punjab offers rs100000
| | |

Punjab offers Rs100,000 monthly shrimp farming int…

LAHORE: The Punjab government has launched a paid internship programme in shrimp farming, giving young graduates an opportunity to gain practical experience while earning a monthly stipend of Rs100,000.

The initiative, introduced by the Punjab Fisheries Department, is designed to promote aquaculture, create employment opportunities and prepare skilled professionals for Pakistan’s growing shrimp farming industry.

The programme is open to graduates in fisheries, zoology, marine sciences, biological sciences and other related fields. Successful applicants will receive hands-on training from experienced professionals throughout the internship.

Trainees will learn key aspects of commercial shrimp farming, including hatchery management, pond maintenance, shrimp health monitoring, water quality control, feeding practices and modern aquaculture techniques. The training aims to equip participants with the technical knowledge required to establish careers in the aquaculture sector.

Officials said the internship is part of the provincial government’s broader plan to strengthen high-value agriculture by expanding shrimp production and improving export potential. By investing in professional training, the government hopes to build a skilled workforce capable of supporting the rapid growth of Pakistan’s aquaculture industry.

Similar Posts

  • | |

    FBR collects record Rs44bn income tax from salarie…

    ISLAMABAD: The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) collected Rs44 billion in income tax from the salaried class during July, the first month of the current financial year. The collection was higher than the amount collected from salaried individuals during the same month in the previous two years. FBR had collected Rs42 billion from the salaried class in July 2025 and Rs30 billion in July 2024. According to sources, the higher collection from salaried individuals came despite an overall decline in income tax collection in some sectors. The figures indicate that the salaried class continued to contribute a significant share of income tax revenue at the beginning of the new financial year. Sources said property buying and selling transactions increased during July this year. However, tax collection from property transactions remained lower compared with the corresponding period last year. The development comes after the government introduced changes to income tax rates for several salaried income brackets in the federal budget for the current financial year. The government reduced tax rates on annual incomes above Rs2.2 million as part of its budget measures. Under the revised tax structure, the income tax rate for individuals earning between Rs2.2 million and Rs3.2 million annually was reduced from 23 per cent to 20 per cent. Similarly, the tax rate for the annual income bracket of Rs3.2 million to Rs4.1 million was reduced from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. For individuals earning between Rs4.1 million and Rs5.6 million annually, the income tax rate was reduced from 35 per cent to 29 per cent. The tax rate for people earning between Rs5.6 million and Rs7 million annually was also reduced from 35 per cent to 32 per cent. Despite these reductions in tax rates, FBR’s collection from salaried individuals increased in July compared with the previous two years. The figures show that the tax contribution from the salaried class remained strong despite changes in the tax slabs.

  • | |

    Capital one defends closure of Trump organization accounts

    Capital One Financial has responded to a lawsuit filed over its decision to close bank accounts linked to the Trump Organization, arguing that the move was based on internal anti-money laundering reviews rather than political or ideological motivations. The bank, in a legal filing submitted on Friday, stated that it closed the accounts following a detailed assessment conducted by its anti-money laundering (AML) specialists. The company argued that the decision was made after months of analysis and was consistent with its internal policies as well as regulatory requirements. The filing represents the first time a major bank has publicly connected concerns related to money laundering risks with its decision to end a banking relationship involving the Trump family business. However, Capital One clarified that it has never accused the Trump Organization of committing illegal money laundering activities. Instead, the bank said that the account closures were the result of routine compliance procedures. Capital One argued that documents presented in the case, along with the plaintiffs’ own claims, demonstrate that the decision was related to AML concerns rather than any attempt to discriminate against the company because of political beliefs. The dispute began after Capital One informed the Trump Organization in March 2021 that it planned to close more than 300 accounts associated with businesses connected to former U.S. President Donald Trump. The Trump Organization and Eric Trump, Trump’s son, later filed a lawsuit in March 2025 in a Florida federal court, claiming that the bank had unfairly “debanked” them because of political pressure and what they described as the company’s “woke” policies. The lawsuit alleged that Capital One’s decision was influenced by the political environment following the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The plaintiffs argued that the bank wanted to distance itself from Trump and his supporters during a period of intense public and political scrutiny. A federal court in Miami has already dismissed two versions of the complaint but allowed the plaintiffs opportunities to revise and submit updated claims. Capital One argued in its latest filing that the amended complaint continues to contain the same weaknesses as earlier versions and fails to establish evidence of unlawful discrimination. The bank accused the Trump Organization of presenting selective information and relying on statements taken out of context. Capital One maintained that the allegations of political motivation were unsupported and ignored the broader circumstances behind the account closures. According to the bank’s filing, certain transaction patterns identified during its review matched types of activities that federal banking authorities commonly recognize as requiring additional examination. Capital One said its AML team followed established procedures before reaching the decision to terminate the accounts. The legal battle comes during a broader political debate in the United States over the issue of “debanking,” with some conservatives accusing financial institutions of unfairly targeting individuals and organizations because of their political views. During his second presidential term, Trump’s administration has criticized such practices and taken steps aimed at preventing what it describes as discriminatory banking decisions. The controversy has also involved other major financial institutions. Trump previously filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, making similar allegations regarding political discrimination. During his first term in office, Trump also took legal action against Capital One and Deutsche Bank in an effort to prevent the release of his financial records to Congress. The case continues to highlight the growing tension between banking compliance practices, political concerns, and the debate over whether financial institutions should have broader restrictions on ending relationships with controversial clients.

  • | | | |

    Pakistan repays $1.4bn China loan

    Pakistan has repaid a $1.4 billion commercial loan to China, with refinancing expected within the next few weeks, State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) Governor Jameel Ahmad said on Wednesday. Speaking to reporters after attending a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance at Parliament House, the SBP governor said the country had made external debt repayments worth $2.2 billion during July 2026. The repayments included the $1.4 billion commercial loan to Chinese banks, while the remaining $800 million was used to settle other external liabilities. Ahmad said the refinancing from Chinese banks had not yet been received but was expected shortly, adding that the funds would be made available to Pakistan after a brief delay. The central bank governor also revealed that the SBP had purchased $28 billion over the past three years to strengthen the country’s foreign exchange reserves. He said Pakistan’s external debt repayment requirement had declined from $26.5 billion to $21.5 billion, easing pressure on the country’s finances during the current fiscal year. According to Ahmad, around $3.5 billion of the remaining repayments will be used to service interest obligations. He said the government would continue its strategy of increasing foreign exchange reserves while maintaining external financial stability. The SBP governor further noted that Pakistan would require the rollover of nearly $12 billion in deposits from Saudi Arabia and China to support its external financing position. He expressed confidence that the country’s debt repayment burden would remain lower this year compared with previous years, helping improve Pakistan’s overall economic outlook.

  • |

    Democratic support for Israel weakens as Gaza war deepens political divide in US

    For decades, support for Israel was one of the few foreign policy issues that united both major political parties in the United States. That long standing consensus is now showing signs of breaking down as growing criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, the conflict with Iran and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s close relationship with Republican leaders reshape opinion within the Democratic Party. Public support for Israel among Democratic voters has fallen sharply in recent years. More Democratic candidates are openly criticizing Israeli government policies and several have built successful election campaigns around calls to reassess Washington’s military and diplomatic support for its longtime ally. The shift has become increasingly visible in Congress, where many lawmakers who once backed military assistance without question are now calling for restrictions or major changes. The change was highlighted this month when nearly half of House Democrats voted in favor of an amendment that sought to block military aid to Israel. Although the proposal ultimately failed, the level of support marked a significant departure from previous years when similar measures would have attracted little backing. Israel receives $3.8 billion in annual US military assistance and has also secured billions of dollars in additional emergency funding over the past several years. Democratic leaders remain divided over the issue. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposed the amendment, arguing that it was too broad. However, senior party figures including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark voted in support of it. The differing positions reflect an increasingly difficult debate within the party over whether military assistance should continue without conditions, be limited to defensive equipment or be suspended altogether. Senator Chris Coons, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed hope that Israel’s upcoming elections could improve relations between the two allies. He suggested that new political leadership in Israel might help restore bipartisan support in Washington and move beyond the current period of tension. Coons also argued that Netanyahu has prolonged conflicts for political reasons, a claim that adds to the growing criticism from within the Democratic Party. Recent polling shows how public opinion has shifted. A Quinnipiac University survey conducted in June found that nearly half of all American voters believe the United States is too supportive of Israel. Among Democrats, that figure rose to 66 percent, a dramatic increase compared with the results recorded when the question was first asked in 2017. Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, dismissed concerns that bipartisan backing is disappearing. He said that despite intense political debate, support for Israel continues to remain strong across large sections of both major parties. The issue has become especially important in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, where voters are choosing between candidates with sharply different positions on Israel. Representative Haley Stevens has defended close ties with Israel and argues that the relationship strengthens economic growth and national security. Her opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, has strongly criticized continued military support and says American resources should be invested at home rather than funding Israel’s military campaign. The debate follows nearly three years of conflict that began after Hamas launched its October 2023 attack on Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. Since then, Gaza health authorities say more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed during Israel’s military operations. Israel rejects accusations of genocide and maintains that it is fighting Hamas while taking measures to reduce civilian casualties. Political analysts say the war has significantly influenced younger Democratic voters, many of whom have become more critical of Israeli government policies. Campus protests and growing public demonstrations have increased pressure on Democratic leaders to reconsider traditional positions on military aid. Some observers also believe the issue contributed to divisions within the party during the 2024 presidential election campaign. The debate is spreading beyond Michigan into congressional races across states including New York, Florida and Colorado, where candidates are increasingly making Israel a central campaign issue. Progressive organizations argue that opposition is directed mainly at Netanyahu’s government rather than Israel itself, while more traditional pro-Israel groups continue to defend the alliance. Despite the growing disagreement, many Democratic lawmakers continue to support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. However, an increasing number are questioning the policies of the current Israeli leadership and calling for greater humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, signaling that the party’s approach to one of America’s closest allies is undergoing a significant transformation.

  • | | |

    Global oil prices drop 12% in three days, Pakistan…

    Pakistani consumers have yet to benefit from a sharp decline in global oil prices, despite international petroleum markets recording a fall of up to 12% over the past three days. The continued high fuel prices have added to the financial burden on households already struggling with rising inflation. Over the last 12 days, fuel prices in Pakistan have increased significantly, with diesel becoming Rs. 65.08 per litre more expensive and petrol rising by Rs. 25.10 per litre. The increases followed the federal government’s decision on July 17 to introduce a daily fuel price adjustment mechanism in line with international market trends. On July 17, petrol was priced at Rs. 310.71 per litre, while high-speed diesel was available at Rs. 323.30 per litre. As of July 29, petrol is being sold at Rs. 335.81 per litre, whereas diesel has climbed to Rs. 388.38 per litre, marking one of the steepest short-term increases in recent years. Although consumers witnessed two minor reductions in petrol prices during this period, the relief was limited. Petrol prices were cut by Rs. 0.35 per litre on July 21 and by Rs. 1.00 per litre on July 27. Diesel prices, however, have not been reduced since the daily pricing mechanism came into effect. International oil markets experienced a sustained upward trend after July 17, contributing to higher domestic fuel prices. However, between July 25 and July 28, global petroleum prices fell sharply, with reports indicating a decline of approximately 12% across major international benchmarks. Despite this significant drop in global prices, Pakistani consumers have not yet received any corresponding reduction at the pump. The absence of immediate relief has sparked concerns among motorists and businesses, particularly those heavily dependent on transportation and logistics, where fuel costs directly affect operating expenses. Economists note that lower international oil prices, if sustained, could create room for a reduction in domestic fuel prices in the coming days. Any adjustment, however, will depend on several factors, including exchange rate movements, government taxes and levies, freight costs, and the pricing formula adopted by the authorities. With inflation continuing to squeeze household budgets, many consumers are hoping the recent decline in global oil prices will soon translate into lower petrol and diesel prices in Pakistan, easing transportation costs and reducing pressure on the overall cost of living.

  • | | | |

    Three powers, one shield? What the pact means

    Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye have formalised their long-standing strategic and defence ties through the newly signed Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, establishing a framework for closer military coordination and collective security. The agreement was signed during a trilateral summit in Makkah attended by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The pact has attracted comparisons with established military alliances. However, analysts say its stated purpose is not to create a new military bloc or target any particular country. Instead, it provides an institutional structure for defence cooperation that has developed between the three nations over several decades. A formal structure for longstanding ties Pakistan and Türkiye have maintained close political and military relations for decades, while Islamabad and Riyadh have developed extensive defence, diplomatic and economic cooperation. The new agreement is viewed as an attempt to bring these existing relationships under a formal trilateral framework. It is designed to provide a more structured mechanism for consultations, military coordination and strategic cooperation. Why the agreement was signed now The agreement comes amid growing security challenges across the Middle East and wider region. Analysts say conflicts, changing military technologies and emerging security threats have encouraged countries with shared strategic interests to strengthen their defence coordination. The trilateral arrangement is intended to improve collective preparedness and provide a coordinated response to potential threats while supporting regional stability. What the defence pact provides A central element of the agreement is the principle of collective security. Under the framework, aggression against one member is to be treated as a threat to all three countries. The arrangement is expected to encourage greater military coordination, intelligence cooperation, strategic consultations and defence planning. Closer institutional links could also allow the three countries to coordinate their military capabilities and improve their ability to respond to security challenges. Different strengths, shared security interests Each country brings different capabilities to the partnership. Pakistan contributes a large and experienced military, operational expertise and extensive experience in counterterrorism and conventional defence. Saudi Arabia brings significant economic resources, regional influence and political weight. Türkiye adds its growing defence industry, military technology and manufacturing capabilities. Analysts believe these complementary strengths could make the partnership more effective while allowing the three countries to develop greater strategic self-reliance. Pakistan’s diplomatic role The agreement also comes as Pakistan seeks to strengthen its role as a regional diplomatic actor. Islamabad maintains relations with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Iran, China and the United States, giving it channels of communication with several major regional and global powers. Analysts argue that Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement, alongside its military capabilities, could help it contribute to regional crisis management and dialogue. What the pact does not mean Despite comparisons with NATO and other military alliances, analysts stress that the agreement is not described as an offensive alliance. It is also not presented as a pact directed against a particular country, a so-called “Muslim NATO”, a nuclear deterrence arrangement or a religious military bloc. Instead, the three countries have presented it as a defensive framework focused on collective security, deterrence, military cooperation and regional stability. The long-term effectiveness of the agreement will depend on sustained political coordination and the willingness of all three governments to implement its commitments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *