National speaker?

for broadcasting

Yesterday, members of the National Assembly met to discuss the preliminary agenda for the Assembly’s next session.

During the discussions, the members also considered if the entire proceedings of the National Assembly should once again be broadcast on live TV. After exchanging the same old arguments – from the need to promote transparency by those favoring live TV, to the importance of preventing the public from influencing legislative debate by those against live TV – the members passed the buck to their speaker.

The Constitution and the National Assembly Act both empower the Speaker to prevent the media from attending all or part of the Assembly’s proceedings. So the MPs reasoned that the Speaker alone must decide if the partial ban on live TV broadcast should be lifted.

They are correct. Article 10 Section 15 of the Constitution states that:

The proceedings of Parliament shall be conducted in public. However, the Speaker of the Chairperson may exclude the press and the public from all or any part of the proceedings if there is a compelling need to do so in the interests of public order, national security or any other situation, where publicity would seriously prejudice public interest.

I am hopeful that the Speaker will decide that live TV broadcast does not compromise public order or national security; that it does not prejudice the public interest; and that, in fact, it enhances transparency, accountability and the democratic process.

I am hopeful that the Speaker will allow the resumption live TV broadcast.

 

Facebook Comments:

Comments

  1. I thought allowing or not allowing live TV broadcast should be case by case basis as guided by the Constitution and I do not see a reason why this case by case basis decision can be made by the Speaker/parliamentarians on reveiwing the agenda for the session.

    Employ a consultant for expertise views, if 47 MPs and 25 NCs fail to decide such a simple procedural decision.

  2. I thought allowing or not allowing live TV broadcast should be case by case basis as guided by the Constitution and I do not see a reason why this case by case basis decision can be made by the Speaker/parliamentarians on reveiwing the agenda for the session.

    Employ a consultant for expertise views, if 47 MPs and 25 NCs fail to reach to such a simple procedural decision in consensus.

  3. Motor Mouth says:

    Our parliament makes many mistakes. Some are caught sleeping, some are fiddling with their papers, some are bored, some are constipated, some want to hog the mic with their needless verbosity, some are redundant speakers, some are wondering what they ate for lunch.

    in such a debilitating atmosphere, the best they could come up with are bans on everything, increasing taxes of vehicles. what have they done to bring about changes in the system. corruption is still thriving, nepotism is the order of the day, civil servants are being lazy as usual, education standard is falling, sports and games have no priority.

    no wonder they don’t want their actions, or lack of it, telecast live to the intelligentsia as well as the public. the Honorable Speaker must use his conscience and common sense and allow the proceedings to be telecast live instead of confining himself to the DPT ideology of alienation of the public.

  4. We have people in the chairs with bestowed power by law who do not know that law.

  5. But our Prime minister said that the constitution should be interpreted liberally. Or did he mean when it suits him , interpret it liberally otherwise follow them strictly.

  6. What could a better precursor to Right To Information than to see WHAT our elected leaders do for the country and more importantly HOW they conduct themselves.

    Having a live coverage not only ensures transparency in conduct of National Assembly functions but also helps maintaing decorum of the great institution.

  7. Dear OL, Thanks for updating and sharing the news. Otherwise we don’t know what is happening.

    I hope the Speaker allows live TV.

    Speaker will allow it i am sure if there is no undue influence …

  8. I hope so too that the decision of the Speaker will be to allow live coverage. We would really appreciate it….

  9. Ol, Thanks for reminding but 70% of our population have understood the present govt., their interpretation, what % of their promises r fulfilled so far and so on. we have very well understood their capability. Therefore, let them or speaker decide on live telecast and do whatever they wish during their term.
    I know younger opposition members will function better in the interest of the younger generation in the future. All the best n wish u success.

  10. BBS should allowed to LIVE TV. broadcast all the proceedings during up coming National assembly….

  11. wakkawakka says:

    Dont know about the future of live broadcast but I sure as hell would like to see a replay of the past sessions .Pretty interesting truths may be revealed including The OL championing vehemently the ban on tobacco haha!
    Inna mena taoda shey Dorji Drolo Tcham da shey!

  12. Now the TV livecast permission has been granted by the pseaker……..what next?

  13. tshering dorji says:

    respected OL,
    the live tv broadcasting may be stooped in the interest of national security and other international relationship that too with joint interest of all the parties. but other than those issue it should not be banned. the act of such process demolishes the democratic procedures. the basic fundamental of democracy will be highly questionable.. thank you.

  14. Where is the law made by Our parliament when it comes to the “ACC’s suspension order face restraint”? and where is the law made by our parliament apply when it comes to the Tobacco Act? And my pray from now onward is that who ever be the prime minister,ministers and the member of parliament in the future i don’t mind.2013 onwards must make the law which will be applicable not like the law made for the Tobacco Act should be fail.

Leave a Reply