So who is to blame for the Yunus fiasco?
First place has to go to the Norwegians. They (NRK) made a documentary which set Bangladesh on fire and then at crucial moments, like for example the whitewash Norwegian investigation into Grameen and the disgraceful pronouncements of Erik Solheim (the aid minister) exonerating Grameen, NRK was totally absent from the debate. NRK did not chase Solheim despite having all the facts and figures at their finger tips. Solheim was duping the Norwegian tax payer and no one bothered to take him to task about it. When NRK finally did respond, it was in Norwegian and they did not supply an english translation. Bangladeshi journos were frantically emailing me to get a translation. The Solheim spin enabled Yunus and his supporters to go on the offensive and attack the documentary. So a totally needless own goal there by the scandinavian producers of the documentary.
Second it has to be the Norwegians again. A bunch of them sit together every now and then and give out this gong called a Nobel Prize. The process is entirely opaque. This prize has come to be seen as some kind of conferment which absolves you of everything. No matter what you have done, if you get one of these gongs, you are sorted …well almost. Thankfully, the High Court of Bangladesh did not take this into account - unlike so many pundits, bloggers and other defenders of Yunus whose only knowledge about this whole issue is that Yunus has a Nobel Prize and therefore ought not to be knocked off his pedestal and needs to be praised to the high heavens whatever he or his outfits do.
Third, for helping to sow much confusion about the reason for the entire debate, the finger has to be pointed at Hasina, the prime minister of Bangladesh. Why did she so flagrantly intervene - calling Yunus a “blood sucker” etc - when news first broke of the illegal transfer of funds to Grameen Kaylan? She should have had the common sense to keep out of it, and let the facts speak for themselves. She did not. She allowed confusion to reign as Yunus’ supporters went to town turning this serious issue of transparency and financial accountability into one about Hasina and jealousy.
Fourth, well it has to be the press, led by my friend and former proletarian champion Matiur Rahman of Prothom Alo. The poor seem not to be his priority anymore? Nor indeed are they the priority for the Daily Star which has served as the mouthpiece for Yunus.
Finally, one has to acknowledge the role of Yunus himself. Rather than go quietly having been caught , he assembled the most formidable array of foreign politicians, dodgy US ambassadors and senators and newspaper editors to spread the confusion. Talking of newspaper editors, he even got Dr Kamal Hossain’s son-in-law, David Bergman, a hack for the New Age, to be generally “economic with the truth.” Wil Yunus stop now? I doubt it. Has his grin been wiped off his face for good? I doubt that too but one can hope.
6 Responses for "Who is to blame for the Yunus fiasco?"
This post is a joke. It drips of petty vindictiveness. It is clear the ruling party holds a grudge and it is to blame: “blood sucker” comments, simultaneous cases against Yunus, and now sacking the Nobel Laureate from his own organisation. Who does it benefit? In a country where most ministers are above retirement age, where contractual appointments abound, where is the justification of throwing the rule book at our only Nobel laureate. Small people, small minds.
Yes Bangladesh is too special to have rules. Let us throw all rules out of the window, including ones about how to deal with foreign money. Why if ministers can stay above retirement age then surely Yunus should be able to do the same and do with foreign transfers whatever he likes.
I love the reasoning Nazia. Thanks.
I am afraid your “gloating” has taken precedence over reasoning here. The way to start enforcing “rules” (dubious ones at that) is to create a public dogfight over our sole Nobel laureate’s position at his own institution, is it? I suppose we should be grateful that rules are finally being upheld in our homeland? We will soon drop down the corruption index, I expect. I don’t think even a pot-addict believes your reasoning that this has anything to do with rules.
Btw, I didn’t notice you up in arms when public procurement rules were tampered with? As for “How to deal with foreign money”, are you implying foreign money has been misused by Grameen? I notice your blog isn’t big on evidence. In your world, your opinion passes for the gospel. (please have the courage to post this)
The ’sole nobel laureate’ crew is here folks. Financial accountability flies out of the window ( cos he got a gong from Norway…after all). At his ‘own institution’ is another of the myths spread by these people. You remember the 1983 ordinance?
And folks notice the vehemence of the words of Nazia Manzur. And in come ….no i shan’t stoop to such debate.
But on the OWN institution thing…let us remind Nazia of the finer details. Nazia, please note the words “government” and “state” below:
Grameen Bank and the Government:
Grameen Bank is a statutory public authority created by the Grameen
Bank Ordinance, 1983. (Ordinance No. XLVI of 1983)
Under Article 152 of the Bangladesh Constitution the term “Statutory public authority” means any authority, corporation or body the activities or the principal activities of which are authorised by any Act, Ordinance, Order or instrument having the force of law in Bangladesh.”
As a public statutory authority, Grameen Bank is an organ/instrument of the State, the term “the State” being defined in Article 152 of the Constitution as including “Parliament, the government and statutory public authorities”.
.
The status of Grameen Bank as a statutory public authority, i.e. an instrument/organ of state is further defined by the authority vested in the Government read together with the functions required to be carried out by the Government and Bangladesh Bank (which is also a statutory public authority) in the various provisions of the Grameen Bank Ordinance, 1983 (as amended up to 1990, the 1990 amendment being the last statutory amendment made in respect of Grameen Bank)
This authority and the functions extend from the creation of Grameen Bank to its winding up.
Grameen Bank is not an independent entity which operates outside the purview of Governmental process as a State organ.
Grameen Bank’s legal status is distinct from an association of persons such as a company, trust or cooperative which associations may be formed under a law but not by the law itself and which associations of persons are not statutory public authorities and therefore not State organs/instruments of State.
Contrary to a view incorrectly held by many, as a State organ / instrument, Grameen Bank has not been founded by any individual person, or group of persons. Its existence, continued operations and dissolution (winding up) are dependent on the State acting through the Government although Parliament may invoke its legislative authority to repeal the statute (Ordinance) under which it was created.
Under the statute, the Government retains the authority to determine the rural areas to which the operations of Grameen Bank shall extend. This determination by the Government would require notification in the official gazette.
The Government retains the authority to determine the initial paid-up share capital of the Bank which presently stands at Tk. 7 Crore 20 Lakhs of The present paid up capital was increased in 31 July,1990 by an amendment to the Statute involving a notification in the official gazette and the official publications of the statute show that the present paid up capital is Tk 7 crore 20 lakhs. The term “initial period” would mean such period from the date of the commencement of the GB Ordinance as the Government may by notification in the official gazette determine. It is apparent that the term “initial period” which features in Section 2 (g) vests the only Government with authority to determine by notification in the official gazette what the paid-up share capital shall be.
The Government retains the authority to direct what specific provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1994 shall be applicable to Grameen Bank. The Government shall exercise this authority by notification in the official gazette. It is evident under this provision that the Government retains the authority to invoke or revoke provisions of the Banking Companies Act, 1991 at any time.
An increase in the authorized capital of the Bank requires the prior approval of the Government which means that the authority to increase the authorized capital is vested in the Government. Given that the authorized capital of Grameen Bank is stated in the statute (i.e. the GB Ordinance) to be Tk. 10 Crore, any approval by the Government shall have to be reflected/ embodied in the statute itself and not by any approval by the Government which is not incorporated in the statute. An approval by the Government without a change in the statute would mean that the Government approval has not been acted upon and may not be deemed as a valid statutory provision. The authorised capital of Grameen Bank under the statute stands at Tk 10 Crore.
Under the GB Ordinance it is provided that the Government shall hold 25% of the shares of Grameen Bank. It is also provided that it is only the Government which may increase the paid-up share capital of the Bank from time to time. Thus the Government retains the authority to determine the paid-up share capital. Further, unless differently embodied in the statute, the Government shall continue to hold 25% of the paid-up share capital of Grameen Bank. As the statute presently stands, having last been amended in 1990, the Government holds 25% of the paid-up shares.
The Government is vested with and retains the authority to appoint a Chairman of the Board of Directors. Such appointment of the Chairman would also be limited to Directors appointed by the Government itself. Even in the event of the vacancy in the office of the Chairman, the Government would have the authority to appoint any other Director to discharge the functions of the Chairman except that such Chairman shall not be the Managing Director. The Government’s authority to continue to appoint a Chairman and two other Directors is co-extensive with the Statute as it stands today.
Of the 12 Directors comprising the Board the Government shall have the authority to appoint 3 Directors.
The 3 appointed Directors shall hold office at the pleasure of the Government. This provision would mean that only the Government may remove the 3 or any of the Directors appointed by the Government.
The Government is vested with and retains the authority to receive the resignation of its appointed Chairman or its appointed Directors.
Since the Managing Director or any other Director may resign his office by writing under his hand to the Chairman who is a Government appointee, it is to the Government appointed Chairman (and not to the Board) that the resignation of a Director may be submitted. Such provision makes clear that the Government alone or through its appointed Chairman that the Government may receive and accept the resignation of a Director.
The Bank which may issue and sell bonds requires the prior approval of the Government to do so. The Government’s authority to approve the issue and sale of bonds and debentures at interest rates approved by the Government affirms the Republic’s control over such issue and sale of bonds and debentures.
The authority of the Government is further iterated by the provision that the bonds and debentures shall be guaranteed by the Government (i.e. the invocation of a sovereign guarantee) which in turn creates a loan by the Government furnished on behalf of the Bank to a Third Party or Parties.
The Government is vested with and retains the authority to receive returns, reports and statements from the Bank which the Bank would be required to furnish as the Government would require from time to time.
The Government is vested with and retains the authority to receive within three
months after the end of every financial year statement of accounts audited by the auditors thereby affirming the Government’s regulatory financial authority over Grameen Bank’s financial operations provided in the Statute itself.
The Government is vested with and retains its authority to levy taxes on Grameen Bank.
Any exemption from taxes payable by Grameen Bank will be determined by the Government for the period such exemption shall be made. It is a requirement that such exemption shall be notified in the official gazette.
The Government and only the Government has the authority to wind up Grameen Bank. The authority to issue an Order to wind up Grameen Bank also vests in the Government. The manner in which such winding up may be effectuated also vests in the Government.
The Government retains the authority to make rules for holding elections of Directors.
The Government retains the authority to remove any difficulty in relation to the transference of the Grameen Bank project carried out under the aegis of Bangladesh Bank to the statutory public authority which Grameen bank became with the establishment of Grameen bank by the Ordinance.
And that drivel is relevant because…?
Listen, what matters here is whether the transfer of money was illegal or not. If you want to smear Muhammed Yunus you need to provide more convincing argumentation than David Bergman, who lays out evidence that a transfer of money never even took place (http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2010/12/30/validity-of-charges-against-grameen-under-question/).
Sure, the government may have the right to depose Yunus, but the only reason they do it now (instead of ten years ago, when he passed retirement age) is because of the unfavourable winds blowing against him – winds they themselves have underblown. However, a more clumsy, petty and unnecessary thrashing of a competitor (which is the only possible reason why Hasina seems to hate him so much – even though he shouldn’t be seen as that much of a threat to her), is difficult to find on the world stage today.
Instead of unearthing dark truths about Yunus and Grameen Bank, this episode have broadcasted the rotten workings of the Prime Minister and the country’s politics to the world. I’m sorry for the country, but maybe it’s about time. Hasina’s made a fool of Bangladesh, but from now on she can’t fool anybody anymore.
Listen mate, check my other posts before you post a comment. I have allowed you silly post this time but please read my other posts before mouthing off. Prat.
Leave a reply