Banner Advertiser

Thursday, July 29, 2010

[ALOCHONA] RMG workers demo



RMG workers demo at Mohakhali
 
Dhaka, July 30 (bdnews24.com)–Thousands of readymade garments workers protested in Mohakhali on Friday demanding Tk 5,000 as minimum wage, and the scrapping of the newly established wage scales.

Assistant deputy commissioner of Gulshan zone police Nurul Alam told bdnews24.com that demonstrations from Tejgaon industrial area to Mohakhali began around 8:30am. "They are holding small processions."

The workers have vandalised several cars, he said, adding that "the police have not taken any action yet, but are rather trying to make them understand."

Additional police and RAB members have been deployed in the area to thwart any untoward situation.

Tejgaon industrial area police chief Omar Fark told bdnews24.com: "We are on alert. The workers have already set fire a car on Gulshan Link Road."

Police said there are some 400 garment factories in the area, of which most workers have taken to the streets.

The government on Thursday spelled out the new minimum wage for the readymade garment workers at Tk 3,000 and Tk 2,500 for apprentices. The new pay package will take effect from Nov 1 after completion of legal procedures.

Labour minister Khandker Mosharraf Hossain while announcing the structure called on the workers to accept the new pay scale and said that it has been unanimously set. In case of urgent need, a new wage structure will be announced again after further review.

The chiefs of business bodies FBCCI, BGMEA and BKMEA, present at the briefing, said they will implement the structure within the three-month time frame set by the government.

Following the declaration, three workers' organisations Garments Sramik Oikya Parisad, Jatiya Sramik Jote and Garments Sramik Jote rejected it and asked to reconsider it.

Local government minister Syed Ashraful Islam on Thursday urged parliament members representing Dhaka, Narayanganj and Gazipur constituencies to be ready to face any disorder after the minimum wage limit was declared.

He alleged that a quarter was trying to cause unwanted incidents using the issue of the wage board. "Local parliament members will have to be wary so that no disorder is created. They will have to build public support for this wage board."

In the new wage structure, seven general grades and one apprentice grade have been set for the garment workers. In the latest sixth grade, minimum wage of Tk 1662.50 for workers has been increased to Tk 3000, a rise of nearly 80.45 percent.

A total of Tk 1200 for apprentice workers has been raised to Tk 2500, which is 108 percent increase.

The government had set Tk 1662.50 as minimum wage for readymade garment workers in 2006.




__._,_.___


[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




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] HC ruling mute about changing Constitution



HC ruling mute about changing Constitution

M. Shahidul Islam
 
The much feared doom and gloom is almost over, and the hurriedly convening of a committee to amend the Constitution may prove as putting the cart before the horses. The parliamentary committee not only predated the release of the copy of the High Court (HC) ruling from which the rationality to amend the Constitution is supposed to be derived, the ruling itself seems to have rendered that necessity 'redundant'; its main preoccupation being with the Martial Law Regulation V11 of 1977, which got validated in conjunction with other post - August- 1975 proclamations and orders.
   
This has left the government and its committee adrift. Besides, as feared, the ruling is marred by poor juridical arguments, irreconcilable contradictions and conspicuous political biases. It also seems devoid of the contextual reality that had necessitated the coming into force of the Fifth Amendment itself. Upon reading the full text of the ruling, which got released on July 28, one finds it carrying no inkling of the necessity to amend the Constitution, and, its interpretation of the validity of the Fifth Amendment centring largely on overcoming a legal hurdle posed by a complicated civil litigation.
   
   Constitutional relevance
   The ruling's encompassing of constitutional relevance was narrated in PART XXXIV that stated, "The Petitioner No.1 is a Company and the Petitioner No.2 is its Managing Director. Apparently, they have no special interest in the Constitution of Bangladesh or its legal history. They are, however, very much interested in their own properties, namely, the premises at 11 Wiseghat and 12 Wiseghat. Initially both the properties were declared abandoned...., the petitioners successfully challenged the order declaring the said property as abandoned. The High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1976 not only declared the impugned order illegal but also directed the respondents to hand over the possession of the same in favour of the petitioners within 60 (sixty) days. But the said Order of the High Court Division was not carried out on the plea of bar created by MLR VII of 1977. The petitioners unsuccessfully filed contempt petitions and ultimately those were withdrawn in 1994 (p-327). Since in the face of MLR VII of 1977, even the orders of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court could not be executed to the prejudice of the petitioners, they were aggrieved. ....In this manner, the petitioners were prejudiced and remained so by MLR VII of 1977 but they were unable to challenge it because MLR VII of 1977 was firstly, validated with all other Proclamations, MLRs and MLOs, by paragraph 3A to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, inserted by Proclamations (Amendment) Order, 1977 (Proclamations Order No.1 of 1977). Secondly, MLR VII of 1977 along with all Proclamations MLRs, MLOs, were again ratified, confirmed and validated by Paragraph 18 to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. This paragraph 18 was added by amendment of the Fourth Schedule by Section 2 of the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act No. 1 of 1979). This Act was published in the Bangladesh Gazette Extra-ordinary on April 06, 1979. Although this is no public interest litigation but in order to reach MLR VII of 1977, in the turn of the 21st Century, the petitioners in the instant Rule challenged the ratification and confirmation of MLR VII of 1977 and Proclamations (Amendment) Order, 1977 (Proclamation Order No. 1 of 1977) with regard to insertion of the aforesaid paragraph 3A to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution by the aforementioned paragraph 18 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, added by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979 (Act No. 1 of 1979). (p-328, ruling)."
   
   Poor rationalization
   That notwithstanding, the legal forte of the ruling to have beaconed the necessity of a Constitutional amendment was lost in the charade of obfuscation and the discerned lack of resoluteness; it having condoned the acts emanating from the MLOs and the MLRs during the statutory period while concluding in a sweeping manner that the Fifth Amendment itself was 'illegal', as if the two were not the Siamese Twain they were crafted to be. The fundamental difference between a ruling and a verdict is that the latter is considered to have generated from an exhaustive finding based on evidence and probation, making it mandatory upon the parties to comply with and act upon, mostly in criminal matters. The lack of any such probative inferences has eluded this ruling the required authority to impose upon the legislation any binding onus to affect changes to the Constitution. And, due to the manner in which the ruling's scope was identified and the reasons elaborated-why a serious constitutional matter had to be dealt with in a secluded civil litigation-the necessity to amend the Constitution did not become a prerequisite to redressing the grievances of the aggrieved party, which the court intended. More so, even if one interprets the ruling as a decree of some sort, one finds it colliding head on with other laws; due to its disjointed conclusions, unjustified assertions and many unempirical postulations stampeding upon previous rulings made by courts of competent jurisdiction on the same subject matter.
   
The main thrust of the ruling is its assertion that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is 'illegal'. That assertion is based on a rationale which stated: "From a plain reading of the meanings of the words 'amendment' and 'amended', given by a number of authorities (mentioned above), it is crystal clear that however wide meaning we give, the words 'ratification', 'confirmation' appearing in the sub-title of the Paragraph 18 to the Fourth Schedule of Constitution, would not come within the ambit of the words 'amendment' or 'amended' in Article 142. ..........This insertion of Paragraph 18 is anything but an amendment of the Constitution, rather, this paragraph was thrust into the Fourth Schedule in an effort to legalise what was the most illegal activities of the usurpers and dictators who ruled Bangladesh during the period from August 15, 1975 to April 9, 1979" (p-316). That hardly cuts the ice. An amendment is an amendment, call it by any name. This post-fact political phenomenon shall not be equated with the case of a criminal investigation needing dead corpse's exhumation. It involves our lives gone by, and can not be fully retrieved.
   
Besides, ignoring the backdrop under which the Fifth Amendment came into force, the ruling stated: "Thus an amendment corrects errors of commission or omission, modifies the system without fundamentally changing its nature - that is an amendment operates within the theoretical parameters of the existing Constitution. But a proposal that would attempt to transform a central aspect of the nature of the compact and create some other kind of system - that to take an extreme example, tried to change a constitutional democracy into a totalitarian state - would not be an amendment at all, but re-creation, a re-forming, not merely of the covenant but also of the people themselves. That deed would lie beyond the scope of the authority of any governmental body or set of bodies, for they are all creatures of the Constitution and the peoples' agreement."
   
   Bias & contradictions
   Based on such an analysis, what could have justified the rationality and the legality of the Third (enacting Special Powers Act of 1974) and the Fourth Amendments (imposing one-party rule) which snatched away the fundamental rights of the people and changed the Constitution structurally? The ruling also invoked precedents that contradict with what it espoused. It stated: "In disposing of this Rule, we kept in our mind what A.T.M. Afzal, J. (as his Lordship then was) aptly observed in Anwar Hossain Chowdhury's case 1989 BLD (Spl.)1 at para 491, page 181. In answering the ultimate question involved in these cases i.e. scope of the Parliament's power of amendment of the Constitution, the Court's only function is to examine dispassionately the terms of the Constitution and the law..... Neither politics, nor policy of the government nor personalities have any relevance for examining the power of the Parliament under the Constitution which has to be done purely upon an interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution with the help of legal tools."
   
That implies that the mandate of the judiciary is not to preoccupy with what the legislation has adopted into law, but to interpret and put it into the right perspective. The court seems to have laboured upon interpreting a number of provisions of statutes, orders, proclamations, regulations and ordinances, albeit in the most disjointed manner, but it ended up with little convincing and sound legal conclusions. Instead, it preferred hurling partisan invectives at the other party by stating, "The Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1979, was enacted by the Second Parliament. As an Act of Parliament, generally it is inviolable, unless the Amendment sought to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution itself. As such, it was necessary to examine the subject matters of the amendment. In order to understand and appreciate the real purpose, it was found necessary to lift the veil of enactment and examine the pith and substance of the amending Act; This amending Act, inserted Paragraph 18 to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. The said Paragraph 18 sought to ratify, confirm and validate all Martial Law Proclamations, Martial Law Regulations and Martial Law Orders and also all actions taken under those provisions in a sweeping and omnibus manner without specifying any particular provision or provisions and actions. We have examined some of those in order to find out the real face and the purpose of those Proclamations etc. But for our purpose, it was not necessary to examine all the Proclamations, MLRs and MLOs. Even if one of those is found to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, the amendment would be illegal since it is inseparable" (p-330).
   
Why then the ruling separates the Proclamations and the Orders from the very acts they had given birth to and condones the latter? Besides, many other contradictions seemed to have invalidated this core assertion of the ruling too. In one breath, the ruling says it was not necessary to examine all the MLRs and MLOs, while stating clearly in another segment that, "We have already found that all the Proclamations, MLRs and MLOs were issued in total violation of the Constitution and all those provisions were grossly illegal. This was not, obviously, unknown to the rulers of the day. As such, in their predicament, in order to hide their acts of violation of the Constitution, they further disgraced the Constitution by inserting Paragraph 18 to the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, and ratified, confirmed and validated all those Proclamation etc, incorporating in the said paragraph. This whole process of amendment was engineered in order to hide the illegalities committed by the dictators" (P-317).
   
   Referendum needed
   Despite such starkly contrasting, politically - biased observations, the ruling maintains: "But as a matter of fact, if the pertinent provisions are illegal, those shall remain so, no matter whether those are thrust into the Constitution or not. If the relevant provisions are legal and beneficial to the community, those need not be appended to the Constitution; such provisions remain valid on its own right, since those would be the expressions of the free will of the sovereign people." Did the judiciary leave to the legislation to infer what constituted free will of the people and what did not? Is that the reason why the PM is saying the proposed amendment will not change the words like 'In the name of Allah' which got inserted into the preamble to the Constitution?
   
Be that whatever, the court has uprooted the entire celestial body while its intent perhaps was to pluck a star, so said our founding Editor, late Enayetullah Khan, following the HC ruling's maiden promulgation in late 2005. The ruling also accused the legislation of craftiness in devising the Fifth Amendment and stated: "In this connection it should be noted that by the Second Proclamation (Fifteenth Amendment) Order, 1978 (Second Proclamation Order No. IV of 1978), clause (1A), clause (1B) and clause (1C) were added to Article 142 of the Constitution. Clause 1A provides that when any Bill is passed providing for amendment of the Preamble or any of the provisions of Article 8, 48, 56, 58, 80, 92A or Article 142 is presented to the President for assent, he would cause it to be referred to a referendum the question whether the said Bill should or should not be assented to. This addition of clause (1A) was very craftily made. In one hand the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator was not only merrily making all the amendments in the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh according to his own whims and caprices by his Orders which would have envied James I and Charles I in early 17th Century, but at the same time, made provision in Article 142 itself in such a manner so that the amended provisions can not be changed even by the two-third majority members of the Parliament short of a referendum."
   
   Doctrine of necessity
   The current AL administration derives it authority from the quintessential 'doctrine of necessity', having won an election that was deferred for over 24 months in violation of the Constitutional stipulations. Yet, the most sloppy aspect of the ruling was its dealing of the 'doctrine of necessity' which is what stood at the centre of the declaration of Martial Law in August 1975, though it did not fail to take into cognizance the various brands of Martial Laws mentioned in the respondent's arguments, one of which referred to the (Martial) law that relates to and arises out of a situation in which the Civil power is unable to maintain law and order and the Military power is used to meet force and recreate conditions of peace and tranquillity in which the Civil power can re-assert its authority. "The Martial Law Regulations and Martial Law Orders passed under this type of Martial Law must be germane only to the restoration of peace and tranquillity and induced during the period of unrest," the ruling concurred.
   
Precisely so was the case during the statutory period from August 1975 to April 1979, and the same argument derailed constitutional governance and the election in early 2007. The Constitution does have the provision to declare emergency, but it offers no mandate to anyone to defer elections indefinitely, unless the doctrine of necessity is used as the rationale to do so. If the doctrine of necessity can be justifiable in 2007, what was so wrong about invoking it in 1975 when the nation faced the most gruesome spectacle of becoming a failed state? And, what is the big fuss about the Fifth Amendment which simply strove to restore normalcy following the seemingly endless chaos and anarchy left by the preceding regime?
 


__._,_.___


[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




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] Justice Golam Rabbani on SC Judgement



Justice Golam Rabbani on SC Judgement
 
 


__._,_.___


[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




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] Fwd: Politics, Secularism and Islam [1 Attachment]

[Attachment(s) from Isha Khan included below]

------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Javed Ahmad
javedahmad@yahoo.com

Please find the article attached.

Thanks.      


    

Attachment(s) from Isha Khan

1 of 1 File(s)


__._,_.___


[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




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] Garment wage Tk 3,000 minimum pay; highest raise 87pc



 
 
The government yesterday formally announced the new minimum salary structure for readymade garment sector hoping to put an end to the longstanding labour unrest over wages.Labour and Employment Minister Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain announced the new pay structure for around 3.5 million RMG workers in the country.

The minimum salary at the entry level has been fixed at Tk 3,000: Tk 2,000 in basic pay, Tk 800 in house rent and Tk 200 in medical allowance. The apprentice level wage is fixed at Tk 2,500, up from Tk 1,200 now.

The new wage structure will come to effect from November 1, 2010, said the minister.With the declaration of the new minimum wage, workers of different grades would have increases in their salaries at different rates.

Garment worker leaders, however, expressed disappointment over the new pay scale as they have been bargaining for Tk 5,000 for years.

Mushrefa Mishu, president of Garments Sramik Oikya Forum, said they would not accept the new pay structure, as it is too little to maintain a family these days."We will hold a meeting this evening [Thursday] to announce an agitation programme against the decision. We may call for a strike," she said, adding that it is inhuman that the implementation of the new pay structure would take effect after four months. "The government bowed down before the factory owners," added Mushrefa.

Mustafizur Rahman, executive director of Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), in his reaction echoed the workers' resentment saying that the new minimum wage failed to meet the expectation of the workers.He said the government also has some responsibilities, such as paying stimulus package and removing the bottlenecks of weak infrastructure. "A periodic review of the minimum wage is also a must."CPD was asked to submit a report on price hike of daily essentials since 2006, when the second wage structure was announced, said Mustafizur, adding that according to the report, the prices of basic commodities have increased by 70 percent since 2006.

Business chambers and the body of the garment factory owners, however, welcomed the decision saying that the newly fixed wage will bring positive results and put an end to the crisis in the readymade garment sector.Anis Ud Dowla, president of Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI), said the government should review the wage structure every three years. If the unrest in the sector is contained the factory owners would be able to adjust the workers' salaries through the income backed up by increased production.

AK Azad, president of the apex trade body Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI), said, ""I will suggest the garment owners to follow the new pay scale."

Abdus Salam Murshedy, president of Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), said the industry has been suffering from gas and power crisis and weak infrastructure. This is why, the owners could not increase the wages more. "If the situation improves, I hope the owners will move to increase salaries in three years."

For the last few years, the country has been witnessing violence in the readymade garment sector. Many factories were damaged while production has declined putting the fate of the industry in jeopardy. In the wake of such devastation the government stepped up to solve the problem by fixing a new minimum wage for the workers. Meanwhile, Ikteder Ahmed, chairman of the minimum wage board that was formed in January, submitted the draft recommendations to the labour and employment minister Tuesday.
 


__._,_.___


[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




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] Has the Supreme Court Judgment indirectly nullified the 1/11 changeover?



Has the Supreme Court Judgment indirectly nullified the 1/11 changeover and should Gen. Moin U. Ahmed

                                  be tried for subverting the Constitution?            

 

 

After carefully reading the text of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 5th Amendment Case it suddenly occurred to me that the breadth of the ruling would also cover what occurred after January 11, 2007 when Gen. Moin U. Ahmed and his close military associates subverted, mutilated, held in abeyance and amended the constitution by extending the caretaker government concept beyond the 90 days limit that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. It may also be observed that the two years in which the Caretaker Government was operative there was in fact indirect military rule.

 

The relevant part of the 5th Amendment judgment reads –

 

"We are of the view that in the spirit of the Preamble and also Article 7 of the Constitution the Military Rule, direct or indirect, is to be shunned once for all. Let it be made clear that Military Rule was wrongly justified in the past and it ought not to be justified in the future on any ground, principle, doctrine or theory whatsoever as the same is against the dignity, honour and glory of the nation that it achieved after great sacrifice; … it is also against the honour of each and every soldier of the Armed Forces who are oath bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Bangladesh and uphold the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, honestly and faithfully to serve Bangladesh in their respective services and also see that the Constitution is upheld, it is not kept in suspicion, abrogated, it is not subverted, it is not mutilated, and to say the least it is not held in abeyance and it is not amended by any authority not competent to do so under the Constitution."

 

Logic dictates that everything done in pursuance of the 1/11 agenda is automatically nullified by the judgment including the elections of 2008 that were held under indirect military rule! This would, of course, be a very audacious and unexpected outcome clearly not envisaged by the Supreme Court judges. If even part of my analysis is correct then the following part of the judgment becomes highly relevant –

 

"While dismissing the leave petitions we are putting on record our total disapproval of Martial Law and suspicion of the Constitution or any part thereof in any form. The perpetrators of such illegalities should also be suitably punished and condemned so that in future no adventurist, no usurper, would dare to defy the people, their Constitution, their Government, established by them with their consent. However, it is the Parliament which can make law in this regard. Let us bid farewell to all kinds of extra constitutional adventure forever."

 

One may certainly make an arguable legal case that Gen. Moin U. Ahmed was an adventurist, usurper and defied the people, the Constitution and the Government. The country therefore waits impatiently for Gen. Moin's punishment and condemnation as Parliament no where extended the 90 day rule set on the Caretaker Government which he and others ignored to the utter detriment of the nation.   

                                                                                  

 

                                          



__._,_.___


[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




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

__,_._,___

Re: [ALOCHONA] Business Projects :Bangladesh Army following model of Pak Army



 

Business Projects :Bangladesh Army following model of Pak Army
 
Says BBC radio documentary
 
The business Bangladesh Army is carrying out in the country, is just following the model of Pakistan Army, reported the second episode of the nine-part BBC radio documentary "Probaho" yesterday.

The documentary revealed this while investigating business projects of Bangladesh Army, particularly the Mongla Cement Factory in Khulna.

Regarding the relations between two armies, eminent expert on military affairs in the sub-continent Dr Ayesha Siddika told the weekly BBC documentary, "There is a keen interest in building links with Bangladesh. I mean, older officers, Pakistan Army officers, want to develop a close relationship with Bangladesh Army."

Ayesha also said that she had taken part in many discussions in which high ranked officials of Pakistan Army and Air Force talked without due respect and dignity that another sovereign country deserves. "I know a retired general of Pakistan who is a businessman nowadays and frequents to Bangladesh. He can be defined as a medium of communication," Ayesha added.

While investigating the history of Mongla Cement Factory, a concern of Bangladesh Army Welfare Trust, the documentary found that a bilateral deal was signed between Pakistan and Bangladesh on October 13, 1988 focusing on a loan of $ 5 crore at 2 percent interest.

The deal was signed at a time when Gen Ziaul Haque of Pakistan was killed in a mysterious plane crash nearly two to three months back and Pakistan was heading for a general election.The then Pakistan Army chief was Aslam Begh when Pakistan government approved the loan for Bangladesh considering it as a state matter, the documentary said.

The Mongla factory was financed by a portion of the loan. A government document shows though there were discrepancies in the deal the two states signed, Sena Kalyan Sangstha (SKS) did not face much problem in purchasing machineries for the cement factory project.

The documentary quoted a letter addressed to the then managing director of SKS on June 6, 1990."The deal between SKS and Pakistan Heavy Mechanical Complex Ltd have discrepancies …..The institutional deal allows payment in advance, which was not entertained in the state deal. We need an immediate explanation in this regard," the letter reads.

The time when the cement factory was financed also coincides with the military rule in Bangladesh.High ranking army officers of that time confirmed BBC that the then Pakistan high commissioner in Bangladesh was much eager to have the loan used in implementing the cement project of SKS.

The documentary said that the cement factory in 2008 earned Tk 24 crore as profit--equivalent to the half of the total business profit earned from the business ventures under the trust.The trust was established in Bangladesh in June in 1998 following the model of Pakistan Army Welfare Trust, which was established in 1965.

Pakistan army established the trust showing reasons that as army is the biggest defence force in the country and largest number of personnel are going into retirement every year, the force needs a separate business platform for welfare of the soldiers, said a book titled "Military Inc: Inside Pakistan's Military Economy" by Ayesha Siddiqa.

The projects taken under the trust are more profitable than SKS's and mainly controlled by army headquarters, the documentary added.
 



__._,_.___


[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




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] Bangladesh Telecommunication Act 2010



Bangladesh Telecommunication Act 2010

 

by Badiul Alam

 

Telecom Minister Raziuddin Ahmed Raju finally came up with the controversial amendment proposals to the Bangladesh Telecommunication Act 2001 which has received serious opposition from Members of Parliament, telecom operators, development partners and members of the civil society. The amendment proposals were placed before the current session of parliament immediately before placing the budget for the current fiscal.

In his vision statement, the Telecom Minister said that the amendment of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Act 2001 had become necessary to implement the 'Digital Bangladesh' agenda by incorporating different technological advancements in the field of the telecommunications. But stakeholders have serious reservations about this statement made by the minister. They said that the hidden objective of the proposed amendments is to control the media and also to politicize the telecom sector.

Media, both electronic and print, are the major consumers of the various telecom technologies. A vibrant media can't have a long-term extended honeymoon with the establishment, and this has become true in the case of the existing grand alliance regime. The media has become target of the establishment and the government leaders have no qualms or hesitation in blaming the media for their failure.

The media has become very critical about the administration's failure to address the critical law and order situation, arresting the price hike of essentials and also solving the precarious energy and power problem. In the last election campaign, grand alliance leader Sheikh Hasina focused on these issues and blamed her political opponent and BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia for her failure in addressing these critical issues which caused enormous people suffering. But in her one-and-a-half year tenure so far, the Prime Minister could not provide any light at the end of tunnel in respect of improving the law and order situation and addressing the price hike of essentials, including the price of rice.

Regarding the energy crisis, the government so far has failed to decide upon the outcome of the third round bidding and apprehensions have arisen that the outcome of the third round bidding would not see light of the day during the five-year tenure of the Prime Minister. Regarding the power crisis, some quick decisions have been taken to obtain power from rental sources. The decision on rental power lacks transparency as all unsolicited offers were accepted in this regard. The rental power would be a serious financial burden for the Power Development Board. The cost of rental power varies from Tk 8.0 to Tk 14 per unit whereas the average selling price of the power is Tk 3.5 per unit. It has been estimated that the PDB would incur around Tk 40 billion loss during the current fiscal. It has been alleged people around the power circle are the beneficiaries of the rental power.

The media has been vocal about the various manipulations of the administration and also its failures to address critical issues. Like other regimes, the grand alliance regime has become hostile to the vibrant media and within its short tenure one electronic and one print media has received closure notice and Acting Editor of the daily Amar Desh received humiliating treatment in police custody. The ruthless caretaker regime of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed did not dare to touch the media but the elected government has not hesitated to do so.

The proposed telecom amendment act would provide an instrument in the hands of the administration to control or suppress the media. It was proposed to insert a new clause after Clause 66 of Bangladesh Telecommunication Act 2001, which would be identified as Clause 66a.

It was said, if any person sends any signal, message or summons by using a telecommunication instrument or signaling instrument, which would harm the national unity and integrity, subversive to the state or create ill feelings, division and unrest among the people, or which creates a bad impact on the national sovereignty or country defence or creates a destructive environment in maintaining relations with friendly countries or Bangladesh security or maintaining public security and discipline or direct interference in maintaining rule of law or law and order or encourage to become aggressive or create panic situation among the people or different segment of people or harm the economic activities of the state, in that case the act of said person would be considered as an offence and the said person would either be sentenced a five-year jail term or a fine up to Tk 300 crore or would be awarded both the penalties.

Section 2 of Clause 66a empowers Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) to ask the telecommunication service provider to stop sending signals, messages or summons, without assigning any reason.

Section 3 of Clause 66a said that if the telecom service provider fails to comply with the directive of BTRC that would be considered as offence, which would also bear the five-year jail term or Tk 300 crore penalty or both.  

The offense committed under this act would be considered as a cognizable offence and both the BTRC officials and police would investigate the offence committed by any individual or telecom service provider, and the investigating officer will be empowered to arrest the person without any warrant. The investigative officer would empower to confiscate the equipments without court order if he feels that offender may destroy the equipments and other related evidence.

Another danger of the new added chapter is that there is no standing definition as to which acts would be considered as destructive to the state sovereignty or the country's defence or maintaining friendly relations with the foreign countries or maintaining law and order situation and the rule of law. In this situation misuse or political use of the new added chapter is likely. Under the section 54 of the Crpc the police could arrest anybody without showing any reason. Similarly, the BRTC official or the police could sue anybody under this act if they feels that the act or speech of the said person violates the provision of 66a of the amended Bangladesh Telecommunication Act.

Sophisticated telecommunication is being used in running the electronic media. The print media also uses different devices of the telecommunication equipment and both the media could be squeezed under the amended Bangladesh Telecommunication Act.

The government has passed the Right to Information Act, which could also be affected if the parliament approves the amendment proposals made on Bangladesh Telecommunication Act.

 

Amendment proposals contradict the Telecom Policy, 1998

 

The proposed amendment in respect of the power and function of Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) directly contradicts the Telecommunication Policy 1998, which is the precursor of Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001.

In the Vision Statement, it was stated in the Telecom Policy '98 the strategic vision of the government was to facilitate universal telephone service throughout the country… To achieve this vision, government's role as a service provider will diminish as the private sector's role increases…The Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC) will become the guardian of Bangladesh Telecommunication Act and fulfill its regulatory functions.

Section 4.2.2 of the Telecom Policy '98 says' "The Regulatory Commission will be an autonomous commission, which retains its independence."

Section 4.2.3 of the Telecom Policy '98 deals with the function of the commission, which says, "The primary functions of the Regulatory Commissions are (i) issue operator licenses, (ii) regulations of tariffs, (iii) setting of technical standards, (iv) monitoring of service quality and adherence to rules and regulations by the operators etc."

Section 34 of the Bangladesh Telecommunication Act, 2001 deals with government powers in which it was stated that (1) the government would bear all responsibility in implementation of the international agreements in the field of telecommunication; (2) issues related with the telecommunication would be sent to the Telecommunication Regulation Commission (TRC) for its recommendations; (3) inviting the TRC's advice on any other issues related with the telecommunication; (4) financial arrangements in respect of research on the technical development of the telecommunication and frequency development; (5) directing the TRC to represent Bangladesh in any international or regional conference on the telecommunication.

It has now been proposed to add two new chapters to this clause, which are as follows, (1) approval of all telecommunication services, which would come under purview of license; (2) approval of the telecommunication tariff, call charge and other charges and how the operators would determine the charges; (3) if anything is not clearly spelt out in this act in respect of rate of tariff and other charges and policy directives on the telecommunication services than the government would decide on these issues.

garding the approval of the license to any operators it was proposed to insert a new section in the clause 35 in which it was stated that Commission would examine all the related issues in respect of providing license and submit the report to the government and the government would either approve the license or to reject the application seeking the license.

It was stated that the Commission with the prior approval of the government would conduct all business in respect of telecommunication.

If the parliament approves the proposed amendment, the TRC would not only lose its independence which was enshrined in the Telecom Policy 1998, it would turn into a mere wing or department of the Ministry of Telecommunication.

 

Necessity of the amendment

 

Telecom operators and development partners do not find sufficient justification in amending the Bangladesh Telecom Act, 2001, which has been termed as one of the better pieces of legislation made by the previous Awami League government.

But people involved in the telecom business said that the ruling party wants to politicize the telecom business. They would provide more licensed VOIPs (voice of internet protocol) to their own men, which would not be possible if the TRC remains kingpin in the telecom sector.

Secondly, licenses of the existing mobile operators would be revalidated from 2011. The political masters would be much benefited if the power of licensing does not remain in the hands of TRC.

Thirdly, this will put stringent control on both the electronic and print media, which has become a headache for the administration because of its failure in the different sensitive sectors.

 

Government move receives cold reception

 

Development partners and telecom operators have reacted sharply to the government move amending Bangladesh Telecom Act, 2001.

The World Bank Country Director Ms. Ellen Goldstein in her comments said: "Maintaining a dynamic telecommunications sector is important for accelerating economic growth in Bangladesh, particularly for introducing innovative information technology solutions within the context of a Digital Bangladesh. The World Bank is concerned that some of the amendments proposed to the Telecommunications Act will have negative impact on dynamism of the sector. Of concern is the introduction of greater uncertainty in the legal and regulatory regime, and the re-consolidation of many policy, making, regulatory functions and operations within a single government body. This includes the proposed transfer of regulatory functions like licensing and tariff approval from the regulatory agency back to a government ministry. Such consolidation of functions is inconsistent with international best practice in which government sets policy and provides oversight to a fairly autonomous but accountable regulatory agency. The proposed amendments would likely have effect on new investments in the sector while significantly raising the costs and risks of doing business for existing operators".

Mir Nasir Hossain, Chairman, Mir Telecom termed the proposed amendment proposals as naked aggression to the telecom sector and said that ruling party has an intention to impose BKSAL regime without amending the Consitution.

The Association of Mobile Telecom Operators of Bangladesh strongly protested the government move to amend the Telecom Act, 2001 and threatened to take legal action if the amendment proposal is passed in parliament. 
 


__._,_.___


[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




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

__,_._,___