Dhaka, Feb 2: As Bangladesh prepares for general elections on February 12, the interim government led by Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus has come under scrutiny for taking a series of major decisions and initiatives that critics argue go beyond its limited election-time mandate.
As an interim administration, many believe its role should be confined to routine governance and election preparation. However, recent actions have raised concerns about long-term economic, political, and security implications.
According to an opinion piece published in Prothom Alo, the government has approved or initiated several significant measures, including forming the 9th Pay Commission for government employees, accelerating the recruitment of primary school teachers, purchasing 163 vehicles for the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), announcing an arms zone in the Mirsarai Economic Zone, signing agreements linked to Chattogram port, and planning the construction of luxury apartments for ministers and senior bureaucrats.
The proposal to build three new buildings in Dhakaâs ministersâ enclaveâcomprising 72 flats measuring up to 9,030 square feet eachâhas drawn particular criticism.
The project includes a Tk 200 million allocation for furniture alone, despite the fact that existing ministerial residences are already large by national standards.
Critics argue that such lavish spending is unjustifiable in a country where millions struggle to meet basic needs.
The 9th Pay Commissionâs recommendation to increase government salaries and allowances by 100â147 per cent, at an estimated cost of Tk 1.06 trillion, has also sparked concern. While the government has stated that implementation will be the responsibility of the next elected administration, analysts question whether the fragile economyâmarked by stagnant investment, high inflation, weak revenue collection, and a struggling private sectorâcan absorb such a burden.
Civil society groups, including the Ganatantrik Odhikar Committee, have warned that hurried contracts and policy decisions could constrain the next government and expose it to financial and political risks.
Critics argue that these late-term initiatives may serve vested interests rather than the public good, potentially leaving long-term liabilities for the future elected government and the broader population.