India is a democracy, but without flaws. Disclosure of information could be not just of public servants, but of corporate sector or educational institutions and media. It need not be coercive. It can even be voluntary. Because of Election Commission affidavits, we know 543 MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha have a combined wealth of Rs 3,075 crore, Namma Nageswara Rao leading the field with Rs 174 crore. The battle that there should be disclosure and that disclosure should be in the public domain, is far from over, writes Bibek Debroy in The Indian Express.
Most people will have heard of Brandeis University, not necessarily of US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941). Justice Brandeis is credited with the quote, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In any democracy, information and disclosure are like light. Most debates about disclosure have concerned public servants. Consequently, because of Election Commission (EC) affidavits, we know 543 MPs in the 15th Lok Sabha have a combined wealth of Rs 3,075 crore, Namma Nageswara Rao (TDP) leading the field with Rs 174 crore.
Disclosure need not only be about public servants. Much of corporate governance is about disclosure of information, and eventual regulation of educational institutions and the media will be along similar lines. Nor does disclosure have to be mandated by law; it can be voluntary. However, rarely does anyone voluntarily part with information, even if there is no culpability.
...
There is a difference between disclosure and information being placed in the public domain. There is greater reluctance to place information in the public domain. Witness the case of ministers or the judiciary.
...
India is becoming richer. It is democratic, with all the warts and blemishes. And despite some recent question marks, it has a free press. Yet the battle that there should be disclosure and that disclosure should be in the public domain, is far from over. Perhaps this is understandable. The Right to Information Act is a little over five years old and the Official Secrets Act is 87 years old.
...
It divides assets into moveable and immoveable. In the moveable category are cash, deposits, bonds, other financial instruments, motor vehicles, jewellery and other assets (values of claims/ interests).
Cash and deposits should be straightforward enough, though even there, we may have a problem.
Babulal Agrawal is a 1988 batch Chhattisgarh cadre IAS officer. When there was an income-tax raid, it was revealed he possessed 220 bank accounts, with several in names of his peons and maid-servants. But in principle, it should be possible to track down this kind of stuff, even without income tax raids. The EC guidelines state: “Value of Bonds/ Shares/ Debentures as per the latest market value in Stock Exchange in respect of listed companies and as per books in the case of non-listed companies should be given.” Apart from wilful non-declaration, understatement of moveable assets occurs because jewellery is declared at historical costs at which they have been acquired. The guidelines merely state that weight and value of jewellery has to be declared.
If weight is known, it should be a simple matter to revalue jewellery at current market prices. If nothing else, they can be indexed to inflation. By the same token, motor vehicles can be reported at depreciated values. This becomes even more of an issue when it comes to immoveable assets, divided into agricultural land, non-agricultural land, buildings (commercial and residential), houses/ apartments and others (interest in property).
If we raise our eyebrows at perceived under-declaration of assets by MPs, that is primarily because these are undervalued. This is not an MP phenomenon alone, since there is consistent undervaluation of property in registration deeds, partly driven by tax evasion motives and partly by high stamp duties. The point is that present EC guidelines make no attempt to link these to market prices, unlike bonds/ shares/ debentures. Once one accepts that this should be done, one can figure out ways of doing it.
...
While avoiding subjectivity, it is possible to objectively determine current market prices for immoveable assets too. As is the case with circle rates, there will continue to be undervaluation. But at least the quantum of undervaluation will decrease.”
...
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Corruption costs business
Parliament has not been functioning for many days, which leads to severe costs and loss of reputation. The fight against corruption is not rhetorical matter.For decades, India has winked at corruption. The political order has fostered it and financed itself out of corruption. We are caught in a vicious circle where the private sector has to bribe ministers and civil servants if they are to carry on business. Unless all co-operate in exposing the corruption, a few will suffer and the rest will free-ride, writes Meghnad Desai in The Financial Express.
Parliament has not been functioning for many days. Leave alone the daily cost of its operation, but does anyone know or care about its effect on India’s reputation? The UPA or at least the Congress trumpets its virtue in forcing the resignation of Ashok Chavan and Kalmadi and then also belatedly Raja, but is that enough?
...
But leave that aside. The CWG scam was discovered only because the British tax authorities found something dodgy in the tax claims of the company favoured by Kalmadi. This was noticed sharply in the UK. What India does with the CWG scam will affect its chances for winning future sports events contracts. So far, no one has been charged and Kalmadi’s resignation from some footling Congress post is neither here nor there.
And then we have the Raja scandal. Again, the embarrassment at non-action or, at best, delayed action is being taken out on the companies that won the contracts. Trai is threatening to cancel the dubious contracts. Surely, again, that is not only overkill but killing the wrong party. The spectrum allocations were an international event.
...
The issue is simple. As Obama said, India is no longer emerging. It has emerged. With such status, go get some responsibilities. The fight against corruption is not rhetorical matter. It is not about quoting Gandhiji or claiming virtue against the BJP. For decades, India has winked at corruption. The political order has fostered it and financed itself out of corruption. This is well known. The shock at Ratan Tata’s statement that someone had asked him to bribe the minister to get a licence was not that such things go on. But that even as big an industrialist as Ratan Tata is subject to such squalid behaviour. We note that Tata has not got a licence for his airline business.
...
The question is who will bell the cat? Politicians will not do it. Many in the NGO community try their best to disseminate the information. But as Tehelka’s example showed, the political system can fight viciously and destroy you. The private sector has to take the initiative. Thus far, the Indian private sector organisations have been too shy or too afraid to raise the issue. Business pays the price either in cash or in missed contracts, as Ratan Tata’s example shows. If the apex bodies such as Ficci and CII were to open up a debate on this issue and if many more businessmen were to come forward as Ratan Tata did and relate their experience, we may get some action. It is not easy to do, of course. We are caught in a vicious circle (or a degenerate equilibrium, if you like a fancy expression) where the private sector has to bribe ministers and civil servants if they are to carry on business. Unless all co-operate in exposing the corruption, a few will suffer and the rest will free-ride.
The rest of the world is watching. Remember that Raju’s scam in Satyam was spotted on the NYSE. India does not have the luxury of time. It is time for the market to work. The state has failed demonstrably.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Be law makers again: Serious intent behind private members' bill
The primary role of the MP's is to legislate, though it is much forgotten by the Voters. Yet, Government exclusively draft new laws and pass them in the parliament. Any MP can introduce bills in the parliament as private members' bills, but it is bound to fail. Yet, many MP's do so for various reasons, including to prove their competence in coming up with the right solutions.MP's can do much to change the impression that they don't work once they get elected, writes C.V Madhukar in The Indian Express.
Read the whole article:
"In an era when most voters seem to ask the MP what he did for the constituency during his years in Parliament, it would be useful to remind ourselves that the primary role of our MPs is to legislate. Yet the task of drafting new laws, and seeing that they are passed by Parliament, has in practice become the exclusive preserve of the government of the day. "
"In such a situation, as individual MPs, what options do our MPs have to fulfil their role as law makers? In parliamentary parlance, any MP who is not a minister is referred to as a “private member”. Any MP can introduce bills in the House — as “private members’ bills”. "
"But, as with so many aspects of our Parliament, this is designed to fail. "
"When the probability that it will become law is close to zero, why is it that some MPs still make the effort of introducing these bills? A number of positive reasons: some MPs choose to use this as one more way of demonstrating their competence in not just understanding an issue, but also coming up with possible solutions through a legislative proposal. MPs also believe that this is an important way of signalling to the government the need for legislation on some critical issues. Even though the bill may not be passed, it sometimes brings out the “sense of the House” on an important policy issue, which can then be taken up by government."
"Before the voting age was reduced from 21 years to 18 years in 1989, there was a private member’s bill that proposed such a change. The debate on the floor of the House showed that MPs across party lines were in support of such a move. That bill was not passed, but the government later brought a bill to amend the Constitution to bring about this change. "
"There are some opportunities for MPs to express their views on issues, independent of the party diktat. In Question Hour, MPs ask questions of the government irrespective of whether they belong to the ruling party. Similarly during Zero Hour, MPs raise important issues cutting across party lines. Private members’ bills also offer the same space to MPs, one where they can raise issues independent of party considerations. It would be useful if more MPs used these opportunities to demonstrate leadership on critical issues on the floor of the House, as active MPs who take the institution of Parliament seriously enough to warrant active participation. This would go some way in addressing the perception that MPs do not do any work once elected. This will also help individual MPs prove that they are not mere “rubber stamps” of the political party leadership, which enforces its writ using the whip and the anti-defection law. "
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Read the whole article:
"In an era when most voters seem to ask the MP what he did for the constituency during his years in Parliament, it would be useful to remind ourselves that the primary role of our MPs is to legislate. Yet the task of drafting new laws, and seeing that they are passed by Parliament, has in practice become the exclusive preserve of the government of the day. "
"In such a situation, as individual MPs, what options do our MPs have to fulfil their role as law makers? In parliamentary parlance, any MP who is not a minister is referred to as a “private member”. Any MP can introduce bills in the House — as “private members’ bills”. "
"But, as with so many aspects of our Parliament, this is designed to fail. "
"When the probability that it will become law is close to zero, why is it that some MPs still make the effort of introducing these bills? A number of positive reasons: some MPs choose to use this as one more way of demonstrating their competence in not just understanding an issue, but also coming up with possible solutions through a legislative proposal. MPs also believe that this is an important way of signalling to the government the need for legislation on some critical issues. Even though the bill may not be passed, it sometimes brings out the “sense of the House” on an important policy issue, which can then be taken up by government."
"Before the voting age was reduced from 21 years to 18 years in 1989, there was a private member’s bill that proposed such a change. The debate on the floor of the House showed that MPs across party lines were in support of such a move. That bill was not passed, but the government later brought a bill to amend the Constitution to bring about this change. "
"There are some opportunities for MPs to express their views on issues, independent of the party diktat. In Question Hour, MPs ask questions of the government irrespective of whether they belong to the ruling party. Similarly during Zero Hour, MPs raise important issues cutting across party lines. Private members’ bills also offer the same space to MPs, one where they can raise issues independent of party considerations. It would be useful if more MPs used these opportunities to demonstrate leadership on critical issues on the floor of the House, as active MPs who take the institution of Parliament seriously enough to warrant active participation. This would go some way in addressing the perception that MPs do not do any work once elected. This will also help individual MPs prove that they are not mere “rubber stamps” of the political party leadership, which enforces its writ using the whip and the anti-defection law. "
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
SC should not make law in place of Parliament: Judge Katju
SC should not make law in place of parliament. Supreme court is not an interim parliament, said Justice Markandeya Katju. He added that Supreme Court judges should do their jobs and not become a Parliament and make laws. The comment was made during the hearing of an inter-country adoption case, reports The Indian Express.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Justice Markandeya Katju, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday unleashed a stinging criticism of the tendency of the apex court to don the role of law-maker.
“Can the Supreme Court convert itself into an interim Parliament and make laws in vacuum? Supreme Court judges should do their jobs and not become a Parliament and make laws,” Justice Katju said.
The comments from the senior judge came during the hearing of an inter-country adoption case.
The case deals with the six-year long search of 30-year-old man of Indian origin, adopted by a German couple in 1973, for his biological mother. The man, Arun Dhole, had moved the Supreme Court in 2005 after the Bombay High Court rejected his complaint that neither the Maharashtra Police nor the adoption agency was helping him trace his mother, who is referred to as just “young lady” in the official records.
Dhole claims he was “kidnapped” and given in adoption to the German couple when he was just four weeks’ old, on the “strong recommendation” of a political family in the state. The adoption centre officials however maintain that his mother had “abandoned” him and disappeared, never to get back in touch with the centre to know about the baby.
Dhole hinges his case on a 1984 Supreme Court judgment of Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union of India in which the court held that foreign adoptive parents could reveal information about the biological parents to their adopted child once the latter reaches the “age of maturity”. This judgment is widely believed to have clarified the law on inter-country adoption.
“What is the Supreme Court saying here? I am against the Lakshmi Kant Pandey judgment and other Supreme Court judgments like this. What is this... if there is no legislation the Supreme Court starts making laws! Judges should just do their jobs,” Justice Katju said. “I will raise my voice against this, and will keep on raising it.”
“The Supreme Court is not an interim Parliament,” Justice Katju added, saying otherwise Parliament should be “closed” and shifted to the Supreme Court. Justice Katju’s observations follow on the heels of a recent declaration by CJI S H Kapadia that the SC would not hear “matters of poliicy”.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Justice Markandeya Katju, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday unleashed a stinging criticism of the tendency of the apex court to don the role of law-maker.
“Can the Supreme Court convert itself into an interim Parliament and make laws in vacuum? Supreme Court judges should do their jobs and not become a Parliament and make laws,” Justice Katju said.
The comments from the senior judge came during the hearing of an inter-country adoption case.
The case deals with the six-year long search of 30-year-old man of Indian origin, adopted by a German couple in 1973, for his biological mother. The man, Arun Dhole, had moved the Supreme Court in 2005 after the Bombay High Court rejected his complaint that neither the Maharashtra Police nor the adoption agency was helping him trace his mother, who is referred to as just “young lady” in the official records.
Dhole claims he was “kidnapped” and given in adoption to the German couple when he was just four weeks’ old, on the “strong recommendation” of a political family in the state. The adoption centre officials however maintain that his mother had “abandoned” him and disappeared, never to get back in touch with the centre to know about the baby.
Dhole hinges his case on a 1984 Supreme Court judgment of Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union of India in which the court held that foreign adoptive parents could reveal information about the biological parents to their adopted child once the latter reaches the “age of maturity”. This judgment is widely believed to have clarified the law on inter-country adoption.
“What is the Supreme Court saying here? I am against the Lakshmi Kant Pandey judgment and other Supreme Court judgments like this. What is this... if there is no legislation the Supreme Court starts making laws! Judges should just do their jobs,” Justice Katju said. “I will raise my voice against this, and will keep on raising it.”
“The Supreme Court is not an interim Parliament,” Justice Katju added, saying otherwise Parliament should be “closed” and shifted to the Supreme Court. Justice Katju’s observations follow on the heels of a recent declaration by CJI S H Kapadia that the SC would not hear “matters of poliicy”.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Parliamentary debate on price rise: The colour of money
The negotiation of discussion on the price rise has stalled the parliament for a week. There were debates on the issue in the recent past too. The MP's don't subscribe to the view of Milton Friedman that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.Subsidy cuts, public distribution, hoarders and black-marketeers were blamed for the price rise, when monetary policy wasn't, writes M R Madhavan in The Indian Express.
Read the whole article here.
Parliament was stalled for a week as the government and opposition negotiated a discussion on the price rise of essential commodities.
Finally, Lok Sabha had the debate on Tuesday, and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
There have been several debates in Parliament on this issue in recent years. Indeed, this issue has been debated in each of the previous three full sessions of the current Lok Sabha. It is interesting to see what issues were brought up in these debates.
Monetarist economists, such as Milton Friedman, believed that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Not all economists agree with this view but almost all of them will say that change in money supply is an important contributor to price changes. However, our MPs do not seem to subscribe to this view. In nine debates since 2004 in the Lok Sabha, 224 speeches were made by MPs. Hardly any speech connected monetary policy with inflationary pressures. Subsidy cuts were mentioned 94 times while the public distribution system was blamed 43 times.
Another favourite scapegoat was hoarders and black-marketeers who were responsible for driving up prices — mentioned 42 times. A few speeches mentioned failure of monsoon and shortfall in crop output.
Note that all these issues are related to supply bottlenecks. There is hardly any mention of demand-led factors. This may be the politically expedient position. Loose monetary policy and a high fiscal deficit are not mentioned, possibly as no one wants to be seen as criticising either a pro-growth stance or rising government expenditure.
The debate this week saw a similar pattern. Fifty-five MPs expressed their views. Just one of them mentioned monetary policy as a possible tool to manage inflation. It is interesting to see that the content of parliamentary debates on inflation have not changed over the years, regardless of the actual inflation situation.
Read the whole article here.
Parliament was stalled for a week as the government and opposition negotiated a discussion on the price rise of essential commodities.
Finally, Lok Sabha had the debate on Tuesday, and Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
There have been several debates in Parliament on this issue in recent years. Indeed, this issue has been debated in each of the previous three full sessions of the current Lok Sabha. It is interesting to see what issues were brought up in these debates.
Monetarist economists, such as Milton Friedman, believed that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”. Not all economists agree with this view but almost all of them will say that change in money supply is an important contributor to price changes. However, our MPs do not seem to subscribe to this view. In nine debates since 2004 in the Lok Sabha, 224 speeches were made by MPs. Hardly any speech connected monetary policy with inflationary pressures. Subsidy cuts were mentioned 94 times while the public distribution system was blamed 43 times.
Another favourite scapegoat was hoarders and black-marketeers who were responsible for driving up prices — mentioned 42 times. A few speeches mentioned failure of monsoon and shortfall in crop output.
Note that all these issues are related to supply bottlenecks. There is hardly any mention of demand-led factors. This may be the politically expedient position. Loose monetary policy and a high fiscal deficit are not mentioned, possibly as no one wants to be seen as criticising either a pro-growth stance or rising government expenditure.
The debate this week saw a similar pattern. Fifty-five MPs expressed their views. Just one of them mentioned monetary policy as a possible tool to manage inflation. It is interesting to see that the content of parliamentary debates on inflation have not changed over the years, regardless of the actual inflation situation.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Speaker's logic for rejection of adjournment motion, makes Opposition task tougher
Speaker Meira Kumar's logic for rejection of adjournment motion makes the task of the Opposition tougher. She said that the adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law", reports The Times Of India.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Speaker Meira Kumar's decision to disallow adjournment notices given by the Opposition for discussion on price rise can be trend-setting as it clarifies that the said section cannot be an instrument to force discussions on routine issues.
Kumar, while agreeing in her ruling on Wednesday that rise in prices of essential commodities was a matter of concern, said adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law". Quoting former Speaker G S Dhillon's ruling, she said the government's decision (to hike fuel prices) was its executive function and did not involve any failure of constitutional or legal duties.
The chair promised to consider notices under other sections for discussion on price rise.
The ruling may prove a dampner for the Opposition as it raises the bar on what constitutes a fit case for adjournment motion. While a similar demand by the Opposition in the last session was dismissed on the grounds that the issue raised had to be specific and of immediate occurrence, the fresh ground laid adds to the criteria for adjournment -- failure of government to discharge its constitutional and legal duties.
Observers feel this will test the Opposition when it next thinks of invoking this section. A conscious BJP drew lessons from the earlier rejection and, as Sushma Swaraj said, limited the notice to hike in LPG and kerosene prices.
Now on, to have a realistic chance of having its way on discussions, the Opposition may have to look at other possible options.
As the deadlock in Parliament persisted, Kumar on Thursday said she was trying to find a "way out" by taking all parties along. "It is the issue of price rise... it is a serious issue... and people also want something to happen. Let us see how we find a way out by taking everyone together," she told reporters.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Speaker Meira Kumar's decision to disallow adjournment notices given by the Opposition for discussion on price rise can be trend-setting as it clarifies that the said section cannot be an instrument to force discussions on routine issues.
Kumar, while agreeing in her ruling on Wednesday that rise in prices of essential commodities was a matter of concern, said adjournment motion was admitted on the failure of government to discharge "the duties which are enjoined upon it by the Constitution and the law". Quoting former Speaker G S Dhillon's ruling, she said the government's decision (to hike fuel prices) was its executive function and did not involve any failure of constitutional or legal duties.
The chair promised to consider notices under other sections for discussion on price rise.
The ruling may prove a dampner for the Opposition as it raises the bar on what constitutes a fit case for adjournment motion. While a similar demand by the Opposition in the last session was dismissed on the grounds that the issue raised had to be specific and of immediate occurrence, the fresh ground laid adds to the criteria for adjournment -- failure of government to discharge its constitutional and legal duties.
Observers feel this will test the Opposition when it next thinks of invoking this section. A conscious BJP drew lessons from the earlier rejection and, as Sushma Swaraj said, limited the notice to hike in LPG and kerosene prices.
Now on, to have a realistic chance of having its way on discussions, the Opposition may have to look at other possible options.
As the deadlock in Parliament persisted, Kumar on Thursday said she was trying to find a "way out" by taking all parties along. "It is the issue of price rise... it is a serious issue... and people also want something to happen. Let us see how we find a way out by taking everyone together," she told reporters.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Parliament impasse ends, Lok Sabha to discuss, without voting, price rise
The parliament will discuss price rise under rule 342.BJP opposed a debate not followed by voting. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added. Both sides claimed victory.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
This article was published in The Economic Times on 3rd August 2010.
The weeklong impasse in Parliament over the nature of discussion on price rise ended on Monday, with both the government and the Opposition yielding some ground and agreeing to hold the debate under a rule that will be followed by the passage of a resolution conveying the sense of the House.
The Lok Sabha, thus, will hold the discussion under Rule 342, a clause rarely used by the House, on Tuesday. After the conclusion of the debate, Speaker Meira Kumar will move a resolution “expressing concern over inflationary pressure in the economy, and calling upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”. The Rajya Sabha will witness a similar debate on Wednesday.
It was clear that the two sides, in their anxiety to end the stalemate in Parliament and get down to discussing serious, burning issues confronting the nation, had to climb down from the intransigent positions they had adopted so far. A breakthrough was clinched this morning at the breakfast meeting convened in his parliamentary office by Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee.
BJP, which had been insisting on a discussion under Rule 184 that entailed voting, made it plain that they would not be amenable to the idea of a simple debate that would not be followed by voting. “After all, as many as nine discussions had been held in the Lok Sabha on price rise in the last six years. What has been their outcome? The issue, on the contrary, has become more serious,” Leaders of the Opposition in the two Houses, Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Arun Jaitley said. Their contention was backed by the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party. “If the government is still unrelenting, we’ll rather forego any discussion on price rise,” they added.
A way-out was found, with the two sides agreeing to hold the discussion, to be followed by the Chair reading out a resolution conveying the sense of the House. The government’s draft, which said that “this House expresses its concern on the inflationary pressure in the economy and calls upon the government to contain its adverse impact”, was found to be too soft
The Opposition parties, which included BJP, Left and JD(U), suggested three changes in the draft resolution — replacing inflationary pressures with price rise, adding “further action” and aam aadmi (common man) to the concluding part so that it’d have read “....calls upon the government to take further action to contain its adverse impact on the common man”.
Government managers rejected the first suggestion, contending that no finance minister could agree to the idea of replacing inflationary pressures with a specific mention of price rise, but agreed to the latter two changes. As the deadlock ended, both sides claimed victory. While the ruling coalition managers, having thwarted the Opposition’s attempts to force a voting on price rise, heaved a sigh of relief, BJP, which had formulated its response in consultation with the other Opposition parties, expressed satisfaction over the fact that even Congress would be joining in the Opposition’s efforts to ask the government to take more steps to reverse the trend and provide relief to the common man, in whose name it had come to power at the Centre.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Parliament disrupted for the third day in row
The Parliament was disrupted for the third day in a row with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting. Sharad Yadav appealed that the opposition should be heard, and the Government didn't comply, reports The Hindu.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Proceedings in both Houses of Parliament were disrupted for the third day on Thursday with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting.
However, the statutory resolution granting approval for imposition of President's rule in Jharkhand was passed without debate.
Raising the demand in the Lok Sabha for a discussion under Rule 184 after the demand for an adjournment motion was rejected by Speaker Meira Kumar on Wednesday, Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said the Opposition was “hurt and disappointed” by her ruling, and hence sought a discussion under Rule 184 — as suggested by her — which should be taken up after doing away with question hour. “The matter should be taken up immediately so that the House functions normally,” Ms. Swaraj said.
Sharad Yadav's plea
Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav also appealed to the Speaker to ensure that the Opposition was heard, as the government had refused to do so. The Opposition sought a discussion under the new rule after deliberating on the issue overnight. “Even the people were pained at your decision, but we have accepted it, and now demand that the discussion be taken up.” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that this was the first time the entire Opposition had come together on one issue. “If the House is not functioning, it is because of the government and not us.”
Ms. Kumar said the notices she received for discussion under Rule 184 were being examined, and would have to be sent to the Business Advisory Committee for approval.
Intervening, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government was not shying away from discussing any issue, but notices under Rule 193 (not entailing voting) received earlier would be taken up first.
His remarks evoked a sharp reaction from the Opposition members, who trooped into the well. The House was adjourned soon after.
The scene was no better when the House re-assembled at noon. The Opposition members, including those of the SP and the BSP, stormed into the well. But the Speaker went ahead with the laying of papers and even getting approval for the proclamation that put Jharkhand under President's rule under Article 356 (1) on June 1.
In the Rajya Sabha too, the Opposition members made the same demand, leading to two adjournments. It was adjourned for the day at noon after papers were tabled and approval was granted for President's rule in Jharkhand. Again, without any discussion.
Read the whole article on Miracle Of Democracy.
Proceedings in both Houses of Parliament were disrupted for the third day on Thursday with a determined Opposition demanding a discussion on price rise under Rule 184 that entails voting.
However, the statutory resolution granting approval for imposition of President's rule in Jharkhand was passed without debate.
Raising the demand in the Lok Sabha for a discussion under Rule 184 after the demand for an adjournment motion was rejected by Speaker Meira Kumar on Wednesday, Leader of the Opposition Sushma Swaraj said the Opposition was “hurt and disappointed” by her ruling, and hence sought a discussion under Rule 184 — as suggested by her — which should be taken up after doing away with question hour. “The matter should be taken up immediately so that the House functions normally,” Ms. Swaraj said.
Sharad Yadav's plea
Janata Dal (United) leader Sharad Yadav also appealed to the Speaker to ensure that the Opposition was heard, as the government had refused to do so. The Opposition sought a discussion under the new rule after deliberating on the issue overnight. “Even the people were pained at your decision, but we have accepted it, and now demand that the discussion be taken up.” Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that this was the first time the entire Opposition had come together on one issue. “If the House is not functioning, it is because of the government and not us.”
Ms. Kumar said the notices she received for discussion under Rule 184 were being examined, and would have to be sent to the Business Advisory Committee for approval.
Intervening, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal said the government was not shying away from discussing any issue, but notices under Rule 193 (not entailing voting) received earlier would be taken up first.
His remarks evoked a sharp reaction from the Opposition members, who trooped into the well. The House was adjourned soon after.
The scene was no better when the House re-assembled at noon. The Opposition members, including those of the SP and the BSP, stormed into the well. But the Speaker went ahead with the laying of papers and even getting approval for the proclamation that put Jharkhand under President's rule under Article 356 (1) on June 1.
In the Rajya Sabha too, the Opposition members made the same demand, leading to two adjournments. It was adjourned for the day at noon after papers were tabled and approval was granted for President's rule in Jharkhand. Again, without any discussion.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
The easy guide to how much money you spend on Parliament
The nation spends 37,000 Rs every minute for the parliament to function properly. There is an increase of 3400 percentage in the cost per MP in the last twenty years. The members of Parliament even collect allowances when they boycott the Parliament. They are entitled to several other allowances too, writes Barun Mitra in The Indian Express.
At RS 437 crore in 2003-04, it costs the nation Rs 37,000 per minute to keep Parliament functioning.
The 400 hours estimated to have been lost in the last two sessions of Parliament in June, July and August 2004 have meant a financial loss to the exchequer ranging from Rs 88 crore to 207 crore.
The time parliamentarians spend discussing budgetary issues has declined from 23 per cent in 1970s to a mere 10 per cent today. And in 2004, the Finance Bill had to be passed without any debate at all.
The cost per MP (790 MPs, combining both houses) has risen from Rs 1.58 lakh in 1983-94 to 55.34 lakh in 2003-04. An increase of 3,400 per cent!
During the same period, consumer price index increased 500 per cent, and the average emolument for public sector employees increased 900 per cent.
It has been reported in the media, that 400 hours or 24,000 minutes were lost due to disruption of Parliamentary proceedings in the last two sessions spread over June, July and August. For the first time, even the finance bill could not be debated, ‘‘tainted ministers’’, Savarkar and other issues stalled parliament for days.
There has been a worrisome decline in terms of time spent on issues such as the union budget. According to one estimate, between 1952 and 1979, the Parliament devoted on an average 23% of its time on discussing and debating budget related issues. However, between 1980 and 2001 the time devoted to budgetary issues had come down to only 10%. In addition, the number of days when Parliament is in session has been steadily declining from 143 days in 1980 to merely 90 days 2001. This includes all the three basic sessions of Parliament — Budget session, monsoon session and winter session.
At a cost of about Rs. 37,000 per minute or about Rs. 22 lakh an hour or Rs. 1.7 crore per day (assuming that Parliament works for 245 days a year for 8 hours a day), on the basis of annual budgetary allocation for both houses of Parliament in 2003-04 at Rs 437 crore, the total loss in terms of public money comes to about Rs 88 crore or USD 19.5 million, for the 400 hours in the first two sessions of 14th Parliament.
Earlier, when members used to boycott Parliament, they did not collect their daily parliamentary allowances. Today, however, MPs feel free to disrupt the house from within and have no compunction about collecting their allowance for their labour. If members don’t sign their attendance and decline to collect their daily allowance at Rs. 500 days, then the exchequer could at least save Rs 3,95,000 each day for the 790 member. In the past two decades, the budgetary allocation for both houses of Parliament has increased from a mere Rs 12.49 crore in 1983-84, to Rs. 437.15 crore in 2003-04. A whopping 35 fold increase in 20 years!
As a point of comparison, the general consumer price index for industrial workers increased only five fold between 1982 and 2004. Even the per capita emoluments for the much vaunted public sector employees increased from Rs 21,549 in 1983-84 to Rs 1,93,205 in 2001-02, about 9 fold increase.
In contrast, on a per capita basis, the expenditure incurred on each of our 790 Members of Parliament of both houses, in 2003-04 at Rs 437 crore, comes to about Rs 55 lakh per MP. A 3400% increase over two decades. It was a mere Rs 1.58 lakh in 1983-84.
This in a country where the per capita income is estimated at about USD 450/- or Rs 20,250/-, which even in purchasing power parity (PPP US dollar 2500/-) terms would translate in to Rs. 1,12,500/-.
Our MPs cost us about 20 times more than what an average industrial worker earns in a year, and about 40 times the earnings of an ordinary citizen. And all this is after putting in only about 80 parliamentary working days in a year, compared to about 250 days put in by an urban salaried worker.
The annual cost of Rs 300 crore may look to be a small price to pay for maintaining Parliamentary democracy in India. But that is only the minimum direct cost. If one factors in mis-governance, then the total cost of Indian Parliament begins to look very formidable indeed.
Increasingly, legislators officiate as executives. The MPs Local Area Development Fund (MPLAD), which entitles each Member of Parliament to allot Rs 2 crore annually towards development projects facilitates this dilution of legislative functions. 57 years after Independence, India has ranked consistently around the 125th level on most international socio-economic indices, finding its place among the perpetually poor nations of the world.
While the costs are significant, Indian democracy is also extremely competitive. Almost half the sitting members lose their seat at every general election. After all, that is the only way for the voters to hold their elected representatives to account. One can only hope that this will induce the elected representatives to look afresh at the core issue of governance, if only to increase their own prospect of getting re-elected.
Salaries and perks of Members of Parliament.
MPs are paid salaries and allowances along with travel and other privileges so that they may perform their responsibilities as lawmakers without fear or favour. According to an estimate made a few years ago, this is what an MP makes in terms of salaries and allowances:—
1.Constituency allowance: Rs 12,000 per month.
2.Allowance for Attending Parliament: Rs 400 per day.
3.Office allowance: Rs 14,000/- per month.
4.Secretarial allowance: Rs 10,000 per month.
5.Stationery and postage: Rs 3,000/-.
6.Postage and franking: Rs 1,000/- per month.
Perks: (monetised estimates)
1.Each MP is entitled to a free house, transport to Parliament, and subsidised food. The cost maintenance and furnishing of the house is borne by the government as well. This could easily come to about Rs 1,20,000/- annually towards housing.
2.A daily travel allowance of Rs 8 per kilometre, which could translate in to Rs 48,000 for a chauffer driven car during session. In addition, a conservative estimate of rs 24,000 for food. Both these could total about rs 75,000 per year.
3.Each MP get 50,000 units of free electricity every year. At a conservative rate of rs 2.,50 per unit, this will come to Rs 1,25,000/-. In addition, water is provided free.
4.Each MP is entitled to 3 telephones, one in the office, one at home, and one in the constituency, and total free calls could be 1,70,000 free local calls per year. One of these lines can be used for connecting to the Internet. But MPs have to pay for these facilities if they use them beyond the free limit. Unutilised free calls can be transferred to their mobile phones. At a minimum the monetised value of this benefit would be about Rs 2 lakh per anum.
5.An MP can travel 32 times by air (business class) anywhere within India, along with his of her spouse of a companion. He or she can travel another 8 times from the constituency to Delhi to attend Parliament sessions. At an average air fare of Rs 7,000, this could easily come to Rs 5,60,000/- annually.
6.When travelling abroad on an official visit, the MP gets a free business class ticket, along with a daily allowance which depends on the country being visited.
7. Each MP is entitled to unlimited free passes to travel (first class or AC 2-tier) by train any where in the country, along with a companion. The annual rail fare could easily come to about Rs 1,00,000/-.
8. Most medical expenses of an MP are taken care of under the Contributory Health Service Scheme of the Union Government.
9. Each MP is entitled to a pension for life. (This was added by the previous NDA government). The basic pension is Rs 3000 per month, and it increases as per the length of service in Parliament. There are additional travel and medical benefits for former MPs as well.
At RS 437 crore in 2003-04, it costs the nation Rs 37,000 per minute to keep Parliament functioning.
The 400 hours estimated to have been lost in the last two sessions of Parliament in June, July and August 2004 have meant a financial loss to the exchequer ranging from Rs 88 crore to 207 crore.
The time parliamentarians spend discussing budgetary issues has declined from 23 per cent in 1970s to a mere 10 per cent today. And in 2004, the Finance Bill had to be passed without any debate at all.
The cost per MP (790 MPs, combining both houses) has risen from Rs 1.58 lakh in 1983-94 to 55.34 lakh in 2003-04. An increase of 3,400 per cent!
During the same period, consumer price index increased 500 per cent, and the average emolument for public sector employees increased 900 per cent.
It has been reported in the media, that 400 hours or 24,000 minutes were lost due to disruption of Parliamentary proceedings in the last two sessions spread over June, July and August. For the first time, even the finance bill could not be debated, ‘‘tainted ministers’’, Savarkar and other issues stalled parliament for days.
There has been a worrisome decline in terms of time spent on issues such as the union budget. According to one estimate, between 1952 and 1979, the Parliament devoted on an average 23% of its time on discussing and debating budget related issues. However, between 1980 and 2001 the time devoted to budgetary issues had come down to only 10%. In addition, the number of days when Parliament is in session has been steadily declining from 143 days in 1980 to merely 90 days 2001. This includes all the three basic sessions of Parliament — Budget session, monsoon session and winter session.
At a cost of about Rs. 37,000 per minute or about Rs. 22 lakh an hour or Rs. 1.7 crore per day (assuming that Parliament works for 245 days a year for 8 hours a day), on the basis of annual budgetary allocation for both houses of Parliament in 2003-04 at Rs 437 crore, the total loss in terms of public money comes to about Rs 88 crore or USD 19.5 million, for the 400 hours in the first two sessions of 14th Parliament.
Earlier, when members used to boycott Parliament, they did not collect their daily parliamentary allowances. Today, however, MPs feel free to disrupt the house from within and have no compunction about collecting their allowance for their labour. If members don’t sign their attendance and decline to collect their daily allowance at Rs. 500 days, then the exchequer could at least save Rs 3,95,000 each day for the 790 member. In the past two decades, the budgetary allocation for both houses of Parliament has increased from a mere Rs 12.49 crore in 1983-84, to Rs. 437.15 crore in 2003-04. A whopping 35 fold increase in 20 years!
As a point of comparison, the general consumer price index for industrial workers increased only five fold between 1982 and 2004. Even the per capita emoluments for the much vaunted public sector employees increased from Rs 21,549 in 1983-84 to Rs 1,93,205 in 2001-02, about 9 fold increase.
In contrast, on a per capita basis, the expenditure incurred on each of our 790 Members of Parliament of both houses, in 2003-04 at Rs 437 crore, comes to about Rs 55 lakh per MP. A 3400% increase over two decades. It was a mere Rs 1.58 lakh in 1983-84.
This in a country where the per capita income is estimated at about USD 450/- or Rs 20,250/-, which even in purchasing power parity (PPP US dollar 2500/-) terms would translate in to Rs. 1,12,500/-.
Our MPs cost us about 20 times more than what an average industrial worker earns in a year, and about 40 times the earnings of an ordinary citizen. And all this is after putting in only about 80 parliamentary working days in a year, compared to about 250 days put in by an urban salaried worker.
The annual cost of Rs 300 crore may look to be a small price to pay for maintaining Parliamentary democracy in India. But that is only the minimum direct cost. If one factors in mis-governance, then the total cost of Indian Parliament begins to look very formidable indeed.
Increasingly, legislators officiate as executives. The MPs Local Area Development Fund (MPLAD), which entitles each Member of Parliament to allot Rs 2 crore annually towards development projects facilitates this dilution of legislative functions. 57 years after Independence, India has ranked consistently around the 125th level on most international socio-economic indices, finding its place among the perpetually poor nations of the world.
While the costs are significant, Indian democracy is also extremely competitive. Almost half the sitting members lose their seat at every general election. After all, that is the only way for the voters to hold their elected representatives to account. One can only hope that this will induce the elected representatives to look afresh at the core issue of governance, if only to increase their own prospect of getting re-elected.
Salaries and perks of Members of Parliament.
MPs are paid salaries and allowances along with travel and other privileges so that they may perform their responsibilities as lawmakers without fear or favour. According to an estimate made a few years ago, this is what an MP makes in terms of salaries and allowances:—
1.Constituency allowance: Rs 12,000 per month.
2.Allowance for Attending Parliament: Rs 400 per day.
3.Office allowance: Rs 14,000/- per month.
4.Secretarial allowance: Rs 10,000 per month.
5.Stationery and postage: Rs 3,000/-.
6.Postage and franking: Rs 1,000/- per month.
Perks: (monetised estimates)
1.Each MP is entitled to a free house, transport to Parliament, and subsidised food. The cost maintenance and furnishing of the house is borne by the government as well. This could easily come to about Rs 1,20,000/- annually towards housing.
2.A daily travel allowance of Rs 8 per kilometre, which could translate in to Rs 48,000 for a chauffer driven car during session. In addition, a conservative estimate of rs 24,000 for food. Both these could total about rs 75,000 per year.
3.Each MP get 50,000 units of free electricity every year. At a conservative rate of rs 2.,50 per unit, this will come to Rs 1,25,000/-. In addition, water is provided free.
4.Each MP is entitled to 3 telephones, one in the office, one at home, and one in the constituency, and total free calls could be 1,70,000 free local calls per year. One of these lines can be used for connecting to the Internet. But MPs have to pay for these facilities if they use them beyond the free limit. Unutilised free calls can be transferred to their mobile phones. At a minimum the monetised value of this benefit would be about Rs 2 lakh per anum.
5.An MP can travel 32 times by air (business class) anywhere within India, along with his of her spouse of a companion. He or she can travel another 8 times from the constituency to Delhi to attend Parliament sessions. At an average air fare of Rs 7,000, this could easily come to Rs 5,60,000/- annually.
6.When travelling abroad on an official visit, the MP gets a free business class ticket, along with a daily allowance which depends on the country being visited.
7. Each MP is entitled to unlimited free passes to travel (first class or AC 2-tier) by train any where in the country, along with a companion. The annual rail fare could easily come to about Rs 1,00,000/-.
8. Most medical expenses of an MP are taken care of under the Contributory Health Service Scheme of the Union Government.
9. Each MP is entitled to a pension for life. (This was added by the previous NDA government). The basic pension is Rs 3000 per month, and it increases as per the length of service in Parliament. There are additional travel and medical benefits for former MPs as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
