[vinnomot] Dr. Fakhruddin's speech at Columbia and the "Paradox" of Bangladesh

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jahed/Fakruddin_columbia.htm

"I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do
everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." -Edward Everett Hale
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Visit my articles page: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/jahed/index.htm

---

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] STATEMENT ON ARIFUR RAHMAN from CFI International, USA

STATEMENT ON ARIFUR RAHMAN FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY

 

Published on September 27, 2007

 

The Center for Inquiry is a nongovernmental educational organization committed to reason, science, and freedom of inquiry in all areas, The Center is active around the world, and holds special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. 

We strongly condemn the arrest and ongoing detention of the cartoonist Arifur Rahman of the daily newspaper Prothom Alo, which in our estimation is without legal basis. It runs contrary to international norms of human rights as well as the public interest of the nation to inhibit the free exchange of opinions, even those that may cause offense to some. 

We call upon the caretaker government of Bangladesh to immediately seek Mr. Rahman's release. Nothing less would be worthy of the secular democratic ethos of the nation's founding.

On a personal note, I can say that having had the pleasure and the privilege to spend some time in the country and to call myself a friend to a number of its citizens, I have found among Bangladeshis a sense of humor and self-reflection that is no less developed than that of any other peoples on this planet. It would be a shame and an injustice if they were to be denied the freedoms of expression that others enjoy.

 

27 September 2007 

 

Austin Dacey, Ph.D.
United Nations Representative
Associate Editor, Free Inquiry magazine
Center for Inquiry-Transnational
Website: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/nyc

 

 

URL of the above statement:

 

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/austin/arif_CFI270907.htm

 

 

Distributed by: www.mukto-mona.com, An online network of humanists and freethinkers from South Asian countries  

---

Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[vinnomot] Humanism and Ethics: (Basic 1): Sacred V Secular Ethics

 

Sacred vs. Secular Ethics: Comparative study of religious, secular, and humanist theories of morality

 

Basic Module
The Two Paths Some Basics Judging Moral Theories
Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the study of how we should live our lives. For at least five thousand years, issues in ethics have been studied and debated by the ancient Greek anf Romsn philosophers, Jewish, Christian Islamic theologians, modern day liberal enlightened scientists, physicians, artists, and people just like you and me. But, then, not thinking about moral issues is pretty hard to do. In fact, whether you want the job or not, you are an forced to be amateur ethicist, someone who spends a lot of time thinking about moral issues. What's more, you have a moral theory -- a view of what morality is and is not, what actions are right or wrong, and what things are good or bad. Even if you think that there is no such thing as right and wrong, even that is a theory of morality, however absurd. If you believe that all moral theories and moral theorizing are bogus, that is also a theory of morality, however irresponsible. So the question of whether you should have a moral theory is irrelevant -- you already have one. The really important question is: Which one should you have? You take this question lightly at your peril because your theory of morality -- whatever it is -- helps you plot the course of your life. Whether valid or invalid, ideas about morality influence what you do and don't do. A poor moral theory leads to poor moral judgments. A good moral theory helps you make good moral judgments. And the difference between the two paths can be vast. Moral theories come in all shapes and sizes, and most of them have their own devotees who may insist that their view is the one that the rest of the world should adopt. So moral conflicts continually arise not only over specific moral judgments, but between rival conceptions of morality itself -- between moral theories. Such rivalries seem especially intense between moral theories that grow out of religious traditions and those that do not. Religious moral theories depend substantially on ideas about theistic or supernatural states of affairs. Humanist/Secular moral theories leave out such ideas. Humanist moral theories are also secular but emphasize a respect or concern for the welfare and the rights/duties of human individuals. The differences between religious and secular theories can be stark and often show up vividly in debates about abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, women's rights, teen violence, cloning humans, and more. In some cases, though, the differences are minimal, with references to the supernatural being almost the only contrasting element. In any case, what we really need to know about both religious and nonreligious moral theories is whether they are worthy of our commitment and how we can tell that they are. This module will help you get your bearings so you can begin to answer these questions for yourself. We will get to the heart of the matter as quickly as possible.
The Two Paths
When people try to think of a religious theory of morality, they often come up with a moral code (set of rules) consisting of the Ten Commandments, for example in Christianity, or Islamic Shariah iamong Muslims. (Some foolish Christians even think that morality just is the Ten Commandments as many ignorant and narrow-minded Muslims take Shariah as absolute.) This view assumes that the 10 rules set down in the Old Testament of Moses and other Jewish prophets or rules of Islamic Shariah can constitute a complete theory of morality. This theory -- what we will call the Ten Commandments theory of morality (TCT) -- says that right actions are those that conform to the 10 Old Testament rules. The rules. Like those od Islamic Shariah, are absolute, allowing no exceptions, no "wiggle room" for transgressors, and the consequences of your actions are irrelevant. Now, if people want to cite a Humanist/Scular theory of morality, there's a good chance they'll think of act-utilitarianism, the view that right actions are those that maximize happiness, everyone considered. That is, an action is right if it results in more happiness than any other action, taking everyone into account. In act-utilitarianism, being moral is a matter of making sure that your actions maximize happiness. Absolutist rules don't matter; the consequences of your actions are everything. The differences between these two systems are clear enough. But they also share some common ground. Both theories assume that moral knowledge is possible; that moral principles can be applied universally; and that there are important reasons for acting morally. Both theories also assume that moral knowledge (such as whether an action is right, or whether a person is good) is objective -- that it does not depend on any one person's state of mind. The TCT is thought to make objective moral judgments possible, and utilitarianism is an objective theory because determining the consequences of actions is a matter of objective observation. These common elements run through many other theories of morality, both religious and secular. All of the preceding points may have tipped you off to a key fact that will become even clearer as we proceed: Generalizations about the worth of all religious theories compared to that of all humanist/secular ones are likely to be very iffy. There are faulty secular theories and faulty religious theories. This means that every moral theory must stand on its own merits, and every moral theory must be judged on its own merits. Simply lumping a theory into the secular or sacred category won't help much. Some theists (people who believe in Allah or God) dismiss Humanist/Secular theories of morality because they are "godless (as if therer is any proof that Allah or Go dis real and provable and not just a fiction or illusion)." In other words, the problem with secular theories is that they are secular. Likewise, nontheists may dismiss religious moral systems because the theories assume the existence of a presumed Allah or God. That is, the problem with religious theories is that they are religious. Such criticisms do have their place. It is certainly legitimate to criticize a theory by pointing out that some of its underlying assumptions are false. But in many cases, moral theories are vulnerable to several compelling criticisms in addition to whatever arguments there are about the existence or nonexistence of Allah or God.
Some Basics
Theories of morality are theories of right action -- that is, theories about what makes an action right. The two major types of theories are consequentialist (or teleological) and formalist (or deontological). Consequentialist moral theories claim that the rightness of an action depends on its consequences. Act-utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory because right actions are supposed to result in more happiness than other possible actions. To put the point crudely, the basic idea behind such theories is that the end justifies the means. Formalist moral theories claim that the rightness of an action depends on the action's form. Here the consequences of an action don't matter (or matter very little), but the form, or nature, of the action does. Such a theory might claim, for example, that killing an innocent person is always wrong because of the nature of that action, and this would be so whether or not the killing resulted in a great deal of good such as saving the lives of a hundred people. By this definition the Ten Commandments theory (TCT) is a formalist theory. Consequentialist theories may be either religious or nonreligious. A religious person might say that an action is right if it results in the greatest amount of respect for sacred texts or artifacts. A nonreligious person might claim that an action is right if it results in the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. Formalist theories can also be religous or nonreligious. Christian theories of ethics have traditionally been formalist, often maintaining that a certain kind of action is right or wrong no matter what the results. Nonreligious formalist theories are common too. Some of them claim, for example, that an action is right if it constitutes the performance of a certain duty, as in the ethical systems of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and W.D. Ross. All humanist theories are nonreligious, and they too can be either consequentialist or formalist. Not all nonreligious theories, however, can be plausibly considered humanist. Humanism as a world view has traditionally incorporated a respect or concern for the welfare and the rights/duties of human individuals. So utilitarianism is one of the theories that earns the label of humanist because the crux of the theory is maximizing the happiness or pleasure of other human beings. But the secular theory known as ethical egoism can't plausibly be called humanist. It's the view that right actions are those that promote one's own self interest -- a kind of moral self-absorption that is alien to humanist views of humanity. Ethical egoism also permits all manner of heinous acts as long as they are in the best interests of one's self or one's community/country, acts that humanism would not condone. Some moral theories are naturalistic and some nonnaturalistic, an important distinction that philosophers have debated for centuries. Naturalistic theories assert that morality can be derived from, or defined in terms of, natural phenomena. That is, people can know moral facts in the same way that a scientist can know physical or material facts. A naturalistic theory, for example, might maintain that ethical terms such as "morally right" can be equated with empirical phenomena like "producing more pleasure than pain." Or the a theory might say that being moral means meeting certain common human needs. Utilitarianism is a naturalistic moral theory. Nonnaturalistic theories reject the idea that moral facts are somehow empirical facts. Proponents of these theories claim that moral terms cannot be reduced to empirical terms. The most famous nonnaturalistic slogan is that you "can't get an 'ought' from an 'is.'" The idea that morality cannot be extracted from facts about the world was made most forcefully by the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume -- even though his own moral theory was naturalistic. The most famous nonnaturalistic moral theory is that of Immanuel Kant, who asserted that people have certain absolute moral duties that are derived not from empirical facts but from logical considerations. Some modern-day philosophers hold the nonnaturalistic (and nonreligious) view that there are universal moral principles that are logically self-evident. Some people use the term "naturalistic" as a synonym for nonreligious. This way of using the word is perfectly acceptable, as long as the intended meaning is clear. We just need to keep in mind that in the field of ethics, most philosophers define "naturalistic" as we did above, using the term to emphasize the critical distinction between morality based on, and not based on, natural phenomena. (They may also sometimes use the term "naturalized" to mean much the same thing.) They would therefore want to say that religious moral theories can be naturalistic (empirical facts may define morality) or nonnaturalistic (morality comes from Allah or God) and that secular theories can also fall into either category. Note: Philosophers also apply "naturalistic" or "naturalized" to theories in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and to some areas of metaphysics (the study of the nature of reality), such as the mind-body problem and free will versus determinism.
Judging Moral Theories
Theories of morality are like theories in science. Scientific theories try to explain the causes of events, such as a chemical reaction, the orbit of a planet, or the growth of a tumor. A plausible scientific theory is one that's consistent with all the relevant data. Moral theories try to explain what makes an action right or what makes a person good. A plausible moral theory must also be consistent with all the relevant data. The data that moral theories must explain are what philosophers call our "considered moral judgments" -- moral judgments that we accept after thinking critically about them. Any worthy moral theory will be consistent with those judgments. If it is not -- if, for example, it approves of obviously immoral acts -- the theory is flawed and must be discarded. If our moral theory sanctions, say, the inflicting of undeserved and unnecessary suffering on innocent children, we must conclude that something is very wrong with our theory. Plausible scientific theories must also be consistent with all relevant background information. A theory about the explosion of a star, for example, must not only be consistent with data regarding the explosion itself, but with facts we already know about gravity, space, heat, light, and scientific measuring instruments. Likewise, plausible moral theories must be consistent with the relevant background information -- that is, with our experience of the moral life. Whatever else our moral experience entails, it certainly involves 1.  making moral judgments 2.  occasionally getting into moral disagreements 3.  sometimes acting immorally. Any theory that suggests that we do not have these fundamental experiences must be deemed suspect. It is logically possible that our experience of the moral life is a relative, only seeming to involve moral judgments, disputes, and mistakes. It is also possible that our considered moral judgments do not have the objective character that we normally attribute to them. But unless we have good reason to dismiss our experience as relative, we are justified in accepting it at face value. Many, if not most, thinkers in ethics tend to give our considered moral judgments, or moral intuitions, a considerable amount of weight as evidence for or against proposed theories. Any moral theory, if it is to be at all plausible, must explain how it relates to our moral intuitions. The point of having a moral theory is that it gives guidance in choosing the right actions. And the most important guidance is the kind that helps us resolve moral dilemmas-situations when moral principles or judgments are in conflict. Any moral theory that gives us no help with these problems is said to be unworkable, and any unworkable theory is a poor theory. So all good moral theories must... be consistent with our considered moral judgments be consistent with our experience of the moral life be workable. These criteria enable us to undertake a fair assessment of all types of moral theories-religious, secular, and humanist.

 

---

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. __._,_.___

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: Khaleda: ACC may sue Tarique Zia

I find it moving, in a certain fashion, that some people are still
behind Hasina and Khaleda and their families. Loyalty is such a rare
virtue in BD ! That there were irregularities during both regimes
cannot be questioned. That both the families are now very well-off
with a lot of wealth abroad is also well-known. Local assets would
not show the entire picture, but leakages do remain, and ACC are
probably depending on that intitially.

What makes the entire exercise futile is the immunity offered to any
politician who is willing to betray the hands that fed them all
these years. If anybody claims that Mannan Bhuyan, Ehsanul Huq
Milon, Osman Faruk, Abdul Moyeen Khan, Anwar, and others [sorry, I
am naming persons at random, and not in any order] of BNP, Mujahidi
and Nizami of Jamaat, and Razzak, Mukul Bose, Amu and some others
of Awami League did not commit any corruption, that would be the
most laughable story of the decade. If they are being pardoned for
performing a Tauba ["reformist"], why should not Tareq, Mohiuddin K
Alamgir and others who have been chargesheeted and/or sentenced, get
a chance to do so too? Indeed coming to evasion of Income Tax -
Barrristers Amirul Islam, Rokonuddin Mahmud amd even Kamal Hossain
never paid their taxes as per their true income, which is
astronomical indeed, considering the one to five lakh taka they
charge for each appearance in court.

So, if it is case of 'amra sobai chor amader ei chorer rajatye', the
best objective might have been a general pardon for the lesser
criminals, like that of 1971 to those who had opposed Bangladesh,
but were not involved in any felony. In this case too cases should
be pursued by ACC according to the magnitude of the theft, and not
on account of how much a person appears to support people like
Mainul Hosein, hardly a well-respected , popular figure. Perhaps
this government is simply arranging things to make sure there is no
reprisal when they leave. But if men like Mannan Bhuyan {ex-Minister
of LGRD, the most corruption-infested Ministry according to
Transprency International) can betray once, they can do it
again.

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ALOCHONA] Khaleda: ACC may sue Tarique Zia

I agree with Mahathir of BD. After fishing expedition for six months, the ACC now says they will file a case against Tareq. The present so-called CTG arrested Tareq even before a case was filed. What a symbol of rule of law! What the hell they did in the last six months?

Mainul and many other Advisers including the Chief Advisor were blessed by the currupt BNP-Jamat Govt. Now they proclaim they have come down from the heaven with the gown of an angel. Charity begins at home, so the CTG and his Advisers must declare their own wealth before hunting others down. Before 1/11, Mainul Hussein visited 'Shuda Shadan' several times to beg Hasina for an election ticket for his son in one of the constituency in Barisal.

 

Political reform is necessary but in my view this not the responsibility of the CTG. They are supposed to do 'day to day' activities. We must change the meaning of 'reform' in the english dictonary. 'Reform' means patronising some corrupt politicians to break away from the mainstream political party and to float a new one to help legalising all extra-Constitutional actions. The "Dudok' went after Zia-ul-Huq (Zia), former Deputy to Mannan Bhuiyan. But he Zia-ul-Huq Zia did everything with his Boss's blessings. Why Bhuiyan is free. Because he is helping CTG and General Moyeen to implement the evil design of India, USA and UK  to make free Bangladesh of nationalist forces.

 

I am looking forward to see those days when some of the Advisors in jail and in police remand. History repeats itself and it repeats faster in Bangladesh than in other places.

 

mahathir of bd <wouldbemahathirofbd@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Ejazur,

 

You are living in the dream world. and like  our  advisers you have misunderstanding  of reform.

 

 When hasina was free , there was chance of reform in AL. After her arrest , opportunist( you call reformist ) has joined  with conformist for freedom of hasina.

 

 

 Similar is the case for BNP. If tareq or  Khaleda is held, no reform  will occur in BNP.

 

 And CTG will not  be able to reform any party by patronizing  traitor like Mannan bhuyan.

 

The past history of Bangladesh strongly support  my position. Bangladeshi people may support corrupt people but they will not support traitor.

 

 

 I will not say tareq is angel .   Same time i will say tareq is not as much corrupted as  portrayed   people like  you.

 

you will find similar level of corruption  if you go  for the advisers of present CTG,  Tapon chowdhury  is not angel, Moinul is not angel, Dr, C.S Karim  who was the  ex- chairman of  Bangladesh atomic energy commission, is not angel.  others are also not angel  as majority ( 8 out of 11 ) all the advisers  were   blessed by BNP. if  BNP and tareq  is so corrupt, then  these people  preferred and favored by BNP can not be angel.

 

If they were corruption  free, they would have enough mental strength  to submit their  wealth statement as  said  and exemplified by  ACC chaiman .

 

For the first time  in  the 15 years  of democratic government  in   Bangladesh,   only one campus murder  case  was investigated and verdict  was declared.  and  it was   sonya murder case.

 

 And some of the  culprits are in jail and all these happened during BNP tenure.

 

 

 Labors  those who have gone their during the tenure of your angel CTG.

 

 are also suffering in Malyasia .

 

 

So what change has  occurred?  you blind people  only blame AL and BNP. But  i think for both parties are responsible. 50% - 50%  share of responsibilities go to the agent and the labor.

 

 

 If new party comes to power in the next election, it will not change so rapidly as it has not changed  during the angels government.

 

 

 Bangladesh  has become corrupted over 36 years, it  can not be corruption free by 36 months.

 

May Allah haelp us to understand  this  and reform.

 

 

 last but not  least.     i have no value  of enmity of people like you  sitting in kuiwat. Let the people decide  whether they realy think or not Tareq has disgraced  country.

 

I can bet with you if any of  the two, Tareq  or khaleda is free, BNP will win the next election. if people can cast their vote freely.

 

 

 With best wishes for Bangladesh

 

 

 

ezajur <ezajur.rahman@q8.com> wrote:

Dear Alochok Wouldbemahathirofbd

Yes I do have personal enmity with those who disgraced the country.
Why should it be otherwise? I know him to be a corrupting influence
in the country. And I know how hard real documentary evidence and
substantive witnesses are hard to find in a country so corrupt. Which
country are you living in?

You may not like this CTG but that doesn't mean you have to get so
high and mighty about the law or civil rights. Since when were civil
rights and the law something to brag about in Bangladesh? The day may
come when every citizen can access and defend his civil rights but no
need to get all sentimental about Tarique!

You are rand to say "At last..." You, and I, have seen nothing yet. The true story of Tarique will emerge soon enough. For now I welcome you to stand outside his prison window with your candlestick and sing songs of freedom.

If you truly understood how extraordinary the crisis is in Bangladesh
you would understood how extreme the corrective measures must be.

BNP cannot reform with a free Tarique.

So for the good of the country Tarique must be removed from politics,
voluntarily or involuntarily. BNP needs that and the country needs
that.

Spare me the sentimental song about letting the people decide. If two
frogs are annointed party chairperson by the idiots in the party high
command – then one frog or the other will be Prime Minister of
Bangladesh. That's not the real people's choice.

I understand you weep for him. But just add him to the list of
hundreds of thousands who have suffered unfairly since 1971. There is
nothing unique about Tarique that you have to mention his rights and
not the rights of those who have been destroyed by BNP or AL
governments.

100,000 Bangladeshis in Kuwait are paid half of what they agreed with
the agents in Bangladesh. I can't help one of them go to a court in
Kuwait – because not on of them has a signed contract with the agent!
And not one of them will testify against an agent because they are
afraid of the agents' political connections inAL and BNP.

Documentary evidence and substantive witnesses are nice. But if you
don't have them then you have to work with what you've got.

Chose:

1. Tarique Rahman is released due to a lack of evidence and the law
is upheld.

2. Tarique Rahman is arrested, in spite of a lack of evidence, to
enable BNP to reform.

I prefer the second. Its an easy choice because I believe him to be
corrupt anyway. What do you believe? Don't bluff with talk about the
law – either you believe he is corrupt or you believe he is not
corrupt or you are not sure.

Either way, Sonya was killed at BUET by BNP thugs – and BNP was not
punished. Let Tarique suffer on behalf of his cherished Chattra Dal.

I think it's fair.

And so do many, many more of my countrymen.

Regards

Wouldbemujibofbd
Kuwait

--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, mahathir of bd
<wouldbemahathirofbd@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that you have personal enmity with tareq Rahman and hence
you have no problem even if he is held just for political reason.
>
> Did you ask for any illegal advantage from tarreq which he didn't
provide for which you are so vindictive to him.
>
> We have heard and read story in views papers that tareq had
smuggled 11, 22 sometimes 35 thousands crore tk .
>
> But at last we see, he has been sued for 5 crore tk only
including daily dinkal which he has disowned.
>
>
> porbat has given bith of mushik at
last !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Ezajur Rahman <ezajur.rahman@...> wrote:
> Dear Alochoks
> Many BNP people like to say that Tarique has not been charged,
that he is innocent and that he is being held for political reasons
alone.
> I have no problem if he is held for political reasons alone.
> But it is good news that he is to be sued shortly.
> Good riddance.
> Regards
> Ezajur Rahman
> Kuwait
>
>
>
> ACC likely to sue Tarique today
> Courtesy New Age
>
> The Anti-Corruption Commi-ssion is likely to file a case today
against Tarique Rahman, the detained elder son of the BNP
chairperson, Khaleda Zia, who is also detained in jail, on charge of
submitting false wealth statements.
> `The case was scheduled to be filed with the Kafrul police by the
Anti-Corruption Commission's deputy director Zahurul Huda tonight,
but it could not be filed as the first information report was not
readied till 7:30pm.,' said a source in the commission Tuesday
evening.
> Zahurul Huda told New Age on Tuesday that the case would be filed
this morning after getting permission from the commission chairman,
Hasan Mashhud Chowdhury.
> `The commission, during preliminary investigations, unearthed
Tarique's assets beyond his known source of income, and he [Tarique]
would be sued on charge of owning ill-gotten wealth,' a source to
close the investigation told New Age.
> Tarique claimed in his statement submitted to the commission on
June 10 that he owned Tk 78.39 lakh in assets apart from a house at
Gulshan on lease and five tolas of gold ornaments.
> The joint forces arrested Tarique on extortion charges on March
8, about six month before the arrests of his mother, Khaleda Zia,
also a former prime minister, and his younger brother, Arafat Rahman,
at his house in the Dhaka cantonment.
> The commission on May 29 notified Tarique, also senior joint
secretary of the BNP, to submit his wealth statements.
> Khaleda, now in a special jail after her arrest on September 3 on
corruption charges, also submitted her wealth statements showing that
he owned two houses at Gulshan and the Dhaka cantonment, and more
than Tk 3.54 crore in bank accounts and fixed deposits.
> The matter is under investigation by the anti-graft task forces
on serious crimes and corruption, the official said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
> Subhan Allah- Only Allah flawless
> Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah
> Allahhuakbar - Allah, the Greatest
> ----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------Would Be
Mahathir of BD
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> If it can be imagined, it is possible- NEC
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at
Yahoo! Games.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subhan Allah-  Only Allah flawless 
           Alhamdulillah - All praise to be of Allah 
                   Allahhuakbar - Allah, the Greatest

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Would Be Mahathir of BD

------------------------------------------------------------------

If it can be imagined, it is possible- NEC

---

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

---

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. __._,_.___

[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com

SPONSORED LINKS

Dhaka bangladesh hotel	Dhaka hotel bangladesh	Call bangladesh
Bangladesh calling card	Bangladesh phone card

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___