The number of members of the opposition party standing up against the direct appointment of BBS MD Tshering Wangchuk, by the government during the Parliament session, as aired during BBS News session yesterday was really appalling( The discussion was murky but perhaps that is just a reflection of a society that we are turning into.

Democracy was gifted by our Monarchs to empower people by involving them in the functioning of the State, but since 2008, people have unreasonably abused the freedom vested in them. Does anyone realize how negative we have turned and how engaged everybody is in finger pointing blame games? It makes me wonder where all the peace loving and tooth-baring Bhutanese that once used to be have gone? Our once longsighted, peripheral vision has escaped us and what remains of it just sees our short term longings. Everybody seems to be grouped in one political party or the other, including the ones pretentiously unbiased as required by their posts, depending on who will serve your interests better than the other, and for some section of the society, who can afford a fitting zipper for their lips! For businessmen, they eternally and faithfully stand by the party that wins. I have turned paranoid to the extent that if you told me, I would easily believe that even the dogs in T-town have vouched their loyalty to different parties!

What then of the “Tha Dam tshe” to the Tsa-wa-sum? What then of our children and their children? Are they just ideologies to be fitted into long, boring speeches?

If you have noticed, Bhutanese people are all fart and no shit! They will splatter over the social media forums under the masks of anonymity and bask in mirth at other’s downfall, and you will be shocked at the backstabbers that they can turn out to be! It’s all in the patterns dude! Remove their masks and they will scurry off with their tails in between their legs.

This brings me back to wonder why MPs were lunging at each other, like flies swarming over a pound of rotting flesh, over the BBS MD’s appointment unless in that coveted post rests so many vendettas; both personal and political.

BBS maybe owned by the government but as a public service broadcaster, it must fulfill both national and social mandates. However, since the advent of democracy, there seems to be changes at BBS too that is too dramatic to be ignored, and guess what? Lump the social and national mandates, because they have got their favourites too – within and without; that is far too evident to be missed.

Alignment of a National Broadcasting service with any political party is unacceptable but kudos to BBS editors for specifically sensationalizing the discussion of the appointment of their own head of the company! Speaks so much about where their loyalties lie. They may reason out as being transparent but I would seriously doubt that!

What appears to me is that it is not so much about the process of appointment than it is about who is being appointed. I do not necessarily believe in processes laid down in hiring a person, especially for an executive post, to be the absolutely correct measure because look at what these processes have done to our roads, drainage systems and to the quality of many other public facilities. People are handpicked for esteemed organizations and valued projects based on an individual’s merits such as integrity and capability. And if the current MD of BBS is chosen for these reasons and in good faith by the government, I don’t see any reason why his appointment should be contested otherwise, unless fears are rampant that he may steer BBS in a direction that wishful dreamers would no longer fancy. The Opposition Party’s stand on fairness in process, though technically correct, appears intentionally dubious.

And the fact that BBS has made efforts to air his appointment discussion lavishly is indicative of the kind of turf the editors at BBS and the MD are at. One can’t help but sympathize with the MD but here’s hoping that he will justify his meritorious appointment and transform BBS into an institution that is much more responsible to the public as an informant, by broadcasting information as it is, and letting the public form their own opinion rather than the seeming current practice of forming opinions and hammering them onto the public.
0 Responses

Post a Comment