Prothom Alo’s report on investment: Ashik Chowdhury’s Facebook status and reporter’s response

Prothom Alo on 31 January carried a report on the country’s foreign investment situation on its business and economy page under the headline “Interim govt fails to make an impact on investment”. The report was published in Bangla online with the headline “Low investment: where is Ashik Chowdhury’s breakthrough?” An infographic on domestic and foreign investment trends accompanied the report.

Following publication of the report, on the night of 2 February, the executive chairman of the Bangladesh Investment Development Authority (BIDA), Ashik Chowdhury, posted a status on his verified Facebook page, attaching the Prothom Alo infographic.

In the post, he questioned the rationale behind the time frame used for the foreign investment data cited in the report.

Ashik Chowdhury’s comments are reproduced verbatim below. He wrote, “We can at least expect first-tier media outlets not to publish misleading reports. That much expectation is surely reasonable. But I was deeply disappointed after seeing this photo card by Prothom Alo. They have branded the interim government as having failed to deliver an investment breakthrough. That is why, stepping outside my usual practice of not responding to published reports, I am writing a few words.

1. The data used as evidence covers the period from July 2024 to June 2025. Seleucus! This government only began in August (and BIDA’s operations from October). Are we now being blamed for the lack of investment in July–August? In psychology, this type of mischief with data is called the ‘framing effect’.

2. Interestingly, Prothom Alo could easily have analysed a more appropriate time frame, for example, comparing investment from January 2025 to June 2025 or October 2025 with the previous year. This window would have been far more reasonable for the interim government. Quarterly data from Bangladesh Bank is available. And that data shows investment increased by 80 per cent in the first nine months of 2025. It could also have been mentioned that, unlike Sri Lanka or Sudan, foreign investment in Bangladesh did not turn net negative in the post–mass uprising period (source: World Bank). Most of whatever gains have been achieved in investment are due to the country’s private sector and ordinary people. Would it really have harmed anyone to acknowledge them?

3. The claim of a ‘collapse in registrations’ is factually correct, but the analysis is wrong. Under the previous government’s development narrative, registrations were carried out indiscriminately. Registrations increased every year, but actual investment remained at the same level. We have stopped these fake registrations. That is why registrations have declined. Alhamdulillah.

To Prothom Alo, I would say: you do not need to publish clickbait like a second-tier newspaper. Please publish objective news.”

1. The investment report published by Prothom Alo used data from the 2024–25 fiscal year. Bangladesh’s fiscal year runs from 1 July to 30 June. Accordingly, economic indicators such as foreign direct investment (FDI), GDP growth, inflation, exports and remittances are published by the relevant authorities on a fiscal-year basis. These indicators are also published on a monthly and quarterly basis. Therefore, using the 2024–25 fiscal year for investment data is neither exceptional nor a deliberately selected time frame. Describing it as a ‘framing effect’ is not tenable.

2. It is correct that foreign investment increased by 80 per cent during the first nine months of 2025. But the central question is whether this represents a significant improvement.

During the first nine months of 2025, foreign investment amounted to USD 1.41 billion. However, it must be remembered that foreign investment fell sharply in 2024, dropping to just USD 780 million. An increase of USD 630 million from that low base results in an 80 per cent growth rate. But is USD 1.41 billion satisfactory?

A comparison with previous years shows that foreign investment during the first nine months of 2025 was still 20 per cent lower than during the same period in 2020, the year of the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the first half of 2020, economic activity around the world came to a standstill due to the coronavirus outbreak. Bangladesh was under a general shutdown for 66 consecutive days from 26 March. Government and private offices, courts and factories reopened on a limited scale on 31 May. Can receiving less foreign investment than during such a catastrophic year reasonably be described as a success?

Of the USD 1.41 billion in foreign investment received during the first nine months of 2025, approximately USD 450 million was new investment. The remainder consisted of inter-company loans and reinvested profits, forms of investment that primarily came from foreign companies already operating in Bangladesh. A critical issue is the volume of new investment. In this respect, new investment increased by only 8 per cent during the first nine months of 2025.

Ashik Chowdhury’s statement that foreign investment did not turn negative in Bangladesh in the post–mass uprising period, unlike in other countries, was in fact included in Prothom Alo’s report. He said that investment growth in post-uprising countries typically turns negative or falls to zero, but in Bangladesh it increased instead, which he described as remarkable.

He added, “As a foreign investor, why would anyone invest in Bangladesh in 2025 after seeing what happened in 2024, when the country’s direction was uncertain? And yet investment has increased. That means investors have no doubts about the country’s potential. The central issue now is whether we can create a suitable environment for them.”

The Prothom Alo report was approximately 1,400 words long. It is not possible to include every aspect of such a report in an infographic. Infographics are generally used to present comparative data and key information. Reading the full report might have avoided this misunderstanding.

3. Investment registration data provides an indication of investment interest. Ashik Chowdhury has now stated that ‘fake’ investment registrations have been halted, leading to a decline in registrations. However, Prothom Alo did not rely solely on registration data to assess investment trends. The report also analysed private-sector credit flow and capital machinery imports, neither of which presented a positive picture. Ashik Chowdhury did not address these issues.

Moreover, investment registration data is not used only by Prothom Alo; the government itself relies on it. The Bangladesh Economic Survey 2025, published by the Ministry of Finance, includes investment registration figures.

In conclusion, the Prothom Alo report was not an exercise in ‘clickbait journalism’. Rather, it was a comprehensive assessment of the overall investment situation. Increased investment leads to higher employment and income levels, making it a crucial economic indicator.

As part of responsible journalism, Prothom Alo published an evaluation of this key economic indicator and also acknowledged areas where the government has performed well.

The report noted that the interim government has restored a degree of stability to a financial sector that had been pushed to the brink under the ousted Awami League government and has managed to halt the decline in foreign exchange reserves. However, it concluded that the investment situation has yet to become satisfactory.