That one thing...

CLARIFICATION PLEASE!

The second last session of the Parliament of Bhutan saw extensive debate on the Annual Report submitted by the Anti-Corruption Commission. There were praises, allegations, accusations, emotions, anger, excuses, worries, satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In effect, it was in no short of drama.

While I am not sure of what public in general made out of this whole saga, as an anti-corruption activist and as someone working for the agency dedicated and mandated to combat corruption by no less than the Constitution of the country, I am tempted to clarify certain things.

The Minister, Ministry of Health raised issues on investigation in his Ministry and alleged ACC of unnecessarily  prolonging investigation in his Ministry and called upon the house and Anti-Corruption Commission to complete investigation in Ministry of Health as soon as possible.

While it is true that the Ministry of Health has been under the scanner of ACC for almost four years, it is factually incorrect to say ‘ACC is unnecessarily prolonging investigation there.’ It is FACTUALLY incorrect because, ACC has, over the period of four years, completed 8 corruption cases in Ministry of Health, of which 5 cases have been put before the Court of Law through the Office of the Attorney General and 3 cases are being reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General for necessary prosecution. Given the constraints and the nature of the task, unearthing 8 cases in four years is indeed timely and comparable with any standard of criminal investigation in the world. Mind you- proving beyond reasonable doubt is the principle and fulfilling it is not anyone’s cup of tea.

Opposition Leader called upon the house on the need to include names of those alleged and accused in the annual report of the Commission.

While it is easy and sounds fancier to include names of alleged or accused in the report, it is legally incorrect to do so. It is legally incorrect because, under our law, one cannot assume anyone guilty until proven and naming people in the report would invariably take to mean such assumption.  Mind you- ‘presumption of innocence’ is the principle and not abiding by it would have legal implications like in any other jurisdictions where the onus to prove lie with the accuser.

to be continued

Growing Vegetables at Home and Comparative disadvantage

I met Mr. Dal Bahadur who hails from Sarpang District last weekends at Centenary Farmers’ Market. We studied together at Jakar Junior High School in Bumthang long time ago.

With his caliber and intellect, I was sure, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he will either become a doctor or an engineer, -a profession much sought after even today, after his studies and to that extent, he even proclaimed his aspiration, if I can remember correctly. 

As I met him that day, he was neither a doctor nor an engineer. As much as my guts failed to ask him what happened to his childhood aspirations, his appearance and the circumstances quickly told me that he has taken to farming for his profession and he isn’t doing well.

Drawing lessons from the interviewing techniques, I quickly leveled our emotions and drove him into a common but non-threatening ground of rapport building.  I told him about the RUPEE CRUNCH and the Government’s austerity measure of BANNING vegetable imports from India and how this might and would provide OPPORTUNITY for him as a farmer to cash in and do well.

“This is Bullshit!” he said. “Things do not work in a vacuum like this.” He added.

The next hour or two of our togetherness was no less than an academic setup for economics class as he went about illustrating the theories of international trade starting from the David Ricardo’s classical theory of comparative advantage to Adam Smith’s theory of absolute cost difference to modern Bertil Ohlin’s theorem, which ‘states that countries which are rich in labour will export labour intensive goods and countries which are rich in capital will export capital intensive goods.” 

There was nothing I could agree less with him. Unless we improve the conditions for agriculture in terms of water and fertilizers along with adequate subsidy to make up for the cost difference between our two countries or with other countries for that matter, not even the Great Wall of China, let alone the BAN, can stop us from going to India given the rationality of human beings.

We didn’t even talk about the advantage of ‘economies of scale’ that countries like India enjoy over us.  In the interest of my kids who I was with that day, we had to part our ways, and we parted our ways, ofcourse increasingly convinced of the unconvincing implications of the policy put in place to overcome rupee crisis.

I wished him all the luck in all the turnarounds he is wishing for in future.