Making the right noises

A month since its formation, and four months after the election, the government has finally outlined its objectives for constitution-writing and governance. While the agenda set by the government seems impressive, it is naturally not likely that most of the objectives will be met.

Some of the key points are in the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) only because it would be wrong for them to not be there. For instance, the government has stated that it will look to end load-shedding in three years. Other ambitious targets have been mentioned, which will also likely not be achieved anytime soon.

However, the setting of the agenda for the government is still a start, and that is good news. These may only be baby steps, but for a country with no functioning government for more than a year now, these are steps in the right direction.

The government aims to get the constitution drafted within a year and to announce dates to local elections at the earliest. While the former is essential, this column believes time and resources should not be wasted on local elections at the moment. It is a question of priority. In order to conduct local elections, the government must get other stakeholders on board, and this will be a time-consuming exercise. This column does not believe the government has the bandwidth to take on the challenges of constitution writing and the conducting of local elections simultaneously.

Nepal will be better served if the government, for the moment, solely focused on getting all stakeholders on board for the new constitution. There are enough challenges as it is, and there is no need to welcome another set. Moreover, the expenditure on the elections may prove to be wasteful because we do not know what form of state or governance the new constitution is going to give us. Local elections should be made to wait until after the constitution is ready.

That notwithstanding, some of the other aspects of the CMP are particularly encouraging. This is the first time a Nepalese government has laid out a code of conduct for its own ministers – one that aims to make governance smooth. The government has also undertaken to reduce wasteful government expenditure and to adopt a zero tolerance policy towards corruption. Whether this happens or not is another matter, but at least there is an acknowledgement of what is going wrong and what the electorate is unhappy about. The government is saying it wants to be more accountable to the public, and in a country where the lack of accountability has been frustrating, this is at least heartening.

One of the things the government wants to do, for instance, is to curb unnecessary domestic and foreign visits by ministers, bureaucrats and other government officials. This is another good step taken by the government, for it at least shows that the cabinet understands the rationale for austerity and the benefits it brings.

These are minor and fairly obvious aspirations of any government, some would argue. But in the context of Nepal, where there has been an absolute breakdown of trust in government over the last five years, these statements are a breath of fresh air. Sure, the CMP is over-ambitious. But ambition stems from desire, and the desire to improve can be no bad thing.

(This appeared as a column in The Himalayan Times on 23 March 2014).

Let aid do more

Nepal has long been an ‘aid favourite’, receiving interest (and financial commitments) from a plethora of international agencies and donor countries. In a matter of just 3 years between fiscal year 2010-2011 and fiscal year 2013-2014, Nepal received aid commitments of $5.46 billion from a total of 73 donors, of which $3.41 billion has been disbursed for 742 projects across 50 sectors.

These numbers are quite staggering, particularly considering that for most of this period, Nepal has either had an unstable government or no government at all. While there is no denying that Nepal requires significant external assistance to bolster its economy, it is important to ask where this money has been going, especially at a time of near-paralysis of government.

A look below the surface is quite revealing, for the choice of sectors that have received funding indicates the dilemma donors have been facing in Nepal. The sector that has received the greatest amount of disbursements is education, followed by local development and health. These are followed by road transportation and electricity, arguably more important sectors. That electricity and road transport have received less assistance than education and health illustrates the challenges donors face in funding projects that require extensive state participation and a stable political environment.

In Nepal’s context, the priority areas for fostering economic growth and development must be the power sector, followed by transport infrastructure. Not only do these two sectors have a more significant direct impact on economic growth, but their follow-on development effects are also greater than that of other sectors.

This is not to suggest that donors have got it wrong. In fact, it only suggests how poor successive Nepalese administrations have been in creating conditions conducive for the development of the electricity, road and other infrastructure sub-sectors. Donors are still putting money to work in Nepal, but largely in sectors that see less direct government involvement. Essentially, these are sectors in which it is easier for donor commitments to have greater impact.

This shift in focus started happening at the turn of the century when political instability in Nepal peaked with the heightening of tensions with the Maoists. While the proportion of funding for social sectors vis-à-vis hard infrastructure has dropped somewhat, the focus is still squarely on the former.

It is a unique predicament donors find themselves in as their hands are tied due to the political environment in the country. On the one hand, they are criticised for taking the easy way out and not doing enough to support infrastructure development. On the other, when they occasionally do try and push for reforms that can make it easier for them to commit to projects in these sectors, they are accused of trying to push their agenda and impose on governance. It is a lose-lose situation.

If they try and seek accountability through the disbursement of loans instead of grants, they are accused of burdening a poor country with further debt obligations. If, on the other hand, they provide grants instead of loans, questions relating to accountability are raised.

Our new government needs to address this issue soon, for greater donor involvement in the infrastructure sector will be a natural catalyst for the private sector to boost its participation in this sector too. For too long now, aid agencies have been blamed for misplaced focus. It would be good to remember that charity begins at home.  

(This appeared as a column in The Himalayan Times on 9 March 2014).

Keep the goats away

Benjamin Franklin, the American polymath, once wrote that nothing in this world can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. Rather unfortunately, there is also a degree of certainty over at least one plane crash in Nepal every year. Tragically, even as one year rolls into the next, and one crash follows another, nobody seems to do anything about it.

The number of people dead in these crashes has become just a statistic, and any statement by the government or the airlines in response to these accidents is almost devoid of any real concern or emotion.

Last Sunday, a Nepal Airlines Twin Otter crashed soon after it lost contact with air traffic control following its take off from Pokhara, killing all 18 people on board. Nepal Airlines naturally blamed the crash on bad weather. That simple.

The government, on its part, formed a four-member commission to investigate the cause(s) of the crash the following day, and gave it 2 months to submit its findings. Again, that simple.

Many such committees have been formed in the past, but no one has been held to account for what is just an unnecessary and tragic loss of life. Since 1991, Nepal has seen 11 plane crashes resulting in 133 fatalities. Five of these planes were serving Nepal Airlines.

We set up inquiries and commissions. That’s what we do best.

The Nepal Airlines plane that crashed on Sunday had been in service for more than 4 decades. Agreed, the Twin Otter is a hardy plane accustomed to difficult terrain and flying conditions, but one must seriously question the quality of the maintenance of these aircraft in Nepal.

Let’s not forget this is the same airline, which in 2007, sacrificed two goats in front of one of its planes – a Boeing 757 – to appease the Hindu god of sky protection, when the plane ran into technical problems at Kathmandu airport. This would have been funny if it wasn’t depressing.

Widely regarded as among the best pilots in the world, Nepalese pilots’ records today unfortunately do not stand up to scrutiny. At some level, the quality of training Nepalese pilots receive, must be questioned, as must the procedures for their hiring.

It is no secret that airlines in Nepal are cutting corners, and hence, it is imperative to ask whether they are investing enough into the quality of pilots as well as towards the maintenance of their fleet of aircraft.

Surely, the buck must stop somewhere or with someone, for besides the heart-rending loss of lives, Nepal’s shameful aviation (lack of) safety record has wider implications for the tourism industry, one of the cornerstones of the economy.

These frequent air crashes scare tourists away. It’s not hard to understand. People I know here ask me all kinds of questions about air travel in Nepal, some of which would be comical in any other context, but speak volumes about their concerns in this case. They read of these crashes in the international media; they also read that the European Union has put all of Nepal’s airlines on a blacklist and banned them from flying to the EU on safety grounds.

There is no running away from what is a pathetic track record, and the national carrier has the dubious distinction of being the leader of the pack. If only it could also take the lead in addressing some of these pressing issues, things may begin to change.

Over the last few months, we have beaten our chests and cried hoarse over the sad deaths of Nepalese workers in the Middle East and the failure of governments there to address the issue. They have been horror stories, yes. The truth is, we have our own horror story, and sacrificing goats isn’t going to help fix it. 

(This column appeared in The Himalayan Times on 23 February 2014).

Anton shakes up Singapore

Over the last couple of weeks, Singaporeans have obsessed over Anton Casey, a British wealth manager plying his trade here, for referring to a taxi driver as a “retard”, local Singaporeans as “poor people”, and for talking of having to “wash the stench of public transport off me” after traveling by train. In a video that was uploaded on YouTube later, he asked Singaporeans to not be angry with him, but “be angry with your mum and dad for raising you a wuss”.

Needless to say, his remarks angered many Singaporeans (as they should), with several calls to deport him or punish him springing up across social media platforms. (Casey has since left the country).

While on the surface, to those living outside Singapore, this may seem a trivial issue, in Singapore’s case, it has provided a vent to many who are discontented. It is also a manifestation of the biggest policy challenge the government has faced since SARS – that relating to immigration.

For a few years now, Singapore, which currently has a population of 5.4 million, has been trying to find the optimal balance between locals (includes permanent residents who are not Singapore citizens) and foreigners. Over the last decade, the resident population has increased 14 percent to 3.84 million, while the number of expats has grown by a whopping 108 percent to 1.55 million, reflecting the great influx of immigrants.

Many Singaporeans believe costs of living here have spiraled as a result of the attractive remuneration packages doled out to an increasing number of expats each year – and the effects have been particularly telling in the housing market. There is also a view that basic amenities such as the public transport system are being put under great strain as a result of the growing number of immigrants.

Some also believe that law and order in Singapore could deteriorate as many immigrants do not understand the ethos of Singapore and the Singaporean way of life. While such an insinuation is offensive at best, it ties into the belief that immigrants do not care about Singapore and are only here to make a quick buck; and that they will be the first ones to desert this ship if it were ever to sink.

On the flipside, the government contends that one of the key factors contributing to Singapore’s near miraculous development experience has been its willingness to accept immigrants. Moreover, fertility rates in Singapore are among the lowest in the world and Singapore is faced with the undesirable prospect of a declining workforce and an increasing dependency ratio, the government says.

In what is a classic chicken-and-egg scenario, the locals in turn contend that fertility rates are low only because the government has failed to keep costs of living in check and as a result, couples usually dither from having more than one child. Moreover, because of high costs, both husband and wife need to work, hence not allowing them the time to care for and bring up a child.

The issue is multi-faceted, and the Singapore government has a difficult task at its hands – balancing the needs of its economy with the aspirations of its people.

People living in Singapore need to responsible too.  Local Singaporeans, while they have reason to be disgruntled, should at some level be mindful that the very trains which they complain have become overcrowded because of immigrants, run on tracks that have been laid by immigrants themselves. On the other hand, expats have to acknowledge that they don’t owe Singapore just the taxes they pay, but also the respect due to the country and its people.

This cannot turn into an “us versus them” debate.

(This appeared as a column in The Himalayan Times on 2 February 2014).

When consensus is a problem

In the last few years, Nepal has sought consensus on various issues, but it has been elusive. Most people believe it is just round the corner, only to be disappointed repeatedly. The political parties are convinced they are within touching distance of the target, only to realise that it is in effect a moving one.

The search for consensus has proven to be futile. Immediately after the first Constituent Assembly election, the parties sought to arrive at consensus on several issues, key among which were the form of government and the basis for the federal structure of Nepal. These are major issues and each of the four key political parties has had strong views on these issues among others. Hence, assuming they will compromise on the stance on the basis of which they contested elections is rather unrealistic.

There were occasional bouts of optimism, but it all amounted to nothing as consensus could not be arrived at in almost half a decade. Ultimately, we had another election in November last year. Unfortunately, if the initial signs are anything to go by, we are likely to be repeating the same mistake again.

Sushil Koirala, president of the Nepali Congress has already stated that the parties will do their best to forge consensus on contentious issues relating to the constitution and if they fail, then they will hold a referendum nationally. The caveats are already being put in place and perhaps unknowingly, the stage is already being set for another failed attempt at writing a constitution.

In principle, forging consensus may seem like a good idea as it reflects the willingness of the political parties to be flexible in their approaches to a new constitution. However, in reality, the time that will be taken to reach the consensus sought (if reached at all), is a luxury Nepal can ill afford. It is an approach that has been tried once and failed.

In this time, governance has been ignored. It has taken a backseat for too long and the search for consensus will only prolong the state of inertia the country finds itself in.

It is time for a new approach. It is commendable that a consensus was sought. But now that it has failed to materialise, it is time to adopt a fresh approach. If the approach was not going to change following the last election in November, then we should perhaps not have had an election in the first place. With the focus squarely on the building of consensus, the election was just an event that detracted from the consensus-building process and cost the state millions of rupees.

And when do we arrive at consensus? Is it when all legislators are in agreement on something, or 500 are, or 400? One can come up with any arbitrary number and not be wrong. Or right. The point is that election results showcase people’s aspirations and it is the task of the assembly to try and bring these aspirations to fruition. This column firmly believes that all matters should be put to a vote in the assembly and key changes that are being sought in the constitution should be implemented if they are approved by a two-thirds majority, even if that means 200 members of the assembly are left dissatisfied. Even if certain complex issues require deliberation, they should at least first be put to vote in the assembly and then solutions found within the assembly and not outside of it.

All 601 members are not going to be in agreement on any single issue. In fact if they were, we’d have a problem larger than what a lack of consensus seems to be. 

(This appeared as a column in the Himalayan Times on the 18th of January, 2014).