Hacker News Reader

"This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation."

No it's not. I won't go further.

Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon.

Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what make industrialisation possible. They make low wages possible and so the country becomes interesting as a manufacturing base (as Thailand has become for example).

With more economic activity will come education and then the country will have to find an alternative economic source.

More education will also affect corruption as educated people tend to be less willing to put up with it.

This is of course overly simple but for a big picture, it does hold some truth.

I believe that focusing prematurely on education, is actually counter-productive as the tissue of companies in need of educated workers simply is not there and makes low wages more difficult.

The West is also a good example of other issues with educated people. Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms.

For what it's worth, in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad, the answer simply isn't black or white. I do know though that 90 Euros is not sustainable for many a family in France while a 250 Bath (in Thailand) is fairly cheap for car-owners.

Im not talking about education as in, "can you perform open heart surgery?". Im talking about education as in, "can you write your name in Urdu?"

Why would Pakistanis want to be able to write their name in a Mojahir language? They could write it in English, Punjabi, Sindhi or Pushtun instead.

And you exaggerate as to how shit education is.

* According to the latest Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement (PSLM) Survey 2008‐09, the overall literacy rate (age 10 years and above) is 57% (69% for male and 45% for female) compared to 56% (69% for male and 44% for female) for 2007‐08. The data shows that literacy remains higher in urban areas (74%) than in rural areas (48%), and is more prevalent for men (69%) compared to women (45%). However, it is evident from the data that overall female literacy is rising over time, but progress is uneven across the provinces. When analyzed provincially, literacy rate in Punjab stood at (59 %), Sindh (59%), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (50%) and Balochistan at (45%). The literacy rate of Sind and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has improved considerably during 2007‐08 to 2008‐09 (Table 10.2)

what kind of crazy country do you come from where < 60% literacy rate is acceptable?
Also, Urdu is the national language of Pakistan - so I would expect everyone to be able to write their name in that language.

I think you have to understand that corruption in the UK and in Pakistan are likely two different things. In the UK corruption, any corruption is about Greed. In Pakistan and similar countries not all corruption is about greed, it's about an alternative system of taxation.
Your average police officer, or fireman or customs official probably gets paid a tiny amount of money per month maybe $30-$50. But as an official of the government they have the opportunity to levy "additional taxes" during their day to day life. That's why often you'll find such countries have thousands of official regulations which on the face of it make no sense, how can anyone get anything done legally with all these regulations? The answer of course is that these regulations merely exist to create opportunities for the relevant officials to "collect taxes". You pay the official directly, you don't need to comply.
And their superiors know, their superiors get a cut of every bribe, it feeds up the chain of command within the relevant organisations. The officers on the beat or the fire department official who checks building fire regulations collects the "taxes" for himself and his superior.
So when you talk about stopping corruption in these countries you've got to replace this system of "taxation" with a real one that works. But that's easier said than done because the real corruption (fuelled by greed) also exists here and no one in their right mind is going to pay serious tax money to their government because it will disappear never to be seen again.
I can't claim that I know what the solution is to that, I thought I'd just put a different perspective on it.

> In Pakistan and similar countries not all corruption is about greed, it's about an alternative system of taxation.
What exactly is this "auxiliary taxation" about besides greed? It's not like the money they collect is used for the greater good.

It's not like the money which forms part of a policeman's salary is used for the greater good either.
Except insofar as it compensates the policeman for doing his job, and insofar as that job is for the greater good. (Although, I don't think everyone agrees that the moral justification for everything is a unitary 'greater good').
The problem isn't the policeman taking money, the problem is that he is taking money under the table and it is likely compromising how well and how fairly he does his job.
When bribery becomes so regular and highly routine, to the point where you can be seen to justly complain about the bribe being raised, the difference from a normal fee is entirely one of top-down regulation. Which is good and helpful for management. But the distinction is about the looseness of supervision and control (and the bad results that leads to) rather than the basic interaction.

> It's not like the money which forms part of a policeman's salary is used for the greater good either.
All of the money that goes into a policeman's salary is used for the greater good. That's what having a part of our earnings confiscated buys us. What the policeman does in his official capacity is another mater.
> The problem isn't the policeman taking money, the problem is that he is taking money under the table and it is likely compromising how well and how fairly he does his job.
No matter what his salary is, greed may lead him to take bribes regardless.
> When bribery becomes so regular and highly routine, to the point where you can be seen to justly complain about the bribe being raised
Well, it sounds like you're thinking from the point of view of that "auxiliary taxation" mentioned above. I still can't see how a group of people collecting bribes in some kind of hierarchy is not all about greed. I'm pretty sure the bribes don't actually improve the job performance of those policemen or the other looters up the chain.

> Corruption is everywhere
Of course there is corruption everywhere, but in most countries it's nowhere near as endemic or systematic as it is in Pakistan (and India and China). I can get by in my life here in the UK without needing to bribe anyone, but bribery is a daily fact of my parents' life in India (and similarly for parts of the family in Pakistan). Deflecting this issue does you no credit.
> Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. . For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms
So, how would you explain strikes in Pakistan against reforms to the blasphemy laws?
> in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road.
So what?

Saying "corruption is everywhere" demonstrates a lack of understanding of what corruption looks like outside one's own country

"Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon."
You can't even begin to compare the corruption of North countries and South countries. The level of corruption in U.K. is far less, with surely bigger impact on the world because of the power of U.K. in the world than what you can find in a country like Pakistan or Nigeria.
In short, yes corruption is everywhere that in itself is not an argument.

Interesting. A lot of what you said rings true for my country too (South Africa). Thing is, you're both right! These countries are truly multi-faceted. There are rich, educated people with high technology and those without.
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if technology and communications are the panacea to education problems that Schmidt says they are. If so that's good for South Africa, the Internet is growing tremendously here.

I agree. South Africa spends large amounts on education has a huge amount of human potential that is being wasted because of the dysfunctional public school system (I speak as an almost-victim of that system). I don't see the grip of SADTU (the largest teacher union, and indirectly aligned to the ruling party) being weakened, and I expect a few more generations of mediocrity, unless something radical is done.
Interestingly, we have had things like the Learning Channel for many years (think Khan Academy but on videotape, and starting in the late 1980's), but the copyright, now held by Avusa, a media company, makes it very expensive. The CC licenced Mindset Network doesn't strike me as being of comparabile quality.
With broadband penetration and open access to remote learning materials we could at least try to break the cycle of mediocrity caused by under-skilled teachers.

Does it fix the problem if there simply is no public school system, and everyone who isn't wealthy simply doesn't go to school?
South Africa is better compared to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa than to Denmark.

South Africa's education outcomes are worse than the rest of Africa[1].
And some schools are worse than staying at home (sexual abuse by teachers).
[1] http://www.economist.com/node/15270976

> Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation.
You're overstating it; Berlusconi is a counterexample.

I can't believe he slipped my mind. However some bunga bunga and a bit of fraud doesn't compare to killing your brother in law.

Also, things in Russia aren't that peachy.

Reading Schmidt I got the same feeling I get when reading Bill Gates talk about the teacher's unions: there's a lot of diplomatic-talk going on.
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Might work. Might not.