The Daily Star has long been unequivocal in opposing the immunity bill, and nothing the government has said has induced us to reconsider our position. One reason for this is that the government has, in fact, never deigned to say anything by way of explanation to the public as to why it is taking this somewhat precipitous step. The very least the government could do would be to offer a rationale for its actions.

We oppose the bill because, in our opinion, it would run counter to the notion that everyone should be subject to the law. We fail to see why an international organisation which has extraordinary influence when it comes to setting public policy without any commensurate accountability should be further immunised from the consequences of potential wrong-doing. The World Bank has lectured the nation on the need for transparency and accountability too often for us to not notice the extreme hypocrisy of its demand for immunity.

Furthermore, the Bank claims that this immunity is merely a provision granted to it by all countries in which it operates. However, we have not been able to find any support for this somewhat implausible claim, and the government itself has conceded that the proposed legislation would be unique at least in the region.

The biggest questions remain for the government. On the one hand it is constantly talking tough on the issue of sovereignty and stating that no one can dictate to us. But what is this if not dictation on the part of the Bank? Furthermore, what would happen if the World Bank were denied immunity? Would it cease operations in Bangladesh?

The finance minister is on record as saying that if donors are not satisfied that they are free to leave, but it seems that when push comes to shove, that the government is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate them. The contrast between the fierceness of the government's rhetoric and the timidity of its actions is striking.