DISCLAIMER

Dear reader(s)

All the stories posted here are author's personal view and does not reflect anybody's or represent any institutions or organization to which the author is associated unless otherwise mentioned or referred or sources cited after the article. Therefore, any errors are also of the author. Any post which may be directly or indirectly related to any institutions where blogger may be affiliated does not in anyway represent these institutions. Readers may use the information for any educational or research purpose at their own risks on accuracy and authenticity of the information provided herein. The photo(s) from the author's private collection may not be reproduced in any form, electronic or otherwise without prior permission.

The information given here are updated and authenticated to the extent possible and to the best of the knowledge of the blogger and not otherwise.

Anyone wishing to use all or part of the posts published on this blog may kindly obtain permission from the author by emailing at sonamphuentsho111@gmail.com.

NOTE: The blogger is not responsible for any damages caused for whatever reason by using the information posted on this blog unless provided to the user with written permission from the Author.


Wednesday 22 April 2015

Balancing the two: The Freedom of Press and Person's Right to Honour and Reputation

The latest unfurling of the news of Penden Cement Authority Limited suing Kuensel  for defamation is unfortunate considering Kuensel as not only  the oldest national print media  but also most read, reputed and with fairly trained reporters. But it is worth dwelling on this issue of defamation as it encompasses, the Freedom of Press, the Right to Information versus the  Protection of Privacy and Reputation of a person All these rights and protections are enforced against the state and enshrined in the constitution. They look  inseparable
yet there does exist a thin line between them.  These rights must co-exist in a balanced way for any democratic values to thrive and promote democratic culture of Freedom of Speech and Expression to achieve the visions and gifts from the throne, the model democracy.

It is therefore, that the media  to be positive of such steps from public so long as they have published the true and correct statements. It is because, the main role of media is not to be a mouth piece of government  or selected parties but an ear and eyes of people where people are  informed of state's polices and use of public funds by any public agencies, government owned, semi-government or private if they use tax payer's money. At the same time, media must remind themselves through not only government regulations but through self censure to avoid publishing any facts or issues which might lower someone's honour or reputation. It is the responsibility of the media houses to verify and re-verify the facts and figures before it is published because with a single publication can cause irreparable loss to the reputation of a person.

Defamation is a ground on which a constitutional limitation on right to freedom of expression can be curtailed under Article 7(22) of the Constitution through a legislative process or even by the judiciary thought judicial activism by expanding the scopes  or interpreting the provisions of of fundamental rights and their limitation. There is not a single fundamental right which is absolute .

According to Black's Law Dictionary, Defamation is defined as "The offense of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements". Defamation is both a crime as well as a civil wrong or tortious act. Therefore, an aggrieved party may sue either way. If the aggrieved party wants to sue the  accused through criminal procedure, it will come under Penal Code of Bhutan where the prosecutor must prove all the elements beyond reasonable doubt  where as accused has right to take defense of any exceptions in the law. By applying the rule of interpretation, the laws must be interpreted most restrictively to benefit the accused and where intention is important element to be proven for conviction, though intention can also be direct or implied intention.

However, if the aggrieved party chooses to sue it through the law of tort, defamation refers to false statements about a person, communicated as a fact to one or more other persons by an individual or newspaper, magazine or any person causing damage  or harm to another person's reputation in anyway. The defence of malice intent or malafide intention is immaterial so long as there is lowering of the reputation, thereby suffers any injury. The decision of the case is not based on law but on  ratio decidendi or Legal precedence as there are no civil laws on this in Bhutan.  Since, the case is already filed, I would not dwell on this further. No body knows, who is right and wrong in this instant case untill we have entire facts and circumstances in front of us.

The issue here is not who is right or wrong but how media should conduct in such a fast flowing information era. Media will be bombarded with enormous information on the one hand but on the other hand, how much of that information is credible and true must be the duty of the media to filter and disseminate to the public. Bhutanese media being fairly young,  the reporters are often dictated by hectic datelines, limited sources of news in such a small peaceful nation, does build up enough pressure on the journalist in the fields  and some mistakes  are bound to happen unintentionally or otherwise. The editors are therefore,  there to filter those news and if required ask the reporters to do some more research and interviews than to publish with the limited information fed in by the reporter to meet the datelines.  Even a large and democratic countries like India, journalist and media organization are often the  ones sued for defamation by individuals or corporates  amounting to loss of millions and even billions of Rupees as fines and penalty for a single mistake. For instance, Times Now, a TV News Channel in  India ended up paying over Rs.500 million  for mistakenly showing a photo of renowned Retired Justice of Indian Supreme Court  on a bribery case who sued them for Rs.1000 million as damages.

Media must have right to information and freedom of press as provided under the Constitution but also must exercise these rights and freedoms more cautiously as there exist a very small line between violation of some one's privacy or reputation which are equally important as freedom of press. Publishing a true statement is never a defamation and media should never take that as an excuse to refrain from reporting whom they may be affiliated or afraid because they are powerful.  It is therefore, imperative that media must perform with caution to avoid any false or untrue facts and  figures which could affect someone's reputation otherwise, we would expect more and more allegations of defamation from both natural and legal persons.

Balancing the two: The Freedom of Press and Person's Right to Honour and Reputation

The latest unfurling of the news of Penden Cement Authority Limited suing Kuensel  for defamation is unfortunate considering Kuensel as not only  the oldest national print media  but also most read, reputed and with fairly trained reporters. But it is worth dwelling on this issue of defamation as it encompasses, the Freedom of Press, the Right to Information versus the  Protection of Privacy and Reputation of a person All these rights and protections are enforced against the state and enshrined in the constitution. They look  inseparable

Friday 17 April 2015

Too Many for Too Few: People vs People's Representatives

This week, a news came that the Local Government has proposed for reduction of number of gewogs in the country. It is definitely a good news for small country like Bhutan where public resources could be saved for developmental activities than feeding few local leaders. The sacrifice is worth taking and we would appreciate that such moves should be taken by
the citizens as it is in the best interest of the country.

NOW, the next question is, SHOULDN'T THE NUMBER OF MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT IS NOT TOO MANY? SHOULD WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARLIAMENT TOO?
These are basic questions we should ask as each MP cost the public exchequer to a great extent considering the huge expenditure for their election from campaign funds to training our election officials, their expenditure and people's wastage of time and resource.  A brief analysis of cost of each MP and comparative analysis of MP to citizen is given below:

MP ratio to Citizens with population

Bhutan: Total population in 2015 is just over 0.76 million as per National Statistical Bureau.
For every sixteen thousand (16000) Bhutanese, there is one Member of Parliament.

India: Total Population in 2014 is 1296 million.
For Every 2.3 million Indians have one Member of Parliament (Total electted MPs is 550)

USA: Total Population in 2014 is 318 Million
For every 0.7 Million American, there is one Representative in the House of Representative (Total Representative is 435)

Bangladesh : Population in 2014 is 158 million
For every 0.5 million Bangladeshi, there is one Member of Parliament (Total MPs is 300)

Japan: Population in 2014 is 127 Million
For every 0.3Million  Japanese , there is one Representative (Total Representatives is 475)

Expenditure for each MP in Bhutan
The unaudited report by the Election Commission of Bhutan revealed that, total expenditure incurred for Second Parliamentary Election was Nu.382 which is about 5.7 Million for each Member of Parliament including the National Council.

A national newspaper, The Bhutanese revealed that each Member of Parliament receives approximately Nu. 123000 per month (Annually Nu.1.4 Million) and total of Nu.7 million in five years excluding their retirement benefits and tax free vehicle quota where normally they buy expensive Prado Land Cruisers). This also exclude all other expenditures like travelling entitlements within and outside travels, staff and office expenses while in office including office rents and utility bills etc.

Considering all these huge expenditure on the public money and country's population, it may be more necessary to review the requirement of such a huge number of members in the Parliament. For example, Delhi is one of the smallest Union Territories with a population of 18.2 million population  has only 70 Members of the Legislative Assembly which means for MP to Population ratio is 1:0.2million population.

Bhutan as a small nation with very small economy, strong community vitality and oneness in the country, maintaining a small parliament which may be about 30 nos would do more than enough  as we would still have for every thirty thousand  of population would have at least one Member of the Parliament to represent them. Such move also ensure more credible candidates as competition in the political becomes more difficult and people will  have better choices which would ultimately benefit the citizens and the country. 

Too Many for Too Few: People vs People's Representatives

This week, a news came that the Local Government has proposed for reduction of number of gewogs in the country. It is definitely a good news for small country like Bhutan where public resources could be saved for developmental activities than feeding few local leaders. The sacrifice is worth taking and we would appreciate that such moves should be taken by

My Blog

My Blog

Search This Blog