& 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

Commentary

Hon Speaker, you could have taken the JS to a greater height

MAHFUZ ANAM
Honourable Speaker, you rejected all of the nearly 150 notices that were served by the opposition. Couldn't you find even a single one that deserved to be accepted under rule 62 of the rules of procedure, seeking an adjournment motion for a discussion on the grenade attack
on the AL rally? The main reason you gave for not permitting an adjournment motion was that the events of August 21 were under a judicial inquiry and any discussion in parliament may influence the investigation. It is a noble intention and we appreciate it.
However the question is if any discussion on the floor of the House
is likely to influence the ongoing judicial investigation, then didn't the general discussion that you permitted do the same? If you really wanted to 'protect' the judicial investigation from being influenced by any discussion in the Jatiya Sangsad, then shouldn't you have stopped all sorts of discussion?
FROM PAGE 1
Wouldn't you agree that what you permitted in the name of a debate was nothing but a one-sided tirade against the main opposition?
Now let us examine the nature and content of what the treasury bench MPs said under the 'general debate' that you so generously permitted after having duly 'protected' the judicial inquiry by refusing the opposition demand for an adjournment motion under rule 62. Almost all the MPs of the ruling coalition, in speech after speech, stated mostly directly and some not so directly, that it was the AL that was responsible for the grenade attack on its own rally. Anybody who listened to the speeches would be left without any doubt as to who the perpetrators were of that heinous act of August 21. The ruling party MPs even 'laid bare' the possible motive as to why they thought the AL was the culprit. Some of them even named Abdul Jalil (who himself is an MP, protecting whose prestige and dignity is also in your hands) as a possible culprit because he had 'threatened' to destabilise the government following his party's failure to topple it on April 30 last. If this is not trying to influence the investigation, then what is?
If your intention was to protect the investigation from a prejudicial debate, and we believe that it was, then we urge you to go through the records of Wednesday's proceedings and see for yourself how well you served that cause. You may say that you permitted the discussion with a fair mind and good intentions and that naturally you had no idea what the MPs would say. We accept that. But then shouldn't you have stopped them when you heard what they were actually saying.
For the sake of fair investigation, which you wanted, shouldn't you have asked the MPs to refrain from saying anything that would prejudice the investigation, the very reason for which you rejected the opposition's plea for debate under rule 62? For nearly four hours, in the name of debate (which consisted of very little other than vilification) the opposition were put on the dock, accused and found 'guilty' as charged of the grenade attack on its own rally -- all this in your presence. May we also humbly point out that although officially you allocated five to seven minutes for each speaker, you actually allowed many of them much more.
Rules 61 to 67 deal with adjournment motions. Of them, rule 63 deals with restrictions to make such motions. For the purpose of our discussion the relevant portion is contained in paragraph X of rule 63, which we reproduce below:
"the motion shall not raise a discussion on a matter pending before any statutory tribunal or statutory authority performing any judicial or quasi-judicial functions or any commission or court of enquiry appointed to enquire into, investigate any matter but the speaker may, in his discretion, allow such matter to be raised (emphasis added) as is concerned with the procedure or subject or stage of enquiry, provided it is not likely to prejudice the consideration of such matter by the tribunal authority, commission or court of enquiry, as the case may be."
The reason we reproduce the paragraph is to humbly ask as to whether or not you had some scope for discretion here. To help understand the issue better we can also read paragraph XI which states: " the motion shall not deal with any matter which is under adjudication by a Court of Law having jurisdiction in any part of Bangladesh;" In contrast to the previous paragraph, paragraph XI is categorical, and does not give any discretionary power to the speaker. In fact among all the 12 paragraphs of rule 63 (that deal with restrictions on adjournment motion) only paragraph X provides scope for discretion of the Speaker. The framers of our constitution and the rules of procedure for running parliament must have foreseen a purpose for providing scope for discretion of the Speaker in this specific paragraph.
You are, of course, the best judge of the House rules, but a question has risen in our mind- and we would be most grateful if you correct us- that you could have used your discretionary powers to permit the adjournment
motion given the gravity of the situation.
If you had done that then we may have been spared the spectacle of the opposition denigrating the House by chanting slogans inside it. We agree with you that such behaviour does not go with the dignity and prestige of this august body, and the opposition should not have done it.
Honourable Speaker, reportedly eight to ten powerful grenades were thrown at a rally that was addressed by the second most important member of the House over which you preside -- namely the leader of the opposition. She is also the former leader of the House. By all accounts it was a miracle that her life was saved. Several MPs of your House were injured, 20 people were killed along with an eminent woman leader and over 200 wounded. And yet you couldn't bring yourself to use your discretionary powers. If your slight gesture could have brought a united House to debate on this serious matter, wouldn't the public have been better served?
Mr. Speaker, we, the ordinary citizens of this country, do not know much about the rules of procedure or the technicalities of how a parliament functions. But we do know that parliament is the House of the People. It is here that the voice of the people is heard. If nowhere else, it will be on the floor of this august House where people's wishes and concerns get reflected. We think you know, like everybody else, that the events of August 21 shocked us all to the very core. People are worried and they want to hear about a way forward. It is in moments like these, more so than ever, that people look up to parliament for guidance, courage, strength and most of all unity.
When the government is letting us down, when the opposition is extremely negative (they seem to have lost their entire vocabulary except NO), it is from the Jatiya Sangsad that people expected a way out. Parliament, as the supreme lawmaking body, the most powerful institution of democracy and the ultimate repository of the core values of our people, it remains our last hope to extract us out of the political quagmire in which we find ourselves today.
As the guardian of that supreme body you carry a very heavy burden on your shoulder. Wasn't it possible for you to take a broader picture of the present situation and think how the whole nation was looking up to you to create scope for both sides to participate in a debate? We know all too well that by itself a debate would not have produced much (except perhaps more mutual recrimination), but it could have provided, under your able guidance, an opening -- a ray of light through a crack in their mutual hatred -- for something constructive. In fact, Honourable Speaker, you could have been a catalyst for a historic breakthrough. You could have taken parliament to a greater height.