IT sector performance reviewed, but challenges ignored
The Ministry of Information Technology has presented a rosy picture of Pakistan's telecom sector while ignoring the pains and sufferings of consumers due to the slow internet speed following the installation of a firewall.
While presenting the performance of the IT and telecom ministry, Minister for IT and Telecommunication Shaza Fatima Khawaja presented a one-year review of the IT and telecom sector in a recent meeting of the federal cabinet.
She said that in the last year, broadband subscribers grew from 127.6 to 142.3 million, telecom revenues increased from Rs817 billion to Rs955 billion, local mobile phone manufacturing rose from 21.28 million to 31.38 million devices and cell site connectivity with fibre expanded by 12%. She also noted that the telecom sector contributed Rs341 billion to the national exchequer.
However, she did not disclose the entire picture as the businesses of those related to the IT industry had either been shut down or they were near bankruptcy. Several entrepreneurs had shifted their offices to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) due to slow internet speed, which occurred following the installation of a firewall.
Even the telecom operators suffered multibillion-rupee losses because of the shifting of their customers to different networks in the wake of slow internet speed. The software association had informed the government during the installation of the firewall that they had suffered a loss of $500 million.
Additionally, the freelancers' network Fiver had issued an advisory to its customers not to hire services of freelancers from Pakistan. Freelancers lost their clients due to the disruption in communications.
Currently, several countries like the UAE and some European Union (EU) states were offering visas to digital marketers, especially those who were receiving earnings online to attract influencers so that they could contribute to their income. However, the case of Pakistan is different as the country's IT policies are going in the reverse direction to the detriment of the IT and telecom sector.
The report submitted by the IT minister to the cabinet missed all those facts and figures, which caused severe pain to those businesses that were related to the IT sector.
The IT minister also informed the cabinet that it was mentioned that 813 mauzas had been connected to the internet through 2,000 km of optic fibre cables and IT-related exports had surged 27% compared to the previous fiscal year. Furthermore, with the help of eight incubation centres across the country, 229 start-ups, with an investment of Rs2.04 billion, got the services of these centres.
Regarding the digital transformation of the economy, governance and society, the minister informed the forum that 42 divisions and 176 departments had switched to e-office and the Digital Economy Enhancement Project (DEEP) had been launched to digitalise government services.
She highlighted that all those advancements had been made through the introduction of a series of policy frameworks and enactments.
Digital skills among youth
Regarding the development of digital skills, the minister stated that around 300,000 training sessions had been completed in one year, with plans to double the number in the future.
She added that 1,000 interns had been placed in the ICT internship programme and the Digital Pakistan Cyber Security Hackathon was organised in 2024, attracting 6,443 participants. The minister noted that IT parks were under construction in Karachi and Islamabad while several Software Technology Parks (STPs) had been completed in Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
India undeterred by Trump threats
Listen to article India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the US, Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. India's top supplier Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on US imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 — when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow — due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy — a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft, and major buyer of Russian oil — was recently sanctioned by the EU. Reuters
Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Express Tribune
How AI Policy 2025 can shape a digital future for all
The writer is Chair, National AI Policy Committee based in Islamabad. He can be reached at aneelsalman@ and @SalmanAneel Listen to article In July 2025, Pakistan crossed a digital milestone with the approval of its first-ever National Artificial Intelligence Policy — a bold, ethical and transformative step toward our future. As Chair of the National AI Policy Committee, I had the distinct privilege of guiding this process not merely as a technical exercise, but as a national conversation. This policy did not emerge from behind closed doors. It was built through an inclusive, iterative process that brought together a multi-stakeholder committee of experts from across Pakistan: government institutions, private technology firms, academia, civil society and the armed forces. Voices from every corner of the country contributed to its vision and detail. The Ministry of IT and Telecom anchored this effort with clarity and consistency. The team engaged deeply across all phases of drafting and consultation. Minister of State Shaza Fatima Khawaja offered timely guidance and ensured that the policy remained a national priority. Her role was pivotal in securing cabinet approval. Wider feedback was also invited and incorporated. Stakeholders such as HEC, FBR, PEMRA, PTA, provincial IT boards, and universities all engaged actively. Industry partners including JAZZ, OICCI and GSMA, as well as global players like Google and UNESCO, reviewed and helped refine the document. Their insights enhanced the policy's relevance and broadened its ambition. As Chair, I witnessed first-hand how divergent voices can converge on a shared goal when the stakes are national. There were moments of debate — on how far to push AI regulation, how to ensure equity or how to align with international norms. But the spirit was always constructive. Our committee became a microcosm of what policy-making should be: evidence-informed, participatory and public-spirited. I still remember one committee member from Balochistan saying, "This policy will matter when our girls can code in Khuzdar." That spirit of inclusion with aspiration stayed with me throughout. Pakistan now joins a select group of South Asian countries with AI policies like India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. What distinguishes Pakistan's policy is not chronology, but character. It is the policy's scope, structure and soul that truly set it apart. Rather than offering piecemeal ideas or generic aspirations, the National AI Policy 2025 presents a full-spectrum blueprint for how Pakistan can responsibly harness AI across sectors and generations. At its core, the policy is structured around six interlinked pillars. These include: 1) Building an innovation ecosystem to nurture AI research, start-ups and venture capital. 2) Expanding national awareness and readiness through large-scale skilling and public sector training. 3) Securing AI through ethical frameworks, data sovereignty and transparent governance. 4) Going for AI-led transformation. Here, sectoral roadmaps will be developed to integrate AI into agriculture, education, health, climate resilience, energy and governance. The policy envisions a public sector where predictive analytics improve service delivery, where farmers access climate-smart tools, and where health diagnostics reach rural clinics via AI-backed platforms. 5) Laying the digital foundation. Pakistan will invest in high-performance computing clusters, local large language models, national AI data repositories and cloud infrastructure. It will establish AI hubs in major cities to bridge regional disparities and build connectivity between universities, industry and government. 6) Forging international partnerships and collaboration. Pakistan will join global AI forums, forge bilateral and multilateral cooperation and promote AI diplomacy. The goal is to remain interoperable with global standards, attract ethical AI investment and participate in joint research and development. Institutions including UNESCO and the Asian Development Bank have engaged with the policy, endorsing its principles and recognising Pakistan's readiness to lead responsibly. Crucially, this policy is not developed in isolation. It is tightly integrated with existing digital and cybersecurity frameworks, including the National Cyber Security Policy, Cloud First Policy, Personal Data Protection Bill, Digital Pakistan Policy, and the Digital Nation Pakistan Act. This alignment ensures coherence, avoids duplication and reflects a whole-of-government approach to digital transformation. Inclusivity is a defining feature. From AI scholarships for women and persons with disabilities to training for underserved communities, the policy aims to bridge divides. The gender digital divide and algorithmic bias are not afterthoughts. They are front and centre. AI must not replicate structural inequalities. It must help dismantle them. AI is not just another layer in our tech stack. It is a force multiplier for development — whether we speak of boosting agricultural yields, identifying learning gaps in public schools, supporting financial inclusion or enabling transparent governance. AI has the potential to do in years what conventional reforms could not in decades. Yet technology alone is not a solution. It must be matched with public values, institutional readiness and civic trust. That is why the policy emphasises ethics, transparency and human oversight. It proposes an open-source AI governance framework, regulatory sandboxes and a national registry for public sector AI tools. These are not cosmetic additions. They are foundational guardrails. By 2030, AI adoption could increase Pakistan's GDP by up to 12% and generate over 3.5 million new jobs. The policy positions Pakistan not as a passive user of imported technology, but as a sovereign innovator — producing local AI models, building indigenous talent and exporting smart solutions. For me, this journey was never just about drafting a document. It was about shaping the digital destiny of a country I believe in. The conversations we had as a committee about national capacity, public trust, inclusion and innovation reminded me that policymaking is at its best when it is aspirational, yet grounded in the lives of people. Pakistan must not merely adapt to the future. We must help define it. In doing so, we choose clarity over confusion, inclusion over inertia, and innovation over indifference. This is not the conclusion of a policy process. It is the beginning of a national transformation. The words may be written, but their impact will depend on action, ownership and follow-through. Let us step forward — not as bystanders to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, but as active architects of a future where Pakistani talent, values and innovation shape the global AI horizon.
