Paying through the nose

Shamsul Huq Zahid | Published: August 15, 2016 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00

Most people, parents and guardians in particular, are literally dumbfounded by the education ministry's recent directive to educational institutions, under the Monthly Payment Order (MPO) or otherwise, not to hike tuition fees by more than 30 per cent. Â
The directive clears the way for schools, colleges and private universities to hike their fees by 30 per cent across the board, lawfully. The education ministry honchos have assumed that all parents and guardians of students can afford such a large hike in tuition fees. However, the same ministry in February last in the face of protests by parents and guardians asked the educational institutions not to raise their fees when a number of them had started doing the same at will. In some cases, the hike was more than 100 per cent.
The tuition fees in private educational institutions, particularly those located in major urban centres, are very high compared to that of all types of government educational institutions. The fees are exorbitantly high in the case of some private educational institutions. A 30 per cent hike would only make the burden on account of educational expenses even heavier.
When the private schools and colleges went for hiking tuition fees rather whimsically in February last, the increase in teachers' salary was cited as a reason. The truth is that these institutions wanted to have a slice in the substantial hike in salaries of government servants. But all parents and guardians are not government servants. Most of them are fixed income people. The management of private educational institutions and the high officials at the education ministry, apparently, ignored this fact.
The question that must be agitating the minds of many: what has prompted the education ministry to suggest a maximum 30 per cent hike in tuition fees? Did it hold consultations with educationists and relevant others before issuing such a directive or was it an arbitrary decision?
The education ministry's decision is identical to the one taken by two Dhaka City Corporations on the fixation of maximum retail price of beef ahead of the last holy month of Ramadan.Â The meat vendors were selling beef at Tk 380 a kilogram in the city before the start of the holy month. The corporations on their own hiked the maximum retail price of beef. The beef vendors, it is understood, did not press for any such hike. What is the ultimate outcome of the undesirable actions on the part of the two city corporations? The beef price has not come down to the previous level. It is now sticking to the raised price tag of Tk 420 a kg.
When it comes to the issue of consumers' welfare, it is expected that government agencies would do their best to help consumers as much as possible. The opposing is happening these days. It seems that they are more interested to make the life of consumers or fixed income people more difficult.
In fact, every government agency is out to add to the cost of living of general population. Meeting an additional cost will not be a problem for the rich and affluent section of the population. But for the fixed income people this would make their life only more miserable.
For instance, the gas distribution companies are out to increase the gas tariff by a whooping margin of 120 per cent.Â Such a hike, if enforced, would not only increase the expenditure on account of gas burners but also produce a chain effect.Â The cost of transportation will go up with the power companies coming up with fresh proposals to hike their tariff.
The government is planning to mete out some more punishment to general consumers. The Finance Minister last Saturday has made it categorical that the supply of piped gas to domestic consumers would soon be stopped, meaning that they would be made dependent on imported and expensive liquefied petroleum (LPG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) following construction of the proposed LNG terminal in the near future.Â From the statements and speeches delivered from time to time by a section of policymakers it transpires that the residential users are committing a crime by burning gas for household purposes. The same appears to be true in the case of CNG users. It is not that millions of households have taken gas connections forcibly. They have followed set rules to secure gas connections from the relevant state-owned companies and they are paying revenues against such use.
However, if the government deems it fit to divert gas consumed by households to some other important usages, it is free to do it. But it does have the responsibility to address the problems to be encountered by millions of households.
With the relevant agencies becoming aggressive in their efforts to squeeze out more revenue from the users of their products and services, life is becoming increasingly difficult for middleclass, low-income and poor people. In the absence of effective and organised protests, these agencies - both public and private - have been pushing up the cost of living constantly, no matter what the official statistical organisation says about inflation or cost of living.
zahidmar10@gmail.com