Extremely determined disrespectful opinion

The government has decided to discontinue the constituency development grant. That is good news. The government had bulldozed the CDG through the Parliament, without a full debate, without a vote, and without any support of the National Council and the opposition party. The ECB had objected saying that the CDG undermines free and fair elections. And the media has repeatedly questioned the legality of the grant. So the government’s decision to discontinue the controversial grant comes as really good news. But there's bad news too. The prime minister has not accepted that the CDG was a mistake. He has…

Real accountability

Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba, the works and human settlement minster, was reportedly “shocked and alarmed” at news that his ministry was underutilizing its budget allocations. The Ministry of Works and Human Settlement has apparently used barely15% of this financial year’s budget although more than half the year has already elapsed. Is Lyonpo Yeshey Zimba really shocked and alarmed? I hope not. After all, we expect our ministers to have a good idea of how their respective ministries are performing or underperforming, as the case may be. So if he is really shocked, if he is really alarmed, we should be…

No. No. No.

Is it legal? Is it logical? Is it needed? Three questions that we, members of Parliament, should ask ourselves today when we talk about state funding for political parties during the joint sitting.
Is state funding for political parties legal? No.
Article 15 Section 4(d) of the Constitution clearly forbids political parties from accepting “… money or any assistance other than those contributions made by its registered members”. That’s why the National Assembly decided almost 4 years ago that state funding for political parties would be unconstitutional. That’s why the Election Commission of Bhutan has called state funding for political parties illegal. And that’s why the Chief Justice of Bhutan has declared that state funding for political parties would go against the “spirit of the Constitution”.
Is state funding for political parties logical? No.
A political party, by definition, is a group of people who share the same ideas on how our country should be governed. These people work together to advance their political beliefs by securing the right to make laws, determine policies, and to run our government.
A political party, therefore, needs people. It needs people to support its ideas. And it needs people to finance the party machinery to advance those ideas. So if a party, any party, cannot draw enough people to support it, that party cannot claim to be a true political party.
You may agree with the ideas of a political party. Or you may not. If you do, you may wish to support that party, you may wish to become a member of that party, and you may wish to contribute financially to that party. But if you don’t agree to those ideas, you may wish to support an alternate political party. Or you may wish to stay neutral.
That decision is yours. That decision is your right. You may chose to support one party, or another, or you may chose to stay neutral. I repeat: that decision is your right. And what state funding for political parties threatens to do is infringe on that right. State funding would mean that your tax money will go to support all political parties; whether or not you want to support them, whether or not you agree with their ideas, your tax money will go towards propping them up.
To make matters worse, state funding for political parties would short-circuit the important relationship between political parties and the people. On the one hand, state funding would permit a political party to exist even if its ideas are not generally supported. On the other hand, state funding would mean that a political party does not have to be accountable to people. Instead that political party would essentially become, and should be required to operate as, a government department!

Constitution matters

“Constitution doesn’t imprison and shackle”. With these five words the prime minister argued that the government could raise tshogpa salaries without consulting the Pay Commission.
Indeed, the Constitution does not imprison; the Constitution does not shackle. That is not the purpose of the Constitution. And we know that.
We also know that the purpose of the Constitution is to provide a set of rules outlining how our kingdom must be governed. These rules define the responsibilities of the various institutions of the State – the monarchy, the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, constitutional bodies, local governments, and others – and authorize powers to these institutions so that they can fulfill their respective responsibilities.
But none of the institutions, not a single one of them, enjoys unlimited powers. That’s why the rules also specify checks and balances limiting the scope of their authority. These checks and balances are intended to minimize the risks of mistakes from being made when governing our kingdom. They are also intended to prevent dangerous concentrations of power and authority.
So yes, the Constitution does not “imprison and shackle” the prime minister and the government. But whether they like it or not, the Constitution does subject them to various checks and balances to ensure that our kingdom is governed well.
But it wasn’t just those five words. A story by Bhutan Observer shows that a lot more words were used, and excuses made, to argue that the Pay Commission did not have to be involved to raise salaries.  It’s worth reading the entire article again. So I’m reproducing it here, along with my comments which I’ve inserted, in parenthesis and in red, inside the article.

Democracy in Bhutan

Uncontested elections are generally walkovers for the lone candidates. That’s why they’re called “uncontested” elections. Since uncontested elections have only one contesting candidate, that candidate is automatically declared the winner. But not in Bhutan. Our electoral laws allow voters to cast their ballots even if there’s only one candidate is running. According to Sections 575 and 576 of the Election Act: 575.     A poll at any election to Parliament or a Local Government shall be taken in the constituency concerned even if there is only one contesting candidate or political party. 576.     The candidate shall, for the purposes of…

More local government

The elections for local government are over. So soon, and for the first time, we will have local governments – thromde tshogdes, gewog tshogdes and dzongkhag tshogdus – elected and empowered by the Constitution according to which: Power and authority shall be decentralized and devolved to elected Local Governments to facilitate the direct participation of the people in the development and management of their own social, economic and environmental well-being. The local governments that were recently elected will serve for five years. But the first elected parliament and the current government have less than two years left in office.…

CDG – MPs = LG

The Constituency Development Grant: The National Council has declared it as unconstitutional; The Election Commission of Bhutan has complained that it will compromise the conduct of free and fair elections; citizens have called it a political tool; and the opposition party has denounced it. And still, the controversial CDG prevails. But faced with increasing questions on the legitimacy, intent and usage of the CDG, the prime minister has agreed to consider revoking the grant after two years of his government. The plan, apparently, is to scrap the CDG: Provided that majority of the Gewog Tshogde (GT) submits that it…

CDG concerns

Earlier this year, while many of us expressed concerns over the legality of the Constituency Development Grant, the Gelephu MP had decided to use the grant to provide free boat services to passengers crossing the Mao Khola. “We are not supposed to use the CDG for recurring expenses. But considering this case to be important and for the good of the people I have put up the proposal,” he had said. The CDG was used to ferry passengers across the Mao Khola. Yet, no one has questioned the use of a “development” grant for “recurrent” expenses. Not so far,…

Parliament rejects LG bill

BREAKING NEWS The Parliament, this morning, did not pass the Local Government (amendment) Bill. Of the 68 MPs present, 44 voted to for the bill, 23 voted against, and 1 abstained. The Hon’ble Speaker did not cast a vote. According to the Constitution, he can only cast a deciding vote. A bill is passed by simple majority when it is debated in the individual houses (the National Council and National Assembly). But, if the two houses cannot agree on the provisions of a bill, that bill is debated in a joint sitting. In which case, two-thirds of the members…

Illegal grants

Our poll says that the CDG is illegal. 52% of the participants think that the CDG is unconstitutional. And 18% feel that it is very bad; that it will breed corruption. 15% are suspicious that the CDG will be used to win the next elections. And only 15% feel that the CDG is a good idea; that the grant will allow our MPs to fulfill their promises. 33 people participated in the poll. The result is obvious. An overwhelming majority of us feel that the CDG is not a good idea. And most of us are convinced that it…

Seedy grant

Our newspapers reported that the cabinet has approved the constituency development grant last week (read Bhutan Observer). I join the NC Chairman in expressing complete shock at the cabinet’s decision. Here are a few reasons, most of which I’ve shared with BBS, why we should be seriously concerned if the CDG has really been approved:1. It is unconstitutional. Our Constitution declares that “there shall be separation of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary and no encroachment of each other’s powers is permissible.” Allowing MPs to implement the CDG amounts to the legislature encroaching on the executive.2. It undermines…

Local Government elections – update

His Majesty the King commanded that Local Government elections shall be conducted after the ECB completes the delimitation process and after the relevant acts under which elections are to be held have been revised in accordance with the Constitution.His Majesty the King commanded that Local Government elections conducted under Acts that had been repealed and which are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution would lake legitimacy even as an interim measure. And that the cost of conducting elections again after a few months would cause financial burden to the exchequer and enormous inconvenience to the general public and…

Unconstitutional elections? – 2

Yesterday the ECB responded to my concerns regarding the legality of the forthcoming Local Government elections. (see my blog on 29 November) The ECB explained that the Local Government elections should go ahead, as an “interim measure”, in accordance with MOHCA’s order to elect Gups where the tenure of the incumbents has expired. I will object to the elections for several reasons: First and foremost the elections will be unconstitutional. The Constitution puts the responsibility of conducting elections (NA, NC, Local Government and National Referendum) squarely on ECB. Allowing MOHCA to order elections, for whatever reason, is a constitutional…

Unconstitutional elections?

I have copies of two letters:One, by the Election Commission of Bhutan, authorizing the Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs and the Ministry of Works and Human Settlement “…to issue directives to the relevant authorities to hold elections where the tenure of Local Governments has expired or expiring”.And two, by the Ministry of Home Affairs informing all 20 Dzongdags to conduct elections where the tenure of Local Governments has expired.Both letters are unconstitutional. The Constitution and the Election Act mandate and require the Election Commission to hold elections for Dzongkhag Tshodus, Gewog Tshogdes and Thromde Tshongdes. Clearly, the Election…