Pride or disgrace?

How has it fared?

The Parliament met in a joint sitting yesterday to conclude its fifth session. And just like that, the first Parliament of Bhutan has already completed half of its 10 regular sessions.

So I’ve been thinking about the past five sessions, and researching how we, your members of parliament, have bought you pride or disgrace during the course of our work. I may write about it, but sometime later.

In the meantime, I invite you to share your thoughts on how we have fared so far. Which were our best moments? Which were our worst? And which made you laugh?

I’ve featured the Parliament building in the banner to remind you to give us, parliamentarians, your insights.


Facebook Comments:


  1. With respects,

    Yeah! OL, you are doing great and also a couple of them whose kabneys are blue (Lyonpos have to do their share, so no comparing) but some are realy quiet. Does it mean that whatever they (quiet ones) think is alomst always covered by those talking ones or is it that they just enter the hall just for being present? Why is that only those who talk keep talking? Do these talkers represent all the people or is it that non-talkers have nothing to talk. It is shameful that some of the MPs have not spoken a word against or for for any debating topic. After repeated observations, I have come to the conclusion that the non-talkers will finish their term without talking. All the best for those people who have chosen such mute representatives to represent them in the Assembly.

    But OL la, NC is doing better than those MPs la. This is my honest view and I seldom comment. But here, I found those mute ones should be activated so my comments la.

  2. Disciple says

    1)The opposition team deserve a huge applause for providing appropriate ‘checks’ to the towering DPT team in NA. It is expected in a democracy for the opposition to question the government on each and every aspects – without any fear or favour. There is no reason for the government team to feel slighted and demeaned by opposition comments & views. These views represent the bhutanese people views and need to be answered. Govt/ MP seats are not to be taken only as a milking cow. You are there to serve the people and not ‘lord’ over them.

    2)The seat warmers and backbenchers should resign before the next parliament so that better candidates can be put there, who can relay the concerns and grievances of ‘we the people’.

    3)In the true spirit of democracy, we hope that the ‘boot-licking attitude’ disappers from our political scene and that true democracy is strengthend and enforced.

    4)Three cheers to the house of NC who are providing very good balancing act in the democratic set up.

    5) A word of advice to all MPs: Put yourself in a common poor man’s shoes before you speak with a forked tongue.

  3. Dorji Tenzin says

    I believe that the approval on raising motor vehicle tax by the parliament was ill conceived, and failed to evaluate the decision to increase the tax against a sound judgment and strong evidence. This decision has a strong relationship in terms of the overall impact of the country in the medium term and long run.
    The parliament assumed that by increasing vehicle tax, it would a) to reduce traffic congestions, b) reduce trade imbalances and c) increase internal revenues.
    The most important question is how correct or true is the assumption that increasing vehicle tax would achieve or attain the objectives of reducing traffic congestions, reducing trade imbalances, and increasing internal revenues.
    There are many questions as to how this particular method can guarantee the attainment of the desired objectives and prove its sustainability at various points in time of short term, medium term and long term.
    Experiences of other countries provide insights in adopting alternative methods which are more reliable, viable and sustainable in attaining the objectives in the long run. Traffic congestions are coordinated and managed through multiple-tier transport systems and controls; trade imbalances are coordinated through productivity in both low and high value products using innovation, inventions, imagination and creativity by creating niche products and markets, and taxes are raised from business and entities which results from providing infrastructure and institutional environments for business development and growth, and start-ups.
    Comparing the two methods for attaining the stated objectives in a sustainable way, developed countries adopted other various and numerous factors rather than vehicle tax. There is no proper record in these countries that vehicle tax has been used as a method for achieving these objectives.
    However, this vehicle tax has been used by poor countries, which are corrupted and ranked at the lowest bottom of the HDI, for meeting the opportunistic behaviors at various levels of that country.
    The tax increase in likely to attract undesirable consequences such as:
    1- citizens’ moral standards will be reduced in the long run (The Malay Dilemma by Mahathir bin Mohamad, the former PM of Malaysia),
    2- comfort goals, plans and taste of people have been distorted (Maslow Theory on human desire and practice), and
    3- it promotes bias that reduces the proportion of contribution to social responsibility and increase personal responsibility producing chaos in any state.

    I think this assumption of linking increasing vehicle tax to achieving the stated objective is unfounded. It is not even linked by association; forget about it being a causal link. There is a massive demonstration of lack of intellectual quality among the decision makers.
    People in other countries have used their minds and transcended this material world for the imagination and the comfort of their lives. While in Bhutan, we have not even shown a slight capability of figuring out how to increase revenue, reduce traffic congestion, and solve the basic things of life.
    In this context, what is absolutely confounding is that Bhutan does not produce or manufacture any motor vehicle but Bhutan wants to restrict the import of vehicles. If trade imbalance is a priority concern, why don’t we retain a donkey or a horse transport or an ox transport or a leg transport which our forefather used in the olden days in Bhutan? The fact that Bhutan does not manufacture motor vehicles, unlike developed countries-Toyota from Japan, Ford from the USA, just to name few, should provide more flexibility of motor import vehicle approach for the benefit of the citizens and the development and growth of the country.
    Can Bhutan not adopt the methods practiced by developed countries in approaching the desired outcomes? Why do we choose the worst practices when there are reliable and best practices for the value of Bhutan? Can we not be Bhutan by following what is workable and be Bhutan by adopting what is not workable?
    Why are we failing to dream of Bhutan as a country where every citizen is rich; every citizen is an entrepreneur, innovator, creator, inventor, artist, materially rich, rich food, rich thinkers, can we not translate those dreams into plans and actions and achieve them. can the decision makers not create institution to realize that dream; can we not dream big.
    As a nation, can we not even create a dream equivalent to the dreams of companies like Sony, Toyota, Wal-Mart, Disney Land, and Panasonic to name some. What happened to Bhutanese? Are we shallow thinkers? Can we not think beyond our ema dates, sha-kam? Can we not think of the greater purpose than few individual opportunist aims?

    Don’t we want to be identified as a country of scientific and imaginative orientation than be a debt ridden and poverty ridden country with enormous lack of capabilities? Do we not want to show transformation rather than being a country drawn back into time as most tourist vouch?
    It is time to imagine for a better life. Life of citizens of Bhutan and the value of Bhutan are more valuable than the amount revenue collected through increase in the vehicle tax.

    We dream of MPs making decisions for a creative and a scientific oriented Bhutan where every citizen is happy.

  4. Dorji Phuntsho T says

    the MP’s focous on constantly increasing their on salary has been a major disgrace.

    Hence forth all salaries should increase based on the reccommendations of a ‘pay commission’ reccommendation only.

  5. I congratulate the parliamentarians for doing a pretty good job on the whole, given that for many it is the first time in such a forum with a new role and a new system. However, I was most disappointed with the ban on live telecast (as though there is something to hide from the very people who trusted them), and the constant discussions of their own pays and perks (trying to exalt themselves as a new kind of royalty to be differentiated from the very people who voted them into office). These two things were quite telling that old traditions are hard to die, and the parliaments are not always too keen to bring in a new one, for their own sakes, however short-lived it may be.
    I must also say that the Opposition did very well despite being outnumbered. I guess, for many of us, we now know what it means to put all your eggs into one basket indiscriminately. Also, the Speaker has shown that you can learn to speak in Dzongkha well if you try hard enough, and the notion by many that Dzongkha is too difficult and a hurdle does not hold true.

  6. Optimist says

    Well done everyone! Everyone has a desire to have more money and the money matters were OK too. I do not think Bhutan will have ever MPs who will not ask for salary. So overall good. Some small mistakes are always possible. No govt. will be perfect. Taxes are needed to provide free services. Tax on vehicle is for good intention. Many significant changes have occurred.

  7. Nu.0.7’s allowance.kabney and for two cars.

Leave a Reply