Caretaker government debate
1. What considerations made Justice Latifur Rahman pick up a bureaucrat , a railway engineer, as a member of his team of advisers? Apart from being a relative by marriage (BBC informed us about it on the very evening he was chosen as an adviser) what else was the credentials of this little known bureaucrat?
2. Justice Latifur Rahman was very proud of his 'homework' before he took over as the chief of the caretaker government. How come his 'homework' failed to provide him two new names so that he had to pick up two persons who had already served as advisers with previous caretaker governments? Was there such a dearth of neutral and capable persons in the country?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 3. How come his 'homework' didn't provide him any information about the fact that the civil servant he chose as his Principal Secretary had a brother who was actively involved in BNP politics ?
4. What was the compulsion which made Justice Latifur Rahman transfer thirteen permanent secretaries, including the foreign secretary, overnight at one go? Did he ever consider that this move sent a clear signal to a large number of neutral voters, who had not by that time made up their minds to vote for either of the two big parties. This abrupt action told these, till then non-decided voters, that the ruling Awami League was surely hatching some nefarious plans against the country necessitating such mass hasty transfer. Obviously, this tilted those neutral voters against the Awami League.
There are some more questions. But I would be very happy to know the answers to the above ones .
Finally, I would say that the system of Caretaker Government, though applauded everywhere as a good concept, needs some clear guidelines regarding some DOs and DON'Ts by them, instead of leaving everything on one or two broad clauses of the Constitution.
Here, I would refer to a letter written, though in different context, by one of Justice Latifur Rahman's ex-advisers, Mr M Hafizuddin Khan, in the Daily Star ('System of appointment to Constitutional posts: need for a review' The Daily Star, Sunday January 6, 2002) where he blamed the framer of our original constitution for being rather vague about appointments to constitutional posts. I fully agree with Mr Khan that certain things need to be clarified in clear unequivocal terms. So that none can twist the meanings of such broad clauses in their favour. Nothing should be treated as sacrosanct while this 'vital national issue' is debated.