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).