Amendment seeking overseas MP to Standing Committee fails to secure majority

Tenzin Nyidon DHARAMSHALA, Sept. 18: The Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile on Friday rejected a proposed amendment that sought to revise the composition of its Standing Committee by introducing representation from parliamentarians representing Tibetans in North and South America; Europe; and Australasia and Asia, excluding India, Nepal, and Bhutan. The amendment sought to revise Article 42 of the Charter of the Tibetans in Exile, which governs the composition of the Standing Committee, the parliamentary body responsible for carrying out legislative functions when the house is not in session. Under the existing provision, the committee comprises parliamentarians drawn from Tibet’s three traditional provinces and its religious constituencies. The proposed amendment sought to extend this representation to overseas constituencies. The proposal was tabled by parliamentarian Kalsang Phuntsok Godruk and supported by parliamentarian Thupten Gyatso. It prompted an extensive debate among lawmakers, with proponents and opponents advancing divergent views on the institutional implications of incorporating overseas representation into the Standing Committee. Those opposing the amendment argued that the present composition of the parliament is based on symbolic representation of Tibetans and traditional set up of Tibet and not necessarily the exile Tibetan demographic, hence adding the representatives of overseas MP to the standing committee may suggest that the parliament is representative of only exile Tibetans. Some lawmakers also raised concerns over the institutional implications of such a change. Questions were also raised over whether a parliamentarian elected from one overseas constituency would be able to adequately represent Tibetans across other overseas regions. In particular, parliamentarians questioned whether a representative from the United States could effectively speak for overseas Tibetans in South America, Europe, and Australia. Another issue centred on the practical demands placed on members of the Standing Committee. As members are required to remain in Dharamshala for the duration of their one-year tenure, some parliamentarians expressed concern that the requirement could create difficulties for Tibetans living overseas, particularly younger and professionally productive and established Tibetans, and potentially discourage them from seeking election to the Parliament in the future. Supporters of the amendment, however, argued that overseas representation on the Standing Committee would provide greater geographical inclusivity and parity within the parliamentary structure. They maintained that the composition of Tibetan parliamentary representation has expanded historically and that the Standing Committee should evolve accordingly. They also pointed to the substantial Tibetan population living outside India, Nepal, and Bhutan, arguing that their concerns should have a direct channel into the Standing Committee. Including an overseas parliamentarian, they said, would enable issues affecting Tibetan communities abroad to receive greater institutional attention. During the clarification stage, MPs Kalsang Phuntsok Godruk and Thupten Gyatso, responded to concerns over the availability of young, educated Tibetans abroad to serve on the Standing Committee. They said there were individuals who had expressed their willingness to serve as parliamentarians and on the Standing Committee in the future. Addressing questions over the representational reach of an overseas member, they said that whichever overseas parliamentarian was elected to the Standing Committee could represent Tibetans across the wider overseas constituency through an appropriate decision of the committee. They also stated that the five overseas parliamentarians had discussed the proposal among themselves before it was formally introduced on the House floor. The amendment was subsequently put to a vote. It received 23 votes in support, but failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority of the 30-member House. The proposal was therefore not adopted, leaving the existing composition of the Standing Committee unchanged.