Sadek Chowdhury in his Feedback of May 29 wrote about parliamentary constituencies for Bangladeshi citizens residing abroad. He cites the financial and advisory contributions of such Bangladeshis as a reason to create separate constituencies for them. While as a non-resident Bangladeshi, I welcome the day when I will be able to exercise my right to vote, I find many of his ideas to be impractical, far-fetched if not completely pointless.
   British Citizens living abroad can vote in the general elections but cannot vote in local elections. They can opt to vote by proxy or by mail and their polling card is issued by the constituency they last voted in while living in the United Kingdom. The United States has a similar mechanism and the US nationals can cast their vote at their nearest US diplomatic mission. A large number of UK and US live outside the border of the respective state — but neither of these countries has felt it necessary to create a separate voting bloc for these non-resident citizens. As for Ireland — more Irish citizens live abroad than at home — one has to be a resident of the island to vote.
   I disagree that simply facilitating a NRB’s right to vote will change the way they contribute to Bangladesh. It’s like raising someone’s salary to make them work harder — something that mostly doesn’t succeed. The sense of obligation and interest in one’s country of origin cannot be bought and sold like commodity — it is either there or not. The issue is not about simply voting but finding a way to have a dialogue with elected officials — not only before elections but throughout the tenure of an elected parliament. Instead of diverting meagre resources in trying to create a separate constituency for NRBs, measures should be taken to encourage MPs to have regular dialogues with their constituents and actively facilitate it by practical means. This will benefit not only the people in Bangladesh but also those living abroad.
   As for reverse brain-drain, it can only happen when living conditions in Bangladesh improve where the basic needs such as personal safety, power supply, healthcare and education facilities rise to a level when wilfully returning to Bangladesh no longer seems to be a daunting leap of faith. The government should focus on encouraging private enterprise by cutting red-tape — something India’s Rajiv Gandhi did and his country has not looked back since. Both basic and manufacturing technology advances in countries like China, Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and Thailand occurred when adequate attention was paid by the respective governments in promoting an industry-conducive atmosphere. Unless that happens in Bangladesh, creating parliamentary constituencies for NRBs will just be a gimmick.
   I also don’t buy the idea that NRB MPs will be able to influence officials of Bangladesh missions since they report to the foreign minister and not any member of parliament. It is the foreign ministry that must ensure that the missions are performing according to their remit to (a) diplomatically represent Bangladesh and (b) serve the consular needs of Bangladeshi citizens abroad. I have noticed a positive change in the attitude of the ranking diplomats in the missions — yet there remain those consular staff who I would not hesitate to fire at a moment’s notice if they were in my employ as a public service organisation. Many of these embassy staff became embroiled in corruption — especially in illegal manpower trading in countries like Saudi Arabia. The foreign ministry should seek to have a proportionally sized mission in the host country based on the number of Bangladeshis living and working there; there should be staff with expert legal knowledge of the host country specifically to assist the Bangladeshi workers. The foreign ministry should create a desk for NRBs where they can report misbehaviour and illegal activities of Bangladesh mission staff. Such simple measures would benefit the overseas workers much more than the impractical scheme Chowdhury proposes.
   His idea of forming a ‘local lobby group to influence the legislature of the host country’ by foreign nationals sounds outlandish. Would Bangladesh allow foreign nationals living in its territory to influence its members of parliament? For example, this concept is explicitly forbidden in Saudi Arabia where I grew up. No nation state in its right mind would or should allow a foreigner to influence its highest court. Those Bangladeshis who are also citizens of the host country, have no need for representation in Bangladesh parliament to express their needs with respect to their other country.
   Finally, our right as citizens of Bangladesh to vote is enshrined in the Constitution (Articles 27, 122). It is up to the government now to fulfil that obligation. Our constitutional right to stand in parliamentary elections as candidates by virtue of being citizens has never been — nor can it ever be — taken away (Article 66). Therefore, rest of the issue is moot. Chowdhury cites the ‘caretaker’ government as a unique solution to Bangladesh’s unique problem. Unfortunately, there is no solution for disrespect, dishonesty and distrust amongst people. As a result, the caretaker government in Bangladesh hasn’t solved anything but rather created a unique circus where it has neither any mandate nor any practical authority.
   Shabbir A Bashar, PhD
   Vancouver, USA

There are many meanings attached to this phrase by various people trying to further there own motives and ideas. As a disinterested person, I feel that this phrase has only one core meaning and that is to provide cheap, reliable and the fastest available (according to international standards) wireless broadband service throughout the land along with the assurance of 24 hours non-failing supply of electricity. If these two simple steps are guaranteed many businesses and well-to-do people will relocate from the crowded city areas and move to the countryside enriching the land as a whole. The government can also then carry out de-centralisation of most of its work.
   The details of various software program development and what activities of the companies or government need to be computerised is of secondary importance and has very little to do with this concept of ‘digital Bangladesh’ except to confuse and muddle the issue.
   So I urge the authorities to concentrate on these two concrete goals to achieve the dream of ‘digital Bangladesh’, as is often repeated by politicians and media.
   Engineer Shafi Ahmed
   London, UK