Lakshuman Chhetri...

Well done

Yesterday, Lakshuman Chhetri, a senior officer in the National Assembly Secretariat, left his office for the last time. After serving the National Assembly for 22 continuous years, Mr Chhetri left to take up his new assignment as head of BICMA’s media division.

Mr Chhetri, who I met in Sherubtse College (he was an outstanding athlete then), was the first graduate to join the National Assembly. He did so, as a trainee officer, in September 1987. And during the last 22 years, he’s seen the National Assembly Secretariat grow from a small office with only six staff to today’s efficient organization having more than 50 staff.

Yesterday, when I called on him to say thank him for his services to the legislature and to say goodbye, he reflected on his long and successful tenure. He recalled the shock waves that His Majesty’s kasho of 10 June 1998 sent through the National Assembly and the country. In that historic kasho His Majesty the Fourth Druk Gyalpo devolved all his executive powers to an elected council of ministers. At the same time, His Majesty insisted that the monarch be subjected to a periodical vote of confidence of the National Assembly.

Mr Chhetri remembered the many important debates over several consecutive sessions of the National Assembly concerning the presence of Indian militant camps within our country, and the threats that they posed to the security of our country and the friendship between Bhutan and India. In December 2003, the militants were finally removed from Bhutanese soil by His Majesty the Fourth Druk Gyalpo who personally led our armed forces in the operation that lasted barely 48 hours and showcased the bravery and genius of our beloved monarch.

And he recalled the period leading up to the first parliamentary elections, the first session of the first new parliament, the discussions on the Constitution and the signing of the Constitution. All emotionally difficult events for a population that didn’t want democracy but was forced to accept it by Their Majesty the Kings.

Mr Chhetri has enjoyed being part of these historic moments in our country. But now looks forward to a new chapter in his life. I wish him the very best of luck.

Incidentally, the longest serving officer in the National Assembly is Kazilal Rai. Mr Rai joined the NA Secretariat in July 1981 as PA to the then Speaker, the late Lyonpo Tamshing Jagar. Today Mr Rai is the Assembly’s senior administrative officer.

IAMDRUKPA...

He bites too

The Bhutanse blogging community is growing faster than most of us realize. The latest blogger I stumbled upon is Jurmi Chhowing, now with K4 Media, previously with Bhutan Observer and before that Bhutan Times. In his blog, IAMDRUKPA, Jurmi seems to offer his random thoughts on a range of topics from life to love, and from politics to the Purple Lounge. His latest entry, I Wanna Watch my Parliamentarian, is about the importance live TV coverage of the National Assembly deliberations.

No middle path for live TV broadcast...

Limited use

Middlepath (very good nickname) had this to say on my last entry about the National Assembly’s decision to discontinue live TV broadcast for most of its proceedings: “OL and others, please do not abuse the provisions of the Constitution to suit your position on the live telecast. The Constitution says that the proceedings of the NA should be conducted in public but the speaker has the discretion to exclude the press and the pubic from all or any part of the proceedings….(Art 10,15). Public should not be understood as live coverage – it should be understood as open for public observation. In that respect, any one who wishes to observe any session from the public gallery is free to do so…”

This is what Article 10.15 of the Constitution really says: “The proceedings of Parliament shall be conducted in public. However, the Speaker or the Chairperson may exclude the press and the public from all or any part of the proceedings if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order, national security or any other situation, where publicity would seriously prejudice public interest.”

Yes, Middlepath is correct: the Speaker does have “…the discretion to exclude the press and the public from all or any part of the proceedings…” But don’t forget the condition for the Speaker to exercise these powers: “…if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order, national security or any other situation, where publicity would seriously prejudice public interest.”

So the question is would live TV broadcast of the National Assembly proceedings compromise public order and national security? And would it prejudice the public interest? If so, the Speaker can prevent BBS’s live TV broadcast, along with the rest of the media and the public. If not, the Speaker cannot.

By the way, our Honourable Speaker is not responsible for the decision to discontinue the live TV broadcast. It was us, the members of the national assembly. And only two members, both from the opposition, felt that the live TV broadcast should continue. Political analysts will find this odd, because live TV broadcast gives the members of the ruling party disproportionate access to and coverage by the media. So these analysts will ask why then, when the ruling party stands to benefit so much from live TV coverage, are they against it?

With regard to Middlepath’s advice that “public” should not be confused as “live coverage”, he may have a point. But if “public” means “public observation….from the gallery”, it would mean that we are willing to purposely exclude the majority of our population from viewing the proceedings of the Assembly. After all, not many Bhutanese can afford the journey to Thimphu just to observe their parliamentarians. For our people’s sake, for democracy’s sake, let our wider public also participate by viewing the Parliament’s proceedings on BBS’s live telecast.

But there’s still one more issue. Is BBS a part of the press? If so, they may be excluded, along with the rest of the media, from observing all or part of the proceedings, but on condition that their presence undermines the interest of public order or national security. As a matter of fact, TV is part of the press. And live TV coverage is the highest form of news media – viewers get to see and hear events as they really take place, not as others say how they’ve taken place.

Live TV poll...

National shame

Our last poll, on the PCS, has been up for hardly four days. But it generated 51 votes. Almost three-fourths of them were cast against the position classification system. And only 14 voters supported the PCS. Several of the commentators, however, clarified that the PCS is actually a useful system, but that its flaws come from poor implementation. I agree with them.

If the RCSC wants to continue with the PCS, it should implement the system completely. In particular, it should put into practice the dual principles of “right person for the right job” and “equal money for equal value of work” that the PCS is founded upon. Half way measures will not work. And exceptions and the lack of transparency will cause civil servants to lose confidence in the system.

Our new poll is on the National Assembly’s decision to stop live TV broadcasts for most of the session. I’d written about the National Assembly’s decision a few days ago, but several people have asked for a poll.

Earlier this month, I’d also written about the BBS’s new television facilities. In a span of three weeks the BBS inaugurated a spanking new Nu 200 million National TV Centre, and they were told that they can no longer broadcast most of the National Assembly proceedings. What this is, is a national shame.

Corporate salaries – part 2...

So the government cannot dictate the salaries of DHI employees. But what about the other corporations – those that are owned by the government, but are not part of DHI? Can the government set their salaries? Technically, yes. The government can dictate the salaries of these employees. This, in fact, was precisely what our previous governments did. But they always defined them in favour of corporate employees. The logic was simple: these corporations (BBS, Bhutan Post, FCB, BDFC, and others) were considered less attractive than the civil service. Yet they delivered important, sometimes vital, services for the nation. So previous governments ensured that corporate employees enjoyed relatively higher wages.

Has the situation today changed? No. The civil service is still considered much more attractive than corporations. And corporations continue to provide crucial services for the nation. So our government should continue to provide higher incentives in terms of wages for employees of these corporations.

Otherwise, the government should make these corporations fully autonomous. And let them determine their own salaries. But many of them provide services that may be unprofitable, even though they are crucial for our nation. The government must be prepared to pay for these services.

Corporate salaries – part 1...

Two readers – Samdrups and Sharu – asked me for my views on our government’s recent announcement on corporate salaries. My views are simple. And they are straightforward. Government should not be involved in doing business. Yes, government should regulate businesses. But no, government should not interfere in how businesses are run. So our government’s decision to define the salaries of corporations – business entities, all of them – is wrong.

First, consider the Druk Holdings and Investment Limited. DHI was established by His Majesty the King as an autonomous organization in order to promote “…the competitiveness of Bhutan’s economy by transforming companies with government shareholding into highly efficient and productive companies that strive for excellence.” If DHI is to strive for efficiency, productivity and excellence, it goes without saying that they should have full authority over their HR policies. And that includes the salaries of their employees. The government cannot dictate salaries to DHI and expect them to become highly efficient or productive enterprises.

That’s why the Royal Charter of DHI (which outlines how DHI will function and which, incidentally, was revised to incorporate the submissions made by the government to His Majesty the King) clearly states that “the remuneration of the CEO and the employees of DHI shall be determined by the Board of Directors of DHI.” The DHI’s Board of Directors must do their job. Two of the seven-member Board of Directors are civil servants, purposely, to ensure that the government’s views are adequately represented in the organization. Any attempt by the government to encroach on the Board’s authority is illegal. And must be challenged.

Rehabilitating a cub...

baby bear

Earlier today we visited a bear cub. This little cub turned up in Jengkana school in Haa, a day after the recent flash floods. She was probably separated from her mother during the floods. Forestry officials quickly took the cub to the Wildlife Management and Rehabilitation Centre in Taba. She’ll stay there – with another resident, an orphaned leopard kitten – there till she’s old enough to be reintroduced in the pine forests of Haa.

Moenlam chenpo...

Yesterday I attended the moenlam chenpo in Haa and, with my extended family, offered lunch to the devotees. The prayers for universal peace and harmony have been conducted in Haa annually since its inception in 2001. And His Holiness the Je Khenpo has personally led the prayers there every year.

People from every village in Haa, some having walked for several days, are participating in the moenlam chenpo, which is being conducted in the compounds of the Lhakhang Karpo. Devotees from neighboring Paro and Thimphu are also attending the sacred event.

The photograph shows the faithful circumambulating the main prayer hall. You’ll find a few more pictures from the moenlam chenpo in the photo gallery.

Reporter’s right...

Article 7.3 of our Constitution guarantees that “A Bhutanese shall have the right to information”. But read what Kuensel has to say about one reporter’s experience with Lyonpo Wangdi Norbu. If what Kuensel reports is even partially true, we should be seriously concerned .After all, this is not the first time that our government has yelled at and intimidated journalists.

The DPT promised a “friendly and accessible government” and a “strong and independent media”. We cannot settle for less.

Broadcasting bad news...

Broadcasting service

During a recent meeting to discuss the agenda for the next session of the National Assembly, MPs decided that live TV broadcast would be allowed only for the opening and closing ceremonies, the PM’s address, and for discussions related to public accounts and anticorruption. Only two MPs, both from the opposition, argued that the proceedings of the National Assembly should continue to be broadcast live on TV.

I cannot understand why anyone would want to discontinue the live broadcast of the National Assembly proceedings. Consider that:

1. the Constitution requires that “The proceedings of Parliament shall be conducted in public”;
2. live TV broadcast enhances the accountability of the members of parliament to the people who elected them;
3. many people, especially outside Thimphu, enjoy following the proceedings in the Parliament and, thereby, participating in the democratic process; and
4. BBS, which does not charge any fees for broadcasting the proceedings of the National Assembly, has not said that they cannot, for whatever reason, continue this service;

Unlike in many countries, our people actually like to follow the debates inside parliament. This is good. And we should be nurturing this interest in the democratic process. Not suppressing it.

Our honourable MPs would do well to listen to their people. And to the Constitution