The Prime Minister is upset because the Finance Minister has had the nerve to praise the concept of micro-credit in the country. From the look of things, it is not clear that AMA Muhith was paying tribute to Muhammad Yunus. Indeed, there are reasons to think he was speaking about micro-credit in general terms and reflecting on the positive contributions it has made in reducing poverty in the country. Sheikh Hasina does not, of course, see it that way. She has made it clear, in public, that she and the Finance Minister do not see eye to eye on the issue. That is only normal. No two people in the same government have to agree on everything that is on the table. Indeed, dissent and disagreement often add substance to arguments and, in the end, to policy formulations. But such dissent and disagreement, where the matter is one of people linked to one another in the same administration, must not be allowed to come into the public domain. Leading figures in a government, any government, are not expected to speak in discordant voices in public. But that is what has come to pass in the riposte the Prime Minister has thrown the Finance Minister's way. Muhith has not responded, which is only proper. He clearly did not imagine that his innocuous remarks on micro-credit would invite such a backlash from the head of government. Quite a few other incidents have been worrying for the country. The recent wildcat strike by transport owners and workers across the country tested the patience of the nation to no end. It was expected that the government would stand firm in its response to the crisis, would refuse to cave in to the crude demand of those who called the strike. The demand, of course, was that the sentences handed down to bus and truck drivers guilty of road rage and consequent murder of citizens could not and must not be put into implementation mode. It was a moment the government should have seized by refusing to entertain the demand. The transport owners and workers would eventually have come round. But of course the government went about dealing with the strike in its own fashion. It deployed the Law Minister and the Road Transport Minister in negotiations with the striking transport men who, bizarrely, were represented by the Shipping Minister and the Minister of State for Rural Development and Cooperatives. The queer part of the story is that a single request for an end to the shutdown from Shahjahan Khan to the striking men worked, raising the uncomfortable question of the role the Shipping Minister may have played, as a trade union man, in the making of the strike. And let no one ignore either the fact that junior minister Moshiur Rahman Ranga, again a unionist involved in the transport sector, played his hand too in the making of the crisis.
By helping to cause the crisis, the two ministers gave out some pretty disturbing messages to the country. In the first place, they were throwing their constitutional oath of service to the people to the winds. In the second, they chose to remember that they were labour leaders first and public representatives second. In the third, which is more troubling, they clearly waved aside the time-tested convention that judicial judgments must not be brought into question, that mobs must not be let loose on the streets as a way of forcing the administration into capitulation. Minister Shahjahan Khan, while calling an end to the strike, spoke of the government's 'assurances' to the transport owners and workers. The nation remains in the dark, is yet to know of the nature of those 'assurances'. Health Minister Mohammad Nasim, in one of those rare comforting moments for the people of the country, appeared to be speaking for all of us when he noted with disdain the role of some of his colleagues in the creation of untenable situations. He mentioned no names, but the hint was obvious. It will surely be of immense help for the country if the cabinet takes up this whole issue of the transport crisis and deals with it in purposeful manner. The Prime Minister ought not to adopt a middle-of-the-road position here. She can simply and firmly put it to ministers that they can either be in the cabinet or opt to serve in some other roles they feel more comfortable with. Conflicts of interest undermine a government and leave a country in a debilitated state. In a country where anyone can do any wrong and expect to get away with it, it is not surprising that Dhaka University has made a mess of its reputation again. Its fiftieth convocation has quite been marred by gaffes. One wonders why this has to happen every now and then. Placing Muhammad Yunus' name on a list of honourable individuals is certainly not wrong, for the Nobel Laureate is indeed a much respected man. But putting him or for that matter anyone else before the Father of the Nation is a grievous wrong, a sin that cannot be expiated. But that is precisely what happened on Dhaka University's list of notables, on its Facebook page. The page was inaugurated by the Vice Chancellor not very long ago. Now he tells us, and so do other university officials, that Dhaka University does not have any official Facebook page. Where does that leave all of us? In a society where ministers feel free to land slaps on the faces of elected parliamentarians, are we supposed to turn the other cheek? Syed Badrul Ahsan is Associate Editor, The Daily Observer
