The Bhutanese Leading the way.
When Coke writes something negative about Pepsi then Coke should tread carefully, as the inherent conflict of interest is obvious to the audience. Any claims made must be backed by solid evidence and verifiable facts; otherwise, Coke risks being dismissed as biased or even legally challenged as defamatory. The same principle holds true for competing media houses in Bhutan—credibility and journalistic integrity demand that every assertion be substantiated with clear, factual evidence, rather than speculation or vested interests.
Kuensel, on its 29th March issue, ran an article titled “State of private newspapers: Cash strapped, dependent on government support”, pointing to the Media Enterprise Development Budget (MEDB) program as not being fair, and effectively criticizing the private newspapers for taking in the program. This was followed by a Kuensel Editorial on 1st April reiterating the same points.
The Kuensel article and Editorial was littered with inaccuracies and assumptions, and in what may be a record of sorts, Kuensel had to issue two corrigenda for two days for basic factual inaccuracies in the article.
The MEDB is a government subsidy program for private newspapers which started as a printing subsidy from 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and transitioned into the MEDB from 2021-2022 onwards till date.
There is unanimous agreement among private newspapers that the MEDB program has been the most successful media intervention program till date that ensured media diversity and plurality.
The Kuensel article and Editorial erroneously asserted that the MEDB is not audited and called on the RAA to audit it.
In reality, the printing subsidy and its later avatar of MEDB undergoes rigorous financial auditing with the RAA involved.
All the private newspapers submit detailed accounts and receipts to the Bhutan Media Foundation (BMF) which implements the MEDB. The BMF does a detailed review and audit of its own, and if needed even goes through bank statements. The Department of Media, Creative Industry and Intellectual Property (DoMCIIP) also does an assessment.
The RAA then selects and appoints an External Auditor every year and sends it to Audit the BMF and its programs, which includes the MEDB. The auditor spends a week or two at BMF inspecting the accounts and receipts of programs like the MEDB. The Auditor then submits its report and findings to the RAA which spends around a month doing its own review.
After which the RAA under its official letter head writes to the BMF and issues the final reported vetted by the RAA itself which includes the MEDB.
In a testimony to the transparency and effectiveness of this program, the RAA has not uncovered a single audit issue since 2018 till date when it comes to the MEDB.
As asserted by Kuensel in its Editorial, the MEDB is not a ‘direct cash incentive,’ but the money is first allocated to the DoMCIIP which also oversees this fund. It then sets up terms and conditions and overall monitoring, and issues the fund to the BMF for implementation. The BMF was deliberately put in between as an independent media CSO to monitor and administer this program so that there is no direct contact between the government and the private media.
The MEDB, itself, is budgeted in the national budget and also has to follow the budgetary norms and oversight of the Ministry of Finance.
Another error in the article is it asserts that private radio stations were initially considered for funding, but the print media outlets opposed their inclusion.
The article has probably mixed up the MEDB with the content grant support that was given for a while to print, radio and TV, which the print media never opposed.
Radio, which is a different medium with a mainly entertainment based content of songs, was never considered for the MEDB.
This is apparent as the very name of the fund started as a ‘Printing Subsidy’ that private papers wanted from the government and got since BICMA had mandated a large number of minimum copies to be printed. It is not clear what radio stations would do with a ‘printing subsidy.’
This would be like the private newspapers demanding a share of the support being planned or given by DoMCIIP to the recently merged OTT platforms like Samuh, Shangreela and Songyala or to the Film Industry which are different mediums.
The printing subsidy cheques, in the beginning, were directly sent from BMF to Kuensel who had no complaints or issues at the time. If it was really serious about its stance against MEDB then it should have turned down those cheques from the BMF. It is one thing to quietly accept the cheques and then write against it too.
The article says the DoMCIIP proposed a merit based system for MEDB with a base fund and an additional percentage based on performance, and the private papers rejected it.
This is a misleading characterization as the papers rejected the new system due to the onerous red tape that it entailed and would require the hiring of additional people just to meet these regulations which even Kuensel and BBS do not have, despite their manpower. If DoMCIIP had proposed a simpler merit based system then it would have been accepted.
The article questions the MEDB subsidy given to the private papers saying many of them have ‘wealthy owners,’ and goes on to say that the ‘affluent owners’ should reinvest in their business reducing their dependence on government support. It took the pains to list the shareholders.
It is another issue that Kuensel had to issue two corrigenda after listing owners who are not wealthy as being wealthy, getting the number of shareholders wrong in a paper and getting the business status and name of a paper wrong.
Kuensel had never asked the private papers on how much the owners have already invested heavily into the papers, and if it had bothered to, it would have found out that most of the major owners and shareholders have sunk in millions, have taken large loans, and in a couple of cases, even given up prime property in Thimphu and Paro to invest in the papers.
Kuensel also does not seem to be familiar with the concept of limited liability, which means an owner’s liability is limited to their ownership of the shares in a company and it cannot extend beyond it.
Ironically, while Kuensel was pointing to some of the ‘wealthy owners’ of the private papers, it itself has 49% private ownership and these include major business houses and wealthy individuals.
The Kuensel shareholders include the owners of Bhutan’s top business house the Tashi Group’s Tobgyal Dorji and Wangchuk Dorji. It also has the MD of the Yarkay Group and prominent business woman Aum Phub Zam. Others are Ashi Kesang W. Wangchuck, Tenzin Yonten, Wangcha Sangay and family, etc.
As acknowledged by the current Finance Secretary, in an earlier article, Kuensel itself receives major subsidy support from the government in the form of “getting a lot of the government’s business whether it is printing or anything.”
Given its 51% government ownership, a lot of government agencies prefer to give it printing jobs and advertisements making Kuensel the largest recipient of government subsidy and support, not to mention earlier government support in securing its land, early printing press machines, infrastructure, printing press in the East, etc.
If Kuensel is to question the MEDB subsidy shared among six private newspapers, then questions must be also be asked why should the government favor Kuensel which has private shareholders who are among the richest people in Bhutan and benefit through generous dividends due to such state subsidies and support.
Another issue with the article is that it pigeonholes all the private media as one. It says that while salaries are generally paid on time, financial constraints have led to delays of two to three months. The Bhutanese, on its part, has never delayed the staff salary by even a single day in the last 10 years.
The article says the private media is heavily reliant on government advertising, but this is the case for all media outlets including Kuensel and BBS, as the government is the largest advertiser at this stage of the nation’s economic development. The dependency is even higher for Kuensel which depends on government printing and advertisement to stay alive.
The piece calls into question the MEDB and instead recommends the Media Endowment Fund to support the media. However, this does not make sense as if Kuensel is against government intervention to help private papers then the Media Endowment Fund calls for even larger injection of government funds to create a Nu 100 million fund. The only difference being that Kuensel would be eligible under the Media Endowment Fund. By this logic government funding seems to be okay for Kuensel as long as Kuensel is also a beneficiary.
Despite no audit issues, no legal issue and no ethical issues since the start of MEDB, the Editorial injects doubt into the MEDB opining that there is risk of misuse. This is pure speculation with no basis in fact.
While Kuensel rails against the BMF implemented MEDB, it fails to mention that the new Kuensel building has benefitted due to some infrastructure put in place via funding secured by the BMF.
Also, while the article mentions that Gyalchi Sharshog is getting support for 300 copies subscription supported by the Department of Dzongkha and Culture, it fails to mention that Kuensel Dzongkha itself is getting similar support.
If Kuensel’s prescription of no state support is to be taken seriously then it must start from itself. The government, if necessary, must privatize Kuensel and remove its subsidization of Kuensel through direct printing jobs and advertisement preference so that there is a level playing field in the media.
At that point, MEDB and any other state support can also be removed for the private media.
Kuensel calls for introducing policy reforms that will ensure long term sustainability for the media. This is something that the private media houses have themselves been saying.
In that spirit, Kuensel should have no problem in supporting the private media calling on the government to implement its own Report and Strategy called the Private Newspapers Sustainability Report, commissioned by the then Department of Information and Media (and now DoMCIIP) in 2015. The report says advertisement is declining and most advertisement is given to state media. If Kuensel genuinely supports sustainability, it should endorse this evidence-based reform rather than selectively targeting the MEDB.
The solution proposed by the 2015 government report to help private newspapers is reengineering the distribution of government advertising funds through an Advertising Placement Board (APB) which would decide how much funds should be allocated between state owned media and private media. Advertisement would then be given based on the reach of the private media.
A more responsible approach would be to engage in constructive policy dialogue rather than disseminating misleading narratives as done in the Kuensel article and Editorial.
