Breaking news

A truely upper house

Truly upper house

The National Council has decided that their proceedings will continue to be telecast live on BBS.

I’m hopeful that the National Assembly members will reverse their earlier decision to ban live TV broadcast for most of their sessions.


Facebook Comments:


  1. Phuntsho says

    thank you for this heart-warming news.

    similarly, i wish NA members to emulate NC and retract their earlier decision.

    i guess nothing is set on stone.

    • Dear OL,
      Thanks for sharing this news and the good work that you are doing both in the house and here.

      I hope the NA would over-turn their decison in the greater interests of democracy and the country.

      in hope,


  2. good news

  3. I commend the NC members for not following the decision of the NA. Way to go NC members and great job Lyonpo Namgey Penjore. Guess what, I have still not given up on NA reverting on their decision for the live telecast. I hear that LYONCHEN is reverting the decision and we will have live broadcast. Wouldn’t that be terrific!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. NC can afford to do that – it doesn’t have either political liability nor financial liability. It is not accountable to the people the way NA is. If NC is after popularity and takes decisions to please the lot with access to TV and internet, so be it. If DPT has to pay the political cost of not airing the whole proceedings live on BBS so that couch potatoes can find some cheap entertainment, so be it. But let us clear the facts:
    If the NA is not for public interest, why would they air the ACC and RAA sessions? These are of national interests and with greater political risk for the MPs? Why would they go against public opinion not to air the mechanical process of passing a bill? Why should people be concerned about press freedom when the whol session is open to the press, including BBS minus live coverage of some boring sessions? Why should people call it a ban when none of the sessions are conducted behind closed doors? IF any one is genuinely interested in a particular bill, why is it not possible for him/her to attend the session in person or call his/her MP? Frankly speaking, this is a lot of ado about nothing just to gain some political milage.

    • Nemesis, did you listen to the BBS last night. This man from India with the information Act was so enlightening with view on right to information.

      What you posted sounds very defensive and doesn’t give any concrete reason to ban live telecast.

      The NA and the Speaker need not owrry about resources being wasted and BBS not having enough human resources. It is not your head heach. Your resonsibility is to provide transparency and accessibility and teh BBS’s responbsibility is provide coverage of the NA. They have money and human resources and afford to participate. So as long as they are able to do their job who are the NA’s to stop it

    • Hi Nemesis,

      People of Bhutan regrets for making a mistake in voting for you. Because, you are yet to understand democracy. Democracy goes beyond getting elected after cheating voters with false promises.

      It is non of your business to be concerned about whether live telecast is costly or not. Did BBS ask money from DPT to do their job?

      Second, you know nothing about media and its role. Access to information or freedom of press doesn’t only mean allowing media to enter the NA hall and do the coverage. Access to information is not for the media, but for the people who are the subjects of NA discussion. That is done through media, and that is the media’s important role.

      Please learn that it is not for you or me to tell people whether they should listen to NA discussion from the galary or from the TV. What is important is provide people with ‘choice’ of platform to exercise the fundamental rights.

      And, how many of your voters said discussion on bills are boring and need not telecast live? All bills concern people of Bhutan and not MPs. Do you think people outside Thimphu can come and watch from the galary.

      Learn more, if you wanna be MP for another time.

  5. First of all bravo and congrats to hon’ble OL for his hardwork and garnering transparancy in the system.

    i believe that if democracy has to be vibrant as envisioned by His Majesty and if it has to deepen to the grassroot level of illiterate mass,transparency and accountability should be the instrument. in order to do so,it is through media that people will gauge and comprehend. banning livetelecast! i just dont understand? dont understand why it has to be banned? let our people knw every bit of information please, whether the discussion is on the bills or others. lets people knw. did people said that livetelecast is of no use or what is the rationale. we often talk of good governance and GNH but how? indeed, NC member, thanks for your kind decision.

  6. Mr. Honorable’ Opposition Leader,

    Ruling Party has given its verdict, we are interested to hear your views on it. The NA proceedings are public affairs, not some high profile secretive underground broad meetings. While I share the concerns expressed by MPs on sensitivity of some issues, it does not warrant the total banning of live broadcast. I would completely support banning the live coverage when the NA sessions discussed issues pertaining to national security but not other discussion. Some of the justification floated around for ban of live broadcast are meaningless and utterly baseless. I quote some of those justifications below and provide my take of them:

    “The discussions on bills and acts, which the parliament discusses in detail, will be of no interest to the people.” “……..complete live coverage will be a waste of resources for the BBS.”

    1. What is basis of that strong statement on people of Bhutan being not interested in its parliamentary affairs and discussions on bills and acts. These very bills and acts impact, in one way and other, across whole spectrum of Bhutanese people, right from day a soul in conceived in mother’s womb through issues such as access to safe drinking water, health care, and so on till such a time a man/women last breathes. This is gross misjudgement (in my humble opinion) by an esteemed MP. In my opinion, the live broadcasting of NA sessions have helped in enhancing awareness and understanding on priority national issues, and process of democracy itself.
    2. There is also statement saying that live coverage will be a waste of resources for BBS. Upon hearing such statement, the next logical question would be why? Is it because of the quality of the discussions? Or the sensitivity of issues? But then again, I think issues such as entitlements, perks, allowance, etc., are hardly sensitive in nature. One can always argue on what sensitive means, for me, its something to do national security, public unrest, threat to Royal (the very symbol of stability of the country). If covering the proceedings of the NA, the apex legislative body, is waste of resources for BBS, then the BBS fails in meeting its mandate to provide public service by informing the nation. Better divert all those humongous funds to develop and expand BBS for rural agricultural promotion.
    “The National Council Chairperson, Namgye Penjore, said listening to detailed discussions live and raw can confuse viewers. “There are more chances of people getting misguided,” he said.”
    “Lyonpo Nanda Lal Rai also agrees. People may get “alarmed” when they cannot interpret the complexities of a parliament discussion.”
    3. The confusion would creep in and people may get alarm if the views put forth by the discussants (MPs) are vague. The parliamentary discussions are not complex, if it were rocket science complexity would be a justifiable reason. The group of MPs are not different or extraordinary that the viewer unless the mental inferiority of viewers are based on not being able to elect right group of people as leaders. It is important to have faith in the constituencies that elected them in return.

    I my opinion, live telecast was one of the most elements of “check and balance”, check and balance to: (1) ensure decisions are made in national interest, without political and vested interest,
    (2) provide opportunity for constituencies to participate in national legislative process
    (3) prevent NA from becoming another one of those committee or taskforce meetings.
    (4) ……………

    The National Assembly belongs to the people of Bhutan, it should not be prerogative of a group of person to judge if this national institution should not be accessible to public at large. This will be making mockery of the Constitution of Bhutan and undermining of importance of rights to importance, the very basic and fundamental basis for existence of sound democracy.

    Each one has a role to play hereL:

    1. Speaker and majority party to think rationally and listen to people who in the first place put there.
    2. Opposition to raise concerns, unless it concurs with the ban.
    3. Media community and public in general to fight for their rights to public information.

  7. Mr. Viewer says

    Honorable OL and team,
    the society is much then gratified upon the sucess of making the live telecast go on.
    we sincerely thank you and all, for making it a tremendous sucess for all your support and effort.
    We would like to wish all our parliamentarians a sucess and a pleasant outcome of the Assembly.

  8. now why don’t they just take the NC’s cue!

  9. kikisoso says

    Isn’t this another curious case of the NA Chairperson who supported the ban now recanting. What a queer guy??? Change of heart or votes???

    Also – “the truly Upper House” is wrongly spelt, just FYI.

  10. samten zangmo says

    Honorable OL
    Great gob la. Your people are really proud to have you as an opposition Leader.

  11. I heard the NC chair speak on the BBS last time and he was very clear about what he had to mention that he would not support the ban and that he would review the situation about NC live telecast. I did not hear him supporting the NA decision.

    Anyway, I would strongly recommend BBS to boycot the coverage of the NA sessions if the full live telecast coverage is not granted. I agree with OL during his deliberations at BBS that Media has the right and media has to take action. Don’t fall into the whims of some silly MP’s making such a stupid decision. We owe this boycot to our people of Bhutan and we should do it. After all it is democracy now and we must exercise the rights granted by our beloved Monarch’s. GO…BBS…GO

  12. Linda wangmo says

    The NA begins tomarrow. The first day will be telecasted live.. good.. day after tomarrow the MPs will be behind the closed doors, so guys just dont fuss over these things over and over on the internet.. lets act and do something and the only way is gather as much friends as you can and come to the NA hall, The speaker clearly said that we can watch from the Gallery. So let see if all of us Fit there and also lets show our intrest. I have like 20 people with me. Good luck and lets see if you guys just talk or if you guys have the guts. Its a silent and peaceful protest. Long live the King. I just pray that on the first day of The NA session, if his Majesty would announce that it should be Live telecasted.

  13. Very good, Aum Linda. Please make sure you understand the meaning of closed doors first. What a contradiction – first you say ‘the MPs will be behind closed doors’ and then you say ‘we can watch from the gallery.’ I hope you understand that as a non-MP, you cannot participate in the actual discussion! Any way, you are most welcome to the gallery and please don’t distract our MPs with your sagging ……

Leave a Reply