Public Responsibility, Personal Gifts and the Rights of the People
One of the primary responsibilities of the state is to protect public money, resources and interests. In particular, ensuring the integrity, impartiality and accountability of officials and employees engaged in government development projects is an essential duty of the state.
This is because the money allocated to such projects does not belong personally to any minister, bureaucrat or contractor; every penny ultimately belongs to the people.
It is deeply concerning when a person holding a responsible position in the state attempts to redefine the universally accepted concept of corruption in a way that risks opening another door to corrupt practices.
It is hardly surprising that ordinary citizens may wonder whether new justifications are being devised to legitimise the acceptance of bribes.
Recently, Mir Shahe Alam, State Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, remarked that if a contractor voluntarily gives a gift to an engineer out of personal satisfaction and from the contractor’s own profit, it should not be considered a bribe.
His statement is not merely an isolated comment; it has direct implications for public procurement, development projects, administrative ethics and the government’s commitment to combating corruption.
Who Should Determine the Difference Between a Gift and a Bribe?
The argument presented by the State Minister is that if a contractor maintains the quality of work, provides no unethical benefits and gives a gift to someone out of personal profit, it should be regarded as a gesture of personal courtesy.
However, the issue is far more complicated when it involves an engineer performing official duties.
When an engineer inspects a government project, verifies a contractor’s bills or certifies the quality of completed work, that engineer acts not on the basis of personal relationships but as a representative of the state. The contractor’s financial interests depend on the engineer’s decisions.
Therefore, accepting personal gifts from such a contractor inevitably creates a conflict of interest.
The argument that a contractor is giving a gift from personal profit is also insufficient. A contractor’s profit comes from allocations made for government projects.
Those allocations, in turn, are financed through public taxes, state resources and borrowing. Consequently, gifts from contractors to officials involved in publicly funded projects cannot simply be dismissed as gestures of social courtesy.
Section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860, of Bangladesh addresses the acceptance by public servants of gratification beyond their lawful remuneration in connection with their official duties.
Simply labelling a financial benefit as a ‘gift’ does not automatically change its legal or ethical character.
The satisfaction of contractors must never take precedence over the interests and satisfaction of the people.
The State Minister himself has stated that contractors and engineers must not save money by compromising construction quality and then share the savings.
This warning is certainly important. But the question remains: who determines whether the quality of work is satisfactory? Is the engineer, the contractor, the ministry or the people?
In Bangladesh, allegations are widespread that road surfaces begin deteriorating within months of construction, the durability of culverts and bridges comes under question, cracks appear in newly constructed buildings, and public infrastructure becomes unusable within just a few years.
According to media reports, the State Minister also referred to criticism on social media concerning the quality of work undertaken by the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED).
In other words, the government itself appears to recognise the existence of these problems. Against this backdrop, how reasonable is it to make statements that could encourage the exchange of personal gifts between engineers and contractors? This deserves serious consideration.
A contractor may feel pleased when an engineer facilitates the timely payment of a bill after the completion of work. But payment of a bill is not a personal favour; it is an entitlement under the contract.
Similarly, when an engineer verifies the quality of work and issues the appropriate certification that too is part of the engineer’s official responsibility.
It is difficult to understand why an engineer should receive a personal gift from a contractor for performing a duty for which the engineer is already paid by the state.
If a culture of gift-giving takes root, contractors who can afford to offer gifts may enjoy greater advantages. Conversely, those who refuse to provide gifts may find themselves deprived of their legitimate rights.
Bourgeois Politics, the Proletariat and the Familiar Culture of Power
There is a peculiar continuity in our political history. Governments change, minister’s change, political slogans change and electoral promises change, yet the circumstances of ordinary people hardly improve.
One political group comes to power with promises of serving the people and securing their support through elections.
After some time, ordinary citizens become astonished by the lifestyles, wealth and displays of power of many among them. Then another group takes over, promising a firm stance against corruption, irregularities and nepotism. Yet, after experiencing the privileges of power, the old practices are often repeated.
It is easy to make political statements against the bourgeois class. But when a section of those in power begins to place its own interests above those of the people, such rhetoric fails to translate into reality and simply disappears into thin air.
Meanwhile, the proletariat, or ordinary working people, struggle every day with rising market prices, house rents, medical expenses, their children’s education costs and uncertainty about employment.
For them, the proper use of every penny allocated to government development projects is critically important. When a bridge collapses, a road deteriorates or public infrastructure is constructed below the required standard, it is ordinary citizens who suffer the consequences.
Can Ordinary Citizens Also Give Gifts to Ministers?
If contractors can give gifts to engineers out of personal satisfaction, can ordinary citizens of the country also give ministers gifts worth several crores of taka simply because they are pleased with them?
This raises another important question: do public representatives need gifts to remain satisfied with the people, or is protecting the interests of the people itself their fundamental responsibility?
Is the Government’s Position Against Corruption Clear?
To take an effective stand against corruption, policymakers must demonstrate transparency through their own statements and conduct. No message should be conveyed to public officials that could legitimise the acceptance of bribes under the guise of personal gifts.
Most importantly, the personal integrity of public officials and institutional accountability must be ensured.
Whose State Is It, and For Whom Is Power Exercised?
We want a Bangladesh where government engineers do not wait for gifts from contractors, and contractors do not feel compelled to offer personal gifts to satisfy officials.
We want a country where the quality of work is determined by contractual obligations and engineering standards, bills are paid according to established procedures, and every penny of public expenditure is properly accounted for.
We want a government that governs by earning public confidence, not by intimidating the people. We want public representatives who, when questioned about the sources of their wealth, respond with transparency rather than irritation.
The ordinary people of this country do not demand luxury. They want their legitimate rights, personal security, affordable healthcare, quality education, employment opportunities and an administration free from corruption.
The honourable state Minister, whether a gift from a satisfied contractor constitutes a bribe cannot be left to your personal interpretation. It must be determined by the laws of the state and the standards of ethics, accountability and transparency.
We must remember that power is not permanent, nor is ministerial office. But the scars of public money being wasted, corruption and injustice can be carried by generations.
Bangladesh is not the personal property of any minister, bureaucrat or contractor. Bangladesh belongs to its millions of ordinary citizens.
(The writer is an Islamic Finance Specialist,
Economist, Social and Political Thinker, Geopolitical Analyst, and Human Rights Activist)