BCCI seeking legal identity after 31 years
After 31 years of its existence, the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) felt the need to get a legal certification. The Annual General Meeting of the BCCI this week decided to push the agenda through upcoming parliament session in January to pass law which gives it a legal identity. In April 1980 the BCCI was formed under the verbal order of the King Jigme Singye and since then it continued to run without any legal identity.
There were several other such institutions such as Tarayan Foundation, Respect, Educate, Nurture and Empower Women (RENEW), Bhutan Youth Development Fund (BYDF), Bhutan Nun Foundation, Loden Foundation, Royal Society for Protection and Care of Animals (RSPCA) and Royal Society for Protection of Nature were some of the institutions established under the verbal command of the King without giving any legal identity. Some of these have now been registered with the government under Civil Society Organisation Act, enacted in 2007.
In a revelation, a BCCI official indirectly mentioned finally that anything done through royal verbal order does not need legal formality of complete. There had never been any mention for all these years that all done in the past were through verbal order. Many acts done, institutions formed, law changed through ‘verbal order’ of the King. The verbal order was then the supreme law of the country.
The BCCI official also revealed that they failed to push the reluctant government in 2006 to give the institution a legal identity due to ‘different political system’. This reminds of many arguments that I made with northern Bhutanese, during the initial days we started media in exile, regarding whether Bhutan government is legal entity.
It is not surprising, of course, that Bhutan had no legal instrument to form organisations when it had no laws explaining the process how a government is formed. The apex contradiction of the time was – what is the difference among Bhutan government, BCCI and Bhutan People’s Party. The former two were established under the verbal order of the king while the latter not. Coincidently, none of these had any legal identity. The one holding the power subsequently became legal while the other illegal.
There are many more to come out as time pass to tell the story how unjustifiable was the rule of King Jigme Singye Wangchuk. Time will tell.