& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

OPINION

Would-be Hindrance in Path of Development

Joy Alamgir
BNP lawmaker Giasuddin Quader Chowdhury proposed a bill to increase the powers of the members of the parliament. The bill known as "Parliament Member-Special Provision Law. 1996 ”, if turned into a resolution of the parliament, will Just be another barrier in the way of development.
Firstly, a member of the parliament is a lawmaker, not an administrator. The government governs the country through its various organiza-Uohs and institutions. However if each and every one of the parliament members becomes the "supreme" person of his/her constituency the government and development programmes shall face hindrances and needless red-tape.
Secondly, why should a would-be company/firm or industry need the MP's permission to set up an industry? We live in a free market society, in a society of private enterprises. Development in our country ha's to come mainly from the private sector and from International investment. If someone decides to set up an industry in an area, the industry becomes an asset to the area. Why would there be need to ask the MP? If the concerned MP really does want development to come he would clear the path of formalities and red-tape to attract investment ... It is really unfortunate that there are people in the parliament who think otherwise . . . to pasting another red-tape in an already sticky bureaucratic process. A member of the parliament who would want suph powers would hinder the development of his/her constituency.
Permission of the MP to provide relief? that to me does not make much sense. If
there is a disaster in an area that gives rise to the need of relief and if someone or some agency wants to forward relief why would that entity need the MP's permission? Why would an MP want the power to stop relief activities? His/her power to give permission to relief supplying entities would not be a positive power but would be a power to negate relief. Is that what he/she really wants? Would he/she really want his/her area struck by some disaster not to get relief? This bill if granted by the parliament would not be a power of growth and development. The bill also says any kind of rehabilitation programme has to have the MP's permission .... I had to laugh at this. These programmes are designed to give those members a second chance in life. Again, why would a member of parliament want rights that would let him stop any kind of rehabilitation programme?
Permission for Food for Works programme? Wouldn’t an MP want his people to be employed? Why would he want such a power that would give him the right to deny permission to employment providing firms/entitles to operate in his/her constituency?
He would be an adviser to educational institutions in his constituency — I am afraid that as current politics go. a right such as this will become a tool for politicizing the growing minds before the minds develop political judgement. So this right may further politicize our already heavily politicized education system.
1 hope that the current parliament will see through this bill and vote on it accordingly.