Why are journalists Bangladesh Bank's adversaries?

Bangladesh Bank has imposed restrictions on the entrance of journalists. The central bank says that if journalists want to meet with any official, they will have to wait. Then if the concerned official is willing to meet, only then will the journalist be allowed entry. Bangladesh has perhaps learnt this from India's finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman. When she took office in 2019, she too imposed similar restrictions on entering the finance ministry.

The Indian finance ministry at the time said that a beautifully designed air-conditioned waiting room has been built at Gate 2 of the North Block. It will have a continuous supply of water, tea and coffee. Journalists will wait there. The concerned official will be informed that a journalist wants to meet him and he will then come and meet the journalist in the waiting room.

There was strong protest all over the country against this. The journalist organisations issued statements together, declaring that this was yet another step towards suppressing press freedom. The Hindu's deputy editor Shobhana K Nair humorously remarked, "If only the life of a reporter were so easy that merely waiting outside rooms would get us sources and stories."

But journalists don't want such an easy life. And we all know, what the government wants to reveal is 'press release', and what it wants to hide is news. And what is required to get the hidden news, is known in journalistic jargon as "source". That source is not created sitting in the waiting room. The better the sources, the better the journalist. Actually the government does not anyone to practice good journalism here.

Yet developed countries attach highest importance to independence of the press in the interests of democracy. The media actually ensures transparency and accountability of the government. Countries high on the press freedom index like Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark or the Netherlands, allow free access to government offices.

In the United States, those regularly visiting the state department, the White House and other government offices, are issued hard-passes. In France, when journalists gain three months' experience, they are provided official cards from the office. These card holders can not only enter government offices, but freely enter museums, movie theatres and other exhibitions.

On the other hand, in countries where the practice of democracy is absent, where the authorities do not want to be held accountable, their effort is to obstruct journalists from their work. They not only enact laws for the  purpose, but obstruct entrance at their will.

Now let me come to personal experience. From the beginning of my journalistic career, I have regularly been visiting Bangladesh Bank. It was in 1996 when Mustafa Aminur Rashid was the managing director of Agrani Bank. Allegations had surfaced against him about resorting to irregularities to provide loans. An inquiry committee was formed, headed by Bangladesh Bank executive director Sultan Ahmed Molla. After extensive inspections, the committee even submitted its report. It detailed at least 25 types of irregularities. Under political influence, that report was placed in cold storage.

Bangladesh Bank was frustrated that even after the report had been drawn up with all evidence, no action was taken against anyone. The report was availed from a reliable "source" and was serially published in the newspaper. The Agrani Bank MD's tenure of service was not extended.

The government was displeased at those series of reports. Mahbubur Rahman was the deputy governor of Bangladesh Bank at the time. He invited me over for a cup of tea. After the tea, he said nothing can be done that will harm the borrowers’  confidence in the financial sector. I just asked him whether there were any mistakes in the report. He could not give me an honest answer. He was more interested in finding out how I got my hands on the report. He too didn't get any clear answer.

When Bangladesh Bank formed the government in 1996, Mohammad Farashuddin was made governor of Bangladesh Bank. Khandakar Ibrahim Khaled was the deputy governor. Both of them were aware of what was going on in the various banks. Let me relate an incident. Sonali Bank was preparing to give a substantial loan to a politically influential person without any collateral. I learnt about this from a "source" in Bangladesh Bank. The news appeared in print, and based on that report the central bank blocked the loan in the interests of the country. Such incidents occurred several times.

The employee unions were extremely powerful at the time in Bangladesh Bank and the state-owned banks. Even the officers had all sorts of associations and flexed their power. They were backed by political clout. Their large source of income was taking cuts from loans, taking payments for transfers and other irregularities. There are even instances of them beating up senior officers. Along with that was the dominance of influential big businessmen. Two such big businessmen threatened a governor of the central bank. When the central bank couldn't take action against them because of political or other reasons, the journalists would get the news. We would write, the government would fall under pressure, and the central bank would take action.

It was the journalists who stood beside the central bank in the battle against loan defaulters back in the nineties. Mohammad Farashuddin got extensive support from journalists for the steps he took against the arbitrariness of the private bank directors. All this was done not out of any personal interests, but to establish good governance in the banking sector. Bangladesh Bank and journalists were on one side together. On the other side were those who threatened and menaced.

Actually that perspective has changed. Now the bank grabbers, the loan defaulters, the bank directors who usher in family dominance, and the central bank -- all are on the same side. Their main function is to protect each other's interests. As a result, aided and abetted by the likes of Sur Chowdhury and Shah Alam, loans thieves like PK Halder are created, influential owners get all sorts of facilities and benefits, the banks owners determine the central bank's interest policy, defaults are given all sorts of concessions.

What matters now is whose man you are, who recommended your appointment, who extended hospitality to whom and in which country, and so on. The less that is written on such matters, the better it is for the central bank, the subservient bankers and other businessmen who gain illicit favours. So it is only natural at this juncture that journalists will be barred from Bangladesh Bank.

How the communication policy of a country's central bank should be, has now become a matter of global discussion. In January 2022, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came up with a handbook on 'Central Bank Communications'. The entire world is floundering under inflation at present. It is basically the responsibility of the central bank to control inflation. This is done by the proper application of the monetary policy.

There is also need for accountability as to how far the central bank  is able to carry out this responsibility, how transparently it is being able to do this. That is why IMF feels that a central bank needs to have a good communication policy. In the handbook they say that from the experts to the common people, the government, members of parliament and the central bank observers, everyone must be clearly apprised of the objectives and the implementation policy of the monetary policy. This will ensure both the accountability and the independence of the central bank. The independence and the accountability of the central bank are two sides of the same coin.                  

Other than the journalists, the IMF handbook also talks about ensuring the confidence of the others who monitor the central bank. But in Bangladesh, quite the opposite has happened. The journalists have been banned. As for the others, economists in particular, the central bank reacts to whatever they have to say and questions their understanding of economics. Even the governor himself has said that the global credit rating agency has lowered Bangladesh’s credit rating for political reasons. The central bank would do well to peruse the IMG handbook on how to keep up good communications with everyone.

Two professors of the economics department at London’s King College published a study in 2022 on what sort of reporting the media does on the Bank of English and its impact. The study covered the news published from 1997 to 2020 in the Times, the Daily Mail and the Guardian. In the study, ‘How do the Media Scrutinise Central Banking? Evidence from the Bank of England’, the two researchers said the media should report even more in-depth on the accountability of the central bank. After all, they mobilise public perception and also assist in increasing legal scrutiny. It is only the media that can keep the central bank’s independence under constant watch, and that is extremely important, particularly in times of crisis.

On 19 May, 44 parliament members of England’s ruling Tories wrote a letter to the chancellor, that is, the finance minister Jeremy Hunt. He was asked to review the independence of the Bank of England because the country’s central bank was failing to control inflation. It did not follow the steps taken by other countries to control inflation in due time and wasted the tax money of the common people by selling bonds.

In Bangladesh too, inflation has remained about 9 per cent over the past two years. The foreign currency reserves have plummeted by around 25 billion dollars. In these two years the taka exchange rate has gone from 87 taka to 117 taka. Those in power here should also be asking for answers for these failures. After all, while it may have been able to tackle politics, the government is losing face in the area of economy.

Bangladesh took inordinately long in taking a decision regarding interest rates. After two years of experimenting with the dollar exchange rate, it finally has adopted the “crawling peg” policy. But, bringing down the inflation rate remains all rhetoric, not reality. The common people want an answer. Had the election and the votes been meaningful, then there should be an answer.

Just as the central banks the world over are independent, there are legal frameworks for accountability too. The government and the parliament have to be informed of the reasons of behind the failure. Here it is quite the opposite. Instead of demanding answers, the ruling party general secretary Obaidul Quader has being singing praise in favour of the central bank. He has also taken a stand in favour of not allowing journalists into the central bank. He said that everything is on the website. Ironically, he was in journalism himself once upon a time.

Writer and journalist George Orwell once said, "Journalism is printing something that someone does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.” It is hardly believable that Obaidul Quader did not read these words then or had not heard of this. He possibly has forgotten. After all, he has named his autobiography, “Jibon Smriti: Shob Monay Nai”, which translated means, “Life’s Memoirs: Can’t Remember Everything”.

* Shawkat Hossain is Head of Online, Prothom Alo

* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir