Enough protection?

Last week, Parliament authorized the government to review the mandate of BBS. I’m against the government meddling in BBS’s affairs. But our lawmakers feel that the country’s only TV station is underperforming. And that the government should intervene to give BBS vision and the means to achieve that vision.

So what’s the first move that the government makes? It directs BBS to go 24/7. And it does so without consulting anyone in BBS. Our national broadcaster struggles to generate sufficient content for the five hours it goes on air each day, and the government, unilaterally, directs BBS to broadcast round the clock. This directive does not augur well for television in Bhutan.

BBS is essentially a non-commercial public service broadcaster. So the state should subsidize its operations. How much? That, the government should decide.

But the government should not interfere in how BBS is run. That is the job of the Managing Director and the Board of Directors – ultimately they are the ones responsible for ensuring that BBS is able to inform, educate and entertain our people, and for protecting its editorial independence.

And that, precisely, was the reason why BBS was delinked from the government in the first place. The Royal Kasho establishing BBS as an autonomous corporation was issued way back on 18 September 1992. But its message is timeless. In fact, it’s even more relevant today. So, to remind ourselves, I’m reproducing the translation of that Royal Kasho:

In three decades of successful planned development, Bhutan has seen rapid socio-economic growth and the kingdom has made the significant transition from self-imposed isolation towards achieving the national goal of creating a better life for the people in a progressive and modern nation.

Today, as the kingdom enters the age of communications, its priorities are geared to meet the need and demands of the times. The kingdom has seen a dramatic increase in the literacy rate of the population as a result of the special attention given by the royal government to the education sector. As technological advancement brings the international community closer together, it has also established the infrastructure to modernize and strengthen communications and information link with the rest of the world.

It is the policy of the royal government, therefore, to facilitate and encourage the professional growth of the Bhutanese media, which must play an important role in all areas of development. Such a role is especially relevant to the national policy of decentralization, which aims to involve all sections of the Bhutanese society in the socio-economic and political development of the kingdom.

The national newspaper, Kuensel and the Bhutan Broadcasting Service will therefore be de-linked from the Ministry of communications to give them the flexibility to grow in professionalism and to enable them to be more effective in fulfilling their important responsibility to society. From the fifth day of the eighth Bhutanese month (October 1, 1992) the national newspaper Kuensel and the Bhutan Broadcasting Service (BBS) will be established as two autonomous corporations. The Kuensel and BBS Corporations will be governed by an editorial board comprising representatives of the government, media, professionals, scholars and eminent citizens.

Calling twitterers

About a year ago, I’d announced that I was on Twitter, a social networking site that offers “micro-blogging” by allowing users to post updates that are less than 140 characters long. Twitter originally set a 140-character limit so that “tweets” would be compatible with the SMS messaging.

I’d also described how the Twitter experience could be enhanced if our mobile cellular service providers would tie up with Twitter:

If B-Mobile, say, were to allow Twitter to recognize their network, then users would be able to “tweet” using SMS’s, and “followers” would be able to receive updates as SMS’s. And that would be really handy.

Good news! This is now possible. You can now send and receive tweets by SMS. B-Mobile has tied up with Twitter Inc. to offer twitter SMS services for their customers. To sign up for B-Mobile’s latest service:

1. Create a twitter account
2. Login; go to settings>Mobile, and add your mobile number
3. Send tweets to 40404

Happy tweeting.

This time, during the second annual journalism awards, the government was careful not to repeat last year’s howler. And they managed. How? By concealing the identity of the jury. The public – and that includes the media – did not, and still does not, know who this year’s judges were. In fact, it appears that the judges themselves do not know who their fellow judges were!

Being cautious is one thing. But being secretive is quite another matter, especially when we’re supposedly honouring our journalists. And when we’re ostensibly celebrating freedom of information.

But, like last year, the government is organizing the event. Not good.

It is in the media’s interest to decide, without government interference, how to recognize and reward good journalism. And, equally important, who to recognize and reward. So the media should be organizing this important event.

When the government is involved, the awards lose credibility. And the whole process – from defining categories to selecting judges to awarding prizes – will be questioned.

For the sake of a vibrant media, the media should not permit the government to organize the second Annual Journalism Awards. Instead, they should organize the Bhutan Media Foundation to conduct the awards.

If time is the issue, just postpone the event. It does not necessarily have to coincide with World Press Day.

The government, if they so wish, could go ahead, but with other celebrations, to mark World Press Day celebrations.

Here’s how Kuensel introduced a contractor’s remarks recently:

An owner of an established construction company, who requested anonymity, fearing possible backlash from the government, said that …

The government must dispel such fears. The Constitution, after all, guarantees “…the right to freedom of speech, opinion and expression” as a fundamental right.

Mr OL You got to do some explaining here! We are not convinced. TR has given his explanation and made his stand clear. Now Mr OL you need to put a brave face and give your reasons. otherwise we are going to take this as one of your several political gimmicks!

And the comment before that was by “Guest” who pleaded:

I am still pleading with the OL to explain to me how he sees that issue which escapes me totally. My request is genuine.

If Bhutan Today wishes to publish the cabinet’s press releases as their own stories, so be it. I may not agree with them. But I wouldn’t be overly concerned either. After all, we must remember that Bhutan Today was established barely 14 months ago, and that they were the first daily newspaper. So if, in order to meet their daily deadlines, they cut a few corners, I am not about to complain.

I would, however, be concerned if the prime minister’s press officer started influencing Bhutan Today. And very concerned if the PM’s press officer was associated with Bhutan Today when they published the cabinet’s press releases as their own stories. That, unfortunately, is what seems to have happened.

Tenzin Rigden, the PM’s press officer, has admitted in a letter that he “helped” Bhutan Today. And that he had helped “…with story headlines, captions and the design as well”.

Story headlines! The PM’s press officer says he helped Bhutan Today with their story headlines!

It’s no wonder that two journalists – one from Bhutan Observer, the other from Business Bhutan – asked me, on separate occasions, what I thought about Tenzin Rigden editing stories in Bhutan Today.

But for some odd reason, both the papers have decided not to publish what they told me was headline news.

I have already expressed my concerns that the prime minister’s office may be influencing the media. But what has recently been happening is worse: one newspaper, Bhutan Today, has started carrying every press release that comes out of the prime minister’s office as their own story, word for word, but with their own byline.

Compare the following stories:

• “Bigger responsibility for NSB, better data for nation” by the Cabinet; and “Statistics and GNH Statistics” by Bhutan Today
• “SAARC summit: preparations in full swing” by the Cabinet; and “450 Delegates to Attend SAARC Summit” by Bhutan Today
• “100% FDI to build five-star hotels in Bhutan” by the Cabinet; and “100% FDI for Luxury Hotels” by Bhutan Today
• “It’s Ethics, Stupid” by the Cabinet; and “It’s Ethics, Stupid” by Bhutan Today
• “Tourism Reforms” by the Cabinet; and “Tourism Reforms” by Bhutan Today
• “Two-way dialogue is important, says PM” by the Cabinet; and “Dialogue Important: says PM” by Bhutan Today

My concern is no longer that the prime minister’s office may be influencing a newspaper. I’m now concerned that they could be controlling Bhutan Today.

There’s something dangerous going on. And I’m writing to BICMA about it.

“A country like Bhutan would be happy to be adopted by Tata,” a press release from the government’s media cell quoted the prime minister as saying. Writing about that in his blog and opening up another debate the opposition leader took a dig at the media too.

“And to make certain that Ratan Tata did not miss the Government’s invitation for adoption, all our major newspapers – Kuensel and Bhutan Today and Bhutan Observer and Bhutan Times and Business Bhutan – carried the PM’s tempting offer, word for word,” he wrote.

I did, indeed, take a dig. But, it was not aimed at the media. Instead, it was directed at the prime minister’s office, and, in particular, the ability of an influential press officer to control the media.

But now what?

First, the media must beware. By Tenzin Rigden’s own admission he has deep connections in the media:

… here are the facts – worked in Kuensel for 10 years; started and ran BT for three years (yes, I still own 10% BT shares if there is any value at all now); the owner of Bhutan Today is my first cousin and its CEO my nephew; the editors of Business Bhutan are friends and former BT employees; the entire news team of The Journalist, as you know, comprises former BT news team (by the way, I have no ownership or control there); and, finally, the MD of Bhutan Observer is one of my closest friends (you can check if you don’t believe.)

Tenzin Rigden is indeed well-connected. He’s also respected, and commands considerable influence in the media. And if he agrees to work as the PM’s media advisor, that’s his business. It’s just not good for the media. So beware.

And second, the Anticorruption Commission must look into how the PM’s office recruited their press officer. Was the position approved legally? And was the recruitment conducted according to established procedure?

The ACC has not yet responded to my request to investigate the recruitment of the four DPT party workers in the PM’s office. But, that won’t prevent me from lodging another complaint.

The Opposition Leader called on the Minister of Economic Affairs, His Excellency Lyonpo Khandu Wangchuk, yesterday to express the Opposition Party’s concerns on the Royal Government’s recent policy decisions on tourism. The Opposition Leader reported that, after studying the Royal Government’s Executive Order of 13 November 2009 and consulting a wide range of people, representing a cross section of society, the Opposition Party has concluded that:

On the Royal Government’s decision to “Roll out of the integrated channel, price and supply policy that liberalizes the minimum package price and mandatory package via tour operator requirement…”

1. Liberalizing the tourist tariff will undermine the positive brand image that our country has carefully cultivated and enjoyed over the last three decades. Most foreigners, including those who have never visited Bhutan, perceive Bhutan as a high end, exclusive destination. They consistently applaud the existing tariff policy as responsible and sustainable measures that are also in line with the principles of Gross National Happiness. Liberalizing the tourist tariff, even if it actually amounts to increased tourist spending, will harm Bhutan’s brand image.
2. Liberalizing the tourist tariff will eventually result in unsustainably large inflows of budget travelers causing social problems like drug abuse, prostitution, begging and stealing. Large inflows of tourists will also threaten Bhutan’s unique culture and traditions, and the country’s fragile environment. A target of 100,000 tourists per year by 2012 may be unsustainable and undesirable, given the country’s existing absorptive capacity and small population base of barely 600,000 people, most of who still live in scattered communities.
3. Liberalizing the tourist tariff will not necessarily guarantee increased numbers of jobs as no one seems to have a detailed understanding of the current employment scenario in the tourism sector. Most of the workers in the tourism industry are “under employed” and immediate priority should be to generate more productive work for them;
4. Liberalizing the tourist tariff could decrease the Government’s direct foreign currency earnings, as tourists would be required to deposit only the “royalty” to the government; and
5. Increasing tourist numbers in a responsible and sustainable manner is possible, without liberalizing the tourist tariff, by spreading tourist arrivals throughout the year. In 2008, the months of March, April, October and November accounted for more than 61% of that year’s total arrivals. If, on average, each of the remaining months performed equally well, total arrivals for that year would have more than doubled. Tourist arrivals for those months are low because of poor marketing efforts, not existing tourist tariffs;

On the Royal Government’s decision to mandate “…all hotels catering to tourists to upgrade to at least 3 Star category”:

1. By this policy, all tourists would be required to stay at hotels that have a minimum of 3 Stars. If this is the case, the actual minimum daily expenditure of a tourists amounts to royalty + 3 Star hotel + food + guide + transport. Even at very conservative prices, this would exceed USD 230 per night, and this would represent an increase in tourist tariff, not a liberalization of the tariff.
2. Most hotels currently catering to tourists will not be able to upgrade to 3 Star levels. Investments required for the upgrade will be high, and most hoteliers will not be able to develop the financial and managerial capacities to recover the additional investments. Hoteliers outside Thimphu and Paro will find it particularly difficult and risky to upgrade their hotels, thereby depriving other parts of the country, especially the Eastern region, of the benefits of tourism.
3. While it will be almost impossible to ensure that tourists actually stay at 3 Star hotels, this policy also undermines the development of lodges and farmhouses.

On the Royal Government’s decision to “…re-allocate the proceeds collected in the Tourism Development Fund by November 2009 to support Destination marketing budget requirement (of Nu. 26 million) for the year 2009-2010.”

1. Though the TDF is owned, in equally parts, by TCB and ABTO, the Government has so far not matched the contributions of the tour operators as was intended during the establishment of the Fund.
2. The use of the Fund’s proceeds should not be decided unilaterally. Instead, after the Government has made its “matching contributions”, the Fund should be operated jointly by TCB and ABTO and used to promote marketing, develop products and enhance innovation in the tourism sector.

The Opposition Leader reported that the Opposition Party is prepared to participate in discussions aimed at reviewing, revising and formulating policies for the tourism sector, and assured the Royal Government of its fullest support to protect Bhutan’s image as a high end, exclusive tourist destination.

The Opposition Leader submitted the following proposals to the Minister for Economic Affairs for the Royal Government’s consideration:

1. That the Royal Government rescind its order of 13 November, 2009 to liberalize the tourist tariff;
2. That the Royal Government increase the tourist tariff to USD 250 per person per night in accordance with TCB’s Announcement of 1 August 2008, the implementation of which was “differed till further notice” by TCB on 9 January 2009 to ensure that the global recession would not affect the tourism industry;
3. That the Royal Government repeal its order of 13 November, 2009 requiring all hotels catering to tourists to upgrade to at least 3 Star level;
4. That the Royal Government repeal its order of 13 November, 2009 reallocating proceeds of the Tourism Development Fund; that the Government make good its “matching contributions”; and that measures be introduced to ensure that the proceeds of the TDF are used effectively for the purposes, and in accordance with procedures, enshrined in the Tourism Development Fund Management Committee Constitution;
5. That the Royal Government review its “aspiration” of achieving 100,000 tourist arrivals per year by the end of 2012, given that a 62% annual increase in tourist arrivals compounded over the next three years may not be sustainable or desirable;
6. That the Royal Government introduce immediate measures to spread tourist arrivals throughout the year, and increase tourist arrivals significantly during the eight months (excluding March, April, October and November) which together account for barely 40% of the total arrivals each year;