— Md. Kamal Uddin
Some writings are not merely written—some writings leave questions on the chest of time.
Two years ago, in 2024, when I wrote the article titled, “The Cry to Save S Alam Group: Protect Chattogram’s Commercial Ship Like the Sinking Titanic,” I did not know in what light the future would see that article.
Today, in 2026, Facebook Memories suddenly brought that old article back before me. While reading it, I felt as though I had returned to that time myself. It seemed—what a strange time it was!
Back then, even mentioning the name of S Alam seemed like a kind of crime. There were various discussions, allegations and rumors all around, but very few people had the courage to speak publicly. And even then I said that if there were allegations against an industrial enterprise, there should be an investigation and the truth should be uncovered. But an industrial group should not be destroyed in a way that puts the lives and livelihoods of its workers, employees, businessmen, suppliers and ordinary people connected with it at risk.
I did not write only on social media. At that time, I also published the issue with importance in the daily Bhorer Awaj and the English newspaper The Banner.
Looking back at that old writing today, I feel that perhaps I said something unpopular to many people then, but I was not dishonest with myself.
I had seen the uncertainty surrounding a major industrial group in Chattogram.
I had seen the lives of countless people connected with an institution.
I had seen the concerns of Chattogram’s business community.
And above all, I had seen that when a major industrial enterprise suddenly collapses, its impact does not stop at the owner’s home; its waves can hit workers’ homes, markets, banks, transportation, supply chains and the broader economy.
From that point came my question—
Various investigative reports published in August 2024 mentioned that the amount of loans taken by S Alam Group and its associated companies from six banks was approximately Tk 95,331 crore. The reports said that nearly 79 percent of this amount had been taken through Islami Bank, and allegations of violations of banking rules also emerged in various cases.
Another report, based on Bangladesh Bank inspection-related information, said that information was found regarding approximately Tk 17,229 crore in loans from Union Bank to S Alam-affiliated companies; allegations of irregularities involving a large portion of these loans also emerged.
Serious questions also arose regarding Islami Bank. Reports in 2024 mentioned a large portion of S Alam-related loans in the bank’s loan portfolio, while questions were also raised about asset valuation and collateral against those loans.
In other words, many of the questions surrounding the reality we are discussing today had already begun to emerge publicly in 2024.
But even then my position was—there should be an investigation into the allegations, and punishment should follow if crimes are proven; but investigation and destruction should not be treated as the same thing.
No.
I am not even today.
This needs to be stated clearly.
I do not support anyone’s wrongdoing, irregularities, loan default, money laundering or abuse of power. No institution is above the law.
Rather, I believe—the greater the allegation, the more transparent the investigation should be.
Whether Bangladesh Bank, the Anti-Corruption Commission, the National Board of Revenue or the court investigates an allegation, the truth must be uncovered independently.
In 2024, the NBR formed an audit committee to examine VAT-related transactions of various S Alam-affiliated companies. An initiative was taken to examine five years of financial transactions and purchase-and-sale records of 18 companies.
At the same time, the issue of S Alam Group’s assets and transfer of money abroad also came before the court. The High Court sought information from the ACC on the matter, and directions were also given regarding the investigation into the transfer and sale of assets.
Therefore, if anyone says today, “There were no allegations against S Alam,” that would not be factual.
Again, if anyone says, “The emergence of allegations means all crimes have been proven,” that would also not be consistent with the principles of justice.
An allegation and a crime are not the same thing. An investigation and a verdict are not the same thing either.
This is exactly what I wanted to say in 2024.
This question was also widely discussed at the time.
If a Bangladeshi businessman or company legally invests abroad, that cannot automatically be called money laundering. At the same time, merely having assets abroad does not mean that they are necessarily legal.
Each matter must be examined on the basis of evidence, documents, the source of the money, permission for the use of foreign currency and the relevant laws.
In 2024, reports were also published that Singapore’s Financial Intelligence Unit had sought information from Bangladesh’s Financial Intelligence Unit regarding the domestic and foreign assets of S Alam Group and related individuals.
Therefore, my position was very clear—
What is legal should be recognized as legal; what is illegal should be brought under the law. But assumptions should never be made a substitute for evidence.
I have no personal business relationship with S Alam Group.
But the institution is from Chattogram.
When questions arise about a major industrial group that grew from the soil of this city, I naturally may have concerns as a person from Chattogram.
Chattogram is Bangladesh’s port city. The city has a long-standing relationship with imports and exports, industry, commerce and entrepreneurial culture.
This city has produced many entrepreneurs.
Some have grown from small beginnings to large enterprises. Some started with transportation, some with import-export, and some with industry.
S Alam Group has also expanded its business into various sectors over a long period. The group’s own website mentions business and investment in various sectors, including steel, cement, edible oil, transportation and power.
Today, when questions arise about the future of that industrial foundation, my concern is therefore not merely about a company—
It is about Chattogram’s industrial environment.
The situation became more complicated toward the end of 2024.
Janata Bank filed a loan-default case of approximately Tk 1,964 crore against an affiliate of S Alam Group. The court imposed restrictions on the transfer of the relevant shares, and the question of whether the loan approval process had been proper also came under investigation.
After that, the ACC also filed cases regarding loan irregularities involving S Alam.
In other words, the questions that existed at the time of my 2024 article later turned into much larger legal and financial questions.
There is no opportunity to deny this reality.
But here comes my second question—
Will the law take its course, but the industry not continue?
It is time to distinguish between the institution and the individual
I believe this is where the clearest understanding is now needed.
If an individual faces allegations of a crime, let there be an investigation.
If a company defaults on a loan, let the loan be recovered according to law.
If assets have been acquired illegally, let action be taken through the court.
But at the same time, the factories that can produce, the workers who can work, and the industrial assets that can be utilized for the country’s economy—can they not be reconstructed and kept operational?
Is reconstruction not more beneficial to the state than destruction?
This question remains relevant even today.
Because when a factory closes, it is not only the owner who suffers
When the gate of an industrial establishment is locked, its sound travels a long way.
It reaches the worker’s home.
It reaches the school of his child.
It reaches the shops in the market.
It reaches the home of the transport businessman.
It reaches the supplier’s business.
It reaches the bank’s accounts as well.
When production at a factory stops, many small and medium-sized businesses connected with it may also fall into crisis.
That is why my appeal in 2024 was—
Judge the individual, but find a way to save the industry.
I was alone then—has the time changed today?
This is where I feel the greatest pain.
When I wrote, many people remained silent.
Some may have been afraid.
Some may not have spoken because of political realities.
Some may have thought that speaking in favor of S Alam meant standing in favor of a particular side.
And I said then—
No, I am not standing in favor of any individual; I am standing in favor of a question.
I am standing for the workers.
I am standing for Chattogram’s industry.
I am standing for justice.
I am standing for the right to know the truth.
If anyone says the same thing today, I will welcome them.
But one thing must be remembered in the pages of history—
When the time is favorable, speaking the truth is easy; the real test of journalism is the courage to speak the truth in difficult times.
My responsibility as a journalist
I have practiced journalism not only to publish news, but also to speak for people.
I believe a journalist’s job is neither to be anyone’s blind supporter nor anyone’s blind opponent.
A journalist’s job is to ask questions.
To question the powerful.
To question the state.
To question businessmen.
And also to question public opinion.
Because if the media only speaks popular words, no new truth is born in society.
My 2024 article may not have pleased many people.
Perhaps some questioned it.
Perhaps some wondered why I was speaking in favor of S Alam at such a time.
But today I can say clearly—
Even then I said, if there was a crime, let there be justice; but I did not want industry and employment to be destroyed.
I still do not.
Today, my appeal is not for any particular individual.
My appeal—
For Chattogram’s industry.
My appeal—
For the bread and livelihood of workers.
My appeal—
For the stability of the country’s economy.
All allegations against S Alam Group should be investigated impartially. If the truth is proven, legal action should be taken. The state should recover what is owed to the state. Effective measures should be taken to recover the banks’ money.
But at the same time, those industrial establishments that are economically viable for restructuring should not be destroyed. Instead, efforts should be made to keep them operational through transparent management, independent audits, strict banking supervision, determination of responsibility and, if necessary, new management.
Because it takes years to build a factory.
It takes time to create a skilled worker.
It takes decades to build a market.
But sometimes, only a few wrong decisions are enough to destroy an institution.
Today, Facebook has brought back my 2024 article.
Looking at those old words on the screen, I felt—
Some writings become old, but some questions never become old.
At that time, I wrote that S Alam Group was like a sinking Titanic. Today, that metaphor feels even deeper.
However, today I want to express that thought in a new way—
If the warning signals had been heard before the Titanic sank, if decisions had been taken in time, perhaps history could have been different.
Do we also want to make that mistake in the case of our industry and economy?
Let the allegations be judged—of course.
Let crimes be punished—of course.
Let the state recover its money—of course.
But at the same time—
Let Chattogram’s industry survive.
Let workers’ employment survive.
Let the business environment survive.
Let the country’s economy survive.
And let the greatest testimony of my 2024 article remain this statement—
“Even then, I was not in favor of anyone’s wrongdoing; I was in favor of justice, reconstruction and public interest instead of destruction.”
I welcome those who are speaking today.
But I have a small question for time—
When the words being spoken today were difficult to say, where were we then?
At least I can give my answer—
I was there then with my pen. I am still here today.
Journalist, Writer, Researcher and Television Presenter
Secretary General, Greater Chattogram Citizens Forum