Wanted: free, frank and thorough discussions

Yenlag or not?

Yenlag or not?

Today, for the second time in less than one year, a joint sitting of the Parliament will discuss the Civil Service Bill. Parliament had discussed and rejected the Bill last year due to irreconcilable differences on some fundamental principles of the bill.

I hope that this time we, parliamentarians, can find a consensus to pass this very important legislation. But that will depend on our willingness and ability to engage in free, frank and thorough discussions on the differing interpretations of the Constitution’s provisions about the civil service.

That did not happen last year. There was very little debate on real issues like the independence of the judiciary and constitutional bodies. Hence the impasse. And hence a dead bill.

But we still haven’t learnt the lesson. That’s why the discussions last week on the proposed thromdes, especially when it came to interpreting the Constitution, were not free, frank or thorough. And that’s why the joint sitting eventually rejected the proposed list of yenlag thromdes.

The Constitution, on Local Governments, Article 22 Section 6 says that:

The Dzongkhag Tshogdu shall comprise:

(a)          The Gup and Mangmi as the two elected representatives from each Gewog;

(b)          One elected representative from that Dzongkhag Thromde; and

(c)           One elected representative from Dzongkhag Yenlag Thromdes.

One interpretation, favoured, by the opposition among others, is that a Dzongkhag Tshogdu cannot be complete if the representative of the yenlag thromde is not available. And to have that representative, a dzongkhag – every dzongkhag – must have at least one yenlag thromde.

Attempts to discuss this provision of the Constitution, which is also reproduced verbatim in the Local Government Act, were sidelined, leaving many parliamentarians confused and frustrated. Hence the impasse. And hence the rejection.

I hope we’ve learnt the lessons. And I hope that the second joint sitting on the Civil Service Bill succeeds today. That will depend on our willingness and ability to engage in free, frank and thorough discussions.

UPDATE: The Parliament endorsed the Civil Service Bill. All but two members, both from the NC, voted in favour of the Bill. One member voted against the Bill, one member abstained. The Parliament also endorsed the National Standards Bill, this one by 100%.

 

Facebook Comments:

Comments

  1. The article on local government certainly seem to assume that there would be yelag thromdes (or else there could have been a clause appended such as “where they exist” to section 6c). On the other hand, the opposition’s preferred position that every Dzongkhag must have a yenlag thromde sounds ridiculous because it suggests that we create yenlag thromdes not because there is a “real” practical need but because we need to fulfil a criteria set under the article. I wonder what would be the implications of creating yenlag thromdes in anticipation where there is no need for one right now as opposed to creating them as required by the times based on a certain set of criteria?

  2. Thinlay says:

    I also feel that there is no need for satellite towns in every dzongkhags. If there is a need then it should be developed but as said above based on certain fixed criterias.

    On the other hand, creating more township encourages people to move away from rural areas leading to depolution in rural areas and crowding in towns. This is an unhealthy trend and we should try to stop this madness.

    Bhutan still can not manage the existing towns properly and asking for more is courting more problems.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply