The interim government is reportedly exerting considerable pressure to lease out the New Mooring Terminal of Chittagong Port to an Abu Dhabi–based company named DP World, without any tender process. Although no agreement has yet been signed, newspapers have reported that officials from the company are already visiting the port. The Chief Adviser has also called for resisting those who oppose the initiative. Meanwhile, port tariffs have been significantly increased—even though the port is already profitable—causing distress to the national economy and business community. The only apparent reason for such a move is to ensure high profits for foreign companies.
Efforts to lease Chittagong Port to foreign companies first began around 1997. At that time, it was repeatedly claimed that the port’s operational capacity was far below requirements and that its future was at risk. It was argued that unless a new container terminal was built under the management of a foreign company—by leasing out part of the port to an American firm—Bangladesh would face serious danger.
On 3 March 1997, a British consortium submitted a proposal to build a “private port” within the Chittagong Port area. Later that year, on 29 December, the American company SSA submitted a similar proposal.
On 20 February 1998, PNO Ports of Australia submitted another, followed by Port Venture of London on 4 January 1999, and Singapore Port on 18 January 1999. Alongside these foreign proposals, various local lobbying groups became active. The Chittagong Port Authority itself had its own proposal, but it received no attention and was left pending in files.
Meanwhile, the American company SSA quickly gained the upper hand, and the then government began negotiations with it without any tender process.
A new government came to power in 2001, but the efforts to finalise the port deal continued. A Secretaries’ Committee, consisting of six senior secretaries from different ministries, submitted a report on 30 April 2002, strongly recommending approval of SSA’s project. While lobbying for the project, the then US Ambassador referred to the International Investment Facilitation Center (IIFC) as a “World Bank institution” and cited its study as evidence in favour of the deal. In a letter to the then Minister of Shipping, US Ambassador Mary Ann Peters strongly urged immediate signing of the agreement with the American company, asserting that “no tender is necessary.” As justification, she stated that “all discussions were held transparently, and the World Bank–affiliated IIFC, acting as consultant, has given a favourable opinion,” and so on.
At the same time, a case was filed in court. A writ petition was submitted to the High Court by former Chairman of Chittagong Port Authority, Engineer Mahmud-ul-Islam, along with several others. The case was handled on their behalf by Dr. Kamal Hossain, who was assisted by Harisadhan Dev Brahman. By the end of 2002, court hearings revealed that the entire port project was fraudulent.
The World Bank’s Country Director at the time, Frederick Temple, also repeatedly pressed for the signing of the agreement. The same pattern of logic and procedures is being observed again today. The role of the Ministry of Shipping remains the same as before.
Back then, two successive governments, together with the US Embassy, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and bureaucratic circles, had pushed this disastrous initiative. But a massive public resistance movement rose against it. Alongside the struggles of port workers, the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources, Power and Ports organised various programmes, including a long march from Dhaka to Chattogram, to stop the harmful move.
At the same time, a case was filed in court. A writ petition was submitted to the High Court by former Chairman of Chittagong Port Authority, Engineer Mahmud-ul-Islam, along with several others. The case was handled on their behalf by Dr. Kamal Hossain, who was assisted by Harisadhan Dev Brahman. By the end of 2002, court hearings revealed that the entire port project was fraudulent. A new company, formed using the name of the original company, was manipulating the port contract to carry out massive loan scams. Despite this, powerful domestic and foreign actors were supporting the scheme. Ultimately, due to the court verdict and public resistance, the fraudulent project was cancelled.
One of the main arguments presented then—and even now—in favour of leasing the port to a foreign company is the idea of turning Bangladesh into “another Singapore.” However, Singapore’s geographical location, history, and economic development policies are entirely different. Its economy primarily earns revenue through the import of raw materials, their processing, and subsequent export. About 80 per cent of Singapore Port’s activity is transshipment-focused for this reason.
Most of Singapore’s national income or GDP comes from such economic activities, which are state-owned or state-controlled. Moreover, Singapore’s development philosophy does not support handing over a strategically important facility like its port to private capital or foreign companies. The port is managed under state authority by the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA). In 1997, it was corporatised to operate more commercially and independently. Later, a separate organisation called the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore took over responsibility for a significant portion of port operations.
Although various reforms and modernisation measures have been introduced in port management, the policy of not handing over any container terminal to private or foreign control continues to this day. Port workers’ unions are also active. The Port of Singapore Authority International now participates in the ownership and management of various ports around the world.
Therefore, to ensure Bangladesh’s national security and economic development, the leasing programmes must be abandoned. Instead, the Chittagong and Mongla seaports should be developed as strategically important national institutions, and their national capacity should be enhanced. We know that a lumpen or commission-driven mindset will resist this path. It is the people who must forge this path.
Moreover, the ‘DP World’ company, to which the Bangladeshi government is aggressively trying to lease the main port without transparency, is itself a state-owned enterprise. No country, through such undignified and overzealous efforts as exhibited by successive Bangladeshi governments, has ever managed to establish a firm foundation under its feet. It is indeed true that having a seaport places Bangladesh in a more advantageous position than many other countries. Bangladesh’s southern side opens onto the sea, with two river and sea ports at its ends. Beyond the benefits of international connectivity and transport, this maritime area is a repository of known and unknown resources. International experts confirm that the Bay of Bengal holds vast reserves of oil, gas, and minerals.
The fact that successive governments have shown similar interest in handing over these port and maritime resources to foreign companies without developing national capacity is highly significant.
Because of its strategic location, Bangladesh’s maritime territory is now under the watchful eyes of multiple powers, most prominently the United States, with China and India also present either directly or indirectly. The activities of US foreign and military officials, naval officers, and lobbyists from multinational companies—arriving in Bangladesh under various pretexts but demonstrating interest in our maritime region for “security purposes”—are deeply concerning. Global experience shows that such “security” initiatives often bring long-term dangers to many countries.
Therefore, to ensure Bangladesh’s national security and economic development, the leasing programmes must be abandoned. Instead, the Chittagong and Mongla seaports should be developed as strategically important national institutions, and their national capacity should be enhanced. We know that a lumpen or commission-driven mindset will resist this path. It is the people who must forge this path.
#Anu Muhammad is teacher, writer, and editor of the quarterly journal Sarbojanakotha
#The opinions expressed are the author’s own.