Making deals public
Shouldn't Khaleda be making this call from inside the House?
While talking to the visiting Indian foreign minister when he called on her recently, the Leader of the Opposition had said that all deals between the two countries should be mutually beneficial, and that people must be informed about the details of all the deals before agreements between the two countries are signed, through the parliament.
While one cannot take issue with the sentiments of the leader of the opposition, certainly all deals must be for the benefit of the countries concerned, and that the public must be made privy to the details of the deals, we find it rather surprising that she should find it appropriate to express her sentiments regarding a national issue to a visiting foreign dignitary.
One wonders whether Khaleda Zia shouldn't be in the parliament demanding that accords be placed before the House for deliberation and discussion instead of ventilating her thoughts outside it. Aren't she and her party abdicating a very important obligation reposed on them by the electorate?
It is entirely for the political parties to enter into compacts that benefit us, and at the same time ensure that the people are informed about those. Surely, public support for important vital bilateral accords not only helps their implementation, there is a general feeling of ownership if the public is informed about them.
That is the best way of not only informing the public about an intergovernmental accord, it is through the participation of the people's representatives in discussing its merits or demerits that one can come up with the optimally best deal.
Although it may not be formally required to place all inter-governmental accords (except for a treaty) before the parliament, certain accords, given their importance may be placed before the House for deliberation and public knowledge.
Mobile court and hartal
Uphold rule of law
Concern has been expressed in recent days over the operation of mobile courts to tackle political unrest on the streets. Since the opposition launched its present agitation against the government in June, mobile courts have swung into action by rounding up citizens and delivering penalties. These penalties have largely meant sending them off to prison.
It is quite understandable that mobile courts will take action against such elements as those who indulge in food adulteration, hoarding of essentials or sexual harassment where there is tangible evidence of a crime. The Mobile Courts Act 2009 promises measures that are geared to ensuring citizens' welfare in key areas. But when the remit of the act is extended to include a curbing of political dissent, we are properly worried. In the recent instances of arrests on the eve of an opposition agitation programme or on the day of the agitation itself, the role of the mobile courts have come under a question-mark. Arrestees were not given opportunity of self-defence and only the version of the police was taken cognisance of. Clearly, the mobile courts have appeared to be reversing the idea of innocent until proven guilty into one of guilty until proven innocent. In this instance, the report by the human rights group Odhikar on the arrest of an insurance company official on 5 July at Mohakhali on the false charge that he had been behind the torching of a vehicle in the area only moments earlier is a case in point.
We fully agree with Odhikar as also with other bodies such as Ain-o-Salish Kendra and the Supreme Court Bar Association that indiscriminate arrests of people in the name of maintaining law and order undermine the principles of citizens' rights of assembly and expression of dissent. By refusing to give people a right to legal defence when they are arrested, the mobile courts are themselves giving a short shrift to the law. Rule of law can not appear to be sacrificed at the altar of political expediency because it is the very foundation on which a democratic society is sustained.
0 comments:
Post a Comment