Anticorruption...

Earlier this week, the Anticorruption Commission’s annual report to the Parliament was discussed. Members of National Assembly – including the PM, cabinet minters, ruling party MPs, the opposition and the Speaker – registered their support for this important organization, and reiterated their resolve to fight corruption.

The ACC’s annual report, however, was silent on one issue. The report made no mention whatsoever of the recruitment of DPT party workers by the Government. About a year ago, I had informed ACC that the unilateral appointments of the DPT party workers may be unlawful, but have received no response so far. I’ll be writing to them again.

Dr Chencho for Changemakers...

Helping out

Ashoka Changemakers have announced the finalists in a competition to select the three most innovative solutions that radically rethink mental health to achieve individual and community well being. And, Dr Chencho Dorji’s project, Promoting Mental Health Treatment in Traditional Bhutanese Society, has made it to the final12 entries.

Dr Chencho Dorji needs your vote to make it to the winning three entries, and be recognized by Changemakers. To vote, you will first need to create an account at Changemakers. A step by step account on how to vote is available here.

Dr Chencho Dorji is a senior psychiatrist at the JDWNR Hospital and, for the longest time, was the only person treating drug abuse, alcoholism and mental disorders in Bhutan.

The polls will be open for only two more days, so please take a little time – immediately, if possible – to vote for our own Dr Chencho.

Photo credit: BBC

Standing up for sitting fees...

“Guest”, a frequent commentator, left the following note in my last entry:

Please pardon me but I am going to deviate from the topic to register my unhappiness at your support for DHI during the discussions in the Parliament. I cannot believe that a man of your intelligence truly meant what you said.

I do not believe that your blind support for DHI stems from your need to show allegiance to our King. I think it is wrong to do so. In fact, you ought to know, more than anyone else, that it would be a great disservice to the King and his noble intentions that the DHI officers continue to pay themselves such disproportionate sitting fees even while they are drawing huge salaries which the whole country feels is unjustified.

As a responsible citizen and the Leader of the Opposition who has earned substantial goodwill from the people, I am disappointed that you choose to opt for political mileage rather than oppose something that we all know is unfair.

First, let’s set the record straight: I did not make any statement during the recent National Assembly discussions on the DHI. “Guest” may have been led to believe that I did so by Bhutan Observer’s article on the DHI’s sitting fees.

But I did mean what I said to the Bhutan Observer: that as long as the DHI has the legal mandate to establish their own remuneration – as, indeed, they do – I don’t see how we can, or should, interfere. Recall that I made a similar observation six months ago.

Obviously, all of us have opinions on the DHI’s sitting fees. And we should voice them. That is good. But, we should also make sure that no one, particularly politicians and the Government, encroaches on the DHI’s legal authority. This is no small matter, if the rule of law is important. And, it is, especially in an emerging democracy.

So are the sitting fees for DHI Board Members too high? Yes and No. Yes, if we look at their fees in relation to what members of other boards receive. But no, their fees are not high, if we look at them in relation to the scope of their work. The DHI’s net worth stands at about Nu 43 billion. And last year, the Government earned around Nu 4 billion in dividends alone from DHI. But that is not all. We expect them to grow. And to perform even better. This, in fact, is what the Royal Charter states:

The primary purpose of Druk Holding and Investments Limited (DHI) shall be to ensure that its companies are able to meet the challenges and requirements of the corporate sector in a highly competitive global economy, such that DHI creates and maximizes returns to its shareholders, the people of Bhutan.

Let’s face it: we are talking about big money, and even bigger expectations. So we simply must be willing to provide adequate incentives to attract and retain people who will be able to run the company successfully.

But there must be checks and balances. And there are. Three of the DHI’s seven Board Members are senior civil servants who represent the Government. DHI’s performance indicators and dividend targets are established jointly by the Ministry of Finance and DHI each year. Plus the DHI is required, by law, to submit periodic reports on its performance to the Ministry of Finance.

Finally, I don’t know how to respond to the charge that I “…choose to opt for political mileage rather than oppose something that we all know is unfair.” Let’s just say that if I were motivated by “political mileage” I wouldn’t disagree with something that the “whole country feels is unjustified”, would I?

The fact is that I’m motivated by what is good for our country and our people. Which, in this case, is about DHI, but, more than that, is about the rule of law.

Gender choices...

Our last poll asked what you’d like to be reborn as in your next life. Most of us (133 or 42%) of us said that we did not care about the gender of our next birth. This is good, as it could mean that this group does not experience obvious gender biases in this life.

But 132 or about 42% of us said that we would prefer to be reborn as men. And, only 51 of us – that’s barely 16% – would choose to be reborn as women.

The last poll was meant to be amusing. It was also meant to make us indirectly reflect on the state of our women. The poll results, if they can be taken seriously, are not amusing.

Our new poll is on the tobacco control debate.

Smoking bill...

The National Assembly passed the Tobacco Control Bill today. The most important, and contentious, part of the Bill bans the sale of tobacco products in the country, but permits smoking in designated areas.

I am proud of our antismoking heritage. Our forefathers always frowned on tobacco consumption. We hold the distinction of having the world’s oldest tobacco control law, passed in the 17^th Century by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal. And, in the last decade, we have gained international recognition for our efforts to control the consumption of tobacco.

So I support the Government’s initiatives to develop tobacco control legislation. But, the proposed laws must be realistic and enforceable. And the Tobacco Control Bill is neither.

The contradiction in the Bill is obvious: if selling tobacco is illegal, how would smokers get hold of their cigarettes? The answer to that is also quite obvious: the black market. As long as there are smokers, people will find ways of supplying them with the tobacco. Yes, that would be illegal. And yes, that would be risky. But no, no amount of policing would put an end to the already thriving black market for tobacco products. (The Bill does permit the import of tobacco for personal consumption. But that would be limited to the select few who travel by air.)

Put simply, I don’t see the logic in allowing people to smoke if we ban the sale of tobacco products. And I don’t see how we can implement a ban on only the sale of tobacco products if our laws permit the consumption of tobacco.

Instead, treat tobacco like illegal drugs, and ban both the sale and consumption of tobacco products.

Or better still, go with the National Council’s decision to permit the sale of tobacco products, but at higher prices and only to adults.

Investing in Bhutan...

During Question Hour today, I asked the Minister for Economic Affairs:

Newspapers recently reported that 100% foreign ownership of hotels is allowed for foreign direct investments above US$ 200,000. Please explain why the minimum is fixed at US$ 200,000.

I was basically concerned that the minimum investment required to qualify for 100% foreign ownership of hotels was too low. I reported that many Bhutanese have already demonstrated that they can build and operate hotels that cost many times more than US$ 200,000. And that, while foreign investors should be encouraged, policies should ensure that opportunities are not taken away from Bhutanese investors.

Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk’s reply was long. He talked the House through the history of FDI in Bhutan, economic growth, economic policies, employment, tourism, foreign currency, domestic airports, helicopter services, seasonal tourists, conference centers, infrastructure, credit cards, TAB, tourist visas, and hotels. He even mentioned McKinsey and Brazil!

It turns out that I was wrong. The minimum investment proposed for 100% FDI ownership is Nu 20 million, not US$ 200,000.

And it turns out that Lyonpo Khandu may not have known that I was wrong either. He didn’t correct me. Nor did he mention the figure Nu 20 million!

Walk the talk!...

Promises to keep

The MP from Gangzur-Minjey Constituency questioned the Finance Minster this morning. His question was straightforward:

DPT Government during the campaign has promised various developmental activities and till date not much has been delivered. People are grateful to the Indian Prime Minister Dr. Man Mohan Singh for the 100 billion financial assistance but our Government is yet to activate the 7 billion SDP grant. The people of Gangzur-Minjay Constituency would like to know the status of the fund release.

The Finance Minister’s response was long and detailed, but confirmed that the MP was correct in asserting that, “…till date not much has been delivered.”

Another MP, representing Trong-Bardo Constituency, complained that his constituents now accuse him of deceit. “Last year, you came and lied to us”, impatient voters have criticized, and then questioned if he had “come back to lie again?”

Our people are not concerned about the status of grants and financial aid. All they ask is that promises be kept. What the want is that the DPT Government Walk the Talk!

Monetary authority?...

Beware of trespassers

The National Assembly passed the Royal Monetary Authority Bill yesterday. I did not support the bill. My objections were based on a simple principle: that the proposed legislation gave the government too much influence over the RMA.

True, it’s important for the RMA and the government to work together to achieve our common national objectives. Yes, I expect the RMA’s monetary policies to compliment the government’s fiscal policies as we, collectively, build an economy that we can call robust and vibrant. And yes, the RMA should be accountable to the government.

But, our central bank must also have sufficient autonomy – primarily from undue government influence – to fulfill its overall objective of achieving and maintaining price stability, which is necessary for sustainable economic growth.

The RMA Bill does, in fact, give the central bank autonomy. Section 4 of the Bill says that:

In exercising the powers vested in it by this Act, the Authority shall be an autonomous body. The Authority shall support the general economic policy of the Royal Government as far as it is possible without endangering the ability of the Authority to achieve its tasks and purposes pursuant to this act.

But this autonomy is threatened in other parts of the Bill. To begin with, the Governor of the RMA (who is appointed by the Druk Gyalpo on the recommendation of the Prime Minister) is not the Chairperson of the RMA Board. Instead, the Chairperson is selected from four other members of the Board, all of who are appointed by the Government.

The Board has seven members, including the Governor and two Deputy Governors. Five of these seven members are directly (the four members) or indirectly (the Governor) are appointed by the Government, already creating a natural government bias in the Board.

For good measure, the National Assembly added two new sections to the Bill. Both of them, but especially the second, would give the Government sweeping powers over the RMA.

The new section added under External Reserves and Foreign Exchange Operations reads:

The Authority may, from time to time, prescribe the terms and conditions associated with lending activities of financial institutions towards priority sectors as may be determined by the government from time to time.

And the new section under Relations with the Royal Government reads:

The Royal Government may, from time to time, issue such directives to the Authority as may be necessary after consultation with the Governor, in the public interest. Any directives issued under this Section shall be reported to the Parliament