The fourth day of the general debate on the Punjab budget on Monday unfolded as a mix of sharp opposition criticism and an energetic defence by treasury benches, with lawmakers clashing over spending priorities in health, agriculture, education and governance. The opposition continued to press for what it described as inadequate relief for the public, while ministers highlighted ongoing and planned development initiatives across key sectors.
Opposition Critiques Fiscal Strategy and Public Services
Opening the debate from the opposition side, Rana Aftab Ahmad Khan launched a detailed critique of the government’s fiscal strategy, arguing that public service delivery remained weak despite large-scale development announcements. He said health allocations were insufficient compared to regional benchmarks and claimed that public hospitals across Punjab were struggling with shortages of medicines, staff and operational equipment. Several opposition members also alleged uneven regional development, claiming that a disproportionate share of funds was directed towards Lahore at the expense of other parts of Punjab. Concerns were raised over agricultural distress, low crop prices, difficulties faced by farmers, and declining production of key crops.
PTI lawmakers linked economic challenges with political instability, questioned governance outcomes, and accused the government of relying excessively on fines and regulatory penalties. The opposition later announced its intention to compile a white paper assessing both the budget and the government’s overall performance. Rana Aftab pointed to long waiting times for surgeries at major hospitals, including the Punjab Institute of Cardiology, and alleged that diagnostic machines at institutions such as Children’s Hospital Lahore and Allied Hospital Faisalabad were frequently non-functional. He further claimed that expensive medical equipment worth millions of rupees was lying unused due to a lack of trained technicians.
Agriculture and Revenue Concerns Raised
On agriculture, the opposition lawmaker criticised rising input costs, particularly fertilisers, which he said had become unaffordable for farmers. He also questioned the government’s reliance on fines and penalties as a revenue tool, arguing that policy should prioritise public awareness and facilitation over punitive measures. Weaknesses in the judicial and administrative systems, he added, were undermining governance and eroding public trust.
Treasury lawmaker Saqib Chaddar highlighted deficiencies in healthcare services in his constituency. Praising Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz for development work in Jhang, particularly in flood-affected areas, he said progress under the current administration had exceeded expectations.
Treasury Benches Defend Education and Sports Investments
On the treasury side, Punjab Education Minister Rana Sikandar Hayat defended the government’s performance, highlighting investments in education and student welfare. He said enrolment expansion at DG Khan University, development of schools and colleges in underserved regions, and more than 33,000 scholarships for students from South Punjab reflected the government’s commitment to equal opportunity. He added that over 10,000 laptops and 8,000 electric bikes had been distributed to students, while the School Meal Programme was providing daily nutritional support to around 1.1 million children. These initiatives, he said, were designed to improve educational access and reduce inequality across the province.
Punjab Sports Minister Faisal Ayub Khokhar also defended the budget, outlining plans for major investment in sports infrastructure. Khokhar highlighted broader policy directions, including solarisation of public buildings and schools to reduce energy costs, promotion of biofertilizers in agriculture, and efforts to make electricity more affordable in the long term.
Further Opposition Criticism and Budget Concerns
Earlier in the debate, opposition lawmakers including Brigadier (retd) Mushtaq Ahmad, Tayyab Rashid and Chaudhry Naeem Shafiq criticised the budget for lacking meaningful relief for citizens. They argued that the fiscal plan relied heavily on taxation, offered only marginal increases in pensions, and failed to address unemployment, rising debt and IMF dependency.
