Expatriates and their rights on Bangladesh
Friday, 4 December 2009
Tayeb Husain
I vividly remember an announcement the then military-backed caretaker government's Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed made sometimes in February or March 2008 during a visit to London. He said that "from now on, British passport-holder Bangladeshis will automatically retain their Bangladeshi citizenships." I protested this unilateral declaration by someone who had no power base or support from the population and was holding a unique position only as a usurper. My protest note was published in the Bangladesh media but I do not know if it made any impact on public mind or influenced government's attitude regarding the rights and privileges of the non-residential Bangladeshis (NRBs). The term is, I believe, utterly wrong. They are foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, holding foreign passports and occasionally holding dual citizenship but they are not non-residential Bangladeshis. Actually, the Bangladeshi NRBs are mostly those who work in Arab countries and earn foreign currency for Bangladesh where they have no social or legal rights. They carry Bangladesh passport and they do not have any other place to go other than poor Bangladesh after the end of their job period. The foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, on the other hand, are those people who are well settled in Europe, North America or Australia where they are, technically, offered equal rights and privileges like any other citizens in their host countries.
Bangladesh offers NRBs many rights like no-visa entry to Bangladesh, equal social and political rights including land and business ownership, holding government offices and even special quota to participate in lotteries of plot allotment in Dhaka's Uttara or Purbachal Model Town projects.
Personally, I am against all such privileges mentioned above to foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, whether one is a British or a Nepalese passport-holder. I strongly believe that poor Bangladesh belongs to Bangladeshi citizens and those who are settled in Europe, North America or Australia should not look back and expect some privileges from the country they left behind.
I strongly oppose dual citizenship, voting right, and other privileges to foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin. I oppose expatriates' voting rights vehemently on principle and practical reasons, even though it is against my personal interest. I sincerely believe that no one should have divided allegiance, and one should be fully loyal to the country one lives in, earns a living and, finally, becomes a citizen of that country.
I am fully aware of the fact that Bangladesh and many other countries allow dual citizenship to their former citizens, with full rights and responsibilities of a normal resident. Rich western countries do it for certain reasons. For example, many US citizens have Israeli citizenship, where they work and help the Israeli nation. They are mostly American Jews. The British and the French also allow dual citizenship, traditionally -- in the past, to protect and promote they colonial interests but the practice still continues.
Bangladesh is a poor country, and it is very generous of her to offer double citizenship to a foreign citizen of Bangladesh origin -- and even a Bangladeshi passport -- knowing well that the person is a foreign citizen and has a passport from his/her adopted country.
This generosity of Bangladesh has both good and bad implications. To a good person, it gives a sense of nostalgia, and he/she always fondly remembers his/her country of origin with deep gratitude and love. Such a decent person returns this generosity of his/her motherland doing good things when an opportunity comes. However, these types of people are rare and very few. An individual always looks after his/her personal interest, and there are many who would go to any extent to gain a little extra profit whenever he/she gets an opportunity to do so.
There are also certain criminals who use this opportunity. Often, the generous rules and regulations of the criminals' adopted countries offer them safe haven, and the countries of origin of the criminals cannot take any action against them for their crimes committed in the country of their origin.
Many criminals from Arab countries moved to the UK on the pretext of political persecution in their home countries, and the same pretext were used by many people from former communist countries to get a safe sanctuary in Western Europe.
Some expatriates/immigrants from underdeveloped countries can be classified as political touts and ordinary criminals. Sometimes they are politically connected with political touts at home, and very often they co-operate and work with corrupt politicians of their home countries to share their ill-earned money and social or political advantages.
Some well-established expatriates also go back to their countries of origin to take part in direct politics, and hold ministerial posts by offering money to political organisations or directly to party bosses. These people are basically corrupt and live a luxurious life, mostly by corruption at the cost of poor Bangladesh.
Now, what can be done, or what rights and privileges should be offered to a Bangladeshi immigrant/expatriate? Some one even proposed sometimes ago that two seats of the national parliament should be reserved for the expatriates. I consider such a proposal unfair, and dangerous for Bangladesh. I shall suggest that except "No-visa requirement" seal, at a reasonable fee, on the foreign passport of an expatriate no other right or privilege should be offered to anybody as long as he/she carries a foreign passport.
The system of double citizenship should be stopped, and every expatriate/immigrant should declare his/her assets in Bangladesh if he/she stays in the country for more than three months at any given time. No foreign citizen should be allowed to own agricultural land in Bangladesh if he/she does not use it for agriculture or farming purposes as a permanent resident.
Long time ago I read in the newspapers about an expatriate living in the USA asking the government to intervene because a criminal in Bangladesh had grabbed his land. While I do not support any land-grabbing by anybody, I strongly oppose any foreign citizen owning any land in Bangladesh under any circumstances.
Bangladesh is a very small country, land per capita in Bangladesh is lowest in the world, and under such circumstances no expatriate should be allowed to own agricultural or commercial land in Bangladesh if he/she does not return home and live in Bangladesh permanently.
Regarding jobs in Bangladesh, anybody with foreign passport/citizenship should not be allowed to seek any job in Bangladesh, except those foreign experts whom Bangladesh may need for certain specific jobs. Again, anybody who is a Bangladeshi citizen with a Bangladeshi passport but did not live in Bangladesh continuously over a year or so (except those who are abroad on government duty or studying in a foreign country) should not be allowed to vote or to take part in any election, or seek any government office.
Anyone with foreign citizenship who is in the service of the Bangladesh government should be found out and dismissed. And in case anyone who has hidden his/her foreign connection while serving the government, he/she should be sent out of the country after checking properly his/her assets and foreign links.
Adopting such a strong and draconian measure against the expatriates may seem very unkind or even hostile towards the "lost" children of Bangladesh, but these measures are very necessary to safeguard the interests of poor Bangladeshi people and to curb the malpractices of a great number of criminals who are Bangladeshi expatriates/immigrants and foreign citizens.
...............................................
The writer lives in Sweden. He can be reached at e-mail: gtmail@telia.com
I vividly remember an announcement the then military-backed caretaker government's Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed made sometimes in February or March 2008 during a visit to London. He said that "from now on, British passport-holder Bangladeshis will automatically retain their Bangladeshi citizenships." I protested this unilateral declaration by someone who had no power base or support from the population and was holding a unique position only as a usurper. My protest note was published in the Bangladesh media but I do not know if it made any impact on public mind or influenced government's attitude regarding the rights and privileges of the non-residential Bangladeshis (NRBs). The term is, I believe, utterly wrong. They are foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, holding foreign passports and occasionally holding dual citizenship but they are not non-residential Bangladeshis. Actually, the Bangladeshi NRBs are mostly those who work in Arab countries and earn foreign currency for Bangladesh where they have no social or legal rights. They carry Bangladesh passport and they do not have any other place to go other than poor Bangladesh after the end of their job period. The foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, on the other hand, are those people who are well settled in Europe, North America or Australia where they are, technically, offered equal rights and privileges like any other citizens in their host countries.
Bangladesh offers NRBs many rights like no-visa entry to Bangladesh, equal social and political rights including land and business ownership, holding government offices and even special quota to participate in lotteries of plot allotment in Dhaka's Uttara or Purbachal Model Town projects.
Personally, I am against all such privileges mentioned above to foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin, whether one is a British or a Nepalese passport-holder. I strongly believe that poor Bangladesh belongs to Bangladeshi citizens and those who are settled in Europe, North America or Australia should not look back and expect some privileges from the country they left behind.
I strongly oppose dual citizenship, voting right, and other privileges to foreign citizens of Bangladesh origin. I oppose expatriates' voting rights vehemently on principle and practical reasons, even though it is against my personal interest. I sincerely believe that no one should have divided allegiance, and one should be fully loyal to the country one lives in, earns a living and, finally, becomes a citizen of that country.
I am fully aware of the fact that Bangladesh and many other countries allow dual citizenship to their former citizens, with full rights and responsibilities of a normal resident. Rich western countries do it for certain reasons. For example, many US citizens have Israeli citizenship, where they work and help the Israeli nation. They are mostly American Jews. The British and the French also allow dual citizenship, traditionally -- in the past, to protect and promote they colonial interests but the practice still continues.
Bangladesh is a poor country, and it is very generous of her to offer double citizenship to a foreign citizen of Bangladesh origin -- and even a Bangladeshi passport -- knowing well that the person is a foreign citizen and has a passport from his/her adopted country.
This generosity of Bangladesh has both good and bad implications. To a good person, it gives a sense of nostalgia, and he/she always fondly remembers his/her country of origin with deep gratitude and love. Such a decent person returns this generosity of his/her motherland doing good things when an opportunity comes. However, these types of people are rare and very few. An individual always looks after his/her personal interest, and there are many who would go to any extent to gain a little extra profit whenever he/she gets an opportunity to do so.
There are also certain criminals who use this opportunity. Often, the generous rules and regulations of the criminals' adopted countries offer them safe haven, and the countries of origin of the criminals cannot take any action against them for their crimes committed in the country of their origin.
Many criminals from Arab countries moved to the UK on the pretext of political persecution in their home countries, and the same pretext were used by many people from former communist countries to get a safe sanctuary in Western Europe.
Some expatriates/immigrants from underdeveloped countries can be classified as political touts and ordinary criminals. Sometimes they are politically connected with political touts at home, and very often they co-operate and work with corrupt politicians of their home countries to share their ill-earned money and social or political advantages.
Some well-established expatriates also go back to their countries of origin to take part in direct politics, and hold ministerial posts by offering money to political organisations or directly to party bosses. These people are basically corrupt and live a luxurious life, mostly by corruption at the cost of poor Bangladesh.
Now, what can be done, or what rights and privileges should be offered to a Bangladeshi immigrant/expatriate? Some one even proposed sometimes ago that two seats of the national parliament should be reserved for the expatriates. I consider such a proposal unfair, and dangerous for Bangladesh. I shall suggest that except "No-visa requirement" seal, at a reasonable fee, on the foreign passport of an expatriate no other right or privilege should be offered to anybody as long as he/she carries a foreign passport.
The system of double citizenship should be stopped, and every expatriate/immigrant should declare his/her assets in Bangladesh if he/she stays in the country for more than three months at any given time. No foreign citizen should be allowed to own agricultural land in Bangladesh if he/she does not use it for agriculture or farming purposes as a permanent resident.
Long time ago I read in the newspapers about an expatriate living in the USA asking the government to intervene because a criminal in Bangladesh had grabbed his land. While I do not support any land-grabbing by anybody, I strongly oppose any foreign citizen owning any land in Bangladesh under any circumstances.
Bangladesh is a very small country, land per capita in Bangladesh is lowest in the world, and under such circumstances no expatriate should be allowed to own agricultural or commercial land in Bangladesh if he/she does not return home and live in Bangladesh permanently.
Regarding jobs in Bangladesh, anybody with foreign passport/citizenship should not be allowed to seek any job in Bangladesh, except those foreign experts whom Bangladesh may need for certain specific jobs. Again, anybody who is a Bangladeshi citizen with a Bangladeshi passport but did not live in Bangladesh continuously over a year or so (except those who are abroad on government duty or studying in a foreign country) should not be allowed to vote or to take part in any election, or seek any government office.
Anyone with foreign citizenship who is in the service of the Bangladesh government should be found out and dismissed. And in case anyone who has hidden his/her foreign connection while serving the government, he/she should be sent out of the country after checking properly his/her assets and foreign links.
Adopting such a strong and draconian measure against the expatriates may seem very unkind or even hostile towards the "lost" children of Bangladesh, but these measures are very necessary to safeguard the interests of poor Bangladeshi people and to curb the malpractices of a great number of criminals who are Bangladeshi expatriates/immigrants and foreign citizens.
...............................................
The writer lives in Sweden. He can be reached at e-mail: gtmail@telia.com