Talk:Shaukat Aziz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Politics of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Khalidkhoso 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NA seat elections

On 27 May 2005, an edit by 202.176.233.35 (talk · contribs) added the following:

"The elections were extemely controversial. The independent and locally respected Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) reported widespread ballot rigging and incidences of blatant mass stamping of ballots. HRCP also confirmed that opposition party members were harassed and detained by the local police. In the end Mr. Aziz received a record vote count, which in the circumstances was hardly surprising."

This was non-NPOV and the lack of context might lead the uninformed reader to form a negative opinion of Mr. Aziz. Let's look at the facts.

  • Mr. Aziz ran simultaneously from two districts, Attock and Tharparkar. He did not personally manage his election campaigns, which were run by the political machines of PML-Q and its allies. Attock and Tharparkar were considered "safe" bets because: (1) Attock is pro-Army, pro-goverment, and pro-Musharraf and (2) Tharparkar is the stronghold of Sindh Chief Minister Dr. Ghulam Arbab Rahim, who backed Shaukat Aziz. Nobody seriously expected Aziz to lose. There was no need to rig the elections.
  • The government invited foreign observers to the election to make sure that they were free, fair, and transparent. [1]
  • In Attock, Aziz obtained 76,156 votes vs. 29,497 for Sikandar Hayat of the Pakistan Peoples Party.
  • In Tharparkar, there was a more lopsided result: Aziz got 153,485 votes vs. 10,732 for Mahesh Mallani of the PPP. Aziz also got 1280 postal votes.
  • Since he could only hold one of the seats, Aziz decided to give up his Tharparkar seat and retain his Attock seat.
  • While campaigning in Attock, Aziz's car was attacked by a suicide bomber. Nine people were killed, including the driver. Aziz, who was in the back seat, fortunately survived.
  • Although he may have received a sympathy boost as a result of the attack, his victory in Attock was relatively uncontroversial.
  • Asma Jehangir, the (controversial, IMHO) chairperson of the HRCP, wrote a letter to Dawn (http://www.dawn.com/2004/08/21/op.htm#4) in which she described irregularities in the Tharparkar election. Even in this highly critical letter, Ms. Jehangir acknowledges that there was "expectation of fair play on the day of the ballot since Mr Aziz's election was a foregone conclusion and there was no need for any fixing."
  • However, even critics of the government, such as Hans B. Bremer, found Ms. Jehangir's accusations hard to believe. [2]
  • Other observers also said that there was no rigging: "Polling agents of the contesting candidates posted inside the polling booths have so far made no serious complaints of any kind of rigging" [3]

In any case, since Mr. Aziz vacated the Tharparkar seat and retained only his Attock seat, the legitimacy of his seat and his membership of the National Assembly is well-established. It's common in Pakistan for those who lose elections to cry foul, so almost any election could be labelled "controversial" but such a label unfairly besmirches the good name of this honest candidate. Even in the "controversial" Tharparkar election, Mr. Aziz's opponents agree that his election was a "foregone conclusion", because of Dr. Ghulam Arbab Rahim's endorsement of Aziz. 68.20.179.133 00:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


On November 3, 2007 President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency, citing actions by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and religious extremism in the nation. Bhutto returned to the country, interrupting a visit to family in Dubai. The AP reports that she was greeted by supporters chanting slogans at the airport.[57] After staying in her plane for several hours she was driven to her home in Lahore, accompanied by hundreds of supporters.[58] She made the following comments critical of Musharraf's declaration of emergency:

"Unless General Musharraf reverses the course it will be very difficult to have fair elections." In other telephone comments to Sky News television she said, "I agree with him that we are facing a political crisis, but I believe the problem is dictatorship, I don't believe the solution is dictatorship.

"The extremists need a dictatorship, and dictatorship needs extremists." [59]

EMERGENCY DECLARATION PROVISION OF PAKISTANI LAW

The recent progulmation of Emergency and PCO has created some confusion as to what emergency actually means .

The following is in a nutshell what emergency provision IN Pakistani constitution is all about :

a) That , the emergency provision of the constitution are only applicable in the name of (notified ) President of Pakistan, but only in cases of i) War or external aggression ,ii) Internal security threat , iii) internal disturbance whose control is beyond provincial government's powers

b) That , these provisions specifically allow continuation of Parliament's law making ability and specifically exclude operation of emergency in two spheres of namely i) Powers of Provincial assemblies if in existance and ii) Powers of the high courts (judiciary) .

c) That , Emergency proclamation also requires ratification within 60 days from the joint sitting of Parliament and shall cease to have effect unless approved .

d) That , the original text of Emergency provisions clearly state that i) fundamental rights specifically 15, 16 , 17 ,18 ,19 & 24 ) cannot be invoked (in the court of law) . So What are these fundamental rights they are Sections 15 ( freedom of movement) , section 16 (Freedom of assembly ) section 17 (Freedom of association) section 18 (Freedom of trade business and profession )and section 24 (Freedom of property management ownership etc .

e) That , However there yet another clear statement in another place of the emergency statute by which the entire list of fundamental rights listed in chapter 1 become non -operative in court matters which means gone are right of security life and liberty (Sec 5 of fundamental rights ), safeguards to arrest and detention (section 10), fobidding of slavery and forced labour (section 11),Protection against retrospective punishment (section 12), protection against double punishment (section 13 ), Inviolibility of dignity of man (section 14), Freedom to profess religion (section 20), Equality of citizens (section 25), safeguard against discrimination in services (section 27), preservation of language culture and script (section 28of the fundamental rights ). In plain words all protection to citizens is taken back and but it does leave only courts and Federal houses of parliament and senate intact , ( remain to do what for its citizens is unclear !)

d) That the wording of emergency provision in Pakistan's constitution are such that it is suspected that i) That , It is primarily meant for curbing provincial disturbances in a large federation and is the prime instrument of controlling provincial administration form centre and b) That , it clearly excludes high courts from assessing its validity but conversely the emergency powers clearly bar influencing the high courts functions which are excluded .So asking judges to take oath again is completely out of question . This could explain why so many judges (7) issued such restraining order so promptly against PCO!

A preview of the above make it clear that no self respecting parliament can retain this emergency law in its current format on the statute book what to talk of approving it . It also shows that this instrument is of the constitution itself and is meant for other types of dire political situations , as provincial unrest and seperatist movements as was present in 1973 due to soviet indian influences . It was not for taming judges atleast that is clear in in its text . With emergency theoretically slavery , forced conversion of faith is allowable to state too it is so draconian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.29.217 (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaukat Aziz son of former minister?

According to this article, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is a son of Mr Aziz Ahmed, a former minister and a senior bureaucrat.

I see a problem with this statement. It appears that his father was not a minister in Pakistan. But, the other part of the statement that his father was a senior bureaucrat - some say a former diplomat - seems to be correct and valid as this is widely reported in media.

Could somebody verify this and make the correction?

Incorrect: Shaukat Aziz's father was Aziz Ahmed a government servant but not to be confused with Aziz Ahmed, who was the former Foreign Minister of Pakistan and diplomat (Ambassador to United States) and mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia.

[edit] "It strange to see..."

CRITICISM



Shaukat Aziz consipered against young dynamic minister of state investment mr. Umar ahmad Ghuman,mr. Umar was very close to president that shoukat aziz being bias person never appreciated or lauded because Umar was genious and deadly honest(graduated from universtry of pen -pensilivania)& Umar was bringing foreign investment in terms of setting up Mercedez benz (truck) plant through Coastal group(U.A.E). in order to foil this project shaukat tavelled to germany along with top man of Shahnawaz Limited, (Sole agent of mercedez benz in pakistan) and ordered 1500 trucks to mercedez benz that we dont need this plant in pakistan he did every thing not to happen this project in pakistan at the behest of shahnawaz limited and other car makers in pakistan and finally he conspired against umar ghuman to ousting him from his office.

[edit] Citibank

A simple examination of the 10-k filed by Citibank during the time frame that Mr. Aziz was Executive Vice President shows that he was not an officer of the bank rather his name is not even listed anywhere in the annual report. He was just like hundreds of other bank managers a Vice President as every branch has to have a Vice President. So Mr. Aziz was not anything that he says he was. Everyone can go to SEC.gov and look up the annual reports of citibank to verify his position. He was a money laundering machine in a local branch in Asia

75.15.197.12 03:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(this is not verified by the Annual report of Citibank. In fact Aziz name is no where to be found in the annual reports for this time frame. Thus Mr. Aziz was nothing but a local office manager and later money laundering kingpin laundering money for corrupt officials form third world countries. Why is it that Pakistanis seem to want to impress each other by being VP at Citibank when every branch manager is a VP.

trueblood 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Trueblood is speaking truly.

Ethbaal 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)ethbaal

All you have to do is look up the 10k for Citibank at www.sec.gov the filings for 1990's are in paper form and can be retried from the SEC. This information is easy to confirm

trueblood 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shaukat Aziz was appointed Citibank Executive VP in 1992. Try to do better research next time. And provide a direct link to the 1992 filling of the 10K. Also, independent research, especially of such low caliber is not allowed on Wikipedia.

Having checked sources, it seems quite clear that Shaukat Aziz joined city bank in 1969 [1], I have deleted the conflicting paragraph, unsure what details of Citibank's alleged (not sourced) money laundering has to do with Mr Aziz, unless he was in some way implicated in financial impropriety with the company? In any case Citybank financial misdeeds (if they are proven to exist) surely belong in the Citybank article.

Regards
Pahari Sahib @23:39, 31 August 2007 (GMT)

Shaukat Aziz joined Citibank in 1969; but when did he resign? According to some reports he did not resign from Citibank until Dec 2004, several months after taking his oath of office as prime minister. Can anyone provide an exact date and reference? Thanks.

[edit] The babbling fool

This section, whose source seems suspect at best, does not even accurately summarize the report. The intention of the article was to convey a sense of chauvinism, in that women were not his equals. It does not seem to imply that he has some sexual prowess, far less that he attempted to use it to bed Sec. Rice. I move for a removal of this section, or a thorough revision at the very least. 129.170.12.127 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote is exactly from the newspaper article that is sourced. So if you have the exact quote from the book, rather than an interpretation than you are welcome to put the same

trueblood 05:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"He tries hard to be a ladies man.(He bragged – to Western diplomats, no less – that he could conquer any woman in two minutes and tried his magic on United States Secretary of State Rice on her visit to Pakistan)" Is not an exact quote from the newspaper - I think the fact that there's no space between the period and parenthesizes should be evidence enough of that. The fact is, whoever put that portion in clearly "interpreted" the article, and a cursory review of the article shows that it was misinterpreted. Again, if someone feels this section should stand, fix it, otherwise it should be removed entirely. 129.170.12.127 07:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you get the quote and fix it if you think it not correct.

208.5.87.107 04:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link and found that the free press of pakistan has been ordered to take out the link from the dawn page. I hope as a person editing wikipedia the person wanting to remove this comment about Aziz would be cognizant of this fact and buy the book and than use the exact quote. In the meantime it would be nice not to remove the quote but at least investigate and put the one you think is correct.

208.5.87.107 05:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Why is it that the supporters of a dictator cannot take take the truth that is well documented. This guy Aziz is nothing but a clerk who made a fool of the Pakistanis

Reply to above: Claims made in books is not what one calls documentation. Shaukat Aziz is a self-made man and the Prime Minister of Pakistan.


He is not a self made man he is a crook. I guess people in Pakistan dont much care about books anyway, they rather burn them. Incidently claims in books can be refuted if you have any sources to refute the allegations than use them

reply to above: if the claim in a book comes out of nowhere then there is no need to "refute" it. Your claims of Shaukat Aziz being a crook also came out of nowhere.


I will not stand for this propoganda by people who fiercly hate the present Government and are willing to go as far as lie to make them look bad. I will continue to remove this part of the article and if you continue to add it I will seek a moderator to set you straight. We can not allow the quality of Wikipedia to be compromised because of your sensationalistic amendments to this article.UnitedPakistan 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have applied the neutrality template to this article because this section continues to be re-added to the article despite a lack of justification for such an action.UnitedPakistan 16:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Babbling Fool Section

I have removed the section titled babbling fool, as this is not encyclopaedic, it is a very POV title, whether or not you think Shaukat Aziz is or is not a fool, please do not use it as the title of a section, please note there is already a criticism section, feel free to add details here as long as they are properly cited and balanced.

Regards
Pahari Sahib @20:53, 31 August 2007 (GMT)

I fully agree with the removal of this section, Pahari Sahib. But for the record, concerning "I checked the link and found that the free press of pakistan has been ordered to take out the link from the dawn page" by 208.5.87.107, the article is back on line: When Aziz was ‘stared down’ by Rice By Qudssia Akhlaque [4]. And as it might not stay there for long, here is the passage considering Shaukat Aziz:
ISLAMABAD, May 20: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has been mentioned in rather uncharitable terms in US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s biography according to which when he tried to charm Dr Rice on her first trip to Pakistan in 2005, she “stared him down”. The book titled: `Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power’ by Newsweek Chief of Correspondents and Senior Editor Marcus Mabry has been recently launched in the United States. Although the biography has been written by an independent journalist, the adjectives used for an incumbent prime minister appear to be unprecedented in their harshness.
Referring to Ms Rice’s first trip to South Asia in March 2005 during which she also visited Pakistan, the author writes: “Yet, when Rice sat down with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who fancied himself a ladies’ man, Aziz puffed himself up and held forth in what he obviously thought was his seductive baritone. (He bragged – to Western diplomats, no less – that he could conquer any woman in two minutes.)
“(He tried) this Savile Row-suited gigolo kind of charm: `Pakistan is a country of rich traditions,’ staring in (Rice’s) eyes,” a participant at the meeting recalled.
“There was this test of wills where he was trying to use all his charms on her as a woman, and she just basically stared him down. By the end of the meeting, he was babbling.”
“The Pakistanis were shifting uncomfortably. And his voice visibly changed.” Some of the foreign men, the American official said, “They don’t get it …She has a really strong will, and I think people sometimes ‘misunderestimate’ her.”
Again, I am not asking for the return of "The Babbling Fool" section. Not even for the quotation of the Dawn article in another form ("Trivia", for instance) in the entry. Mr. Shaukat Aziz has been doing far worse things since November 3, 2007 than clumsily trying to chat up Ms Rice. Just for the record, in case the evidence really gets suppressed by censorship.
regards
--Calmansi 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] References

  1. ^ BBC Profile on Shaukat Aziz

[edit] Allegations MUST be referenced

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 23:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head of state in infobox

There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous Pakistani prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. --G2bambino 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)