Photographing Bhutan...

Signs of approval

Here’s a secret: Yeshey Dorji, one of Bhutan’s best photographers, has a website. He started posting some of his photos online to satisfy friends, fans really, who keep bothering him to see his pictures. So if you go to his website, “Bhutan: Land of the Thunder Dragon”, you can treat yourself to some breath-taking pictures of our beautiful country.

Yeshey is 54 years old. And he’s been taking pictures for more than 30 of those years. Initially he limited his interest to just a hobby, as analogue photography was expensive. It was much later, only after the advent of digital cameras, that he let loose his passion for photography. And that passion absorbed him so completely that, in the process, he sold his businesses (he was Bhutan’s first computer supplier) and his property to finance his new profession.

Yeshey delights in photographing anything Bhutanese – from birds to people, and from flowers to dzongs. And he does a pretty good job of showing off our country. But he’s also recognized internationally. His pictures of birds, for example, have already won him international acclaim.

Here’s another secret: Yeshey will be at this year’s Wimbledon. No, he won’t be competing with the world’s best tennis players. But, as the official photographer for an international magazine, he will be competing with some of the world’s best photographers.

This week’s featured photograph, by Yeshey Dorji, shows a group of girls enjoying the Paro tshechu earlier this year.

Illegal grants...

Our poll says that the CDG is illegal. 52% of the participants think that the CDG is unconstitutional. And 18% feel that it is very bad; that it will breed corruption. 15% are suspicious that the CDG will be used to win the next elections. And only 15% feel that the CDG is a good idea; that the grant will allow our MPs to fulfill their promises.

33 people participated in the poll.

The result is obvious. An overwhelming majority of us feel that the CDG is not a good idea. And most of us are convinced that it is illegal, that it is unconstitutional.

So, if the CDG is not good for Bhutan. And it is illegal. What should we do? That’s the purpose of our next poll.

Make your presence felt. And your opinions count. Take the poll.

Social risk...

About a month ago I’d written about the Political Instability Index, EIU’s forecast of the likelihood of political unrest for165 countries. The Index ranked Norway as the world’s most politically stable country, and Zimbabwe the most volatile. 95 countries were considered “very high risk” or “high risk”; 53 countries “moderate risk”; and only 17 countries were deemed to be “low risk”.

Bhutan, ranked 108, was rated at “moderate risk” to socio-political upheaval.

Bhutanese Blogger expressed disappointment that I didn’t elaborate and commented:

“I am disheartened that Your Excellency has chosen to blog this but do not have any opinion on this index.

“Will this not be (mis)construed as an acknowledgement of the reported ‘moderate risk’? Would not the readers assume that you agree that we have become more vulnerable since 2007?

“This may send out wrong signals to everybody and can the decisions of many individuals (like foreign investors).”

I had promised Bhutanese Blogger that I’d share my opinions on the Index in “a few days.” But it’s already been more than a month. I’m sorry.

All over the world, people live in constant fear of social unrest and political failure. This is particularly so in our immediate neighbourhood. Yet we, Bhutanese, take stability for granted. This is why I found the EIU’s study interesting.

So why is our country this stable? Because of one reason, and one reason alone: our kings. It’s thanks to them that we’ve enjoyed a century of peace, prosperity and happiness. And that we continue to do so. Remember that before 17^th December 1907, life in Bhutan was unpredictable, and that our beloved Drukyul was plagued by political intrigue of the highest order.

But the EIU put our country today at “moderate risk”, not “low risk” as most of us would believe. Why? And why have we become so much more vulnerable since 2007? Democracy. Or, more precisely, the transition to a democracy. We enjoyed unprecedented social and political progress under a benevolent absolute monarchy. But with democracy, there are no such guarantees. Recall, for instance, our anxieties before the elections. And remember that they were caused by our politicians.

So the point is this: now that we are a democracy, we can no longer take social and political stability for granted. We must work for it. We must earn it.

The EIU studied fifteen indicators to come up with their political instability index. They include inequality, corruption, trust in institutions, a country’s neighbourhood, unemployment, and level of income per head (read EIU’s methodology). A quick look at these indicators should tell us that we need to do a lot more work – especially in areas like unemployment, inequality and corruption – even just to maintain our “moderate risk” status.

But we are lucky. Our country is blessed with one more indicator. An advantage, actually. And that is our monarchy. In democratic Bhutan, this precious institution has become that much more important.

So to answer Bhutanese Blogger’s comment: All things considered, “moderate risk” appears to be about right. And if EIU thinks that our country has become less stable, it’s probably due to our transition to democracy. But if we work towards building an honest and vibrant democracy, we can, because we have the advantage of a wise monarch, become the most stable country in the world.

It’s up to us.

Public opinion matters...

Your opinion matters

The results of our first poll are in. Of the 46 voters, 59% rated our new site as good or excellent. 40% said that our site could be improved or was bad. And 1 voter – this works out to 2% of the total votes – had no comments.

I thank each and every one of our readers who took the time to participate in our first ever poll. Since most of you feel this site is ok, I will continue to use it. But, expects slight changes – I’ll be constantly trying to upgrade and improve our website.

If you have any suggestions to improve our site, or would like to help, please email me.

One more thing: I’ve posted our next poll. I hope you find it useful.

About the constitution...

Kuensel is correct for being concerned that the 12 “dzongdags’ transfer flouts BCSR rule”. The newspaper is also correct for being concerned that RCSC rules may have been broken. And correct for pointing out that our government is “not above the law.”

But, as serious as Kuensel’s concerns already are, we should be even more seriously concerned. Why? Because our cabinet’s offense is not limited to breaking BCSR and RCSC rules. Instead, our cabinet may have knowingly broken the provisions of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan.

Article 2, Section 19(q) of our constitution states that “The Druk Gyalpo shall, by warrant under His hand and seal, appoint: … Dzongdags on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who shall obtain nominations from the Royal Civil Service Commission.”

All 12 dzongdags who recently received transfers are qualified and experienced. And they probably make very good chief executives in the dzgonkhags. But, for democracy’s sake, respect the rule of law. Respect our constitution.

So the government should apologize for their transgressions; rescind the transfers of the 12 dzongdags; and follow due process to appoint the 12 dzongdags as enshrined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Bhutan.

The importance of being heard...

being earnest

I’ve just learned that our oldest newpaper, Kuensel, declined to publish a letter concerning the recent media awards. The letter was from Tashi P. Wangdi, popularly called “Tosh”, a former editor-in-chief of Bhutan Observer and one of the senior-most journalists in our country. I’ve also learned that the letter was posted on Kuensel’s online discussion forum, but all twelve comments to the post were removed the next day.

I am, therefore, happy to reproduce Tashi P. Wangdi’s letter here.

The right honorable prime minister underscored the importance of principle and moral high ground when it came to media during the media awards. It is ironic that such expectations were raised during a ceremony that was clearly a travesty of morals and principles. To the discerning, if there are any left now, it was evident that the award ceremony was a mockery of ethical media. It was a reflection of the pathetic state of media in Bhutan where a few people engage in cheap tricks to further their ulterior motives. For instance, we were asked to submit our choice of articles/editorials to which we complied. In
the end, our submissions were left out. The reason being that we are not in a newspaper anymore. How is it that a contributor can not only get an award but also be on the jury itself? That is the state of affairs with media in Bhutan. It should justly have been called the media mediocrity awards. That media people can shamelessly receive awards when they know that they are incapable of writing a straight sentence even if their lives depended on it says it all. The modus operandi was to first take out the real heavy weights so that the pseudo writers could have the night to themselves. Well so be it. Keep on playing dirty, as long as the government is there to fund it. And by the way, there was no announcement or quotation call for organizing the event. It had to be the usual suspects. So much for transparency. If it is not there in the media, don’t expect it from other quarters.

Compulsory contributions?...

I’d promised one anonymous reader that I’d give my views on an unrelated comment on “Sustaining happiness”. This was what our anonymous reader had asked: I have been reading about the contribution of the MPs salary towards sustaining thier offices and wondered how that worked. How is accounted for in the election commission. To me, its seems like an advantage over other parties and perhaps something only DPT is capable of right now. given, that PDP has only two members even if they wanted to contribute , it wouldn’t compare.

The comment relates to talk about the DPT requiring their MPs to contribute part of their salaries to maintain party offices in their respective constituencies. It also relates to the DPT’s decision last July that their MPs would contribute 10% of their salaries to the party.

DPT has an overwhelming majority in the National Assembly. And if their MPs decide to finance party offices in their constituencies, that’s their business. So I believe that as long as contributions made by the MPs are in accordance with the law, no one can complain about the advantage that DPT enjoys.

But I’m concerned if the each of their MPs is required to contribute the same amount of money to the party. If that were the case, MPs could be making compulsory contributions to their party. Or be paying some sort of fee. And both are illegal.

Our election laws allow party members, which would naturally include MPs, to make voluntary contributions to their party. They can contribute, but that contribution must be voluntary. Contributions cannot be made compulsory, or forced, on any member. Since I can’t see how 45 persons could agree to voluntarily contribute exactly same amount of money, I believe that such contributions may be illegal. So our anonymous commentator may have a point.

I’d made reference to this in an earlier entry.

Carving slate...

This week’s photo panel features a slate carving by Thinley Dorji. The artist, an instructor at the National Institute for Zorig Chusum, composed the two dragons facing the wheel of dharma to commemorate 100 years of our monarchy. Look at the dragon on the right and see if can decipher the message “Bhutan 100”.

Thinley Dorji joined the NIZC in 2000 after completing Class X from Ugen Dorji HS in Haa. He was one of the two students who chose to study slate carving in the institute’s new programme under Agay Khandu, who was, at that time, Bhutan’s last and only slate carver.

Thinley has mastered the art of slate carving through four years of training followed by three years in the institute’s production centre. Today, as instructor, he carries on the work of his teacher, Agay Khandu, who died two years ago.

The first person who can correctly tell me how the featured photo says “Bhutan 100” will win a prize, a slate carving by Thinley Dorji.

National Zorig Day...

About eight years ago, representatives from the National Technical Training Authority petitioned His Holiness the Je Khenpo to identify a deity to watch over skilled workers. His Holiness recognized Pel Dueki Khorlo (in Sanskrit, Kalachakra) as the Zorig Deity. His Holiness also declared the 15^th day of the 3^rd month as Zorig Day, and composed a 12-stanza moenlam to worship Dueki Khorlo and to advance vocational skills in our country.

Yesterday, on the 15^th day of the 3^rd month, Zorig Day was celebrated across the country, especially in our vocational training institutes, but also in some business establishments that employ skilled workers.

In Thimphu, the day was observed in the National Institute for Zorig Chusum, which has put on an exhibition on Bhutan’s traditional art and craft. The exhibition runs for three days, till tomorrow.

Visit the institute in Kawajangsa to celebrate our traditional art and craft, and to honour our skilled workers.

Cribbing right...

Responding to “Government awards media awards” kikisoso called me a cribber. This is what kikisoso wrote:

The easiest job in the world is to crib. The task at hand is to provide beter and viable alternatives.
OL, let us hear your alternative plans that are more well thought out than just wishful thinking. media people judging themselves will be a bloody melee ….
I think we should learn the lessons of this award and make it more credible next time around – you know, no jury winners (what a balony), better and more broadbased jury selection, awards for ‘body of works’ and not one report …. and what not, By teh way, what was the Dashos at the helm of MOIC doing, eating peanuts … how could they let such grave inadequacies slip by? Too busy arranging te folds of their ghos and colourful kabneys???
Until then , let us refrain from cribbing – the easiest job in the world.

The reason I raise an issue is to draw attention to it. I do so my sharing my opinions on the issue, fully aware that they are just that: an individual’s opinion.

I try not to present solutions. Doing so would take the focus away from the issue. And it would be arrogant. Anyway, I do not have solutions to every problem. And even when I think I have one, that solution may not be the best one.

So the idea is to share my opinion on an issue, even if I’m seen to be “cribbing”. I believe that this allows our readers, including kikisoso, to express their considered opinions on the issue. And to discuss how they would address the issue; how they would solve the problem.

And this is exactly what kikisoso has done. Kikisoso has expressed critical views on an issue (i.e, cribbed) and called for the awards to be made more credible in the future. I find kikisoso’s views useful. And I hope that the media and the government pay attention to them.

As for the “better and viable alternatives” that kikisoso calls for, we fist need to understand the issue. For me the issue is not the credibility of the awards. I’m not cribbing about how the selections were conducted. Or that they may not have been fair.

For me the real issue is preventing government involvement and control in the media, no matter how small the risks may appear to be. So when our government organizes the media awards, and must decide who wins and who doesn’t, I’m naturally concerned. I’m worried that our government could, knowingly or otherwise, influence our otherwise promising media.

Now for a possible “alternative plan” to minimize the risk of government interference in the media. Many countries have press clubs. And I understand that our media are trying to form a journalists association. Such an association would be the most qualified to decide how to conduct future media awards without unhealthy outside influences.

Will that rule out controversy at future awards? No! You can bet that there will be controversy. But remember the issue: government interference in the media. That issue, I can say confidently, would have been addressed.