After a conversation with a friend about the difference between Chinese politicians and our own, I've decided to survey our House of Reps politicians to see how they compare.
In China, 80% of politicians come from an engineering/science background. Lawyers and the non-technically trained are mostly overlooked for leadership roles. Attention to details is paramount.
I've gone through the first 55 of our own politicians (alphabetically) and it's not looking good so far. 17 are lawyers (most haven't practiced - they became "advisors").
19 have no tertiary qualifications and the bulk of the rest have done an economics, business or arts degree. Only 3 are engineers - mechanical and design, one never actually worked in his field (union officer).
Another quite startling thing I've noticed is the high percentage of Labor members who rose up through the ranks ... uni student in a soft arts degree, then a first job as a ministerial advisor.
I can't imagine what sort of quality advice those ministers received from someone with no experience outside an soft Arts degree.
I'll work through the rest of the list and do some further analysis.
I may spend some time working through the failed candidates from the 2010 election. I remember looking into this a while back and seeing what appeared to be a strange pattern of employment.
Uni, State Labor advisor, quit, run for parliament, fail, return to State advisor role, repeat.
(quite a few skip the Uni step)
Seems like a tax payer funded training camp for future Labor politicians allowing them as much time as required prior to a campaign. This doesn't seem like a very positive thing for a vibrant democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment