A couple of nights ago, I attended a reception of King’s College, University of London, my alma mater, in Washington, DC for its alums in the east coast of the USA. The highlight of the evening was a debate on ‘The US Presidential Elections: Any Future for the ‘War on Terror’?’ The panel, moderated by King’s College’s director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR), consisted of folks who had a leading role in the CIA’s hunt for bin Laden, a former director of Counter Terrorism at the National Security Council, a senior news correspondent of Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC) TV — in short a pretty elite group of people who’ve had to deal with a lot of political violence in the world in the post-9/11 era. One thing led to another and I presented the panel with the question about the long-term Western strategy — or perhaps the lack there of — on how to deal with the root causes of terrorism and if they thought there was any benefit to ‘spreading the wealth and knowledge’ to parts of the world that now seem to be fertile recruiting ground for radical foot soldiers for violent extremism such as Afghanistan.
   Citing the example of Mohammed Yunus and his Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and the fact that they were given the Nobel Peace Prize for making the link between poverty and peace, I asked whether there was any connection between extremism in Saudi Arabia where there is abundant wealth but little or no education, extremism in Pakistan where there is neither wealth nor education and finally the lack of extremism in another Muslim nation like Malaysia where there is both wealth and education.
   I would now like to share some of the responses from the panellists and share some of my views on the growing trend of religious extremism in Bangladesh in the context of the latest fuss over some statutes in Dhaka. The MBC journalist, who happened to be from one of the most troubled regions of the world, pointed to the humiliation of Palestinians by the heavy handedness of Israel and its disingenuous Western allies as one of the root causes. In general, they supported the implicit connection between disparity of wealth between the Western nations and the major troubled regions of the world. The director of the ICSR stated that the latter need to find ways to productively employ its youth — especially the educated ones. The optimist in me took some comfort in the fact that one of them cited Bangladesh as an example of a moderate Muslim nation while my cynical side did its best to hide a sarcastic smirk.
   We have seen religious bigots in Bangladesh slash the throat of a Dhaka University professor; we have seen them explode bombs across the country in unison and we have even seen them kill judges. Our justice system has meted appropriate punishment to some of them and one day I hope that we as a nation will be able to find peace through justice against the war criminals who literally and figuratively raped, humiliated and killed many thousands of innocent people in 1971. With that greater perspective, the issue over the baul statutes really does seem like a storm over a teacup. The question that immediately comes to mind is, ‘Why is it so damn difficult for some people to understand that culture and religion can co-exist and even complement each other in defining a nation’s identity?’ Make no mistake I chide the bigots on both sides of the conflict – the leftist extremists as well as their religious counterparts. At least one ‘star quality’ newspaper in Bangladesh has been accused of spreading myths and lies concerning the destruction of the baul statues near Zia International Airport by a practicing member of the baul community (see reference no. 1).
   But enough is enough. Bangladesh is a country of rich cultural heritage and is home to some 150 million peace loving people — 88 per cent of whom happen to be Muslims. Ethnically, we are one of the most homogenous nations in the world. All this violence and radical extremism is frankly unnatural to us. So where is all this coming from? If we are one nation, why do we have a parallel system of education — split simply by an English (school) and an Arabic word (madrassah) meaning the same thing — namely a place of study? Why are we perpetuating this disparity? A person educated via the ‘madrassah’ system is less likely to get a good job – in an already tough market – and naturally feels resentment towards his/her compatriot who followed the ‘school’ system. Why are we creating a world of the haves and the have-nots? The bigots in our society find it very easy to recruit the unemployed youth to go do their dirty work – be it the main stream political parties like the BNP or the Awami League; be it the leftists or be it the religious extremists. Everyone is playing the game to take advantage of the youth to further their own beliefs and cause at the expense of a moderate country like ours. May be its time we had a well thought out strategy to consolidate our nation instead of letting it roll off in separate directions and eventually tear apart.
   One final point I would like to make is a specific one: why are the authorities not consulting members of the public before they put up statues in prominent spots? People of all walks of life should have a say in the formal representation of our proud cultural heritage. Let us include each other and seek compromise; let us coexist as one nation that puts itself above anything else. Let us honour the baul belief system and their way of life as being another part of collective Bangladesh.
   Shabbir A Bashar, PhD
   Washington, DC, USA

Given the crowded condition of Dhaka roads, when total trip time is considered, motorised transport has little advantage in speed over non-motorised. In addition, unlike motorised vehicles, when rickshaws are caught in traffic jams they emit no air pollution, waste no fuel, and make no noise.
   Rickshaws are the most efficient way to move people or goods for short to medium distances. According to UN-ESCAP, 70 per cent of trips in Dhaka are under two kilometres distance. For such trips, walking, cycling, and rickshaws are very appropriate, as these waste no fuel, create no air or noise pollution, and take very little time. It is a waste to use a car for such a short distance, and the waiting time for buses makes the trip potentially far longer than it would by rickshaw or other means.
   The best transport for women, small children and the elderly is rickshaws. When rickshaws are banned, it is these groups who suffer the most. In addition, many poor people derive their employment from pedalling rickshaws. This benefits not only the rickshaw-pullers, but their families as well. One survey shows that five million people throughout the country are dependent on rickshaw pullers for their livelihood.
   Rahidul Samanna Roky
   Dhaka University
   

A fairly long article on the subject was published in the pages of a local English daily on August 31.
   Traders are nothing but present day’s version of ‘Shylock the Jew’ from Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’ which the writer must have come across. Like Shylock, ideas of sympathy and compassion are outside the vocabulary of the traders. Their motto is: ‘money begets money’. Ramadan is a wonderful opportunity for them; a sort of ‘bumper harvest’ season that comes frequently in the calendar year.
   Regarding the life hereafter, the traders believe in the reality of the popular saying: ‘The past is all lies, the present the truth, and the future, a dream.’ Trading for them is pragmatism and realism down to the last deal. For them, ‘to make hay while the sun shines’ is all that matters in their working life. Despite all the appeal to their piety, conscience, and of faith and moral belief, for the trader ‘Cash is King’ and the bigger the kingdom the better. Nothing else matters!
   SA Mansoor
   Dhaka

This is in reference to the news report, “NBR rejects GP’ tax benefit proposal for IPO’.
   You can’t have the cake and eat it too, as the old adage goes. I welcome the decision of our National Board of Revenue not to give tax relief to GrameenPhone just because they are giving away shares to friends and cronies. The origin of most securities and anti-competition laws has been the USA. Many of our laws are derived directly from US laws.
   The US capital market has a straightforward approach for raising capital. Issuer may either undertake the route of private placement or if it is larger and established company in need of large volume of capital, it may directly issue an IPO. The two strategies are not mixed together as in our market. The IPO is used for obtaining large amounts of capital and ensuring direct listing in an appropriate regional or national stock exchange. The shares privately placed under the US-SEC exemptions may remain unlisted securities. There is a provision in Bangladesh laws which allow brokers to trade non-listed securities. These may be traded privately or in an over-the-counter market till such time there is a statutory increase in the number of share holders and then they may get automatically listed in any regional stock exchange.
   The primary securities market has always ebbed and flowed during the past decade. During some years, the IPOs have shown tremendous public response and in other years there has been little interest resulting in the offers being covered by the underwriters. The public response has never seen a natural growth often interrupted by sudden spurt and at other times becoming totally flat. A lot depends on the public confidence in new issues. That confidence is a result of good business performance of the companies through dividends and corporate behaviour. Thus issuers are never really sure about their success in getting favourable response. The issue mangers are not much help because to them the job is to complete the floatation and forget matters. For many of them, a successful strategy is to make an IPO as small as possible. This is done by marketing share privately beforehand to select investors. The investors are induced by the attractive pattern of the small size of offering and belief that on listing the new shares would trade at a premium and would result in a windfall profit. Many share issues have been programmed with such intent.
   The procedure of making public offering has changed a lot –– and arbitrarily –– during the past decade. Under the Companies Act, 1913, the promoters had to go door to door selling shares. After the stock market crash of 1929 in the US, some control was established by the British Raj and none could raise funds from the public in the Indian sub-continent without the consent of the ministry of finance. In 1947 this became the Control of Capital Issues (Continuance) Act. Prior to 1993 the practice of public offering was straightforward. The companies seeking public funds applied to the Controller of Capital Issues, Ministry of Finance in prescribed forms and undertook to arrange all steps such as prospectus, underwriting, banking arrangements and listing. In the 1960s when the stock market was booming, the directors of companies used their preemptive rights to allot shares to friends and relatives. The action of the stock exchanges eventually put a stop to any preferential allotments.
   All this changed after the SEC was established in 1993. Two existing laws, Securities & Exchange Ordinance, 1969 and the Control of Capital Issues (Continuance) Act, 1947 were embodied in the new law with the authority vested in the SEC. The S&E Ordinance of 1969 is derived from the US law. The law was over simplified, which unfortunately did not take into account the cultural aspect of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi market and the ways things were done in the capital market.
   Private placement was practically unknown in Bangladesh before 1993-94. With the entry of the non-resident international investors, private placements became popular. An estimated amount of $290 million changed hands directly between the companies and offshore funds by way of arranged placements of pre-IPO and right issues usually at substantial premium during 1994-96. Thereby building a time bomb which worked under the influence of supply side dynamics leading to an irrational rise in the price of shares in 1996 which was reinforced by the total absence of any regulation on the streets.
   From the above it appears that while our securities market has many regulations, it does not have a standard in respect of private placement of shares. After all it has taken the Bangladesh Bank to stop the Banks and National Board of Revenue to stop unfair pre-IPO placements.
   Moreover, today the public have demonstrated their confidence in the IPOs. There is absolutely no longer any need to allow any shares to be privately placed. It has been observed in the past that the share are only given to the insiders, their spouses, their children, their relatives and their friends. Despite all their efforts to give the public the short end, the companies need the public who are happy to accept their pittance. Foolishly, the public buy and sell, making the demand and supply. And when the company insiders eventually want to get out, it is the public which give them the exit. So why should any company be allowed to continue to damn the public in the public domain? If they want to place shares privately let them do so and continue to trade as an unlisted privately traded stock. Otherwise, they should have the courage to face the market.
   Least we should not forget what is happening to the major international capital markets. The credit crunch started by the sub-prime mortgage loans has affected major world class institutions. Great investment banks such as Bear Stern, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs etc. and many commercial banks e.g. Citi Bank, Wachovia had to be rescued. Largest bailout of AIG group and Freddie Mac and Fenny Mae should tell us to be cautious. These unsettled loans and the credit crunch are being called ‘toxic assets’ by the US secretary of treasury.
   We have a better name for them, we call them ‘defaulters’. Perhaps we should take heed and learn to walk before we want to run. After all, small is often beautiful. Let our stock market digest what we can eat and nothing more.
   Imtiyaz Husain
   Gulshan, Dhaka

Only a few days are left before November 4, the election day of America. We do not know what will happen: will the people come out of the cocoon of racism and vote for Barack Obama or though Barack Obama is ahead in the opinion poll, will in the privacy of polling booth ‘Bradley effect’ dominate?
   If that happens, it will be very unfortunate; America will lose the chance to regain its lost glory because the Democratic nominee Barack Obama seems to be the person suitable for the endeavour.
   Former secretary of state Collin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. It is very significant; after observing Obama for a long time he came to the conclusion that Obama is the person who could lead the country because he is steady and very intelligent.
   People from other countries also like Obama. He seems to be a level headed, capable and kind person. His foreign policy is admirable; he opposed Iraq war and declared that if necessary he will meet other head of states without pre-condition. It is a sign that reveals he wants peaceful relationship with other countries, make friends, not enemies.
   So, the world will wait and hope for the best.
   Nur Jahan
   Chittagong

I did not know how to react to the news that appeared in your newspaper that the TAC has suggested to place psychiatrists at public offices to counsel public servants against graft! For one, this is certainly an idea without parallel for I am not sure whether another country has thought of such a necessity although in support of the TAC suggestion, it must also be said that there is no country abroad that is perhaps as corrupt as ours and hence they have no need of a psychiatrist!
   Seriously, here are some questions that I would like to ask the TAC. For one, who would be going to such a psychiatrist assuming that someone stupid enough in this government or the next government accepted this suggestion of the TAC? Is the TAC suggesting that only those who are corrupt would be sitting with the psychiatrists for counselling so that they can help themselves and give up their corruption or would all those who serve in the government should go to the psychiatrists? If everyone has to go, has anyone in the TAC thought how this would be done? If only the corrupt should see the psychiatrists, who would determine who are the corrupt ones –– the government or the public servants themselves? If the government chooses, then why would they be sent to the psychiatrists and not to the ACC to be punished for the law says that people who have been found corrupt should be punished? If the public servants who know they are corrupt should themselves go and sit with the psychiatrist, what would the law do with them for they would themselves be telling their employer that they are corrupt? Finally, why would anyone do that?
   The TAC, since it has been established, has done very little apart from adding some humour to our lives by the frequent public appearances of its chairman who is seen often pleading for customers to keep his Commission going. In fact, for those of us who know a bit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa that inspired this TAC, the comparison itself is a great joke. The fact that this was created so late in the life of this government is another joke. To put this in the form of a comparison, it is like you go duck hunting and before you start shooting, you blast a cannon and then start shooting!
   Of course the TAC’s idea is outlandish. If the chairman and its members have common sense, they should sit and in the free time they are having at our expense, which is a lot, they should write a paper on why people in public service in Bangladesh indulge in corruption. If you give the public servants the meagre pay they get now and at the same time give them so much power, corruption is the only result that you will inevitably get except where such public servants have from inheritance or otherwise extra source of income to supplement the pitiable amount they get from the government.
   There is nothing wrong in our public service that cannot be helped and corruption will just vanish to the extent possible in any civilised country if our public servants are paid in a manner that is on some scale comparable to what public servants get in a civilised country. In fact, if anyone needs to see a psychiatrist in Bangladesh, it is people such as those in the TAC whose suggestions sometimes are like salt to the wound of those from whom these are made. And the TAC is not alone; it has a twin in the ACC for making such outlandish suggestions.
   Rashed Ahmed
   Gulshan, Dhaka