman’s close aides were enjoying the same perks that others did during other administrations of the council.
Hundreds of miles away in other cities of Pakistan, this allegation is circulating, and many engineers point fingers at some of the chairman’s close aides who allegedly receive undue perks. An engineer said many engineers have valid documentary proof to validate the allegations.
Are these allegations based on facts? The PEC chairman has to answer this question, but he is not in touch with the independent engineering media and could not be accessed despite repeated calls and messages by Engineering Review. However, he is present in all PEC offices across the country through his vision and mission statements, some of which are debatable though, hanging on the walls.
Now, all eyes are on the Ministerial Committee, which has been given three weeks to compile its report and what every engineer in Pakistan has to see is if the committee comes up with a realistic report and lays the groundwork for the reform of the council.
The author is the Editor of Engineering Review.
