On dream of owning a private TV channel

As I See It Column

The Independent, October 20, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

For all of us who studied in Dhaka University to earn a degree in the social sciences or the humanities in the 1960s, the dream job was to join the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) or the Pakistan Foreign Service (PFS) or any of the Central Class One services. My dream too was to take the CSS Examination and enter one of these central government services. The jobs paid enough for a young man to have a decent life and social prestige. In fact if anyone made to the CSP or the PFS cadres, he did not just gain a decent job but became instantly the most eligible bachelor around. 

The government services no longer pay enough. The prestige that went to the central services of Pakistan days became matters of distant past almost immediately after our independence. In the three years I worked in a leading private bank and sat on the bank’s recruiting team, I was at first surprised and then frustrated at the perception of those coming out of the university these days about government service. They pitied those who joined government service. Many who I interviewed were engineers , a lot of them coming out of BUET with first class degrees, who all studied BBA and MBA after their BUET degrees to join the private banks! When we went to the university, no one who was even average academically, would join a bank even if one was offered to him on a silver platter. 

This rush towards a career in the bank among the youth leaving all else is beginning to affect the future of the country. In a study conducted recently, it has been revealed that these days, students are showing little inclination to study the science subjects in the university. In fact, it is now the dream of most of the students going to the university to study for a BBA and an MBA and join a private bank. If not already, we would soon have a country of bankers or university graduates all seeking jobs in the private banks! There is no doubt that the banking sector is an important one but this one track pursuit of a dream of a job in the private bank cannot be the signs of a healthy country.

Nevertheless, making  to the top level of the management in anyone of the 50 or more private banks in the country gives one a life style immensely better than that of a secretary to the government if   the latter is honest. Compared to Taka 40,000 a Secretary is paid, a Managing Director of a private bank is paid 15 to 20 times more. The differences in perks are also significant. But a banking job is monotonous and requires making many other concessions that we who joined services when the services carried prestige did not have to make. For instance, the private banks unless they are politically connected, literally shiver at the authority of the Bangladesh Bank whose officials even at the low levels liberally use their regulatory power to pull these banks by their ears and for personal advantages galore! 

Hence, the pay or the perks of the bankers never made a banking job seem worthwhile to me. However these days, I would like to dream that if I had a second chance, I would go into business to earn enough money to own a private television channel or perhaps an owner-editor of a newspaper. When we had just one TV channel, the official BTV, it was in such high demand of the President and the Prime Minister, that many people detested watching it. During Ershad’s long stint in power in the 1980s, he monopolized the news programmes where a major part of the time for telecasts was reserved to show him on the TV screen. He was the butt of sarcastic jokes for his love to see himself on the small screen. His love for the small screen also reflected a narcissist mindset.

HM Ershad was the President and despite the jokes, there was very good reason for him to appear in the national news and news programmes. In fact, whatever he did as President deserved to be a subject of a news programme on a TV channel and hence if he monopolized the news programmes, he was entitled to do so. These days, with an unusually large number of private channels and with no one inclined to waste his/her time watching BTV, the head of government, unfortunately for her, does not have the sort of exposure on the private TV channels as President Ershad took for granted on the BTV where he was also able to impose his narcissist mindset upon the people who had no choice but to watch him.  

In fact, a major competition for a head of government these days for TV coverage is coming from those who own the TV channels. Just recently, a private TV station distributed computers to its correspondent in the district level. The TV devoted a good part of its national news to this event and its Managing Director gave a self-glorifying speech on this computer distribution! He competed with the Prime Minister who was in New York and out distanced her on the time devoted to his event as compared to hers. No wonder the Prime Minister was unable to keep her contempt for these TV stations and her Information Minister has asked TV journalists to “follow protocol” to cover PM’s news! 

One private TV channel in particular is now into many events of social/entertainment nature as a “media partner” of those who organize these events. The channel on its own also organizes many such events. In these events, its Managing Director and his colleagues are regularly cutting ribbons or delivering speeches related to these events at home and abroad. These ribbon cutting or opening ceremonies then become “national” news and receive liberal coverage in their TV stations. No one in this station ever asks himself one simple question which is if their ribbon cutting or opening ceremonies are such important national events, why it is in the other TV stations; these events are not even mentioned? 

The case of one TV station is strange and mysterious that sets it apart from all other private TV stations. The Managing Director of this channel  openly uses his station to promote himself and in the process has become controversial where he does not even realize his own station in life and thinks it fit to question the Prime Minister! To believe in his TV station, one has to believe that he is a “friend, philosopher and guide!” to the people of Bangladesh. The fact is, if you take away his TV station away from him, and he still does all his “great” work, no would know about any of it because there is no reason to do so.

The TV stations and their owners manifest what is the problem with us Bangladeshis. We have no sense of proportion. When we head any organization and that organization becomes powerful, we cannot help using it for personal gratification. Our political leaders when they reach the top do it; the big private sector companies do it and the private TV stations are no exception. The problem is when the private persons use the public media to project themselves the way they do it in Bangladesh and do not know their limits, then they project a shamelessness that does not do credit to our society. Can laws be enacted to keep some insensible owners of private TV channel owners in rein?  I am not so sure but the time has come to ask for it as a suffering public. But one thing is sure that  though I sometimes dream of owning a private TV channel; when I wake up I let that dream  vanish into thin air for I would not ever like to project myself shamelessly. No sensible person should.

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

 

Free speech and its consequences: Time for US to reflect

Holiday, Friday, 19 October 2012

M. Serajul Islam 

President Obama has drawn the line. He has said that the 1^st amendment of the US Constitution that enshrines the right of free speech is non- negotiable. He chose the UN as the platform to reiterate the commitment of the American nation for free speech including even the right to “blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.” It was a message to the world leaders gathered at the opening of the 67^th session of the UN General Assembly that although the United States regrets the anti-Islam video that has enraged Muslims round the world that led to the death of the US Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi; the US Government cannot do anything because the right to make the video is protected by the 1^st amendment! 

In an election year, the stand the President has taken is an expected one. The faith in the United States in the 1^st amendment is bipartisan. It is in fact the American way of life. Nevertheless, the abiding faith of Americans in the 1^st amendment  would have been understandable if the if the United States was still living in the period when the amendment was incorporated into the US constitution over 2 hundred years ago and in the subsequent period when it took roots in the US society. Those were the times when the United States was insular; not the leader of the world as it is now where it is trying to spread its influence not just in international politics but also in areas of culture and more importantly in ways of lives of peoples everywhere. Such attempts by the US cannot be useful or meaningful unless it is willing to understand and appreciate the cultures of those upon whom it attempts to spread its values. That is only rational and logical. 

It this era of globalization whatever takes place in the United States or other parts of the world travel instantly to the rest of the world. The internet, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter and their positive and negative powers must be brought into the equation. Hence the justification that what happens in the US outside the government fall in the court of its people and hence inalienable and protected by the 1^st amendment cannot be tenable when such actions affect adversely peoples outside the US if it wants to co-exist with peoples, and nations peacefully in mutual respect. It is time for the United States to consider restraining its right of free speech when it provokes the emotions, beliefs and religious sentiments of peoples elsewhere. In fact, the necessity for such restraint arises more importantly from the fact that groups and individuals in the United States are taking advantage of the 1^st amendment to intentionally attack and humiliate in words and actions the Muslims to provoke them and then blame them for their reactions. 

There is another very strong reason to seek restraint in the US stand on free speech that the President has articulated. In a world integrated as it is today for better or for worse, those on whom the US seeks understanding in the name of upholding free speech have not had the same historical experiences as it has. Nor are many parts of the world as advanced in education and socio-economic development that are necessary pre-conditions for the tolerance that is necessary to deal with the type of onslaught that the actions of 1st amendment can cause. Even education; socio-economic and political development often does not prepare a nation to deal with emotions from allowing unrestricted freedom of speech to individuals. In fact, the US itself is not the type of society that has the tolerance needed for allowing others the same freedom of speech when it is at the receiving end. 

Incensed by 9/11, certain sections of the people in the United States targeted the American Muslims and showed them intolerance extending to hate campaigns and paranoia no worse than what the President condemned in his speech at the UN while speaking on the attacks on Americans worldwide following the anti-Islamic video. The lack of tolerance for American Muslims has been shown at all levels in the United States, in the government and the same public who are such strong adherents of the 1^st amendment. In such intolerance for Muslims, they killed Sikhs mistaking them to be Muslims. These men had no knowledge that all Sikh men are bearded while most Muslim men are not! Ignorance about Muslims shown in the height of anti-Muslim wave by many Americans was unbelievable and was not confined to the issue of beard alone. Those days, the US simply threw the 1^st amendment to the winds when it came to Muslims in general and American Muslims in particular. 

Muslims of different nationalities and cultures share many common names. Abu happens to be one such common first name. In the height of anti-Muslim sentiments in the USA, many Muslims with this first name went through nightmares in airports and public places simply because some of those accused of 9/11 also had this first name! Muslims were under surveillance everywhere in the US, in their houses and even inside mosques. In fact, many innocent Muslims were routinely interrogated and harassed for what they said or suspected to have said even in private. It is only in recent times that American Muslims  are coming out of their nightmares for something that some individuals have been alleged to have committed; individuals with whom they had no connections even by the most absurd stretch of imagination. Thus in defending free speech, the US has clearly shown a double standard; defending it even when it offends billions of Muslims, the overwhelming majority of whom are as peace loving and perhaps more than the Americans and trashing freedom of speech when its own emotions are offended.   

A strong argument for the need to restrain free speech under the 1^st amendment has been made when a society called American Freedom Defense Initiative put up an ad in the New York sub-way recently that read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” The Society was allowed to put up the ad after a Judge permitted allowed it under the First Amendment after the NY Subway authorities had refused it. The Society is seeking a similar ruling from a Judge in the greater Washington area after the Washington Metro refused to allow the advertisement. The ads are provocative; hurts the sentiments of millions of American Muslims and are gross misrepresentation of Islam as practiced by over a billion of Muslims around the world.      

A recent New York Times article on this subject regretted that although the ads are legal under the First Amendment, “they are wrong and repugnant.” The writer Rick Jacobs also wrote in the same article about the sadness of a Muslim woman as she looked up a billboard in a train station in Scarsdale, NY that read: “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11” and  beneath it :“It is not Islamophobia; it’s Islamorealism” to pre-empt those who might dispute the claim. Attempts such as these are hate campaigns; deeply provocative and hurtful that is anathema to peace, the President’s defense of these under the 1^st amendment notwithstanding. Allowing these in the name of freedom of speech is not even rational. In fact, it is time for the United States to realize that individuals and groups are using freedom of speech as enshrined in the 1^st amendment that was created and defended over decades and centuries by individuals whose objective was to create the perfect world, for their ulterior motives. Unless, leaders of the United States are willing to take up the challenge of these individuals and groups with crooked interests, it will be the likes of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and hundreds and thousands of other innocent people who will continue to be victims of collateral damage for establishing the perfect world and get away with murder!

 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

 

 

 

 

The driver returns from the cold and rekindles “Railwaygate”

"As I See It" column

The Independent, October 13, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

It was a great relief to see Ali Azam Khan, the driver of the former Assistant Private Secretary to the former Minister of Communications Suranjit Sen Gupta, alive and talking. His emergence from the cold however is not good news for the Minister or the government. For whatever it is worth, the driver has spilled some serious beans. He said quite a few things that would need serious investigation to clear the good name of the Minister and credibility of the government. 

Azam Khan was very clear where the car with the bagful of money was going that night; Taka 74 lakhs in total, all counted by the Border Guard. It was going to the Minister’s house. The driver also said that it was not the first time that such a bagful of money was off loaded at the Minister’s residence. He also said that there was a nexus working between the Minister and Yusuf Ali Mridha, the General Manager over collection of money from selling jobs in the railways. These are very serious accusations that just cannot be pushed under the table. The Minister projects himself as a strict moralist always critical and sarcastic about corruption in the BNP leadership. He therefore cannot afford even a rumour about his good name let alone the type of accusations made by Azam Khan. The accusations are so serious that  simply saying that there is a “national and an international conspiracy” against him will not give him back the moral authority for his favourite role that “Railwaygate” and now Azam Khan have dented; he will need to prove that accusations of Azam Khan are wrong and do so convincingly.  

The AL led government has some serious cases of corruption confronting it to which Azam Khan’s whistle blowing has added another. The AL had made corruption against the last BNP government as the main issue to reach the voters and succeeded by promising zero tolerance on corruption, if elected. The corruption issue is back again but it is the AL at the receiving end and the corruption charges against it are massive. The allegations of corruption in the share marked ripped off poor people of thousands of crores of Taka. A government sponsored investigation traced individuals close to the government who ripped these poor people of their investments. The Hall Mark scam has siphoned off close to Taka 4000 crores from the nationalized Sonali Bank which could have paid for 2 bridges over the Padma.  

The Destiny Group where a former Army Chief is a Director has also been involved in scams worth thousands of crores of Taka. That former Army Chief, before the allegation, used to be in the media regularly flagging the corruption in the last BNP government and the need of bringing those he thought perpetuated that corruption, to face the law. The Padma Bridge and allegations of corruption have involved the good name of the government not just in the country but also abroad. In fact, the World Bank has agreed to refinance the Padma Bridge only after the Government removed a Minister, send an Adviser and a Secretary on leave and cancelled the contractual appointment of another senior bureaucrat, on allegations of corruption. 

In fact, it is the first time that the World Bank has dared to demand a sovereign country to make such changes for a loan. This has humiliated Bangladesh. To make matters worse, the government has agreed to allow WB representatives to be a part of the ACC team to investigate the Bank’s allegations of corruption to revive the loan agreement. The government has also agreed that an international panel of experts will examine the ACC/WB report and the WB and its co-financiers will release fund for the construction of the PB only after they are satisfied by the report of the expert panel. The revised agreement with the WB has not just  cast a dark shadow on the image of Bangladesh; it has taken with it a little of its sovereignty as well. 

The allegations by the WB against the Bangladesh government on the PB and by Azam Khan against Suranjit Sen Gupta are accusations that have not been proven yet.  No one can accept these accusations and pass a final judgment either on this government or on the Minister. The government has challenged the WB on the charges and the Minister has forcefully dismissed all that Azam Khan has said.  Nevertheless, the accusations of corruption in the share market and the humungous scams involving the Hall Mark and Destiny Group are more than allegations. The money involved has been siphoned off for real and the amount is in thousands of crores of Takas making allegations that the AL had brought against the last BNP government appear insignificant. The whistle blowing by Ali Azam is also serious and cannot be dismissed without proper investigation. 

Corruption in Bangladesh is a serious problem and has always been that way. It has never been party specific; nor has it been related to which type of government the country has or had.  There has been corruption in Bangladesh under elected governments as much as under military governments. All political parties that have formed the government have tolerated corruption. The reasons are as much as in the character of those who run the government as in existing conditions in the country that encourage and sustain corruption. Public servants, both elected and career are paid meagerly. In fact, Bangladesh is one of the rare countries where there is no rational relationship between the pay public servants receive and the price line in the market. Hence they easily fall prey to the lures of money and become corrupt before they realize it. This is why Bangladesh figures poorly in the Corruption Perceptions Index. 

Nevertheless, the present AL government has stated it is different from the past BNP government because of its zero tolerance for corruption. Its pursuit of the BNP on corruption bordering on paranoia and its emphasis on zero tolerance are now turning into a political liability as Hall Mark and Destiny Scams, share market scam, PB loan debacle and now the re-emergence of Railwaygate combine to show the present government to be more corruption friendly than the past BNP regime, in fact compared to all past governments. Meanwhile the WB has formed the 3 member international panel for investigating alleged corruption in the PB loan headed by former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Luis Moreno Ocampo. Thus though the government is in a state of denial over the massive corruption cases that are taunting it, it does not seem like the WB and its partners are going to let it push aside their concerns over corruption that easily.   

It is therefore time for the AL led government to stop talking on corruption of the past governments and start acting on the huge corruption cases facing it. It could do itself some good taking up the whistle blowing efforts of Azam Khan to carry out some serious investigations. In doing so, it should keep in mind that while Obaidul Qader was in charge of the Railways Ministry, he too had spoken of the type of corruption in the Ministry that Azam Khan made after returning from the cold.

 

The writer is a  former career Ambassador.

           

 

 

The Presidential debates: First round to Mitt Romney

Published in The Daily Sun

Sunday, 7th October, 2012

The first presidential debate at the University of Denver has clearly gone by approval of the pollsters and analysts to Mitt Romney by a wide margin. The spin doctors in the Mitt Romney team were in broad smiles because their candidate not just held against the President; they thought Mitt Romney was more relaxed and did most of the attacking that put the President on the defensive and lose out in making the case against the candidate as a protector of the top 2% Americans against the poor and the middle class.   

In a way, what Mitt Romney succeeded in doing in the first of the three Presidential debates on schedule was to turn the table on the President on what was becoming the major liability of his campaign; that he is against the middle class; a “Richie Rich.”. He in fact succeeded in turning his liability to his advantage; a liability that has pegged his campaign that worsened when his views about the middle class became known to the public following the release of a video taken in secret. In that video, Mitt Romney was caught making disparaging remarks about 47% middle class Americans who depend on the Government.  

The Obama supporters were surprised at the failure of the President to bring the 47% issue into his debate right at the beginning. They were aghast when the President remained silent on it even when Mitt Romney projected himself repeatedly on health care, taxation, job creation, as the champion of the middle class. Some analysts suggested that the President must have been under instruction from his team to be presidential. They felt that as a result, he decided before starting the first debate that he would not bring the 47% issue. Nevertheless, analysts sympathetic to the President failed to understand why the President chose to remain presidential when right before everyone’s eyes, the candidate scored points on the middle class where his campaign was on the defensive till right before the debate. President Obama allowed his opponent to hijack his campaign’s trump card with the nation watching.   

Mitt Romney’s strategy was simple and clear. He attacked the President for running an administration that has been high spending that has inflated the federal deficit, an issue that is of serious concern to the voters. He also attacked the President for failure to create jobs that has placed all Americans, particularly the middle class and the poor in dire economic plight. He defended tax cuts across the board and no new taxes for the rich but stated that the tax cuts and no new taxes for the rich will bring more revenue to the government and will have no adverse impact on the deficit. He explained this by stating that the rich 2% Americans will use the tax breaks to invest more that will create more jobs and with more people getting jobs, the government will earn more revenue from income tax. 

The President failed to expose the weaknesses and the vagueness in the Romney plan. The figures Mitt Romney gave simply did not add up and in some instances like his proposal for tax cuts, he changed figures in the debate from previously stated ones. The President incredibly failed to flag the arithmetic that Bill Clinton had used so effectively to successfully criticize the challenger at the NDC.  He allowed Mitt Romney to describe his administration as one engaged in wasteful government programmes. When Mitt Romney accused the President of spending US$ 90 billion in wasteful projects in developing green energy where the beneficiaries were party supporters where some projects have failed, the President did not defend the attack. It was in healthcare that the President’s performance disappointed his supporters the most. In a turnaround from what he had said before, that he would repeal Obamacare on his very first day in office, Mitt Romney embraced the policy; mentioned that he had succeeded with such a policy while Governor of Massachusetts and promised that he will  improve upon it if he became President. Mitt Romney said that he will also ensure that in his health policy, the elderly who are under Medicare will face no problem; instead they will be entitled better benefits.  

Mitt Romney argued in his debate for an America where the people will see the power of the federal government significantly diminished and that of the private sector significantly enhanced. He said that the private sector creates the overwhelming majority of the jobs in America and provides the major portion of the federal government’s revenue. He therefore argued that the federal government should facilitate the private sector instead of taxing and regulating it more. While arguing against a powerful federal government, Mitt Romney’s proposed strengthening the state governments instead, allowing them more powers and finance in critical areas such as  health care for instance. He did not explain how people will be benefitted when it is the state government holding the powers instead of the federal government. The President did not ask any question to the candidate about it. The President also did not question when the candidate stated that people will be better off negotiating with insurance companies about  their healthcare issues as against the board in Obamacare  although everybody in USA agrees that the insurance companies are the major reason of the prohibitive prices of healthcare as well and the major cause of people’s  sufferings.   

Mitt Romney reiterated the conservative agenda; against big government and more private enterprise although he did not give any clear picture about how less government and more private enterprise will tackle USA’s current economic predicament, the worst in many decades. He also blamed the policies of the Obama administration for miseries of the people without explaining how or what he will do different. President Obama failed to expose the vagueness of Mitt Romney’s case for America. He defended his policies instead but went into facts and figures to maintain that his administration is on right track on governance and on the economy making him look “listless”; “professorial” and under prepared for the debate. In contrast, Mitt Romney was animated, left no one in doubt he was well prepared and appeared like he enjoyed the debate. 

The polls showed that  Mitt Romney won the debate 67% to 25%; a major achievement for him having entered it as the underdog. Nevertheless, in USA’s complex voting dynamics and voters’ mindset; the debate has affected mostly those who have already made up their minds. Despite his impressive performance, Mitt Romney did not say anything new to change the minds of the undecided or the trend that has been building in favour of the President since the Democratic National Convention and particularly his 47% faux pas. The President could have helped his candidature by a solid performance to put more sail into his candidature. In that he failed. With 2 more debates to come, the President must show his worth lest the undecided voters begin to take serious notice of Mitt Romney. 

The writer is a retired Secretary and a former Ambassador.

Good-bye to caretaker system: The possible consequences

"As I See It" Column

The Independent

6th October, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The Prime Minister's statement during her recent trip to New York that the door for the Caretaker Government is closed is not good news for those who are praying that for the sake of the country, she would relent. Before this statement, she had said in the parliament that after the completion of the term of the current parliament, she will ask the President to announce the date of the elections and name a head of the interim administration. 

That statement had raised hope that she might meet the opposition on neutral ground for its participation in the next general elections. That hope has been dashed by the Prime Minister’s statement in New York enhancing fears in the public mind for a number of reasons. The political situation is now more conflict ridden than what it was in the final days of the first BNP government when the AL had brought the country to a standstill with the lagatar hartals and civil disturbances to make the CG system a part of the constitution. Further, the present AL led government has made a mess of governance leading to a great deal of dissatisfaction among the people. The Awami League is now not the main dominant political force in the country. Therefore if it attempts to impose its will upon the country on the issue of the next general elections, it will only succeed in pushing the country into civil disturbances that will be dangerous and destructive. 

The Prime Minister has stressed on the need for holding the next elections under elected government for sake of democracy. She has said that an unelected government cannot bring democracy; that it paves the way for extra constitutional forces into politics instead. These arguments do not stand to scrutiny. Once the parliament is dissolved as the Prime Minister has now said it will, there will in fact be no elected politicians in the country. Therefore, whatever the shape of the interim government, it will be comprised of and led by unelected people. Even if Sheikh Hasina herself heads the interim government, she too will be an unelected person once the parliament is dissolved. 

Her argument that holding elections her way will help democracy is also fallacious. It will, for instance, not bring the opposition to the polls. The opposition’s strength among the people is by no means any less than that of the ruling party. With the failure of the government in delivering on the key electoral promises, independent analysts feel that the position and popularity of the ruling party has weakened substantially. Even when the ruling party won its massive victory in the last elections, it had polled less than the majority of the votes. Therefore an election boycotted by the opposition will simply not bring democracy no matter what the ruling party thinks of their reasons of the boycott. 

The Awami League should also look a little more carefully at the last caretaker government and beyond to see how  justified it is to raise the fear of the extra-constitutional powers as a threat to democracy particularly at what the Prime Minister had said about the extra-constitutional forces that were the real power during the last caretaker government. She had said once in power she will legitimize all the actions of the military. In fact, she had also said that 1/11 that ushered the military into politics, was the fruit of their democratic struggle! Further, the Awami League has already brought amendments into the constitution to put the fear necessary for the military to refrain from any thoughts of taking over political power. 

To make matters worse for the ruling party, the Supreme Court's judgment on the annulment of the 13^th amendment upon which the Prime Minister is bidding good bye to the caretaker government did not have a smooth entry into politics. That judgment took a long time in the making. Justice Khairul Huq, who chaired the 7 judges' bench for hearing the 13^th amendment case, signed the final judgment 16 months after he retired as the Chief Justice just a  day after writing the short judgment that annulled the 13^th  amendment that set the issue against the CG rolling. The ruling party used the short judgment and its 3/4th majority in parliament to end the caretaker system. A simple but very legal question has been raised whether a retired Chief Justice who has the legal authority to write the full judgment. Further, there are other issues that are also troubling the minds of the public. 

One troubling issue is whether a divided judgment with 4 judges in favour and three against on a fundamental constitutional issue should be implemented where the two mainstream parties are sharply divided. The dissenting judges did not see anything unconstitutional or undemocratic in the unelected Caretaker system. They said that existing constitutional provision  even without the 13^th amendment allows the outgoing cabinet to remain in power for 90 days as the unelected body to run the country  till a new elected government is formed after dissolution of the outgoing parliament and election of the new parliament. They also referred to the constitutional provision for 10% unelected Ministers in the Cabinet to argue against the majority decision that, first, unelected members cannot be a part of a democratic process; and, second, there is anything wrong constitutionally in the 13t amendment. Also, when the detailed judgment came out, discrepancies between the detailed one and the short one 16 months ago also came to light, rendering further controversy into the judgment.

The Supreme Court’s judgment, instead of resolving the darkening clouds over the political canvas of the country, has enhanced it. Many had hoped that while writing the final judgment, the Court will consider the darkening clouds and write in the judgment that the next two elections must be held under that caretaker system that in the short judgment it had recommended to the parliament. It is a pity that they have not done so, more because the dissenting judges have clearly shown that they could have done it easily by using existing provisions of the constitution and the conflict between the ruling party and the opposition has sharpened.

Therefore, the darkening clouds must be dispersed politically which now throws the country into great uncertainty. Barrister Rafiqul Huq’s offer to head the caretaker government had raised people’s hopes but the Prime Minister was quick to pour cold water on it. Thus, the future is not just uncertain but one with dangerous forebodings. If the Prime Minister wants democracy to win and the country to survive, she will have no other alternative but to read the writing clearly on the wall; that the only to save the country is, first, to hold the next general elections in a manner where it will be free, fair and neutral and, second, where the opposition will be encouraged to participate. She will have to decide how to do it. Meanwhile, the nation can only bend on its knees and pray to the Almighty to show her the light and give her the wisdom to find answers to the onerous responsibilities that destiny has placed on her shoulder.

 

The writer is a retired Secretary and former  Ambassador 

 

 

.

On BAIRA’s threats to the Government

Daily Sun
September 30, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

What is happening in this country? Thousands of crores of Taka are swindled from the banks and nothing happens. When there is widespread demand to bring the Hall Mark people to face the law; the Government at first called the public outcry as “nonsense” and then gave the alleged swindlers 15 days to repay. The alleged swindlers have now asked 20 years to do so and the Government is silent! When people close to the party in power and some indirectly in control of the Security Exchange Commission swindled the public of thousands of crores, most of it money of poor and ordinary people, the government’s response was to protect the swindlers leaving those who were swindled to rue for themselves. 

The Ministry of Expatriate Affairs did something exceptional recently against this trend. For a government facing censure from the public for being soft on those who are allegedly cheating and swindling the poor and the unfortunate, it did something pro-poor and pro-the unfortunate.  It signed an agreement with the Malaysian Government under which it will send Bangladeshis to work in Malaysia on a government to government basis, sidelining what the Minister called “dalals”, a stinking Bangla equivalent of “agent” or “middle-man”. What was music to the ears of the millions of our unfortunate fellow citizens who hope to go abroad to work, the Minister said that each Bangladeshi to be sent to Malaysia under this programme would pay Taka 35-40,000 each and would be able to serve in that country for 5 years, enough to pay back the money they would have to loan to go abroad and bring money back in the bargain. 

The Bangladesh Association for International Recruiting Agents (BAIRA) held a meeting against this decision of the Ministry of Expatriate Affairs that would keep them out of the new arrangement. They threatened the Ministry that if they are not allowed to take part in the new arrangement, they would stop sending manpower to the other countries.  BAIRA also stated that the Taka 35- 40,000 that the Government has agreed as the amount to be paid by the workers is high. BAIRA said that if their members are allowed to enter the export of manpower to Malaysia, the costs would be between Taka 10 and 15 thousand.  

BAIRA’s figures on costs are difficult to believe.  Investigative reports on export of manpower have documented that on an average our workers paid nearly Taka 2 lacs to manpower agents to go to Malaysia in the past while the government charged Taka 84,000.  These reports have also revealed that compared to workers from other South Asian countries, Bangladeshi workers pay substantially more for working in the Middle East. That is not the end of their miseries. Bangladeshi workers often find on their arrival in their destinations that they are paid much less than what the manpower agents promised them. Many of these workers go abroad selling their meager possessions or loaning money at exorbitant rates of interests from money lenders. When they find that they are not paid their promised salaries, many run away from their jobs to find better paying jobs to pay back their loans. 

 In Saudi Arabia, there are over two lac Bangladeshi workers who are running from the law as illegal immigrants. The Prime Minister took up this problem with the King of Saudi Arabia in April 2009. On return home, the Foreign Minister stated in the media, that upon the Prime Minister’s intervention, the issue would be resolved. It has not been. In fact, in the meantime, the conditions of Bangladeshi workers in Saudi Arabia have worsened. Even where Bangladeshi workers receive their agreed salaries, they are often subjected to discriminations. Workers from Bangladesh are paid substantially less than workers from other countries working in the same type of jobs in the Middle East.

There is no dearth to loud claims from the government and the manpower agents of their great contribution to our economy through foreign remittance of our workers abroad that they help send.  There is sadly no concern from anyone, the government, the manpower agents, about the unfortunate realities in the lives of our workers abroad. In fact, quite a good number of these workers regularly die in their places of work as a result of the tensions they are subjected to once they find that the manpower agents who sent the abroad have cheated them. 

We send the third largest number of workers after Saudi Arabia and UAE, to Malaysia. The Malaysian experience for our workers has been very sad and unfortunate.  No one who went to Malaysia was able to go there paying the amount that BAIRA has sated it its press conference. They paid much higher charges. Many of them were also cheated.  Manpower exporters in collusion with their collaborators in Malaysia used “call visas” to send thousands of Bangladeshis to Malaysia who became illegal immediately upon arriving in the country. Call visas are not work visas that are issued to employers in Malaysia to let them import manpower from overseas but only after completing many formalities that takes a long time before they can actually bring manpower to the country.

Thus when Bangladeshis arrived in Malaysia on “call visas”, they had no jobs and many just had to turn illegal in order to earn the money they loaned to pay the manpower agents. Many of these unfortunate Bangladeshis eventually lost their lives or fell into the hands of the authorities and faced untold miseries. As the number of illegal Bangladeshis mounted, the Malaysians imposed many obstacles and at various times even threatened to stop recruiting manpower from Bangladesh.

Malaysia is heavily dependent on foreign workers. Bangladeshis have a good reputation as foreign workers. It is because of this good reputation that Malaysia has now decided to open its manpower market to Bangladesh and made the offer on a government to government basis so that the nexus of evil on both sides, between our manpower agents and their partners in Malaysia are not allowed to interfere in the business against the interests of the workers.  

The Malaysian initiative is one for which the Ministry of Expat Affairs deserve to be congratulated. It should dismiss the BAIRA threat because it is BAIRA that would need to make the Ministry happy to continue business in which they have been minting money at the misery of the workers.  The Ministry should realize its limitations because it would be impossible for it to send the huge number of workers to Malaysia on its own. It would have to allow the manpower agents to implement a major part of the agreement but in its terms. It should set the model structure for pay and conditions of workers by sending the number of workers it can handle so that the manpower agents are compelled to work within it and uphold the interests of the workers instead of making them the victims of their hugely lucrative business.  

In fact, the Ministry should negotiate with other manpower importing countries to enter into more government to government agreements to set the same model for manpower business as the Malaysian one (assuming one would be set) so that the workers whose blood and sweat gives Bangladesh those US$ 11 billion in foreign remittance so crucial to its economic development are not made the victims of the manpower business as they are at present. The manpower business does not have any legal framework. Thus we see many reports of our workers being cheated regularly but no instance of those who cheat being punished. There is also need to fast track cases in manpower business for protecting the interest of the workers. Finally, it is also important to bring the Bangladesh Embassies into the loop not for damage control but as an integral part of the structure where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Expat Affairs would work as  a team that it does not at present.. 

The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador.

                                 

 

 

 

 

Padma Bridge Loan revival: Need for caution

As I see it column

The Independent, September 29,2012

M. Serajul Islam

 

The nation was relieved and happy when the Finance Minister gave the welcome news that the World Bank was near to making the positive announcement about financing the Padma Bridge based on negotiations in which “they have given to some of our demands and we have given to some of theirs.” When the WB statement was finally released, there was little in it to suggest that they gave to any of our demands while we agreed to all of theirs and more. In fact, the Bank agreed to re-engage only after the government fulfilled the three remaining conditions following the removal of the Minister, the Adviser and the senior bureaucrats. 

Nevertheless, the revival, even though conditional, is great news for Bangladesh. It ended a long period of uncertainty and senseless exchanges by the leaders of this government against the WB. In her anger, the Prime Minister accused the WB of corruption; her Ministers carried out a tirade against it in the media after it cancelled the loan. The government threatened to let Malaysia finance the project at costs that would have been considerably higher where those who came forward to build the bridge did not have any experience in bridge building! The Prime Minister also promised to build the bridge from domestic resources. She appealed to people’s national spirit to show the WB what Bangladesh is capable of doing. One senior leader of the party asked the Chatra League to engage in collecting money for the bridge, some Taka 2300 crores in all. As a consequence, a student was killed in Rajshahi. 

In fact, even a day or two before the WB revived the loan; the Prime Minister was insisting that her government would build the bridge for road transport and exclude the railway line to save costs leaving no one in doubt that she would not accept the WB if offered again. Her Adviser Dr. Mashiur Rahman while appealing to the media for his life and holding out on resigning said a day before the WB revived the loan that from what he has seen of the demands of the WB, he saw no reason for the loan agreement to be activated. His words hinted strongly at the difficult and humiliating nature of the WB’s demands. 

Dr. Mashiur Rahman was both right and wrong. He was right in assuming that the loan would not be revived because from the exchanges he read between the Government and the WB, he saw no reason for the Bangladesh government  to succumb to the demands of the WB. He was of course wrong to assume that the Prime Minister and the Government would not accept the conditions. In what can only be called a somersault, the Government removed the Minister; the Adviser and the 2 bureaucrats to meet the first of the 4 tough conditions set by the WB for its re-engagement; a first time that the WB dared to demand a sovereign country to remove a Minister (an Adviser of Ministerial rank and senior bureaucrats) for a loan and succeed with such an outrageous demand. 

The government then  also agreed to meet the WB’s remaining  demands, namely,  “(ii) appointing a special inquiry and prosecution team within the Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Commission to handle the investigation; (iii) agreeing to provide full access to all investigative information to an external panel of internationally recognized experts so that they can give guidance to the Bank and co-financiers on the progress, adequacy, and fairness of the investigation, and; iv) agreeing on new implementation arrangements that gives the Bank and co-financiers greater oversight of project procurement processes; “ to reactivate the loan. Thus the agreement reached in Washington between WB and the Government is dependent on the   satisfactory implementation of the three remaining conditions as stated in the pen-ultimate paragraph of the statement: “The Bank has agreed that, upon satisfactory implementation of the agreed measures by the Government and with the support of the Bank’s governing bodies the Bank will engage anew in the Padma Multipurpose Bridge.” 

The Finance Minister and others congratulating themselves for the loan revival should therefore spare few moments and read the WB statement carefully. The Bank has not only made its re-engagement conditional, it has flagged its seriousness on the allegations of corruption that has already delayed the project by 10 months. That seriousness has been scribed in the final paragraph of the statement: “The World Bank remains vigilant to any signs of corruption in the Padma Bridge project, and our determination to take a strong line against wrongdoing will never waver.”  

The second and third conditions in the Bank’s statement are significant. It has taken away the independence of the ACC and with it a little of the country’s sovereignty. The international panel of experts will now have full access to the progress of the ACC’s investigation and report to the WB that will decide on its “progress, adequacy and fairness.” The Bank did not waste any time to stamp its authority over the ACC on the issue of corruption.  It has already expressed its intention to sit with the ACC team when it questions those accused of corruption that will include former Minister Abul Hossain and Dr. Mashiur Rahman. The fourth condition will give the Bank and its co financiers control over procurement process leading some analysts to conclude that the Padma Bridge will be a turnkey project based upon the Bank’s authority and control over it.  

The decision of the Bank to re-engage will now mean that their allegations of corruption will  be resolved either way.   What if the allegations turn out to be correct? A pro-AL guest said in a recent TV talk show that one of the areas where the WB relented was to accept the demand that the Prime Minister made; that once the new agreement was signed, the WB would not again withdraw funding. It was a poor defense against those who are suggesting that the government accept humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan. If the allegations of corruption  are found incorrect, then the question of the WB withdrawing the loan would be irrelevant, what the Prime Minister demanded and the WB accepted notwithstanding. If however the allegations are correct, then the issue would not be whether the WB would withdraw from the project or not; the issue would be whether the Prime Minister would have the moral right to remain in her position. 

Therefore the government and the ruling party should tread with caution in complementing themselves at this stage for there are hurdles ahead that would need to be crossed before claiming credit. The government must now, first, cooperate with the WB for a fair and transparent inquiry to the corruption allegations to prove it is correct and the Bank wrong, and second, demand a formal apology from the WB after proving its stand. Even though the past cannot be written off and the humiliation that Bangladesh suffered regained; it would be a moral victory for Bangladesh. The government now owes to itself to clear the allegations of corruption because if it cannot prove the WB wrong, its own credibility to the people would be gone given the fact that it has now accepted a number of humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan.

At the time of filing this report, the signals out of Washington are disconcerting. A WB statement from Washington said: "Media reports have quoted senior Bangladeshi government officials misrepresenting the World Bank’s position concerning the Padma Multipurpose bridge project.” The WB reminded the Bangladesh Government that the loan will be activated only after the agreed conditions for revival were implemented, particularly the Bank’s concerns on issues of corruption that remains paramount. Unfortunately, the ruling party leaders and government officials are more concerned with playing to the gallery and are not focused upon the seriousness of the WB’s concerns or the conditional nature of the loan that could jeopardize it again.  

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

 

 

 

China –Japan Conflict over Diayou-Senkaku islands

Defense and Diplomacy Page

Daily Sun, September 26

M. Serajul Islam

 

An anti-Japanese rage of anger funneled by nationalistic fervor is blowing in China over the former’s action to buy 3 islets from private owners in the island chain that the Chinese call Senkaku and the Japanese, Diayou. Japan’s provocative action led China to send a flotilla of naval and fishing vessels to the island chain that brought the two neighbours closer to a military conflict for the first time in its tumultuous bilateral relations since diplomatic ties were established in September 1972 surpassing the tension of 2010 over the same island chain. 

 The island chain, located in the East China Sea, is uninhabited; potentially rich in hydrocarbons and fisheries and is claimed by both the neighbours and by the Republic of China (Taiwan). Historically, China’s claim over the island dates back to the 14^th century. However, after Japan’s surrender in the Second World War and its occupation by the United States, the islands came under US control. In 1972, the United States handed over the islands to Japan as a part of the Okinawa Reversion Agreement.  

China however did not give up its claim over the islands but preferred not to enforce it militarily.  Japan also did not physically possess the islands. Both sides preferred a status quo over the island chain till the 2010 incident when the status quo came close to be broken but was reinstated. China was more concerned at consolidation of the fruits of the communist revolution and thereafter in its economic development. In that development, Japan became a major partner of its erstwhile foe with its FDI after 1979. In fact, China’s economic miracle has been largely the result of FDI coming from Japan, Hong Kong, USA, South Korea and overseas Chinese. 

China embraced Japanese investment wholeheartedly and the benefits of economic cooperation with it following normalization of relations. Nevertheless, once ties were established, China brought into the bilateral relations the past, particularly the Japanese invasion and occupation during the Second World War. The Nanking Massacre of 1937 in which by Chinese claim, 300,000 men, women and children were butchered by the Japanese Imperial Army became a major issue of contention where the Chinese demanded a full and formal  apology for the invasion and the massacre. The Nanking War Crimes Tribunal tried and some of the perpetrators were also executed.    

Unfortunately, the 1970s was also the period when there was a resurgence of nationalism and national pride in Japan. That resurgence was encouraged by the economic miracle in Japan that made it the second strongest economy of the world.  Under the resurgence,   small and vocal minority in government and society in Japan argued that the Nanking massacre  was exaggerated and what happened was necessary for military reasons. In fact, the denial of the massacre became the basis of the resurgent Japanese nationalism that was supported by the new generation that saw no reason for accepting the pacifism that was imposed upon Japan by the United States and accepted by a post-war leadership that felt guilty for Japan’s militarism that they thought brought pains to Japan and those who were victims of Japanese militarism. 

Thus while China demanded formal apology from Japan for its wartime crimes, the demand fell on deaf ears. In his 5 years as Prime Minister from 2001-2006, Junichiro Koizumi epitomized the Chinese predicament. He not only refused to apologize; he instead ignited Chinese contempt and hatred for Japan by making yearly visits to Yasukuni  Shrine in Tokyo where 13 Class A war dead are enshrined whom China considers  war criminals responsible for committing atrocities during Japanese occupation of China. Junichiro Koizumi’s successors refrained from the yearly visits to the controversial shrine, but they have not rendered the official apology that China demands to resolve the historical conflict. 

It is this deeply rooted anti-Japanese sentiments  that Japan’s provocative action to buy the 3 islets has incensed. There are nevertheless a number of new elements in the recent conflict over the island chain. International politics has in the meantime shifted dramatically. Regional realignments are again taking new shape. The initiatives taken by the United States last year, particularly its decision to relocate 60% of its naval fleet in the Indian Ocean has raised fears in China of a new “Return to Asia “policy by the US. Such fear in China has potentials of negative repercussions on the United States that while wanting to contain China from expanding its influence in the region cannot also afford to be seen as taking an openly anti-China policy without endangering its economy that is deeply susceptible to China’s ability to influence it. 

The US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was in Beijing for his first visit after taking charge of the Defense Department last week. The outcome of his visit flagged some of these new realities.  The Chinese, aware that the visit was being watched more intensely in Japan than anywhere else, used the visit to show the US visitor more of the anti-Japanese sentiments. The Chinese Defense Minister used the visit to underscore that China would go to any length to assert its sovereignty over the island chain; even to military conflict if need be.  The US Defense Secretary, who witnessed the anti-Japan riots/demonstrations and rhetoric of the Chinese leadership, did not react. Clearly, times have changed and the United States that is obliged to defend any external aggression/threat on Japan as an attack/threat on its own territory by the USA-Japan Defense Treaty of 1960 did not show its willingness to take stand by its treaty obligations preferring the two sides to resolve their differences mutually. Nevertheless, it is still far from abandoning Japan and has only recently installed a defense missile system there. 

Thus the way the actors are playing out their hands signal that there is no imminent danger of a military conflict over the Diayou/Senkaku islands. China, that has now surpassed Japan as the number 2 economy of the world with distinct possibility of becoming number 1 in the not too distant future, is using the conflict to assert its new status as the dominant regional and a leading world power. It is also using it to find out how far the USA would be willing to back Japan based on the Defense Pact of 1960. On these options, the conflict has helped China to assert its regional dominance through the silence of the United States to react to the threats to Japan. 

The curious issue is why Japan started this conflict by buying the 3 islets. Perhaps, it did so to find out where it stood in the emerging regional equation, fearful that it is losing its power and stature in the region. If it is so, then the outcome of the recent tension is not likely to favour it. It has failed to evoke the type of response from the United States that would have given it strength vis-à-vis China and the region. In the bargain, it has given China a chance to show its emerging strength in regional and world politics.  

China showed that strength by the riots and demonstrations that had tacit official approval in more than 100 Chinese cities where Japanese companies and interests were attacked. The riots/demonstrations together with USA’s lack of interest to be drawn into the conflict would no doubt encourage Japan to revert to the status quo and try and settle the conflict in the negotiating table instead of provoking China further towards a military conflict. 

As Japan’s number one trading partner, China also has the economic leverage to influence Japan to opt to settle its claim in the negotiating table. More importantly, Japanese companies have thousands of billions of investments in China that have already been targeted strategically by China. China also has significant influence in the Japanese bond market. It could use these leverages to convince Japan towards negotiation.  Thus, the latest outbreak of conflict and the developments to date have clearly been to China’s advantage. Despite the fears in some quarters, China has no reason to go for war because the Japanese have already been pushed back on the defensive. 

The writer is a retired Secretary and  Ambassador to Japan