Comments on: Rejected

By: Khandu

Khandu — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:50:00 +0000

Can the parliament limit the functional powers of an constitutional body given by the Constitution? For example – ACC to investigate corruption, Audit to audit all the books of accounts, ECB to conduct fair election and RCSC as the authority over civil service human resource.

How these organizations deliver their mandate must be left to the Office concerned. Too much interference through legislation driven by political/cabinet motives could be dangerous.

By: Sautay

Sautay — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:51:31 +0000

The bills needed due considerations. We know they were important ones. And, it took time. Simple. I actually appreciate the hon’ble members taking their time.

Perhaps, the scheduling of the deliberations and agenda setting were faulty or maybe, what happened were beyond the anticipation of the managers. The milk’s spilled.

Hon’ble OL, yes, proper procedures are important. Particularly, to set things right for a newly evolving democracy. But we also know that the whole lot of MPs were for an immediate resolutions. The whole country is for it. It got qualified as “urgent” bills in the first place.

The issue of proper procedures, therefore, holds less weight. Let us govern our procedures.

I would definitely agree with you if the bills or the agreement to hold an extra-ordinary session was, in any way, even a little bit contentious.

By: Tshering Tobgay

Tshering Tobgay — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 07:44:22 +0000

Dear Samdrups: Thank you for keeping this important and difficult discussion alive.

I like your optimism. I too want the important bills passed as soon as possible. They are important.

But following proper procedure is also important. Especially in a new democracy. All of us have the sacred responsibility of ensuring that the “rule of law” flourishes in our democratic system.

The NA clause on introducing a bill with the “same substance” refers to introducing a new bill. Not reintroducing discussions on the rejected bill. Of course, the rejected bill could be introduced as a new bill. But, remember, the system of introducing a new bill–it’s introduced and discussed in one house; then submitted and discussed in the second house. If both houses approve it (by simple majority in each house) the bill is endorsed and submitted to His Majesty the King. If one house endorses it and the other does not, then His Majesty will command a joint sitting. That’s where we were the last time! (you’ll find more of this in Article 13 of the Constitution)

On extraordinary sessions requiring HM’s command, you are correct.

Samdrups: I do not see your comments as disrespectful in any way. Instead, I find them very helpful. They make me think. And, at times, think hard. You are obviously willing to participate actively in our democratic process. We need many more “active participants” if our democracy is to succeed.

If I find your comments helpful, then, it goes without saying, that I find them respectful. Very respectful.

tshering

By: samdrups

samdrups — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 06:46:29 +0000

Since, I personally feel that these two bills are very important (perhaps even honorable members felt it same and these bills were treated as “urgent bills”), it should have been passed in the third session only. But unfortunately, it wasn’t. But i was again viewing from the optimistic angle and i was happy when it was decided to hold extraordinary session, of course with the consent from HM.
And i would like to thank honorable OL for clarifying and educating us on various provisions of the constitution and NA act. I think we are in same line…..
Rejected bills: Dead?— As you clarified “unless, that is, the NA specifically allows”….i think most of the member directly or indirectly agreed to allow the bill to be reintroduced when they agreed to have extraordinary session. So, i think it is not yet completely dead!
Referendum: i was not questioning the prerogative of HM and nor i will ever do that….i just raised my opinion that it would be too costly to have referendum for such issues which is not that big or complicated. It could be amicably resolved. In a democratic setup, i am sure every individual have a right to raise their opinions and of course it could be either right or wrong.
Special session: constitutional?…..please correct me if i am wrong, i think special/extraordinary session cannot be held without consent from HM. In this case, i think the speaker and chairman will appeal HM to conduct special session to discuss particularly these two bills. So, if HM consents to have special session then HM is approving to discuss these two bills, so it is absolutely constitutional. Otherwise there won’t be special session.
Since honorable OL advocates on healthy debate on important issues, i just raised my humble opinion and it should not be construed as disrespect to honorable OL or your views.