Regulating DeFi Risk

From Laraib Zahra Once upon a time, far from Earth, beyond the reach of our skies, there existed a planet called the Worthlands. In the Worthlands, there was an equal proportion of humans and ghosts. Whenever a human was born, a little ghost was born by their side. These little ghosts were called Hounds. Every Hound possessed a superpower: it could know exactly what its human companion was thinking. The entire planet was ruled by three powerful ghosts, commonly known by humans and Hounds as the Great 3Gs. Each of the three had a separate kingdom. They were the Ghost of Guilt, the Ghost of Productivity, and the Ghost of Fear. The Ghost of Guilt was the eldest of the three. He controlled the capital of the Worthlands. He had his own Guilt Police and Guilt Pumps. Guilt was a magical liquid found inside these pumps. The Guilt Police, along with the Hounds, kept a constant check on the behaviour of the people in the capital. Their job was to make sure that nobody ever ran out of fuel—the fuel of guilt. Whenever a person was caught running out of guilt, the Hounds immediately reported them to the Guilt Police. They were then provided with more guilt fuel to make sure that nobody went “insane.” The biggest crime in the capital was the Rest Crime. As soon as a person became exhausted and decided to take some rest, the Hounds would begin fiercely whispering in their ears: “Strong people don’t stop.” They would tell them not to rest until they reached somewhere. But where exactly this “somewhere” was, nobody really knew. Sometimes, when a person was genuinely unable to work any further because of an overwhelming workload, the Hounds would call specialised therapists known as the Fear Feeders from the Kingdom of Failure for counselling—a kingdom I shall discuss in greater detail later. On the other hand, the entire north of the Worthlands was ruled by the second Great Ghost: the Ghost of Productivity. Unlike the Guilt Police, who were actually in charge of the capital, there was no such police force in the north. Instead, there was a ministry known as the Ministry of Merit. The humans there were never supposed to sit idle. Instead, they were expected to work harder and harder to make sure that they remained at the top of the list maintained by the Ministry of Merit. Every year, there was a grand ceremony known as the Annual Worth Ceremony. The humans who earned the highest number of merit points received a golden star carved with their names in the Worth Register of the Ministry of Merit. Every time a human refused to rest in order to increase their productivity, the Hounds would greet them by saying: “Congratulations! You have earned three merit points.” Humans were comparatively happier in the north than in the other two kingdoms because here, they were rewarded with golden stars bearing their names. The more golden stars a human had beside their name in the Worth Register, the more likely they were to become part of the Hounds—the most respected position in the Worthlands. After all, the Hounds had the superpower to read human minds, and they could even fly. Their slogan was: “You could be doing more.” To the south lay the third kingdom—the Kingdom of Failure, ruled by the Great Ghost of Fear. This kingdom was the most terrible of them all. The humans there were weak and diseased. Every second person was a victim of anaemia. They looked as though they had been starving for days, perhaps even weeks. On the contrary, the Great Ghost of Fear was the fattest of the three ghosts. The reason for this strange contrast was hidden in the Hounds. Unlike the Hounds in the north and the capital, the Hounds in the south had a distinct name. They were called Fear Feeders. The Fear Feeders had one duty: to sense fear-bearing thoughts in human minds and suck them out, because the Great Ghost of Fear fed on those thoughts. There were many kinds of fears that humans carried in that kingdom: The fear of not doing enough. The fear of getting left behind. The fear of failure. And many more. The Fear Feeders collected these thoughts and presented them to their master. The Great Ghost of Failure had one dish that was especially dear to him. It was his favourite dish of all: “What If” Spaghetti. “What If” Spaghetti was a special dish found in all three kingdoms, but it was particularly abundant in the Kingdom of Failure. The humans looked starved because they had to constantly produce fear in their minds so that they could feed it to the Fear Feeders. These fears were produced through a process called whispering, carried out by Hounds that were not themselves Fear Feeders. Then, one day, something unexpected happened. A few Hounds disappeared. Seven Hounds. Everyone in the Worthlands was deeply concerned about their sudden disappearance. The Guilt Police, along with other investigation departments, launched a search operation. But not even a single missing Hound was found. The humans whose Hounds were missing were arrested and questioned. The results of the investigation shocked everyone in the Worthlands. The Hounds could only exist if their humans obeyed them. This was something that neither the Hounds nor the humans had ever known before. The humans whose Hounds had disappeared were, surprisingly, close friends. During the investigation, they confessed that one day, they had decided to step back from their usual exhausting routines and take a break to rest their tired and ruptured nerves. All of a sudden, seven Hounds appeared and began whispering their usual slogans: “Strong people don’t stop.” “What if you get left behind?” And their most favourite: “You could be doing more.” The humans became lost in their thoughts once again and decided to give up on their plan to rest. But then, suddenly, a voice echoed through the room: “But

By Waqar Malik The foundation of independent, responsible, and impartial journalism is balance, honesty, and fairness. Criticism is an essential part of journalism; however, a true understanding of any country’s situation requires a comprehensive view of its historical, political, economic, regional, and security circumstances. A one-sided analysis may highlight certain realities, but it cannot represent the complete picture. The German newspaper DW has raised several concerns and critical observations regarding Pakistan’s political, economic, and security situation. No country should be considered beyond criticism, and accountability is an important element of democracy. However, criticism must also be accompanied by balance, context, and a comparative perspective. If the challenges of a country are discussed, its sacrifices, achievements, and ground realities should also be presented with equal fairness. Pakistan is often portrayed as a country facing political instability, economic difficulties, and security challenges. However, an important question remains: is there any country in today’s world that is completely free from such challenges? Inflation, unemployment, political disagreements, social issues, and governance challenges are not unique to Pakistan. They are global realities affecting nations across the world. Germany, one of the world’s leading economies, is facing economic pressures, including rising energy costs, challenges within its industrial sector, concerns regarding employment, and economic uncertainty. Similarly, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and the United States continue to experience inflation, political divisions, public protests, and social challenges. Therefore, highlighting the problems of one country while ignoring similar difficulties faced by others cannot be considered a complete and balanced analysis. Every nation must be understood within the context of its own history, geography, political environment, and security needs. Freedom of Expression: Is Pakistan Being Judged by a Different Standard? Pakistan is frequently criticised regarding freedom of expression, democratic values, and human rights. Such discussions are necessary in every democratic society. However, an important question must also be asked: is Pakistan being judged by the same standards applied to other countries? In Pakistan, political leaders, opposition representatives, journalists, lawyers, and members of civil society openly express their views on governments, state institutions, and national affairs. Political debates, speeches, and different opinions are widely discussed through media platforms. On various occasions, statements from detained political figures have also been reported prominently in the media. This raises an important comparative question: do individuals in custody in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Germany receive exactly the same level of media access and opportunity to express their political views? In many democratic countries, detention laws are strictly implemented, and access to media is regulated according to legal procedures. Therefore, discussions about Pakistan’s freedom of expression should also consider international comparisons and broader realities. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right, and Pakistan’s Constitution recognises this principle. However, every right comes with responsibilities. Pakistan has witnessed political protests that have continued for weeks and, in some cases, months. On certain occasions, major roads were blocked, public life was disrupted, and damage to public and private property was reported. Despite these challenges, governments have often chosen dialogue, patience, and political engagement instead of excessive use of force. In every democracy around the world, the right to protest exists within the framework of law. No democratic society allows violence, vandalism, threats, or the disruption of public order under the name of political expression. Pakistan should neither seek exceptional treatment nor be judged by different standards. The Role of Pakistan’s Armed Forces and National Defence Some analysts describe Pakistan’s political system as a hybrid system. However, another important perspective also deserves consideration. Pakistan’s armed forces have made significant sacrifices for national defence, security, and the fight against terrorism. Thousands of soldiers and officers have lost their lives while protecting the country’s sovereignty, stability, and security. Pakistan’s geographical position places it in a complex security environment. Located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Pakistan faces unique regional and international challenges. There is also criticism that Pakistan’s armed forces are involved in business and commercial activities. However, this matter can also be viewed from another perspective. Pakistan’s defence requirements are extensive, and investments in various institutions and projects are aimed at supporting defence needs, welfare activities, and reducing unnecessary pressure on national resources. Many countries around the world allow their military institutions to participate in research, technology, industry, development projects, and humanitarian activities. The United States and other developed nations have similar examples where defence-related organisations contribute to national development and innovation. Therefore, such policies should be assessed on the basis of national interest, transparency, effectiveness, and contribution to society rather than through criticism alone. For more than four decades, Pakistan has paid a heavy price due to regional conflicts and global security challenges. The consequences of the war in Afghanistan, participation in the international fight against terrorism, hosting millions of refugees, and the loss of thousands of precious lives have deeply affected the country. Pakistan has made enormous sacrifices in combating terrorism and has achieved significant successes in restoring security and stability. Despite these challenges, Pakistan continues to contribute towards regional peace and international cooperation. The Kashmir dispute remains one of the longest unresolved conflicts in South Asia. Pakistan supports the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and continues to advocate a peaceful and diplomatic solution. Pakistan’s stated position has consistently been based on dialogue, diplomacy, and peaceful engagement. Sustainable peace in South Asia can only be achieved through mutual respect, understanding, and peaceful resolution of disputes. The Situation in Azad Kashmir and the Government’s Approach The situation in Azad Kashmir demonstrates the importance of dialogue and political engagement during times of tension. A responsible state must ensure law and order, protect the lives and property of citizens, and seek constitutional and democratic solutions to public concerns. The right to protest is a democratic right, but it cannot justify violence, firing, destruction of property, threats against state institutions, or taking the law into

Every August, right on schedule, my phone starts buzzing. Friends send me lists. WhatsApp group start heated debates. Neighbours stop me at the corner shop. Someone always has an opinion about who made it onto Pakistan’s civil awards list this year, and someone always has an even louder opinion about who got left off. I have seen this happen so many times now that I could almost set my watch by it. The list comes out, the arguments start, and by the time the dust settles, nobody remembers what the fuss was even about. The award list carries the names which we like the most, and unfortunately, it carries those names, which do not like. I want to tell you something I have come to believe after watching this cycle play out year after year. This debate we keep having, about who deserved a medal and who did not, is about as useful as arguing over which cloud looks more like a rabbit. It never ends, and it never really goes anywhere either. People pick their favourites, defend them like family, and forget the whole point of what an award is supposed to mean in the first place. Here is the real point, plain and simple. An award is not a popularity contest. It is not a reward for showing up. It is meant for something extraordinary. Something exceptional. A person who did work so far above the ordinary that the state felt it had to stand up and say thank you in front of everybody. Now here is where the story gets interesting, and honestly, a little strange. An economist named Zehra Farooq sat down and did something most of us never bother to do. She pulled together every single civil award given out over nine years, all 2,209 of them, and looked at the pattern. What she found should stop us all in our tracks. Back in 2018, only 73 people received awards. By 2026, that number had climbed to 372. That is five times as many people being called extraordinary in less than a decade. Think about what that actually means. If we are handing out that many more awards for exceptional service, it should follow that we have more and more exceptional people walking among us. Teachers going beyond the call. Officers solving problems nobody else could touch. Scientists, engineers, public servants, all rising to meet the moment. That is what a growing list of honourees is supposed to tell us. But here is the part that keeps me up at night. If we truly have this many extraordinary minds working for the good of the country, why does the country not feel more extraordinary? Why do our institutions still creak and groan the way they always have? Why does public service still feel, for so many ordinary citizens, like an uphill climb rather than a smooth road paved by all this supposed excellence? Something does not add up. Either the definition of extraordinary has quietly loosened over the years, or the excellence being honoured is not translating into the everyday experience of the people it is meant to serve. Farooq’s numbers also show something else worth sitting with. Women still make up only around ten to sixteen percent of recipients, a share that has barely moved in nine years, and their share shrinks even further at the highest levels of honour. So the next time the list comes out and the arguments start flying, I hope we can steer the conversation somewhere more useful. Instead of fighting over names, let us ask why the growth in awards has not translated into a more exemplary, more ideal society. That is the debate worth having. That is the one that might actually change something.

When Henrik Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House in 1879, Europe was not prepared for Nora Helmer’s final act, where she left her husband. The sound of a woman shutting the door on her husband and children became one of the most controversial moments in literary history. To nineteenth-century society, the idea that a wife could leave an unhappy marriage was not merely immoral; it was considered an attack on the very foundation of civilization itself: the marriage. The reaction was so intense that German theatre managers forced Ibsen to change the ending. In the revised version, Nora looks at her sleeping children, collapses emotionally, and stays in the marriage. Society wanted the family preserved at all costs. Marriage was sacred. Separation was shameful. A woman’s identity was expected to remain tied to sacrifice, endurance, and silence. More than a century later, something similar is unfolding in Pakistan, particularly in Islamabad. According to recent reports, family courts in Islamabad are facing an unprecedented rise in khula and maintenance cases. More than 45,000 khula-related cases have reportedly already been filed this year, with over 300 new cases emerging daily. The number of family disputes continues to rise, reaching 100,000 cases in 2025. Alongside this trend, court marriages have also increased significantly, many ending in disputes soon after marriage. This phenomenon is often discussed only through statistics or social criticism. Yet beneath these numbers lies a deeper sociological transformation, one that history has witnessed before: a doll’s house. The most striking aspect is not the increase in divorce. It is the change in social attitudes toward marriage itself. Pakistan today appears to be experiencing debates that Europe confronted more than one hundred years ago. In traditional Pakistani society, much like Victorian Europe, marriage has long been treated as sacred, permanent, and socially untouchable. Previous generations often viewed separation as failure, dishonour, or rebellion against family values. Women were expected to tolerate emotional hardship, neglect, incompatibility, and sometimes even abuse for the sake of preserving the household structure. This is precisely the social environment that Nora challenged in A Doll’s House. At the time, audiences were horrified not because Nora committed a crime, but because she chose herself over an unhappy domestic life. Society could forgive a flawed husband more easily than it could accept a woman leaving the marriage altogether. Her departure symbolized individual dignity over social expectation. Today, in Islamabad’s family courts, one can observe echoes of the same historical transformation. Increasingly, people, particularly women, are refusing to remain in marriages they perceive as emotionally unbearable, unequal, or destructive. Whether one agrees with this shift or not, it represents a visible social reality. This does not necessarily mean that society has abandoned the institution of marriage. Rather, it may indicate that expectations from marriage are changing. Earlier generations often prioritized endurance and collective family reputation. Modern generations increasingly prioritize emotional compatibility, respect, mental peace, and personal autonomy. The pace of this transition, however, varies across societies. Europe underwent these debates gradually through industrialization, feminism, legal reform, and changing gender roles over decades. Pakistan, by contrast, is witnessing social change at a much faster pace due to urbanization, education, digital connectivity, economic pressures, and shifting cultural narratives. Ideas that once took generations to spread now travel instantly through social media, television, and global interaction. This is why the comparison with Ibsen’s drama becomes deeply relevant. History does not repeat itself in identical forms, but human societies often move through similar psychological and cultural stages. The same fears once expressed in nineteenth-century Europe, that family systems would collapse, morality would disappear, and social order would weaken, are now frequently heard in discussions within Pakistan. Yet it is important to approach this issue carefully and honestly. Recognizing this social transformation does not automatically mean celebrating divorce, nor does it mean condemning marriage. It simply means acknowledging that societies evolve, and that concepts once considered absolute eventually become contested. The sanctity of marriage remains deeply important for millions of families in Pakistan. At the same time, increasing numbers of individuals no longer believe that preserving a marriage at any cost is always the highest social virtue. Perhaps the real lesson from A Doll’s House is not about encouraging separation, but about understanding how societies react when individuals begin demanding dignity, identity and personal autonomy within family life. More than a century ago, Europe feared Nora’s door slam. Today, Pakistan is hearing similar sounds, not from theatre stages, but from courtrooms and homes. Whether this transformation strengthens or weakens society remains a question for future generations. But one thing is undeniable: social change, once it begins, rarely moves backward.

Since 1949, China has been developing a model of the Socialist Market Economy with Chinese Characteristics (SMECC). These efforts accelerated after the introduction of the 1978 reforms. President Xi’s rise to leadership of the CPC has added new dimensions and dynamics to the process of creating the SMECC model. President Xi believes that the Socialist Market Economy with Chinese Characteristics (SMECC) is an integral part of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and a Community with a Shared Future. The SMECC model promotes the market by acknowledging its role in allocating resources and driving market volatility. At the same time, the SMECC model gives due weight to the state’s role. Rather than placing the leading role on the market, it places it on the state and institutions to ensure fair markets, equal opportunities, and fair competition among market participants, so the market functions smoothly. In a nutshell, market forces drive volatility to unlock the full potential of resources and markets; the state protects people’s interests, especially those of marginalized segments of society, the state, and the private sector. However, China believes it cannot build an SMECC model without establishing mutually beneficial economic linkages with other countries. To achieve this goal, China adopted opening up as a core objective of its reforms and has pursued it with sincere dedication since 1978. President Xi refined the concept and introduced the slogan of high-quality opening up, meaning that opening up must benefit people, not only businessmen or the state. He has made high-quality opening up an integral part of the Chinese economy in the New Era. Moreover, President Xi Jinping envisioned that China must open up to play a positive and leading role on the global stage. China adopted a comprehensive policy and plan to ensure high-quality opening up. First, to strengthen opening up, China deemed it necessary to invite the global business community to invest in the Chinese market. Thus, China began engaging foreign investors by expanding the catalog of encouraged industries for foreign investment, including new areas. Over the last decade, the catalog has changed significantly. In 2017, the catalog had 987 items. Of those, 348 were national, and 639 were regional and area-specific. The list has seen a major turnaround since then, and the 2025 catalog has 1678 items. It includes 619 national-level items, and 1060 are region-specific. The major objectives of expanding the catalog are 1) to encourage investment in manufacturing and supply chains, 2) to encourage investment in the Western region, and 3) to integrate the development of services, manufacturing sectors, and investment in the untapped Northern region. In the 2025 catalog, China focuses on: 10) Development and production of nucleic acid pharmaceuticals; 2) R&D and manufacturing of zero‑magnetic medical devices; 3)Smart testing and inspection instruments; 4) High-speed cameras and precision imaging equipment; 5) Intelligent energy management systems and related monitoring devices; 6) Design and production of deep-sea robots and specialized marine equipment; 7) Key technologies for gas-fired power equipment; and 8) R&D and production of core components for industrial robots. Simultaneously, China offers incentives such as tax exemptions on imported equipment, preferential land access, and lower corporate income tax. For example, China has introduced special incentives for investment in the Western region, including a 15% corporate income tax rate if the investor meets certain criteria. The government will also offer a special tax exemption for reinvestment in the country. Industrial land will be provided on a priority basis, and the base price for land transfer has been reduced by up to 70% to support industry setup. Moreover, equipment for self-use will receive a customs duty exemption. Second, President Xi has taken many innovative steps to accelerate and deepen opening up, with the China International Import Expo (CIIE) standing out above all. CIIE is a unique initiative in human history, as no other country has ever launched an import expo. This demonstrates the Chinese leadership’s determination to foster mutually beneficial economic linkages. It counters the liberal economic philosophy, which focuses on maximizing profit without giving due regard to others’ interests. CIIE is changing this traditional concept and trying to present a mutually beneficial model for global trade. Third, the launch of island-wide independent customs operations in the Hainan Free Port is another initiative that demonstrates China’s willingness to create more opportunities for the world. It is a step ahead of previous initiatives and aligns with President Xi’s vision. President Xi believes that amid a wave of protectionism, restrictions, anti-globalization movements, trade wars, and a my-country-first mentality, China must act as a beacon of hope for global economic development and globalization. To do so, China must deepen reforms and create concrete opportunities, not just talk. Therefore, the initiative is not only facilitating trade but also providing space for the global community to explore a new world of opportunities. How? It brings global businesses to Hainan FTP, where they interact to find opportunities not only in China but also in other countries. Data show that 9,600 foreign enterprises operate in Hainan, and investors from 170 countries and regions have invested. Fourth, China is not only inviting investment but also working to bridge the global investment gap. This is another way to create linkages and further open the Chinese market and economy to build the SMECC model. Therefore, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative to create economic opportunities. China has invested almost US$ 1.5 trillion and mobilized more than US$ 3 trillion from other countries and sources. China has also enhanced trade with BRI countries. China also launched the Global Development Initiative to help the world pursue sustainable development. According to data, China has invested more than US$ 23 billion under GDI. Moreover, China established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to meet countries’ investment needs and bridge the investment gap. In 2025, total investment disbursements exceeded US$ 38 billion. China is also deepening economic openness through its modernization drive. President Xi believes that to achieve modernization objectives, China must be deeply engaged with other economies worldwide. The 15th Five-Year Plan further

Development is the process of creating lasting improvements in the lives of people by addressing their genuine social, economic, and public needs and not merely constructing new infrastructure, completing projects, impressive photographs, or utilising the allocated public funds. In a true sense, the real measure of development is whether the real problem has been solved, and whether the interventions have created sustainable public value and an evident change in social or economic conditions of the society. A project should begin with a clearly defined problem and public need. Its vision, goals, activities, and measurable indicators should follow the problem. In professional project management practices, all these elements are recorded in the planning and design phase. In Pakistan, we have mastered the art of reporting these elements without achieving any meaningful results. Imagine a public park surrounded by a steel fence. Children and families using the park are visible from the road. If funds are available and privacy is the genuine concern, the executing agency can add steel sheets, plant trees, or use temporary screens. Each solution is inexpensive and retains the existing structure. However, if the focus is primarily on expenditure, the agency may remove the functioning fence and replace it with a new brick wall. This may have a longer life, but is not necessarily the most economical or appropriate solution. Considering Pakistan’s fragile economic outlook, many major development projects are financed through foreign loans. Such funds are eventually repaid, often with interest. Money spent on an unnecessary intervention is no longer available for genuine public need. This is a recurring weakness in Pakistan, where success is measured by the money spent, not by the effectiveness of the solution. This recalls Peter Drucker’s observation. “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” The continued existence of infrastructure built during the Mughal and British periods is in contrast with contemporary projects, which deteriorate within years. This might be a romantic comparison, influenced by the fact that we see only the structures that survived, but durability and long-term public value are not central to our project culture. The same mindset is evident in urban beautification schemes. Imagine a local government installs a 15-foot-high statue. The project is indeed beautiful and will produce attractive photographs for official reports, but if the same statue is mounted on thoughtfully designed columns, the shaded seating can be utilised by daily wage workers who gather at bus stops, on footpaths, and in other public spaces because no designated facility is available. This is not an encroachment issue, but a planning failure. Planners and designers should use one intervention to achieve multiple objectives. Imagine a decades-old roundabout, with a working fountain surrounded by grass. During hot afternoons, labourers and children visit the site to cool themselves in the fountain’s spray. Officials might consider this behaviour undesirable and wish to block access. They can barricade it through small trees or shrubs, but the typical response will be to uproot the entire structure, construct a new fountain, and replace the grass with artificial green carpet. The public behaviour may reflect the unavailability of affordable recreational areas or public bathing facilities. Yet, the official solution destroys a functioning public asset, removes a natural green area, and spends substantial funds without addressing the underlying need. Needs assessment appears in project reports, but they are rarely conducted with sufficient depth. Imagine a posh housing society, where tubewells were eventually replaced by private borewells. Residents have spent a considerable amount to arrange their own water supply. Now, if any government agency has received funds for water distribution, they should spend it in areas where the people are still digging borewells or have no access to clean drinking water. However, again the typical response will be to spend millions in this posh area, where households have already arranged their own water supply. The fall of the water table is the real problem, which in this case will persist after spending millions. Pakistan has an extensive planning structure, which includes the federal and provincial bodies, planning departments in government organizations, consultants, and project management units. In 2025-26 alone, the National Economic Council approved the national development portfolio of 4.224 trillion. Such substantial expenditure should produce visible and lasting improvement in people live. The problem, therefore, is not insufficient funding, but how projects are identified, designed, approved, and evaluated. The same problem is visible in education, health, and administrative projects. Consider a basic health unit or education facility with a leaking roof. The available funds should be directed to fix the roof. However, funds are allocated to boundary wall, new signage, and in some cases, for an entirely new building. Similarly, for decade, government departments are trying to digitise their operations. For a quick solution, these departments procure specialised softwares, which has high licensing costs, and inadequate training mechanisms. After years of implementation, enforcement, and expenditure, the same departments revert to paper files or to a new software. The first step should be, to strengthen the capacity of all relevant staff in problem identification and root cause analysis. Every project initiation document should clearly identify the problem, public need, examine alternatives, and link the proposed intervention to public value. These elements should always be in quantifiable terms. Moreover, the project indicators should measure the extent to which the problem is solved and the post-completion evaluation should validate the visualized public benefits. Institutions move energetically, spend heavily, and report extensively, but bypass the original problem. Pakistan does not simply need more projects; it needs projects to solve problems; it needs interventions that respond to genuine needs, preserve what already works, and provide sustainable public value. The true measure should not be the amount spent but the resolution of the problem. Unless problem-solving becomes central to planning and evaluation, fund utilisation will continue to be mistaken for development and detour away from progress we seek. Writers  Dr. Sikandar Bilal Khattak  Academician with Research Interest in Sustainable Systems Can be