Latest news with #amendment
Business Recorder
7 hours ago
- Health
- Business Recorder
Population projected to exceed 386m mark by 2050: minister
ISLAMABAD: Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Ahsan Iqbal expressed his serious concern over the current annual population growth rate of 2.55 per cent, after the meeting he was chairing on Wednesday was told that Pakistan's population is projected to exceed 386 million by 2050. The high-level meeting on population management concluded with consensus on establishing a National Population Commission under the leadership of the prime minister, with representation from all four provinces. Minister Iqbal instructed the stakeholders that the proposed commission be tasked with setting targets, ensuring accountability, and driving a unified national strategy on population management. The minister said that population is a provincial subject after 18th amendment, and provinces are responsible for service delivery in family planning and reproductive health, population dynamics affect national priorities. 'Without national coordination and strategic alignment, fragmented efforts will continue to under deliver.' The minister also highlighted that Pakistan's population challenge poses numerous problems in the lives of millions of young people entering adulthood 'without access to quality education, skills training, or meaningful employment.' 'Population planning has far-reaching consequences on all aspects of a citizen's life—health, education, employment. Everything depends on the size of the family,' said Iqbal. Highlighting the demographic challenge, he noted that Pakistan is now the fifth most populous country in the world, with 80 per cent of the population under the age of 40 and 66 per cent below 30. 'These figures are alarming,' he said, stressing that the federal and provincial governments must work in unison to address the growing crisis. The meeting brought together key stakeholders from government and international organisations, including Health Minister Mustafa Kemal, Religious Affairs Minister Sardar Muhammad Yousaf, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar, Senator Rubina Khalid, Chairperson of BISP, and Senator Sherry Rehman who attended online. Dr Zeba Sattar, Country Director of the Population Council; Dr Luay Shabaneh, UNFPA Representative in Pakistan; Dapeng Lu, WHO Representative; Dr Samia Rizwan from Maternal Newborn and Child Health Project, UNICEF; and Dr Soofia, DG Population, Ministry of Health participated in the meeting. Provincial health secretaries and population welfare department directors also attended online. Planning Minister's Member Social Sector Dr Saima Bashir coordinated the meeting and presented a briefing during which she stated that key facts. Forty percent of our population has never attended school, and only 25 percent of women are in the labour force, she stated. Emphasising on the structural problem in the current National Finance Commission Award Formula, he stated that the criteria of 82 per cent provincial share based on population size creates a perverse disincentive for provinces. The current criteria mean that reducing population growth could reduce the future fiscal allocations of provinces. The minister further said, 'Without revisiting this formula, provincial commitment to population stabilisation will remain weak.' Federal Minister Iqbal directed the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics to provide disaggregated data by province to identify problem areas more precisely. He stated that the results of Digital Census of 2023 showed that Pakistan's population has now reached 241.49 million, with a growth rate of 2.55 per cent. This marks a significant increase of 33.82 million people since the 2017 census. The meeting discussed Planning Ministry's proposal for creation of a high-powered commission led by the prime minister and comprising all four chief ministers to tackle the unprecedented problem of population management. Senator Sherry Rehman underscored the urgency of the population growth crisis, stating, 'Every 50 minutes, a woman in Pakistan loses her child during childbirth.' She supported the creation of a high-powered commission led by the prime minister and comprising all four Chief ministers, noting that a national emergency could be declared after its first meeting. The fragmentation of responsibilities following the 18th Amendment was cited by Information Minister Attaullah Tarar as a major obstacle. He also stressed that the influence of religious clerics continues to hinder population control efforts and advocated for area-specific campaigns targeting rural women at places like utility stores, basic health units, and markets. 'With 54 million TikTok users in Pakistan, social media is an untapped asset for public service messaging,' he added. Minister for Religious Affairs Sardar Muhammad Yousaf supported leveraging the Council of Common Interests and religious leadership to promote responsible family planning. Senator Rubina Khalid called for a wide-reaching awareness drive led by the Ministry of Information and offered BISP's support for counselling and outreach across the country. 'We must raise this issue at every forum, including Parliament,' she said. Dr Zeba Sattar noted that previous task forces lacked executive power and therefore failed to create meaningful impact. 'It's not about individual effort; we need institutional strength and mandate,' she stated. Dr Samia Rizwan of UNICEF warned that maternal and newborn health campaigns often fail to reach grassroots levels and highlighted the staggering figure of 30 newborn deaths every hour. 'Government investment is crucial. The process starts before a child is born. Communities must be made custodians of the issue,' she said. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
RNZ News
2 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
ACT Party tried to get Treaty of Waitangi clause removed from education legislation
Act Party leader David Seymour claims parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects that have no value to them. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The ACT Party fought to have a Treaty of Waitangi clause stripped out of amended education legislation - but was overruled. ACT leader David Seymour says not removing it entirely has "certainly created some controversy", but it was "simply political". The prime minister is defending the decision because the government wants clarity around these clauses, and wants to deal with it in a "comprehensive and coordinated way" as part of a wider review. The Education and Training Amendment Bill tweaks Section 127 of the Act from 2020 - which outlines how schools operate in the country - to update what the "paramount objective", or highest priority objective, is for boards governing schools. It was part of the ACT and National coalition agreement which sets out to "amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools". The Education and Training Act currently outlines a board's primary objectives in governing a school was to ensure every student can "attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement"; the school is "physically and emotionally" safe; that it includes and caters for students with differing needs; and "gives effect to Te Tiriti of Waitangi". It specified it must do that by: The Amendment Bill changes Section 127 so the "paramount objective" is first and foremost to "ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement". To meet that objective, the board must also meet "supporting objectives" such as those outlined in the original legislation, including the clause to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and other objectives around school attendance and evaluating students' progress and achievement. The order of the Tiriti o Waitangi clause was also slightly changed, so the "achieving equitable outcomes" came first. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "it might sound odd to have to say this" but it was necessary for boards to have a "number one priority on advancing academic achievement". "So that's job number one." Seymour agreed, saying the ACT Party campaigned on putting academic achievement "front and centre." He said these changes will ensure that academic achievement is the paramount objective. "The Act Party has long felt that we have not had an adequate emphasis on just simply making sure that valuable academic knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next." He said there had been "a lot of disquiet" the requirement to uphold the Treaty had not been removed. He claimed parents "frequently complain" their children were spending time on subjects and activities that have no value to them, but "appear to be part of a wider political project to change the culture of New Zealand". He said that was a source of "enormous anger" and parents wanted their children focused on "reading, writing and arithmetic". He rejected the notion the removal of that clause was itself a political project, saying "there's no political project in wanting children to learn only things that are valuable to them". Seymour said he would not reveal any kind of "cabinet or other private discussion", but that people can "probably guess" the ACT Party would want to remove a clause like that. The reason for not removing it was "simply political" he said, "not all political parties agree with the removal". "Perhaps other parties were less eager to hence, it remains, but will be reviewed as part of the government's wider treaty clauses reviewed." When asked about the differences between National and ACT, Seymour said the National Party would always explain itself as a "broad church". Luxon refused to say who pushed back on ACT's proposal, saying it was simply a "series of conversations that happen in cabinet and cabinet committees". Luxon said there was a set of questions around treaty obligations and the implications within legislation. He explained the government had a broader piece of work to outline specific treaty clauses rather than "general, open ended" ones so "everyone has maximum clarity about how a piece of legislation is to be operationalised". As a result he said the clause would be considered as part of that review. He said the most important thing was to make sure boards understand the priority was getting kids to school, teaching them maths and teaching them to read. Education Minister Erica Stanford told RNZ "legitimate questions" were raised regarding the existing Treaty clause in section 127 of the Education Act during the Cabinet process in August last year. She said Cabinet agreed to include the section 127 treaty clause, along with many other references to the treaty in the Education Act, in the wider review the Justice Minister was undertaking. "This process of reviewing the whole Education Act at once was seen as a more coherent approach to ensure consistency of decision making rather than considering Treaty clauses on an ad hoc basis." The Amendment Bill is currently at select committee stage. Submissions close on 12 June and a report is due back in September. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Sheehy says he'll vote ‘yes' to advance Trump megabill, but will lead push against land sales
Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) says he'll vote to advance President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' but will lead an amendment stripping the sale of public lands from the measure. Sheehy initially said he would vote against the motion to proceed because the bill includes language to sell millions of acres of public lands, becoming the fourth senator to vow a 'no' vote and putting the bill in serious danger of stalling on the Senate floor. 'I oppose the sale of public lands and will vote no on the motion to proceed if it is included,' Sheehy posted on X on Saturday afternoon. Moments later, however, Sheehy reversed himself. 'I have just concluded productive discussions with leadership. I will be leading an amendment to strip the sale of public lands from this bill. I will vote yes on the motion to proceed,' he posted on X. 'We must quickly pass the Big Beautiful Bill to advance President Trump's agenda.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told colleagues to expect a 4 p.m. vote to advance the measure. The legislation includes language sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) directing the secretary of the Interior to sell between 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent of public lands to build more housing throughout the American West. The provision directing the Bureau of Public Lands to sell millions of acres appears to exempt Montana, which was not among the 11 states named in the bill. Sheehy expressed confidence Saturday that the amendment would have adequate support for adoption. 'Looks like we have the votes to support that,' he told The Hill. 'So now, with that support for leadership, we're going to move forward.' 'I think the overall passage was endangered if we didn't have the amendment, and that's why we're offering it, because not only was it probably not going to pass here, it was definitely not going to pass in the House,' he said. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) also said Saturday that he worked on the amendment with Sheehy and Senate budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He added that the vote threshold in order to pass it would also be set 'at 51 votes.' 'It'll help ensure passage, certainly in the house,' Daines told reporters. 'I know we have some House members that, like Congressman [Ryan] Zinke from Montana, who has firmly said he's opposed the bill unless this this provision is struck, and so this helps us ensure we get the bill passed in the House as well.' Three other Republican senators have said they will either vote to proceed to the bill or final passage of the bill for various reasons: Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Thune can only afford three defections and still advance the bill. Republicans control 53 Senate seats. Tillis told reporters after a closed-door meeting with colleagues Saturday that he will vote against the bill because of steep cuts to federal Medicaid spending and urged GOP leaders to return to the Medicaid changes passed by the House last month. 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. 'I did my homework on behalf of North Carolinians, and I cannot support this bill in its current form,' Tillis said in a statement released by his office. He said the bill 'would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina, including our hospitals and rural communities.' 'This will force the state to make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands in the expansion population,' he warned. Johnson said he's voting 'no' on the motion to proceed because he just got his copy of the legislation at 1:23 am and hasn't had a chance to read it carefully. He wants Senate Republican leaders to add substantially bigger spending cuts to the bill and has proposed targeting mandatory spending programs outside of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said on 'Fox & Friends Weekend.' Paul is a hard 'no' vote because the legislation includes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion. Thune said his leadership team would know when the vote is held where exactly his colleagues stand on the bill. 'We'll get to the vote here before long and we'll answer all those questions,' he said when asked about the threatened 'no' votes from Sheehy, Tillis, Johnson and Paul. Updated at 4:42 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Express Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Govt continues to score legal victories
After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government has got another major victory on Thursday as the constitutional bench endorsed the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The government's legal team must be jubilant that in view of the majority order, Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar will continue as acting chief justice of the IHC, which is seen as crucial for the executive authority. The majority order will further frustrate the five IHC judges, who have been facing a tough time since writing a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding interference of agencies in the judicial functions, particularly on matters related to the PTI. A senior government functionary admits that the 26th amendment is the outcome of the six IHC judges' letter. Constitutional Bench (CB) was created through the 26th constitutional amendment. The real purpose of the amendment was to control the superior judiciary for the stability of the current political set-up. The present government doesn't want that courts should give any substantive relief to the incarcerated former prime minister as he is perceived as a threat to the system. Since November last year, legal circles were keenly watching the outcome of three cases that they considered would determine how far the judiciary could go to assert its independence. The constitutional bench did not disappoint the government as two of the cases had been decided in its favour. Firstly, trial of civilians in the military courts have been endorsed by the CB. Now, the government initiative regarding the transfer of three judges to the IHC has also been endorsed by the constitutional bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It is interesting to note that the CB is not taking up petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment. If things stand the way as they are, it is no surprise that the government may get another victory in the reserved seats case soon. The chance that the July 12 order regarding the allocation of reserved seats will survive is very low. If the CB sets aside the decision, then the government will get a two-thirds majority in parliament. Moreover, in view of the "satisfactory performance", the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by a majority vote extended the tenure of present CB judges until November 30. Unlike the past practice, CJP Yahya Afridi also voted in favour of giving an extension to the CB judges' tenure. Earlier, he was advocating that all SC judges should be included in the CB. The government has also been successful in appointing like-minded judges in the superior judiciary. Now, it would easily manage to appoint like-minded' chief justices in the high courts on July 1. Legal opinion Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate says that the short order in the judges transfer case is disappointing. The majority has focused on the process of transfer itself being acceptable without dilating upon the particular transfer to Islamabad that was effected, how it was effected and what it aimed to achieve. Jaferii states that the order completely ignores the transfer of judges being expressly temporary in nature by the very language of the Constitution. It proceeds to validate such transfers on the premise of them being safeguarded by needing input from within the judiciary. "It then allows the president to redo the transfer and make clear the period of transfer and the seniority of the judges themselves, effectively opposing the very basis on which the transfers were validated: that this process was within the judiciary and insulated." He states that it is a bizzare reading of a plain constitutional premise. It ignores completely the scheme of appointment envisaged in Article 175A. And if one were to count the peculiar circumstances leading to this petition, completely ignored in the majority order but expressly considered by the minority, its reasoning becomes obvious. The minority opinion, other than the roundabout poetry at the end; is constitutionally sound", he adds. A former law officer says that the majority has taken a literal view. "It is premised on good faith and institution oriented bona fide exercise within the judiciary by three chief justices. If all three CJs act independently and in the interest of the institution, there should be no problem. Perhaps this was the reason Article 200 was inserted and it is working well in India. But if they don't act independently, this will become an instrument of coercion and silencing some judges, as in the present case. The majority has looked purely on law but not considered ground realities and facts." He says that as in many recent important constitutional cases, emotional advocacy and rhetoric continues instead of calm and cogent arguments. It is showing results every day more so when independent minded judges have already been sidelined and disarmed. At least the majority has left the question of temporary or permanent appointment. There is some contradiction as one the one hand the whole exercise is within the judiciary yet the matter has been sent to President alone. The whole exercise should be ordered to be conducted again but now the then CJ, IHC has gone. Who will give input on temporary or permanent status these judges, he adds. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar advocate has stated that the majority decision is constitutionally valid, well-founded, and aligned with the spirit and intent of the constitution. He emphasised that the 3-2 majority judgment rightly affirms that under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, such transfers are permissible with the concurrence of the President, Chief Justices of the concerned high courts, and consent of the transferee judges. The court held that these conditions were conditionally met and found no mala fide on the part of the President. He noted that the president had issued a notification on February 1, 2024, under Article 200(1), transferring Justice Dogar, Justice Sumro, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the Islamabad High Court. Their inter-se seniority was later determined by then Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on 11th February 2025. However, this seniority order was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). Explaining further, he said Article 194 makes no requirement for a second oath when a judge is transferred between High Courts, as the oath is to the Constitution itself — not to any specific court or jurisdiction. This is a principle recognized across other constitutional systems as well. Hafiz Ahsaan added that Article 200(1) does not specify whether a transfer must be temporary or permanent. Following the judgment, it now falls to the President to determine the nature of the transfers. If deemed temporary, no further seniority determination is needed; if permanent, the President must determine seniority based solely on the judges' original appointment dates. He stressed that under Article 200(3), the service terms of a judge cannot be adversely altered upon transfer, thereby preserving their rank, privileges, and entitlements. He further observed that the President, as directed by the Court, must independently determine seniority without relying on advice from the federal government. If the President declares the transfers permanent, and seniority is accordingly based on initial appointment, Justice Dogar may emerge as the senior-most among the three — qualifying him for consideration as Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Contrasting with India's centralized seniority list, he noted that Pakistan's Constitution entrusts each High Court to determine seniority based on initial appointment — a practice also followed in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. Hafiz Ahsaan while concluding said the 3-2 judgment is constitutionally sustainable and reinforces the legal structure under articles 200, 194, and 175A. The president's forthcoming decision will help shape a lasting constitutional precedent on judicial seniority and the limits of presidential authority in such matters.
New York Post
14-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
