By Choekyi Lhamo
DHARAMSHALA, March 31: On the last day of the parliament’s budget session on Thursday, the house approved a bill, document no. 26, to form a parliamentary committee to investigate the much-debated issue of Gang Jong finance’s future, a banking system introduced by the previous Kashag. The parliament voted in favour to form a committee to review the workings and sustainability of the ambitious initiative. The incumbent CTA President Penpa Tsering earlier last week expressed his doubt over the project in an earlier session.
“The proposal brought forth by the Kashag invites a democratic review for the concerned project from the parliamentarians. But what message does this send out? It means that the parliament does not have faith in the explanation and clarification given by the present Kashag regarding the matter. The previous administration was given a lot of liberty when they first came to power with regards to implementation of new projects,” MP Dawa Phunkyi said. A few legislators raised queries about the composition of the committee, whereas some accused Kashag of dismissing the project for politically motivated reasons.
MP Serta Tsultrim said that the modality of a massive project like Gang-jong needs to be probed, given that many beneficiaries are still under process to return the loan. “If the project is indeed closed down, what will happen to the funds allocated for this project under the Tibetan administration? Would it be given back to the US government or be reallocated in other departments?” asked the Dotoe MP. Additional questions were posed regarding the composition and formation of the committee during the conclusive debate on the matter in the house.
Speaker Khenpo Sonam Tenphel said that the composition of the committee will not be divulged during the session as it is under review, but assured that the points made by the Standing Committee of 17th TPiE have been duly noted. Sikyong Penpa Tsering reasserted his stance on the Gang Jong Finance project, “This is not about whether I want it to carry on the project or not. The project was already there when I assumed my role [as President]; it would have been a legitimate question if I was the one who had initiated it. But with that being said, this Kashag will provide all the necessary resources for the committee to come to a fair decision.”
“I have clearly told the shareholders that we cannot guarantee the return of even their base investment in a few years as things stand now. I do not have the courage to ask the others to jump when I can see a cliff ahead. I will put effort but only if there is hope,” the President said when expressing his doubt over the future of the project last week. The future of Gang-Jong Development Finance Private Ltd. under the CTA Finance Department will now be reviewed by a committee for a period of 6 months as mandated by the parliament.
2 Responses
I agree with Sonam Tsering’s thought and complaint. His Holiness recognized Jonang pa as separate sect but it did not win required support to have representation in the exile parliament. Who has to address on behalf of Jonang pa ? Jonang pa might have come from Sakya but it had built its own identity to be called separate sect. It is unfair democratic system that Jonang pa is not provided even one seat of MP whereas others have two seats regardless of their voter’s number. The system needs to change and it can only be changed by MP bringing private member bill. But I see none has courage to do that.
Equal numbers of MPs representing each province in Tibet signified the importance of equal representation of people belonging to different provinces, even though, going by the numbers, U-Tsang being the largest populated province, could have more representation. But I feel it’s fair enough to give equal representation to each province so that the majority doesn’t bulldoze the interest or the voices of the minority. But then giving representation to the different sects of Buddhism completely overturn what afore mentioned system of representation desires to achieve – equal representation. With all elected MPs representing different sects of Buddhism belonging to one particular province, the voices of the majorities are getting snubbed. These MPs enter the parliament with preplanned and steadfast obejctive of opposing everything and anything the Sikyongs says. Criticism is ok but criticism for the sake of criticism is definitely not ok. And the language these so called monks in Buddha’s dress use? Less said the better. They are supposed to have achieved control over their emotion and lusts but looking at their behaviour, I feel I am a better Buddhist than them.