The message that people of Phulbari have delivered through the ballots at the upazila elections is loud and clear. They have voted overwhelming in favour of Saiful Islam Bablu running for chairman of the sub-district at the local government elections of January 22. Bablu’s political identity is largely defined by his membership of the citizens’ platform National Committee for the Protection of Oil, Gas, Mineral, Power and Ports and it is significant that he was instrumental in organising the popular movement against an open-pit coal mine in the area proposed by Asia Energy, a subsidiary of the UK-based Global Coal Management.
The previous elected government of the BNP-led alliance was forced to back out of the area and enter into an agreement with ‘the people of Phulbari’, which stipulated among others that open-pit mining in the area would be suspended and Asia Energy would be sent packing. At the local government elections, the people of Phulbari have once again said no to open-pit coal mining. They have also said no to the secrecy that successive governments have maintained regarding their deals with international mining companies especially concerning extraction of fossil fuels: a facet of energy deals that the Committee has consistently criticised.
This upazila election result at Phulbari also carries a message for the prime minister who has recently appointed Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, a former secretary for power and energy, as a government adviser who will oversee the sector. In doing so, the prime minister has indicated that she is content with the services that Tawfiq provided during his tenure as a secretary to the government for energy. This appointment also indicates that the prime minister has chosen to ignore several allegations against the former bureaucrat especially regarding the instrumental role he had played to have one gas-field declared ‘abandoned’ and thereafter handed over to little-known Canadian mining company, Niko Resources. His role regarding the Magurchhara gas-field blowout, which was being operated by the oil company Occidental in 1996 has also been controversial and cited as one of the reasons that Bangladesh failed to secure proper compensations for environmental damages and burnt gas.
Governments of poor countries, as is often the case, enter into secret deals with mining companies and grant them rights to extraction, largely ignoring the interests of the people they govern. In Bangladesh the history of oil and gas exploration shows no exception to this experience.
However, the citizens’ platform has shown through its relentless campaign through the last decade that it can raise the awareness of the people and mobilise them in thousands demanding that their rights and welfare not be ignored. Power and energy remains one of the prime concerns for the current government and it will have to perform well in this sector which has been ignored for too long. The government, as well as the prime minister herself, would do well to heed the message the people of Phulbari have delivered.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Phulbari elections result is the writing on the wall
AL must now prove seriousness of its rhetoric
The print and electronic media have carried numerous reports in the last couple of days about attempts by certain ministers of the present Awami League-led alliance government and members of parliament of the party to influence the results of the elections to the upazila parishads that were held on Thursday. Ministers and lawmakers of the ruling party allegedly visited polling centres, tried to influence voters, and even harassed and mishandled polls officials in some places. The Election Commission — which had sent an official letter to the cabinet division prior to the polls asking ministers, state ministers, deputy ministers and persons holding equivalent ranks to stay away from electioneering — has stated following the elections that it would investigate the actions of some cabinet members and lawmakers of the Awami League and, if necessary, initiate legal action against them for breach of electoral rules.
Meanwhile, top Awami League leaders, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, are reportedly annoyed with certain ministers and members of parliament of the party for their alleged infraction of electoral laws prior to and during the elections to the upazila parishads. A New Age report published Saturday quotes the agriculture minister, Matia Chowdhury, saying that the allegations against some of her party colleagues, if true, are ‘unfortunate’ and that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the Election Commission investigating and taking action against the wrongdoers. In addition, HT Imam, an adviser to the prime minister, was quoted as saying that the Awami League would also launch an investigation into the allegations brought against its members.
While it may be reassuring to some that the Awami League has not rejected outright the allegations brought against some of its members, as our major political parties typically do in similar situations, it must be said that the silence of the prime minister and Awami League president on the matter till now, and the lack of any concrete action thus far by the party are disconcerting. It should not be forgotten that a similar drama played out with regard to the violence that was unleashed by activists of the ruling party in the days following the general elections. Even then, the Awami League high command had expressed their disappointment and annoyance, but did not take any concrete action against those who were responsible for the violence. As a result, the violence went on unimpeded for several more days.
We think that a party that came to power on the back of its promise to bring ‘change’ to our political and governmental culture ought to have used these instances to prove that it intends to practice what it has preached, by taking swift action with regards to those against whom there are allegations of misconduct. Hence, the Awami League must extend full cooperation to the Election Commission in its investigations of the alleged breaches and be ready to take stern action against anyone found guilty of electoral misconduct. Unwillingness or failure to act firmly will only suggest that the Awami League was not serious in its rhetoric to bring qualitative change to our politics. On the other hand, proper action will send out a powerful message to all party leaders and workers about how they are expected to conduct themselves in public life. We expect the Awami League to act quickly and decisively.
Meanwhile, top Awami League leaders, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, are reportedly annoyed with certain ministers and members of parliament of the party for their alleged infraction of electoral laws prior to and during the elections to the upazila parishads. A New Age report published Saturday quotes the agriculture minister, Matia Chowdhury, saying that the allegations against some of her party colleagues, if true, are ‘unfortunate’ and that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the Election Commission investigating and taking action against the wrongdoers. In addition, HT Imam, an adviser to the prime minister, was quoted as saying that the Awami League would also launch an investigation into the allegations brought against its members.
While it may be reassuring to some that the Awami League has not rejected outright the allegations brought against some of its members, as our major political parties typically do in similar situations, it must be said that the silence of the prime minister and Awami League president on the matter till now, and the lack of any concrete action thus far by the party are disconcerting. It should not be forgotten that a similar drama played out with regard to the violence that was unleashed by activists of the ruling party in the days following the general elections. Even then, the Awami League high command had expressed their disappointment and annoyance, but did not take any concrete action against those who were responsible for the violence. As a result, the violence went on unimpeded for several more days.
We think that a party that came to power on the back of its promise to bring ‘change’ to our political and governmental culture ought to have used these instances to prove that it intends to practice what it has preached, by taking swift action with regards to those against whom there are allegations of misconduct. Hence, the Awami League must extend full cooperation to the Election Commission in its investigations of the alleged breaches and be ready to take stern action against anyone found guilty of electoral misconduct. Unwillingness or failure to act firmly will only suggest that the Awami League was not serious in its rhetoric to bring qualitative change to our politics. On the other hand, proper action will send out a powerful message to all party leaders and workers about how they are expected to conduct themselves in public life. We expect the Awami League to act quickly and decisively.
SOUTH ASIA’S COUNTERTERRORISM Can a war-based western model work here?
COUNTERING terrorism is now firmly enlisted on South Asia’s menu with talks of cross-border platforms. However, one also needs to look at various counterterrorism models elsewhere to see if they have worked. Most dominating is the US approach which doesn’t have a record of containing terrorism effectively as of now. It ignores the political background of conflicts between various state powers that often, if not always, ignite ‘terrorism’. Nor does it explore the desire of states to exploit international situations for making internal political gains. This confusion may have contributed to increased terrorism and counterterrorism, gaining a legitimacy of sort.
While there are many kinds of terrorism generated by nationalist conflicts, it is the Islamic extremism that dominates global thinking, partly because it is now seen as a non-state ideological force in conflict with the US, the world’s leading power.
Yet by unpacking terrorism, it shows that although it is thought of as an international non-state enemy with a religious ideology, ‘terrorism’ also appears everywhere as a pre-state or state aspiring force. ‘Terrorism’ has increasingly become a state in waiting because the ‘terrorists’ want to establish a state of their own, whether it’s Taliban’s Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s khilafat or the Hamas’s Islamic Palestine. Or Tamil Tiger’s Eelam state.
Contemporary ideas on violence are built on the premise that violence can be used to dominate other violent forces. It appears that both the US and al-Qaeda more or less believes in the same method on this regard. Both also claim the moral high ground. This outdated mode of conflict resolution has led to enormous global insecurity and suffering.
The quizzical Israel-US security relationship
The creation of Israel has generated a long phase of violence in the region that continues to pose as the biggest generator of threats, no matter whatever the logic behind its birth is. Anti-Israeli Arab powers have responded with violence showing very little gain. Over the years, Israel has become militarily and economically much superior to its neighbours and an internally democratic state to boot but it has not brought peace to the region and that continues to generate violence including terrorism for the rest of the world.
Many commentators argue that the Jewish lobby in the US is manipulating policy and generating support for Israel. But while there are around six million Jews in the US, they are only 2.5 per cent of the total population so they can’t have any electoral impact. While many of them are in positions of power and influence, especially in the media and finance, the clout claim is not proven by any evidence.
It’s true that anti-Muslim feeling is high in the US and this goes back to long before the 1967 war. It’s partly part of the traditional Christian-Islam rivalry over world domination which has a long history in a deeply religious fundamentalist country like the US. Criticising Israel is a death knell for any politician in North America because that would be interpreted as pro-Muslim which has the highest animosity rating there. The US media has played the biggest role in demonising Muslims because it panders to an overwhelming hostility to Muslim population selling a lopsided image in a country where the majority are religious partisans.
On the other hand, many Jews in the US are not only liberal but recent events show that of them there is a strong pro-human rights element that are increasingly vocal against Israeli policies of occupation. In fact, they have emerged as the most vocal critic of Israel today.
Why the US supports Israel?
The US became a major resource supplier of Israel only after the 1967 war when Israel occupied Arab territories and decimated all Arab armies in the region. Aid has helped Israel to the point that even if no US aid arrives in the next so many years, Israel would be still fine. The US Jews are influential but nowhere near the fundamentalist Zionist Christian lobby that is about 25 per cent of the US vote and control key electoral states that sent many to the White House.
Zionists Christians are actually anti-Jew in general but they support Israel and the status quo there because they believe in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which says Jesus will come to earth again as the Messiah during the time when Jews are in occupation of Jerusalem. That has already happened in 1967. The book further says this will be followed by many catastrophes such as wars and diseases. Next will be the biggest war of them all, called the Battle of Armageddon when Satan will declare war on Jerusalem through the ‘Anti-Christ’ who many Christians think may be a Jew. The Bible states that when all appears hopeless for the Jews, Jesus will come. Jerusalem will arise again and all the remaining Jews not killed in the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity. So unless Jews are in control of Jerusalem, Jesus can’t come and Christianity can’t prevail.
So though they dislike Jews they have a common cause. The Jews don’t believe in the Revelations but are happy to be supported by such a powerful lobby which also hates them. For example, Europe created a new state for Jews but not in Europe but the Middle East, which was far away from the inevitable conflicts the state creation would generate. The Jews in Europe who were always outsiders in Europe were sent out of it permanently. It had more to do with reducing conflict possibilities in European mainland than any other cause.
The US support for Israel after 1967 was linked to the objectives of the Cold War. While Israel was a US ally, Arabs were supported by the Soviet Union. The Middle East became the testing ground for countering and learning about weapons produced by the Soviet Union in battlefields, testing newly developed US weapons and keeping regional Leftist radicalism in check, all part of the Cold War strategy.
Israel not only reduced the power of pro-Soviet Union regimes by defeating them but also weakened the radical elements within the Palestine movement which had strong Marxist tendencies. A lot of resources were spent in splintering the Fatah movement including encouraging the rising Islamic groups. For example Hamas, Fatah’s main rival, was a splinter of Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of socialism. Rumours of Israel’s help in launching Hamas have never gone away. At that stage of history, the US was more concerned with leftist radicalism and thought jihadists and the US had the same long-term objectives.
Finally, oil was another cause. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, oil prices spiked throwing the Western economies into turmoil. The US could no longer depend on endless and cheap supply of oil without some military guarantees and Israel did that along with its main oil ally, Saudi Arabia, a despotic regime that has a major al-Qaeda problem too.
None of the above shows any ‘clash of civilisation’ element but is largely about the effect and impact of the US’s Cold War with the Soviet Union and using voters’ sentiments at home. One can argue the jihadist phenomenon as a by-product of the Cold War.
Soviet Union’s contribution
The final collapse of the Soviet Union was triggered by its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The US responded by creating a new contra force in the region, the Mujahideen. A war which was national in character was marketed as a holy war/jihad across the entire world putting the Soviets under great pressure. It became the ultimate proxy war before the Cold War finished and took Islamic extremism beyond borders.
Osama bin Laden was a major figure from Saudi Arabia in the Afghan war and lionized by Western media but once he saw the alliance between the Saudi royal family and the US — again a nationalist problem — as detrimental to his reading of Arab nationalism, he went on with his violent journey that had begun in Afghanistan.
The narrative of pan-Islamic nationalism has several roots but Arab world’s internal conflicts are an essential element of that. The US initially benefited from Islamic radicalism’s rise by damaging secular Leftist movement and the pro-Soviet regimes in the Middle East proper and also in Afghanistan by bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.
History also shows that sperming violent forces to counter an enemy doesn’t work out always as many turn out to be the new enemy once the old one is gone. The jihadists and Taliban provide the best example of this fact. Like socialism, the roots of jihadist radicalism is located in unresolved national issues which need attention before one can end the problem, an issue which the dominant US brewed model rarely if ever addresses unable to read much beyond Islamic radicalism.
South Asian terrorist woes
Some land-based wars can still perhaps be won but ‘terrorist’ wars can’t be fought well, let alone won, using conventional military logic. Major hotspots such as the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the ethnic insurgents in the Indian North East and of course Kashmir all have land-based national questions at its heart. Land-based wars can be won temporarily such as the one against the LTTE though at an extremely high price such as including the altered nature of the state. And now without any territorial base, this LTTE war may spread all over Sri Lanka. Mobile wars have greater ability to cause damage than frontal battles especially as economies show their increasing disability to fund long wars.
The conflict resolving model used during the Cold War has not only ended Soviet Union but continues to erode the US too. In Gaza, the latest Israeli incursion has seen the worst depletion of its allies globally including from within the Jewish population both in the US and Israel. Many Jews today reject the role of an occupying power. Inside Israel, the traditional security management role through occupation is losing unquestioned popularity. Given the lack of success, can south Asia take this road?
In this age of unwinnable wars, South Asia shouldn’t be involved in the ancient and now redundant logic of traditional security specialists. Anti-terrorism can be products of internal political compulsions and quickly go counter-productive as history has shown. Even the worst terrorist enemy starts gaining a human face when violence is perpetrated against unarmed people as the Gaza incident shows. The war gets lost in the battle field of public sympathy for the sufferer.
In this context, Bangladesh can provide a positive example. It may have a flawed peace but the CHT peace accord (1997) did achieve peace. Peace can satisfy the most selfish national objectives because it is not just an outcome but a security tool too. South Asian leaders need to move away from its West influenced security mentality of violence and counter violence which India, Pakistan and other countries are paying now by following them.
Peace is not a moral choice but a practical option where it’s as potent and powerful as any war. South Asia must think for itself as it approaches large scale cross border anti-terrorism.
While there are many kinds of terrorism generated by nationalist conflicts, it is the Islamic extremism that dominates global thinking, partly because it is now seen as a non-state ideological force in conflict with the US, the world’s leading power.
Yet by unpacking terrorism, it shows that although it is thought of as an international non-state enemy with a religious ideology, ‘terrorism’ also appears everywhere as a pre-state or state aspiring force. ‘Terrorism’ has increasingly become a state in waiting because the ‘terrorists’ want to establish a state of their own, whether it’s Taliban’s Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s khilafat or the Hamas’s Islamic Palestine. Or Tamil Tiger’s Eelam state.
Contemporary ideas on violence are built on the premise that violence can be used to dominate other violent forces. It appears that both the US and al-Qaeda more or less believes in the same method on this regard. Both also claim the moral high ground. This outdated mode of conflict resolution has led to enormous global insecurity and suffering.
The quizzical Israel-US security relationship
The creation of Israel has generated a long phase of violence in the region that continues to pose as the biggest generator of threats, no matter whatever the logic behind its birth is. Anti-Israeli Arab powers have responded with violence showing very little gain. Over the years, Israel has become militarily and economically much superior to its neighbours and an internally democratic state to boot but it has not brought peace to the region and that continues to generate violence including terrorism for the rest of the world.
Many commentators argue that the Jewish lobby in the US is manipulating policy and generating support for Israel. But while there are around six million Jews in the US, they are only 2.5 per cent of the total population so they can’t have any electoral impact. While many of them are in positions of power and influence, especially in the media and finance, the clout claim is not proven by any evidence.
It’s true that anti-Muslim feeling is high in the US and this goes back to long before the 1967 war. It’s partly part of the traditional Christian-Islam rivalry over world domination which has a long history in a deeply religious fundamentalist country like the US. Criticising Israel is a death knell for any politician in North America because that would be interpreted as pro-Muslim which has the highest animosity rating there. The US media has played the biggest role in demonising Muslims because it panders to an overwhelming hostility to Muslim population selling a lopsided image in a country where the majority are religious partisans.
On the other hand, many Jews in the US are not only liberal but recent events show that of them there is a strong pro-human rights element that are increasingly vocal against Israeli policies of occupation. In fact, they have emerged as the most vocal critic of Israel today.
Why the US supports Israel?
The US became a major resource supplier of Israel only after the 1967 war when Israel occupied Arab territories and decimated all Arab armies in the region. Aid has helped Israel to the point that even if no US aid arrives in the next so many years, Israel would be still fine. The US Jews are influential but nowhere near the fundamentalist Zionist Christian lobby that is about 25 per cent of the US vote and control key electoral states that sent many to the White House.
Zionists Christians are actually anti-Jew in general but they support Israel and the status quo there because they believe in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which says Jesus will come to earth again as the Messiah during the time when Jews are in occupation of Jerusalem. That has already happened in 1967. The book further says this will be followed by many catastrophes such as wars and diseases. Next will be the biggest war of them all, called the Battle of Armageddon when Satan will declare war on Jerusalem through the ‘Anti-Christ’ who many Christians think may be a Jew. The Bible states that when all appears hopeless for the Jews, Jesus will come. Jerusalem will arise again and all the remaining Jews not killed in the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity. So unless Jews are in control of Jerusalem, Jesus can’t come and Christianity can’t prevail.
So though they dislike Jews they have a common cause. The Jews don’t believe in the Revelations but are happy to be supported by such a powerful lobby which also hates them. For example, Europe created a new state for Jews but not in Europe but the Middle East, which was far away from the inevitable conflicts the state creation would generate. The Jews in Europe who were always outsiders in Europe were sent out of it permanently. It had more to do with reducing conflict possibilities in European mainland than any other cause.
The US support for Israel after 1967 was linked to the objectives of the Cold War. While Israel was a US ally, Arabs were supported by the Soviet Union. The Middle East became the testing ground for countering and learning about weapons produced by the Soviet Union in battlefields, testing newly developed US weapons and keeping regional Leftist radicalism in check, all part of the Cold War strategy.
Israel not only reduced the power of pro-Soviet Union regimes by defeating them but also weakened the radical elements within the Palestine movement which had strong Marxist tendencies. A lot of resources were spent in splintering the Fatah movement including encouraging the rising Islamic groups. For example Hamas, Fatah’s main rival, was a splinter of Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of socialism. Rumours of Israel’s help in launching Hamas have never gone away. At that stage of history, the US was more concerned with leftist radicalism and thought jihadists and the US had the same long-term objectives.
Finally, oil was another cause. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, oil prices spiked throwing the Western economies into turmoil. The US could no longer depend on endless and cheap supply of oil without some military guarantees and Israel did that along with its main oil ally, Saudi Arabia, a despotic regime that has a major al-Qaeda problem too.
None of the above shows any ‘clash of civilisation’ element but is largely about the effect and impact of the US’s Cold War with the Soviet Union and using voters’ sentiments at home. One can argue the jihadist phenomenon as a by-product of the Cold War.
Soviet Union’s contribution
The final collapse of the Soviet Union was triggered by its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The US responded by creating a new contra force in the region, the Mujahideen. A war which was national in character was marketed as a holy war/jihad across the entire world putting the Soviets under great pressure. It became the ultimate proxy war before the Cold War finished and took Islamic extremism beyond borders.
Osama bin Laden was a major figure from Saudi Arabia in the Afghan war and lionized by Western media but once he saw the alliance between the Saudi royal family and the US — again a nationalist problem — as detrimental to his reading of Arab nationalism, he went on with his violent journey that had begun in Afghanistan.
The narrative of pan-Islamic nationalism has several roots but Arab world’s internal conflicts are an essential element of that. The US initially benefited from Islamic radicalism’s rise by damaging secular Leftist movement and the pro-Soviet regimes in the Middle East proper and also in Afghanistan by bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.
History also shows that sperming violent forces to counter an enemy doesn’t work out always as many turn out to be the new enemy once the old one is gone. The jihadists and Taliban provide the best example of this fact. Like socialism, the roots of jihadist radicalism is located in unresolved national issues which need attention before one can end the problem, an issue which the dominant US brewed model rarely if ever addresses unable to read much beyond Islamic radicalism.
South Asian terrorist woes
Some land-based wars can still perhaps be won but ‘terrorist’ wars can’t be fought well, let alone won, using conventional military logic. Major hotspots such as the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the ethnic insurgents in the Indian North East and of course Kashmir all have land-based national questions at its heart. Land-based wars can be won temporarily such as the one against the LTTE though at an extremely high price such as including the altered nature of the state. And now without any territorial base, this LTTE war may spread all over Sri Lanka. Mobile wars have greater ability to cause damage than frontal battles especially as economies show their increasing disability to fund long wars.
The conflict resolving model used during the Cold War has not only ended Soviet Union but continues to erode the US too. In Gaza, the latest Israeli incursion has seen the worst depletion of its allies globally including from within the Jewish population both in the US and Israel. Many Jews today reject the role of an occupying power. Inside Israel, the traditional security management role through occupation is losing unquestioned popularity. Given the lack of success, can south Asia take this road?
In this age of unwinnable wars, South Asia shouldn’t be involved in the ancient and now redundant logic of traditional security specialists. Anti-terrorism can be products of internal political compulsions and quickly go counter-productive as history has shown. Even the worst terrorist enemy starts gaining a human face when violence is perpetrated against unarmed people as the Gaza incident shows. The war gets lost in the battle field of public sympathy for the sufferer.
In this context, Bangladesh can provide a positive example. It may have a flawed peace but the CHT peace accord (1997) did achieve peace. Peace can satisfy the most selfish national objectives because it is not just an outcome but a security tool too. South Asian leaders need to move away from its West influenced security mentality of violence and counter violence which India, Pakistan and other countries are paying now by following them.
Peace is not a moral choice but a practical option where it’s as potent and powerful as any war. South Asia must think for itself as it approaches large scale cross border anti-terrorism.
Yet another failure in NCTB cap
THE textbook crisis seems to be turning graver by the day as the government appears to be at a complete loss and failing to find any headway to improve the situation. The authorities concerned are already in a muddle regarding availability of the Bengali version textbooks, which are no doubt more essential than English textbooks. But it does not help matters that they have failed to publish secondary level English textbooks on time. These are generally sold to students of English-medium schools and kindergartens that offer education in keeping with the board curriculum. As is reported in New Age on January 25, even about a month into the 2009 academic year, students of these educational institutions are unable to buy those textbooks mainly because the translators failed to meet their deadline. Of course, there were other problems too. Private printers and publishers were ‘reluctant’ to participate in the tenders, and the National Curriculum and Textbook Board failed to even roughly estimate the demand for English books and, according to the textbook board’s chairman, was ‘hesitating’ to print a large number of books and have them pile up in warehouses fearing audit objections.
The reasons are outrageously lame and reveal nothing but sheer incompetence and irresponsibility of the textbook board. It also suggests that instead of facilitating education the board has been consistently successful in creating hurdles for those who seek education. Without textbooks, guardians are left with no other option but to go for unauthorised English translations and notebooks. It may be noted that printing and marketing of notebooks for students up to class eight was banned in 1988 with stipulation of tough punishment for offenders. But as the guardians are forced to buy these books, the publishers do not want to lag behind either in making quick bucks by printing them and the authorities concerned cannot but remain silent regarding this malpractice as they themselves are responsible for the entire mess.
The government must take this issue seriously and demand an explanation from the board. As is learnt from the report, the authorities also failed to publish the English textbooks on time in 2008, and also in 2007. If the newly elected government is at all sincere in addressing what seems to have become a phenomenon, it must bring together all the resources under the disposal of the education ministry and make the sluggish institutions work more effectively.
Bureaucrats need to be spared of partisan ping pong
THE recent spate of transfers and postings in the civil bureaucracy is causing anxiety among many officials, according to a report published in New Age on Sunday. Civil bureaucrats at all levels are reportedly fearful of being sidelined as officers on special duty at the establishment ministry or of being given undesired postings by the new government. The reason for this anxiety stems from the apparent replaying of an old and all-too-familiar tale with regard to promotions and transfers of civil service officers — every time a new government comes to power in our country, it sidelines, sometimes for its entire term, officers who it considers to be supporters of the opposition parties and favours officers who it considers loyal to it. Hence, officers who were favoured during the rule of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance government will now presumably to be sidelined, while those who were sidelined during that period by that government will presumably be given priority over the next five years in promotions and desirable postings. Hence, it is only natural that a section of civil servants are now feeling anxious about their professional fate.
Discussions about which party or government started the blatant politicisation of the civil bureaucracy are no longer relevant. The more poignant truth is that successive governments have partaken in this for decades, with each new government only bettering its predecessors in politicising the civil service. For many years now, the merit of officers has hardly been a factor at all in their promotions and postings; rather, officers have been rewarded for their loyalty to the political party in power and punished for the slightest suspicion of their support for opposition political parties. Whereas the allegiance of civil servants is meant to be to the republic, the systematic politicisation of the bureaucracy by successive governments has resulted in civil servants shifting their allegiance to one party or the other, thereby virtually destroying the neutrality, integrity and effectiveness of the civil service. It is very unfortunate, in our view, that this same tradition looks likely to continue under the current Awami League-led alliance government. It is particularly disheartening because this government came to power on the back of its promise to bring qualitative change to politics and governance in our country. This tradition of politicising the bureaucracy, if it continues, will be entirely contrary to that promise.
Given that the past government had sidelined many officers who were worthy of promotions and better postings because of their apparent political leanings, it is not objectionable that the new government might rehabilitate many of those officers. However, all promotions and postings ought to be done on the basis of the merit, competence and integrity of the officers in question rather than on the basis of their party loyalty. Hence, officers should be promoted if they merit promotion, not simply because they were persecuted by the last government. At the same time, competent and honest officers who may have been favoured by the last government because of their perceived loyalty should not be sidelined by the present government for that same reason. In short, the best officers at every level should be given the most critical positions and all promotions should be based on merit in order for the civil service to be optimally effective. If the AL-led alliance government actually means what it has said about bringing change to politics, it should break with tradition and make the civil bureaucracy a true meritocracy, not a party political institution.
Discussions about which party or government started the blatant politicisation of the civil bureaucracy are no longer relevant. The more poignant truth is that successive governments have partaken in this for decades, with each new government only bettering its predecessors in politicising the civil service. For many years now, the merit of officers has hardly been a factor at all in their promotions and postings; rather, officers have been rewarded for their loyalty to the political party in power and punished for the slightest suspicion of their support for opposition political parties. Whereas the allegiance of civil servants is meant to be to the republic, the systematic politicisation of the bureaucracy by successive governments has resulted in civil servants shifting their allegiance to one party or the other, thereby virtually destroying the neutrality, integrity and effectiveness of the civil service. It is very unfortunate, in our view, that this same tradition looks likely to continue under the current Awami League-led alliance government. It is particularly disheartening because this government came to power on the back of its promise to bring qualitative change to politics and governance in our country. This tradition of politicising the bureaucracy, if it continues, will be entirely contrary to that promise.
Given that the past government had sidelined many officers who were worthy of promotions and better postings because of their apparent political leanings, it is not objectionable that the new government might rehabilitate many of those officers. However, all promotions and postings ought to be done on the basis of the merit, competence and integrity of the officers in question rather than on the basis of their party loyalty. Hence, officers should be promoted if they merit promotion, not simply because they were persecuted by the last government. At the same time, competent and honest officers who may have been favoured by the last government because of their perceived loyalty should not be sidelined by the present government for that same reason. In short, the best officers at every level should be given the most critical positions and all promotions should be based on merit in order for the civil service to be optimally effective. If the AL-led alliance government actually means what it has said about bringing change to politics, it should break with tradition and make the civil bureaucracy a true meritocracy, not a party political institution.
If subsidies could be all in cash
ON THE day of the last Eid-ul-Azha I asked a beggar how all those pieces of meat she collected from door to door she would feast on with her family of six members. Her reply: ‘I have collected about 5 kilograms of meat. I will cook one kilo for my family to feast on and the rest four kilos I will sell to a slaughter shop for Tk 200.’ To my idea that she could also be handed liquid cash of Tk 1,200 instead of five kilograms of piecemeal meats she promptly reacted: ‘Let alone Tk 1,200, even Tk 600 in cash would have been much better than 5 kilograms of meat.’
Proprietors of slaughter shops, as a traditional malpractice, buy from beggars, who cannot afford to bargain for a fair price, those valuable meats of fatty sacrificial cows for not more than Tk 50 per kilo while the same shops sell meat of normal skeletal cows for no less than Tk 220. In fact, five kilograms of meat of the pricy cows the beggar collected did cost the original meat-donors at least Tk 1,200, given the high price, say Tk 20,000 per sacrificial cow Muslims buy during Eid-ul-Azha. Donors’ sacrifice of half the cow’s price, according to the beggar’s judgement, would have made recipients of the donations much happier, if the handouts were in the form of cash instead of meat.
Out of about 154 million people of Bangladesh not more than one million people can be found who can be designated as rich who own their individual homes in urban areas and are blessed with creature comforts to lead a modern and decent livelihood. The rest 153 million people are generally poor who may be classified as groups living in abject poverty, lower-income, middle-income, upper middle-income, and reasonable affluence.
Although more than half of our GDP is generated through the service sector, nearly two-thirds of Bangladeshis are employed in the agriculture sector, with rice as the single-most-important product. So, obviously our government must provide subsidies for the farmers on account of their agricultural inputs such as seeds, fuels and fertilisers and the government must also be ready to buy their products if the market is dull. Similarly, the poor consumers must be given relief on account of their two basic physiological needs such as food and health, the two areas where tonnes of money from the government exchequer have been pouring in the name of subsidies, but mostly in futile due to greedy interventions by multiple agents in the whole process.
Frankly speaking, I don’t understand the ‘subsidy’ thing! Is there anyone actually handing a check or a pay order or making a bank transfer to anybody’s account and saying, ‘Here, this is your subsidy payment’?
Subsidy which is being defrayed in the form of agricultural inputs could merely be a ‘notional subsidy’ or ‘opportunity cost’ – which would be the revenue – that is being lost because the inputs are being sold locally at less than normal price. In other words, extra revenue that could have been earned and put to good use has been lost.
But, who exactly is paying this subsidy to whom? The government is paying subsidy to the poor and the rich is reimbursing the payment? If the answer is ‘yes’, in my humble opinion, ‘this “yes” is the flagrant most “lie” and such subsidisation is a thuggish brutality to the poor.’ As a matter of fact, subsidy meant for the poor reaches the rich in substance and tantalises the poor as a beacon of hope to be turned ultimately into frustration. If we minutely analyse the marketing mechanism of the farmers’ ‘buy and sell’ we will find a dismal picture of the so-called givers, ostensibly benefactors, cheating the recipients, supposedly beneficiaries.
Newspaper readers like me are quite curious about words uttered and steps taken by Matia Chowdhury, our agriculture minister. Given her background of chequered political career and unalloyed integrity, she is perhaps one of very few in the cabinet who is under huge pressure in search of policies and strategies in the agriculture sector that may help the new government meet people’s Himalayan expectations.
In a recent workshop on diesel subsidy organised by the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, where Matia Chowdhury attended as chief guest, a study report said there was a leakage of around Tk 50 crore (Tk 500 million) in payment process of cash subsidy on diesel to the farmers in the last year. Some 27 per cent eligible farmers were not listed, 13 per cent ineligible persons received subsidy and 18 per cent eligible listed farmers did not get the payment under the programme of cash subsidy on diesel. Last year, it should be mentioned, a non-partisan caretaker government backed by the disciplined armed forces was in power when Tk 2.5 billion was disbursed as cash subsidy on diesel to the farmers.
I as a banker felt a little swollen with pride and a glimmer of hope was raised by the words of Matia Chowdhury who in the same workshop said steps to disburse subsidy through banks would be considered to stop malpractices in distribution of cash subsidy by officials of union parishads and agriculture extension departments.
The reported leakage of cash subsidy on diesel through a BIDS study with break-ups in percentages of ‘who got how much or didn’t get at all’ is at least a revelation made possible because of ‘cash’ which in accounting is extremely a hot and visible item and must be entered properly in books and registers. If diesel were distributed at heavily discounted price the BIDS study on leakage of the subsidy funds perhaps could not have been numerically and accountably so clearly revealing and highlighted. Now if the government with help from the armed service personnel can identify and register the actual farmers such fund leakage may be tight-sealed for ever, provided cash subsidy continues.
Statistics, especially inferential statistics, is an interesting discipline of mathematical science that can provide the government very effective tools for assessment and prediction of the needs of masses, if correct data can be collated through reliable agents. Now that we already possess a huge demographic database, more or less reliable, thanks to issuance of national identity cards for all matured men and women, what is now needed is to correlate and crosscheck those data with the data of unregistered and registered farmers with a view to sifting out the genuine from the fake.
Interesting success stories of offering subsidies through cash disbursements can be observed in distribution through banks of stipends to primary and secondary students, freedom fighters, the disabled, the destitute and the old. Not many incidents of corruption are reported in these transactions. The secret tools behind the successes are cash, proper registration and accounting. Imagine how cantankerous the scenario would have been if the subsidy funds for these stipends would have been defrayed in the forms of inputs like food, medicines, toiletries, CI sheets, clothes, blankets, books, and other materials bought by contractors and handed out by government agents at subsidised prices.
A blacksmith’s job is to make and repair articles made of iron and a potter’s job is to make clay pots by hand; under no circumstances they should be asked to swap over their jobs. Ironically, many of our jobs are done by professionals trained in diametrically opposite disciplines; a botanist is working as a banker, an accountant as a magistrate, or an engineer as a diplomat.
The government’s main function as regards to commerce is to frame policies congenial to private entrepreneurs. Commerce and trade should not be the domain where government functionaries have to work as procurement agents or salesmen unless there is a crisis like war or famine or a major global economic meltdown. To break monopoly or unholy syndication of unscrupulous tradesmen the government may of course keep some outlets or mechanism ready to provide succour to the needy. But, direct intervention in perpetuity by the government in trading or in crippling the market forces would scare the genuine businessmen away leaving a vibrant economy to gradually retard.
There are many instances of government intervention where subsidising commodities by means of lowering tariff and duties or by selling at discounted prices with an honest intention did instead of putting the poor out of harm’s way throw them from the frying pan to fire because most of the agents handling the subsidisation are either inept or corrupt. Subsidized fertilisers, for instance, are more beneficial to the industrialists manufacturing melamine articles than to the farmers producing rice; and due to price differential between neighbouring countries subsidised fuels fly across the border from many of our gas stations that were deliberately set up in our border areas.
But subsidisation is a must in a country like ours teeming with the poor. To my humble opinion the government may henceforth stop the whole gamut of subsidisations in all kinds and in all sectors including food, health, education and agriculture in whatever forms, call it lowered tariff for agricultural equipment and inputs, fertilisers or fuels for free or at discounted prices, nominal tuition fees in educational institutions or free admission and free medicines in public hospitals. Then the immediate step should be to liberate all the local market forces to play in conjunction with free market forces of the world to ensure the best delivery of goods and services to the rich and to the poor alike.
Now one may ask how then the poor will survive. The answer is simple: give them cash to fill the gap between the prices of three basic goods and services on account of food, health and education they will have to buy from the free market and their respective affordability.
The sum total of all the seen money the government has to plunk down from its coffer for subsidising expenses of the poor and the unseen money drained as systems loss due to rampant corruption in every facet of our society, I am quite sure, would be an astronomical figure that may surpass even the amount that as subsidy to the poor is printed in our annual budget. Multibillion taka, thus freed from the destructive methodology of subsidisation, must be more than enough to reimburse the fissure between the income of the poor and their expenditure in free market economy without any system loss.
In the United States every citizen has to file his/her tax return no matter his/her income is taxable or not. After thorough evaluation of individual tax returns the taxation authority instead of charging tax rather automatically credits a returnee’s account with subsistence allowances if his/her annual income is far below the minimum tax threshold.
Our government, if it is bold enough and if it really means to bring about a real change in our system, may make it mandatory for all citizens to open bank accounts and file their annual tax returns. A rickshaw-puller, a landless farmer, a teacher, a banker, a civil or military servant, an industrialist, a philanthropist, or even a beggar all would have their accounts with banks and tax identification number registered with the income tax authorities.
At the beginning of every month millions of cell phones (if the government is kind enough to gift each citizen a cell phone set at discounted price as a gesture of goodwill) would be buzzing with text messages from their bankers announcing credits of their accounts with monthly subsistence allowances. One such text message may say: ‘Mr Kalu Mia, TIN # 123456789, the NBR, after evaluation of your tax return, has been pleased to credit your bank account with Tk 3,575 as allowances you would need for your livelihood for the current month.’
Proprietors of slaughter shops, as a traditional malpractice, buy from beggars, who cannot afford to bargain for a fair price, those valuable meats of fatty sacrificial cows for not more than Tk 50 per kilo while the same shops sell meat of normal skeletal cows for no less than Tk 220. In fact, five kilograms of meat of the pricy cows the beggar collected did cost the original meat-donors at least Tk 1,200, given the high price, say Tk 20,000 per sacrificial cow Muslims buy during Eid-ul-Azha. Donors’ sacrifice of half the cow’s price, according to the beggar’s judgement, would have made recipients of the donations much happier, if the handouts were in the form of cash instead of meat.
Out of about 154 million people of Bangladesh not more than one million people can be found who can be designated as rich who own their individual homes in urban areas and are blessed with creature comforts to lead a modern and decent livelihood. The rest 153 million people are generally poor who may be classified as groups living in abject poverty, lower-income, middle-income, upper middle-income, and reasonable affluence.
Although more than half of our GDP is generated through the service sector, nearly two-thirds of Bangladeshis are employed in the agriculture sector, with rice as the single-most-important product. So, obviously our government must provide subsidies for the farmers on account of their agricultural inputs such as seeds, fuels and fertilisers and the government must also be ready to buy their products if the market is dull. Similarly, the poor consumers must be given relief on account of their two basic physiological needs such as food and health, the two areas where tonnes of money from the government exchequer have been pouring in the name of subsidies, but mostly in futile due to greedy interventions by multiple agents in the whole process.
Frankly speaking, I don’t understand the ‘subsidy’ thing! Is there anyone actually handing a check or a pay order or making a bank transfer to anybody’s account and saying, ‘Here, this is your subsidy payment’?
Subsidy which is being defrayed in the form of agricultural inputs could merely be a ‘notional subsidy’ or ‘opportunity cost’ – which would be the revenue – that is being lost because the inputs are being sold locally at less than normal price. In other words, extra revenue that could have been earned and put to good use has been lost.
But, who exactly is paying this subsidy to whom? The government is paying subsidy to the poor and the rich is reimbursing the payment? If the answer is ‘yes’, in my humble opinion, ‘this “yes” is the flagrant most “lie” and such subsidisation is a thuggish brutality to the poor.’ As a matter of fact, subsidy meant for the poor reaches the rich in substance and tantalises the poor as a beacon of hope to be turned ultimately into frustration. If we minutely analyse the marketing mechanism of the farmers’ ‘buy and sell’ we will find a dismal picture of the so-called givers, ostensibly benefactors, cheating the recipients, supposedly beneficiaries.
Newspaper readers like me are quite curious about words uttered and steps taken by Matia Chowdhury, our agriculture minister. Given her background of chequered political career and unalloyed integrity, she is perhaps one of very few in the cabinet who is under huge pressure in search of policies and strategies in the agriculture sector that may help the new government meet people’s Himalayan expectations.
In a recent workshop on diesel subsidy organised by the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, where Matia Chowdhury attended as chief guest, a study report said there was a leakage of around Tk 50 crore (Tk 500 million) in payment process of cash subsidy on diesel to the farmers in the last year. Some 27 per cent eligible farmers were not listed, 13 per cent ineligible persons received subsidy and 18 per cent eligible listed farmers did not get the payment under the programme of cash subsidy on diesel. Last year, it should be mentioned, a non-partisan caretaker government backed by the disciplined armed forces was in power when Tk 2.5 billion was disbursed as cash subsidy on diesel to the farmers.
I as a banker felt a little swollen with pride and a glimmer of hope was raised by the words of Matia Chowdhury who in the same workshop said steps to disburse subsidy through banks would be considered to stop malpractices in distribution of cash subsidy by officials of union parishads and agriculture extension departments.
The reported leakage of cash subsidy on diesel through a BIDS study with break-ups in percentages of ‘who got how much or didn’t get at all’ is at least a revelation made possible because of ‘cash’ which in accounting is extremely a hot and visible item and must be entered properly in books and registers. If diesel were distributed at heavily discounted price the BIDS study on leakage of the subsidy funds perhaps could not have been numerically and accountably so clearly revealing and highlighted. Now if the government with help from the armed service personnel can identify and register the actual farmers such fund leakage may be tight-sealed for ever, provided cash subsidy continues.
Statistics, especially inferential statistics, is an interesting discipline of mathematical science that can provide the government very effective tools for assessment and prediction of the needs of masses, if correct data can be collated through reliable agents. Now that we already possess a huge demographic database, more or less reliable, thanks to issuance of national identity cards for all matured men and women, what is now needed is to correlate and crosscheck those data with the data of unregistered and registered farmers with a view to sifting out the genuine from the fake.
Interesting success stories of offering subsidies through cash disbursements can be observed in distribution through banks of stipends to primary and secondary students, freedom fighters, the disabled, the destitute and the old. Not many incidents of corruption are reported in these transactions. The secret tools behind the successes are cash, proper registration and accounting. Imagine how cantankerous the scenario would have been if the subsidy funds for these stipends would have been defrayed in the forms of inputs like food, medicines, toiletries, CI sheets, clothes, blankets, books, and other materials bought by contractors and handed out by government agents at subsidised prices.
A blacksmith’s job is to make and repair articles made of iron and a potter’s job is to make clay pots by hand; under no circumstances they should be asked to swap over their jobs. Ironically, many of our jobs are done by professionals trained in diametrically opposite disciplines; a botanist is working as a banker, an accountant as a magistrate, or an engineer as a diplomat.
The government’s main function as regards to commerce is to frame policies congenial to private entrepreneurs. Commerce and trade should not be the domain where government functionaries have to work as procurement agents or salesmen unless there is a crisis like war or famine or a major global economic meltdown. To break monopoly or unholy syndication of unscrupulous tradesmen the government may of course keep some outlets or mechanism ready to provide succour to the needy. But, direct intervention in perpetuity by the government in trading or in crippling the market forces would scare the genuine businessmen away leaving a vibrant economy to gradually retard.
There are many instances of government intervention where subsidising commodities by means of lowering tariff and duties or by selling at discounted prices with an honest intention did instead of putting the poor out of harm’s way throw them from the frying pan to fire because most of the agents handling the subsidisation are either inept or corrupt. Subsidized fertilisers, for instance, are more beneficial to the industrialists manufacturing melamine articles than to the farmers producing rice; and due to price differential between neighbouring countries subsidised fuels fly across the border from many of our gas stations that were deliberately set up in our border areas.
But subsidisation is a must in a country like ours teeming with the poor. To my humble opinion the government may henceforth stop the whole gamut of subsidisations in all kinds and in all sectors including food, health, education and agriculture in whatever forms, call it lowered tariff for agricultural equipment and inputs, fertilisers or fuels for free or at discounted prices, nominal tuition fees in educational institutions or free admission and free medicines in public hospitals. Then the immediate step should be to liberate all the local market forces to play in conjunction with free market forces of the world to ensure the best delivery of goods and services to the rich and to the poor alike.
Now one may ask how then the poor will survive. The answer is simple: give them cash to fill the gap between the prices of three basic goods and services on account of food, health and education they will have to buy from the free market and their respective affordability.
The sum total of all the seen money the government has to plunk down from its coffer for subsidising expenses of the poor and the unseen money drained as systems loss due to rampant corruption in every facet of our society, I am quite sure, would be an astronomical figure that may surpass even the amount that as subsidy to the poor is printed in our annual budget. Multibillion taka, thus freed from the destructive methodology of subsidisation, must be more than enough to reimburse the fissure between the income of the poor and their expenditure in free market economy without any system loss.
In the United States every citizen has to file his/her tax return no matter his/her income is taxable or not. After thorough evaluation of individual tax returns the taxation authority instead of charging tax rather automatically credits a returnee’s account with subsistence allowances if his/her annual income is far below the minimum tax threshold.
Our government, if it is bold enough and if it really means to bring about a real change in our system, may make it mandatory for all citizens to open bank accounts and file their annual tax returns. A rickshaw-puller, a landless farmer, a teacher, a banker, a civil or military servant, an industrialist, a philanthropist, or even a beggar all would have their accounts with banks and tax identification number registered with the income tax authorities.
At the beginning of every month millions of cell phones (if the government is kind enough to gift each citizen a cell phone set at discounted price as a gesture of goodwill) would be buzzing with text messages from their bankers announcing credits of their accounts with monthly subsistence allowances. One such text message may say: ‘Mr Kalu Mia, TIN # 123456789, the NBR, after evaluation of your tax return, has been pleased to credit your bank account with Tk 3,575 as allowances you would need for your livelihood for the current month.’
Ruling party needs to play a greater role for effective JS
THE first sitting of the ninth Jatiya Sangsad on Sunday was by itself a special occasion, marked as it did the resumption of the national parliament after a break of more than two years. It was made all the more special by the fact that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led main opposition attended the sitting from the very beginning and, more importantly, voted for the ruling Awami League nominee for the position of speaker as a gesture of ‘goodwill’. Although the opposition lawmakers did have reservations about the election of the deputy speaker, they did not allow resentment to disrupt the process; they simply abstained from voting without making any hue and cry. The call of the outgoing and the incoming speakers of the parliament for the lawmakers to play their due role to make the parliament effective, albeit largely ritualistic, also added value to the auspicious occasions. There was a return to what could be called a contemporary parliamentary tradition when the BNP-led opposition staged a walkout; however, the ninth Jatiya Sangsad overall had an auspicious start to its tenure.
Such a positive start naturally gives rise to popular aspirations that the ninth Jatiya Sangsad would not be blighted by ills of the past and truly be the nerve centre of national politics. To make the parliament effective, in the truest sense of the term, the lawmakers would need to play their due roles, as individuals and as a collective. They are expected to do their homework before debate on the government’s development policies – social, political and economic – and learn to rise above parochial partisan outlook to efficiently and effectively play the watchdog role they are entrusted with. Crucially still, they need to learn to be accommodative and tolerant with regard to opposing views.
Ultimately, however, the responsibility to make the parliament effective rests with the treasury bench. It should initiate the process to form the parliamentary standing committees without undue delay so that these oversight committees can start work in earnest. The ruling Awami League and its allies need to realise that an overwhelming majority in the parliament can be both a boon and a bane. Surely, they have the strength to muzzle through whatever law they want enacted. However, to make the law-making process participatory and inclusive, they need to take the opposition in confidence and allow it the space it deserves, maybe more. The election of the deputy speaker looks to have left a bad taste in the mouth of the opposition lawmakers, especially since the ruling party did promise to pick the deputy speaker from the opposition, a promise it did not keep. Hopefully, both sides will see to it, in a spirit of camaraderie, that the issue does not snowball into a major handicap in the treasury-opposition relations.
Such a positive start naturally gives rise to popular aspirations that the ninth Jatiya Sangsad would not be blighted by ills of the past and truly be the nerve centre of national politics. To make the parliament effective, in the truest sense of the term, the lawmakers would need to play their due roles, as individuals and as a collective. They are expected to do their homework before debate on the government’s development policies – social, political and economic – and learn to rise above parochial partisan outlook to efficiently and effectively play the watchdog role they are entrusted with. Crucially still, they need to learn to be accommodative and tolerant with regard to opposing views.
Ultimately, however, the responsibility to make the parliament effective rests with the treasury bench. It should initiate the process to form the parliamentary standing committees without undue delay so that these oversight committees can start work in earnest. The ruling Awami League and its allies need to realise that an overwhelming majority in the parliament can be both a boon and a bane. Surely, they have the strength to muzzle through whatever law they want enacted. However, to make the law-making process participatory and inclusive, they need to take the opposition in confidence and allow it the space it deserves, maybe more. The election of the deputy speaker looks to have left a bad taste in the mouth of the opposition lawmakers, especially since the ruling party did promise to pick the deputy speaker from the opposition, a promise it did not keep. Hopefully, both sides will see to it, in a spirit of camaraderie, that the issue does not snowball into a major handicap in the treasury-opposition relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
