Tenzin Nyidon
DHARAMSHALA, Sept. 16: A bill proposing amendments to provisions in rules of budget failed the floor test after extensive deliberation on Tuesday during the 2025 general session of the 17th Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile.
The amendment to the Rules of Budget sought to introduce emergency financial measures for the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in situations where normal governance structures—such as the Cabinet and the Parliament-in-Exile—are unable to function.
The bill was first introduced during the ninth parliamentary session earlier this year. Following its first reading then, the house resolved to establish a deliberation committee to review the proposal. The committee consisted of Parliamentarian Youdon Aukatsang as Chair, Parliamentarian Lobsang Gyatso Sither, and Political Secretary Tashi Gyatso.
Presenting the committee’s report, Youdon Aukatsang noted that while it is unlikely for both Parliament and its Standing Committee to cease functioning, the possibility of an annual budget remaining unapproved by the end of the fiscal year cannot be ruled out. She further highlighted that although existing legal provisions address scenarios such as the completion or resignation of the CTA President’s term or Cabinet transitions, there still remains a potential situation where an interim Cabinet might not have to assume its responsibilities.
An amendment bill was introduced to revise Articles 5, 7, and 9 of the financial management regulations, with new provisions on emergency budgeting added under subsection 8 of Article 7. After its first reading and subsequent revision, the bill proceeded to a second reading and detailed deliberation. During this stage, many parliamentarians objected to the clause stating that “if the budget legislation cannot be finalized by March 31 in Parliament, the emergency budget shall be automatically deemed approved from the start of the new fiscal year until the budget legislation is finalized.”
President Penpa Tsering, along with several parliamentarians, argued that the amendment as a preventive measure intended to avert future difficulties, emphasizing that the bill carried no ulterior motive other than to provide a clear way forward. However, other members argued that such a provision risked potential misuse in the future.
Ultimately, during the floor test, the proposed amendments to Articles 5 (iii), 7 (i) (vi), and 9 of the Rules of Budget were rejected after failing to receive the necessary two-thirds majority.
