Saturday, September 21, 2013

Some Suggestions for Tenancy Act

It’s a noble initiative on the part of the government to table the Tenancy Act for amendment as it concerns with almost half the population in the country. Tenancy Act enacted in 2004 has failed to serve the intended purpose for various reasons. Unless, some concrete measures or shortfalls are addressed adequately, even if the Act is amended, it may not serve the much needed remediation. It is learned that the main reason for failure is on the implementation part. However, there are also other grounds which require equal attention for the successful implementation of Tenancy Act.

Being a tenant myself for many years, I feel that the following issues are required to be addressed for effective implementation of Tenancy Act;     

1.  Among the beneficiaries of Tenancy Act, people living in towns constitute the major part. It is imperative that focus must be given in the context urban population. With little additional manpower, the existing Thromdeys or municipal offices should able take the responsibility of effective implementation. A dispute settlement body should also be constituted amongst the officers of a municipal office. Effective mechanism to implement and the system of check and balance should also be in place.
2.  Although the cardinal rule of demand & supply should prevail in a market, the rental business should not be left to its own tune like other commodities as it matters with the basic necessities and welfare of the people. When the supplies outstrip demands, the house rents are automatically checked. But such situation is highly unlikely to take place in general looking at the scenario and trends. While it is understandable that owners need to pay to the bank for the loans they have availed to built buildings, it’s in most cases the owners are overtaken by greed to have more. The desire to liquidate loans in a short period of time at the cost of underprivileged tenants has also been a common practice. As there’s no dearth of tenant (not because one can pay but out of no choice), owners hike rents as and when they wishes. Certain frame work of guidelines should be drawn to avoid unreasonable hike of rent by the owners at their whims.      
3.  In most cases, it’s the owners who would choose not to draw agreements with tenants for some obvious reasons. A tenant cannot ask the owner for entering into an agreement as it would take to mean aggression or imply challenging the owner. Therefore, a system should be developed wherein the owners should be responsible for drawing agreement with tenants. This can be regulated by the concerned municipal offices. A mandatory record of copy of tenancy agreements should also be maintained at the municipal offices. Certain penalties should be levied who fail to draw the agreements.
4.  The existing Tenancy Act requires specifying duration of a rental agreement. This I think should be done away with as this condition would give the owners the liberty to evict the existing tenant and hike the rent at his whims when next tenant is entered. Besides, such condition would also pose difficulty to the tenant as he would have to find flat elsewhere after the expiry of agreement, which, in most cases is not easy to get one.  
5.  The termination of agreement or eviction should be effected only on conditions when a tenant is transferred; when tenant misbehave or pose threat to the neighbors; when the owner wanted to take the flat for his own use; when the tenant did not pay the rent on time; and on other such similar conditions.
6.  Under no circumstance except as mentioned above should the tenant subject to eviction by owners. This is important as most tenants deprive of secure and peaceful home stay due to harassment and threat of eviction by owners for no apparent reasons.
7.  In some places, owners give the responsibilities of renting a building to a caretaker. The caretaker, at his whims, fixes the rent abnormally high and takes the advantage at the mercy of tenant. This duplication of renting and re-renting should be stopped.   
8.  For the convenience of the owners and for those who are looking for house, it’s also desirable to have a centralized information system where an owner can advertise any vacant flats and where tenant can find a flat easily. Preferably a website dedicated for this cause should be launched by the concerned offices. This should be for free of costs as it may not attract the owners to come forth for advertisement.
9.  I have witnessed an incident where a tenant was forced to vacate the flat after she talked against an owner on the certain amount of fee the owners asked the tenant to pay. The tenant had no option but to vacate. Apart from rent, owners should not collect any forms of fees or contribution. Some owners are found collecting inflated water & electric bills, other fees for miscellaneous services such as cleaning of building etc. To curb such ill practices, certain penalty should also be provisioned.
10.With the present circumstance, a tenant cannot demand the owner to rectify certain defects in a rented apartment. It’s less bothered by owners irrespective what needs to be maintained in a flat. The tenant should be empowered with certain rights to decent living conditions such as proper maintenance of house and other services.
11.To cut the expenditure, most owners do not plan the sanitary and water supply scheme properly. As a result, the tenant faces the difficulty of water shortage due to poor planning and other associated   problems. The municipal offices should ensure that such problems are addressed adequately.          

For some, Tenancy Act may not make difference but most people who are at the lowest denominator in terms of financial income which in fact constitutes the major part of tenant population would be greatly benefited. Therefore, it’s my hope that the present government’s initiation of amendment of Tenancy Act would help many innocent people to alleviate their sufferings because of skyrocketing house rent and harassment from owners.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

PDP’s Austerity Measures - A source of threat to the Nation?

Going by the ‘initial runs’ of the PDP government, it has posed itself to earn the doubt of incompetency in the minds of the people. Within the two months of governance, all PDP could do is remove Pedestrian Day at the First ever cabinet meeting which in essence should have left above politics; dented the nation’s image and stature with PM and his full cabinet stooping too low (in reception) to Indian ambassador on its 1st Official working day (which some say could be first case in the world); snubbed the pledge of ‘PM taking the additional charge of a minister’s post’ as promised during election campaign; and took on the ‘austerity measures’ designed to blindfold the general public.

PDP’s cabinet went on to cast spell on the people perhaps to cushion the guilt of wrongdoings and their incompetence through their well devised ‘austerity measures.’ Under this slogan, the cabinet has decided to forgo with entitled new duty vehicles for the time being, take no pay hike for the ministers and executed other ancillary cost cutting measures. It may help lessen the pressure to the government exchequer by saving few hundred thousand but it is definitely not significant at national level and does not warrant such move at this point of time. From the façade, this austerity measures adopted by the government may appear appealing to the most common people’s eyes but if one contemplates, it’s not as wholesome as it appears. In fact it is an obstacle to a vibrant democracy.

There was no need for such action in the first place as the spending on ministerial cabinet in Bhutan could be one of the least in the world. In fact, it could be less than the expenditure incurred for a small organization. A grade 6 equivalent employee (non national) in a government Project earns about Nu. 150,000 per month. For a ministerial post, it deserves much higher than this. Of course there are people who always squabble over the remuneration of ministers & MPs. It will be there so long as democracy exists but that does not mean government should refrain from hiking the pay of cabinet or annul their benefits.  

One of the main proven reasons of corruption worldwide is meagre remuneration. The PDP’s ‘cost cutting measures’ has in fact exposed the members to more possible corruption. With authority and power in their disposal, it is just a matter switching to corrupt mode. This is also pertinent given the fact that MPs have no future as there’s no security for their livelihood after the termination of a term. Men are highly irrational and are susceptible to change at any given point of time in a given circumstance. If ministers are not remunerated adequately, the nation would suffer in some ways.   

The Ministerial posts are a platform where actors (politicians) come, display and go. Irrespective of who comes to power, the posts will remain forever. It’s in the interest of the nation to make this platform attractive so that good leaders would come. Therefore the PDP’s cost cutting measures would also mean manipulating the stature of platform (ministerial posts) which would thwart the aspiring politicians in future. With such circumstance, the capable leaders who are eying on politics may not turn up to take the posts. It will be than those people with money who are hungry for power would take the platform which I believe is not desirable for a vibrant democracy.  

As some believe, PDP’s austerity measures have the potential to incur more indirect costs to the nation in various forms than what has declared as savings.            
      
Though the country faces rupee crunch which in essence is the part and parcel of economic growth, the PDP’s generalization of economic crisis and reason for austerity measure is out of context. Bhutan never suffers from economic downturn to the extent of taking such measures which in fact involved only about 0.5million saving per month. It’s like when the whole business is about a million ngultrum deal, so much noise is made for few Chhetrum which by virtue of value does not warrant devotion of time and effort. Therefore, the so called austerity measures are nothing but propaganda designed to play with the sentiments of the people.