Lee Kuan, Sheikh Hasina and the cleansing drive

The political arena is abuzz with discussion and debate over the cleansing drive launched by the prime minister Sheikh Hasina within her party and her government. Speculations abound as to how long this drive will last and how far it will reach. The prime minister has firmly said that the drive will continue and no one guilty will be spared.

The cleansing began with the removal of Rezwanul Huq as president of the ruling party’s student wing Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) and its general secretary Golam Rabbani. They were accused of extortion, having demanded “toll” from the Jahangirnagar University vice chancellor for development projects of the university.

Then on 18 September, the crackdown on casinos opened a Pandora’s Box, revealing all sorts of crime and corruption that existed within the ruling party and its associate organisations. The National Board of Revenue (NBR) and the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) also shrugged off their cobwebs and took note.

In the meantime, a travel ban has been issued against 23 persons including members of parliament. Controversial contractor Golam Kibria Shamim alias GK Shamim, Mohammedan Club director in-charge Lokman Hossain Bhuiyan, Dhaka City Jubo League South president Ismail Hossain Chowdhury Samrat, president of Kalabagan Krira Chakra Shafiqul Alam (Firoz), online casino promoter Selim Pradhan and ward councillor Habibur Rahman (Mizan), Tarequzzaman Rajib and others were arrested. The bank accounts of many suspected persons, including three members of parliament, were frozen. And over a hundred leaders are under surveillance.

While the cleansing drive may seem to be a sudden crackdown to the apparent eye, the methodical manner in which it has been carried out hints at well-prepared advance planning. It would not, otherwise, have been possible to catch Samrat and other such powerful persons and recover millions of taka from their offices and homes.

Elements within affiliated organisations of the ruling Awami League, who have also been embroiled in crime and corruption, creating ‘a party within the party and a state within the state’, have not been spared either. It certainly was not an easy task to remove top leaders from three associate organisations of the ruling party.

Certain critics say the government has no alternative but to take action against these people as they had gone too far. But it has to be acknowledged that Sheikh Hasina has cracked down hard on these leaders who had for so long not given two hoots to the law. The people and also the long-suffering leaders of Awami League are pleased with this operation.

This drive has a basic difference with the anti-corruption drives conducted by Ershad, Khaleda Zia and the army-backed caretaker government. The latter drives were selective and motivated.

The positive aspect of the ongoing drive is that it has begun within the ruling party camp. The negative aspect is that it took 11 long years for this action to be taken. Much damage has been done and the money siphoned off from the country is not likely to be ever recovered. Even so, most of the people are in support of this drive by the prime minister, akin to her zero-tolerance stance against militancy.

The head of an organisation dealing with the prevention of corruption has commented that the government has begun this drive, albeit delayed, but it must be institutionalised if it is to have any impact.

The Singapore model can be emulated. In the sixties, Singapore was an under-developed country riddled with corruption. But when Lee Kuan Yew became the prime minister, he identified corruption as the country’s Number One problem.

He first amended the laws which had lingered on from the British rule. (We too have inherited British colonial laws). Then he strengthened the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIC). He appointed right men for the right jobs and increased the salaries and allowances of public servants so that there could be no excuse for corruption.

In our country, too, the salaries and allowances have increased in public service, but the state institutions need to be strengthened if corruption is to be halted. The law must be applied equally in all spheres.

There are speculations about the present drive. A few corrupt political elements have been caught. That is good. But the drive will not be a success unless the corrupt elements within the law enforcement agencies and the administration are also caught.

Lee Kuan did not simply free Singapore of corruption, but built it up as a developed country. Democracy was limited during his rule, but the media was free. He took help from the media to crackdown on corruption. He spared no corrupt element, not even ministers, leaders and government officials.

Lee Yuan’s minister for environment once travelled to Indonesia with his family at the expense of a certain contractor. He also bought a house for 50,000 Singapore dollars, with that contractor as guarantor. A case was filed against the minister and he spent four and a half years behind bars.

Then there is another example. Lee Kuan’s national development minister was accused of taking a 500,000 Singapore dollar bribe and CPIC was given the responsibility to investigate. The minister requested Lee Kuan to ask the CPIC head to handle the case with consideration. But Lee Kuan replied that he had appointed a competent man to that office and would not intervene. The minister, tragically, committed suicide before the charge sheet was issued, leaving behind a note admitting his guilt.

The examples of Singapore corruption pale in comparison to the massive corruption in Bangladesh’s administration. The ministers there were punished, yet in our country, only former ministers and members of parliament are punished. The incumbents remain above the law. Even in neighbouring India ministers and MPs are put behind bars. When will we have such a rule of law?

There is another example of Lee Kuan’s integrity. In 1985 there were rumours that Lee Kuan and his deputy prime minister were given excessive discounts or commission by a developer when purchasing their homes. Lee Kuan ordered an investigation into the matter. Investigations revealed that Lee Kuan had done nothing unlawful. A developer can give a buyer a 5 to 10 per cent commission. For further transparency, Lee Kuan directed that the matter be discussed in parliament and even the opposition members agreed that it was all above board.

Can we think of such a leader of state in Bangladesh, a leader who will order an investigation into corruption charges against him or her and raise the issue in parliament?

Can Sheikh Hasina be Bangladesh’s Lee Kuan?

* Sohrab Hassan is joint editor of Prothom Alo and a poet. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This column appeared in the print edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten in English by Ayesha Kabir