Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Committing on the front foot

Thought for the day
“A wise ruler ought never to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interests.”
-          Niccolo Machiavelli (Italian, 1469-1527)
Word for the day
Comely (adj)
Pleasing or agreeable to the sight; good-looking.
(Source: Dictionary.com)
Teaser for the day
What is more important--
(a)   Know to drive or having driving license;
(b)   Having PUC or keeping vehicle clean;
(c)   Playing or watching sports on TV;
(d)   Becoming a parent or having a child;
(e)   Learning or passing exam?

Committing on the front foot

The cricket enthusiast would know that many good batsmen, who could have become great but did not just because they had the bad habit of committing to a stroke much before the ball pitched in front of them. Vinod Kambli is one such classic example.
As I suggested yesterday, many of the Modi government ministers are making the committing the same mistake.
Our health minister Dr Harsh Vardhan, in all his sincerity and with good intentions has suggested steep hike in cigarette prices to discourage smoking. The proposed hike as per his suggestion will result in additional tax revenue of Rs3800crores.
Now look at the internal contradictions and paradox in his suggestion.
(a)   Is he conceptually clear about what he wants to do – augment revenue of the government or discourage people from smoking?
In case the objective is to discourage people from smoking, is the price hike best way to achieve this objective? Has any study been conducted by his ministry to find that in past few decades what had been the effect of cigarette price hikes on smoking habits of people? Have stopped, reduced smoking or shifted to cheaper (more harmful) variety of tobacco consumption?
There are enough examples of prohibition and higher taxes on liquor resulting in higher sale and consumption of spurious liquor. But I am yet to notice any trend indicating lower consumption due to higher taxes.
Would it not be better if BJP sets an example by enforcing strict “no smoking” rule for all its members, and then appeals to its voters not to smoke and then ask the nation to quit smoking, in that order.
If this suggestion is found ridicules, Dr. Harsh Vardhan’s suggestion is even more so, in my view.
Anyways, if this objective is achieved, then the substantially lower cigarette demand will have adverse revenue implications.
In case the objective is primarily to augment revenue, does the government have sound ethical and constitutional backing for this?
I would also like to know –
(a)   What is the proportion of tax earned from production and sale of liquor, cigarette, chewing tobacco, pan masala and bidis etc. has been spent on running de-addiction centers and rehabilitation of addicted people? Why it should not be at least 50%?
(b)   How many people have been fined in past one decade for smoking in public places? Why the fine be just Rs100 and not Rs10,000?
If my questions are found causing little discomfort, I would suggest that PM and his team should give top priority to building a conceptual policy framework for governance. Making emotional, populist and mostly undesirable speeches and comments will only strengthen the popular belief that BJP and Congress are sides of the same coin.

No comments:

Post a Comment