The New Nation - Internet Edition

THE export-oriented frozen food sector, which comprise mainly shrimp, has been emerging as the second most important export item in Bangladesh after readymade garment. Considering its future potential as an item of value, it is often described as 'white gold' from Bangladesh. The export of shrimp has huge prospects. The country earns annually about US$ 300 million from shrimp exports when various expert level studies have credibly projected that there exists the potential to increase its exports fivefold to US$1.5 billion within some years from now provided the on going projects to develop capacities in this sector are pushed to completion at an early date.

The export of shrimps is facing a number of challenges. The future of this industry depends on the entrepreneurs quickly realising what they need to do to retain the export markets and expand their market share. The European Union (EU) countries are by far the biggest importers of shrimp from Bangladesh followed by Japan. But incidents were noted about exporters not meeting quality requirements that led to even return of consignments of exported shrimps from EU countries. Charges were leveled against the exporters for adopting foul methods to increase weight and for raising shrimp amid harmful chemicals which could be detrimental to human health. In 1997, the EU slapped a ban on export of shrimp from Bangladesh. The ban was withdrawn in 1998 on conditions that the exporters would take steps to ensure product quality by improving testing standards in laboratories with the installation of appropriate equipment. While the ban has had considerable effects in shaking up the exporters and creating the incentives among them to set up the demanded facilities and subject their products to inspection, the ambit of such testing and standardisation are probably not yet foolproof. Thus, a big consignment of shrimp was returned from Egypt recently. A team from the EU is now visiting Bangladesh to have field level experience on how compliant the exporters have become in relation to EU regulations. The exporters understandably need to take this visit from the EU team most seriously because at stake is their present regular export to the EU countries and also the aspired growth in export activity to these countries.

USAID some time ago started a programme to train up shrimp farmers on 'virus-free shrimp farming.' The aim of the programme was to assist the shrimp farmers to raise the shrimps in a virus-free environment. The method was shown to also increase shrimp production ten-fold. This method of farming could be popularised among shrimp farmers. Another thing that the government can do very usefully is the setting up of a seal of quality (SOQ) facility. The latest equipment for quality testing of frozen food should be collected under it and exporters can be obligated to test their products before exporting the same. The country's long-term interests in the export of shrimps can be secured successfully through the adoption of these two measures.

ACCORDING to central bank statistics, remittance inflow in the first quarter of the current fiscal year jumped by 16 per cent to $1,542 million from $1,330 million in the same period of the last fiscal year. The money inflow went up to $592 million in September from $471 million in August ahead of the holy Eid as reported by media recently quoting bank officials as saying that before festival remittance inflows usually goes up and there has been no exception this year. Bangladesh received about $ 6 billion remittance in the last fiscal year, which cushioned the shock of the country's more than $3.3 billion trade deficit. The Bangladesh Bank has also approved guidelines for drawing arrangements between banks operating in the country and exchange houses abroad. Under the guidelines, exchange houses are not allowed to appoint sub-agents to collect remittances.

Bangladesh Bank took the decision as the London-based First Solution Money Exchange Company collected deposits through sub-agents for remittance to Bangladesh and cheated the remitters of 1.7 million pound sterling. An exchange house operating in the USA should remit at least $3 million a year, from the UK 2 million pound sterling, from Italy 2 million euros, from Canada $2.5 million, $ 3 million from any of the Middle East countries where the concentration of Bangladeshi citizens is high and $1.5 million from other countries including some Middle Eastern countries having lower concentration. As decided, the houses are not allowed to make any promotional public statement like 'approved by the Bangladesh Bank' and have to send all remittance statements to the local banks. The house must transfer the amount within 24 hours of the money deposited for remittance to what is called the 'nostro account', an account open by a bank in Bangladesh in foreign country.

Banks operating in Bangladesh will collect information and papers about an exchange house before approaching the Bangladesh Bank for its approval to do business with it. The information or papers include copy of its licence, report from a reputed credit-rating agency, financial statements for the past three years, profile of its directors, articles and memorandum of association, among others. Positive report from the respective Bangladesh embassy also has to be collected by the banks and submitted to the central bank for obtaining the drawing-arrangement approval. However, the rise in remittance inflow meets the deficit whatever it is in trade in these difficult days of global competition when hardly there is any consideration by the major players of world economy. The huge remittance inflow is due to streamlining of the banking arrangement done with great efforts by the last elected government in recent years and the money now should be properly invested for the country's future development and poverty alleviation.

Dr. M. S. Haq

Past (I mean, not too distant a past), as well as recent developments and current challenges such as and as appropriate: flexibilities shown by North Korea when it come to dismantling their nuclear facilities against the backdrop of certain benefits, for example; a kind of slight change - apparent, though - in the attitude of Iran towards its contemporary position on matters pertaining to the country's suspected engagement in say, the production of nuclear armament, in-process or otherwise; problems associated with the US-India nuke deal; suspected involvements of Iraq in nuclear weapon making during the regime of late President Saddam; reported internet security violations, whether or not relating to nuke matters; rumors concerning the possession of nuclear weapons by terrorists; reported incidents associated with nuclear powered missiles and the US air force personnel; and Russia's opposition, in part or otherwise, to the US's defense strategies for the former USSR; represent some of the known faces of nuke related events or realities or both in respective world countries and faces that have or could have nuke related consequences, among other things.

But the questions remain, for example:

Are those real faces of for example, events and developments mentioned above? Or, the big picture is something else?

Who is planning to use nuclear weapons - against whom and why? Who will be the beneficiaries? How will they be benefited?

Is there any planning going on presently to discredit the US by making it the first country in the world to use nuclear weapons (after Hiroshima, per se) through the foreseeable future without say, its (the US's) first hand knowledge about the matter and without its intention to do as such? What was the real motive behind the recent US air force incident? Who was or were behind it? Who are and would be beneficiaries - both planned and actual? Is that the part of efforts towards bringing down the US from its present day number one position in the domain of global power? How safe are the US's defense facilities, installations, management, systems and mechanisms, including inter alia those associated with say, nuclear weapons, from hands of terrorists - both in and ex-country, from ex or in-country agents or from others?

Do there exist - at present - secret routes for say, the movement of nuclear processes, nuclear raw materials, nuclear engineering, nuclear technologies and nuclear products between and among certain nuclear powers and undeclared or would be nuclear powers? If such routes exist and if for example, Iraq had achieved nuclear capacities and capabilities prior to the fall of Saddam's regime, then it would not be100 percent illogical probably to assume now: those things might have taken one or more than one of those routes for safe custody or for further processing, or otherwise? Is there any link between above movements and the present day behaviors of for example, North Korea and Iran or the nuke related advancement made by those countries?

Or, it may be that, the present day routes are, among other things, a reasonable plus need, as well as time based expansion and extension of previous routes that had led to, among other things, the birth of new generation nuclear powers (I mean, countries) in Asia and elsewhere - both known and unknown - in recent times.

What are the present day nature, scope and role of corruption (used in a wider sense) when it comes to nuclear deals and transactions? What is the present day magnitude of corruption in those areas? How is corruption affecting the effort by world countries including inter alia the US and organizations including inter alia IAEA of the UN towards containing nuclear expansion or nuclear extension or both (used in a negative sense) at national, regional and other levels?

What is the present day status of breakthroughs in nuclear weapon development? Do fusion processes have any role to play in the development of new generation nuclear weapons? I am a little bit concerned here because water is the basic raw material for fusion processes and water is, in a sense, relatively cheaper, among other things.

Is Iran buying time for perfecting its nuclear technology before it could convince the world that it has become one of the nuclear powers?

In light of above and other considerations in pertinent areas, it now appears to me, Asia is becoming gradually a densely populated nuclear power zone with China, Russia, India and Pakistan as existing nuke powers and with the possible inclusion of Iran into the zone as an additional nuke power in the near future (kindly note: we are talking here about only the known nuke powers in Asia at this point in time). In the midst of above and other developments, it is interesting to note here: Asia region is not immune from, among other things, poverty, poor governance, corruption, terrorism and extremism, relative to time, space and other variable though. A brief analysis of those and other related factors would reveal inter alia: the region could pose a real threat to global peace and security in the foreseeable future if challenges in pertinent areas are not attended to properly - it could not only affect the growth potential of the region but that of the world at large.

The last world: the US and other world countries should explore possibilities such as: How best and quickest they could harness growing potentials of Asia region in pursuits of promoting and sustaining global peace, security, progress and prosperity? How best and quickest they including development partners (including inter alia World Bank) could help liberate the region from, as applicable, poverty, poor governance, terrorism and extremism? How best and quickest the US and other world countries, the UN and for that matter IAEA, and others could be instrumental in the realization of commitments made by world countries at various forums about nuke and other matters. How best and quickest, the US will be able to liberate itself from risks, vulnerabilities and threats associated with its security, progress and prosperity. A stronger US is needed, at least at this point in time, for serving the greater interest of world people and countries, per se. World people must find out, among other things, the big picture behind the on going nuke drama?

Ashraful Musaddeq

The process of pasteurisation was named after French scientist Louis Pasteur who discovered that spoilage organisms could be inactivated in wine by applying heat at temperatures below its boiling point. The first pasteurisation test was completed by Pasteur and Claude Bernard on April 20, 1862. The process was later applied to milk and remains the most important operation in the processing of milk. It is the process of heating food for the purpose of killing harmful organisms such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, molds, and yeasts. Pasteurisation set out to accomplish two things: destruction of certain disease-carrying germs; and the prevention of souring milk. Products that can be pasteurised are: milk, wine, beer, fruit juice, cider, honey, eggs etc. Pasteurisation aims to achieve a "log reduction" in the number of viable organisms under a certain temperature.

To ensure destruction of all pathogenic microorganisms, time and temperature combinations of the pasteurisation process are highly regulated: For milk- 63° C for not less than 30 min., 72° C for not less than 16 sec., or equivalent destruction of pathogens. Milk is deemed pasteurised if it tests negative for alkaline phosphatase. For frozen dairy dessert mix- (ice cream/milk, eggnog etc.) at least 69° C for not less than 30 min; at least 80° C for not less than 25 sec; and for milk based products-(cream, chocolate milk, etc.) 66° C/30 min, 75° C/16 sec.

There are two widely used methods to pasteurise milk: High Temperature Short Time (HTST) Method, and Ultra-High Temperature (UHT) Method.

Milk simply labeled "pasteurised" is usually treated with the HTST method. HTST involves holding the milk at a temperature of 161.5° F (or 72° C) for at least 15 seconds. The HTST pasteurisation standard was designed to achieve a 5-log (approximately one million-fold) reduction in the number of viable microorganisms in milk. This is considered adequate for destroying almost all yeasts, mold, and common spoilage bacteria and also to ensure adequate destruction of common pathogenic heat-resistant organisms including particularly Microbacterium tuberculosis, which causes tuberculosis; and Coxiella burnetii, which causes Q. fever. HTST pasteurised milk typically has a refrigerated shelf life of 2-3 weeks.

Milk labeled "ultra-pasteurised" must be treated with the UHT method. UHT involves holding the milk at a temperature of 280° F (or 138° C) for at least 2 seconds. Ultra pasteurised milk can last much longer when refrigerated, sometimes 2-3 months. When UHT pasteurisation is combined with sterile handling and container technology, it can be stored for about 6 months without refrigeration.

In addition to the standard HTST and UHT pasteurisation standards, there are other lesser-known pasteurisation techniques. These are: Batch method; Higher-Heat Shorter Time (HHST) method; and Cold pasteurisation.

Batch Method involves heating large batches of milk to a lower temperature, typically 155° F (or 68° C). The batch pasteurisation step is often performed prior to standard pasteurisation. Batch pasteurised milk is often called "raw milk" or, confusingly, "unpasteurised milk". It cannot be called "pasteurised", even though a significant number of pathogens are destroyed during the process.

The batch pasteuriser is shown at the next page. HHST Method lies somewhere between HTST and UHT in terms of time and temperature. Cold Pasteurisation is used sometimes for the use of radioactivity or other means (e.g. chemical) to kill bacteria in food.

Md.Monirul Islam

Dearth of the comprehension of "policy making and makers", two assimilated apparatus, fashion the hindrances on the way of the momentum of democratic countries' advancement in most of the developing countries. Political leaders' forging in a system shape their entity as policy makers in the process of democratic norms and values through election. Leaders who become policy maker, as we all know, have roots in pragmatic or conventional norms because of following traditional education system of poor countries which is commonly considered the lacking of policy makers' knowledge in their functioning ground i.e. decision making field of any state.

To crystallize decisions of makers in an advanced temperament for the well being of people, a think tank with its ardent outlook formulates the stage of development in state affairs. So, think tanks pertain accumulated thinking into a tank or space; the word 'tank' is commonly used in keeping water in a big pot. Think tanks are either government - sponsored or privately organised groups of professionals who do research in any or all possible disciplines and communicate their research findings to the public at large or to targeted audiences whose opinions they want to influence.

Private think tanks may be affiliated to academic institutions, organised as autonomous non-profit foundations or promoted by a homogenous group of professionals such as business people, journalists or lawyers.

The demise of communism in most of the world may give the impression that ideas are no longer powerful in influencing nations' destinies. Simple pragmatism may seem to be the only principle animating the behavior of the major actors in the so-called emerging markets or fledgling democracies. If properly communicated and disseminated, however, ideas can play a powerful role in shaping policies that may advance or frustrate the objective of democratisation or market liberalisation.

For this reason, those attempting to introduce market or democratic reforms should take a closer look at the role of "think tanks" in the more developed countries. In many emerging markets today, the role of think tanks in public policy making is just beginning. There is no dearth of scholars who do high - quality research in these countries. Very few of these researchers, however, apply their work to any advocacy program of, say, economic or political reform. There is a tendency for research scientists in these countries to literally live in their ivory towers.

In fact, there were three key ideas that motivates every the founder of think tank. The first was the Principle of subsidiarity. This principle emphasizes that tasks that can be efficiently accomplished by private individuals or small groups should not be usurped by higher bodies, least of all by an all-powerful state. The second is the principle of solidarity: individual members of society must always seek ways to promote the common good in their private decisions and actions.

The third is the common good-defined not as the greatest good for the greatest number, but as a social or juridical order that enables each member of society to seek his or her fullest development in all aspects. These ideas-abstract as they may seem-are very powerful motivators for the diverse group of economists, educators and other professional people who start doing research on national, sectoral, regional and international economic issues and communicating their findings to teachers, students, business people, professionals and the public at large through articles in the mass media. Anyway, the present caretaker government of Bangladesh, a source reports, attempt to frame a unique think tank headed by government chief of the country in an effort of predicting upcoming crises and finding immediate measures to keep continue the momentum of country's development. If that's so, government must care about above mentioned last two principles out of threes to fulfill their enterprise.

The second is the principle of solidarity: individual members of society must always seek ways to promote the common good in their private decisions and actions. In this statement, a thing is highly identifiable that the representatives of common people will be included in this think tank to promote common good in country. A source reports that a greater part of this think tank will be the combination of some bureaucrats, political leaders and so on so. I think how they will act beyond their clash of who are more skilled between twos-political leaders and bureaucrats. Bureaucrats claim, they are more trained and appointed through open competitive contest but political leaders in most cases come from inferior status groups and are not equipped with sophisticated training procedure to enhance area of knowledge as done by officials. How they will go for the well being of the people to have tremendous confrontation under the framework of this think tank. So, my recommendation is to congregate prolific neutral persons who are outstanding in their own area belonging to professional character or they may be the civil society workers whose intention assembling public prospects.

The third is the common good-defined not as the greatest good for the greatest number, but as a social or juridical order that enables each member of society to seek his or her fullest development in all aspects. John Stuart Mill, the British political thinker suggests this jargon as the greatest good for the greatest number to explain his most dominant theory-utilitarianism. To me, it has never been suited with the democratic norms and values. Democratic standard always move forward with securing the common good of particular affair. So, this think tank will accumulate veterans connected with general masses who enable each member of society to seek his or her fullest development in all aspects. Our think tank will find the way, how could the political party be efficient in acting properly in its area and also be reformed with the needs of the country. A component is tremendously identifiable that in many emerging markets today, the role of think tanks in public policy making is just beginning.

Ours have a dominant market of garment industry from which country earns at least 56% of total foreign currency every year. The beginning process of think tank adjacent with market policy may be further used enhancing vehemently in the world market. In the age of globalization, various economically advanced countries like china, India, Japan has already put together its course of occupying world market with their native commodities through promoting sophisticated market policy framed by various think tanks situated within countries. Bangladesh's place between two dilemmas - "interest and interference" often disheartens the stable politics by foreign diplomats whose walks within country are now in question for their ghastly inclination. Only think tank with its stylish policy may frame a check point to intercept foreign diplomats' illicit move in country.

War policy taken by big countries in current world now launches banking on the instructions of think tanks of those particular countries. For instance, U.S stand on Iraq war was suggested by its one of the greatest and renowned think tank, Project for American Century. Presently the security of Bangladesh is now under threat for the attention triggered by big powers and neighbor countries aimed at crossing the frontier of Bangladesh and including Bangladesh under neighbor's shed through dismantling its shape. If it had an inimitable think tank, it could convene protecting sovereignty of Bangladesh as a forecaster. Coming up to this circumstances, needs of a unique think tank formulating policy and putting it into operation is imperative.