Home > Opinion > The other side of the ban

The other side of the ban

9 November 2009

If ‘seeing is believing’, then certainly something is gone awry somewhere with banning of things. Just look at how many ‘bans’ we had and how effective they are.
It started with the plastic ban on April 20, 1999. Selling and using of plastic bags were banned. Shopkeepers were told that they would be fined if they sell or use plastic bags. “Use paper bags instead,” the law-makers even supplied an alternative. But paper bags were scarce, expensive and fragile and customers demanded plastic bags. “Plastic bags are banned,” some shopkeepers retorted. But it did not work. There were always other shopkeepers who sold, used and pleased their customers by packing their things in plastic bags. Plastic ban took a back seat. Knowing that plastic ban is ineffective, lawmakers reinstated the ban on the same commodity on July 1, 2009.
Just make a visit to Hontsho, and we see how effective the ban is. Rows and rows of apples are packed in transparent plastic bags. Nobody cares about the ban.
Selling of meat on auspicious days was banned by Livestock Act in 2001. The idea was to discourage people from eating meat (at least on auspicious days) since it involved slaughtering of animals. But meat vendors tripled up their stock a few days before the day of the ban would begin and tripled up their profits by selling it to the meat consumers, who tripled up their meat supply.
If the main objective of the ban was to save the lives of animals, then surely the strategy requires rethinking. In some parts of the country, it never worked since they got ready supply from across the borders. The meat ban was imposed again in May 2009. But as far as meat lovers are concerned, they still consume meat, ban or no ban, auspicious or non-auspicious days.
Then there is December 17, 2004 – the day when Bhutan made headline on the BBC News for banning the sale of tobacco products in Bhutan.
Physicians applauded and tobacco lovers smacked. Shopkeepers condoned and black marketers rejoiced. “Let’s wait and see,” everyone said. Five years down the line we still see tobacco in all its shapes and forms. There are only two differences between ‘before’ and ‘after’ the ban. Before the ban, the tobacco business was overt and cheap. After the ban, it became covert and costly. One day Bhutan will make headline again.
When the new currency notes were circulated, the RMA blared a stern warning: notes are not to be folded or crumpled or written upon or soiled. These notes have been barely one year in circulation and we see crumpled notes, folded notes, notes written upon and some notes inked beyond recognition. Who is accountable for all these? And why do the banks accept these notes?
Private tuitions were banned too – at least in theory. But many teachers in Thimphu are digging gold these days. Parents struggle to pay the tuition fees but they don’t mind. Who wouldn’t like to see their children fairing well in examinations anyway? Teachers don’t mind because they mint money. Students don’t mind because it is not them who have to bear the expenses.
Education Ministry doesn’t mind because it doesn’t receive any written complaints. How about banning the ban?
Selling of alcohol to children below 18 years is banned by law, but bar tenders never question the age of buyers so long as the customers pay. It is also not strange to see some bar tenders as young as seven years old in some bars. And worse, nobody cares if the law is being enforced. Look at the irony of the ban.
Child labour is banned too. Make a visit to the automobile workshops or some restaurants and you see children as young as eleven years old, working for their maliks. And then we have the issue of baby-sitters. How old do you think they are?

If ‘seeing is believing’, then certainly something is gone awry somewhere with banning of things. Just look at how many ‘bans’ we had and how effective they are.

It started with the plastic ban on April 20, 1999. Selling and using of plastic bags were banned. Shopkeepers were told that they would be fined if they sell or use plastic bags. “Use paper bags instead,” the law-makers even supplied an alternative. But paper bags were scarce, expensive and fragile and customers demanded plastic bags. “Plastic bags are banned,” some shopkeepers retorted. But it did not work. There were always other shopkeepers who sold, used and pleased their customers by packing their things in plastic bags. Plastic ban took a back seat. Knowing that plastic ban is ineffective, lawmakers reinstated the ban on the same commodity on July 1, 2009.

Just make a visit to Hontsho, and we see how effective the ban is. Rows and rows of apples are packed in transparent plastic bags. Nobody cares about the ban.

Selling of meat on auspicious days was banned by Livestock Act in 2001. The idea was to discourage people from eating meat (at least on auspicious days) since it involved slaughtering of animals. But meat vendors tripled up their stock a few days before the day of the ban would begin and tripled up their profits by selling it to the meat consumers, who tripled up their meat supply.

If the main objective of the ban was to save the lives of animals, then surely the strategy requires rethinking. In some parts of the country, it never worked since they got ready supply from across the borders. The meat ban was imposed again in May 2009. But as far as meat lovers are concerned, they still consume meat, ban or no ban, auspicious or non-auspicious days.

Then there is December 17, 2004 – the day when Bhutan made headline on the BBC News for banning the sale of tobacco products in Bhutan.

Physicians applauded and tobacco lovers smacked. Shopkeepers condoned and black marketers rejoiced. “Let’s wait and see,” everyone said. Five years down the line we still see tobacco in all its shapes and forms. There are only two differences between ‘before’ and ‘after’ the ban. Before the ban, the tobacco business was overt and cheap. After the ban, it became covert and costly. One day Bhutan will make headline again.

When the new currency notes were circulated, the RMA blared a stern warning: notes are not to be folded or crumpled or written upon or soiled. These notes have been barely one year in circulation and we see crumpled notes, folded notes, notes written upon and some notes inked beyond recognition. Who is accountable for all these? And why do the banks accept these notes?

Private tuitions were banned too – at least in theory. But many teachers in Thimphu are digging gold these days. Parents struggle to pay the tuition fees but they don’t mind. Who wouldn’t like to see their children fairing well in examinations anyway? Teachers don’t mind because they mint money. Students don’t mind because it is not them who have to bear the expenses.

Education Ministry doesn’t mind because it doesn’t receive any written complaints. How about banning the ban?

Selling of alcohol to children below 18 years is banned by law, but bar tenders never question the age of buyers so long as the customers pay. It is also not strange to see some bar tenders as young as seven years old in some bars. And worse, nobody cares if the law is being enforced. Look at the irony of the ban.

Child labour is banned too. Make a visit to the automobile workshops or some restaurants and you see children as young as eleven years old, working for their maliks. And then we have the issue of baby-sitters. How old do you think they are?

By Dorji Wangchuk

Ratings: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...
Email this page Email this page     Print this page Print this page    

Posted by Bhutan Observer · Filed Under Opinion 

Comments

3 Responses to “The other side of the ban”

  1. Galay_Rabten on November 9th, 2009 2:46 pm

    I think our visionary law-makers needs to do little homework. All they come up is with a rhetorical laws which rarelly dovetails with the reality. For the usage of plastics, it would be better off promoting awarness among the consumers than enforsing shoopkeepers not to use plastics.
    As for the banning of tobacco and its recent repeal, it has been nothing more than policy-makers exhibiting themselves a center of ridicule with abusers and smugglers grinning at them.

  2. Kota on November 10th, 2009 10:05 am

    if the bans are not working! I guess we need to scratch our heads too. When we point fingers at policy makers, mind you we are also implicated. We all should do our part of following it. I guess the bans were not put in place by one man, when a policy is made it is always a group of eminent people and for general good.

    So instead of blaming, why don’t we do our part of following it. Eg. even if the shopkeeper gives plastic bag, refuse it. Don’t buy meat on auspicious dates, don’t send your sons/daughters for tutions etc.

    By doing this we would at least be doing our part

  3. Bangchu on November 13th, 2009 2:15 pm

    well, banning has become fashion here!!!…..yeah, we really need to rethink all these bans! It should be practical and implementable….But our law maker will not adhere to it….they rather become emotional and rhetorical when some propose practical solutions…simple example is when agriculture ministry proposed to lift ban on sale of meats during auspicious month, some MPs become so emotional and others were easily influenced! Thus we still have to continue with failed ban!….in fact, we are all hypocrites!!!

Leave your comment





Note: Comments are moderated by Bhutan Observer, and may not appear until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.