Their words and actions are examples of blatant contradictions.

While scrutinising the Foreign Donations (voluntary activities) Regulation Bill 2015, a parliamentary subcommittee had stressed the need to make the proposed legislation NGO-friendly and internationally acceptable.

In support, members of the committee were full of praise on the contribution of NGOs' to the country's development. "The pace of the country's overall development is being accelerated by the development activities carried out by different NGOs," said a report placed in the parliament on scrutiny of the bill.

But the sub-committee formed by the parliamentary standing committee on the law ministry did not take much time to ignore its own observations as it drew up a draconian legal provision to muzzle the NGOs working for democracy, good governance, human rights and other important issues in Bangladesh.

It proposed to make it an offence for foreign funded NGOs to make "inimical" and "derogatory” remarks on the constitution and constitutional bodies. It had also proposed for stringent punishment—the registration of an NGO will be cancelled for committing such an offence.

The sub-committee led by Suranjit Sengupta, who is the chief of the main committee, had placed a set of recommendations including the controversial one to the main committee.

Endorsing the suggestions, the main committee had placed the report in parliament with recommendation for passage of the bill.

During passage of the bill on Wednesday, the minister accepted all the recommendations of the committee including the controversial one and MPs voted for it to become law. There was no opposition to any provision of the bill as main opposition Jatiya Party MPs preferred to toe the government's line.

From now on, foreign funded NGOs can work for democracy, good governance and human rights alongside many other social issues.

But they will lack the freedom to make any critical observation even based on their findings on the performance of the parliament, the election

commission, and other constitutional bodies. It is because an NGO may face tough actions for any critical comment if it annoys the government policymakers or MPs.

The words "inimical" and "derogatory" were not defined in the bill and there was no indication as to who would determine whether and how any comment was "inimical" and "derogatory." The vagueness will give the government free rein to take actions against an NGO for any critical remarks on the parliament or any other constitutional bodies calling them "hostile" and "derogatory."

The provision has created an atmosphere of fear and concern among NGOs. They have been denouncing the provision. Their outcry is not irrational. The way the provision has been introduced is nothing but an example of using the state's legislative power to unleash revenge on its critics.

Aimed at empowering the NGO bureau to inspect, monitor and assess activities of NGOs, the original bill placed in parliament in September last year did not have this controversial provision.

But a parliament watch report by TIB and its executive director's remarks

on the role of the main opposition in the House in October last year irked lawmakers of both the ruling party and the opposition who demanded punitive action against TIB at that time.

In its report, the anti-graft watchdog pointed out a "low-level of participation" of MPs in lawmaking and question-answer sessions, discussions on important issues, and frequent quorum crises in the current parliament.

Based on the findings, TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman had called the Jatiya Party "so-called opposition" in parliament and said it was rather working as "B-team of the government."

Replying to a query, he had called the main opposition's role a "puppet show."

TIB's findings and Iftekhar's remarks on the role of the main opposition revealed nothing new.

The JP is a unique case in the contemporary history of parliamentary democracy in the world. Three of its MPs are ministers in the Sheikh Hasina-led government; its chief, HM Ershad, is the special envoy to the prime minister with the status of a minister. The JP has been so rewarded because of its participation in the last

parliamentary election which was vital in the face of BNP's boycott.

Because of this cosy relationship with the party in power, the JP does not play its expected role in the parliament. In the last two and a half years, JP MPs have never voted against any of the 93 government's bills passed.

During the passage of the 16th constitutional amendment bill in 2014, some JP MPs spoke against it. But they had finally voted in favour of it. The JP, despite being the main opposition, never challenged and opposed the AL on any crucial issue.

Due to its docile role in the parliament, the JP does not enjoy people's confidence as the main opposition party. While speaking about JP's role in the parliament, TIB executive director termed the main opposition's act in there as a "puppet show."

Neither the ruling party MPs nor the opposition MPs liked the remarks. The MPs who had blasted the TIB in the parliament could not oppose any findings and observations of the TIB. Instead, they picked a comment made by TIB's executive director regarding the role of the main opposition and launched a scathing attack which was

out of context.

In its parliamentary watch reports since 2001, the TIB has consistently focused on many issues. It has also made dozens of recommendations about how to overcome the quorum crisis or the practice of House boycott. Like always, the ruling party MPs blasted TIB for its report. They did not choose to improve their parliamentary culture.

During the bill's scrutiny, the parliamentary sub-committee on the law ministry picked the issue and proposed inclusion of punitive provision in the bill.

Introduction of the harsh punitive law following one individual's remarks expose the government's intolerance of freedom of speech and its strategy to prevent others from making any critical comments on the parliament and other constitutional bodies. At the same time it shows their blase disregard in failing to deliver on their mandates. This will send a wrong signal to the country's development partners who provide funds to the NGOs.

In this chilling environment, NGOs working as watchdogs on parliament and other constitutional bodies will not be able to do their jobs independ-

ently.

If the watchdog bodies can not make criticial assessment on the performances of the EC and come up with constructive suggestions then how the electoral system could be improved?

If watchdogs can not work in details on the performances of constitutional bodies like the Public Service Commission and office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, how the people would know whether the respective bodies are performing their jobs properly?

The controversial provision is also a double standard as a foreign funded NGO will face risk of making critical assessment on any constitutional bodies but not the NGOs that are funded locally.

Critical inspection of the democratic institutions is one of the fundamental rights promised in democracy. But once the law takes effect, this right would be taken away.

By gagging the watchdogs' critical voices, can the government protect the image of the parliament, the EC and other constitutional bodies if they do not perform properly? Would that brighten its own image?