The New Nation - Internet Edition

Fertiliser scarce, farmers at bay

FARMERS are now engaged in growing Boro crops that require adequate use of fertiliser. Boro rice, the number one food crop of the year. Other crops grown in the current season are maize, wheat and potato. All of these crops now require good application of fertlisers for proper growth of plants leading to a good harvest. But farmers are passing anxious days for shortage of fertiliser and its unusual price. A 50kg bag of urea fertiliser that should sell for its normal price of Taka 280, is actually selling for Taka 500.

Even at this price farmers are finding it difficult to buy urea fertiliser in quantities needed by them. One farmer is being allowed to buy only one bag at the inflated price. Against this backdrop, farmers are staging agitations. Some farmers barricaded the Dhaka-Bogra highway on Monday to demand redress actions. But they were baton charged by the police and 25 persons were injured. Surely, this is not the way to treat the farmers who drew attention to their plight. Subsistence farmers will face problems if fertiliser scarcity continues affecting wheat and rice productivity.

Dealers are blamed for the sufferings of the farmers. They allegedly maintain good stocks of urea fertiliser but slow release of it has created the condition which is cited to justify the high price. They also allegedly smuggle urea fertiliser to neighbouring countries. The authorities should take action to take care of such unscrupulous activities. Besides, steps will have to be taken also to boost internal production of urea fertiliser and quickly do import on an urgent basis, if required. The objective should be creation of conditions to supply fertiliser adequately to farmers at affordable prices during this peak of the relatively safe season of cultivation of rice and other crops.

Retaining share of overseas jobs

ILLEGAL activities of a handful of Bangladeshi expatriate workers pose a threat to the image of the country as well as jobs in international markets. Some Bangladeshi workers in Saudi Arabia reportedly resorted to strikes and other activities like illegal business violating the Saudi laws. Such activities only posed a threat to the interests of the whole community of expatriate Bangladeshi workers. Saudi Arabia is the biggest job market for Bangladeshi workers. Other countries in the Middle East may also develop a negative attitude towards Bangladeshi workers if the allegations prove true. The negative developments are taking place at a time when efforts have been geared up to expand overseas job markets.

Mere advice is unlikely to restrain those who have reportedly done illegal activities. The authorities must find the reasons why some workers engaged themselves in such activities and help address them. Sometimes, workers are given jobs reportedly not with salaries promised before their recruitment. The recent story of the stranded Bangladeshi workers in Malaysia is a case in point. Some workers might have resorted to illegal activities just to survive. Measures to ensure job security with reasonable wages is likely to prove effective in solving the problem. The government has asked the workers to inform concerned authorities of their problems. While it is a good move, the authorities must also take all possible steps to stop deceptive recruitment by agents. The workers must also be made aware of their rights and obligations in foreign countries. Only skills is not enough to secure jobs, workers must also prove to be law abiding. All efforts should be made to retain and expand Bangladesh's share in the international job markets. And this cannot be achieved overlooking the employers' side of the story.

Thoughts on metro

Yasmin Chowdhury

The recent decision to build a Metro (underground rail) system in Dhaka has met with a range of responses. On one side is the "halleluyah" response-at last, government is taking public transit seriously, with plans to invest serious funds (at least $3.2 billion US dollars) into making life easier for the masses.

On the other side rises the practical question: how feasible is the plan, how much will eventually get built, will it actually function, and might not a different form of public transit-say, a tram or trolley, or Bus Rapid Transit-achieve similar benefits for about a hundred times less money per kilometer?

On the bright side, traveling in cities with a Metro is a far different experience from traveling in those without one. Where I grew up, there is no developed system for public transit, and it is virtually impossible to get around without a car. Since I let my driver's license expire about a decade ago, I feel like a child when I visit, reliant on adults to take me places. Meanwhile, when I visit big modern cities, like Boston, Washington D.C., Chicago, New York City, or San Francisco, or any number of European cities, I can easily move around on my own.

But while the independent mobility is a blessing, with it comes a significant downside. When traveling underground, we fail to experience the city we are in. Living in Boston and frequently traveling by subway, I had many of the stops memorised, and could easily get around underground-but I had no idea what was over my head. When I finally got into the habit of walking through the city following the subway lines but above ground, I realied that only now was I gaining a perspective of where buildings, monuments, and important parts of the city are in relation to each other-not in terms of a subway map, but in terms of actual physical layout. In the process, I realised how little I had actually understood, all those years of living there, about the true layout of Boston-or of what is to be found in various neighborhoods that I had ever only passed under. The parts of the city I knew best were those I walked in, or where the subway emerged into a street-level trolley, and there was a sense of connection between the passengers and the street life out our windows.

When traveling underground, we are unaware-and thus often unconcerned-about the situation at ground level. Passing under a slum, we don't pause to reflect on the lives of the people there, and whether something couldn't be done to make it better, or on why trash is thrown here and there, or how desolate some of the streets looktbut we do notice those things when traveling on the surface, and there is the possibility that from noticing, we will go on to change it.

This has a direct practical side as well for business owners; when traveling at ground level, we can see shops and other amenities. Oh, that's where I can buy that-or oh, that looks like a pleasant restaurant! And knowing where it is and how to access it, there is the possibility of going back someday. This is both a far more amusing way to pass the time when traveling then in looking at tunnel walls, but also is good for the businesses we pass.

Then of course there are the practical matters. I remember seeing a map of the subway system in Washington, D.C. which showed various "planned" routes. I remember seeing the same map year after year, and being surprised that they were never built. Short on funds? Similarly, I read in the newspaper in Bangkok that the sky train was supposed to extend far beyond the existing network.

That hasn't happened, and the sky train itself took many years to build in part, I hear, due to corruption. Meanwhile, the new Metro in Bangkok doesn't go much beyond the sky train. What then are the chances that Dhaka will succeed in building all it plans? If the existing plans prove unaffordable, as the price of materials continues to rise, how much will a very limited system do to reduce traffic congestion or make traveling easier?

Meanwhile, building a subway system requires building a lot of tunnels. The funny thing about tunnels is, they have to be accessed from the street. This involves a lot of big holes, and while those holes are in place, streets are closed down. So congestion will be significantly worse for the years during which the Metro system is built.

There is also the issue of crowding on the subway. I was in New York City recently, and given the intense street-level congestion, when going too far to walk, I tried the subway. It was certainly better than being stuck in traffic, but of course I had no idea where I was, and I couldn't decipher the thick New Yorker accent of the conductor. On one trip, the train was so packed that I couldn't see out the windows to read the names of the stops. This made arriving at my destination a bit of a challenge, and left me as clueless as ever about the geography of Manhattan.

The sky train is often packed in Bangkok, with barely room to stand. Thais are polite, and I have never had a man grab me. Unfortunately, I can't say that for my experience of riding in crowded subways in Boston, and I have heard horror stories about the system in Mexico, which apparently had to provide separate carriages for women to prevent sexual harassment on the packed trains.

Then there are those lovely escalators down to the stations. Where there are hills, or where the system must go under high rise buildings, stations must be built far below ground. Some of those escalators seem to go on forever. Stepping onto those moving stairs with the ground so far below as to seem to belong almost to another planet always makes my head spin. I was relieved, on a recent trip to D.C., to discover that a Bangladeshi colleague had the same experience, only worse. He insisted on taking the lift. Of course the lifts are intended mostly for the disabled, those with small children, or those with luggage, so one sometimes must wait a long time for it. Between long lines for lifts and the crowded situations of the trains, it sometimes feels as if we have simply shifted a portion of our traffic congestion below ground.

Speaking of traffic congestion, it helps to remember that people need to be able to get to and from the public transit stops. Getting from one stop to another in little time is a great convenience, but the benefits of that convenience are rapidly diminished when it is difficult to get from public transit to one's actual destination. I made a mistake in Bangkok once and got off at the wrong subway stop. As I came up to the street, I realised that where I needed to go was on the other side of a highway, with no provision for crossing. I could either go back underground, pay again, then wait for another train to come along to take me just one more stop, or I could risk my life running across the highway. Needless to say, I ran.

In cities with broken sidewalks, and sidewalks blocked by parked cars, and barbed wire and cement medians to prevent people from crossing the street, getting to and from public transit becomes a daunting challenge.

Anyone in their right mind would choose to drive instead, if they had the option, thus defeating in large part the point of the public transit in the first place: to woo people away from their cars. That is, public transit doesn't exist in a vacuum-it is part of the city, and it is meant to connect places not just along the tracks, but throughout the city. If people can't easily get to the stops on foot, or on rickshaw, then there is little point in building the system in the first place.

Then there is that lovely dream of the uncongested streets of Dhaka, once our Metro system is built. How many large, crowded cities with crowded Metros have streets free of traffic jams? Let's face it, moving through a city-even at a good pace-underground just isn't that pleasant an experience. Subway stations are often hot and smelly. Homeless people tend to use them as urinals, and there are always those aggressive people who insist on smoking despite all the signs. If subways freed up the streets, then all the passengers who could afford a car or taxi would go back to riding in one.

I remember once being late for the airport in Boston and figuring that rather than go all that way below ground, and change trains twice, and move at the snail's pace the Boston subway often goes at-it is the oldest subway system in the US and thus the least modern-I would take a taxi. Of course it took even longer, thanks to all the traffic, and I missed my plane.

Yet Boston's subway system is far more extensive than Dhaka's is likely ever to be, and it is easy to walk in Boston, and there is a good bus system to complement the subway, and the population is a fraction of Dhaka's. So why are there still traffic jams, when the Metro is supposed to eliminate them?

I'm sure the decision was made in good faith. Perhaps the planners involved have not spent much time in the major cities of the world, and experienced both their subways and the traffic situation above ground. Perhaps they feel that people enjoy being below ground, or that the city is best experienced as little as possible-that is, either underground, or safely insulated in a steel box. No doubt they consider the expenditure of a mere few billion dollars quite reasonable, pocket change really. Perhaps they are too busy to read the Strategic Transport Plan which was meant to map out the best transport plan for the future, and which found that a Metro would offer no significant improvements over surface public transit, and thus there is no justification to build it.

Even allowing that a few billion dollars is a minor sum which should involve little thought or planning before expending, I would still suggest that when Dhaka's city planners make their final decision about an efficient, fast, affordable, high quality system of public transit, they should be careful not to miss the boat. It's a lot more expensive and more technically difficult to build and operate an underground system than a surface one.

We would get a far more extensive system, with far lower fares or less government subsidy, if we built a surface rather than an underground system. The system could be built a lot faster than a Metro, and with a lot less disruption of traffic during its construction. That issue of fares is important-around the world, public transit tends to be expensive, and yet still highly subsidised by government. The more expensive the system is to build and maintain, the higher the fares and the subsidies, and the less that will eventually get built.

People could see their city out the windows while riding, gaining both a sense of perspective and of knowledge of what is happening around them. A less expensive system could be started quickly, and gradually expanded.

Ensuring that people can walk around the city would not only make the public transit system viable, but would help reduce congestion by shifting some short distance trips to walking. The money to fix our footpaths, and the political will to ban car parking on them, should not be more difficult to find than the billions planned for the Metro.

Public transit is definitely the way to go-but not all public transit was created equal, and leaping onto the wrong train won't help us reach our final destination.

Russian Poll 2008: Medvedev is ahead

Abdul Ruff

It seems Russian president Vladimir Putin has decided to compromise with his western critics who time and again have asked him to quit presidency upon completing his second term in May. And, campaigning has begun in earnest in the Russian presidential election with the electoral commission giving the green light for candidates to place advertising in the mass media. The poll is scheduled for March 2. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is backed by outgoing President Vladimir Putin, has a large majority over the other three candidates, polls have shown.

Medvedev, 42, was publicly backed by Vladimir Putin as his successor in mid-December, and was later nominated by the ruling United Russia party as a presidential candidate. Given Putin's popularity, his endorsement of the first deputy premier is likely to guarantee Medvedev the presidency. Putin, who can't serve a third term as president, is expected to be appointed prime minister if Medvedev wins. Putin has also said he will accept the post of prime minister if Medvedev becomes president.

The candidates to run alongside Medvedev are nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is loyal to the Kremlin, loyalist independent candidate Andrei Bodganov and the leader of the Communist Party, Gennady Syuganov. An opinion poll conducted on February 9-10, has indicated that 70% of voters intend to cast their ballot for Kremlin-backed Dmitry Medvedev in Russia's March 2 presidential elections. The poll also predicted Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov would come second with 9.1% of the vote, and ultra nationalist Liberal Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky third with 7.8%. The leader of the tiny pro-Western Democratic Party, Andrei Bogdanov, is forecast to receive just 1% of the vote.

Medvedev, on 22 February said freedom, private property and an independent judiciary would be the central platforms of his administration. "One of the key elements of our work in the next four years will be ensuring the independence of our legal system from the executive and legislative branches of power," he said. Medvedev spoke more of the development of social welfare projects than international affairs or the resurrection of Russian military power and also of the need to fight endemic corruption. "We must exclude law breaking from among the habits that our citizens have in their activities. To make it so that it no longer enriches some while demeaning others. "What kind of equal opportunity and innovative thinking can there be if everybody knows that rights only belong to those with the sharpest teeth, and not those who obey the law?" he asked. Medvedev said the government should review its tax system and cut the burden in some areas to ensure that the economy, which last year grew by 8.1 percent, can continue to grow.

Medvedev said the global economy is passing through a tough time and repeated Putin's line that Value Added Tax should be cut and called for a reduction of export duties on energy exports to allow oil firms to invest in new facilities. "Our tax system must be competitive with tax systems of other countries. The state should collect as much tax as needed to ensure that society functions effectively and our national businesses do not flee abroad, the economy doesn't fail. "In parallel, we should continue analysing whether to replace VAT with a sales tax," he said, adding that the ruble should de facto become one of regional reserve currencies. "I think there is no reason for the majority of state officials to sit on the boards of those firms. They should be replaced by truly independent directors, which the state would hire to implement its plans."

Meanwhile, a lot of campaign activities are taking place in Moscow considered to be the key center to influence the Russian voters across the country. Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, a close associate of President Vladimir Putin and an unsuccessful silent contender for the Kremlin high office, has been in news for quite some time campaigning for high turn out for the March 2 presidential poll to vote for Putin's Unity Russia candidate Dmitry Medvedev. Across the country, governors, who are appointed and dismissed by the president, are viewing the vote as an opportunity to show Medvedev their loyalty. Moscow, which holds the status of a region, seems to be no exception.

Along side the leaders vye with each other to appease the future president in order to gain favors in due course. Many billboards laid around the city show Mayor Yury Luzhkov urging Moscow residents to vote for Medvedev on March 2. Moscow doesn't want any changes," said an official. The ads, sponsored by City Hall and plastered on the streets and in the metro, show Luzhkov with the slogan: "I am voting for the future of the country." It looks as if they will be voting for is not a continuation of President Vladimir Putin's course but of Luzhkov course. With a view to convincing future Russian president Medvedev to let him stay on or to choose a successor of his own-and thereby preserve the status quo in Moscow Luzhkov is hoping to provide the Kremlin with a high turnout for the presidential election.

Although he could not become a favorite of Putin to be proposed for presidency, Luzhkov is only keen to retain his Moscow Mayorship for some more time. Putin has Luzhkov to stay until April, but he could reach a new agreement with a new president. Putin appointed Luzhkov, the 71-year-old mayor leading the city since 1992, to a new four-year term last June to help assure the Kremlin of a smooth transfer of power this year. Luzhkov is said to be is looking to retire now. Luzhkov, however, has been facing mounting pressure from Moscow businesses and city officials to stay well past the presidential election or to select a successor who would follow in his footsteps. Luzhkov still hopes to retire, but he does not want his post handed to an outsider, in part because he wants to make sure that his wife's multibillion-dollar business empire is protected once he leaves office.

Connections do play important function in Moscow. If Luzhkov leaves office, by law many other city officials would have to tender their resignations-a scenario that companies would like to avoid because it would mean that they would have to develop relations with new officials. "I know my bureaucrats now. I pay them, and things are fine," said Mikhail, who owns a chain of photo studios. "A change would mean that I would have to rebuild those relationships once again." The Kremlin would like to tap Sergei Sobyanin, Putin's chief of staff, as the next mayor, the City Hall official said. Sobyanin, a former Tyumen governor, is running Medvedev's election campaign. "Sobyanin would come with his people and get rid of everyone linked to Luzhkov. This would be a catastrophe for a city like Moscow," the official said.

Moscow is Russia's economic powerhouse, and Luzhkov is well known for keeping close control over its economy. Businessmen find that they need to develop good links with City Hall to work in Moscow. Luzhkov and his retinue are thought to have close ties with major banks, real estate firms and other big companies. Luzhkov's wife, Yelena Baturina, controls Inteko, a giant holding company, and she is worth an estimated $7 billion. "If Luzhkov leaves, there will be a huge redistribution of property. Nobody wants that, says an official, If Moscow performs well, and Luzhkov can go to Medvedev and say: 'You see, the situation here is under control. The percentage of the vote you got was super and the turnout was excellent. Can I stay a bit longer?'

Luzhkov's grip goes far beyond the economy. Among other things, the mayor is believed to control the city's judicial system-which critics say he secured by supplementing the low official salaries of judges and prosecutors with cash or perks such as luxury apartments. Luzhkov took responsibility for Moscow's northern districts, while Deputy Mayor Vladimir Rezin was put in charge of the western districts. These areas showed the lowest turnout in the city. During the December Duma polls, Moscow recorded a turnout of 50 percent, with 54 percent of the vote going to United Russia. Nationwide, turnout was 60 percent and United Russia collected 63 percent. The election could also provide Luzhkov with a chance to keep the status quo in Moscow. Luzhkov recently called together Moscow election officials and ordered them to work to get turnout of at least 65 percent and 70 percent of the vote for Medvedev, said the city official, who attended the meeting.

Putin has called on voters to choose Medvedev, saying his protege will provide stability by keeping the country on the same course that he has followed for the past eight years. Though the election of Medvedev is a foregone conclusion now, the mystery surrounds the future course of Putin who ruled Russia like any renowned tsar of the past for over 8 years after former president Boris Yeltsin had chosen him for the job in 1999 first as premier and then as acting president from 2000. Taking up the assignment of premier again would not satisfy him, unless he, in course, upgrades the post with authority above insignificant Medvedev, in which case presidency would fall weakened. Or, does he, as a Russian riddle wrapped in enigma, have any other plan of action soon after the poll? Perhaps, one has to wait until March 02.