Re: Pakistani Middle Class, Beneficiary of Musharraf, Begins to Question his Rule
May be now they realize that they can get better system, may be they are more aware than before, if you had read the article carefully it shows most of the people interviewed were disgusted with almost all the politicians but then you have to make your own conclusion.
I can understand their predicaments. They are living in illusion. Seems that most during their active life have not seen days of past Pakistani rulers, and thus have illusions about past, misguided by corrupt media. They compare Pakistan not with Pakistani past, but like to compare Pakistan with western countries, and expect western facilities without working for it. They do not see improvement but they see deficiency.
They live in a country that has 165 million people and collected around $14 billion dollars in federal taxes (2006-2007), that comes to around $85 per person, and still like to have facilities similar to UK where there are around 60 million people and government collected over $1100 billion in taxes (2006-2007), that comes to around $19000 per person (man, woman and children) for year 2006-2007.
They should know that facilities would only come when economy would expand and tax collection increases. They should also know that corrupt government could never give desirable economical growth, and would use whatever little tax collection for their loot and plunder.
For instance: During two full financial years of Nawaz government, from 1997-1999, Federal tax collection of Pakistan decreased from $6.8 billion dollars to $5.7 billion dollars. [Federal tax collection increased in rupees from 282 billion to 308 billion, or around 9 percent in two years @ 4.4 percent a year]. Since 1999 to 2007, in 8 years, federal tax collection increased from $5.7 billion to $14 billion, that is from 308 billion rupees to 846 billion rupees, that is 275 percent increase in 8 years @ 18 percent a year.
Similarly, one can see unprecedented improvement in performance during last 8 years related to GDP ($62 billion to $146 billion), external trade ($17 billion to $44 billion), dollar reserves (less than $1 billion to $ 16.5 billion), stock market valuations (around 300 billion rupees in 1999 or $5 billion to 4364.3 billion rupees on 31-10-07 or $72 billion), minimum wages (Rs 1200 to Rs 4600) and especially pay packet of Chief Justice (from around Rs 20000 in 1998 to Rs 134000 in 2007 plus massive increase in pension packages ... it was such an increase that Iftikhar started thinking that he has become KING :)).
Now, is it not surprise that there are some people who like to see old days back? It seems that most Pakistanis are going through illusion that ‘Iftikhar’ went, and riding on massive increase in their pay and purchasing power, have started thinking that they are now King without knowing that when things would change (as it has changed for Iftikhar), they would find themselves in dark alley with past corrupt rulers over their head again.
Fact is that, most likely we would see same type of corrupt government as before after President Musharraf is off the scene, as it seems that population has not changed and even today they appreciate their own ignorance, and look at all things with tainted glasses of ethnic, communal or selfish interest more than country's interest.
[quote]
Err okay, so we have to be grateful to him for he didn't commit such crimes against them?
[/quote]
Yes, we should, because we all know the norm of government in Pakistan. For once, we should start to learn to be grateful and appreciate anything good. One should know that even if something is considered as right of people, it does not come automatically but there has to be people ruling the country that are willing to give that right. If one would not be grateful to those that in power are treating Pakistanis better than past rulers, than in reality we deserve people like Past rulers what we had.
Just remember that justice, human rights, prosperity, good governance is right of people, but it does not comes automatically, it comes when rulers are willing to give that, and thus when people were not getting that under past rulers and than start getting all those under present rulers, than it becomes obligatory to appreciate and call that present ruler ‘just, honest and visionary’, else there would be no meaning for ‘just, honest and visionary ruler’ and nation that does not appreciate good ruler does not deserve to get one.
[Remember that if President Musharraf was just after securing his seat and wanted to rule the country as popular ruler (for vocal class), he would just need to shake hands with religiously retards and you would see how these religiously retards would start supporting him and would start even blowing those against him. If Musharraf starts doing corruption and start letting corrupts do corruption in Pakistan freely, all corrupts and past corrupt rulers would be spending corruption money like water to keep him popular and on his post. Well, Musharraf can do both, woo Jihadis and corrupts, and than you will see how Jihadies and corrupts in Pakistan would start supporting him regardless of whatever happens to Pakistan].
[quote]
Who says Shaukat is villain? It is his reforms which has helped Pakistan's economy grow, not Musharraf's own policies.
[/quote]
Well, believe me, there are many people intentionally or because of ignorance, in their despair even hate a person that lost a lot financially and career prospect, just because of his decision to serve Pakistan. Some of Shaukat Aziz’s critics are so ignorant that they themselves left Pakistan to work in much lower paid jobs in USA and UK compare to Shaukat Aziz job, and even though these people would never go to Pakistan even when job is given to them, still criticize Shaukat Aziz who left his executive job in city bank earning several million dollars a year and went to Pakistan to take a job as minister of finance. I can bet that 99.9 percent of Pakistanis earning even 100,000 dollars a year in secure American job with prospect to become head of their corporate organization would not leave their job and go to Pakistan to take insecure job as minister where there is not even guarantee how long the job would last.
As for Musharraf’s contribution to Pakistan’s economical policy, Musharraf is not economical expert, and unlike past Pakistani rulers Musharraf never claimed that he is financial expert, did he? The sign of good ruler is to accept that he is not har-fun-maula and thus he should choose the best available person from wherever he can, to do job rightly and most efficiently. Not like political and corrupt rulers that impose their incompetent but their personal loyal person in every crucial post, whose only qualification being to help party boss loot and plunder the country and get away with all crimes.
[quote]
So Shaukat Aziz was great when he dumped Pakistan to make money abroad when his services would've helped country but Imran Khan was traitor when he chose to go to Kerry Packer.... nice!
[/quote]
Shaukat Aziz joined City Bank early in his career. During those days (Z A Bhutto time), situation was so bad that only connection would have landed him into job, and even in job merit was not criteria for any appreciation, but connection. So, for an honest person especially from Karachi, job in Pakistan was not an option. Actually before Musharraf, merit was never appreciated in Pakistan and most good jobs were for people with connections.
Nevertheless, if Shaukat Aziz would have stayed in Pakistan, he would have been doing obscure job for his living, not representing country like Imran competing with other countries. So, situation of both are different, one (Shaukat Aziz) working for Pakistan to earn his living and left because of lack of opportunity, whereas other (Imran) given all opportunities and chance to represent Pakistan competing with other countries at highest level in cricket, but instead of representing Pakistan he opted to ditch Pakistan for dollars (hence betrayed Pakistan for money).
[Think of a person working as top executive of world biggest bank earning several millions dollars a year, with prospect to become Chief Executive of that bank, a bank that has 700 billion dollars as asset in 1999 and was financially most secure in the world, a bank that on its own could rescue many countries financially, a bank where many third world and occasionally even first world finance ministers comes begging for loan or rescheduling their debt, a bank whose top executives do not even meet third world finance minister and lower executives humiliate and dictate terms to third world finance ministers.
THAN this top executive leaves his job (against the wishes of most in his family) and take over finance ministry job of a bankrupt and corrupt country (where minister are found in abundance) whose finance minister job is to go begging people all around the world, people who believe that finance minister of this country is usually crook and look for loan to loot and plunder with his boss and compatriots, a country with $62 billion economy (1999) that was going bankrupt, had total tax collection of around $5.7 billion, had $70 billion in loans (Rupees and dollars) with requirement of interest payment every year of over $8 billion dollars (more than total income), has stagnant economy and has reputation of being most corrupt and crook country of the world. This is Shaukat Aziz, now, what you think of this person?
But then, is it worth for such person to leave his above job and take up job in Pakistan where whatever he do, people do not even appreciate and call him names? Is this what Pakistanis would like to be that anyone who want to serve his country is considered bad and anyone that loot and plunder the country, or ditch the country for few dollars, people call him hero? But believe me, this is how many Pakistanis are. It seems that most Pakistanis do not see who serve Pakistan and them as citizen of Pakistan, but to appreciate, many see who the person is, and that if they can personally identify themselves with that person or not, on ground of ethnicity, party affiliations, sectarian or religious identity, etc.]