PTA held a Consumer conference on 25 Aug 2022.

https://pta.gov.pk/en/media-center/single-media/public-notice-220822
https://pta.gov.pk/en/media-center/single-media/pta-consumer-conference-2022-held-260822

Obviously as per the nomenclature it was a consumer-oriented event.

Don’t limit your understanding of this conference to the 5 mobile operators Jazz, SCOM, Telenor, Ufone, Zong.
In fact the digital communication eco-system is fairly large with a number of players like PTCL, Nayatel, Transworld, Stormfiber, Wateen telecom and a number of 2nd tier companies offering locals services like Optix, Connect.net, mobile tower leasers e.g Engro enfrashare & edotco etc. So the consumer could come in and talk about practically any of them.

Needless to say if you see the press release, CEO USF https://www.usf.org.pk/ also participated as well as consumers rights associations Consumer Association of Pakistan (CAP) & Consumer Rights Commission of Pak (CRCP).
This gives an explanation why the telecom sector is far better service provider and far less exploitative than the auto producer sector.

Its like asking the robbers to do a self evaluation on the robbery they committed.🤦‍♂️😕

They will give themselves a smack on the wrist and then continue on with their day 🙃😛

The committee which will incorporate representatives from the Engineering Development Board (EDB), Ministry of Commerce, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP), Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), Pakistan Automotive Manufacturers Association (PAMA) and Pakistan Association of Automotive Parts & Accessories Manufacturers (PAAPAM), will be responsible for the following actions:

https://carspiritpk.com/the-new-auto-policy-2021-26/

what will the committee do which already has Pama and Paapam members in it, will they take action against themselves? or did i missed something?

I think that either you are not reading my comment that is containing quote three or are not appreciating a fact that both quotes are from different types of comments. One is from a comment that was not posted in retaliation to your comment. That is to say, Quote 2 and 3 are from my counter comments; they are a response to your comment, whereas quote one is from my initial comment. Context is different, in one context I am explaining while in the other context I am merely saying, is not theoretically talking and explaining different?
Furthermore, I think that I do not need to tell you what indifferent means, it means neither fair nor black, in other words beneficial to all and as per situation. My first quote is using word indifferent man because that is how an unbiased and cool person is supposed to act, is not he? He must read everything with manners accepted as ethical by society and then impart judgement if he is different than what happens? He shall be fair to whom he likes and be black toward one he hates.

I hope so too.

However, like “The individual customer has no direct voice” points out in their comment, the consumer has no direct way of even contacting the committee or ensuring their grievances are properly heard or paid attention to. On the the other hand, the auto industry is getting full representation on the committee by having PAMA representation. PAMA should be the ones that the committee should be questioning, instead they are sitting right there running interference and making sure nothing is done or done right. 🤦‍♂️

I don’t see much happening…🤷‍♂️

This is confusing!

Quote #1: https://carspiritpk.com/1290-complaints-related-to-auto-sector-received-by-edb/#comment-9153 “I can only pray that some truly indifferent man is reading through the complaints being received.”

Quote #2: https://carspiritpk.com/1290-complaints-related-to-auto-sector-received-by-edb/#comment-9166 “I am praying that the complaints filed to
E.D.B. by the car customers are not being read by the officer bearing
those habits.”

Quote #3: https://carspiritpk.com/1290-complaints-related-to-auto-sector-received-by-edb/#comment-9167 “I only said that I am praying that an indifferent officer is not reading them.”

The quote #2 and quote #3 have the same meaning, but the quote #1 has an opposite meaning. Did you miss a ‘not’ between ‘is’ and ‘reading’ by mistake?
In this case I totally agree with you that I, too, am praying that an officer who will misread and write illogically does not read those complaints. I am also praying that instead, an officer who is logical, competent and benevolent read those complaints.

Irrelevant?
I assume that you are imagining that I insulted people who complained.
Well, that is not the case my dear I only said that I am praying that an indifferent
officer is not reading them. In other words I expressed a hope that the E.D.B.
officer who reads those complaints does not have a the habit of misreading, and then mouthing or writing illogically in the report that he shall be publishing in post meeting period.
I suggest that you read the retaliatory comments in the cited articles then you shall know what I mean. Some of the comments are not only downright hurtful but out of logic and context. Imagine if the E.D.B. officer is bearing similar habits, let us hope that he does not.

Is not that an odd question? In particular when I am holding a perception stated as follows:
Specific commentators on the said articles got rather uppity in response to a comment
posted by another commentator, I am praying that the complaints filed to
E.D.B. by the car customers are not being read by the officer bearing
those habits. Is it unethical?
 
P.S. By the way, one’s perception can never be the same as other person’s that is why
we have people who still are believing that P.S.O. is paying royalty.

Most of his comments are just written as “I got into an argument with some strangers online and I am still mad about it” with little to no relevancy to the article he comments on