Sarpang Vs Zhemgang

Sarpang and Zhemgang districts have become the hotspot of political wrangling in Bhutan for over a month. The iron is still hot and none of the parties are willing to back off from their allegations against the other. The race is unlikely to settle soon, if no royal intervention made. However, royal intervention will be unconstitutional though softer approach is not unanticipated.

Cause

The battle begun with government’s decision to remove Zhemgang district from national tourism flagship programme and replace it with Sarpang. The government proposal passed the parliament for Nu 200 million worth of tourism programmes for the fiscal year 2019-20 out of the Nu 1 billion in the 12th Plan where Zhemgang was supposed to be the beneficiary, not Sarpang.

The idea to include southern district in the flagship programme and open southern doors for tourists was initially presented by the opposition party – Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT). The government resisted the idea saying Bhutan does not have appropriate and adequate infrastructure for border security to run such programme. Upon opposition’s pressure, government agreed to open entry points in southern districts.

Initially government proposed for Dagana, Gasa, Lhuentse and Zhemgang.  The districts were means to have regional balance. Dagana representing southern region, Gasa the western, Lhuentse the central and Zhemgang eastern region. With Zhemgang being replaced by Sarpang, the eastern region has now been left out with the programme.

Allegations

Opposition party DPT alleged that government deprived the district of national programme because the district voters did not choose Druk Nyamrup Tshogpa (DNT) in last election. Zhemgang’s both representatives in the National Assembly are from the opposition party – DPT.

The Opposition approached the Speaker of National Assembly to revoke the government decision. However, speaker opined that government has the authority to make changes in the budget appropriation and alter programmes as needed. The Office of Attorney General – the legal advisor to the government – also favoured government’s decision. Then DPT reached out to National Council – the upper house that has no political representation.

NC advised the Prime Minister’s Office that replacement would be illegal as the government is bypassing Budget Appropriation Bill and Public Finance Act. The bill passed NA and NC has budget appropriation for each district and each activity.

NC detailed budget allocations for the FY 2019-20 are presented in Chapter 4 of the National Budget Report for FY 2019-20 in which, Nu 11 million each is allocated to four focus districts such as Zhemgang, Lhuentse, Dagana and Gasa for specific interventions to develop tourism.

NC said, since the National Budget Report for the Financial Year 2019-20 is an integral part of the Budget Appropriation Bill for the Financial Year 2019-20, it is deemed legally binding on the government to ensure implementation of activities or programs as per the allocations. The conclusion was drawn from a letter that opposition wrote to NC seeking intervention.

On July 24, Cabinet Secretary advised the Secretary of the Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC) that Prime Minister decided to replace Zhemgang with Sarpang for tourism development flagship programme. The letter invited chaos in National Council NC because the bureaucracy was ignoring instruction from legislative body.

Government reaction

The government blamed opposition for divisive and regional politics. Prime Minister Dr Lotay Tshering claimed there isn’t any political motive behind the change. He said replacement was meant for equal distribution of opportunities and economic benefits.

PM Tshering brushed off the accusation that the decision was in violation of law.

He said, ‘We must be reminded and we must be corrected if we are wrong,’ adding his government crosschecked and did its homework to see if there were legality issues but found none.

Foreign Minister Tandi Dorji refuted the allegation and said that the only reason for removing Zhemgang and including Sarpang for the programme was that Sarpang has a huge potential to develop and become the southern gateway for the country.

“We are trying to undo what they have done in terms of politicisation. We have not put the party’s interest above all but the opposition is trying to put only their party’s interest above all”, he said.

The government has emphasised that Zhemgang will get attention for development and has been allotted the highest budget in the 12^thplan. Zhemgang is allotted Nu 1.009 bn whereas Sarpang is getting Nu 951 million during the plan period.

Foreign Minister Tandi Dorji has soften the government stand when he failed to certify that decision was not illegal. The government is now saying they have not used the budget yet and are still under consultation with legal practitioners.

Facts and Figures

According to the Bhutan Tourism Monitor, Sarpang received one of the lowest tourism arrivals in the country with only 231 tourists while Zhemgang received slightly higher at 332 tourists last year.

Feasibility study shows Sarpang provides better option to be used as entry point in southern border which can be converted into a bustling city like Phuentsholing. It already has the foundation at Gelephu. The major reason being an old business hub, facility of airport and immigration office. Zhemgang does not have such infrastructure in place.

There is availability of huge land and space in Sarpang for further infrastructure development whereas Zhemgang has the capacity to embolden projects like Eco-tourism and Rafting, Trong Heritage Village and Annual Bird festival.

In terms of economic activities and opportunity distributions, Sarpang has benefited most in volume. The district has emerged well in its economic indicators and has poised to become the alternative economic hub to Phuentsholing in longer run. The district has received attention from all previous governments too.

In contrast, Zhemgang is losing national attention. The district is losing its population. However, it’s attracting foreign visitors being one of the rarely penetrated districts in foothills. Positively, it is getting better share of the per capital national budget compared to Sarpang.

Zhemgang will continue to benefit from the programme being a district next to Sarpang. Zhemgang has opportunity to shine on eco-tourism without being exploited by the need of additional infrastructure. Sarpang will get the rubbish while Zhemgang get travelling tourists.

Sarpang has more poverty rate and more unemployment. The programme will help address this problem in the district.

Legal Eye

Article 14.2 & 14.3 and Article 20.8 of the Constitution specify that public money shall be allocated to specific purposes only by law and that it shall be drawn from the consolidated fund only in accordance with the law. Based on this opposition is claiming the government has no legal basis to re-appropriate the budget.

Opposition blamed that government has neither respected the supremacy of the Parliament nor the provisions of the Constitution and the Public Finance Act. It said, government has full authority to make changes to the plans and programmes as well as set priorities before the bill is being submitted to the Parliament for approval but they do not have any authority to amend the bill except in certain circumstances as per the provisions of the bill.

The opposition possibly missed here. It is not re-appropriation of the bill. The budget was approved for tourism flagship programme. The budget is still used within the programme. It was the decision of the Tourism Council of Bhutan (TCB) adjusting its priority region. Opposition would have been correct had the budget been re-allocated to different department or programme altogether.

Article 55 of the Public Finance Act says, a budgetary body may re-appropriate funds and make technical adjustments based on the Financial Rules and Regulations issued by the Ministry of Finance from time to time. It is not required an approval by parliament.

Political Motive

Though government mentioned the decision to remove Zhemgang was made upon a proposal submitted by the Tourims Council of Bhutan (TCB), it has not consulted TCB and the decision was made unanimously by the chairman of TCB alone – Foreign Minister Dorji.

The government also failed to consult the opposition given the sensitivity of the issue. Further the government moved programme from east to south. This has deprived the eastern region of any tourism activities.

On January 25, Economic Affairs minister Loknath Sharma said the government has no dedicated economic activities for Zhemgang district. The government has indicated to terminate the only big project of the district – Chamkharchu.

Thus has indicated government’s motive to punish Zhemgang and the eastern districts for mistrusting the party during election. Better prospects in Sarpang provided enough reasons for DNT to dominate its political intent. Had it not been an political revenge, Sarpang would have been good replacement for Dagana. Or at least if Zhemgang was replaced by Samdrup Jongkhar, it would have implied the sense of greater regional balance.

Budget share for each district

Sarpang

Zhemgang

Development Indicators comparison