Trackback URL
Download PDF Speaker Jamiruddin Sircar yesterday claimed that he drew the medical bill of about Tk 28 lakh keeping in view some sections of Jatiya Sangsad Act 1994 in good faith and honest understanding of law with an undertaking.
At a press conference at his official residence to counter The Daily Star news published yesterday under the headline ‘Sircar drew Tk 28 lakh medical bill ignoring official objection’, the Speaker said if the appropriate authority disagrees with his opinion and claims refund of the said money, he will abide by the decision of the Bangladesh Supreme Court.
Sircar said the news of drawing Tk 28 lakh is not correct. It was Tk 27,86,364 and words ‘ignoring official objection’ is not also correct as the question of official objection did not arise.
Earlier in the afternoon, the Speaker sent a rejoinder to The Daily Star protesting the news through the public relations section under the Jatiya Sangsad Secretariat.
At the press conference, he criticised The Daily Star for such a wide coverage of the news. He said the news could be published on the back page or on any inside page of the newspaper. “But the newspaper gave such a wide coverage that it seems I am more important than Army chief Gen Moeen U Ahmed,” Sircar said referring to The Daily Star’s Thursday issue in which the news on him was made the lead and the army chief’s speech the second lead.
“It has violated all the norms of journalism. The news was published only to undermine me and the office of the Speaker,” Sircar said.
The Speaker in his written statement said he had sent a summary to the then prime minister’s office regarding his medical bill. “It was mentioned in the summary that former Speaker Humayun Rashid Chowdhury was granted Tk 35, 71,192 for kidney treatment and he withdrew [drew] the said amount and former chief whip Abul Hasnat Abdullah was granted Tk 5,74,00 and he withdrew [drew] it,” Sircar said.
Asked whether the former prime minister or the then Speaker approved the medical bill exercising the Special Medical Attendance Rules 1950, Sircar said the then prime minister approved it.
“I think the then prime minister did not check the Jatiya Sangsad Act 1994 that allows the Speaker to approve such a medical bill,” Sircar said, adding, “I even did not check the act in details. But when the Prime Minister’s Office sent back the summary with suggestion to settle it according to the Jatiya Sangsad Act 1994, I checked the act in details.”
He claimed according to Section 18 of Jatiya Sangsad Act 1994, Speaker is the final authority for approval of the expenditure of the allocated money for the Parliament Secretariat.
When his attention was drawn to the fact that the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General had given objection to the medical bill of former chief whip Abul Hasnat Abdullah as the bill was approved by the then Speaker, Jamiruddin said he was not aware of it.
Asked whether he exercised Clause 12 of the Special Medical Attendance Rules 1950 to approve his bill, the Speaker said he referred to the relevant rules in the summary sent to the Prime Minister’s Office.
But in his written undertaking, the Speaker claimed that by parity of reasoning the Speaker is the final authority to approve money through exercising Clause 12 of the Special Medical Attendance Rules.
In his yesterday’s statement, the speaker also said he drew the medical bill keeping in view sections 18, 9 and 14 of the Parliament Secretariat Act.
The Speaker is the authority to allocate money for the Parliament Secretariat’s budget, he said.
When his attention was drawn to the pro-reform BNP leaders’ yesterday’s statement that the last parliament was virtually ineffective, the Speaker said people could say whether the parliament was effective.
Asked whether the Speaker played his role for smooth functioning of the parliamentary standing committees, Sircar said he took several steps in this regard.
He denied the non-functioning of several standing committees in the last parliament.
He claimed that no specific allegation of corruption was raised for discussion in the last parliament.
Asked for his comment about the present caretaker government, the Speaker said the Constitution does not say that the present government is illegal. “You can at best say that there might be some constitutional irregularities. The irregularities, if there is any, can be corrected in future. But the present situation is within the ambit of the Constitution,” he said.
July 17th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Every news has its background. For this one about Mr Sircar is nothing more than a personal remark of the Speaker which Mr Anam did not find appropriate in a private gathering just the day before the first news against the Speaker came out in the Daily Star. The origin of this is few months back when Mr Mahfuz Anam was barred from entering the parliament. http://www.southasianmedia.net/Archive_full.cfm?nid=363864
We can criticize people on subtle issues of Principles of Accounting, principles of Law, ranks of precedence and so on. The basic story is that Mr Sircar taken funds for his treatment from the government while he undergone his second bypass surgery in 2005 in Singapore while in office.
In a quick note, a person holding such an high office on principle ought to be treated by the state. If Sabina Yasmin’s cancer treatment could be funded by the State, without her being a public representative, then as for the Speaker, Mr Sircar, rightly deserves to be paid by the government for life threatening treatment. It is only a matter of intellectual discourse whether that fund could be authorized by himself or by a superior.
Moreover, in this time when all politicians are going through combing scrutiny by press and government agencies, there are nothing in particular found to suggests Mr Sircar used his office to benefit himself. None of his close or distant relatives became rich during his tenure, neither could anyone show a single example of Mr Sircar’s family who has made a fortune during any of his long 15 years of holding ministerial offices or that of the Speaker. Out of several hundred NAM flats distributed by the Parliament Secretariat not a single flat could be found to be allotted in the name of anyone linked to Mr Sircar.
This personal vendetta by Mr Anam and the Daily Star family is indeed sad and exposes the journalistic mentality prevailing in Bangladesh. Famous journalist Mr Abul Mansur Ahmed once had to go to jail because of yellow journalism very similar to the present one. Mr Anam and Daily Star family should know better how even an honest man can be abused by the media. Therefore they should be responsible enough in their reporting.
Think Ethics.
Farazi Munshi
16 July 2007