|
A bridge, perhaps?
RMG: a journey from the private to the
public domain
by Rubana Huq
MISSING reading New Age shames my day. I never miss it though and my eyes generally skim through most of the columns that are placed right next to the defining editorials. The one I read on the January 24, titled ‘RMG workers doubly denied,’ definitely deserved a detailed study. There are a couple of observations, listed below, that the writer has made which deserve a counter response:
Owners of the RMG industry are the ‘principal offenders and violators of law’ and not the workers
He terms owners being in a ‘state of denial’
Workers agitating in Mirpur were being ‘rational and justified as they had been on the previous occasions’
His statistics referring to the survey of 1000 factories
His reference to Bangladeshi workers being paid lower wages than Nepal, Pakistan, India, Togo, Benin
Value addition depends on manufacturers providing compensation packages
The seven observations including the title are enough to ruin any manufacturer’s day. Correction: they are enough to make any conscious citizen’s day and make him/her wonder if the state and the RMG industry are collaborating to empower the elite and to crush the poor.
Conjunctions are extremely dangerous now and therefore, grouping ‘RMG’ with the ‘state’ is a controversy that we cannot afford. Neither can RMG afford such an insult nor can RMG suffer the wrath of an angry writer who sees no light at the end of this country’s tunnel. Hence, yours truly will try and look at more truths than one.
I am currently looking at a brand new book: ‘Venturing into a quota-free world,’ edited by Abdur Razzaque and Selim Raihan, both professors of the Department of Economics at the University of Dhaka. The book has been published by Pathak Shamabesh. The book reached my hand late last night and while I was wasting my time being one of the ‘offenders and violators of law’ since early this morning, I opted for corrective education, grabbed the book, turned to Chapter 11 by Bazlul H Khondker titled ‘Effects of Changes in Garment Exports on Employment, Factor Earnings and Poverty Incidence: Results from an Integrated Modeling Approach’ and decided to beg, borrow and quote from his piece. Mr Khondker also belongs to the Department of Economics at the University of Dhaka and I believe the readers should have no reservations about having to read his comments on the sector. In brief, Mr Khondker has acknowledged that Bangladesh needs to intensify its poverty reduction strategies. He also rightfully refers to Hertel and Martin (2000):
‘Although increased manufacturing exports helped many developing countries to transit out of agriculture and reduce poverty, the benefits were much lower for the poorest countries.’ However, for those who view RMG industry entrepreneurs as singularly evil entities, I would like to quote the writer, once again when he observes that almost 0.74 million workers may lose their jobs if RMG exports fall by 20 per cent and contrary to this scenario, if exports increase by 15 per cent, employment is likely to increase by 0.26 million. Eighty per cent of the job losses will be borne by the women. That would mean that the negative export scenario would affect the low-skilled female workers indicating a straight increase in the national poverty incidence. Rather the writer points out that an increase in this sector would result in a graduation to a ‘non-poor state of livelihood.’
A reader may argue that this information is simply a routine academic exercise and that it needs no further review. Wrong. The fact that the RMG industry is being researched, the fact that academics and scholars are strategising about optimising our existing infrastructure and projecting a positive look is consolation enough for us, the God forsaken manufacturers.
I begin with my comment against the second argument:
The owners of the industry are hardly in a state of denial. At the end of the month, when the balance sheets reflect a dipping figure and when the 7th day of the next month haunts the manufacturers’ psyche, one can hardly expect the RMG exporter to be in a state of denial. But, yes, the manufacturers are in a state of defence. Most of them lack orders that’ll earn enough to pay the salaries of the 400-800 workers per factory; most of them lack corporate compliance which ensures direct orders from large retailers who promise better margins; most of them dread the next column the next day on a daily newspaper which will put their names to shame and will cost them humiliation of a lifetime.
I urge the writer of the article in New Age to investigate if, in truth, the workers who were agitating were truly protesting against delayed payment. They were agitating because of the rumour of ‘Opex’ garments hiding a dead body of a worker. While this rumour had spread, workers of MBM Garments, SQ Sweaters had already reacted and the storm had already begun. I urge the writer to check the records of Opex, MBM, and SQ Sweaters and check if they have ever been even a day late with their salary disbursement. All the three manufacturers are held in very high esteem and have never been defaulters in terms of compliance, quality or credibility.
The electronic media also is embarking on an abusive marathon. A private channel had aired a programme recently where workers of a sweater factory were seen stating their miseries. A full-fledged investigation has been launched and the factory itself is suing that particular channel for manipulation and misreporting.
Are we warring against ourselves? Are all our wars turning out to be wars of propaganda?
The writer’s statistics were largely based on a certain ‘survey’ which was carried out covering ‘a thousand factories.’ The source of the stats was not revealed. I wonder why. Besides, one has the right to also question the variables, the sample size, location and grading. Is it truly fair to generalise the sector and resort to sweeping comments that affect the industry? The writer has also referred to our wages being lower than that of Nepal, India, China, Benin and Togo. I once again wonder if the writer has knowledge of the Nepalese garment industry which hardly exists, of the Chinese garments industry which leads the world with sky soaring exports with no infrastructural investments from the private sector, of India which supports the manufacturers in every form possible. I am surprised that he even makes references to Togo and Benin! Just to put our records straight, I would like to simply refer to the advantages that Nigeria enjoys because of the three favourable international trade agreements. In addition to AGOA, which gives preferential access to US markets to garments made in accredited sub-Saharan African countries, there is the Cotonou Agreement, signed in June 2000, which lifts quotas and tariffs on African textiles and garments in European markets. Then there is the regional agreement on trade liberalisation that promotes intra-regional trade across West Africa.
Are unfair comparisons the answer to the RMG industry right now?
The writer rightly points out that the manufacturers in Bangladesh have little or no value additions to their products. However, does the writer know that skilled labour also requires a level of awareness that comes only with education? He makes further reference to the state and banks being extra generous with the RMG sector. I would like to point out that maximum financial institutions have gone extra miles to help the RMG manufacturers. The fact that the writer mentions letters of credit as an advantage merely proves his unfamiliarity with the global scene. Today, a manufacturer can’t even wait for an LC anymore. Today the manufacturer is expected to do a Landed Duty Paid deal, store the goods in his/her own warehouse and sell from there and above all, get paid on an ‘as and when sold’ basis.
The US retail scene is soft, the EU’s pushing prices down and claiming increased compliance and yet, the average manufacturers, in case of a delay of 7 days with the salary payment, are exposed to the fuming media and the fury of the workers.
If all the manufacturers are harming the sector by being exploiters and in turn, making the sector vulnerable to ‘conspiracy theories,’ is the media playing a positive role by throwing mud at our faces? What should be the way, truly?
Manufacturers are no saints. The minimum wage limit is not the best that the sector can do for the workers. Price hike’s killing the poor worker. Instead of poverty reduction, their pockets are squeezed by the minute. A worker cannot walk back home with a happy face with a lollipop for his/her toddler back at home. A worker cannot afford a decent meal. None of it is untrue. That the manufacturers are themselves not leading impoverished lives is also a truth. That the manufacturers don’t do enough anymore is also a clean reality. That the manufacturers have really done too little, too late is also we all need to reckon with. But are columns/interviews in the simulating media sufficient to rectify the scenario? How best can the BGMEA salvage the situation and not merely coat the infected wounds on a worker’s heels with a cheap ointment? How best can our trade leaders look for a meeting point and not merely subject themselves to attacks from populist angles that quickly rise to their one minute fame and contribute nil to the society?
Generalised opinions, random statistics don’t mend the broken thread. What mends the landscape are perhaps responsible guidance, counselling and above all, the clarity of conscience that capitalism clearly destroys yet nationalism nurtures in every initiative. Can we all build a private bridge together and not depend on rhetoric, seminars and formal platforms that have done so little for all of us?
Rubana Huq is managing director, Mohammadi Group
Our shared values – a
shared responsibility
by Jacqui Smith
LAST June, in my first few days as the home secretary, the attempted attacks in London and Glasgow showed clearly the intent of those who want to mount indiscriminate attacks on public places. As we have seen all too clearly, attacks can happen without warning, and with the aim of causing multiple fatalities. Our current threat level is ‘severe,’ which means that we believe an attack is highly likely. Since becoming the home secretary, I have made it my business to understand the basis for our threat assessments. In countering terrorism – just as much as in tackling crime and in strengthening our borders – I do not take my responsibilities lightly. The gravity and the extent of this criminal terrorist activity are now all too clear to me. And it is equally clear to me that to tackle it we all need to keep clear heads. The threat is real. The threat is live. But we must keep it firmly in perspective. It comes from a very small minority of people – and the great majority of us, who share common values and principles, find the murder of innocent people abhorrent. This is vital when we come to consider how best to respond to the threat we face.
Terrorism is a crime that does not discriminate. The ‘small minority’ threatens the safety and security of all communities in Britain, irrespective of politics, faith, or ethnic background. And we are not unique in this – the same is true elsewhere. Indeed, despite its rhetoric to the contrary, al-Qaeda itself pursues a global strategy of killing Muslims. Terrorism can affect us all, wherever and whoever we are. And let me be clear – such terrorist outrages are crimes, first and foremost. First and foremost, terrorists are criminals. As so many Muslims in the UK and across the world have pointed out, there is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorise, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief. Indeed, if anything, these actions are ‘anti-Islamic.’ The purpose of terrorism is to use indiscriminate killing to dictate the way we think and act, both as individuals and as governments. But it is a weakness of terrorism as a tactic that the way we respond determines the impact that it will have.
Whether terrorists ultimately succeed or not is up to us, not up to them. We should not forget that we operate from a position of strength – for these values are shared by the overwhelming majority of people living in Britain. In Britain our response to preventing terrorism should, therefore, preserve both our security and the values on which our society depends. And in this country we will uphold our common values by pursuing terrorists as criminals through our criminal justice system. They will get the justice that they deny to others. To support the work of criminal investigations and the due process of our judicial system, we need to ensure that the police and security agencies have the powers they need to deal with the threat we face.
Countering terrorism and violent extremism is one of the most important and urgent priorities for the police service. That’s why we are providing record levels of funding for counter terrorism policing. There is consensus on a number of the measures we want to bring forward:
l The gathering and sharing of information about terrorist suspects;
l The greater use of post-charge questioning of suspects;
l Tougher sentencing for offences with a terrorist connection; and
l The seizure and forfeiture of terrorist cash, property and other assets.
But an effective response to terrorism can never solely depend on the state and law enforcement. It also depends on us – on the active commitment of individuals and communities to certain rights and responsibilities, to shared values which apply irrespective of religion or culture. These rights include the right to life, and to liberty. The right to freedom of speech and expression, and to freedom of religion. The right to live the lives we wish, subject only to our law. The rights we claim for ourselves need to be matched by the responsibilities we owe others – to our fellow citizens, to a common good. Together, these rights and responsibilities are the foundation for citizenship. The way we respond to terrorism must reinforce our shared values – because it is on these values that our security ultimately rests.
Because our work to reduce the threat here depends on individuals and communities, we will seek the widest possible consent for, and understanding of, our strategy. Success requires consensus as much as executive or law enforcement powers – and that in turn requires openness and consultation. I have talked about the threat we face and about principles which must inform and guide our response. I now want to focus in particular on counter radicalisation.
Study of experiences in this country and elsewhere has told us a lot about why people are drawn into the world of violent extremism, either as actors or supporters. Our best estimate is that in this country, as in others, violent extremism is caused by a combination of interlocking reasons:
l By an ideology, by which I mean both a misinterpretation of religion and a view of contemporary politics and history;
l By ideologues and propagandists for this cause, very often taking advantage of the open institutions in this country;
l By vulnerability in young people, of a kind that I recognise from other contexts;
l By communities which are sometimes poorly equipped to challenge violent extremism; and
l By grievances, some genuine and some perceived, and some of course directed very specifically against government.
Our strategy to deal with radicalisation to violent extremism must therefore focus on each of these factors. We need to challenge the ideology of violent extremism, that misreading of Islam and view of history and contemporary politics which justifies terrorism. The ‘we’ in that sentence means not only civic society in Britain, but states and communities overseas. Government can facilitate, but it should be cautious about the degree of expertise it can bring to bear on matters of religion and about the extent to which it should seek to lead or to guide. And we need to be very clear about parameters.
I do not wish to discourage dissent or seek political conformity. I will not dictate how people should practise their religion or express their lawful opinions. But I will never accept any argument which seeks to legitimise and sanction mass murder. But we must take action not only against the ideology, but also against those who promote it. We have legislated to enable us to do so – and we are now systematically disrupting the small group of key propagandists for terrorism in this country. The use of intelligence to identify and go after the individuals concerned will become an ever more important priority for policing and the security services.
We also need to sensitise those working in the institutions – including in prisons and educational establishments – where propagandists are and have been active. Education has a key positive role to play in countering violent extremism – not only through the teaching of particular subjects like citizenship and religion, but also through the shared values embodied by the method of teaching. As a government, we have no wish to constrain the space for enquiry. But we want active debate and challenge, not a monologue imposed by ill-disguised force, and we must be ready to take action against propagandists who incite violence.
Schools can also make a crucial contribution to building resilience and supporting young people who may be exposed to extremist influences. As you have been discussing at the conference, the internet is a key tool for the propagandists for violent extremism. We are already working closely with the communications industry to take action against paedophiles, and together we have improved the way that instances of possible abuse can be reported by internet users. If we are ready and willing to take action to stop the grooming of vulnerable young on social networking sites, then I believe we should also take action against those who groom vulnerable people for the purposes of violent extremism. In the next few weeks, I will be talking to industry, and critically those in the community, about how best to do this – and how best to identify material that is drawing vulnerable young people into violent extremism. Where there is illegal material on the net, I want it removed.
Our strategy also needs to find ways of directly supporting vulnerable people – by intervening with individuals when families, communities and networks are concerned about their behaviour. We want to know what advice to provide to a parent concerned about the behaviour of a son or daughter, drifting into a network which sanctions violent extremism – and we want to know how best to provide it. In this context, we need to think about the most effective response – more about rehabilitation, where that will work, and less about the criminal justice system. Support to vulnerable individuals is best provided by communities. I commend the lead that a number of mosques have provided, not only in developing material which refutes a misreading of Islam but also in providing a space in which that material can be put to best use.
There are things government can do to help:
We are supporting work with young offenders vulnerable to radicalisation;
We can help create linkages between those working on rehabilitation programmes overseas and those wishing to do so here; and
We can support the police and others as they work with ‘at risk’ individuals.
Building resilient communities is the next key part of any strategy to counter radicalisation. The people who really understand the challenge of confronting violent extremism in our towns and cities are the people who live and work there. Muslim communities have been more at risk from the propagandists of violent extremism than anyone else. So there is a particular and compelling role for Muslim organisations, institutions and civic society to challenge what I have described today as anti-Islamic activity. Of course, these organisations have every right to expect respect and recognition from others for what they have already achieved, and I pay tribute to the work being done in our communities, by our communities, for our communities – often without a fanfare of publicity but with quiet determination, and great conviction.
Over the next three years, we will be working with local authorities and local communities to bring about a step change in this work. Many projects are focused on women and on young people, with others designed to support citizenship education and volunteering in the Muslim community. There are also a number of community-led programmes for faith leaders and for faith organisations, for imams and for mosque schools.
Policing has a key role to play in supporting resilient communities. But I want to emphasise that policing is vital to all aspects of the counter radicalisation strategy I have described today – challenging the language of violent extremism; disrupting propagandists for terrorism; better protecting vulnerable institutions; and supporting individuals vulnerable to recruitment. Counterterrorist policing is not just about the sharp end – the disruption of those who seek to attack us – crucial though that is. It must also be about stopping people becoming or supporting terrorists. We cannot, after all, simply arrest our way out of this problem.
I want to end my remarks on our strategy by talking about how we address grievances which some people hold in this country and which may encourage them to sympathise with the propagandists of violence. These grievances may be about our foreign policy, or what is perceived to be our foreign policy. They may derive from the experience or the perception of socio-economic disadvantage. Or they may be based on perceptions or misperceptions of police and law enforcement activity. No grievance can justify terrorism. But where grievances are legitimately expressed, we are of course prepared to debate them. Terrorism must not drown dialogue. And where grievances are not only legitimately expressed but well founded, we must be prepared to respond. That a cause has been misappropriated by violent extremism does not make it a wrong one. Rather, putting a grievance beyond the reach of a democratic solution, beyond the understanding of state and society, is a goal of those who wish to harm us. We should do them no favours.
The framework for action we are developing is designed to offer comprehensive engagement with the threat Britain faces from violent extremism. We have built a wide range of partners to deliver the framework, some of whom are new to the issue. The challenge is considerable, and cannot be met by a narrowly defined or narrowly delivered response. We are working at home and overseas, at national and local levels. We are talking to local authorities and to regional government. We are considering carefully how the policing of counter terrorism needs to develop to take account of counter radicalisation, and the extra resources that may be required for this purpose.
It is certainly a key role of government to protect people’s security. And it is also certain that government cannot do so on its own. That is the basis of our strategy – a strategy that is perhaps unequalled in the world today for its breadth of partnership and scale of ambition. To succeed against terrorism and violent extremism in this country, we will depend not on force, but on force of argument. Not on authoritarianism, but on the authority that derives from shared values, shared rights, and shared responsibilities.
Abridged text of the speech of the British home secretary, Jacqui Smith, to the first International Conference on Radicalisation and Political Violence on January 17
DU teachers and students
The love affair between some of the DU teachers and students with major political parties has never been conducive to the educational environment of the institution. But the recent DU development is totally different. When people who claim to have fathered the constitution are struggling to find appropriate words to sing the paean of a regime which has neither constitutional credibility nor public support but brute force, only our ‘bad boys’ from the DU showed the courage to call a spade a spade. If democracy is restored (not imposed) ever, their contribution will always be remembered.
Saif
Dhaka
* * *
The released Dhaka University students have alleged that they were tortured on remand. It is a serious allegation as it is against our Constitution. There should be an enquiry regarding the allegation. If it comes out to be true then someone must take the responsibility.
Waheed Nabi
England
* * *
A Dhaka court on Monday acquitted four Dhaka University teachers and 11 students in a case filed against them in connection with the August last year’s unrest and demonstrations at the DU. Now that the court has acquitted them, shouldn’t these teachers and students file a lawsuit against the government and demand compensation for the mental torture and harassment they went through all these period?
Gopal Sengupta
Canada
The land grabbers of Bhawal
I would like to add to your excellent editorial ‘Bhawal must be example, not exception’ (January 23). Granting certificates to 16 factories regularising their illegal occupation of forest land will only encourage people to grab whatever and whenever they can. It is a negation of law to say that illegal land grabbing will not be allowed in future. Then why spend so much time and money to punish people for corruption which happened in the past? Shouldn’t all corruption cases and investigations be dropped? The government may just declare that no corruption will be allowed after a certain date. It is specious argument to say that removing the illegal occupants from forest land will cause loss of employment to some people and, therefore, the crime (it is a crime to grab public land) should be condoned for this time. The authorities should be more original.
A citizen
On e-mail
|
Next on Quick Comments
|
a. Azam J Chy brushes aside suing Hasina (New Age, January 25)
b. Talks with political parties to start soon: Fakhruddin: Says trial of war criminals is demand of the time (New Age, January 25)
c. Chill likely to intensify into cold wave (New Age, January 25)
d. Dhaka Univ students demand withdrawal of all cases (New Age, January 25)
e. 4 Jamaat leaders sued again for killings in 1971 (New Age, January 25)
f. Govt firm on smooth boro input supplies: Cutting power supply to towns among the options (New Age, January 25)
g. Restriction imposed on teenagers’ night-time movement (New Age, January 25)
|
‘Quick Comments’ (letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com) seeks the readers’ instant reaction on different national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
