press release

 

 

Press Release – Cross party consensus on blocking PECO 2009

 

Islamabad, August 28, 2009:

 

A cross party consensus group has been initiated by MNA Anusha Rahman Khan (PMLN) and MNA Marvi Memon (PML) members of IT Standing Committee of National Assembly to develop an awareness and consensus amongst parliamentarians with respect to implication of Prevention of Electronic Crime Ordinance 2009 (PECO) if it is enacted as law in its current form. The signatories on the resolution include the following members: Anusha Rahman Khan (PMLN) and MNA Marvi Memon (PML), MNA Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM), MNA Engr Khurram Dastgir PMLN, and MNA Attiya Innayatullah PML.

 

The Resolution sets out the articles of the Constitution that would be violated. The most critical being Article 10, 13, 19, 24 which are related to preventive detention, double punishment protection, freedom of speech, property rights protection. The concept of cyber terrorism is loosely defined term and this in its current form will lead to punishment of innocent people who can be picked up on the allegation of terroristic intent. The implications of the current ordinance would make Pakistan into a police state as per the signatories who have protested against its re-promulgation one day before NA Session and when the issue is already in Info Technology Standing Committee of National Assembly.

 

As per the signatories the issue is not as to whether the cyber terrorism law is required. The question is whether the law secures and safeguards the interest of people without impeding upon their basic fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and duplication of law is avoided. Therefore MNA Anusha Rahman Khan and MNA Marvi Memon have proposed an alternative legislation and submitted it at the National Assembly Secretariat (August 28, 2009) as a private member bill by the name of Cyber Crimes Act 2009. The signatories would like a civil society dialogue on the proposed Cyber Crimes Act 2009 and will be further building cross party consensus on the same.

 

given by Anusha PMLN and myself

CYBER CRIMES ACT 2009 The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President of and is hereby published for general information:- WHEREAS it is expedient to provide for the prevention and prosecution of offences related to or committed by use of electronic systems and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto; It is hereby enacted as follows:- 1. Short title, extent and commencement. [•••] 2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- (i) “data” means representations of information or of concepts that are being prepared or have been prepared in a form suitable for use in an electronic system, including but not limited to computer program, text, images, sound, video and information within a database or electronic system; (ii) “electronic system” means any device or a group of interconnected or related devices employing electrical or electromagnetic technology for the processing, communication or storage of information or data. 3. Legal Recognition of offences committed in relation to electronic systems. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an offence under any law shall not be denied legal recognition and enforcement for the sole reason of such offence being committed in relation to, or through the use of, an electronic system. (2) References to ‘property’ in any law creating an offence in relation to or concerning property shall include an electronic system and the information and data contained in or conveyed through such electronic system. 4. Spamming.- (1) Whoever transmits harmful, fraudulent, misleading, illegal or unsolicited electronic messages in bulk to any person without the express permission of the recipient, or causes any electronic system to show any such message or involves in falsified online user account registration or falsified domain name registration for commercial purpose commits the offence of spamming. (2) Whoever commits the offence of spamming as described in sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine not exceeding fifty thousand rupees if he commits this offence of spamming for the first time and for every subsequent commission of offence of spamming he shall be punished with imprisonment of three months or with fine, or with both. 5. Spoofing. (1) Whoever establishes a website, or sends an electronic message with a counterfeit source intended to be believed by the recipient or visitor or its electronic system to be an authentic source with intent to gain unauthorized access or obtain valuable information which later can be used for any unlawful purposes commits the offence of spoofing. (2) Whoever commits the offence of spoofing specified in sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 6. Investigation of offences. (1) The investigation and prosecution of offences committed in relation to or by using an electronic system shall be conducted by the relevant investigation and prosecution agencies within whose jurisdiction such offence falls under the applicable law. (2) The investigation of the offences under Sections 4 and 5 shall be conducted by the Federal Investigation Agency established under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975). 7. Special training. (1) The Federal Government, and each Provincial Government, shall cause to be imparted special training to the respective law enforcement and prosecution agencies for the detection, investigation and prosecution of offences committed in relation to or by using electronic systems. (2) The Federal Government shall allocate a sum of Rupees [•] for the special training referred to in Section 7. (3) The Federal Government shall create a special fund for dedicated departments in the respective police and FIA forces, who shall be responsible for investigation under this Law. 8. Real-time collection of traffic data.- (1) A law enforcement agency may under a warrant issued by a [Magistrate] require a person engaged in the business of providing telecommunication facilities to the general public for commercial gain, within its existing technical capability, to collect or record through the application of technical means or to co-operate and assist the law enforcement agency in the collection or recording of traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications transmitted by means of an electronic system. (2) The application for warrant under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied with a description of the suspected offence, the relevant electronic system and the required duration of surveillance. (3) Any information, communication, data, electronic system or part thereof obtained or seized by a law enforcement agency pursuant to sub-section (2) or any other enabling powers in this behalf: (i) shall be held in strictest confidence and shall not be used in any manner and for any purpose other than the investigation and prosecution of the relevant offence; and (ii) shall be returned to the person from whom such information, communication, data, electronic system or part thereof was obtained in the event the investigation does not reveal the commission of an offence. (4) A person to whom a warrant is issued under sub-section (1) shall keep confidential the fact of the execution of any power provided for in this section and any information relating to it. 9. Retention of traffic data- (1) A person engaged in the business of providing telecommunication facilities to the general public for commercial gain shall, within its existing technical capability, retain its traffic data for a minimum period of ninety days. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of six months, or with fine, or with both. 10. Trans-border access.- An investigation agency may access or receive information or data located in a foreign country or territory by obtaining the consent of the person whose consent is required for such disclosure under the law applicable to such person or data: Provided, the investigating agency shall inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Government of Pakistan in writing about the application for access to such protected data. 11. International cooperation.- (1) The Federal Government may cooperate with Interpol, any foreign Government or its law enforcement agencies with whom it has, or establishes, reciprocal arrangements for the purposes of investigations or proceedings concerning offences related to electronic systems and data, or for the collection of evidence in electronic form of an offence or obtaining expeditious preservation and disclosure of traffic data by means of an electronic system or real-time collection of traffic data associated with specified communications or interception of data. (2) The Federal Government may, without prior request, and subject to conditions of confidentiality or use, forward to Interpol, any foreign Government or its law enforcement agencies any information obtained from its own investigations if it considers that the disclosure of such information might assist the other Government or its agency in initiating or carrying out investigations or proceedings concerning any offence. (3) The Federal Government may refuse to accede to any request made by Interpol, a foreign Government or its law enforcement agency if compliance with the request may in the opinion of the Federal Government be adverse to or prejudice its sovereignty, security, public order or other essential interests.

 

aug 21

Resolution

 

We the Members of the National Assembly believe that Pakistan should not be made into a police state by implementing a legislation like Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2009 (‘PECO’).

 

We, the Members National Assembly of Pakistan hereby oppose PECO on the following grounds:

 

• All electronic devices which include computers, data processing units etc can be seized by FIA without any proof of crime being committed through them.
• PECO violates fundamental human right provisions in the constitution, namely:
  • Article 10 (Preventive Detention): As presently drafted, PECO creates ‘cyber terrorism’ offence, which is very loosely worded and potentially the Government can devise investigation, arrest and prosecution procedures for cyber terrorism that will be able to avoid this fundamental right. Parliament will have no right to monitor ways of investigation.
  • Article 13 (double punishment protection):  PECO creates a category of additional ‘electronic offences’ that will lead effectively to double punishment for the same offence. Thus a person can be charged both under the relevant sections of the PPC and under PECO
  • Article 19 (freedom of speech): As currently drafted, it can lead to many ‘intermediate’ innocent parties being nominated in the FIR.  For example, it is possible that individual’s computers are infected with viruses that result in such computers generating spam mails with genuine mail addresses.  This can result in jail.
  • Article 24 (property rights protection): the Computers Systems as a whole can be seized regardless of these being vital for the operations of a University, Company, Bank, ISP, etc. A collapse of all operations just for the sake of search of potential evidence for some ‘suspected’ crime; contrary to international best practices. Additionally, the accused/owner of the computer system is given no rights under PECO, to retain a verified copy of the data / hard disk (protection against implanted evidence), or for protection of its Intellectual Property, or for security, confidentiality and integrity of its data, or for destruction of data after investigation is completed.

 

This could potentially discourage IT investment or any other investment since multinationals would not be protected as per international norms. Although a country with a strong law is considered positive for investment, but alongwith a sound law, most developed jurisdictions also have a robust judicial system for accountability of investigation agencies. But in Pakistan, where Police ranks at the top in corruption, PECO would leave it to the FIA’s own procedures thus creating the dreaded police state. Further fuelling the beliefs of the international investor community that Pakistan is a land where injustice and corruption are rife and where the investments, intellectual and property rights are neither secured nor protected. 

 

Under Section 17 of the PECO,  any person, group who with terroristic intent utilizes, accesses or causes to be accessed a computer or computer network or electronic system or electronic device or by any available means, and engages in or attempts to engage in a terroristic act commits the offence of Cyber Terrorism. The term ‘terroristic intent’ is loosely defined to mean an act with the purpose to alarm, frighten, disrupt, harm, damage or carry out an act of violence against any segment of the population, the government or entity associated therewith and can include almost anything and everything, from a simple email or text message containing jokes to stealing and copying information necessary to manufacture nuclear weapons. Punishment could be anywhere between from three years and fine, arrest without warrant, non-bailable offence, going upto death or imprisonment of life if this activity causes death, and in any other case a ten year imprisonment and fine not less then 10 million.

 

 

We, the Members National Assembly of Pakistan, hereby resolve:

 

 That the law should be limited to new offences against confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer systems and data only, that do not presently exist or covered elsewhere, ie, Spamming, Spoofing, Cyber stalking etc and amend the PECO to delete all overlaps with existing laws such PPC, Electronic Transactions Ordinance, and that sophisticated IT equipment and technical training programs are required for the investigation agencies more than a long list of new offences.

 

We invite all members of Parliament to sign the above resolution so that we can put pressure on government to stop this police state legislation.

 

We also invite members of civil society to join us in our efforts to block this legislation.

 

 

MNA Marvi Memon (PML)     ——  MNA Advocate Anusha Rahman Khan (PML N)

MNA Eng Khurram Dastgir Khan (PML N)

MNA Attiya Inayatullah (PML)

MNA Haider Abbas Rizvi (MQM)

 

Call attn

 

Notice

 

The Secretary

National Assembly of Pakistan

Islamabad

 

 

July 16, 2009

 

Dear Sir,

 

Please take notice under Rule 91 of the Rules of the Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly 2007 that I propose to ask for a Calling Attention Notice enclosed here under, in the Session of the National Assembly. Kindly include it in the Order of the day.

 

 

Calling Attention Notice

 

I beg to call the attention of the House on a Calling Attention Notice of urgent public importance of recent occurrence namely:  to discuss the unconstitutional aspects of PECO and the way the legislation is being attempted to be passed in the National Assembly.

 

dissenting note on PECO

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007 (‘PECO’)

In the meeting of IT & T held on JULY 9, 2009. Sub-Committee meeting report and a dissenting note of Anusha Rahman Khan (Advocate) was presented to the members. A majority of the members wanted the time to read both the notes as they had not read. However, in the end both the Sub-committee report and the dissent note were forward to the Parliament. Marvi Memon voted in favour of the dissent note of Anusha Rahman Khan.

 

Anusha Rahman Khan (Advoacte) in support of her arguments, stated that there is no cavil that should have laws in view of the evolving technologies, but the laws should not violate the fundamental rights of Pakistani guaranteed under the constitution., and that duplication of laws should be avoided. In its current form, an attempt to create new categories of law, duplication of law. Its language creates an independent, self-contained category of ‘electronic offences’; For instance, the offence of ‘forgery’ remains the same in its essence and scope, even if committed using electronic systems.  However, through this law it is proposed to create a separate category of fraud, if it is committed using electronic means.

• The expression ‘electronic system’ and ‘electronic device’ used in PECO is wide it includes within its ambit all data processing and data storage systems, such as servers, routers, electronic switches, etc, which are primarily data processing machines and not communications  machines – their ‘communication’ capability is added through data modems or IP routing switches. It is technically incorrect to state that all IT systems are ‘telecommunications’ systems.
• The objective of PECO can be achieved easily, and without creating a monstrous legislation, by merely adding in the PPC that the charges under PPC offences will lie even if the offences are committed using electronic systems.  A parallel example of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 already exists.  The law of evidence falls under entry 4 of the Concurrent Legislative List.  The Federal Legislature simply inserted Article 164 which enabled production of evidence becoming available due to ‘…modern devices or techniques…”. The Federal Legislature did not need to pass a new ‘electronic evidence’ law to meet this objective.  
• There is no cavil with the observation that special tribunals can be constituted as under PECO and trained experts are there for investigation and implementation of law.
• The PECO Law in its current form violates the Fundamental Rights as follows:

 

a.       Article 10: The first Proviso to Section 25 of PECO leaves open to the Government to devise the procedure for investigation and prosecution of offences under PECO.  As presently drafted, PECO creates ‘cyber terrorism’ offence, which is very loosely worded and potentially the Government can devise investigation, arrest and prosecution procedures for cyber terrorism that will be able to avoid this fundamental right.

 

b.      Article 13:  protection against double punishment for the same offence.  As currently drafted, PECO creates a fictional category of additional ‘electronic offences’ that will lead effectively to double punishment for the same offence, e.g. forgery, cheating, causing damage to property (IT system).  Thus a person can be charged both under the relevant sections of the PPC and under PECO

 

c.       Article 19: Freedom of speech.  As currently drafted, it can lead to many ‘intermediate’ innocent parties being nominated in the FIR. For example, it is commonplace that individual’s computers are infected with viruses that result in such computers generating spam mails with genuine mail addresses.

 

d.         Article 24: Protection of property rights.  PECO currently does not provide any protection against data systems which will be taken into custody, nor, more importantly, against the IP rights and proprietary business and technical information (all of which is property).  No principles for compensation for such property are stated in the law if loss of such confidential business information. For Example, the Computers Systems as a whole can be seized regardless of these being vital for the operations of a University, Company, Bank, ISP, etc. Collapse of all operations just for the sake of search of potential evidence for some ‘suspected’ crime; contrary to international best practices. Additionally, the accused / owner of the computer system is given no rights under PECO, to retain a verified copy of the data / hard disk (protection against implanted evidence), or for protection of its Intellectual Property, or for security, confidentiality and integrity of its data, or for destruction of data after investigation is completed

 

• Amend the law to delete all overlaps with the PPC, leaving only the offences against ‘other electronic systems’.
• The procedure is un-clear; Section 25 gives powers to investigation agency to make any rules. Any such rules never come to the Parliament. Therefore the operative part of the law is prepared administratively, without involvement of the parliamentary involvement.
• For all existing cases, General Clauses Act, and Article 264 of the Constitution provides protection to any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment where a law is repealed or is deemed to have been repealed, by, under or by virtue of the Constitution.

In its current form, PECO has:

•  wide ranging, unbridled investigatory powers, search and seizure of personal and corporate data. Can take years to prove ‘innocence’ (no intention to commit the offences). Discourages IT investment; obstructions and nuisances for IT enabled businesses and individuals. Legally and technically inaccurate concepts, duplication of laws etc. Pakistan is proposing to implement this law when India is still contemplating. Needless replication of offences already covered under other laws, including Electronic Transaction Ordinance and Pakistan Penal Code. The definitions are prolix and inaccurate. Mature legal systems restrict the to ‘computer systems’ and not ‘electronic device’ or an ‘electronic system’. There is no requirement for mandatory grounds being given for obtaining a search and seizure warrant; The law should provide for written grounds stating: Information received being the basis for the application for the warrant; Scope of search – limiting it to relevant content or system; Method of search, leaving the larger operations intact. It is not sufficient to leave these to delegated legislation such as “Police Rules” because these are made by the Executive and not screened by Parliamentary scrutiny. Under the existing law, the search and seizure can take place at any time and anywhere, on any number of IT systems, irrespective of whether they also carry the data of non-related persons, Copies can be made without any chain of custody, This is a serious threat to large corporations; Sensitive business and trade information will fall into the hands of Investigating Officers without assurance of confidential treatment. An Accused has no legal guarantees that; the computers taken into custody will not later be implanted with fabricated or false evidence; the computers will not be damaged; the data in the computers will not be lost or damaged. This is the gravest risk.
• The Computers Systems as a whole can be seized; Regardless of these being vital for the operations of a University, Company, Bank, ISP, telecommunication companies etc; Collapse of all operations just for the sake of search of potential evidence for some ‘suspected’ crime. This is contrary to international best practices
• In its current form, the accused /owner of the computer system is given no rights under PECO to retain a verified copy of the data / hard disk (protection against implanted evidence), For protection of its Intellectual Property, For security, confidentiality and integrity of its data, For destruction of data after investigation is completed
• That of all other countries have passed the same laws PECO, is much more sweeping in its language. Most developed jurisdictions have a robust judicial system for accountability of investigation agencies
• There needs to be a distinction between the emergence of new types of crime versus commission of traditional crimes by means of new technologies. While some of the crimes may be new, the others are simply different ways to commit conventional crimes such as frauds, theft, blackmailing, forgery, and embezzlement using the online medium. The law should be limited to new offences against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer systems and data only
• Sophisticated IT equipment and technical training programs are required for the investigation agencies more than a long list of new offences.
• A law is only required to cover 2-3 new offences that are not covered elsewhere, eg Spamming, Spoofing
• An amended Ordinance, as amended on February 27, 2009, was placed before the committee, that shows addition of Article 50, which deletes Article 36 and 39 of the Electronic Transaction Ordinance, 2002.

 

Oct 25- IT meeting-

 

 

 

Honorable Chairman

National Assembly Standing Committee for IT

National Assembly

Islamabad

 

 

October 25, 2008

 

 

Dear Honorable Chairman Sahib,

 

I am very pleased that we will be having our first meeting of the IT Standing Committee on Wednesday 29^th October 2008. As a PML MNA and active member of the opposition, I assure you of my support in our mission towards improving the IT indicators for Pakistan.

 

I attach herewith a report on few of the issues and their solutions which we can discuss in our meeting.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Marvi Memon

MNA PML

Member IT Committee

 

 

 

 

Pakistan’s IT Industry

 

The Government of Pakistan has been proactively developing the IT sector in Pakistan since the last few years. A few of the incentives offered include tax exemption till 2016, establishment of IT Parks with low rent, foreign ownership of equity invested in IT and 100% repatriation of profit allowed to IT companies. Pakistan’s IT industry has been rising steadily since the last three years. A marked increase in software export figures are an indication of this booming industry’s potential.

 

The IT Policy of 2000 document is an excellent effort that provides a broad spectrum guideline and covers almost all major fields of IT industry. However, the lacking is in implementation with proper ‘Project Management’ methodology.

 

Although the document addresses lot of areas, some of the crucial areas of IT Industry that require reinforcement or overhauling are:

 

1. Human Capital

 

There is a significant requirement for high-end human resources with skills-set. Currently, Pakistan’s IT industry has 24,000 professionals; an additional 8,000 are needed within the next year. At present, the industry is receiving 2,000 graduates from Tier 1 (HEC-recognized premier educational institutes and universities, from which 80% graduates are considered high-end by the industry) institutes, and around 7,000 graduates from Tier 2 (HEC-recognized public and private universities and degree awarding institutes) educational institutes. The industry needs at least an additional 5,000 graduates from similar Tier 1 institutes. The industry’s requirements can be met by inducting Tier 2 graduates in rigorous on-the-job training. The quality of Tier 2 institutes needs to improve so that their 20% low-end graduates can reach middle-of-the-road level.

 

 

• The supply side

In order to sustain and improve growth, IT companies in Pakistan need around 235,000 working professionals by the end of FY 2009-2010. Currently, that number is a little above 100,000. Approximately 135,000 more professionals are needed in the next two years.

 

 

In addition to the current and forecast shortfall, these is also an acute lack of quality curriculum and (alarmingly) of quality faculty in most tier-1 and total absence in tier-2 & 3 (HEC-recognized affiliated institutions of universities and degree-awarding institutes) institutions.

 

Suggestions:-

·         Curriculum must be formulated in accordance with in-practice methodologies, current and emerging technologies. All Curriculum must face an annual review and enhancements accordingly based on established technologies and market demand.

·         Curriculum needs to incorporate not just basic IT but also be broaden to include application of the technologies e.g. communication, telecommunication, media, finance, healthcare, multimedia, robotics and hardware system and design etc.

·         All Curriculums must be reviewed/certified by an independent Public-Private body other than Boards of Technical Education.

·         Equal emphasis must be given to quality faculty. This calls for a prerequisite of minimum number of instructors per institute, with a minimum (relevant) education requirement.

·         On-going training of faculty within the country and scholarship program should be developed to send these instructor for foreign qualification and (most important of all) ‘modern teaching skills’. (There is not a single set-up in place to produce ‘trained technical teachers/instructors’. Most of the faculty constitutes of people failing to achieve higher grades and rejected in job interviews! )

·         Foreign institutions esp. universities should be highly encouraged to establish campuses in the country with heavy incentives like income tax exemption, tax holiday, duty free imports and full repatriation etc.

·         Visiting faculty from North American and European universities required on a very high priority to update and upgrade local students, existing professionals and even the faculty with modern theories and practices.

·         Even short term ‘train the trainers’ programs/workshops could be arranged with collective cost sharing at corporate/institution levels.

·         For all tier of institution, even tier-2 and tier-3, academic counseling is required for students to select right institute and discipline as per aptitude and market demand.

·         After completion of educational program, professional counseling will help student to pick the appropriate professional line.

 

2. Technology Parks

 

The concept of IT and Technology parks in Pakistan has not been fully understood and at time translated into a very limited interpretation of the whole picture.

 

A technology park is a self-sustained, self-sufficient ecosystem that becomes the landmark of the city or state to which it belongs. It is a government facilitated community with all required infrastructure in place. The whole infrastructure is a highly secured landscape (usually a picturesque piece of land where creativity thrives) based on hi-tech buildings, most modern set of utilities like Communication (esp. High bandwidth Internet), telecommunication, transport, and uninterrupted utilities like Electricity, Water and Gas etc. are easily available at highly economical rates.

 

All of the [sic]-Technology Parks are actually ‘Technology Buildings’ which offer from good (very few) to very poor facilities and locations. Unfortunately apart from a very few originally designed buildings, rest are a mere conversion of unused or abandoned buildings into small offices. Some have unplanned fixtures and utilities and some are located even in highly congested bazaars, let aside the security and aesthetics.

 

Unfortunately most of the substandard buildings are a result of political motives or influence that compromised the very outlook and working of the industry.

 

Due to this, none of the large technology giants has considered setting up its technology/software factory in the country.

 

Suggestions:-

·         A Technology Parks authority or division needs to be created under PSEB/EPB or Ministry of S&T.

·         Public-Private ventures could be the best way to establish quick start and long-term projects. With govt. providing land, subsidized utilities and private sectors providing the technical know how and marketing.

·         Technology Parks needs to be established out of main city areas with all the proper facilities.

·         These parks should have the status of Free-Zone (based on EPB/EPZ model) with all the required facilities and concessions.

·         Marketing/Promotions/Road shows of these parks would be done globally. International players encouraged to set up technology industry with high cost benefits.

·         Full contingency planning and off-site disaster management sites should be made available to all member companies of the park. Each park can also work as a secondary backup site for the other parks.

 

3. Business Opportunities

 

So far, main business emphasis has been given export of the services. However, a large market exists within the country. At Public and private sector, need for customized development is ever present. Tapping this segment of the market will enable smaller companies to have a quick testing of waters and at the same time conserving the foreign exchange spent on acquiring basic product and service from abroad.

 

Suggestions

·         Create awareness in Public and Private sector to outsource development within the country

·         Govt./Public sector should encourage local companies to participate in tenders with relaxed qualifying criteria like financial strength and track record.

·         In case technology or services are not available locally, preference should be given to foreign companies with transfer of technology arrangement with local companies.

 

4. Financial Assistance

 

Software has been included in technology industry alongside telecom and hardware sectors. However, Software development/services need its independent recognition as an ‘Industry’. This along with the realization of status requires special incentives to encourage and strengthen the base.

 

Suggestions:-

·         The current status of Software industry need to be extended as full fledge industry.

·         Special and discounted utility tariffs should be offered for Electricity, Telecommunication, Communication (esp. high bandwidth Internet) etc. Although special structure on communication exists for export oriented, scope needs to be extended to local business and all utilities.

·         Financial incentives like tax exemption at both corporate and individual level are needed.

·         Even local development/services should have a tax holiday for a limited period.

·         Banks should be encouraged to offer loans on special rates and terms & conditions with no or minimal collateral.