Pakistan’s private defence industry clashes with government over regulations

[Zarvan]

Technicians work on parts for a Mirage aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force at the Mirage Rebuild Factory in Kamra, west of the capital Islamabad, on Dec. 27, 2017. (Aamir Qureshi/AFP via Getty Images)

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani government’s restrictions on the defense industry are stifling potential and must go, according to the president of the trade body Pakistan Aerospace Council.

PAeC is a collective of aerospace, defense and high-tech electronics enterprises that aims to internationally raise the profile of Pakistani industry. Its leader, Haroon Qureshi, heads the defense engineering and electronics company East West Infiniti.

In a June 3 post on the PAeC website, Qureshi said Pakistan’s private, high-tech manufacturers have the potential to help establish a more ambitious local aviation industry by acting as suppliers to and manufacturers of components and systems used by Western counterparts. However, this is hampered by government restrictions that demand permission prior to even design work.

Without these restrictions, Qureshi believes the private sector could “leap-frog, especially with electronics of the future.”

Citing the success of private space companies in the United States, Qureshi said if the Pakistani government frees the high-tech private sector to “innovate and do what the private industry thinks is feasible and viable,” those businesses would not use public funds and probably generate income for the government through taxes.

In response to PAeC’s comments, the Ministry of Defence Production told Defense News the government recognizes and actively promotes the importance of “indigenization and cooperation between the private sector and the defense-related industry.” However, it denied there are stifling constraints on the private sector, saying the market meets both domestic and export demand, but because of “international obligations/treaties, especially the measures taken to counter terrorism, certain limitations have to be observed.”

Nevertheless, the ministry added, “measures are under deliberation to further facilitate the private sector in forthcoming defense production policy,” including the creation of a unit for so-called one-window operations — an approach meant to shorten the lengthy bureaucratic process. It also cited recent supplier and vendors exhibitions as well as a defense production seminar to promote cooperation among private businesses.

The government is also preparing a “Defence Offset Policy" to encourage the private sector to absorb the “latest defense and dual-purpose technologies,” the ministry said.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox
But author, analyst and former Australian defense attache to Islamabad Brian Cloughley said Qureshi’s concern has existed for years, and the government’s regulations are driven by security fears.


“Whenever private industry wants to get involved in any aspect of defense production, the security people and bureaucrats in the defense system roll out objections, based mainly on the possibility of leakage of technical information and thus jeopardy of ‘national security,’ ” he said. “It’s been a real headache, and I continue to be surprised that the private sector has continued its efforts for so long.”

Despite the government’s efforts, Shehzad Ahmed Mir, managing director of the private defense company Bow Systems, remains unconvinced.

“While MoDP lives in a self-pleasing, make-believe cocoon devoid of market realities, similar companies created much later in the West are literally thriving financially and technologically today simply because their respective governments gave them subsidies, export incentives, financial support, etc., compared to our government that drowns their ambitions in [no objection certificates], taxation whirlpools, bureaucratic hurdles, etc.,” he said.

“So by the time — and if at all — MoDP comes out with any good news for the private sector, there won’t be anyone credible around to jubilate on it.”

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...try-clashes-with-government-over-regulations/

 

[Samlee]

Finally Someone Has Spoken On This

 

[Path-Finder]

“Whenever private industry wants to get involved in any aspect of defense production, the security people and bureaucrats in the defense system roll out objections, based mainly on the possibility of leakage of technical information and thus jeopardy of ‘national security,’ ” he said. “It’s been a real headache, and I continue to be surprised that the private sector has continued its efforts for so long.”

f#cking bureaucracy.

 

[313ghazi]

Wow - didn't expect this when I read the topic title. We need bend over backwards to facilitate ingenuity and innovation.

 

[JamD]

Technicians work on parts for a Mirage aircraft of the Pakistan Air Force at the Mirage Rebuild Factory in Kamra, west of the capital Islamabad, on Dec. 27, 2017. (Aamir Qureshi/AFP via Getty Images)

ISLAMABAD — The Pakistani government’s restrictions on the defense industry are stifling potential and must go, according to the president of the trade body Pakistan Aerospace Council.

PAeC is a collective of aerospace, defense and high-tech electronics enterprises that aims to internationally raise the profile of Pakistani industry. Its leader, Haroon Qureshi, heads the defense engineering and electronics company East West Infiniti.

In a June 3 post on the PAeC website, Qureshi said Pakistan’s private, high-tech manufacturers have the potential to help establish a more ambitious local aviation industry by acting as suppliers to and manufacturers of components and systems used by Western counterparts. However, this is hampered by government restrictions that demand permission prior to even design work.

Without these restrictions, Qureshi believes the private sector could “leap-frog, especially with electronics of the future.”

Citing the success of private space companies in the United States, Qureshi said if the Pakistani government frees the high-tech private sector to “innovate and do what the private industry thinks is feasible and viable,” those businesses would not use public funds and probably generate income for the government through taxes.

In response to PAeC’s comments, the Ministry of Defence Production told Defense News the government recognizes and actively promotes the importance of “indigenization and cooperation between the private sector and the defense-related industry.” However, it denied there are stifling constraints on the private sector, saying the market meets both domestic and export demand, but because of “international obligations/treaties, especially the measures taken to counter terrorism, certain limitations have to be observed.”

Nevertheless, the ministry added, “measures are under deliberation to further facilitate the private sector in forthcoming defense production policy,” including the creation of a unit for so-called one-window operations — an approach meant to shorten the lengthy bureaucratic process. It also cited recent supplier and vendors exhibitions as well as a defense production seminar to promote cooperation among private businesses.

The government is also preparing a “Defence Offset Policy" to encourage the private sector to absorb the “latest defense and dual-purpose technologies,” the ministry said.

Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox
But author, analyst and former Australian defense attache to Islamabad Brian Cloughley said Qureshi’s concern has existed for years, and the government’s regulations are driven by security fears.


“Whenever private industry wants to get involved in any aspect of defense production, the security people and bureaucrats in the defense system roll out objections, based mainly on the possibility of leakage of technical information and thus jeopardy of ‘national security,’ ” he said. “It’s been a real headache, and I continue to be surprised that the private sector has continued its efforts for so long.”

Despite the government’s efforts, Shehzad Ahmed Mir, managing director of the private defense company Bow Systems, remains unconvinced.

“While MoDP lives in a self-pleasing, make-believe cocoon devoid of market realities, similar companies created much later in the West are literally thriving financially and technologically today simply because their respective governments gave them subsidies, export incentives, financial support, etc., compared to our government that drowns their ambitions in [no objection certificates], taxation whirlpools, bureaucratic hurdles, etc.,” he said.

“So by the time — and if at all — MoDP comes out with any good news for the private sector, there won’t be anyone credible around to jubilate on it.”

https://www.defensenews.com/global/...try-clashes-with-government-over-regulations/

I mean instead of promoting private sector they're actively stifling it's growth. Sadly this issue is on no one's radar and the billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs it could get us are never realized. Just fulfilling Pakistan's part of domestic needs can generate so much economic activity for us. Bas dukh hota hai yaar.

 

[WarKa DaNG]

So we are cutting our own roots

 

[PAR 5]

Unfortunate & Very True

 

[Khanate]

compared to our government that drowns their ambitions in [no objection certificates], taxation whirlpools, bureaucratic hurdles, etc.,” he said.

Shocking mindset.

Maintaining tax records is SOP in any business, as are NOCs for defence-related industries. If you are unable to do this then close shop and stay home.

 

[S.Y.A]

f#cking bureaucracy.

yeah, both military and civil

 

[R Wing]

Finally Someone Has Spoken On This

f#cking bureaucracy.

Wow - didn't expect this when I read the topic title. We need bend over backwards to facilitate ingenuity and innovation.

I have been intimately involved in efforts like these and have come up against the "clearance" hurdle numerous times. It needs to be reimagined ASAP.

There are two main problems that are leading to this highly conservative and counter-productive security clearance fiasco:
1.) the sophistication of our security clearance, whether by the MOD or ISI or SPD or whoever, is quite low relative to international standards; psychological evaluations are relatively basic (you can imagine the quality of most govt/mil psychologists --- newsflash: they aren't Harvard PhDs) and there is limited capacity to know what anyone was up to while they were abroad

2.) the security establishment is a clique and members with a reasonable amount of power but a questionable level of intellect often feel threatened by highly qualified and competent individuals

The former requires a huge investment in capability and the latter requires an overhaul of the culture. In a sense, when you fix #1, the #2 types will automatically have less power and this stifling culture will start to erode.

Today, our intel community loses out on the country's brightest minds because of the same reasons noted above.

Interestingly, literally ALL of the major scientists involved in our nuclear program both at the PAEC and KRL were foreign educated, would travel abroad for conferences constantly and included controversial minorities (e.g. Dr. Abdus Salam.) Somehow, back then, there was a larger culture of patriotism and less of selling out (these days we have 3-star generals selling their soul and their country's secrets for a few extra $100 bills.)
Today, such imminent scientists (from Oxford, MIT, etc.) would have a hard time finding their way into SPD/NESCOM/DESTO because they'd mostly fail clearance based on some archaic, bullshit system.

Thankfully, the only silver lining is that many of these men from the 80s became professors at NUST, etc., so --- to some extent --- they trained a newer, domestically-educated generation. But there are some things which NUST/GIKI/QAU can't provide that the world's top research institutions, with billions of dollars of endowments and the resultant research labs and funding, can --- so there will always be a difference.

My 2c.

 

[313ghazi]

@Zarvan add the word defence into the title so it reads "private defence industry" - i think it will help people better understand what this topic is about.

 

[Enigma SIG]

If I want to build my killer drone swarm I can't even design it without MoD approval? That has to be the shittiest red-tape i've ever seen.

 

[313ghazi]

If I want to build my killer drone swarm I can't even design it without MoD approval? That has to be the shittiest red-tape i've ever seen.

BS like this has to end. People need to be able to do R&D without red-tape holding them back. Thankfully they're looking at streamlining the process.

Although i bet you could develop it for civillian purposes (swarms for light shows or to help track wildfires or look for missing people in remote areas), maybe then adopt it for "paintballing" and then use that as a proof of concept to show the idiots so you can get through red-tape easier.

 

[JamD]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) we were discussing the incentives for private sector and involvement, but things seem to be even worse with active disruption of the private sector. Like you said, "To be frank, this is all a case of the armed forces uncles not giving others a chance."

I have been intimately involved in efforts like these and have come up against the "clearance" hurdle numerous times. It needs to be reimagined ASAP.

There are two main problems that are leading to this highly conservative and counter-productive security clearance fiasco:
1.) the sophistication of our security clearance, whether by the MOD or ISI or SPD or whoever, is quite low relative to international standards; psychological evaluations are relatively basic (you can imagine the quality of most govt/mil psychologists --- newsflash: they aren't Harvard PhDs) and there is limited capacity to know what anyone was up to while they were abroad

2.) the security establishment is a clique and members with a reasonable amount of power but a questionable level of intellect often feel threatened by highly qualified and competent individuals

The former requires a huge investment in capability and the latter requires an overhaul of the culture. In a sense, when you fix #1, the #2 types will automatically have less power and this stifling culture will start to erode.

Today, our intel community loses out on the country's brightest minds because of the same reasons noted above.

Interestingly, literally ALL of the major scientists involved in our nuclear program both at the PAEC and KRL were foreign educated, would travel abroad for conferences constantly and included controversial minorities (e.g. Dr. Abdus Salam.) Somehow, back then, there was a larger culture of patriotism and less of selling out (these days we have 3-star generals selling their soul and their country's secrets for a few extra $100 bills.)
Today, such imminent scientists (from Oxford, MIT, etc.) would have a hard time finding their way into SPD/NESCOM/DESTO because they'd mostly fail clearance based on some archaic, bullshit system.

Thankfully, the only silver lining is that many of these men from the 80s became professors at NUST, etc., so --- to some extent --- they trained a newer, domestically-educated generation. But there are some things which NUST/GIKI/QAU can't provide that the world's top research institutions, with billions of dollars of endowments and the resultant research labs and funding, can --- so there will always be a difference.

My 2c.

Excellent post. I would've given a positive rating if I could. I have experienced these things first hand. Our security clearance process is absolute garbage and the NOC process is literally there to stifle anyone thinking about doing anything that has 0.00001% chance of competing with Fauji uncles.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

@Bilal Khan (Quwa) we were discussing the incentives for private sector and involvement, but things seem to be even worse with active disruption of the private sector. Like you said, "To be frank, this is all a case of the armed forces uncles not giving others a chance."

Bro they can't even let go of media, museum or entertainment management (and the results are trash), so the inflexibility on anything more is not surprising in the least.

I hate to say it, but this is a situation where some (or many) generals/senior officers will need to lose their jobs. They were trained to command forces, not manage economic and industrial policy. And if the Army, AF, etc does not want them running forces, then...??