Secondary tertiary policy...

R.I.P?

About a year ago, on the 26^th of July 2010, the prime minister launched the Tertiary Education Policy. The policy, one of this government’s most significant declarations so far, aims to enrich tertiary education in the country by streamlining how colleges and universities are planned, funded, registered, licensed and accredited.

The education minister described the 112-page policy as, “… a road map for the development and expansion of tertiary education in the country,” and boasted that it would contribute to making our country a “knowledge hub” and our people an “IT enabled knowledge society.”

In his introduction to the Tertiary Education Policy, the education minister boldly, and rightly, declares that:

Henceforth, this Tertiary Education Policy document, approved by the Lhengye Zhungtshog, will be the definitive instrument to guide all stakeholders, public and private, national and international, in developing and implementing programmes of study, material selection and pedagogical practices, assessment and certification, establishment of facilities and the integrity of all elements related to tertiary education in Bhutan.

So far, so good.

Now, the bad news.

It isn’t even a year old and the Tertiary Education Policy is already coming under attack. Actually, the policy is not being challenged. Instead, it’s being sidelined. It’s being ignored. It’s being snubbed. And that’s much worse than coming under any direct attack.

So who is the culprit that is overstepping the government’s inspired policies? Who is the perpetrator that is disregarding the government’s visionary policies? Who is the delinquent that is ignoring the government’s road map?

Believe it or not, that culprit, that perpetrator, that delinquent is the government itself.

The government has drafted a bill – one that the National Assembly is currently discussing – to establish the Bhutan Institute of Medical Sciences. There’s no doubt that the institute is important. It will benefit our country and our tremendously. So it must be established.

But in doing so, the government must follow its own policies. Otherwise why make policies? Why draw road maps?

The Bhutan Institute of Medical Sciences Bill has completely bypassed the processes outlined in Tertiary Education Policy. And it takes absolutely no notice of many of the policy’s important provisions.

So the Tertiary Education Policy’s credibility and authority are at stake. They’re being compromised by the government, no less.

And what are we doing nothing about it? Nothing.

Utter nonsense...

The National Assembly’s live TV broadcasts are proving useful. One observer, for instance, a senior civil servant, followed the recent debate on the Anticorruption Bill, and noticed that I “didn’t utter a word” during the discussions. She spoke to Kuensel about it, which reported that:

A senior civil servant said the opposition leader was very emphatic about the severity of the tobacco Act’s penalty that he went to the extent of hiring a lawyer for the first Bhutanese to be convicted under the Act, pro bono.

“He didn’t utter a word when members were deliberating the corruption amendment bill,” she said.

Yes, the senior civil servant is correct when she says that I was “emphatic about the severity of the tobacco Act’s penalty”. Yes, I objected to the excessive penalties for seemingly minor infractions provided in the Act. But I, like most of Bhutan, completely agree with the aim of the Tobacco Control Act, which is to reduce – perhaps even eradicate – the consumption of tobacco in our country.

And yes, the senior civil servant is correct when she says that I “didn’t utter a word” when we deliberated the Anticorruption Bill. I did not speak – either for or against the Bill. But I, like all of Bhutan, completely agree with the aim of the Anticorruption Bill, which is to reduce – hopefully even eradicate – corruption in our country.

Why didn’t I speak? I didn’t because I couldn’t. And I couldn’t, because I was not given the floor on the two occasions that I put my hand up.

The speaker probably did not see me. But had he noticed my hand go up, and had he given me leave to address the Parliament, I too would have argued that the penalties proposed in the Anticorruption Bill were excessive, and I too would have supported the revised penalties.

The senior civil servant seems to insinuate that I should have opposed the revised penalties. I couldn’t. Not because I didn’t get to speak. But because this time, I actually agreed with the majority. Even if I were given floor, I would have just recorded my support for the revised penalties.

That, incidentally, is why I voted “No” for the Tobacco Control Bill, and “Yes” for the revised Anticorruption Bill.

I hope that the senior civil servant in question will now see some consistency in my actions. I do not, and I cannot, oppose for the sake of opposing.

But were the penalties that were originally proposed in the Anticorruption Bill excessive? You decide…

According to the original draft, the penalty for all bribery and embezzlement offences was:

A person guilty of an offence under this section shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than five years to not more than nine years.

In other words, almost all offenses were originally categorized as third degree felonies, regardless of the magnitude of offense. So if a person is caught giving a Nu 100 bribe, that person is liable to spend five years in jail. But if a person is caught offering a Nu 13 lakh bribe – or for that matter a Nu 13 million bribe – that person is liable to spend a maximum of nine years in prison.

The penalties did not differentiate between the severity of the offenses. And while the penalties for small offenses were excessive, those for very big offenses were exceptionally lenient.

So the Parliament, in a joint sitting, revised the penalties as:

An offence under this section shall be a misdemeanor or value based sentencing, whichever is higher, subject to maximum of a felony of Second degree if the value of the amounts involved in the crime exceed the total amount of minimum wage at the time of the crime for the period of 35 years or more.

Under the revised penalties, a person caught offering a Nu 100 bribe could be sent to jail for 1 to 3 years. But, on the other hand, a person caught offering a Nu 13 lakh bribe could now be sent to jail for 9 to 15 years, not just between 5 to 9 years as was originally proposed.

The new penalty structure is more reasonable. And it’s more logical. As such, it should be a much more effective weapon in our war against corruption.

That’s why I did not oppose it. And that’s why I voted for it.

Digging deeper...

Yesterday, the government released the Tobacco Control Rules and Regulations. The rules, which come a week after the government had issued guidelines to relax the implementation of the Tobacco Control Act, have made matters even more complicated.

According to the rules, we will not be sent to jail for attempting to bring tobacco into the country without declaring it or for possessing tobacco products. Instead, we’ll be let go with a warning or penalized in line with Sections 86, 87 and 90 which state that:

86.     If a person tries to bring permissible quantity of tobacco and tobacco product without declaring at the authorized port of entry, the tobacco and tobacco product shall be confiscated and the person shall be warned in writing.

87.     If a person tries to bring permissible quantity of tobacco and tobacco product without declaring at the authorized port of entry for the second time and thereafter, the tobacco or tobacco product shall be confiscated and the person shall be imposed a fine of minimum daily wage rate of one year.

90.     If a person is in possession of permissible quantity of tobacco and tobacco product, which is brought into the country without payment of tax for personal consumption, the person shall be imposed a fine of Nu. 10,000/- and the tobacco and tobacco product shall be confiscated.

But there’s a problem: These rules may say that we won’t be sent to jail, but the Tobacco Control Act says that we will. The Act is quite clear on this – that’s why the judiciary has already sentenced several of our fellow citizens to prison.

And there’s another problem: These rules say that we won’t be sent to jail, but they are immediately undone by Section 92 of the rules itself according to which:

92.     If a person violates section 11(a), (b) and (c) of the Act, he/she shall be charged as per the provisions of the Act, irrespective of the quantity of tobacco and tobacco product.

Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits us from buying tobacco. And, according to the Act, the offense for doing so is a misdemeanor (1 year to 3 years in prison) but only if we reveal the source. If we can’t reveal the source, a felony of the fourth degree (3 years to 5 years in prison) is added to the misdemeanor sentence.

The Tobacco Control Act is draconian. So we must correct it; we must correct the extreme penalties prescribed by the Act. But developing rules and regulations intended to circumvent the provisions of the Act is not the answer.

The answer is to amend the oppressive Act. We, members of Parliament, must accept that the Tobacco Control Act is causing unimaginable hardship and suffering to our fellow citizens throughout the country. We must amend the Act.

Facebook strikes...

Listen to them!

After several friends suggested it, I’ve added a new page called “News clips”. The idea is to provide links to news articles, especially to critical ones, that talk about what the opposition party and I have been doing.

The first link is to a story by Kuensel. It’s about the growing influence of social media in Bhutan, a discussion that took place during the recent Mountain Echoes literary festival.

Social media has already made remarkable inroads in Bhutan. In past five years, there’s been a proliferation of discussion forums, social networking sites and blogs. And some of them – like Bhutantimes.com, Nopkin, Kuzu-Bhutan Weblog, Kuzu.net and several Facebook groups – have emerged as powerful ways of creating, sharing and discussing information.

Foremost among them is Amend the Tobacco Control Act, a Facebook group created by Kinley Shering, dedicated to discussing the tobacco law. The group’s 2,252 members have already logged 1,417 posts, and both, numbers of members and posts, keep increasing each day.

The tobacco group’s discussions are diverse, vibrant and persistent. And its members readily express their opinions and vent their frustrations. This, however, is not exactly new, as online discussion forums, like Bhutantimes.com, also host lively discussions.

But Amend the Tobacco Group is different in several other ways. One, and most obviously, the group’s members are not anonymous – Facebook profiles generally have real names along with real addresses, photographs, email IDs and even telephone numbers.

Two, the discussions are focused on just one topic, tobacco, and have some order and discipline – members are not unnecessarily nasty, abusive or profane.

And three, the group has organized real measures to back up their virtual demands. First, they collected signatures – online and off – to petition for an amendment to the Tobacco Control Act. That has not worked, so now they have begun to write letters to their respective MPs and to publish those letters on Facebook.

All this is powerful stuff. And potentially dangerous too.

If the group is ignored, if their voices remain unheard, and if frustration grows, emotions could escalate and spill onto Thimphu’s streets. That would not be good. And that must not happen.

So the government would be well advised to take the group seriously. They should join the group and explain their position. They should take part in the discussions, listen to the grievances, and spearhead common solutions.

In a healthy democracy, citizens must be able to express themselves – individually and collectively. Facebook has provided a platform to do so. We can protest, rally, picket and demonstrate online, on Facebook. But for that to work, the government must also take part, and ensure that the voices on Facebook groups are heard.

The government should use Facebook, not ignore it. That’s why I say: “Rather than taking to the streets, take it to Facebook!”

Screaming for answers...

The picture above, taken by Bhutan Today, shows victims of the recent Chamkhar fire huddling around their possessions.

Look at that picture. It should make you feel grateful. The picture shows that the residents were able to save at least some of their belongings from the fire that engulfed entire houses. They seem to have rescued clothes, mattresses, blankets, tables, carpets, pots, cupboards and even a bukhari from the fire that destroyed 33 houses. Given the tragic circumstances, we should be grateful for that.

Look at that picture again. It should now make you feel frustrated. The picture shows that the fire could not be controlled even though so many people had the time to rescue so many of their belongings.

Most of the houses in Chamkhar town stand in a line along the main street. So it would have taken time for the fire to spread from one house to the next. It did – that’s why the residents could save so many of their possessions. And yet the fire could not be controlled, not until it reached a three-storied stone structure that prevented it from spreading further.

So why couldn’t the fire be put out earlier? Because Bumthang has only one fire-engine, a second-hand truck manufactured in 1998. What’s worse is that that fire-engine can carry only 10 minutes supply of water. In fact, at full blast, that fire engine uses up all its water in just 5 minutes.

The fire fighters actually almost bought the fire under control during its early stages. But their water ran out. And, because Chamkhar town has no fire hydrants, they had to leave to replenish their small stock of water. That’s when the fire went out of control.

Look at that picture one more time. It should make you angry. The picture shows that, in spite of the two earlier fires, we were not at all prepared to fight this fire.

About a year ago, in the Parliament, during last year’s budget discussions, and before the first Chamkhar fire, I had requested the government to increase funding for our fire fighting programmes. I had argued that our fire fighters need more and better fire-engines. But I had also proposed that, if the government could not buy new fire engines immediately, they should at least buy water tankers to support the existing fleet of fire engines.

Bumthang’s aging fire engine was no match for the three Chamkhar fires. But with support from a simple 9,000 litre water tanker they would have probably been able to control the fires before they wrecked so much damage and suffering to the people of Chamkhar.

Today, the government is trying to find out who caused the fire. The residents are convinced that the fire was not an accident. So they want to catch the person who set their town on fire. The perpetrator must be caught. And be bought to justice.

But the government has so far ignored another, perhaps more important, investigation. They need to find out why, after repeated warnings and fires, they had still not equipped our fire fighters adequately.

Look at that picture. It’s screaming for answers.

Stop digging!...

Listen...don't dig

Denis Healey, a British politician, once famously said: “When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

Digging. That’s what the government is doing by issuing guidelines to relax the implementation of the controversial Tobacco Control Act. According to the guidelines:

Any Bhutanese bringing in tobacco products, more than the permissible quantity for personal consumption through designated port of entry, will not be directly charged for smuggling, but would be levied a 200 percent tax.

The excess quantity would be seized, the citizenship identity card number noted, so that the offender would be charged on the second attempt to bring in more than the prescribed limit.

Why do the guidelines amount to “digging”? There are several important reasons:

First, the government does not have the authority to grant exceptions to the Tobacco Control Act. According to the Act, any person found selling or buying tobacco products “… shall be punishable with misdemeanor if the source of supply is revealed. If the accused fails to disclose the source of supply, he or she shall be liable for the offence of smuggling in addition to the offence of misdemeanor.”

The law is straightforward. And the government must not undermine it. Doing so, like granting exceptions to first time offenders – letting them off with a small fine – could amount to interfering in the judicial process.

Second, why did the police draft these guidelines? That’s not their job. It’s the Bhutan Narcotics Control Agency’s job to make rules for the implementation for the effective implementation of the Tobacco Control Act. And why did the cabinet approve the guidelines? That’s not their job either. Their job is to ensure that the rules made by the BNCA are in line with the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act.

And third, what happens to the 27-odd people already under detention. Some of them are being tried. And some, as we know, have already been incarcerated.

Through the guidelines, the government has now admitted that possessing illegal tobacco for personal consumption is a trivial offense, one that should carry a fine of only 200% of the cost of the tobacco. If so, amend the Tobacco Control Act.

The 7^th Session of the Parliament has just begun. So if the government proposes an “urgent bill” to amend the Act, there’s enough time to discuss and amend the Act in this session itself. Otherwise, at least begin the process in this session. In the meantime, get BNCA to take another look at their rules. And stop digging.

Financial services … for who?...

A joint sitting of the Parliament passed the Financial Services Bill. 66 members voted for the Bill. Only one member voted against it. That solitary member was me.

I voted against the Bill because it is discriminatory – it favors foreign investors over our own people.

Section 50 of the Bill specifies that a Bhutanese individual cannot own more than 20% of a financial institution’s shares; and that a Bhutanese company cannot own more than 30% of a financial institution’s shares.

But the Bill does not specify the amount of shares a foreign company can own in a financial institution. That has been left up to the Foreign Direct Investment policy. And the present FDI policy allows foreign companies to own as much as 51% of a financial institution.

So basically, the maximum amount of shares Bhutanese individuals and companies can own in a financial institution are clearly defined by law. But the amount of shares that foreign companies can own is not defined by law – instead, it’s left up to a government policy. Today’s policy allows foreign companies to own a lot more shares in a financial institution than what our own companies can own. And tomorrow’s policy could allow foreign companies to own even more shares.

It’s important to specify – clearly specify – the maximum amount of shares that a Bhutanese individual or a company can own in a financial institution. And it’s even more important to clearly specify the maximum amount of shares that a foreign company can own.

Our laws should favour Bhutanese companies over foreign ones. But if, for whatever reason, that’s not possible, both of them – Bhutanese and foreign companies – should be treated equally. Foreign companies should never receive preferential treatment over our own companies.

But that’s exactly what the Financial Services Bill allows.

Foreign investors already have more money, have more expertise, and have more experience. Now with more ownership of our banks, they will, in time, dominate and control our financial sector. That cannot bode well for the security of our economy.

Here’s Section 50 of the Financial Services Bill:

No person shall hold more than the following percentage of interest in shares of a financial institution:

(a)     in case of a Bhutanese individual, 20 percent,

(b)     in case of a Bhutanese company not being a financial institution, 30 percent.

(c)     in case of a Bhutanese company being a financial institution, as per the limit provided under section 53 below, and

(d)     in case of a foreign financial institution, as per the RMA regulations in line with the Foreign Direct Investment Policy.

Going out of control...

The Tobacco Control Act is going out of control.

The Thimphu district court sentenced Gelong Sonam Tshering, a monk, to 3 years in prison for possessing a mere 48 packets of chewing tobacco. He appealed to the High Court. But the High Court has upheld the 3-years prison sentence.

Countless others – I’ve lost count … really – are in detention or undergoing trail in various parts of the country. We’re told that there are a couple of tobacco smugglers among them. But all the others were caught with small amounts of tobacco, obviously meant for their personal consumption.

And today, the Paro district court sentenced three men to jail for three years each. Their crime: they were caught smuggling ten packets of cigarettes.

Ten packets of cigarettes, just ten packets – that’s how much most smokers consume in ten days – and three people are going to jail for a total of nine years!

I called the Tobacco Control Act draconian. It’s much worse. It’s utter madness.

Amend the Tobacco Control Act.  And stop this madness before our people go out of control.

Asking questions...

About a month ago, I posted the question on Facebook that asked: “What should the National Assembly discuss during the coming session?”

A whopping 1366 of my “friends” voted on the 73 answers they generated themselves. This morning the situation looked like this:

The top five answers, as you can see, are the Tobacco Act, corruption, disaster management, jobs and sports.

But there are many other suggestions. They include citizenship, social security national security, agriculture, irrigation; health, music, alcohol, FDI, BCSR, PCS and DSA.

One enlightened friend suggested that we discuss “How to liberate people from suffering”. And another suggested that the National Assembly “Discuss on raising their pay again”!

Thank you for your suggestions. We – Dasho Damcho and I – will see how we can incorporate them in our discussions in the Parliament and the National Assembly. We’ll do our best.

But I’d like to invite some more suggestions, this time for the National Assembly’s “question hour”. If you have questions that you’d like us to ask the government, please post them here.

Obviously, I can’t guarantee that we’ll be able to attend to all your questions. But I will guarantee that we’ll do our best.

Thanks in advance.

Saving McKinsey...

Where's the savings?

McKinsey is costing the government US$ 9.1 million. That works out to about Nu 432 million. That’s a lot of money. The government knows it. And that’s probably why the government makes it a point to tell us that the McKinsey project will bring about “savings” in excess of the US$ 9.1 million being charged by them.

About two years ago, when McKinsey’s “accelerating Bhutan’s socio-economic development” project was first announced, we were told that, “The savings the government makes through this project will more than make up for the consultancy cost.”

A year later, amid increasing public concern about the usefulness of McKinsey’s recommendations in the tourism and construction sectors, we were told that the project had identified, “A preliminary saving potential of Nu 500M over the 10th Plan period for government has been identified.”

A few months after that, when the PM was asked why McKinsey were hired when our own civil servants could have done whatever the consultants were doing, we were told that, “through the project, a saving potential of Nu 500M in the health and constructions sectors has been identified, while additional savings are also being identified in the ICT and agriculture sectors.”

But can McKinsey really bring about savings to offset their huge fees? And, more importantly, will the savings bought about by McKinsey be real?

McKinsey have almost completed their project. So it’s time to evaluate their work. And it’s time to count our “savings”.

Fist, McKinsey says that we can save Nu 13 million by “having a long-term contract with one supplier, and bringing in supplies directly from the wholesaler” when buying medical supplies.

Okay … but is this really something that we didn’t already know? And aren’t there reasons – to prevent corruption, for example – why our financial rules purposely discourage long-term contracts with any one particular supplier or buy directly from wholesalers?

If purchasing medical supplies directly from the source is a good idea, why stop there? Why not purchase paper directly? And vehicles? And fuel?

Second, McKinsey says that using higher-grade steel – Fe500 instead of Fe415 – in government constructions would bring about savings. Higher-grade steel means higher costs, but “theoretically, upgrading to better quality of steel would mean the quantity required will be reduced.”

That’s probably correct – Fe500, a relatively new product in India, is being marketed aggressively and is already becoming popular. So McKinsey or not, wouldn’t construction in Bhutan – yes, including government construction – have naturally migrated to Fe500?

Third, McKinsey says that importing bitumen packed in polybags instead of barrels will result in savings. But it appears that polybag bitumen is not yet available in India. And anyway even if it was available in India, and even it was cheaper, wouldn’t we have the common sense to buy bitumen packaged in polybags over the more expensive barrels?

Fourth, McKinsey says that the government should buy cement directly from the cement factories, and claim for a rebate on the cement it purchases. That rebate, it turns out, is actually the commission cement manufacturers give their agents. So yes, the government will save money by going directly to the source. But in doing so, they’ll be functioning as cement agents. And they’ll drive all the current cement agents out of business.

It’s good that McKinsey is identifying savings for the government. But the savings must be real. The ones they’ve identified so far won’t do.