The recent debate over the pay and perks of the Chairman and employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has caught fire. Unfortunately, much of the noise is based on half-truths, often citing a single audit report without any serious attempt to understand the broader context.
In Pakistan, criticism has often become an unexamined reflex. Every reform, every initiative, no matter how well-intentioned, is quickly drowned in a chorus of cynicism. What we seldom pause to realize is that such habitual disparagement is fast becoming our national ethos. Institutions that demand respect and patient nurturing are instead pulled into the whirlpool of political passions.
The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) is one such institution. It stands as one of the finest regulators in the country, quietly and diligently reshaping the business and investment environment. Its professionals, who often labor in silence, are not political actors but technocrats tasked with safeguarding the integrity of financial markets. Yet, too often, they find themselves subjected to witch hunts driven not by reasoned assessment, but by fleeting political fervor.
No regulator is flawless; constructive critique is both welcome and necessary. But to indiscriminately attack every positive development—without understanding the complexity of reforms—is to undermine the very foundations of progress. Instead of celebrating the SECP’s efforts in modernizing corporate governance, strengthening investor protections, and instilling transparency, we risk delegitimizing it in the eyes of the public. Let us be clear: SECP is not just another government office. It is the country’s apex regulator of capital markets, entrusted with overseeing thousands of private-sector companies. Many of these companies pay their executives in millions, offering perks that public sector officers cannot even imagine. In such a landscape, how do we expect the SECP to retain equally qualified and capable professionals if it cannot offer them competitive pay?
The truth is simple—if regulators are weak, markets become vulnerable to manipulation. Around the world, this lesson has been well understood. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently raised staff salaries by up to 6.5% to stop talent from drifting to the private sector. Its Chief Executive takes home £455,000 annually, reflecting the premium placed on regulatory leadership. In Ireland, senior financial regulators have historically earned €310,000 to €340,000 per year. Across the Atlantic, senior officials at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission earn up to $318,000 annually—because strong oversight needs strong professionals.
The SECP is no different. In fact, it has an additional advantage—it generates its own revenue through fees and charges. Facilitating its officials with better pay does not burden the taxpayer. On the contrary, it strengthens the very institution tasked with protecting investors, ensuring transparency, and keeping markets clean.
So the real question is not whether SECP officials are “overpaid.” The question is whether they are compensated enough to resist external pressures, uphold their independence, and stay one step ahead of the companies they regulate. Undermining them by denying fair pay is a false economy—one that could cost Pakistan dearly in lost investor confidence and weakened market governance.
If we want our markets to thrive, we must empower the regulator. Competitive pay for SECP officials is not indulgence—it is insurance against corruption, compromise, and collapse. For once, let us rise above our political passions and give credit where it is due: to an institution that is quietly but firmly building the foundations of a modern, transparent economy.
For those who are letting their political fervor rob them of their sanity, it would be worth bearing in mind that dismantling the credibility of SECP is not a blow to its officials—it is a blow to Pakistan’s future. If we reduce every reform to political wrangling, we will turn one of our most competent institutions into a crippled watchdog, incapable of standing up to cartels and mafias. That is precisely what those with entrenched interests want: a regulator too weak to regulate. We must not hand them this victory.
About the Author
Muhammad Rabnawaz Awan writes on corporate governance, regulatory affairs, and social issues. He is among the few writers in Pakistan who have consistently focused on SECP-related issues. His op-ed “Blame the Regulators” won him international acclaim and was recognized as an important contribution to the debate on best regulatory practices. His widely cited piece, “My Intellectual Journey from Extremism to Tolerance,” has also been acknowledged as a valuable contribution to deradicalization efforts. He tweets at @ToleranceAdvocate.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.