Education dept spokesman clarifies govt’s position on news item citing irregularities worth billions of rupees in Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s laptop scheme prior to 2013 general polls
A spokesman of Punjab Education Department, while clarifying the news item published in daily Pakistan Today captioned “Audit reveals mega scam in PML-N laptop scheme” has said that a development scheme titled “Advancement of Information Technology amongst students through provision of laptop computers” with an allocation of Rs 2 billion was included in ADP 2011-12 of School Education Department to create IT enablement amongst talented students of Punjab.
The news report sets out a series of meetings held in P&D to discuss modalities, criterion and distribution of 100,000 laptops. The spokesman clarifies that it was decided that the notebook is the best option to fulfil the students’ requirements.
During the meeting, Schools Education secretary pointed out that the notebooks are specified for the students of Higher Education Department so the scheme may be transferred to the same.
The report narrates how the original PC-1 and the revised PC-1 were approved by the PDWP.
However, the reporter adds that no where did the government spokesperson explain why the prices of a unit laptop was enhanced to almost double in the revised PC-1 for the same specification of laptops. A mere narration of various meetings held for the project does not prove anything in this regard, he added.
The spokesperson further maintains that no favour was given to the contractor by public officials. He gives a detail of five L/Cs for 110,000 laptops with the last one opened on February 10, 2012. He concludes that no advance payment was made to the contractor.
On the contrary, the reporter states that the purchase order of 10,000 laptops was issued on March 20, 2012. However, as per the government’s own clarification, the latest L/C opened in February, which is one month prior to the issue of the purchase order.
The spokesperson maintains that no amount of tax has been paid to the contractor, as found out in the SDAC meeting.
However, the newsman says that the cost break up for one laptop as quoted by M/S Inbox Technologies shows “other taxes/duties to be Rs102”.
The spokesman maintains that all expenses incurred by the educational boards are for the travel of students and these expenses were made in “recognition of merit”. He further explains that parents of students and other guests were present at ceremonies so the expenses had to be borne by those institutes.
However, the reporter says that expenditure for ‘recognition of merit’ is no head in any budgetary document. No relevant law or rule to support his argument has been quoted.
The spokesman further maintains that the P&D department and the recipient students have termed the scheme ‘successful’.
On the contrary, the reporter states that no one can be a judge in his own cause and hence the survey conducted by P&D and students’ feedback is not reliable.
Furthermore, the spokesman clarifies that detailed planning was conducted and gives reference of various meetings held, while denying that the officials tried to hush-up the matter and gave the reference of two SDAC meetings.
However, on hushing up the matter, the team of auditors observed in the report that they demanded the detailed record of laptop distribution thrice in January 2013 and again in March 14, 2013, but it was not produced for audit. In the absence of the report, the audit was not in a position to verify the “authenticity and transparency” in the distribution.
The reporter adds that the clarification fails to give a plausible explanation against the claim of auditors which termed eight of nine objectives as “vague” showing non-professionalism and, no inclusion of key performance indicators (KPI) in PC-1.
As clarified by the spokesperson, the SDAC meeting was held on June 18, 2014 and July 7, 2014, more than one year after the demand for records.
Officers speaking on condition of anonymity said that producing the record for audit three months before 2013 elections might have been damaging. The government spokesperson did not clarify this particular point.
