Right to information

Article 7 of the Constitution is about our fundamental rights.

Section 3 of that important article declares that “A Bhutanese citizen shall have the right to information”. By this provision, any citizen has the right – a fundamental right – to ask the government for any information. And the government must provide that information, whatever it may be. That is because the fundamental right of the citizen to government information, as granted by the Constitution, is unqualified. And it is unconditional. “A Bhutanese citizen shall have the right to information” – that’s all the Constitution says, simple and straightforward.

But what if a citizen applies for information and the government refuses to provide it? The Bhutanese, a newspaper, was denied some information that they had requested. The newspaper, or whoever filed the right to information application, was denied the right to information, a fundamental right.

Now what?

The journalist who filed the right to information application, and whose fundamental right was violated could take the matter to the courts in accordance with Article 7 Section 23 of the Constitution which states that, “All persons in Bhutan shall have the right to initiate appropriate proceedings in the Supreme Court or High Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Article, subject to section 22 of this Article and procedures prescribed by law.”

That means that that journalist could seek judicial intervention to demand the information that was requested. In other words, the judiciary must ensure that that journalist’s fundamental right is not violated, and so must force the government to provide whatever information was requested.

But what about Section 22 of Article 7? What does that section say? It says that:

“Notwithstanding the rights conferred by this Constitution, nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from subjecting reasonable restrictions by law, when it concerns:

(a)     The interests of the sovereignty, security, unity and integrity of Bhutan;
(b)     The interests of peace, stability and well-being of the nation;
(c)     The interests of friendly relations with foreign States;
(d)     Incitement to an offense on the grounds of race, sex, language, religion or region;
(e)     The disclosure of information received in regard to the affairs of the State or in discharge of official duties; or
(f)     The rights and freedom of others”

The Constitution allows the State to subject certain restrictions, within reason, on our fundamental rights. So if the information that that journalist had requested is a state secret, or risks undermining some national interest, that journalist cannot demand that information as a fundamental right. But such restrictions on our fundamental rights can only be made and applied “by law”. And in the case of our fundamental right to information, that law would be the right to information act.

But we don’t have a right to information act. Therefore, that journalist must be provided with whatever information was requested, even if that information is, in the unlikely event, against the national interest.

The prime minister had promised a right to information act. He’s done a U-turn now. He’s now said that a right to information act is not needed at the moment. He should reconsider.

The Constitution guarantees us with the right to information. So we, the citizens at large, and the media in particular, do not need any further legislation to enjoy that fundamental right.

In fact, it is the government that needs a right to information act. The act would protect the government. The act would identify and define the nature and scope of important and sensitive information that cannot be made public in the broader interests of the nation. And the act would permit the government to apply legal restrictions to safeguard and protect such information.

A RTI act is necessary and important. And the prime minister should work on it with a sense of urgency. Otherwise he should support Hon Sangay Khandu’s bold initiative to introduce a right to information bill as a private bill in the next session of the Parliament.

 

 

Facebook Comments:

Comments

  1. economist says:

    Why is the prime minister always acting like Big Brother and trying to take more of a paternalistic role in a democracy? Why is he not listening to the people when he is meant to serve the people in the first place? Why is he trying to create Bhutan an Orwellian society by restricting its citizenry the right to information? Why doesn’t he learn the art of apologizing to the public for mistakes he and his government have committed? Why is he and his fellow ministers so out of touch with the zeitgeist? As a citizen who stubbornly believes in individual rights and civil liberties, i find his actions utterly patronizing!!

  2. that jigmi thinley goes on & on about how crucial it is for democracy to be laid strongly from the very start is in stark contrast to what his actions show..the majority will agree how important rti is in a functioning democracy..the majority will recognize how this pm has dragged his feet on rti legislation..the majority can see how uncomfortable his relationship with the media is..he is compelled to stand up for free media..but his heart burns when they ask him stuff he does not want them to ask..so he brings in national security as an excuse..it is plain for all to see this man does something while he talks another..
    mp sangay khandu’s stand to introduce rti legislation is admirable..we must all support him..after all, when something is guaranteed by the constitution to every citizen, citizens should demand for it if this government wants to hold back on it..

  3. Ap Drukpa says:

    Media wants information for WHAT??? So they can write about it and sell more papers? Media has to be more responsible than that. Yes! they should make people aware of what is happening and what the government is doing about it, BUT can’t they all go a step further by researching and coming up with ideas to help the government instead of just criticizing them every chance they get? Remember the media’s job is not only to make people aware of issues but it is also their duties to come up suggestions.
    As a country, irrespective of what we do, we should always stand and work together to make our country achieve the visions of Our Kings.

  4. The prime minister has always been dictatorial since his days in the RCSC. Further, he always was on the elite group. But now, he should remember that he is the prime minister of a democratically elected government. A historical one for Bhutan. He should forget about dictatorship and be a leader, a democratic leader. In democracy, you must learn to listen to others, especially the public and his colleagues. We have seen him even in meet the press being dictatorial. And many of his colleagues may say good bye is due course of time. Just watch.

  5. In my understanding i feel the government is ignoring the people is some cases. i am afraid what would be the consequences if people ignore the government.

  6. INFORMATION ENOUGH says:

    COMAPRING TO WAHT WAS THERE BEFORE 2008 WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION….. HAD THERE BEEN ANY OTHER PM I DONT THINK WE WOULD HVE HD THE MEET THE PRESS SESSIONS .. PM WELCOMED INVESTIGATION ON GEYELPOSHING LAND ISSUES… HE WAS ANSWERABLE TO THE MEDIA.. WHAT MORE WE WANT Y….. EVEN IN THE WEST MOST OF THE INFORMATION ARE NOT AVAILABLE….. ANY WAY COMPLAINING & BLAMING IS THE BEST FOODER WE SEEM TO FEED THESE DAYS…. SO THIS PIECE WILL NOT BE DIGESTED

  7. Kelpazangla says:

    RTI is crucial for democracy and therefore RTI Act is urgently required. NC MP Sangay Khandu is appreciated for his initiative.

    However, OL, how did MP Sangay Khandu earn the “Hon” title? Is it because he is tabling the RTI Act in the upcoming NC session?

    At one time you were arguing that PM did not deserve the Hon’ble title and now you address a MP with Hon’ble title. Do you see consistency in your own stand?

  8. Chang Ugyen was a “Dasho” to me before the land scam surfaced in his name. Now he is nothing more than a “criminal” to me. Would you call this an inconsistency in my stand, kelpazangla?

  9. All the fundamental rights provided in article 7 of the constitution gets neutralised or nullified (so to speak) by section 22. Why? There must be a reason. I speculate that this is to generate debate – lively discourse. Right should go hand in hand with responsibility. One may demand one’s rights but it becomes useless if the other does not want to give the rights because it feels the responsibility not to. Just selectively quoting the convinent sections of the constitution to serve one’s purpose is not enough. Thus there is a need to deliberate and debate – so that good solutions come up.
    A media person may demand information but I also have the right to remain silent. I will have the right to my privacy. My suggestion to the media would be to devise means by which all can work in harmony. The government’s hesitation in providing information may be because of the vindictive, selective nature of the media. If the past is any indication our media has a long way to go to gain the trust of the of the public and the government.
    I feel it is possible. Trust is the catchword here. Gain our trust and things will work fine. Be professional, unbiased, objective, and give us the complete truth instead of opinionated, subjective and selective facts.

  10. Dear OL,
    Please be mindful of your attitude. You do not use Hon to address the prime minister of Bhutan, but use Hon to address MP Sangay Khando. Be professional, moralistic, rationale and virtuous if you are an educated, responsible and great leader. I repeat again, it is your attitude that counts in our eyes. By the way, I hope you check our comments and take them seriously.

  11. The freedom of expression is a necessity but right to information? It could be bad of those in power..by power i mean the whole state nor just govt.

  12. Pro democracy says:

    @ Ap Drukpa,
    The RTI is not only for media personals. It is for the larger general public. and keeping that in mind, we should remember that a poor farmer in village have the right to know about his progress regarding timber allotment, irrigation channels other important issues that affects him and his family life..
    Now coming to RTI being used by us, like you and me.. Well, i want to know what my gup is doing all the while and what my MP is up to.. The financial aspect…
    I am a lover of democracy and like RTI.. Just because constitution grants me the right to seek information that makes democracy effective.

  13. ”Preach other only if you are practicing” AND ”Practice what you preach”

  14. Just went through the article and the comments quickly, and wanted to make some comments-

    1. The RTI is not just for the media. It’s for everyone. Anyone who want’s a certain information should be able to request that information and have a right to answers within a certain time under this act. If you are a member of an organisation that collects membership fees, you have a right to know what they do with that money. If the government has spent some money on a project, you have the right to know exactly where they have spent it. If an agency has employed a candidate, you have the right to know on what basis he/she was employed. The RTI has great power to reduce corruption, and improve efficiency.

    2. Having the RTI act does not mean anyone and everyone has access to every information out there. There are certain types of information that should rightly remain classified. Information that puts the nation at risk, that puts citizens at risk, that causes injustice, crime, that aids in crime, and various other kinds of ‘classified information’ must remain so. The Act should and will define clearly what type of information needs to be public and what needs to remain classified.

    3. People who support/do not support RTI need to look beyond ‘bringing down this government’ line of thought. In everyone’s opinion, some things this government does right, some things they do wrong. It’s not about finding ways to blame the government or create more scandal-stories. We all need to use our own judgement and sense of fairness while reading the articles in various papers. But let’s put RTI above petty (or sometimes entirely justified) criticism of just the government. The RTI is a means to create a more transparent society. It’s up to us to ensure that the act that comes out of the parliament is good. RTI can and has been used elsewhere for great good, we can use it the same way here.

  15. Palden Drupka – wow, are you trying to scar OL or lecture him? Pathetic!

  16. By the way, Palden Drukpa, please don’t use that name. It is an insult to people who do care for their country. I have seen many people like you esp in Thimphu. During the war against ULFA, some so called patriotic Bhutanese were carrying flags in the street of Bhutan and marching in the name of war, but others were in front line defending their country with their lives. Patriotic Bhutanese do their job quietly.

  17. Its better if Palden Drukpa learn about his own attitude and then correct it before giving lecture on attitude…

  18. tashi delek says:

    In my opinion, this RTI bill is very crucial at this point in time. We are a very young democracy and to become a robust one, the people needs to know what is happening in the country for which we require the necessary information. One person or party cannot keep a check on the whole government and its system, we the citizen should have a legal right and a stand to question the government or any other body not for the sake of asking but to keep a check and a balance, whether the government is transparent, pro active and efficient which would enable us to know in which direction the government is leading us.
    This legislation should be discussed in this session of the parliament because if it dosen’t then it’s will just be another political game where the politicians will squeeze the important agenda out of the table focusing about its government and not on the benefits of the people.
    However, last comment I would like to make is with regard to concerns of the challenges that may arise when it comes to the hierarchal system of the government we have and the change in the attitude of people when questioning a higher authority and also a question as to how and in what ways the change occur.

  19. toto- U>K says:

    It seems every thing is going to change now and has been changed..i am so surprise after reading all above commends and would like to leave a my words.. ” now i came to know that where people and government stands. it seems people are not happy in peaceful country”.

  20. Hi friends,
    We should be careful for what we are doing specially country like Bhutan. Democracy doesn’t mean you can demand evereything.claiming the right,people might even ask the information which will affect the nations peace and sovereignty.When time comes,nothing could be stop. Don’t hurry and make no mistake when you look back.

  21. To All of Us...Mindful Bhutanese!!! says:

    I am a fellow citizen of this great nation where we have all the right, and as my right to the opinion (Right of Expression) may I take this opportunity to express my words too. Your Excellency, OL, you talk of the great philosophy of the great fathers and the GNH as the Pillar to success. I have a deep respect for that but at times, for the little reason you and some catalyzing people are opposing too much where by creating lots of misunderstanding. And I do like to assure that I am not making little things a huge one.I understands that your job is to oppose and you are rightly paid for that. However, I feel the need to change your attitude in the way you oppose. The preservation of cultural and tradition is one of the pillars of the GNH. We have the tradition here in this country, where respect between the leader and subjects have existed, where the virtue of the humanity in general is appreciated. The country had a vision and the serves interest of the larger population. Whatever information that the journalist puts under his/her microscopes may not be serving the larger interest of the nation. That’s why the information might not have been released at times. Everyone must have the respect for that.

    It is everyone’s right to oppose but not if it offends anyone in particular… I think it is not the right attitude! One of your followers, which I must say because it’s on your blog that this person had written, addressing His Excellency the Prime Minister of Bhutan as if he/she is calling like a slaves in the ancient times, I did not liked it! Indeed this country is democracy and I haven’t seen any Articles as a right to demoralize any person, your followers do so. Which in turn, I felt that your blog serves not more than a blog that destroys Dignity and Humanity in larger ways. It creates a gap between Government and its people. Bhutan is One Nation One People before and I personally love this concept. At least that person (Named topden) when he writes his/her opinion, must serve a responsibility of the citizen… I regret if he did read the Fundamentals Duties of the constitutions when he talks about the rights. Like any one says, one must be mindful when he shouts and points any fingers. I think it must be applied to him/her.
    Have we ever thought that, If Prime minister has all time to blog out like the OL do what would be the case? In the similar way, if all the Ministers also have the time to write all their daily tiring duties on blog, what would be the situation? Just because OL has all the time in Bhutan to Blog and whatever his blog page displays may not be right one hundred percent!!! The amazing thing that is happening in Bhutan is that OL has the time to oppose on and offline. On the other hand Government carries out the job well done and gets the heavy blame. I am certain, we do have to oppose but appreciate as well. I think a responsible citizen must be wise and thoughtful before anyone of us hears our own verdict. Let’s be in both the shoes and hold the balance of judgment by one and only you.

    The media here in Bhutan must serve as a bridge between the government and the People of Bhutan. They have their duties and right which we must appreciated within that boundary for the nation’s interest. What I personally find in media is one-sided stories (in that case, for both Ruling and Opposing Party) which are monotonous and selfish ones, this creates gaps in the Information, Government and People. Most of all the negative images and illustrations cover the front pages of the media. Don’t we think whatever the young mind of the nation sees; we induce negativity in their blood? I quote one sentence here,” Medias can sell their papers by writing positive things also, not necessarily by writing negative thing only”.

    The street dogs bark only when they are in mass but not when alone. The responsible man declares man when amongst foes. Let’s be the latter one and respect the humanity. Be the Judge yourself!!!

  22. Right to Information is a fundamental right of the people of a democratic society and this is why we have it bestowed upon us by the sacrosanct constitution. The visions of the benevolent Monarchs have always been on the welfare of the people and that is why the article finds is place in the constitution in first place.

    Now, it is also a known fact around the world that the politicians have generally been inherently reluctant when it comes to the issues transparency and accountability, reasons being obvious. We don’t need to go too far to see such examples. Be it Citizen’s Ombudsman bill in India or bills of similar kinds elsewhere, they have mostly met with stiff resistance from the political lot. Therefore, we need not be surprised to see the resistance back home, to such a move.

    However, it is the responsibility of the people to demand our fundamental rights, even as we pledge by the same sacrosanct constitution to honour our fundamental duties with equal value. In order to be a successful democracy, we must learn to live within the harmony of these two. We must know that while the Rights without duty is Anarchy, duty without rights is Dictatorship.

    Therefore, we must rise above political factionalism or even reluctance, and pave a road for the advent of this noble initiative. It is not about blaming DPT and praising MP Sangay Khandu. It is about getting the right thing done!

    The Political lot also must remember that they and their children are also citizens first and then the politicians. Their children and relatives will also need the same rights and duties as generations pass by (even if they feel that they don’t need it now). It is our investment for our own children, to create a healthy and prosperous nation built on the pillars of truth, honesty, accountability, responsibility and mutual respect. What better gift would we give to our own children? It is time to think.

  23. RanguSharma says:

    His excellency Mr.Tshering T, it seems like a childs cry that he seeks the RTI on Bhutanese platform, sure it is sensitive and arousing topic to talk about and campaign but it wont discard the fact he is pathetic a politician.
    What kind of information is he willing to dig out? How far back in history would his guts push? Why does he need information when he cannot move anything? Else he could have scrutinized and hasten the land grab cases including G/zhing and malpractices of RCSC or anarchy of courts, imbalanced wealth distribution. When one speaks of things, he would be convicted for ‘attempt of conspiracy’. Some have lost lands, other lose property and dignity. He is there not better than the rag-doll!. Blaming anonymous users for his party’s defeat and welcoming the closure of online discussions. For he is not better than a cowherder he is astonished to be on cozy chair of the parlaiment, even the blind could have pointed out the taxation change or anything of its sort. Our nation is being drained. Mr. OL has no idea of what to speak and work for. An absurd figure in politics, bound by his own will, attenuated by the desire to own Tractors and Trippers hired to DOR. I have worked in his apple orchards in Thimphu and have driven his tractors.
    Descent be the best,
    Ol is just a jest.
    Working to deprive the rest,
    and putting nation to his test.
    Now this time i am against him
    For he deserves to be a slave men
    out washed by his filthy dreams
    bringing crisis on the countrymen.
    Let GNH be his tool
    Believe me he’s fool
    My land somehow is school
    with politicians such cool.
    But our nation has its fate. Bhutanese
    improverished till date
    Go, bring youth to this fuzzy state
    And regret not when late.
    And you, the old eddicts
    pushing citizens to thicks
    just pullets, not chicks
    Should giveaway your tricks

  24. If one knows how to manage time, time is always there to blog or do anything…If one fails in his duty by blogging and wasting time then yeah everybody have a right to point fingers at OL and shout like one fellow did here in above comment.

  25. Hi there,
    I’m not trying to lecture OL. But, he must learn to respect everyone in the formal forum like this, be it your eneymy or lover. OL address MP
    Sangay Khando with HON, but not for the prime minister. I respect bot the HON OL and HON PM because both of them have sacred posts in the country. Mind you, attitude is the greatest disability in human.

  26. Pema Dhendup says:

    Excellency, Allow me to share a copy of my thoughts on RTI that I had put up in MP Sangay Khandu’s Page. Here it goes:
    I am a simple public servant just now. But even as I visualize myself to be on the other side, I could not be convinced on why we must have this Act immediately. While media had presented all the good sides of the Right to Information Act in detail, which is understandable, allow me to humbly discuss the other side of RTI because, as a concerned citizen, I believe that in order to have something new in our system, it is always wise to discuss the pros and cons, good and bad in equal proportion without getting carried away.

    A typical tendency is growing in our country driven by media, and that is, to be conscious, more and more about rights, and not the corresponding obligation. Someone smartly remarked that “If every citizen feels that he is endowed with the right to question, but is not under obligation to answer, a stage may reach where the comparatively small number of persons, who are being questioned, may join the team of those who choose, just to question. If that happens, the society may face a situation, where it would become difficult to expect answers.”

    The big question is, are we actually ready for this Act at this juncture?

    Our neighboring country India gained independence in 1947. However, it took them 58 years to introduce Right to Information Act in the year 2005 with the noble intention to provide access to information to the people in order to promote transparency and accountability, which was hitherto kept away from the general public under Official Secrets Act 1923. We do not have any such Secrets Act to cover the transparency and accountability. Further, unlike India where Personal Income Tax forms a major chunk of the country’s revenue, ours is almost a welfare state with Government spoon feeding us and taking care of our needs right from free education to free medical services, etc. To demand the right to question the hands that feed us, clothe us, educate us and take care of all our needs is not the urgency of the day. Instead, we need to earn that right by being a contributing member of the country’s growth. We can become contributing members when we understand and carry out our responsibilities as enshrined in the Constitution first, not the other way round. People who barks so much on the Rights would be the first to shy away from responsibilities. Let us all talk about our individual responsibilities first and carry out mass campaigns to make people more aware of responsibilities that needs to be shouldered. Only when we know our responsibilities and carry them out with our heart and soul, then, we are ready for our Rights.

    Secondly, in our country, Personal Income Tax and Business Income Tax, Land Tax, House Tax rates, etc, which are among the lowest in the world, should be raised so that our individual contribution to the country’s growth is substantial. We are largely a donor dependent country with negligible contribution from the citizen’s side to the national exchequer. We must inculcate a sense of involvement in the development process through taxpaying culture because only when people pay substantial direct taxes, we can hold the rulers accountable, which is to say that we can expect a functioning democracy. As of now, with PIT forming only a minuscule 9-10% of the govt revenue (correct me if I am wrong), and 100% of capital expenditures of the govt being met out of donor funds, RTI Act would amount to allowing people to put their hands into other people’s pockets and searching them. We have the controlling bodies like the RAA and ACC for that. Only when we, as individual citizens, have a substantial share in the country’s revenue that drives the economic growth, can we safely say that, we now have the Right to question and demand information.
    After all the above steps are taken care of, we must then prepare the administration for implementation of RTI. We must make it obligatory on all public offices to maintain all its records and ensure its computerization and connect through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated.

    However, the ground realities as of now are quite different. We are hyping about RTI when it is well known that in most of the public offices, computerization of records are not yet done, required men and machinery is not available, hue and cry is made about manpower constraints in the government departments. That means government is pulling up with limited resources. In this scenario, one can guess as to what extent the Information Officers, designated under the Act can comply with the provisions of the Act in letter and spirit by attending to their usual duties simultaneously. Attending to each and every application received under the Act will certainly be time consuming and eat away the limited and precious resources available for public administration. Shedding away the main duties and responsibilities for which the personnel were appointed, for the purpose of responding to all the sundry applications received under RTI Act will not at all be a healthy trend. On the other hand, it will certainly have bad impact on the already crippled administration with limited resources, and we cannot expect public offices to deliver effective services to the common men. Precious resources including men, money and machinery would be utilized to trace, collect and furnish the information at the cost of usual duties to be discharged. Media, already enthusiastic at the proposed rights, would obviously wave the RTI Act in the air and hound public offices demanding information to make up the contents of their breaking news in order to sell their papers. All these would be at whose cost? Obviously at Government’s exchequer! I can also foresee ample scope for misuse of the act by habitual complainants and greedy persons resorting to blackmail to achieve their illegitimate demands, by way of harassment of the public authorities under the guise of this Act. The result would be a bunch of public servants with low morale and no charm in taking initiatives for further growth. This would truly be disastrous for the country!

    It is important to ensure that RTI Act should not become an alternate for the wastage of crucial public resources, otherwise, the resultant injury will be irreparable. We need to address this by imparting a sense of responsibility on those, who want to derive benefit under the Act to be more practical and realistic. However, going by the present trend and enthusiasm for exercising Rights, the big question is, are we ready to be practical and realistic?

    Let us go slowly, one step at a time. Let us learn to become more responsible first. Otherwise, the Right to Information Act is going to become a Nuisance Act!

  27. right to information is undeniably important in democratic country. denial of the PM for the right to information is his denial for the real, stable and corruption free democracy. how is it that country is not mature enough to have a right to information when she is mature enough to have Democracy? i am just worried where will the country be tomorrow with this government!

  28. and hey pelden drukpa how funny your comment sounds to be. if it is attitude you care about, i can see it well the respect you have for your leaders. and how aware are you of the government and its efficiency? none like you who respect every intolerable government will help prosper Bhutan in any ways. you are just made to respect and bow your head for what is being ordered and never understand how important opposition is to help government find a right way.

  29. Hey Infohaunt,
    Thank you for the comments. I’m not tryint to support the government and undermine the OL. But, I rationally think that OL has intentionally used HON to address MP Sangay Khando and not to the PM. OL’s job is to oppose, but not to disrespect a country’s PM. I don’wt think any OL would do that around the world.

  30. Pema Dhendup,

    Well explained. I also feel we should move step by step and allign ourselves to debate on fundamental issues of generating revenue through tax and the like. Keep posting.
    Best Regards

  31. @ Pema Dhendup has put up a strong argument. Is there anyone who wants to debate on what he say? I am happy with your post Pema and keep contributing to such healthy debate.
    I completely agree when he say “To demand the right to question the hands that feed us, clothe us, educate us and take care of all our needs is not the urgency of the day.”
    I strongly believe and agree that the debate should begin from the fundamentals – the responsibilities. Our MPs and the Media should engage the country in a debate that would help nourish our democracy and GNH. I specifically stress the need to understand our responsibilities in enhacing our revenue, creating employment and curbing poverty and so many other social ills.
    Please forget the RTI for the timebeing. We have RAA and ACC and the Judicial system functioning well. The media has also been doing very well. Let us not rush.

  32. Lightheartedly, i think the Tittle Opposition Leader should be changed to Recommendation Leader so that one can recommend alternates instead of just opposing. If one doesn’t have alternate, one should just keep quiet.

    However, opposition leader is doing his duty without failure by opposing.

    If Bhutanese newspaper writes, ‘ PM eats food with hands,’ there will be write up in blog by Opposition party, it is dirty to eat with hands. We should use spoon if not we should eat using legs…..

    The opposition will always oppose even if DPT becomes opposition party….opposition party doesn’t need vision, it only needs confusion…

  33. haha… defoz… No need to change title opposition leader to recommendation leader.. Instead that title you can offer to yourself..and be First Recommendation Leader of Bhutan/world.

  34. Kelpazangla says:

    Dear Peytse, your inquiry below, “Chang Ugyen was a “Dasho” to me before the land scam surfaced in his name. Now he is nothing more than a “criminal” to me. Would you call this an inconsistency in my stand, kelpazangla?” gave mea good laugh. Thank you for exercising my face muscles.

    On the serious note, how could you think of comparing Chang Ugyen with the Prime Minister of Bhutan? Again, I must caution you not to think of JYT as a person when I talk of PM of Bhutan. Today, JYT is the PM, it can be X, Y, Z in the future. I am not talking of an individual person but the Head of the Government of Bhutan. What I was telling OL is that when he does not want to address Hon’ble to the Head of the Government, how did he consider to address Hon’ble to a mere NC MP.

    Chang Ugyen to me is any other common man, may be bit vocal, bit tall, but nothing special. Even as DPT Vice Chair, he is nothing to me and he should not anything special to anyone outside the DPT box. I would not even call him Dasho because Dasho title is again sacred honour bestowed upon outstanding figures with Red Scarf by HM the King. Chang Ugyen was just an elected Representative of Public in the National Assembly those days, titled as Councillor. In the best mode, I would call him ex-Councillor Chang Ugyen. I have no say in his land scam because as far as I know the case is on record and being dealt under the Laws of the land.

    I hope this helps you a bit in your analytical power, my dear Peytse!

  35. Tshering says:

    I have a question. Is Government the only source of information?

    I have another question. Do we have the right to express our opinion on the accessed information?

  36. Yes, its high time, Bhutan should have RTI act!
    Kudos to Dasho Sangay Khandu for the initiative!

Leave a Reply