I hope that Lyonpo Khandu will remember the question that I had submitted during the last session of the Parliament. I didn’t get to actually ask it due to time constraints. But, as required, I had submitted my question in advance, in writing, so he knows that the opposition party has serious concerns about the joint venture hydropower projects that the government is negotiating.

Here’s my question:

The Government has reportedly allowed Indian Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) companies to build and operate 4 big hydropower projects under a build, operate, own and transfer (BOOT) mode as joint venture partners with Druk Green Power Corporation.

Will the Hon’ble Minister please explain why the Government should go ahead with the joint venture projects when the demands of the PSUs violate the Government’s sustainable hydropower development policy and create excessively favorable conditions for themselves?

Hydropower is a valuable resource. It is the cornerstone of our economy. And it is its main driver. So we must develop it. But we must do so carefully. We must ensure that each and every hydropower project contributes meaningfully to our economy, benefits our people, and strengthens our sovereignty. We must be careful. We cannot be reckless.

But that’s exactly what the proposed joint venture projects are: reckless. The government seems to be willing to ignore and violate important provisions of the sustainable hydropower development policy for the Indian government PSUs. Those policies were carefully developed just 3 years ago, so undermining them basically amounts to recklessly compromising the interests of our country and people.

The government, for example, has allowed the Indian PSUs to own 51% of the joint venture projects although the policy explicitly states that, “For Public-Public partnership, the RGoB undertaking shall have a minimum of 51% shareholding.”

What that means is that Indian government PSUs will have managerial and decision-making control over the joint venture projects. That is not good. That is reckless.

But that’s not all. The government seems to be giving in to even more demands of the Indian PSUs. These demands would create even more favorable conditions for Indian PSUs by simply ignoring even more of the government’s hydropower policy.

For instance the PSUs have demanded that the joint venture projects be exempted from paying royalty power to the government. Hydropower is a natural resource that belongs to the State. So royalty must be collected for exploiting that resource. That’s why the hydropower policy requires that, “A minimum of twelve percent (12%) of electricity generated shall be made available free of cost to the RGoB as Royalty Energy during the first 12 yeas of commercial operation of the project and a minimum of eighteen (18%) thereafter …”

The PSUs have also demanded that they enjoy ownership of the joint venture projects for 35 years. That also violates the hydropower policy according to which “The project shall be allotted to a Developer for a concession period of thirty (30) years, excluding the construction period.”

And the PSUs have demanded payment of “fair market value” of the projects when they are handed back to the government at the end of the “concession period”. What does the hydropower policy say? “At the end of the concession period, the entire project shall be transferred and vested in the RGoB at no cost and in good running condition.”

If joint ventures with Indian PSUs make sense, go for it, develop our hydropower resource, strengthen our economic base, and reinforce the strong ties of friendship that we enjoy with India.

But if the joint ventures don’t make sense, if they aren’t attractive enough, if they compromise our own policies, if better partnerships are available, then take a step back, pause, review the situation, and do what’s best for our country and our people.

There’s no need to be in a hurry. And there’s certainly no need to be reckless.

Self-help

Last week, I reported to the National Assembly that, even four months after the September 18 earthquake, the victims of the earthquake still didn’t know what assistance to expect from the government. The government had, to be sure, provided corrugated iron sheets to some of the victims. And more importantly, the army, at His Majesty the King’s command, had built temporary houses for the victims.

But the victims have not been able to start working on their houses. Most of them have not begun to repair the damages, or to rebuild their houses. They have not been able to do so, because the government’s assessment of the damages has been slow and inconsistent. As a result, most of the victims have not received their insurance claims, and none of them seem to know if they can expect further assistance from the government.

So I questioned the government for not having a proper system in place to respond to natural disasters, a system that provides meaningful relief and offers adequate support for reconstruction.

And I criticized them for distributing “dignity bags” when it was quite clear that the victims didn’t need them. The earthquake had damaged thousands of houses. But thankfully, virtually none of them were razed to the ground. As such, the victims could enter their houses to retrieve their belongings as and when they wished. That’s why they didn’t really need the blankets, clothes, pots and pans, and plates and mugs that the dignity bags provided. What they desperately wanted is proper assessment of the damages, timely insurance payments, and a go-ahead to rebuild their houses.

The Home Minister, naturally, claimed that the government’s response to the disaster had been adequate, and that they were doing enough to help the earthquake victims. He also claimed that the dignity bags were useful.

But if the dignity bags are useful, if that’s what the victims need, why has the government not collected them from the RENEW offices? In fact, why did the government ask for them in the first place?

I can think of one reason: the government does not have a proper understanding of the ground realities. Given the nature of the disaster, the victims of the earthquake don’t need dignity bags. What they desperately need is the government to finalise its assessment – they want to receive their insurance claims; they want to know if the government will provide any additional support; and they want to start rebuilding their houses.

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.

Yonphula

Domestic air services were formally launched yesterday, coinciding with our 104^th National Day. Druk Air flew their ATR-42 from Paro to Yonphula to Bumthang and back to Paro. And Tashi Air’s Pilatus PC-12 flew from Paro to Bumthang and back. The lucky passengers in the inaugural flight included the Speaker, MOIC minister, Members of Parliament and senior civil servants.

So, after missing several ambitious deadlines, domestic air services have finally begun. Truth be told, I had my doubts. Having spent three years in Kanglung in the 1980s, as a student in Sherubtse College, I was all too familiar with the weather conditions in Yonphula. The Yonphula ridge, where the airstrip is located, seemed to be forever shrouded in mist. And when it wasn’t, strong winds seemed to stage a relentless attack on the ridge. Or it would just rain, continuously, for weeks on end.

But the government has done it. Domestic air services are now a reality. I’m happy. And I’m grateful that the government has succeeded in opening up Yonphula and Bumthang to air traffic. There’s no doubt that the air services to these areas will boost the economies of central and eastern parts of our country through increased tourist arrivals and investments in related areas.

So congratulations are in order, first and foremost to Lyonpo Nandalal Rai, the MOIC minister. Then to the Department of Civil Aviation. And to Druk Air. And Tashi Air. Domestic air travel is possible because of their hard work. Well done. And thank you.

Photo credit: BBS

New top

Dasho Tashi Phuntshog, the cabinet secretary, was appointed as the new ambassador to Kuwait yesterday.

The appointment has me confused. I don’t know what to make of it.

The cabinet secretary is our top civil servant. He draws the highest salary in the civil service – several thousands of ngultrums higher than other secretaries – and, as such, is the most senior, important and powerful civil servant.

So when the top civil servant is transferred, even before the completion of his term, as the ambassador of our smallest embassy abroad, we must ask ourselves if the cabinet secretary’s position is really that important.

It is important. Whether the government recognizes it as such is another matter.

Regardless, I congratulate Dasho Tashi Phuntshog on his new appointment. And I wish him success in his new office.

I also congratulate Dasho Penden Wangchuk, the home secretary, who has been appointed as the new cabinet secretary. As our new top civil servant, Dasho Penden Wangchuk must represent, protect and fight for the interests of all our civil servants; he must guide and counsel them; he must be their role model; and, most importantly, he must provide them with much-needed leadership.

I wish him success in this important endeavor.

Finally, I congratulate Dasho Nima Wangdi who has been appointed as the new health secretary. He has his work cut out, having to deal, immediately, with the health procurement scam and chronic drug shortages in our hospitals. His experience in the finance ministry will, no doubt, prove useful in correcting the health ministry’s disorders.

Indeed, the Constitution does not imprison; the Constitution does not shackle. That is not the purpose of the Constitution. And we know that.

We also know that the purpose of the Constitution is to provide a set of rules outlining how our kingdom must be governed. These rules define the responsibilities of the various institutions of the State – the monarchy, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, constitutional bodies, local governments, and others – and authorize powers to these institutions so that they can fulfill their respective responsibilities.

But none of the institutions, not a single one of them, enjoys unlimited powers. That’s why the rules also specify checks and balances limiting the scope of their authority. These checks and balances are intended to minimize the risks of mistakes from being made when governing our kingdom. They are also intended to prevent dangerous concentrations of power and authority.

So yes, the Constitution does not “imprison and shackle” the prime minister and the government. But whether they like it or not, the Constitution does subject them to various checks and balances to ensure that our kingdom is governed well.

But it wasn’t just those five words. A story by Bhutan Observer shows that a lot more words were used, and excuses made, to argue that the Pay Commission did not have to be involved to raise salaries.  It’s worth reading the entire article again. So I’m reproducing it here, along with my comments which I’ve inserted, in parenthesis and in red, inside the article.

“Constitution doesn’t imprison and shackle”

PM says tshogpa’s salary raise is justified

(Tshospa’s are being paid below the national minimum wage. So, yes, a salary raise is, indeed justified.)

Prime Minister Jigmi Y Thinley yesterday reasoned why the recent salary raise for the tshogpas is not unconstitutional at the 18th Meet the Press.

The opposition leader last week contested that the raise is unconstitutional because the constitution empowers only the pay commission to revise the salary of public servants.

The prime minister said, “I find it absolutely unconstitutional on the part of people to talk about unconstitutionality of the good actions intended to advance the interest of society.”

(Since when did questioning the government’s conduct of public business become unconstitutional?)

He said the constitution doesn’t say every salary raise and wage increment should be done through the pay commission. But rather, it says that the prime minister may recommend, periodically, the establishment of a pay commission for structural revisions of salaries. “It doesn’t say that every decision should be made through the pay commission.”

(Are salaries being revised? If so, it’s the Pay Commission’s job to recommend the revision to the Government.)

Constitution, Lyonchhen said, was created to enable society to progress, democracy to flourish, and to enable the implementation, translation and the pursuit of the high principles and ideals that should guide the society.

He said the constitution is not a document that will serve as a manual for day-to-day conduct of the business of government and society.

(Article 30 of the Constitution serves as a manual for how to revise salaries of all public servants, including members of the local government.)

Elucidating his point, he said that the constitution doesn’t prescribe how the political parties should be managed on a day-to-day basis and that the prime minister and the minister should wear scarves. And for that matter, there is also no mention in the constitution that there should be a monthly discourse between the media and the cabinet, he said. “Because it’s not mentioned in the constitution, is it unconstitutional?”

(It’s up to the political parties how they manage themselves, but as long as they do not violate Article 15 (Political Parties) of the Constitution, the Election Act and other relevant laws.)

(The Constitution does not prescribe that the prime minister and ministers should wear scarves. So is wearing scarves unconstitutional? No. Would not wearing scarves be unconstitutional? No. It is not a constitutional matter.)

(The Constitution does not mention that the government should meet the press every month. So are the monthly “meet the press” sessions unconstitutional? No. It is not a constitutional matter.)

The prime minister said that if one is truly interested in furthering the interest of society, one should not cite the constitution and say ‘because it is not mentioned in the constitution, it is illegal’.

(Nobody has said that “because it is not mentioned … it is illegal”. On the contrary, because a provision is mentioned in the Constitution, we must abide by that provision. Otherwise we risk violating the Constitution.)

Had the tshogpa’s salary been higher, Bhutan would have got better tshogpas, Lyonchhen said, adding that those interested are not satisfying enough in terms of their capacity and quality. “Therefore, it would have been wrong in terms of the spirit of the constitution for the state to not to have acted,” he said.

(Increase the salaries of tshogpas. I’m all for it. I called for their salaries to be increased too. But, please, do so in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.)

Opposition Leader Tshering Tobgay had quoted the constitution which states that “the pay commission shall recommend to the government revisions in the structure of the salary, allowances, benefits, and other emoluments of the royal civil service, the judiciary, the members of parliament and local governments, the holders and the members of constitutional offices and all other public servants with due regard to the economy of the Kingdom and other provisions of this constitution.”

Finance Minister Wangdi Norbu said since there were no tshogpa candidates coming forward to contest the elections, the government discussed the issue seriously and decided to raise their salary, which is subject to approval by the parliament.

(The finance minister also said, on 27^th October, that “an increment in the salary should be approved by the Pay Commission”)

Lyonchhen said not getting good people elected into the local government means the possibility of endangering democracy, undermining the importance of the quality of governance at the grassroots level, and the possibility that wrong decision will be taken and resources will be wasted.

(Local governments are very important. So we must attract the best people to serve in them. The Rule of Law is also important. If laws are ignored, if the Constitution is violated, democracy will certainly be endangered.)

He argued that when there is no specific limitation in the constitution, one should not go back to the constitution and cite it. “The constitution doesn’t block us, imprison us, and shackle us against good things and actions we need to take,” he said.

(Follow the procedure, follow Article 30 of the Constitution, and have their recommendations ready before the Parliament’s next session. Unless that is, the government wants to exercise full authority to revise salaries of public servants as and when they wish.)

Last month, on October 27, during a press conference the finance minister announced that, “… while tshogpas deserve a raise, there is not enough money to raise their salary.” Furthermore, he clarified that, “an increment in the salary should be approved by the Pay Commission.”

So basically, we were told that the government can’t increase tshogpa salaries because (1) they don’t have enough money; and (2) the Pay Commission would have to approve any increase.

But last week, on November 16, the government announced that they had increased the salary of tshogpas to Nu 5,000 per month. And that that increase was decided by the cabinet.

So basically, now we are made to understand that (1) the government has enough money to increase tshogpa salaries; and (2) the Pay Commission does not have to approve that increase.

In fact, here’s what the government can do: increase tshogpa salaries. Why? Because tshogpas were being paid below the national minimum wage. So whether tshogpas deserved a raise or not, and whether the government had enough money or not, their salaries had to be increased to at least equal the national minimum wage level.

But here’s what the government cannot do: increase tshogpa salaries unilaterally. Why? Because only the Pay Commission has the authority to recommend increases in the salaries of public servants, including tshogpas who are members of the local government.

That’s why I called for tshogpa salaries to be increased, but objected that the government does not have the authority to do so unilaterally.

In order to ensure that the increased salaries of the tshogpas are lawful, the government should constitute a Pay Commission immediately to recommend revisions to the tshogpa salaries. There’s enough time for their recommendations to be approved by the government, and submitted to the next session of the Parliament.

Waiting to be seen

The prime minister was in New York when the September 18 earthquake struck. He’d left Bhutan on 12^th September to address the 66^th Session of the UN General Assembly on 23^rd September.

Most heads of government would have rushed home if, during their absence, an earthquake that hit their country caused widespread destruction. Our PM did not. He chose to stay on in New York. And from there, instead of returning home, he chose to go straight to Tokyo to address the 24^th Congress of Architecture on 28^th September, and then to Kolkata to meet the chief minister and to attend a Buddhist society meeting.

The PM eventually came home on 2^nd October, two weeks after the September 18 earthquake.

It’s been over a month since he returned home, but, as far as I know, the PM still has not visited any of the areas that were hit by the earthquake.

And last Sunday, the PM left the country again, this time to attend the SAARC summit that will take place in The Maldives on 10^th and 11^th November.

Meanwhile, our people are still struggling to rebuild their lives and their homes. The September 18 earthquake damaged 9000 structures and cost Nu 888 million.

The corrigendum is helpful. But it is quiet. Too quiet.

Kuensel must now ask the PM – not “officials from the PM’s office”, but the PM himself – why he did not clarify that he was talking about something that took place almost three years ago, and why he misinformed the public about DHI giving iPhones.

The PM could have easily told the truth and put the iPhone rumour to rest. Instead, he chose to sensationalize it, and, in doing so, planted serious doubts about DHI’s credibility. For that, he owes the public an explanation. And he owes DHI an apology.

This is not the first time the government has raised questions about DHI. On several occasions already, MPs from the ruling party have expressed concern and objected to how DHI is run and how their employees are paid. The government complained about and succeeded in revising the Royal Charter. And during the very press conference which featured the iPhone controversy recently, the finance minister protested that “the government has little say in the functioning of DHI since it is governed by the Royal Charter which gives absolute power to its board directors.”

Added to that, unknown agents continue to fuel stories about DHI being run as a “parallel government”.

DHI was established in 2007, the year before our first elections, as the custodian of our nation’s wealth. The idea was to separate the investment and executive arms of the Royal Government. That idea is still relevant: politicians, now and in the future, cannot be trusted to manage and expand the commercial investments of the Royal Government in a manner that is prudent and sustainable. And that’s why DHI was established as an autonomous organization incorporated under the Companies Act.

But that does not mean that DHI can do anything it pleases or that the government has absolutely no control over the organization. DHI’s performance targets, including how much money they must earn for the exchequer, are fixed together with the government. And, more importantly, most of the members of DHI’s Blue Ribbon Panel and the board of directors are appointed, directly or indirectly, by the government. In addition, their operations are audited by the Royal Audit Authority to ensure prudent and effective use of the people’s resources.

These checks and balances are important. And we must use them to address concerns about salaries, perks, recruitment or any other issue that we may have. But otherwise, we should not undermine the functioning of DHI. And we must not make unmerited attacks on its image. The company is simply too important for the current and future wellbeing of our people.

How important is DHI? The company is already worth more than Nu 45 billion. That works out to about 60% of our national GDP. And last year, the company contributed Nu 4.3 billion in taxes and dividends to the government. That works out to more than a quarter of the government’s domestic revenue.

But DHI is barely four years old. So we can expect them to make some mistakes. When they do, we need to work together, constructively and within the legal framework, to correct them. Otherwise, we should support them – our wealth, and that of our future generations, is at stake.

Why should this particular gift be seen as “blatant corruption”? Because three years ago, during the new year, DHI had given Nokia cell phones to all officials holding cabinet rank, including the PM and the opposition leader. But, as far I know, most of the recipients did not accept the gifts; most of them had returned the cell phones after the National Assembly MPs rejected DHI’s bags, which they had received at about the same time.

Now after all that, if DHI is still tempting our ministers, this time with iPhones, we should be concerned. We should be alarmed.

But what if DHI had not offered iPhones to the PM or to any other minister? Then what? I ask this because DHI has apparently denied giving iPhones to the ministers. In fact, the very same Kuensel report states that, “DHI officials denied having done anything of the sort.”

So we have two stories. And only one of them can be true.

If the PM is right – if DHI had indeed offered him an unsolicited gift – we should be alarmed. And ACC should investigate DHI for attempting to bribe our senior most government officials.

But if DHI is right – if they have not offered iPhones to the PM or any other minister – we should be equally alarmed. The PM should then have to explain why he has misled the public, and why he is undermining DHI’s reputation.

Kuensel’s website has been giving problems. So here’s the clip of their iPhone story.