^ see you need coherence in your arguments. if you oppose the govt because its one of the most corrupt institutions in Pakistan then you should've been consistent and not lauded the judges for letting Ifti off scott free on the corruption allegations or overlook the superior corruption in the judiciary. Allegations of rank hypocrisy can work both ways.
I pointed out a factual error in the thread originator's post who implied that this govt does not have rampant corruption as opposed to the past. Not to be confused with "opposing the govt because it is one of the most corrupt institutions in Pakistan".
I oppose the current govt because I would prefer a democratic system of governance as opposed to "President" "General" Pervez Musharraf's embarassingly trite one man government. On specific instances of corruption, I make no distinction between a corrupt politician, a corrupt army man, a corrupt judge or a corrupt policeman. If Iftikhar Chaudry is someday on trial in a way that is NOT smacking of a desperate general's attempt to continue his stranglehold on power in Pakistan by firing a non compliant judge, and if at that point his trial is unfair then I'd oppose that.
this whole debate is not about corruption. in my opinion corruption has remained the same in the past 15 years, and will stay the same for the next 15. there is no silver bullet. not musharraf, not iftikhar chaudry. the duplicitous usage of corruption as an argument for the rule of one person is fooling very few people.
this is about the relative strength of one institution versus another. the army has run this country unchecked and has mangled every other institution in the country. we need an assertive judiciary to check that power, and that is what we have right now.
i dont think i have come across another group of people who talk as much naansense as educated pakistanis do.
if this government is corrupt, why did foreigners sink $7bn into pakistani economy last year and why did expats send nearly $6bn in the same period? are these people idiots to send money to a country where there is corruption at very senior levels? and if it is so easy to fool outsiders, why was no one investing in pak during the decade of democracy? also during that time, spouse of pm, aka mr zardari was the minister of investment while the chief munshi of ittefaq group was the finance minister. can anyone point to people connected with mush/aziz in senior echelons of govt?
if pak army was responsible for bd's backwardness, why is bangladesh still so much poorer than pak nearly 40 years after the creation of the country? moreover if bengalis are so allergic to army rule, why have there been more coup attempts in bd compared to pak?
if democracy is solution to ethnic/civil strife, why did bhutto dismiss wali khan's govt in frontier after which wali khan declared independence from pak? similarly, why did bb dismiss baluchistan govt and ns, sindh govt? and why was the toll from sectarian and ethnic conflict many many times greater in the 90's than under mushrraf?
decade of democracy resulted in the bankruptcy of pak despite the fact that pak's foreign debt doubled in this period from around $20bn to $40bn. how would pakistan have functioned without foreign reserves? how would we buy oil without which economy cant function and medicine without which we cannot live? moreover if institutions strenthened under democracy why was the country allowed to go bankrupt?
who actually suffers when the economy does badly? is it the rich people who have cash parked in dubai or poor people surviving day to day?
the reason economy does not merit any discussion in pak is because our elite class does not give a rats ass about the welfare of average pakistan whose single biggest problem is poverty. democracy talk is just a ruse because it makes pak look good in front of goras.
fraudia, all very valid points. however the biggest reason was that expats had confidence in the banking system. no matter how bad the situation was abroad, people wont sent money into pak if they think banking system in pak will go bust in the future which is what happened before musharraf took over. under nawaz sharif, govt had to inject billions of rupees to keep banks like habib bank solvent. in contrast, market cap of banks listed on kse is currently $20bn.
bottomline is that investment flows where investors have confidence in the economic managers. obviously when husband of pm is the minister for investments, you know what kind of impression that creates?
i dont think i have come across another group of people who talk as much naansense as educated pakistanis do.
if this government is corrupt, why did foreigners sink $7bn in pakistani economy last year and why did expats send nearly $6bn in the same period? are these people idiots to send money to a country where there is corruption at very senior levels? and if it is so easy to fool outsiders, why was no one investing in pak during the decade of democracy? also during that time, spouse of pm, aka mr zardari was the minister of investment while the chief munshi of ittefaq group was the finance minister. can anyone point to people connected with mush/aziz in senior echelons of govt?
do you believe transparency international is biased against Pakistan? is it part of some global conspiracy against Musharraf, if so is it run by the jews?
Musharraf has needed to buy out lotas from different parties, do you think those lotas come free? who do you think is manning the ministries in Pakistan today, some of the most corrupt people in Pakistan. Would they change their colours overnight?
Chaudry baradaran are infamous. Faisal Saleh Hayat is infamous. Do you think they're clean now and virtuous parhaizgar servants of a nation just cause they decided their futures lie in bed with Musharraf?
Rahi baat foreign investment ki, to give credit to this government, they have managed their money better. They have hired a good economic team. Shaukat Aziz and people like him belong on our economic management teams. They have done good work on the economy front and the argument against this government does not need to deny that. Any sensible democratic government should hire people like Aziz.
There is however, no direct correlation between corruption and investment. There are countries elsewhere with rampant corruption but strong foreign investment. If investors see the ability to profit, they will sink their money, even if a certain percentage of that will be lost to corrupt officials. The Steel Mill case, which is tainted by corruption, did get a bid of hundreds of millions of rupees. That the money was there wasnt a proof that there is no corruption.
[quote]
if democracy is solution to ethnic/civil strife, why did bhutto dismiss wali khan's govt in frontier after which wali khan declared independence from pak? similarly, why did bb dismiss baluchistan govt and ns, sindh govt? and why was the toll from sectarian and ethnic conflict many many times greater in the 90's than under mushrraf?
[/quote]
Can you cite the sources for your toll counts? Just so we dont pull numbrs out of our collective behinds.
[quote]
decade of democracy resulted in the bankruptcy of pak despite the fact that pak's foreign debt doubled in this period from around $20bn to $40bn. how would pakistan have functioned without foreign reserves? how would we buy oil without which economy cant function and medicine without which we cannot live? moreover if institutions strenthened under democracy why was the country allowed to go bankrupt?
[/quote]
That Pakistan did badly for a decade under (semi) democratic governments is not a counter argument for the suitability of democracy for Pakistan. If it was then every democratic country would have chaos and would be living without oil.
[quote]
who actually suffers when the economy does badly? is it the rich people who have cash parked in dubai or poor people surviving day to day?
[/quote]
there are many people who have enriched themselves with cash parked in dubai hoarded through corrupt means NOW too.
remeber the survey a couple of years back by some gora organisation in which pak was ranked below afghanistan in failed state index? i think someone forgot to tell the clowns who made that list that around 3mm afghanis live in pak rather than the other way around. and if i am not mistaken in the current survey pak is ranked behind countries like nepal, sri lanka and rawanda.
any pakistani who believes in these sorts of survey is welcome to his opinion. i have however better things to do with my time than to respond to people who think some professors sitting in some third rate college know more about pak than people who run global money centre banks.
remeber the survey a couple of years back by some gora organisation in which pak was ranked below afghanistan in failed state index? i think someone forgot to tell the clowns who made that list that around 3mm afghanis live in pak rather than the other way around? and if i am not mistaken in the current survey pak is ranked behind countries like nepal, sri lanka and rawanda.
any pakistani who believes in these sorts of survey is welcome to his opinion. i have however better things to do with my time than to respond to people who think some professors sitting some third rate college know more about pak than people who run global money centre banks.
it is a consistent barometer. the same TI reports were used as a basis for objectively assessing corruption in Pakistan in the nineties. it is certainly more reliable than your anecdotal analysis, and your stock market insight into world politics.
there is no connection between Transparency International's corruption perception index and Fund for Peace's "Failed States Index". Criticizing one survey while responding to another is a pretty flimsy deflection tactic.
if this government is corrupt, why did foreigners sink $7bn into pakistani economy last year and why did expats send nearly $6bn in the same period? are these people idiots to send money to a country where there is corruption at very senior levels? and if it is so easy to fool outsiders, why was no one investing in pak during the decade of democracy? also during that time, spouse of pm, aka mr zardari was the minister of investment while the chief munshi of ittefaq group was the finance minister. can anyone point to people connected with mush/aziz in senior echelons of govt?
Investors seek political stability in region where there are opportunities of growth, period. In 90s political stability was not that great, hence not "pouring of investment" compared to these days. Investors do not have "deen imaan" (their only deen imaan is "ROI"), they are here until they are getting a return on investment, the day they see their return going down the drain they will be out of here in no time.
decade of democracy resulted in the bankruptcy of pak despite the fact that pak's foreign debt doubled in this period from around $20bn to $40bn. how would pakistan have functioned without foreign reserves? how would we buy oil without which economy cant function and medicine without which we cannot live? moreover if institutions strenthened under democracy why was the country allowed to go bankrupt?
Its because we don't have good "accountability" system in place as well as independent judiciary.
ravage, these surveys cannot be quantified. there is no way to measure whether indonesia is more corrupt than india or pakistan is more corrupt today compared to two years ago. these surveys are subjective opinions of people who make them and more than likely they get all the information from news reports.
when making comparison across countries, i tend to look at cash measures such as fdi and govt revenue etc because these measures are easily observable. over the last two years foreign investors have put in more than $10bn in pak. this measure is better indication of which way corruption in govt is headed compared to any survey. in the end people who get their investment decision wrong end up being fired. so they have more to lose if they get their decision wrong than people making those surveys. no one cares if they get no. 4 and no. 5 wrong.
Your opinion is subjective too. Mine is too. Any analysis you have is equally open for question. Characterizing it as a phd in a third rate university is pretty silly, their credentials are certainly more bonafide for me than with all respect due, yours.
if they got it right when they characterized benazir and nawaz’s govts corrupt, would you dismiss their analysis only when it doesnt jive with your political positions?
once again, presence of investment does not mean absence of corruption. there are corrupt government elsewhere that have plenty of investors. Iraq, under Saddam Hussain, attracted 40 billion dollar deals from countries like Russia and France. Does that mean that Iraqi government was not corrupt?
here you go, a more educated analysis of the impact of corruption on FDI. note, that the report does NOT say that presence of FDI means no corruption, infact models the investor’s behaviour in different levels of corruption, which implies that corrupt countries can still attract FDI:
ravage, these surveys cannot be quantified. there is no way to measure whether indonesia is more corrupt than india or pakistan is more corrupt today compared to two years ago. these surveys are subjective opinions of people who make them and more than likely they get all the information from news reports.
when making comparison across countries, i tend to look at cash measures such as fdi and govt revenue etc because these measures are easily observable. over the last two years foreign investors have put in more than $10bn in pak. this measure is better indication of which way corruption in govt is headed compared to any survey. in the end people who get their investment decision wrong end up being fired. so they have more to lose if they get their decision wrong than people making those surveys. no one cares if they get no. 4 and no. 5 wrong.
You are missing out nature of the government when looking at "invesments" pouring in. In "military" government, there cannot be as much "political turmoil" as in "democratic" rule, hence the "stability" which then invites investment as Pakistan has lots of growth potential.
Is there such a thing as chronological handling of cases pending in the SC?
I mean is there some sop that prescribes such methodology to address the massive volume of cases or does some other criteria usually decide about such petty things?
^ Bhaijan, tell BB that. Looks like political leaders (except President Musharaf who has bestowed free media and free judiciary on Pakistan) are worried about the CJ
God Bless President Musharaf, God Bless Free Media, God Bless Free Judiciary
Bhaijan, not only will the looters/dacoits be afraid of the free judiciary that President Musharaf has gifted Pakistan, but also the CJ’s ladla beta Arsalan and those judges accused of wrongdoings. I think CJ should set an example to all Pakistani’s and hold his son and his fellow judges accountable as well.
What do you think?
God bless President Musharaf and the free judiciary.
log kitna dar gaye hayn judiciary se ke ek verdict se judiciary “dictator” ban gayee
