Prevent misuse of state funds

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has ordered the Home Ministry to produce details on the ministry’s use of state funds to charter private helicopters for use in Maoist affected areas. This is certainly a good move on the part of PAC for there is no doubt reason to suspect misuse of state funds here. However, if past experience with such orders from PAC is anything to go by, it will not be surprising if this order also ends up being another mere formality meant for mass consumption.

Apparently the amount spent on the charters has well exceeded the price of the helicopter itself. In other words, it would have made more sense to purchase a new helicopter than to charter it. What has raised doubts about the helicopter charters is the fact that these expenses have not been audited. Apart from this, it is also known to all that the Home minister along with ministry officials have also been using state funds under the "secret" category for various unspecified reasons. The Home Ministry has also spent more than 32 million rupees without keeping any record of the expenses. Since it is a secret fund and the expense need not be accounted, it has been apparently easy to misuse it. Unfortunately, PAC has not made any effort to disclose whether the fund was used to finance political support or personal expenses even though there appeared to be enough evidence of misuse.

Home Ministry documents show that during the last six months of the current fiscal year, it has spent more than 81.9 million rupees for chartering private helicopters. In the last fiscal year, the ministry spent over 180 million rupees for the same purpose. While a helicopter does not cost more than 90 million rupees, the government has spent more than double this amount. How did Nepal police under the Home Ministry spend so much money just to ferry personnel to and from Maoist affected areas? Why did the Ministry not go for a new helicopter and instead, prefer to charter helicopters? These questions have not been answered, but the facts must come out and as long as they don’t it will be presumed that the home minister and his officials were involved in misusing state funds.

The manner in which different ministries have been misusing state funds, especially after the restoration of democracy, has become an overriding concern. Neither PAC nor the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) has managed to take action against those who are involved. It appears that there is very little that can be done to book the culprits as long as the bodies that are supposed to take action against them remain without adequate power. In this regard, the government would also do well to set up a separate independent body with enough powers to take action against those misusing state funds.

Institutionalising eco-friendly growth

By Mohan Lohani

Until recently, development strategies in many third world countries have remained heavily weighted in favour of economic growth. In this context, considerable significance has been attached to the role of the private sector in undertaking the growth-related activities. The integration of environmental concerns into development strategies received little or no attention and even low priority. Fortunately, in recent years, it is being increasingly realised that there is a close nexus between the sustainability of economic development and the need to protect the fragile eco-system or the delicate environment. The importance of such nexus is emphatically reflected in government policies, plans and programmes.

Environmental awareness is not enough if it is not matched by the capacity to integrate environmental concerns into economic decision making processes. The question arises, do developing countries have necessary institutional set up or mechanisms to strike a balance between economic growth and the environment and, finally, to ensure the integration of the two? An ESCAP report describes such institutional mechanisms as being crucial, for they not only comprise formal rules and standards, informal norms, and the organizational structure that defines and enforces the rules but also provide the government or governments with instruments to frame and implement policies. No institution, however, becomes efficient by itself unless it enjoys clearly defined powers and functions including allocation of financial and human resources to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to it. Besides, much depends on the seriousness of purpose, strong will and commitment of political leadership.

The report of World Commission on Environment and Development known as the Brundtland Commission categorically calls upon governments to make the key national, economic and sectoral agencies directly responsible and accountable for ensuring that their policies, programmes and budgets support development that is economically and ecologically sustainable. Mention should also be made of the Rio Declaration adopted by the Earth Summit in 1993, which emphasises the need for ensuring the integration of economic, social and environmental considerations in decision making at all levels, a cross-sectoral approach to planning, the adoption of integrated management systems, the strengthening of data collection, the adoption of national strategies for sustainable development and capacity building through training, education and research programmes.

In Nepalese context, there are institutions such as the National Planning Commission and the Ministry of Population and Environment to deal with environment matters. Besides, there are a large number of NGOs actively engaged in enhancing public awareness of environmental issues and cautioning the government against the execution of projects, mostly hydropower, that are not environmentally safe and sustainable.

An ESCAP report mentioned above describes Nepal as an environmentally vulnerable country but appreciates, at the same time, growing public awareness of the need for effective measures and mechanisms to prevent further degradation of the environment. One such measure was the enactment by parliament of an Environment Protection Bill in 1997. What is important is its effective implementation backed by a coordinated and integrated approach at all levels such as various agencies of the government, DDCs and VDCs, the private sector and NGOs.

Environmentalists associated with national and international organizations have welcomed the establishment in Nepal of a high level Environment Protection Council under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The Council’s success and effectiveness lies in establishing and ensuring institutional linkages between concerned ministries and their departments and agencies as well as between the central level agencies and the development agencies at the district and village level. Despite all necessary institutional arrangements including a high level policy making body headed by the Prime Minister, institution building in Nepal, be it related to the environment or any other national issues, continues to be hamstrung by a shortage of trained manpower and expertise.

A UN financed country study on Nepal points out that coordination aimed at protecting and preserving the environment is not possible without a proper understanding of the relevant tools and methodologies for balancing and integrating various interrelated and interdependent issues and concerns. The study strongly recommends that environment should not be viewed in isolation as it is inseparable from development strategies leading to economic growth. The study further recommends that the same ministry or department, however well staffed and resourceful, cannot be, at the same time, a policy making and implementing agency. In other words, the role of the Ministry of Population and Environment should be confined to formulating feasible policy measures, ensuring intersectoral coordination and facilitating legislation for growth related environmental protection. It is the job of line agencies under the Ministry to implement policy decisions as expeditiously as possible. There has been a lot of drum beating for many years about decentralization in Nepal. In fact, the time has come when all laws aimed at empowering the local bodies to take decisions affecting their development including protection of the environment and implement them effectively and efficiently should be enforced without further delay.

Live-in relationship

By Amit Basnet

The very phrase, "Live-in relationship", is a taboo in our so called society. The society is always ready to throw stones, when failure and ill-lucks gather around our heads, and it’s never there to congratulate when one of the members comes out with flying colours.

People hesitate to talk about and pens wonder what to pour out? In an advanced vicinity of the western part of the globe, it looks inevitable. But we, the "Brave Gorkhalis" are still on the brink of superstitions, dogma and certain norms and values that always bind us from everywhere. This, of course, is a matter of reverence but not always. We like to follow our moral values that befit our culture. We are not the kind who swell at hugging and kissing at places to show our affection. A joint posture of hands is a trademark of Nepalese greeting. The Westerners may discover it as a subject bound to mockery. Anyway, we have our hands filled with such customs that will always go in the days to come.

A boy likes a girl and vice-versa. They find out something they like of each other and are avid to discover more and more. They perform their tasks in the similar fashion, go to office or college at the same pace and ease. Nothing’s changed except for they flourished the true passion of mankind-- love -- in them. They land up sharing the same roof and what not. As the saying goes, sharing is loving; and it seems quite rational for them to do so. This is the basic criteria of any live-in relationship.

The love birds go on like this and ultimately bust off when the relationship turns out to be relation-shit.

The previous amity vanishes into thin air. Still, no hassles. They find another mate and the phenomenon repeats itself.

Now if this was to happen in the context of our country, you can well figure out the alarming rate of increase in the already rising suicidal cases. And we all know that the only way left out for a frustrated person is to kill oneself. The future pillars of the nation, ie, the youth, will ruin their lives and the fate of the country as well. They will become cases of Schizophrenia rather than being the responsible person of creative works. Their entity will be lost. And in the absence of it, they will be living dead, walking alive. To customize the ‘live-in relationship’ is an arduous job. To appreciate something and to practice it in a day-to-day life are like two faces of the same coin that will never see each other.

The "millennium thing" is hitting every individual. And we the Nepalese are never an exception. On top of that, we are so fine at imitating. So, many of the youth may copy the live-in relationship as their millennium resolution. This is no way going to help us. If you are really eager, land up in some foreign land and have the relationship with an alien flesh once and for all.

To an orthodox Nepalese, "live-in relationship" sounds more like a "live in inn" thing.

Right call, wrong signal

By P Kharel

National consensus has become a familiar phrase in Nepalese political circle. It is almost exclusively emphasised by the ruling party of the day. The last ten years tell us so. Indeed, national consensus can be relevant only when it is put into practice, and the prime task of taking initiatives towards the same is that of the government. In a partisan climate, this is easier said than achieved. Politicisation of professional organisations, students, teachers, civil servants and the like constitutes the main stumbling block against a congenial atmosphere as issues are viewed on partisan line rather than on its actual value or urgency.

Blind partisanship becomes the bane of the general public psyche. Such is the situation that people wanting to win contracts/tenders or appointments, transfers to "lucrative" and/or convenient posts and similar other jobs make a beeline for the politically influential personalities.

Numerous individuals are given jobs at different institutions and projects on temporary basis. How the selection is made without any public notices under the heading "Wanted" is anybody’s guess. It is more than a coincidence that most of these hand-picked employees succeed in eventually acquiring the status of permanent appointees.

Familiar pattern: When professionals and employees are encouraged and rewarded on party lines, the call for a culture of consensus and cooperation gets confined to the world of a mirage. The past decade has shown that the existing appointment process is faulty. Clearly, the call of the hour is for the right person in the right place. Those without the credentials and capacity to legitimately fill a post try to shield their shortcomings with the argument that they are working for the "party". They describe themselves "politically deserving" to compensate for what they lack by way of professional credentials. A bigger problem arises when these mediocre people begin believing in their own pretensions. They become overnight experts, managers, intellectuals - the list is long.

We have been witness to the spoils system at its worst. Instead of appointments being guided on the basis of individual experience and expertise, the policy is to assess as to how consistently the individuals concerned have been extending unqualified support to the party programmes and how vehemently the policies of others are criticised or condemned. Such a pool of experts and intellectuals, who are in the habit of giving a holiday to their critical faculties, do not deserve positions that demand constructive initiatives with commitment to the declared objectives. Should the intelligentsia in a society function with a consistency for uncritical thinking, development practices sink to shameful depths, with creativity and fair deal mercilessly sacrificed at the altar of a political culture devoid of democratic norms and values.

In a society where job opportunities are few, it is no surprise that the comfort and safety of privileged posts should be a source of envy to many.

Accompanied by recommendations or applications for jobs, promotions, tenders, scholarships and assistance of every conceivable shape and form, sycophants say they are willing to do anything for party and leader(s). They introduce themselves as "devoted party workers", "long-time suffering party workers", "helpful in elections" or the son/daughter/relative of some important political name of the past or the present. They pitch their camps in the premises of the residences of the sources of their "faith".

Damage: When such approach works, people get the wrong signal, convinced that political patronage is essential for "survival" and hence the rush to seek refuge in the membership of one political party or the other. This leads to a culture of playing mischief at the top and causing misery at the bottom, thus derailing any professed policy of equal opportunity. The now-defunct policy of selective enforcement of compulsory retirement of civil servants and employees in government-owned corporations did a great damage, prompting people to run anywhere and everywhere for "protection" from parties and politicians. The worst of the nightmare is long over but its repercussions continue even today.

Against such a background, people relapse into their usual cynicism every time something intended as dramatic is announced without anything substantial to match it with the promised performance. The last ten years should lead us to a train of reflections on political jaywalking. Worthy ideas floated by even political rivals should not be dismissed merely for the sake of opposition. Political leaders should refrain from being addicted to uncritical praise.

Hangars-on hankering for fulfilment of personal and petty interests make frequent pilgrimages to residences of political bigwigs. This class of people pretend to be alike in the taste and thought of their "leader". It would not be surprising even if they claimed to resemble the "leader" in both face and figure. They also resort to an array of amazing and amusing antics to demonstrate "loyalty and commitment" for attracting attention.

Their sole interest is to curry favours with the presiding "deity" at the temple of power. They want to get things done their way by any means, right, not-so-right or outright wrong. Desperate, distrustful and dangerous, such people should be kept at arm’s length. Neither should philosophy desert politicians nor expediency overpower them.

The call of the hour is for carefully planned and calmly executed policies where merit, competence and commitment to work-culture take precedence over narrow considerations that only act as a bulwark against development strides. Unless and until the existing anomalies are completely corrected, the much called for congenial atmosphere for enlisting cooperation from different sections for the cause of national development will continue to be elusive, no matter which party is in power.

Without comment: Prof Dr Shyam Kant Silwal, quoted in Samakaleen weekly, "Someone appointed on the basis of nepotism and favouritism can do nothing (of substance)."