Inviting challenge...

What's ours

The MP representing Bji-Katsho-Uesu, raised a very familiar question in the National Assembly last Friday. He asked the Foreign Minister to explain the status of the Sino-Bhutan border discussions.

The government’s reply – provided by Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk, the acting foreign minister – was also very familiar. He reported that the border talks between Bhutan and China began in 1984; that the two governments have met 19 times since then; that in 1988, the two governments agreed to four guiding principles; that in 1998, the two governments signed an agreement to maintain peace and tranquility on the Bhutan-China border areas in accordance with the accepted boundaries before 1959; and that various expert groups had met many other times.

A lot of work has been done. But, in spite of all that work, we are no closer to finalizing our international borders with China than we were in 1984. On the other hand, the Chinese appear to threaten encroaching on our soil every now and then. In 2004 and 2009 they built roads inside our country; in 2008 and 2009 the Chinese army intruded deep into our country no less than 17 times; they’ve built temporary huts inside our country; almost every year, Tibetans enter our country illegally, grazing in our pastures, killing our yaks and poaching our cordyceps; and on Friday, the Bji-Katsho-Uesu MP reported that our people living in the border areas are alarmed about the Chinese now building permanent houses inside our country.

A lot of work has been done. And the government promises to do more; that basically means that they will continue to conduct the bilateral meetings, diligently and hopefully.

So I pointed out in the Assembly that the numerous meetings don’t seem to be helping, that we have not made any significant progress in finalizing our northern border. And I suggested that the government might want to consider new strategies to resolve the long outstanding border issue with China.

In response to my suggestion, Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk looked towards me, and declared that the government would welcome any alternative strategy that members of the Parliament might have in mind. His offer sounded more like a challenge than a genuine invitation.

Still, here’s my view, my biggest alternative strategy: visit Beijing.

Yes, visit China. Our government has been in office for almost 4 years now, and, so far, no one – not the Prime Minister, not any other minister, not even a government secretary – has visited China. This can’t continue. We cannot ignore our northern neighbour, not if we really want to resolve our border with them; not if we want to fully secure our national sovereignty.

Our PM has visited countless countries, from the US in the west to Japan in the east, and many countries in between. But he’s ignored China. And we cannot afford to do so. He must go to China. If he really wants to make a breakthrough in finalizing our northern borders, he must go to China.

Rupee questions...

Powerful

Last Tuesday, during question hour, I asked the Prime Minister to explain the rupee crisis: what has caused it, what the government is doing about it, and when we can expect it to be over. I directed the question to the PM as I had assumed that our head of government would be the most concerned and, as such, would be happy to reassure the nation that he has contained the crisis, and that the rupee deficit will not spiral out of control.

Too bad then, that the PM made the Finance Minister answer on his behalf. Too bad also, that I had to remind the Finance Minister that his response did not satisfactorily answer my question. And too bad, that several MPs felt compelled to snap at me that it’s easy to raise questions, but difficult to come up with solutions.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is the government’s responsibility is to identify and address problems of national significance, and notwithstanding the fact that ruling party MPs should show more confidence in their government, I offered my services to help address the growing rupee crisis.

The government has not contacted me. Nor have they given me a written response to my question. I had asked an “unstarred” question. So they are required to provide a written answer.

Now some of you, our readers, have asked for my views. Naturally, I’ll be very happy to share them, especially since we must generate more discussion on this important issue. But first, by way on introduction, here’s what I wrote about the rupee deficit in February 2009. Here’s what I wrote six months later. And here’s what I wrote last month.

I’ll post my thoughts sometime next week, after we conclude this session of the Parliament. In the meantime, please share your views here: what, in your opinion, has caused the rupee crisis, and how, do you think, we can get ourselves out of this predicament?

Inadequate and insulting...

Terrible job!

Farming in Bhutan is difficult work. Our farmers toil from dawn till dusk, in the sun and the rain, and with rudimentary tools, just to secure a basic harvest, which, at the best of times, is barely enough to feed their families through the year.

Farming in Bhutan is also a notoriously risky business. Rain, drought, floods, storms, hail, insects, disease and wild animals combine to keep our farmers on edge till they have harvested and safely stored their produce. But even after that, our farmers face one more big risk: markets. There’s absolutely no guarantee that their produce will fetch the money needed to make the hard work – and the anxiety – worthwhile.

That’s why, yesterday, during the National Assembly’s question hour, I asked the Agriculture Minister two related questions. One, I asked how the government would help our farmers secure more predictable prices for their produce. And two, I enquired when the government would start a crop insurance scheme.

The Agriculture Minister’s answers to both the questions were inadequate. And they were insulting.

To introduce my first question, I had reported that that the prices for cash crops – cardamom, mandarin oranges, apples, and potatoes, for example – are set by foreign buyers; that, as such, our farmers have absolutely no say over the price for their produce; that the prices are erratic and change every year; and that, last year, the price for potatoes fell three-fold in 7 weeks, from a high of Nu 21 per kg in October to Nu 7 per kg in late November.

Staying with last year’s potato disaster, I reported that, when I visited the Phuentsholing auction yard, I saw more than 150 truckloads of potatoes. Most of them had already been there for more than a week, paying Nu 500 per truck per day in demurrage, as the yard was able to auction only 20 to 25 truckloads a day.

Some farmers admitted to purposely holding on to their produce expecting the price to rise, but most others had no such intention; they just couldn’t get their potatoes to the auction yard earlier for a variety of valid reasons.

So I asked the Agriculture Minister if the government could look for ways of expanding local demand for cash crops; or ways of tying up with more reliable and established Indian buyers; or ways to do business with buyers from other countries.

The Agriculture Minister’s answer, which was inadequate and insulting, was that our farmers were gambling, that they were spoilt, and that the government would not spoil them any further. He also complained that when cash crops fetched good prices, farmers did not credit the government and expected even higher prices the following year. But he didn’t commit to, or for that matter comment on, doing anything to make the price of cash crops more predictable.

To introduce my second question, I had recalled that, last year, just before harvest time, a terrible hailstorm wiped out a lot of the paddy in Shengana; that 150 families had lost almost their entire crop; and that Aum Dorjim had cried inconsolably on national television bemoaning her misfortune and lamenting that she wouldn’t be able to feed her family or service her loans in the coming year.

I went on to report that, every year, many farmers face similar situations; we just don’t hear about them. Disasters routinely undo a whole year’s worth of hard labour, undermining the fortunes of entire families, and effectively trapping them in a vicious cycle of poverty.

I also reported that way back in September 2008, the Royal Insurance Corporation of Bhutan and the Ministry of Agriculture had submitted a joint proposal to the government to begin a crop insurance scheme. Crop insurance is, no doubt, complicated. But it is possible. And it is necessary. It would remove much of the uncertainty and anxiety that dominate the lives of our farmers today.

So I asked the Agriculture Minister, to tell us what happened to that proposal, and, if possible, to let us know when we can expect crop insurance to be launched.

The Agriculture Minister’s answer, which was inadequate and insulting, was that his ministry had started a human wildlife conflict endowment fund, and that none of the members of Parliament had contributed to that fund. He totally ignored the question about crop insurance.

Farming in Bhutan is a difficult and risky business. Let’s take the plight of our farmers seriously. Let’s protect them from unscrupulous syndicated foreign buyers. Let’s guarantee them fair market value for the hard work. And let’s provide some form of basic crop insurance.

Unchained fun...

While jogging today, in Pamtsho, I met Ugyen Penjore, aged 9, “going-to” class 4, Rinchen Kuenphen School, having a wonderful time with his friends on this bike, lent to him by another friend, Kinley Tenzin.

Check out the tires on that bike
Check out the seat
Check out that smile!

Controling tobacco control...

There's hope

The National Assembly has passed the Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill. 39 MPs voted for the amendment. One MP voted against it. And I abstained.

I believe that the proposed amendments do not adequately address the shortcomings of the Tobacco Control Act. That’s why I didn’t vote for the amendment. But I couldn’t vote against the amendment either, as doing so would amount to supporting the existing Tobacco Control Act. That would be unthinkable. And so I abstained.

Here’s the main difference between the Act and the amendment: while the existing Act condemns all offenders to prison, regardless of the quantity of tobacco involved, the amendment staggers the penalties for illegal possession of tobacco products based on the quantities.

So, for instance, if you’re caught with less than the “permissible quantity” of 200 sticks of cigarettes or 150g of khaini you’ll be let off with a fine, which will be set by the tobacco control board. (Sorry, you won’t get to keep the contraband.)

If you’re caught with more than 200 sticks of cigarettes or 150g of khaini, but less than three times that “permissible quantity”, you’ll be slapped with a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor carries a prison sentence of one to three years. But the sentence is compoundable. So you could pay thrimthue of Nu 36,500 (at today’s wage rates) instead of serving time in jail. But be careful. If you are a civil servant, according to the civil service rules, you’ll lose your job and your benefits if you are found guilt of a misdemeanor.

And if you’re caught with three times the “permissible quantity” – that’s 600 cigarettes or 450g of khaini – you’ll receive a felony of the fourth degree. That means that you’ll be sent to jail for 3 to 5 years. A felony is not compoundable, so you will not be able to pay thrimthue. You will have to serve your jail sentence.

If the amendment sounds better than the current draconian Act, it is. Yet I didn’t I support it. Here’s why:

First, the amendment, like the existing Act, continues to allow people to legally import tobacco. Travelers, and those fortunate to live in bordering towns, can continue to legally import tobacco up to the “permissible quantity”. The way I see it, if we’re going to allow some people to purchase and consume tobacco legally, we should allow other people to do so too.

Second, the amendment, like the existing Act, does not recognize the simple fact that prohibition has never worked and will not work. That’s why a black market quickly (and effectively) established itself in spite of the draconian provisions of the existing Act. That’s why, in the year since the Tobacco Control Act came into effect, many people took their chances despite the stiff sentences in it. Of the many, 84 people got caught. And of them, 39 people have already been sent to jail.

If the amendment goes through, a minority of us will continue to be able to procure and consume tobacco legally. But for the most of us, if we consume tobacco, we will continue to be doing so illegally. That would make us criminals. And because the penalties have now been staggered, expect a bigger black market; expect many more criminals.

There’s no doubt that tobacco consumption goes against our beliefs and our traditions. And there’s absolutely no doubt that tobacco consumption is bad for our health. So we must reduce the amount of tobacco we consume, we must smoke less, and we must chew less khaini.

But I don’t see that happening through the Tobacco Control Act or, for that matter, the proposed amendments. Instead, we should allow the sale of tobacco products. But we should tax the products sufficiently to discourage its indiscriminate consumption. And we should limit the places where tobacco products are sold. We should also set and enforce a sensible minimum age to buy and consume tobacco. And we should make all public places completely tobacco free.

But most importantly, we should educate ourselves about the ills of tobacco consumption. And to educate ourselves meaningfully, all of us – teachers, religious heads, doctors, journalists, businesses, politicians, celebrities, parents, all of us – must work together, hand in hand, to convince ourselves, and then our children, that smoking and chewing khaini may not be worthwhile.

The Tobacco Control (Amendment) Bill is an urgent bill. So it will be discussed in the National Council in the next few days. I remain hopeful that we can correct the excesses of the Tobacco Control Act in a meaningful manner, one that is both logical and implementable.

Educating ourselves...

In 2010, when the government announced that 1,000 acres of land had been allocated to build the Education City, I had worried that, “government policy is being formulated around a particular project.”

Formulating government policy to benefit one particular project is never a good idea. There’s simply too much room for conflict of interest, favoritism and corruption.

But the government is not satisfied. They want to bestow even more support to the Education City project. They now want to enact a law specifically designed to benefit this one particular project.

So today, the government introduced the Education City Bill in the National Assembly. They argued that without this legislation the legal framework would not be adequate, that foreign investors would not show up, that international education institutions would not be interested, and that the project would fail.

Without even considering the merits and demerits of the proposed Education City itself, I argued that framing laws around a project must mean that relevant laws are absent; that relevant policies are missing; or that the new law would circumvent existing laws and policies.

If relevant laws are absent, frame them, especially if other similar other projects would require them. If relevant policies are missing, develop them, especially if such projects are a priority for the government. But don’t pass new laws designed to bypass provisions of existing laws or the government’s own policies just for the sake of a single project.

That would not be good governance. And that is putting it very mildly.

The Education City may be a good idea. It may attract foreign investment, it may create jobs, it may become a centre of excellence, and it may strengthen our economy. Or it may be a bad idea. It may become a white elephant, or, worse still, a breeding ground for large scale, low quality education catering to tens of thousands of foreigners.

But good idea or bad, by enacting the Education City Bill, we would make it legal. And that’s a terrible idea.

Consolidate schools...

In 2007, the year before the elections, when the interim government started work on the 10^th Five Year Plan, they decided to “consolidate” the nation’s schools. Their rationale was that children in rural Bhutan were not receiving proper schooling as education resources were being spread too thin across the country.

The interim government figured that since the number of children in our villages was falling, it would be better and cheaper to take village children to well-established and well-run schools rather than making them attend ill-equipped and inadequately staffed schools in their villages.

But after the elections, the new government changed the 10^th Five Year Plan. They figured that it would be better to keep children with their families and in their communities rather than making them study in boarding schools far away from home. So they completely reversed the education policy from school consolidation to school expansion by starting extended classrooms.

Extended classrooms typically have less than 25 students, run from makeshift classrooms, have only one teacher who teaches several grades and who reports, for administrative purposes, to the management of a larger school. Extended classrooms are also typically found in our smaller, more remote villages.

At last count there were 99 extended classrooms.

But that number is about to explode. The government has announced that they will downgrade 343 primary schools to extended classrooms over the next few years. Their decision is prompted by the fact that primary school enrollment has been declining steadily.

Personally, I think this is a good opportunity for the government to revisit their policies, and reconsider the interim government’s plans to consolidate schools. If primary school enrollment is falling, consolidate the schools instead of downgrading them. Pool their resources – teachers, libraries, equipment and infrastructure – and allow students to study in proper schools, schools that are able to cater to extracurricular as well as classroom activities.

But if the government is going to continue extended classrooms, and if they are bent on downgrading primary schools instead of consolidating them, they should first do a careful study on the effectiveness of extended classrooms.

Children in our villages already work many times harder than their urban counterparts. The least we can do is to ensure that the education they receive gives them a strong enough foundation to help them through the school system, and later, in their careers. I can’t see how makeshift classrooms can provide that foundation. Yes, there will be precious exceptions, but, in general, I can’t see how a lone teacher, stationed in a distant village, teaching 25-odd children of various ages and levels can adequately prepare them for the academic rigors of real schools.

What our children need is not easy access to classrooms. They need access to proper schools – schools that have enough teachers and classrooms and playgrounds and libraries and computers and laboratories and, most importantly, a critical mass of students so that they can play, learn and compete together; so that they can grow together.

Consolidate our schools so that our children have access to proper schools. Consolidate our schools so that our children can also benefit from the type of education that we aspire for our own children.

Oath of Allegiance...

For king, country and people

The 8^th Session of the Parliament began yesterday. The 8^th session will be remembered as, during the inaugural ceremony, the Members of Parliament took the Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty the King.

I’m posting a (unofficial) translation of the Oath of Allegiance as a reminder of our promise to serve our King, our country and our people to the best of our abilities.

We bow at the feet of the supreme golden throne of the Druk Gyalpo Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, the upholder of the Chhoe-sid-nyi of Bhutan.

We, the Members of the First Parliament of Bhutan, hereby affirm our trust and devotion in the sovereignty and unity of Bhutan.

Further, we offer our allegiance to serve the Tsa-Wa-Sum and shoulder our responsibilities to the best of our abilities with sincerity, dedication and impartiality at all times.

Signed on 11^th day of the 11^th Month of Iron Female Rabbit Year corresponding to 4^th January, 2012.

The Oath of Allegiance was administered in accordance with Article 2 Section 5 of the Constitution which states that:

Upon the ascension of the Druk Gyalpo to the Throne, the members of the Royal Family, the members of Parliament and the office holders mentioned in section 19 of this Article shall take an Oath of Allegiance to the Druk Gyalpo.