Don’t Allow Favouritism Mar Family Card Census

A recent media report published in this newspaper has raised a grave concern over the recruitment of supervisors and data collectors for the 2026 Family Card Census in Bogura. According to the media report, Bogura City Corporation invited applications for 20 supervisors and 199 data collectors for a 45-day survey covering its 21 wards, attracting thousands of applicants.
When Prime Minister Tarique Rahman launched the Family Card programme, it radiated a ray of optimism among low-income families across the country. The government plan to bring around 4 crore women-headed families under the scheme within the next 5 years made the initiative particularly encouraging. 
However, it is unfortunate that despite a promising start, the programme now is going through a critical phase. If beneficiary identification is clouded by allegations of corruption, nepotism and political favouritism, the initiative could fail not only to reach its targeted recipients but also erode public trust. 
In case, if the allegations are proven to be true, it will trigger a massive headache because family card workers will collect and verify household information that will help determine who qualifies for the Card’s benefits. 
A scheme designed to support vulnerable families cannot afford to begin with doubts about the impartiality of those responsible for its implementation. The card’s worker recruitment process must, therefore, be viewed as an integral part of ensuring the programme’s overall credibility. Any compromise at this stage could have consequences far beyond the recruitment itself.
However, card worker candidates alleged that the verbal examination was largely limited to basic questions about their names, fathers’ names and ability to operate smartphones or tablets. Such a brief assessment is hardly sufficient to determine suitability. Moreover, lack of transparency on the selection process is unacceptable in a public recruitment exercise.
More upsetting are the allegations over changes to the examination schedule. Verbal examinations were held on July 25 and 26, while another group reportedly appeared on July 29. The result, initially due on July 30, was eventually published on August 10. Applicants alleged that the changes favoured preferred candidates, while questions were also raised about the age and legal eligibility of some selected candidates. 
Against this backdrop, the government must act promptly to protect credibility of the Family Card programme. The authorities should disclose the recruitment criteria, clarify the reasons for changing the examination schedule and independently verify the eligibility of selected candidates. 
In conclusion, this newspaper also reported attempts to obtain comments from the concern officials, but only silence won over their attempts. And this silence can only deepen public suspicion. If necessary, the recruitment should be reviewed or conducted afresh under transparent supervision. The Family Card is meant to support vulnerable families. Therefore, only the poor deserving candidates must be its beneficiaries.