Uproar over what Prof Sayeed did not say
We were confounded to see some lawmakers of the ruling alliance on Sunday launch a fierce diatribe against Professor Abdullah Abu Sayeed in a parliamentary sitting.
Deputy speaker Shawkat Ali has categorically stated that just on the basis of a report in a single newspaper and without verifying it, a respectable person like Prof Abu Sayeed should not have been subjected to adverse comments by MPs. We thank him for putting the matter in perspective.
When asked, Prof Sayeed told a leading Bangla daily that he had not even mentioned the word 'parliament' in his speech. While clarifying what 'durneeti' (corruption) really means, he had stressed that when thieves or dacoits steal or rob, we don't say they engaged in a corrupt practice. But if a minister on oath pledges something and fails to fulfill his/her pledge, then it is a matter of principle, or lack of it. This then becomes an abuse of principle.
We really expected that before coming up with any decisive conclusion about a person as respectable as Prof Sayeed, they should have verified the report taking into consideration the fact that the news was not covered in most of the leading dailies of the country. They could have as well contacted the TIB seeking an authentic version of his statement. If necessary, they could also have spoken to Prof Sayeed himself.
Without having done any of these, they jumped to a conclusion based on what was nothing more than hearsay and assumed an aggressive, intimidating stance which was patently an attempt to curb people's freedom of expression. Therefore, we think it was they who undermined democracy by trying to stifle one's freedom of expression. By the same token, we think it was they who denigrated the sanctity of the parliament by raising a hue and cry about what was nothing more than a misrepresentation of a statement. In fact, apart from this instance, we have often watched them desecrate the parliament with their reckless invectives thrown at each other instead of engaging in constructive discussions on policymaking.
Some of them also blasted the TIB, labeling it as an anti-democratic institution and demanded an inquiry into its financial resources. We think it is very unfortunate that lawmakers have such a low opinion of an institution that has been crusading against corruption since long and upholding democratic practices in the country.
Comments