The naysayers defend their decisions

KP Sharma  and Thinley Namgay

During the 34th session of National Council, the Upper House adopted the National Assembly (Amendment) Bill of Bhutan 2024, the Cattle Tax Exemption Bill of Bhutan 2024, and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment) Bill of Bhutan 2024, while  it rejected the Marriage (Amendment) Bill of Bhutan 2024.

Despite formal requests for voting records, both the National Assembly and the National Council declined to share the details. However, Kuensel obtained the NC voting records on three key bills: the Cattle Tax Exemption Bill, the ADR (Amendment) Bill, and the Marriage (Amendment) Bill.

Voting on Cattle Tax Exemption Bill

The voting records reveal that of the 18 members present during the adoption of the Cattle Tax Exemption Bill on November 29, 13 members voted in favour, four voted against, and one abstained.

Those who voted against were Thimphu’s NC member Leki Tshering, Mongar’s Tshering Wangchen, Trashigang’s Sonam Tobgyel, and Sarpang’s Pema Tashi, while Pemagatshel’s Jamyang Namgyal abstained.

During deliberations on the Bill,  Leki Tshering supported the bill, citing its benefits for highland communities in Soe and Naro gewogs, who rely on livestock for income.

However, he flipped and voted against the Bill. He declined to explain his decision, citing rules of the house.

During the deliberation, Trashigang’s Sonam Tobgyel raised concerns about the broad categorisation of animals as cattle under the Bill. He argued for renaming the bill as livestock taxes to be more inclusive.

Speaking to Kuensel, while acknowledging the Bill’s potential benefits, he opposed it, stating that even small taxes contribute to the exchequer. He suggested targeted incentives like subsidies instead of exemptions.

Sonam Tobgyel said that while the government increased property taxes, which enjoy broad support and contribute significantly to the economy, exempting taxes with minimal contributions lacks justification.

He suggested that instead of waiving cattle taxes, the government could provide other incentives, such as subsidies for cattle purchase, production, and infrastructure development.

While acknowledging the benefits of the tax exemption, he expressed concerns that, despite the bill being passed by the majority in the house, it could result in revenue loss for the government in some ways.

Sarpang NC member Pema Tashi criticised the Bill as unnecessary, stating that cattle taxes were not a public concern during constituency visits.

He also suggested that the Bill might be driven by the government’s political agenda rather than genuine public concern.

He cautioned that waiving taxes like cattle tax could set a wrong precedent, potentially leading to the government waiving other taxes, such as goong tax, under hidden agendas.

He also said that instead of focusing on waiving minor taxes, the government should address larger and more impactful taxes, such as the vehicle tax, which has significantly affected many Bhutanese. “High taxes on vehicles have made vehicles unaffordable for most citizens. The government should prioritise addressing such issues rather than waiving taxes that have not burdened the general public.”

During the deliberation, Mongar NC member Tshering Wangchen said that the Bill originated from the government and had encountered no issues in the past, prompting him to seek clarification on why it had resurfaced. However, he stressed that his inquiry should not be misconstrued as opposition to the Bill.

He pointed out that there had been no reports from farmers indicating that the cattle tax was burdensome or unaffordable. He explained that historically, cattle tax collection was managed by local governments. However, after the transfer of collection of other taxes, such as property tax, to the Department of Revenue and Customs, confusion arose over the responsibility for collecting cattle tax.

While acknowledging the potential benefits of tax exemptions for highlanders and cattle-rearing farmers, he argued that the government should focus on addressing more pressing issues rather than revisiting minor taxes.

Tshering Wangchen urged the government to prioritise a review of property taxes, which he argued deserve greater attention. “While property taxes have been beneficial, they have created challenges for people in rural areas,” he added.

ADR (Amendment) Bill

The ADR (Amendment) Bill of Bhutan 2024 was adopted on December 6 at the 34th National Council session with 12 votes in favour, one abstention, and nine votes against, out of 22 members present.

With the Bill falling short of the required three-fourth majority by one vote, the NC Chairperson exercised his veto power, casting a decisive vote in its favour to pass the Bill.

Section 95 of the NC Act of Bhutan 2008 provides that the Chairperson shall not vote initially but may cast a deciding vote in case of a tie or when the vote requires at least a two-thirds majority.

The nine members who opposed the Bill are Pemagatshel’s Jamyang Namgyal, Lhuentse’s Kelzang Lhendup, Thimphu’s Leki Tshering, Tsirang’s Nima Wangdi, Trashiyangtse’s Sonam Tenzin, Trashigang’s Sonam Tobgyel, Zhemgang’s Tshering Tshomo, Samdrupjongkhar’s Tshewang Rinchen, and Paro’s Ugyen Tshering.

The ADR (Amendment) Bill, a private Bill that originated from the NC,  underwent several rounds of discussions, including during the 33rd session.

On November 20, a majority of members endorsed 157 of the 159 amended provisions and three of four new provisions. However, disagreements emerged on three sections, which the Chairperson referred to the Legislative Committee (LC) for further deliberation.

One point of contention was Section 5, which pertains to the administration of the ADR Centre. The 2013 ADR Act designated the Centre’s head as the Chief Administrator, but the LC proposed renaming the position to Secretary-General.

Another disputed section, Section 14, requires the Chief Administrator and employees who are civil servants to resign from the civil service upon appointment to the ADR Centre. While the LC retained this provision, it justified the amendment by emphasising the Centre’s independence.

The LC also introduced a new Section 21(A), mandating the government to ensure adequate financial support for the Centre’s sustainable operations.

LC Chairperson Pema Tashi stated during the December 6 session that the members present at an internal discussion on November 24 had agreed to the amendments, including retaining the Secretary-General designation and the provisions related to independence and funding. However, concerns about the Centre’s operational independence and financial reliance on the government persisted.

The Chairperson on December 6 asked all members to raise their hands if they supported all three disagreement sections. At that time, more than 90 percent of them supported it. However, during the voting, the House failed to secure a three-fourths majority. .

The members who opposed the Bill cited these principles as their main reasons.

Jamyang Namgyal argued that while the ADR Centre is intended to be apolitical, seeking government funding raises questions about its independence. “There is a question of principle.”

Tshewang Rinchen echoed similar concerns, highlighting that the Centre’s Chief Administrator is appointed by the National Judicial Commission and should remain separate from the judiciary to uphold arbitration’s autonomy.

Sonam Tobgyel questioned the Centre’s focus, noting that it primarily serves construction and business-related disputes rather than addressing broader societal needs.

Sonam Tobgyel also questioned the independence of the Centre if it seeks funding from the government.

Warning against potential political influences on the judiciary, Nima Wangdi said that the judiciary should be kept apolitical.

Kelzang Lhendup contended that amending the ADR Act, which has been in effect since 2013, is premature, emphasising the need for greater awareness and broader implementation before revising the law. “The ADR office itself is not well-established at present, with only a few staff members running it.”

Ugyen Tshering stated that the ADR Centre should be independent of the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislature. However, he noted that there is no major change in the Bill.

Meanwhile, Tshering Tshomo, Leki Tshering, and Sonam Tenzin refused to comment.

Marriage (Amendment) Bill

The Marriage (Amendment) Bill of Bhutan 2024 failed to pass at the 34th Session of the NC on November 29, with 12 votes in favour, five against, and two abstentions out of 19 members present.

The Bill could have passed if at least 13 members out of 19 had supported it.

Members who voted against the Bill included Jamyang Namgyal from Pemagatshel, Sonam Tobgyel from Trashigang, Sonam Tenzin from Trashiyangtse, Tshering Wangchen from Mongar, and Tshewang Rinchen from Samdrupjongkhar.

The Bill, initially passed during the first session of the Fourth Parliament by the NA, was forwarded to the NC for further review. The Natural Resources and Environment Committee (NREC) was tasked to review the Bill.

The NREC accepted two provisions amended by the NA, made further amendments to 14 provisions, and introduced nine new ones in the Bill.

During the first reading of the Bill on November 19 by the NREC, comprehensive discussions were held on 24 articles.

Despite extensive deliberations, the Bill was not adopted due to disagreements on 13 provisions, primarily because of unclear language.

The House directed the NREC to revisit certain sections in consultation with members who raised the concerns.

Following the order of the House, the NREC conducted two days of internal discussions on November 27 and 28 with relevant members. On the first day, the NREC met with seven members, and six members on the second day, to resolve the discrepancies.

NREC Chairperson Kelzang Lhendup informed the House on November 29 that all members had agreed on the Bill during the internal discussions. He was optimistic that all the members would support the Bill.

Even when the Chairperson requested the Members to raise their hands during the afternoon session on November 29, more than 90 percent showed support.

However, when the voting was conducted, the Bill failed to secure a three-fourth majority.

Unlike the Alternative Dispute Resolution (Amendment) Bill, the NC Chairperson chose not to exercise his veto power for the Marriage Bill.

The NC member from Paro, Ugyen Tshering, said that the Chairperson’s veto could have ensured the Bill’s passage.

Members who voted against stated that they didn’t support the Bill on principle.

Jamyang Namgyal said that the NA’s primary intent in amending the Marriage Act was to correct the age of consent for females in the English version from 16 to 18, a change he deemed unnecessary as it already aligned with the authoritative Dzongkha text.

“In Dzongkha, the age of consent is clearly stated as 18. Amending the Act just for this reason undermines the sanctity of Parliament,” he said.

He further argued that any review of the Marriage Act should harmonise it with related legislation to ensure coherence.

Sonam Tobgyel and Tshering Wangchen also shared similar concerns.

Tshewang Rinchen raised additional objections to provisions in the Bill that proposed increasing gaw (benefits), questioning the appropriateness of such increases given the country’s current economic challenges. He said that these changes could disproportionately affect economically vulnerable populations.

Meanwhile, Trashiyangtse NC member Sonam Tenzin declined to comment.