DG ISPR’s Press Conference: Strategic Signal…

Once again, the debate over the creation of new provinces has surfaced in Pakistan. In every political era, the issue is revived in one form or another. This time, however, there appears to be a growing push for creating additional provinces out of almost every major province in the country. The strongest argument being put forward is that Pakistan’s population was around 70 million in 1972, whereas it has now grown to more than three times that figure. Therefore, it is argued, new provinces have become necessary for administrative convenience. At first glance, this argument may sound convincing. But the real question is: can all of Pakistan’s problems be solved simply by creating new provinces? If population growth alone is a sufficient reason for creating new provinces, then why have all major countries in the world not followed the same path? The real issue is not the number of provinces but the quality of governance, equitable distribution of resources, an empowered local government system, transparent accountability and an effective administrative structure. When the basic system is weak, changing the map does not make the problems disappear. What is particularly concerning is that Punjab appears to be the main target of this debate. At different times, proposals have emerged for a separate South Punjab, Central Punjab and even further divisions. It seems that with every political season, Punjab becomes the centre of the debate over provincial division. This has understandably created a feeling among many Punjabis that the issue may not be merely about administrative reform, but could also weaken Punjab’s historical, cultural and political identity. Punjab is not merely another province. It is one of the strong pillars of Pakistan’s ideological, historical and economic foundations. The land played an important role in the Pakistan Movement, made enormous sacrifices for the defence of the country, strengthened Pakistan’s agriculture and industry, and has always played a key role in the national economy. Repeatedly dragging such a province into a debate over division is neither appropriate nor in the national interest. Those advocating new provinces speak extensively about administrative convenience, but remain largely silent about the financial consequences. Has anyone explained to the public that every new province would require a new governor, chief minister, cabinet, provincial assembly, speaker, deputy speaker, secretariat and numerous government departments? There would also be hundreds of new government positions, official residences, vehicle fleets, security arrangements, protocol and countless other administrative expenses. All of this would require billions of rupees. And ultimately, that money would not come from some separate source. It would come from the taxpayers and the public exchequer. Pakistan is already facing one of the most serious economic challenges in its history. The burden of domestic and external debt remains enormous, while a substantial portion of the national budget is spent every year on debt servicing and interest payments. The country continues to rely on programmes supported by the IMF and other international financial institutions, while ordinary citizens struggle with inflation, unemployment and rising electricity, gas and petrol prices. In such circumstances, would creating new provinces and expanding the size of the ruling and administrative machinery really be an act of national wisdom? Or would it simply place another burden on already stretched national resources? If the genuine objective is to serve the people, the existing system should first be made more effective. Local governments must be empowered, district administrations should be given adequate financial and administrative authority, bureaucratic reforms should be introduced, corruption must be tackled and the equitable distribution of resources must be ensured. If the existing system is not functioning to its full potential, how can simply drawing new boundaries across the map transform the lives of ordinary citizens? The issue of dividing Punjab is not merely administrative. It is also a question of identity. Punjab’s language, culture and heritage have already not received the level of official patronage and protection they deserve. If the geographical unity of Punjab is repeatedly subjected to calls for division, it could further weaken its cultural and historical identity. There is another important question: if population is to be the basis for creating new provinces, why should the same principle not be applied uniformly across the country? Will this criterion apply equally to every province, or is Punjab being singled out? National decisions should not be driven by political expediency. They should be based on constitutional requirements, the national interest and broad public consensus. In my view, Pakistan needs a new economic vision, stronger institutions, a fairer system of justice, quality education, better healthcare, greater employment opportunities and effective local governments far more urgently than it needs new provinces. People do not want more rulers; they want better governance. They do not need more official protocol; they need affordable food, quality healthcare, good education and decent employment. As a Pakistani, a journalist and a Punjabi, I believe that dividing Punjab is not in the national interest. Its unity, historical importance and cultural identity should be protected. If we genuinely want to strengthen Pakistan, we should strengthen the system rather than divide provinces, improve governance rather than expand administrative structures, and reduce the problems faced by ordinary citizens instead of placing an additional financial burden on them. The division of Punjab is, in my view, unacceptable. A strong Punjab contributes to a strong Pakistan, and a strong Pakistan should be our shared destination.

By Ahmad Hassan “The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other… Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: ‘I feed on your energy.’” When Frank Herbert wrote those words in his novel Dune Messiah, he observed that elaborate euphemisms are often used by the state to conceal the raw mechanics of power. In Pakistan, August 5 is observed as Youm-e-Istehsal to condemn the 2019 revocation of Article 370 and its supplementary provision, Article 35A. This act of the Indian government removed Kashmir’s separate constitution, its flag and its control over its own affairs. Last week marked seven years since that day. What began as a dramatic constitutional rupture has now, by design, become quietly normalized. Jammu and Kashmir joined India in 1947 on defined terms. The Maharaja handed over defence, foreign affairs and communications. Everything else stayed with the state. The United Nations later called for a plebiscite. It never happened. Instead, over decades, the protections that were supposed to stand in its place were worn down piece by piece, until August 5, 2019, when the government removed what remained in a single stroke. The method deserves more attention than it usually gets. Article 370 was not directly changed. First, the government reached for Article 367, which was intended to aid in the interpretation of the Constitution, and used it to redefine one phrase: “Constituent Assembly” became “Legislative Assembly.” Kashmir had no sitting assembly at the time, and the state was under President’s Rule. So, the government’s own appointee, the Governor, signed off on the change. India’s Supreme Court had already ruled, in 1959 and again in 1969, that Kashmir’s constitutional status could only be changed after the approval of the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir. When that body no longer existed, no institution had the standing to give that consent on Kashmir’s behalf. New Delhi decided that its own Governor could stand in for the people he had not been elected by. That is not consent. It is a government consenting to itself. The Indian government argued that Kashmiris had lived for decades under an insurgency that killed tens of thousands and emptied the Valley of its Pandit community in 1990. It left the region isolated from the investment and policing coordination. That argument would carry more weight if the method had matched it. What followed the revocation was not the language of integration. It was a total communications blackout, landlines and mobile networks and the internet all cut at once. Independent estimates put the troop presence at 600,000 to 800,000, roughly one soldier for every ten Kashmiris. Even pro-India politicians, former chief ministers among them, were placed under detention. Perhaps a security argument can justify counter-insurgency operations. It cannot by itself justify dissolving a state’s constitutional status, its legislature and its statehood in one move. That too with no elected Kashmiri voice given the chance to object. Jawaharlal Nehru warned Parliament about exactly this shortcut in 1952, while Article 370 was still being drafted. No clause in a constitution, he said, could substitute for the will of the Kashmiri people. Real integration, in his words, comes from the mind and the heart, not from a clause imposed from outside. Actually, there is a longer, quieter project behind the legal manoeuvre. Article 35A once barred outsiders from buying land or settling permanently in Kashmir. Since its removal, more than 3.2 million domicile certificates have gone to outsiders, most of them non-Kashmiri Hindus. This alarming thing is that wherever a disputed territory’s demographics are reshaped before its people are asked what they want, the eventual vote, if one ever comes, no longer reflects the population whose future was originally in question. None of this required an invading army, or an open declaration of intent. It required a redefined word, a signature from an appointee, and a great deal of time. The convoluted legalisms that Herbert warned about have become policy in Kashmir: development, integration, correction. Each euphemism has quietly done the work that an honest admission of purpose could never have achieved. Seven years on, Kashmir’s assembly has voted decisively against the BJP that carried out the revocation, and passed its own resolution demanding the restoration of its special status. New Delhi can easily ignore them. Yet, that very power to ignore an elected legislature proves, beyond any doubt, that the “consent” obtained seven years ago was always a legal fiction

Recently, the Pew Research Center released results from a study on global perceptions of China and President Xi. The results also compared China and President Xi with the USA and President Donald Trump. The study was conducted in 36 countries and included 42,151 respondents. The results are quite interesting and show that the overwhelming majority of people strongly favor China and President Xi. For example, respondents from 30 of the 36 countries ranked China and President Xi more positively. Moreover, 67% of respondents from 17 middle-income countries viewed China as a reliable partner. This suggests that China fulfills its commitments and never betrays its partners. And 57% believed that China takes care of the interests of other countries. These findings are in line with China’s philosophy of international relations, win-win cooperation and shared prosperity.   The results also indicated that, among the surveyed countries, all Muslim countries have a positive perception of China. Except for Nigeria (equal confidence in Xi and Trump), all Muslim countries showed confidence in President Xi and his leadership.   It is worth noting that in both categories, Pakistanis ranked China and President Xi highest. According to the results, 90% of Pakistanis held a favorable view of China, and 83% expressed confidence in President Xi’s leadership.   Now, the question is, despite all propaganda and malicious campaigns, why is the positive perception of China and President Xi very high?  The answer is that China believes in common development and development together and for everyone. It also resonates with President Xi’s vision that no one should be left behind on the road of development. Therefore, since its rise as a major economic and global power, China is contributing to global development, especially in the Global South. Simultaneously, China has been working to strengthen the voices of the Global South in global affairs and protect them against the hegemonic aspirations of some powerful countries. Moreover, China is striving to bring sustainable peace and security, and to ensure that everyone’s security and security concerns are treated equally. In the pursuit of these objectives, President Xi has launched numerous initiatives, including global, regional, and country-specific ones.   On the global front, President Xi launched five major initiatives: the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative. These initiatives have all the ingredients to help the world solve contemporary challenges and chart a path to peaceful, sustainable development and prosperity through cooperative coexistence.   First, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by adhering to the Chinese philosophy of shared growth through discussion and collaboration. Latest data show that China has invested almost US$ 1.4 trillion to help countries bridge the development gap. Second, the Global Development Initiative (GDI) was introduced in accordance with the vision of shared prosperity. Under GDI, China has invested more than US$ 23 billion. Third, the Global Security Initiative (GSI), which has been built on four pillars: common, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable security, was presented. Fourth, the Global Civilization Initiative emphasized harmony in diversity and the rejection of the clash of civilizations. Fifth, the Global Governance Initiative recognizes that all countries, regardless of size, strength, or wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers, and beneficiaries in global governance. The five key principles of GCI, proposed by President Xi, include respecting sovereign equality, adhering to the international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating a people-centered approach, and prioritizing concrete actions.   The China International Import Expo (CIIE) is another initiative with global relevance and a vision of sharing prosperity. It is a unique idea, as there is no precedent in history for organizing an import expo. President Xi himself proposed, planned, deployed, and promoted the idea of the China International Import Expo to fulfill his promise of high-level opening up and creating opportunities for the world. CIIE has emerged as a new avenue to introduce new products, share ideas, and promote innovation. It plays a prominent role in promoting new products by helping companies find buyers for their products and vice versa. China’s technology and innovation penetration and diffusion policies encourage companies and investors to join the event. Therefore, it attracts innovators and leading companies from around the world to attend the event and showcase their products and ideas.   In the list of global initiatives, we can also include the construction of ecological civilization as a seventh initiative, as it is highly relevant to the global audience. The construction of ecological civilization is rooted in the philosophy of harmony between the planet and humans and among humans. It is urgently needed in the context of climate change and environmental degradation.   At the regional level, China has also launched numerous initiatives, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Boao Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), among others. AIIB was launched to bridge the investment gap in Asia. AIIB aims to build a prosperous future under the slogan “Building Infrastructure for Tomorrow” by adopting principles of sustainability, innovation, and prosperity for the benefit of its people in Asia. Since its launch, President Xi has ensured that the AIIB develops into a modern, innovative, inclusive, goal-oriented, and rule-based institution that can help bridge the investment gap. Thus, he discourages geopolitics, mainstream economic rationales, and sustainability principles.   The Boao Forum (BF) is another regional initiative for Asia. BF is a non-governmental, nonprofit organization hosted and promoted by China. It provides a platform for dialogue among leaders of national governments, industry and business, and academia from countries in Asia and other continents on important issues facing Asia and the world. An analysis of past forums shows that it has focused on multiple areas and helped bring people closer together. It has created opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. Building on the Boao Forum’s past successes and strengths, China is working to explore how to build a community with a shared future for humanity in Asia by deepening interaction and cooperation.   Second, despite propaganda against

By Ali Haider In a statement, former FBR Chairman Shabbar Zaidi said that Pakistan’s economy would improve if it severed trade ties with China. He asserted that China has inflicted more damage on the Pakistani economy than the United States ever did. He further stated that he had opposed CPEC from day one, noting that the public was misled by the “game changer” narrative while the country was driven to ruin through the implementation of exorbitantly expensive power projects. The total trade volume between Pakistan and China during the 2024-25 fiscal year stood at approximately $25.23 billion. Of this, Pakistan imported goods worth $20.43 billion from China and exported products valued at $2.84 billion. Additionally, Pakistan makes annual payments of around $1 billion to China for services, loan repayments, and profit repatriations related to CPEC projects. Consequently, Pakistan’s overall trade deficit with China stands at approximately $18 to $19 billion, a figure exceeding the total funding Pakistan receives under a full IMF program. Since over 90 percent of trade between Pakistan and China is conducted in US dollars, this deficit has a direct impact on the country’s foreign exchange reserves. Pakistan sources approximately 28 percent of its total imports from China. In 2025, China remained Pakistan’s largest trading partner. Major imports from China include machinery, electrical machinery, organic chemicals, textile raw materials , and solar panels. Conversely, just four items account for 60 percent of Pakistan’s exports to China: cotton yarn, rice, seafood, and leather products. In other words, our exports are not only limited in scope but also consist primarily of raw materials and agricultural commodities. Trade with any country is beneficial only when exports exceed imports, or at the very least, match them. However, in Pakistan’s case, for every dollar of exports, we are importing goods worth 7.2 dollars from China. This trade imbalance becomes even more critical when Pakistan imports goods from China that are already being manufactured domestically. The textile and garment sector serves as the prime example of this; although Pakistan is among the world’s major cotton producing nations, a large portion its clothing imports, including both summer and winter garments, comes from China. This situation is primarily driven by the exorbitant rise in electricity tariffs in Pakistan. Currently, the cost of a single commercial electricity unit exceeds 60 rupees, and high gas prices further exacerbate the situation; consequently, the production cost of a standard jacket made in Pakistan reaches 10,000 rupees. In contrast, a Chinese made jacket of comparable quality is sold in the market at or even below that production cost. Due to this uneven playing field, dozens of garment units in Karachi, Lahore, and Faisalabad have shut down. Between 800 and 1,200 textile mills have closed over the last decade; Kasur, which was Asia’s largest leather industry hub in 2001, now lies desolate, as 40 percent of its tanneries have completely shut down and another 30 percent have become seasonal operations. The footwear industry has also suffered severe damage; in Punjab alone, there were over 350 large shoe manufacturing factories, of which 20 percent have shut down and 15 percent have seen a decline in production. This is largely because Chinese shoes, slippers, and sandals available in the market are not only cheaper but also more appealing to young generation in terms of design. Consequently, local manufacturers report that their production has dropped by 40 percent over the past three years. The steel sector is also grappling with this same challenge. Following the closure of Pakistan Steel Mills, the country imports 70 percent of its steel requirements. In 2025, steel and iron products worth $1.5 billion were imported from China alone; these included construction rebar, sheets, and pipes. Although Pakistan possesses reserves of iron and coal, high electricity costs prevent local production from competing effectively in this tough market. Another concerning aspect is the import of machinery. In 2025, Pakistan imported industrial machinery worth $2.6 billion from China; however, this import was not accompanied by investment. Chinese companies profit from selling the machinery and then leave, without opting to set up manufacturing plants within Pakistan. If the government were to mandate that every major machinery import be coupled with a requirement for the Chinese company to establish a factory in Pakistan with a 30 percent equity stake, it would generate employment and enable Pakistan to achieve self-reliance in technology. It is simply not possible for Pakistan to completely halt trade, as a significant portion of solar panels, mobile phone components, pharmaceutical raw materials, and agricultural machinery is imported from China. If these imports were halted tomorrow, many factories would shut down, and inflation could surge by 30 to 40 percent. It would take the economy at least ten years to fully recover from such a shock. The solution lies in “smart protection.” The first step is to impose phased regulatory duties on goods currently being manufactured in Pakistan. Protection can be immediately extended to three sectors: clothing, footwear, and certain types of construction steel. The second step is to make the import of machinery conditional upon investment. The third and most critical step is to reduce production costs; until electricity and gas become cheaper, “Made in Pakistan” products will not be able to compete with Chinese goods. On the other hand, the government must also work on boosting exports. Pakistan’s total exports increased by 48.7 percent during the first five months of 2026, with copper, rice, and halal meat playing a significant role. Access to the Chinese market can be expanded by incorporating agriculture, IT, and minerals into the second phase of CPEC. The target should be to increase exports to China from $3 billion to $10 billion over the next three years. Amidst all these issues, it is crucial to understand that China is not Pakistan’s enemy; it is the world’s largest manufacturing hub, producing goods tailored to the purchasing power of every nation. The real problem lies in imbalanced trade and high production costs. Pressure on foreign exchange reserves

A truly democratic-technocratic model for Pakistan should also address the country’s administrative structure. Pakistan is too large and administratively complex to depend on highly centralized decision-making from Islamabad and provincial capitals. A modern governance system should therefore consider the creation of new provinces or constitutionally recognized administrative units, based on population, geography, economic viability, administrative accessibility, historical and cultural considerations, and the ability to provide effective public services. This distribution must not be based on the ground of nationality. In my personal opinion, in Pakistan, there is a very emotional and stimulation mind sets found everywhere, they create prejudice mentality among the whole nation. All provinces names should be on the basis of their respective specialty of that particular area. Sindh, Punjab, Khaiber pakhtoon kha, Balochistan, these names also must be changed to other names. This will remove the nation base mentality. The objective should not be to divide Pakistan on the basis of ethnicity, language or political rivalry. Rather, administrative boundaries should be designed around governance and public welfare. Where existing provinces have become too large to administer effectively, new administrative units could bring government closer to citizens, improve resource allocation, strengthen accountability and allow regional development plans to be tailored to local needs. Here is a very common example, as if there is a school, when strength of the students increases, school starts to produce more campus, this is just because of good administration, to deliver good services, to provide better education to all students equally. So same case is in Pakistan, now the population has been reached out more than 250 million. While, at the time of 1947, the population was 70-75 million, that was combined, west and East Pakistan both, and West Pakistan comprised of only 32-33 million. Now imagine, now the population is more than 250 million and provinces are same. The population has been increases up to 681%. Imagine….! Punjab population was 20 million in 1947, now in 2026 is 127 million. Sindh population was 6 million in 1947 and now in 2026 is 56 million. Similarly KPK was 11 million in 1947 and now is 41 million, Baluchistan was 4.3 million in 1947 and now is 15 million. By these figures, more provinces or administrative units must have been developed many years ago. When we look for cities of Sindh, as the largest opposition found in Sindh against this proposal, we see, Karachi population was 1 million and in 2026 is more than 20 million, Hyderabad was 5-6 lacs, means 500 to 600 thousands, and now in 2026 is 2.4 million. Similarly Tharparker population was almost 300 thousand only, now near to 2 million, Nawabshah, currently is SBA was 500 thousand in 1947 now in 2026 is almost 2 million, Larkana was 420 thousands and now is 1.7 million, Sukkur was 340 thousand in 1947 and now is 1.6 million. If I write the whole country data then we need many pages, so these main examples are presented to elaborate that new provinces or administrative units are compulsory in the country for the betterment of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan. Now, keeping in view the concept of new provinces or new administrative units, under a Democratic Technocracy model, each administrative unit could have an elected political government supported by professional technocratic administration. Citizens would elect their representatives, while key departments would be managed by qualified professionals and career administrators. Health systems could be led by experienced health administrators and public-health professionals; education by education-policy specialists; municipal development by professional urban planners and engineers; finance by qualified public-finance specialists; and agriculture, water, energy and industry by relevant technical experts. In current system, our all ministries have, very unfortunately, absolute irrelevant Persons to run that particular area, except a very few. Now see this model, would create a three-level governance architecture: Federal Government → Provincial/Regional Governments → Empowered Local Governments At the federal level, matters such as defense, foreign affairs, currency, national economic policy and other genuinely national responsibilities would remain centralized. At the regional level, governments would concentrate on sectors such as health, education, agriculture, provincial infrastructure and regional economic development. At the local level, elected governments would become directly responsible for municipal services, sanitation, water supply, local roads, primary healthcare, local education, waste management and other services that directly affect citizens. A New Map for Better Governance Pakistan should therefore be willing to have a serious national debate about whether the present administrative map remains optimal for the country’s future. The creation of additional provinces or administrative regions should be based on objective criteria rather than political convenience. A proposed new unit should undergo an independent feasibility assessment covering: – Population and geographic size – Administrative accessibility – Economic and revenue potential – Existing infrastructure – Healthcare and education requirements – Natural resources – Urban and rural population distribution – Connectivity and transportation – Fiscal sustainability – Public opinion and consultation – Protection of minority and regional rights No new unit should be created merely because a political group demands it, nor should a legitimate administrative reform be rejected simply because existing political interests oppose it. The principle should be simple: “Administrative boundaries should serve citizens-not political elites”. A smaller and more manageable administrative structure, combined with empowered local governments and professional administration, could make it easier to identify responsibility, measure performance and deliver public services. However, creating new provinces alone will not solve Pakistan’s governance problems. A smaller province with the same inefficient institutions would simply reproduce the same problems on a smaller scale. Administrative restructuring must therefore occur simultaneously with civil-service reform, fiscal decentralization, digital governance, merit-based appointments, independent oversight and strong local governments. The ultimate objective should be to create a Pakistan in which every citizen can reach an effective government institution without travelling hundreds of kilometers to a distant provincial capital, while every level of government remains constitutionally accountable to the people. This is where administrative reform and Democratic Technocracy meet: democracy determines representation, technocracy ensures competence,

South Korea is one of the most remarkable countries in the world. Shortly after the mid-20th century, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. According to World Bank, it had a per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) of roughly 159 USD in 1960. The Helen Kellogg Institute For International Studies (University of Notre Dame) points out that South Korea’s per-capita income in early 1960 was lower than Haiti, Ethiopia and Yemen and over 40% of the South Korea’s population was suffering from absolute poverty. However, with right public policy actions implemented in the right direction, South Korea was among the most rapidly growing economies in the world by the start of 21st century. Do you know that South Korea had exponentially increased its per-capita GDP to 12,710 USD (in 2000) that then sky-rocketed to over USD 36000 in 2025? A question that one would ask is, what formed the basis of this rapid economic growth and a resulting reduction in poverty in South Korea? A World Bank report “Republic of Korea: Four decades of equitable growth” points out that South Korea has experienced rapid economic growth in 1990, where its real GDP grew by over 5 percent each year except 1998. Absolute poverty decreased incredibly in South Korea during 1975 – 2001. Those who remained poor were either had low educational achievements or were unemployed or underemployed. In 1975, South Korea earned USD 12.4 billion through trade that then skyrocketed to a trade volume of USD 314.6 billion in 2002. Thus, in a span of 27 years, trade volume of South Korea increased over 25 times which is nothing less than a remarkable success story. A journey that helped South Korea to achieve rags-to-riches status in 3 decades time. In my opinion, education made a significant difference in South Korean society and made it more socially resilient to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. As we all know that with education and the use of common sense, we make better life choices that then helps us is attaining better results for us and our families. Do you know that South Korean society is one of the most educated societies in the world? As per Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), over 58% of masses in South Korea has tertiary education. In-fact, South Korea performed better than Luxembourg, Australia, Norway, Netherlands and several other countries when it comes to percentage of masses (25 – 64 years) who have completed tertiary education in 2025. Highly educated masses mean highly qualified labour that can help any country in commencing sustainable social and economic development over a sustained period. We all are familiar with Samsung Electronics and the leading role it plays in connecting countries and people across the globe. Do you know that Samsung Electronics is a South Korean company? In 2025, Samsung Electronics declared a revenue worth a whooping USD 233.3 billion. Similarly, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd is another South Korean motor vehicles and parts manufacturing company. According to Forbes, in 2025, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd declared a financial revenue worth a whooping USD 128.4 billion including a profit of USD 9.1 billion. Hyundai Motor Company pointed out that it sold over 4 million vehicles worldwide out of which close to a million vehicles were electrified vehicles. Likewise, Kia Corporation is South Korea’s oldest motor vehicles manufacturing company and has a capacity to produce over 1.4 million vehicles each year. Kia Corporation has over 40,000 employees and normally reports an annual revenue of over USD 17 billion each year.  LG Electronics is another South Korean tech giant that reported a revenue of USD 62 billion in 2025. Finally, SK Hynix Inc is another South Korean company that manufactures semiconductor products and had reported an annual revenue of USD 51.2 billion in 2025 with profits over USD 18 billion. It is crucial to mention here that SK Hynix Inc is among the largest memory chip manufacturer’s in the world and acts as a rival to Samsung. Moreover, it is an important memory supplier to Apple and the components supplied by SK Hynix Inc are widely used in iPhone, iPad and MacBooks. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports that South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) was USD 1.71 trillion in 2023 and its per-capita GDP was USD 33,121. Do you know that in 2020, South Korea invested USD 112.9 billion on domestic research and development (R&D). Globally, it stood on fifth position when it comes to spending on R&D. Top spending on R&D in 2020 was commenced by United States with USD 720.9 billion, followed by China with USD 582.8 billion, Japan with USD 174.1 billion and Germany with USD 143.4 billion. Despite commencing rapid social and economic development, South Korea has not compromised on environmental conservation. According to The Korea Times newspaper, South Korea planted roughly 10 billion trees from 1960 to 1980. As a direct result of this, Korea Forest Service (KFS) reported that South Korea’s forest growth rate exponentially increased from 50 cubic meters per hectare in 1990 to 148 cubic meters per hectare in 2015. Thus, in a span of 25 years, forests in South Korea observed nearly 3 times increase in growth rate. It serves as an excellent example that we can commence economic growth, eradicate absolute poverty and conserve environment simultaneously. The already discussed example shatters the paradigm that we must compromise and degrade environment to commence economic growth. A successful reforestation program in South Korea proves the fact that we can commence economic growth and protect environment simultaneously. Do you know that trees are the most inexpensive carbon capture and storage devices? Moreover, healthy forests help us to decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide gas in atmosphere, mitigate climate change, prevent biodiversity loss, avoid landslides and provide clean air and water by decreasing pollution. We must understand this basic fact that for our commenced economic growth to be sustainable, we must preserve and protect environment. In-fact, Sustainable Development has 3 pillars