As the interim government nears end of its tenure, the sudden and sweeping expansion of the country's Monthly Pay Order (MPO) scheme has triggered troubling questions about governance, integrity, and fiscal responsibility. The decision to approve 1,719 private educational institutions under MPO enlistment within just 8 working days is unprecedented-not only for its efficiency, but for the opacity and controversy surrounding it.
According to official records, as many as 3,615 institutions applied online between January 14 and January 25. From January 26 to February 5, the MPO Committee under the Ministry of Education reportedly verified and finalized all applications, averaging more than 450 institutions per working day. For a process that traditionally requires meticulous scrutiny of infrastructure, staffing, enrolment, and compliance with regulations, such speed strains credulity. Verification at this unusual and colossal scale, without clear disclosure of methodology or even oversight mechanisms, unquestionably raises a practical suspicion.
Even more alarming are allegations emerging from within the Directorate of Secondary and Higher Education (DSHE). Senior officials, speaking anonymously, have claimed that the enlistment process involved massive illegal transactions amounting to hundreds of crores of taka, with bribes allegedly paid per institution. While these claims remain unproven, the gravity of the accusations demands serious and prompt investigations. Though no senior official from the ministry has publicly addressed the concerns, but it fuels perceptions of impunity and institutional silence.
However, financial implications further compound the issue. Following these rushed approvals, the Ministry of Education has already sought an additional Tk 670.13 crore annually from the Finance Ministry to cover salaries and allowances for newly enlisted MPO teachers.
And this is not a marginal adjustment but a substantial and recurring burden on the national exchequer. In the absence of long-term planning, needs assessment, or parliamentary scrutiny, such commitments risk undermining fiscal discipline-particularly at a time when the government is navigating through little time, economic pressures and budgetary constraints.
Needs be mentioned, the MPO scheme was designed to support deserving institutions while ensure stability for teachers serving in under-resourced educational settings. When the process becomes rushed, vague or allegedly monetized, it not only erodes public trust but also threatens credibility of the scheme itself. Moreover, genuine institutions may be crowded out, in place of politically connected or financially capable applicants gaining unfair advantage.
As for the Interim Government at its fag end, its foremost obligation should be stewardship, not haste. Decisions with long-term financial and institutional consequences must be guided by transparency, accountability, and due process. At bare minimum, the ministry must disclose the criteria, verification process, names of approved institutions and allow for independent review.
In conclusion, without clarity and accountability, the MPO episode risks becoming another cautionary tale of how important public policies are compromised by poor governance-coming at a huge cost to both public funds and public confidence.
