Housing minister's first press meet: He exchanged barbs, not views

Housing Minister Obaidul Muktadir Chowdhury's first meeting with journalists descended into a ruckus as he engaged in bickering over the media outlet owners' backgrounds.

 "Ask me questions after each of you have learnt who your newspaper and TV companies are," he said at a views-exchange meeting the housing ministry organised at the secretariat.

He made the comments after a reporter asked for his take on the allegations of corruption at his ministry.

The minister then asked who owned the TV the reporter worked for. Hearing the answer, the minister said, "You go and search about him. Each of us should speak in accordance with the foundations on which we stand.

"I just took over [as a minister]. The prime minister announced zero tolerance for corruption. We will also have zero tolerance for corruption. We won't immerse ourselves in corruption. We won't let others indulge in corruption."

There was a commotion at the views-exchange meeting soon afterwards, as some of the reporters pointed out that they, as employees, were not responsible for what the owners of the outlets did.

The minister said, "You should also write about the owners' history. You don't write what is true. You know it all, but don't write about the real truth."

Some reporters spread "misinformation for money or just a shot of liquor", he alleged.

"They do not consider that misinformation hurts people. If there is a genuine basis, write about anything. There is no problem. I am not asking you not to write about me if I commit a criminal act.".

Muktadir was elected MP from Brahmanbaria-3 constituency in the January 7 polls.

Referring to a report published in The Daily Star over seven years ago, he  said the report alleged that he had a role in the attacks on six villages of Hindu people on October 30, 2016.

"I was once a victim of misinformation about Nasirnagar, and I was once a victim of misinformation about Hefajat-e-Islam. The media wrote whatever they wanted.

"I challenged Mahfuz Anam [The Daily Star editor and publisher]. I told him I was ready to accept any punishment if your paper could prove what it had published against me. Either you publish [what I say in] protest or stand in court."

Claiming that newspapers like The Daily Star and Prothom Alo do not publish rejoinders in full, he said, "But The Daily Star published every word of my rejoinder because there was no option. You can't go very far by telling lies. People cannot be misled by misinformation. People suffer damages because of misinformation."

A reporter of this newspaper, present at the briefing, told the minister about The Daily Star's policy of publishing rejoinders in its entirety. The reporter also informed the minister that the paper published his rejoinder along with the paper's reply.

The minister said, "If you want to challenge me, I am ready to accept it. I had no involvement in the incident [Nasirnagar attack]. If you blame me for this, it will be a blatant lie."

Muktadir then heavily criticised two reporters of The Daily Star for the report headlined "Attack on Hindus in Brahmanbaria: Ambition, not religion".

In the investigative report, the paper wrote that the attacks were instigated for political gains and the issue of religious sentiment was secondary. The reporters talked to about 100 people and prepared the report.

Yesterday, the minister said the reporters did it after being "influenced by someone".

"I have told your editor what influenced them. He did not publish the rejoinder for four days. But it [rejoinder] was published after I talked with the editor. I told the editor that I will drag you to the court. A lie is always a lie, it cannot be turned into the truth.

"It does not matter what the reply [to the rejoinder] was. These two [reporters] are no longer with The Daily Star... It's clear that they had made the report after being influenced in some way.

"They wrote the report after taking money, which is unfortunate. I had no involvement with the incident… I will quit politics if anyone can prove that I had even a distant link with the Nasirnagar incident.

The minister did not present evidence to support his claim.

One of the two reporters the minister talked about is still working for the paper. The other one left the newspaper in 2018.

According to The Daily Star report the new minister talked about, the reporters of this newspaper talked to over 100 locals of Nasirnagar who are "convinced" that political ambition of a ruling Awami League lawmaker played a big role behind the attacks on Hindu neighbourhoods.

"As they allege, the plan for the October 30 mayhem stemmed from bitter rivalries between two Awami League stalwarts in Brahmanbaria politics. One is a minister and the other a lawmaker. If the minister can be forced to quit, opportunity would open up for the lawmaker to climb up the political ladder and even become a minister.

"Everyone -- from farmers to politicians to top district officials -- is aware of the toxic relations of the two -- Sayedul Haque, 74, a five-time lawmaker and minister of fisheries, and Obaidul Muktadir Chowdhury, 61, a former bureaucrat-turned politician," reads the report.

In reply to the rejoinder Muktadir sent, The Daily Star wrote, "Two police probe committees -- one formed by the Police Headquarters and the other by Brahmanbaria district police -- investigated the attack by the religious zealots, and both found internal conflict of local Awami League was a major reason behind the attack, and that finding has already been published.

"The attack took place following an internal conflict of the local AL over establishing supremacy," Deputy Inspector General of Police of Chittagong Range Shakhwat Hossain, who headed the probe body  formed by the Police Headquarters, told The Daily Star in Brahmanbaria.

Moreover, additional superintendent of police in Brahmanbaria, who headed the probe body formed by the office of superintendent of police (SP) in Brahmanbaria said, "There were several elements involved in the attack but it was the internal conflict of the local ruling party, in which one group tried to discredit the other, was a leading element."