Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The deterioration of Tarique Rahman’s health in the prison cell of the BSMMU hospital and the subsequent mayhem caused by the student wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party call for a deeper look into the military-controlled government’s sense of justice and the culture of political protests that kills innocent people.
   That Tarique Rahman, son of former prime minister Khaleda Zia and senior joint secretary general of the BNP, fell in a bathroom of the hospital and sustained injuries to his head seems to substantiate repeated warnings by doctors that his legs are exposed to the threat of paralysis. It is true that Tarique is an accused in a number of corruption cases, that the corruption chargers should be thoroughly investigated and that he should be brought to justice through public trial. However, his indictment in the cases should not be used by a government as a justification for denying him proper medical treatment, at home or abroad, and that too by a government that talks about democracy and rule of law. The rule of law dictates that an accused can only be punished after he or she is convicted in a competent court of law. Again, if the detention of an accused before the trial process is completed poses a serious health risk, through the denial of appropriate treatment for instance, the magnitude of the crime committed by the government increases manifold. Since Tarique is in government custody, it is principally the government’s responsibility to ensure that he is provided with appropriate medical treatment for his ailments. To fail to do so is a grave crime and Monday’s protests may have been a public reaction to that failure.
   However, the violence perpetrated by the Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal during Monday’s protests, which left one person dead, a handful of vehicles damaged, more than 50 people wounded and caused panic among people, is not acceptable. However genuine the grievance may be, it does not give any individual or group the right to the kind of agitation that results in the loss of people’s life and limb and destruction of public and private property.
   Meanwhile, in response to Monday’s violence, the government has reportedly issued orders to the police top brass to bring the law and order situation under control. We believe this government order is incongruous with its own actions. On the one hand, it is this regime that is principally responsible for the protests in question, having denied Tarique appropriate medical treatment in an appropriate hospital. On the other hand, it is the regime which is pitting the police against the political activists for such protests. The government should abandon this double game before it takes a more serious turn.

NBR complicit in hospitals
duty exemption fiasco

New Age reported on Sunday that the National Board of Revenue has launched an investigation into possible financial malpractices by a slew of private and public hospitals who may have abused an import tax exemption granted by the government in 2005. The revenue board has revealed that it will investigate allegations that the hospitals made false declarations in importing duty-free medical equipment and failed to ensure quality health services at affordable costs – evidently one of the preconditions for the zero-tariff privilege that they enjoyed. We believe this investigation is of tremendous importance in public interest since there is little rationale to deprive the exchequer of duties to serve large commercial entities that are reaping significant profits to start with. But this is also where our endorsement of the NBR move ends.
   In railing against the commercially run private sector hospitals in question, for taking duty-free privileges, the revenue board is shirking responsibility and demonising these business entities. The NBR chairman has accused these hospitals of doing ‘brisk business’, while failing to pay taxes, and ‘charging high prices’ for the care they provide. Doing brisk business is not a crime and, if private sector healthcare is not bound by price ceilings, neither is it a crime to charge high prices, as long as the government provides affordable, ubiquitous, and quality alternatives, which we believe is the government’s responsibility. And it is certainly not a crime to avail a duty exemption granted by the government. The revenue board is correct in suggesting, however, that it is absurd to grant such privileges to any company that does not undertake to serve the greater common good. And if such is the case, then it is the board and its colleagues in the government which must shoulder the responsibility for granting such an inappropriate privilege to the companies concerned.
   In its list of charges the revenue board has claimed that a number of private hospitals have failed to provide medical treatment at ‘reasonable and affordable costs’ thus failing to fulfil one of the NBR preconditions. Given that the government had initially granted the duty exemption only to non-profit hospitals and later extended it to a handful of exclusive ones which a majority of the country’s ordinary citizens cannot afford, the revenue board cannot feign surprise that this scenario remains unchanged. It is once again the board’s failing that it failed to specify the terms of its preconditions since ‘reasonable and affordable’ are relative terms which cannot easily be translated to money values.
   In light of these realities, we suggest that the revenue board punish any and each of these hospitals if they have committed financial crimes such as false declarations for their duty exemptions, collecting what is due to the exchequer to the last penny, and enforcing hefty fines for the transgression. We also suggest that the government immediately withdraw duty exemptions to all hospitals, except if they are run as audited non-profit entities – in which case their contribution to public interest should be awarded. Lastly, and most importantly, the revenue board should stop demonising businesses and instead punish concrete financial crimes, and take into task government officials who are complicit in such crimes.

THE National Curriculum and Textbook Board is taking more on its plate than it can chew. The board already enjoys a measure of autonomy but the power it is currently seeking is not warranted by its track record or proven ability to deal with old problems. A news item published in New Age on August 18 said the board was trying to arrogate to itself extraordinary authority over matters that do not relate to its province. The news item said a new ordinance is being prepared under which none but the board will have the right to sue people responsible for textbook piracy and the publishing, marketing and stocking of textbooks, notebooks and guidebooks or any other books related to the curriculum without the board’s approval. The draft of the new ordinance is being readied with that end in view. The proposed changes, it was further disclosed, will curb the tendency of some people who frequently file suits in different parts of the country making the education secretary the respondent. Citing the draft of the proposed ordinance the report says violators of the ordinance will be ‘penalised financially and also imprisoned, if necessary’.
   It has to be admitted that supply of flawed textbooks and related materials is a persistent educational ill and if a single authority deals with it, the job can be better streamlined. But certain aspects of the proposed changes are frankly perplexing. Firstly, if any party is violating the board’s rules then the board is doubtless the aggrieved victim who must prosecute; or who else will volunteer to do this job for the board? Then what is the meaning of the proposed provision that the board will have the sole right to sue violators? Are too many organisations competing to file suits because the board’s jurisdiction has been encroached upon by some book publishers? Secondly, while the board is expected to file its own suit, the consumer always has the right to sue any individual or agency by whom she or he feels cheated. The textbook board’s rights must not circumscribe the consumer’s right to seek redress.
   Another confusing point is that pertaining to the education secretary being made defendant in lawsuits. A government official can be made defendant in a lawsuit only if she or he has jurisdiction over the matter. No amount of rule making can change this. What finally adds to our confusion is the disclosure that piracy of textbooks and printing of any other books without the approval of the textbook board will be treated as an offence and the violators of the relevant ordinance will be penalised financially and also imprisoned, if necessary, according to the draft of the proposed ordinance as quoted in the New Age report. But is not piracy of textbooks or any other books a crime in the existing laws? Is any new ordinance required? And the board can only prosecute; prescribing and awarding punishment falls outside its competency. Bringing out pirated editions of books and printing and marketing the forbidden notebooks for lower classes are a law-and-order problem. It is alleged that violators have been identified in the past but no action has been taken against them. Although notebooks for classes up to class eight are banned, illegal notebooks flood the market. Violators have got away despite tough punishment prescribed. Presumably they have accomplices among a section within the board. Since the board is bristled with corruption it should not be further empowered by a fresh ordinance till it purges itself. More powers in wrong hands will lead to more abuse.
   When the specialised agencies are not quite able to live up to their expectation, the board had better concentrate on its main job of printing and supplying mistake-free textbooks on time. The complaints in this regard have been piling up. Failure to supply textbooks even months after the school session has started is a serious instance of mismanagement needing to be cured. Now the board is also required to publish English version textbooks for students of English medium schools that offer education according to the board’s curriculum. Last February the media reported that English version textbooks were not available even two months into the academic year. The board had failed in the previous year also but learnt nothing from experience. The non-availability of textbooks is seriously hampering studies but it goes on from year to year.
   Questions have also been raised about the quality of paper on which textbooks are printed by printers. It is alleged that printers use low-quality paper instead of ‘security paper’ and Karnaphuli white print provided by the board. Printers allegedly sell the board-supplied papers and pocket the margin. How can the board overlook the racket? It goes to suggest venality and collusion. Another malpractice is alleged. Publishers bring out textbooks far in excess of the approved number and market the surplus copies for profit taking advantage of the delay in reaching textbooks to schools. These are the familiar stories of corruption and law breaking and could be dealt with in accordance with the existing law given the will on the part of the board. The board needs better management skill and stricter accountability, not more power.
   The board is wont to afflict the students with another woe: mistakes in textbooks. Textbooks appear which are replete with mistakes and despite media reports these mistakes are either not corrected or new mistakes are committed. Mistakes relate to printing and proofreading as also information and data. To take one example, an English book titled The Ten Thinkers published by BOI Academy is taught in class three of some prestigious schools in the city. The title page at the top contains a notice which reads ‘Written according to Primary Schools, Secondary Schools and Kindergarten Schools of Bangladesh ‘. After all, the meaning is clear; then why bother about grammar and syntax! There is an experimental literary style called ‘Parataxis’. The experiment lies in that if words can be strung together to communicate a message then the rules of grammar can be safely dispensed with. There are other gems in this book. The exercise at the end of the chapter on Hazrat Shah Jalal lists a question about the pond in the compound of the shrine worded as ‘Where is situated the pond and what contains in it?’ Hopefully, the teacher will not lack the necessary imagination to infer that by ‘what contains in it’ the questioner means ‘what is contained in it’. The book is studded with such gems.
   Besides the solecisms of language there appears to be a lack of perspective in the lessons. The story on Hazrat Shah Jalal mentions that the Hindus (of Sylhet) used to oppress the Muslims. We do not want to go into the historical veracity of the observation. History, after all, is what Edward Gibbon represented it to be – a register of crimes and follies of man. Just as the Hindus of Sylhet oppressed the Muslims, some Muslim kings also oppressed the Hindus. Without challenging the facts we would like to put the question: is the persecution of Muslims by Hindus the most basic knowledge needing to be instilled into the minds of eight-year-olds? And if this bit of information was at all mentioned, it should have been balanced by teaching the children that Hazrat Shah Jalal and other Muslim saints and savants like him had won the love and admiration of both Hindus and Muslims and that they greatly contributed to the promotion of communal harmony in this land (which is at present endangered, unfortunately). Communalist lesson at the very beginning of life will not help the strengthening of national solidarity.
   The board has much to do to foster the spirit of communal harmony among children in the midst of today’s communally charged atmosphere. The ominous shadow of fundamentalism is spreading in society via textbooks as another medium. We trust the board will use its autonomy not to fall a prey to it.