Another amendment?: Dawn
ISLAMABAD – THE dust from the 26th Amendment has yet to settle, but talk of a 27th one is already in the air.
Given the acrimony that surrounded the last attempt to tinker with the Constitution, one wonders if it will be any different this time. Much has changed since the last amendment was forced through the legislature.
The last time the Constitution was being amended, the government did not have the votes to get its bill passed. Lawmakers had to be roped in from the opposition benches to cobble together a two-thirds majority. Some came willingly, after cutting deals. Others had no choice. It did not matter. It was clear from the beginning that the law had to be passed.
Even allied lawmakers did not have full knowledge of what they were voting for, and the law minister is said to have simply been handed a draft with clear instructions.
To be clear, there is nothing concrete that is known about the '27th Amendment'. For now, it seems merely to be a topic of discussion within the PML-N and its coterie of legal advisers. No proposal has been shared with the party's allies, nor is there a draft that may be debated.
Still, it has remained a topic of discussion ever since the government inherited a two-thirds majority courtesy of the Constitutional Bench that the 26th Amendment had helped set up. The two-thirds majority might be the main reason why the government does not seem too fussed. This time, there will not be a need to abduct, bribe or coerce opposition lawmakers.
Nor will any party not already allied to the regime be able to blackmail its way into receiving concessions, or to force the government to rethink its agenda. Indeed, the amendment will be seen through without any hiccups even if the regime were to decide that it must be passed tomorrow.
It is said that the government may be seeking more 'fixes' for the judiciary. The 26th Amendment apparently did not fix it enough.
But it would be deeply unfortunate if the amendment being debated is also focused heavily on a narrow agenda. Pakistan faces several deep-rooted issues that require urgent legislative intervention. These include matters like the possibility of a new province in south Punjab; the need to revisit the role and authority of caretaker governments; addressing the inability of the ECP in fulfilling its intended purpose; and the management of the growing burden of the NFC award, among many others.
If the government decides to take all stakeholders on board, especially the opposition, the new amendment could become an opportunity to build bridges where the 26th sowed divisions. Now virtually unchallengeable, the regime would benefit by showing some grace. With power comes responsibility, and it must start to demonstrate some.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
20 hours ago
- Straits Times
Japan mulls over exporting used destroyers to S-E Asia allies
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Japan's Takanami-class destroyer JS Sazanami sail on an anti-piracy mission off the coast of Somalia. TOKYO – Japan is considering the export of used Maritime Self-Defence Force destroyers to South-east Asia, government sources said on Aug 13, in an effort to strengthen security ties with countries in the region where key sea lanes are located. Japan has been studying the export of Abukuma-class ships to the Philippines following a June meeting in Singapore where the countries' defence ministers discussed the matter. Tokyo is also looking at Indonesia and Vietnam as possible export destinations, according to the sources. Japan's principles on the overseas transfer of defence equipment and technology restrict the export of lethal weapons under its war-renouncing Constitution. But Japan eased its strict rules on the overseas transfer of defence equipment in 2024 to allow exports of lethal arms only if they are jointly developed or produced with other nations, with an eye on future sales of a next-generation fighter jet being developed with Britain and Italy. If the ship exports proceed, the Japanese government plans to classify the destroyers as 'jointly developed' products by making specification changes, the sources said, a move that could spark controversy. According to the Defence Ministry, six Abukuma-class destroyers were commissioned between 1989 and 1993, and all are set to be retired and replaced by new types operable by smaller crews, as the Self-Defence Forces have been struggling with a chronic personnel shortage. In its Defence Buildup Programme drawn up in 2022, the government said it will 'decommission vessels that have been in service for a considerable amount of years and have limitations in expandability' at an 'early date', and consider their transfer to 'like-minded countries'. Japan agreed with Indonesia at their defence ministers' talks in January to establish a working-level consultation body on maritime security to strengthen cooperation, while also promoting defence exchanges with Vietnam, including the provision of used Japanese material transport vehicles. Japan and the Philippines, both US allies in Asia, have been deepening security cooperation, sharing concerns over China's assertive maritime posture in the East and South China seas. KYODO NEWS
Asia News Network
a day ago
- Asia News Network
Another amendment?: Dawn
August 13, 2025 ISLAMABAD – THE dust from the 26th Amendment has yet to settle, but talk of a 27th one is already in the air. Given the acrimony that surrounded the last attempt to tinker with the Constitution, one wonders if it will be any different this time. Much has changed since the last amendment was forced through the legislature. The last time the Constitution was being amended, the government did not have the votes to get its bill passed. Lawmakers had to be roped in from the opposition benches to cobble together a two-thirds majority. Some came willingly, after cutting deals. Others had no choice. It did not matter. It was clear from the beginning that the law had to be passed. Even allied lawmakers did not have full knowledge of what they were voting for, and the law minister is said to have simply been handed a draft with clear instructions. To be clear, there is nothing concrete that is known about the '27th Amendment'. For now, it seems merely to be a topic of discussion within the PML-N and its coterie of legal advisers. No proposal has been shared with the party's allies, nor is there a draft that may be debated. Still, it has remained a topic of discussion ever since the government inherited a two-thirds majority courtesy of the Constitutional Bench that the 26th Amendment had helped set up. The two-thirds majority might be the main reason why the government does not seem too fussed. This time, there will not be a need to abduct, bribe or coerce opposition lawmakers. Nor will any party not already allied to the regime be able to blackmail its way into receiving concessions, or to force the government to rethink its agenda. Indeed, the amendment will be seen through without any hiccups even if the regime were to decide that it must be passed tomorrow. It is said that the government may be seeking more 'fixes' for the judiciary. The 26th Amendment apparently did not fix it enough. But it would be deeply unfortunate if the amendment being debated is also focused heavily on a narrow agenda. Pakistan faces several deep-rooted issues that require urgent legislative intervention. These include matters like the possibility of a new province in south Punjab; the need to revisit the role and authority of caretaker governments; addressing the inability of the ECP in fulfilling its intended purpose; and the management of the growing burden of the NFC award, among many others. If the government decides to take all stakeholders on board, especially the opposition, the new amendment could become an opportunity to build bridges where the 26th sowed divisions. Now virtually unchallengeable, the regime would benefit by showing some grace. With power comes responsibility, and it must start to demonstrate some.
Straits Times
a day ago
- Straits Times
Explainer: Can Trump take control of Washington to fight the city's crime?
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox US President Trump has in recent months directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase the police presence in Washington. WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to put Washington under full federal control to reduce crime, even as city officials stressed crime is already falling. While Trump does have some authority over the capital city's police force and National Guard soldiers, a full federal takeover would likely be blocked in court. Here is why. What does the constitution say about control of Washington? The US Constitution, ratified in 1787, provides for the creation of a federal capital district to serve as the permanent seat of the government. The Constitution makes clear that Congress has complete legislative authority over the district. But Congress has historically delegated at least some of the day-to-day work of municipal government to other entities. How is the capital governed? A federal law passed by Congress in 1973, known as the Home Rule Act, allows city residents to elect a mayor and council, who have some autonomy to pass their own laws. Congress still has budgetary oversight over Washington, however, and can overturn local legislation. Congress did that most recently in 2023, voting to overturn changes to Washington's laws that lowered penalties for some crimes. Who controls the city's law enforcement? The Democratic mayor of Washington, Ms Muriel Bowser, has authority over the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). But the Home Rule Act allows the president to take control of the MPD for federal purposes during emergencies if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist'. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World US trade team will meet Chinese officials in two or three months, Bessent says Singapore From survivable to liveable: The making of a green city Asia DPM Gan kicks off India visit in Mumbai as Singapore firms ink investment agreements Asia South Korea's former first lady arrested after court issues warrant, Yonhap reports Singapore Luxury items seized in $3b money laundering case handed over to Deloitte for liquidation Singapore MyRepublic customers air concerns over broadband speed after sale to StarHub Singapore Man who stalked woman blasted by judge on appeal for asking scandalous questions in court Singapore SG60: Many hands behind Singapore's success story A presidential takeover is limited to 30 days, unless Congress votes to extend it through a joint resolution. Mr Trump invoked this part of the Home Rule Act on Aug 11, saying in an executive order that there is a "crime emergency" in the city that necessitates federal management of the police department. Ms Bowser has pushed back on Mr Trump's claims of unchecked violence, saying the city is "not experiencing a crime spike" and highlighting that violent crime hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year. Violent crime, including murders, spiked in 2023, turning Washington into one of the nation's deadliest cities, according to city police data. However, that dropped 35 per cent in 2024, according to federal data, and it has fallen an additional 26 per cent in the first seven months of 2025. Mr Trump also has broad control over the DC National Guard's 2,700 soldiers and airmen. They report directly to the president, unlike counterparts in other states and territories. The US President said on Aug 11 that he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to Washington. So can Trump 'federalise' Washington? It is highly unlikely. To exert full federal control of Washington, Mr Trump would need Congress to repeal the Home Rule Act. Such a repeal would require 60 votes in the US Senate, where Mr Trump's Republican Party has a 53-47 advantage. Democrats have been supportive of home rule for Washington and are not expected to cross party lines to endorse the US President's vision. But there are ways Mr Trump can exert more influence over the district without fully taking it over. He has in recent months directed federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI to increase the police presence in Washington. He has broad authority to reallocate FBI personnel, and in recent months, FBI agents around the country have been given temporary assignments to help with immigration enforcement. Mr Trump also signed an executive order in March to make Washington "safe and beautiful", establishing a task force to increase police presence in public areas, maximise immigration enforcement, and expedite concealed carry licences. Can Trump evict Washington's homeless population? Mr Trump has said homeless people must move out of Washington , without offering specifics of a plan to accomplish this. "I'm going to make our Capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before," the US President said on Truth Social. "The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital." The federal government owns much of Washington's parkland, so the Trump administration has legal authority to clear homeless encampments in those areas, like President Joe Biden did while in office. But the federal government cannot force people to move out of the city because they lack shelter, legal experts said. REUTERS
