We reject the provision for 45 nominated seats

Advocate Sultana Kamal,

ExecutiveDirector.AinoSalish Kendra (ASK)

The provision of mandatory displaying of the portrait according to us is quite unnecessary. It definitely does not add any value in the Constitution. Under the present circumstances, the change relating to the retirement age of judges seems to be mere political. Any political manipulation is likely to bring crisis to the system. The main motivation in introducing the system was to ensure absolute neutrality. Whatever threatens the guarantee to neutrality is undesirable.

As women we reject the provision for 45 nominated seats. It is the provision of nomination that we are against, not the provision of reserved seats. One of the ways of ensuring women's proper participation would be through direct election to the parliament.

Increasing the retirement age of the Judges is done with an ulterior motive

Justice K.M.Subhan

The constitution has been subjected to major surgery by the ruling clique. Increasing the retirement age of the fudges of the Supreme Court is done with an ulterior motive. The purpose is clearly to have a trusted Chief Adviser of the caretaker Government of the ruling party's choice. This is apparent from the timing of the amendment. This is bound to make the concerned Chief lustice controversial which is most undesirable. This calculated move is taken purely in self-interest of the party in power.

Increasing the age of the Supreme Court fudges under the amendment is not a new phenomenon. During President Zia's martial law, Chief fustice Sayem, as the Chief Martial Law Administrator increased the retirement age of the fudges of the Supreme Court from 60 years to 62 years by a martial law order, to favour some fudges. If the age of the Supreme Court fudges is considered necessary to be increased because of experience etc. it should be adequately increased not only for the fudges of the supreme Court but also for the same reason of the entire judiciary. In that case it would be double standard to leave behind other government and semi-government servants. What is sauce for gander is also sauce for goose.

Why women could not be elected in the parliament?

Shirin Akhter, President

KarmojibiNari (KN)

I oppose the 14th Amendment of Constitution, especially the 45 reserved seats for women representation. Women Organisations are bargaining, lobbying and advocating for direct election in the women seats in various ways for the last 20 years. So, Direct election is the main issue that has been denied by the 14th Amendment of Constitution. Women are now more conscious about their own rights, so they are fighting for their political empowerment. The UP members are the best example for us. The Women Members are doing their duty with their level best to serve the nation fighting the existing external and internal constraints. So, why the women could not be elected in the parliament? We absolutely oppose the LawMinister's note about the selection process of women parliamentarians. It is important for the government to rethink about the women seats and it would be the best solution to take necessary action to arrange direct election in the women seats.

We know our politics and election is more or less dominated by the power, black money and muscle man. So, the elected parliamentarians who come from this process, would never select such women who is honest, sincere to women cause. So, through the selection process- the honest, committed, sincere women activist who has been fighting for the women empowerment for a long time, could not be the part of the policy making process of the nations as well as of the women folk. That's why, it is impossible for the selected women policy makers to serve and fights for the women interest.

The amendment will manipulate the caretaker government system

Mushfiqur Rahman

Advocate, Dhaka Judges Court

The change brought into the retirement age of Supreme Court judges is without any doubt prompted by the desire to manipulate the caretaker government system. This event reminds us of the inevitable truth that law can't make one behave democratically but can only provide the mere basis of democracy. It is always susceptible to political motive and irresistible temptation to hold the crown for an indefinite period of time. Only when the practice of democratic values is established within and outside the political parties, one can think of real democracy. Otherwise whatever goodorbadis written down in the law books, it is no more than rhetoric.