The Bhutanese Leading the way.
In a first of its kind in Bhutanese democracy, Members of Parliament of the National Assembly, all on the same page, and on the verge of passing a very lucrative Parliamentary Entitlement Amendment Bill 2024 that would have given them the Prado Quota and various new allowances and entitlements reversed course in 24 hours due to massive public pressure and outpouring against the move.
Apart from the Prado quota, the other new goodies were a one-time lumpsum amount as Joining Expense, a lumpsum amount to purchase laptop, iPad and printer as Equipment Allowance, annual discretionary grant (which had been originally prorated monthly at Nu 12,500 per month and already added to the pay of MPs in 2022), a well-furnished office and a special gratuity rate two and a half times the last monthly salary into the number of years.
The path to entitlement had already been paved on 21st November 2024 when the motion to table the Pay Structure Reform Act of Bhutan 2022 that did away with vehicle quotas was passed. The motion pointed out that the vehicle quota was needed and so the push was to amend this Act to bring back quotas.
Disquiet was already starting and this paper came out with a story on 23rd November pointing out how the motion to table the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022 was only a cover to get the Prado Quota.
This was proven right on 26th November when the National Assembly, while deliberating the Parliamentary Entitlement Amendment Bill 2024 section wise, approved section 20 which brought back the Prado quota.
This paper published an online story on the issue pointing this out, which was widely read and started fueling strong reactions on social media and other forums.
In what can only be termed as auspicious timing, the public address system of the Parliament did not function on 27th November Wednesday and the session was adjourned. This paper in an online post on the day further pointed out the insensitivity of the MPs move at a time of national economic pain.
As word of the MPs moves spread, online and offline, pressure built up as various people came out on Facebook posts, TikTok videos, comments section and criticized the move by the MPs for their Prado Quota and thobthangs. Family members and well wishers of MPs also got in touch with them directly or via calls about increasing public anger over the discussions in Parliament.
By Wednesday evening the writing was on the wall.
The Chairman of the Legislative Committee, Nyisho-Sephu MP Kuenga that had presented the Entitlement Bill told the paper, “There were comments on social media plus there were issues around the local government and civil service and so on Wednesday we discussed in the Legislative Committee where we decided to defer the bill.”
MP Kuenga informed the Speaker of the decision and the Speaker sought views from some MPs and by 28th November or Thursday morning, before the session, the talk spread among the MPs in the corridors and they agreed that deferment needs to be done.
Another MP, on the condition of anonymity, said that he only found out that the plan was to defer the bill in the corridor before entering.
The MP said that public pressure and online criticism had built up to such an extent that his wife cried when he came home, and he considers himself lucky that his children are young and cannot see the criticism posts, videos and memes on social media.
The MP said the public address system failure was Bhutan’s protective deities watching over the nation as the delay prevented the Parliament from going in the wrong direction.
The Legislative Committee Chair MP Kuenga acknowledged the public criticism, but said there was anyhow a need to address the inconsistencies between the Parliamentary Entitlements Act of Bhutan 2008, the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022, and the Pay Revision Act 2023.
He proposed that the government implement Sections 61 and 62 of the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022 and also consider for consolidation of all Entitlement related Acts into one legislation to ensure consistency and alignments of the Acts.
Lingmukha-Toedwang MP Namgay Wangchuk expressed his deep gratitude for the opportunity to engage in what he described as a crucial national discussion, grounded in the principles of freedom outlined in Section 7 of the Constitution.
He emphasized that this constitutional freedom allows everyone, not just those within the legislative house but also the broader public, to express their views openly. He acknowledged the significant role of social media in the country, where freedom of expression is fully guaranteed. “Educated individuals shared their opinions and perspectives through various mediums, including writings and videos, enriching public discourse and enhancing the quality of legislative discussions.”
He commended the Legislative Committee head for carefully considering public opinion.
The House further directed the government to report on the implementation of Sections 61 and 62 of the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022 and also submit a report during the summer session. The deferment of the Bill aims to ensure comprehensive consultations and the development of a consistent legislative framework.
An MP pointed out that a need was felt for a separate Parliamentary Entitlement Act even while the Constitution was being drafted before 2008, and he said the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022 had failed to repel the Entitlement Act. The MP said the Legislative Committee has been assigned the job of looking at the Entitlement Act during the plenary of the NA.
In earlier discussions on 26th November the Lamgong-Wangchang MP Sonam Tashi highlighted inconsistencies in past practices. “When democracy began in 2008, the Entitlement Act didn’t allow cabinet ministers to have both duty cars and quotas, yet previous governments took both. The first government (ministers of 2008-13) took the quotas as well as the duty cars home. The second government (ministers of 2013-18) took the quotas but not the duty cars. However, the third government (ministers of 2018-23) took their quotas and implemented a new act (Pay Structure Reform Act 2022) where the issue starts from. This isn’t about quotas, which are rewards for civil servants after years of service. We’re asking for a duty car because we’ve been using our private cars for over a year,” he had said.
The basis for Lamgong-Wangchang MP Sonam Tashi saying that ministers are not entitled to take Pardo Quotas can be seen in the Parliamentary Entitlements Act of Bhutan 2008 section 2 on application which says, “This Act shall apply to all the members of the Parliament but shall not apply to the members of the Lhengye Zhungtshog.”
The Act was amended in 2014 but this section was not removed.
MP Kuenga, when asked what will now happen, said that it is now up to the government to propose as their mandate is to only recommend. He said the government can submit a report. The MP said that even if the government brings any Act, then it will take around one and a half to two years to pass and only once the Act is passed the government can form a Pay Commission that will come up with the recommendations.
In short, the NA, for now, has given a quite a burial to the matter and does not want to dig it up.
On the NA asking for the government to implement Sections 61 and 62 of the Pay Structure Reform Act 2022 which essentially says either a chauffer driven SUV of 2,800 CC should be given or a lumpsum amount, the issue is about interpretation.
A government official said this is an attempt by the MPs to push for the duty vehicle now, but since the MPs already took the Nu 1 mn lumpsum then the section (which was inserted by the previous Parliament MPs) can already be considered implemented.
In earlier discussion before the deferment, Finance Minister Lekey Dorji expressed concern over the economic repercussions of reintroducing vehicle quotas. “If we bring back quotas, it will negatively impact our economy. For instance, someone could sell a Prado quota, use the money to buy two vehicles, and increase imports. Since we don’t manufacture vehicles, this would strain our foreign reserves. The previous government must have carefully considered these factors before removing quotas. Reinstating them could also create expectations among civil servants, adding a significant financial burden,” he cautioned.
Outrageous and reminiscent of (pigs) “snouts in the trough!”. Such blatant self-entitlement, whilst Bhutanese struggle to get affordable housing. The fact they backed-down should not be applauded, when this should NEVER have been tabled for any consideration. There was much angst after RCSC moved to clean wage – but everyone agreed that was the right thing. Now MPs think they are above such transparency – at tax payer expense. Poor, poor example by MPs and I’d expect Lyonchen to do better!