bdnews24.com blog

EXCLUSIVE
Yunus ’siphoned Tk 7bn aid for poor’

bdnewsadmin | 30 November 2010 10:36 pm

bdnews24.com Europe Correspondent

Dhaka, Dec 1 (bdnews24.com)—Donors found out that Muhammad Yunus drew off nearly Tk 7 billion (100 million dollars) in aid for poor borrowers of Grameen Bank to another of his company back in 1996, the Norwegian TV says.

An investigative foreign TV documentary “Fanget i Mikrogjeld” or “Caught in Micro debt” aired on Tuesday on the National Norwegian Television, NRK shows ‘the banker to the poor’ transferred the money to Grameen Kalyan, which was in no way involved with microcredit operations.

The film, premiered on Tuesday, quotes Professor Jonathan Morduch from New York University saying that Grameen Bank, which also won the Nobel Peace prize alongside Yunus, received $ 175 million dollars in subsidies to give tiny loans to poor people.        .

The secret documents, which have never been published before and some of which are available on the bdnews24.com website (see links), reveal that Professor Yunus breached the agreement on housing loans.

And when the Norway embassy, Norwegian aid agency Norad and the Economic Relations Division in Bangladesh demanded that he return the money to Grameen Bank, the microcredit guru gave back less than some Tk 2 billion ($ 30 million). Later, Grameen Bank took this money as loan from Grameen Kalyan.

As he did not want the story out, Yunus in desperation wrote a personal letter on April 1, 1998 to the then CEO of Norad requesting help. “If the people, within and outside government, who are not supportive of Grameen, get hold of this letter we’ll face real problems in Bangladesh,” pleaded the man synonymous with small loans to village women.

“And Norad, the Norwegian Embassy and the Bangladeshi authorities kept their mouths shut,” the documentary says. The money was from foreign grants from countries such as Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands and Germany, and the transaction took place at the end of 1996.

Tom Heinemann, a Danish award-winning journalist who directed the documentary, told bdnews24.com after the premiere that he had attempted to look critically into microfinance and stumbled upon these things.

“I have tried to talk to Mr Yunus for six months. But he didn’t want to talk to me,” he said over telephone early on Wednesday.

In one of the many documents dated Jan 8, 1998, Yunus explained why he did the transaction. “With gradual higher interest rate charged, (…) more and more money will have to be paid out as taxes in future,” he wrote to the Norwegian Embassy.

WHY AGREEMENT?

The Norwegian Embassy in Dhaka at a meeting with the bank at its office on Dec 3, 1997 came to know about the May 7, 1997 agreement between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan, which became effective on Dec 31, 1996 for transfer of funds of Tk 3.914 billion.

In a letter to Yunus on Dec 15, 1997 the embassy said: “In line with the agreement, Grameen Bank transferred all funds accumulated up to Dec 31, 1996 received from donors for revolving funds, to Grameen Kalyan, which at the same date transferred the amount to Grameen Bank as a loan.

Tk 1.927 billion of the amount was related to the revolving fund for housing loans.

The letter undersigned by ambassador Hans Fredrik Lehne said: “The agreement concerning these transactions has not made provisions for any interest rates to be charged for this part of the loan, nor any terms of repayment.”

The agreement was signed between the governments of Norway and Bangladesh on Nov 30, 1994 to support Grameen Bank’s Phase IV project.

Annex 1, clause 4 of the agreement said: “The amount of the Grant used for housing loans will be used as a revolving fund.”

The Norwegian Embassy was concerned about the agreement between the two organisations for not informing it, saying “the agreement was contrary to the quoted clause of the agreement between the governments.”

It also observed that the accounts of Grameen Bank as of Dec 31, 1996 did not reflect any revolving fund for housing loan in operation under the bank.

The embassy, which accepted the ownership of Grameen Bank, pointed that “the ownership of Grameen Kalyan is of another nature, and Norway has not entered into an agreement with Bangladesh to provide funds to Grameen Kalyan for onlending to Grameen Bank”.

“The agreement has further left uncertainty about future repayment of the loan to Grameen Kalyan, since it is not regulated by the agreement.

“The agreement is also silent about Grameen Bank’s use of the loan from Grameen Kalyan.”

The embassy in that consequence considered the agreement between Grameen Bank and Grameen Kalyan “as a change which affects two agreements between the two governments to support Grameen Bank.”

It also asked for a written explanation from Yunus “why Grameen Bank entered into the agreement with Grameen Kalyan, and of the consequences for the owners of Grameen Bank and the beneficiaries of the housing loans.”

NO OPTION LEFT

Even after Yunus had provided his explanations over the agreement, there were some misunderstandings crept up between Grameen Bank and the Norad, according to his letter on Apr 1, 1998 to Norad director general Tove Strand Gerhardsen. “We are struggling to resolve it. But I think it is not making much progress.”

His letter came after the embassy wrote to Bangladesh government alleging that “Grameen was transferring donor money (including that of Norad) to various enterprises outside of Grameen Bank”.

He feared the allegation would create a lot of misunderstanding within Bangladesh government.

Yunus, informing Gerhardsen about his Oslo visit on Apr 29 and 30 invited by Telenor and the Worldview International to discuss a joint venture project in mass education in Bangladesh, at the end of the letter requested him to meet “for a few minutes” to explain the seriousness of the matter.

“Sorry to bring up all these matters to you. But I have no option left,” he ended.

PAY BACK

The film crew also travelled several times to Bangladesh and visited some of the most significant villages in the history of Grameen Bank.

Says Heinemann: “In Jobra, we meet the daughter of the famous original loan taker, Sufiya Begun. In “Hillary Village”, where the former first lady of the USA, Hillary Clinton declared her support for both Mohammad Yunus and Grameen Bank, the crew meets poor people who have gained nothing but more debt due to micro credit.”

“Almost all of the loan takers interviewed told the same story. Each one had multiple loans in various micro credit banks and organisations and had had a hard time trying to pay back their loans. Some had sold their house, others had their tin-sheets pulled off their houses to cover the weekly payments.”

The film also interviews a number of leading social scientists and researchers who, for years, have questioned the “big success” of microcredit. “In fact, renowned social scientists, such as David Roodman, Jonathan Morduch, Thomas Dichter and Milford Bateman, agree on one thing: After 35 years of Microcredit there is no evidence that Microcredit lifts millions out of poverty.”

The Norwegian version of the film will soon be followed by an international version which will also contain interviews from the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, where numerous reports of suicides amongst loan takers have spread around the world and have questioned the benefits from microcredit.

Yunus, the darling of the western media credited with pioneering the global microlending revolution, in his defence, says Grameen’s board boasts nine women who represent the borrowers. His detractors say he does things his own way.

Critics put the stunning loan recovery rate of nearly 98 percent down to the harassment of villagers from the debt collectors. Some argue that people can quickly sink into a cycle of debt, with many lenders charging exorbitant rates of interest.

Dr Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad, chairman of PKSF, a body that monitors microfinance, describes microcredit as a “death trap” for the poor.

Yunus complained of foul play over who controls grameenphone when in December 2006, a few days before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, he publicly attacked Norwegian telecoms giants Telenor, the majority owner of the leading mobile-phone and ISP service provider. He said he had been considering legal action to wrest full control of the joint-venture.

He said he believed Telenor was sucking profits from the poor of Bangladesh.

(1 US dollar = Tk 70)

bdnews24.com/euc/gna/pks/bd/0600h


4 Comments on “EXCLUSIVE
Yunus ’siphoned Tk 7bn aid for poor’” ;


1 December 2010 - 2:11 am

First of all, the headlines do not justly reflect the allegations contained in article itself. The allegations, at most, suggest that the donor fund was not utilised in the exact model as stipulated in the Agreement - it does not suggest Dr. Yunus personally took any part of the money out for his benefit. If there is any facts to suggest that funds were embezzled by any person from “Grameen Kallyan” - that would constitute a “corruption” charge. A “breach” of a Donor Agreement does not equate to an act of “corruption”.

Secondly, 90% of the article has been used to present the allegations, and only 2-3 lines have been partially quoted (also taken out of context) from the detailed explanation offered by him in writing. - A shocking failure to live up to the standard of responsible journalism and ethical code we have come to expect from BDNEWS24 over the years.

If BDNEWS24 reasonably believes it has enough facts to tarnish the image of this man, please do have the courage to publish it on your own. Hiding behind another defamatory documentary, is just plain and utterly shameful.

I guess I am only shocked, because for some odd reason, I accepted the notion on face value that the journalists at BDNEWS24.com have some ethics and codes - A notion as incorrect and false as this libelous article it self.

  • Comments by C.T. Karim
Shaikh Shaijad Matthew Islam

1 December 2010 - 6:27 am

I agree with more or less everything that the previous commentator says with the addition that it is most important that when a news organisation reports something that they cross verify the information and in as much as it is practicable have both sides of the story represented. It is quite a surprise that there isn’t a substantial representation from the other side in the story, that being Dr. Yunus’s. I am not a professional journalist yet I know if I make a claim or headline a discussion, I need to back it up with evidence. The documents that is presented as evidence to support “siphoned” funds here is totally inadequate for reporting standard’s that BDNEWS 24 (a site I am loyal to and have immense respect for) or any other news organisation has. The content of the said evidentiary documents also belong to a separate discussion about fund handling and management, they do not hint corruption or wrongdoing per say as the headline would have you believe without further examination.

BDNEWS 24 has never really dabbed in sensationalist journalism before this and it’s really a surprise they have done so in my view perhaps for the first time I am aware of in my years of following your reporting. Its an eye grabbing headline sure but its also damaging, misleading and ultimately inconclusive to have done any good. I am inclined to believe that the senior figures at BDNEWS haven’t really had the chance to fully gauge the impact of such a news and the publication was perhaps a decision not made in the high ups or editorial team because I know that it wouldn’t pass their own internal litmus test for a news of this size and magnitude.

In a country where first impressions are always the last impression due to our highly impressionable society and news travels distances far and wide really really fast, its doubly important that such an allegation is cross verified before published. I wouldn’t know how to tell the team at BDNEWS 24 to do their job as I am not a professional and they do a great job day in and day out but I wouldn’t think that they wouldn’t make such a claim without more proof as that would as my previous commentator rightly said be bordering defamation which I think if there weren’t additional documents to support this claim, this news item would be.

I would be most interested in BDNEWS 24 now making an effort to get Dr. Yunus on record to comment about the said allegations that are so damaging to Grameen Bank, Micro Credit and Mr. Yunus’s image. I think Mr. Yunus suffers a lot of ill will in this nation as is and for something so massive such as these allegations it is important that it is discussed, debated and verified.

Having opened Pandora’s box both Norwegian TV and BDNEWS 24 now need to follow this through and not let it hang here as that is ultimately damaging to both Dr. Yunus and by that measure the national image of Bangladesh.

One last point, had Norad, The Norwegian Embassy and the Bangladeshi Government been aware of this 12 years ago and with the widespread major negative press locally about Dr. Yunus, I don’t understand how this allegation (if true at all or of any merit) remained a secret for so long? Someone with some political agenda would have dug this far long ago. I suspect some sort of an agenda for this suddenly being such a concern for so many parties when this was in throws of the powers that be for such a long while. Surely had “siphoning” occurred or taken place (some would call it laundering and misappropriation), the concerned parties would not be so casual as to accept an email from the said man in question and perhaps pursue it with more vigor. What were they waiting for all these years, especially since the allegations are tantamount to theft and misappropriation? Why were they silent? Why was all this just being questioned behind close doors? Did the Nobel committee who have an immense investigative and background team based in Norway not know?

All valid questions and all that BDNEWS 24 should have asked.

I hope that in the coming days they do so.

For now I remain disappointed.


1 December 2010 - 6:49 pm

“”I have tried to talk to Mr Yunus for six months. But he didn’t want to talk to me,” he said over telephone early on Wednesday.”

That is probably the most well-known statement journalists use to imply confirmation of someone’s guilt. In this case however, I wish to state the obvious, especially to Mr. Heinemann if he is reading this and the journalist here - Dr. Yunus is a very important man both locally and globally, he probably does not have time to grant interviews or “talk” to everyone who seeks time from him. Did Michael Moore get the chance to interview George Bush before he made Fahrenheit 9/11? I don’t think Mr. Moore merited Mr. Bush’s time. Neither did Mr. Heinemann with regard to Mr. Yunus’ time.

These allegations are old. Some would say they are very old. I am sure the problem was solved to everyone’s satisfaction before the beginning of this millennium, including that of the Nobel Committee’s. Why are people digging so deep to throw dirt on this man?

  • Comments by jawadquader

3 December 2010 - 9:38 pm

what an ignoble thing from a nobel prize winner!

  • Comments by mon62new

For Comment Log in