The Hindu September 22, 2020 Analysis
- September 22, 2020
- Posted by: Team CP
- Category: Current Affairs Capsule
THE MARXIAN MIRAGE
THE TORCH BEARER’S
- Playing up their personal relationship, Xi and Putin have repeatedly promised to “link” the BRI and EAEU.
- Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has unleashed Chinese companies to build roads, railways, fiber-optic cables, and other hard infrastructure across the Eurasian supercontinent and beyond.
- Putin’s Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) harmonizes customs processes to create a single market among Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The world, and especially where these efforts most directly overlap in Central Asia, needs both “hard” and “soft” infrastructure upgrades.
- Xi and Putin tout rising bilateral trade levels, a metric that emphasizes progress and partnership while masking how Russia has become more dependent on China.
- In 2006, Putin announced a goal of increasing bilateral trade to at least $60 billion by 2010.
- Trade growth stalled from 2010 to 2015 before recovering.
- The official goal was then raised to $100 billion, which the countries achieved in 2018.
- Last year, bilateral trade nearly hit $110 billion, and Putin and Xi announced a new goal of $200 billion in trade by 2024.
- Scratching the surface of these numbers reveals a picture that is less promising for Russia.
- In 2010, China surpassed Germany to become Russia’s largest single trading partner.
- To be clear, the European Union as a whole remains Russia’s largest partner, responsible for $260 billion (€232 billion) in trade in 2019, more than twice China’s trade with Russia.
- But China has become more important for Russia in recent years, accounting for 15.5 percent of its total trade in 2018. Russia, in contrast, only accounted for 0.8 percent of China’s total trade in 2018.
- Russia’s largest export, energy, is strategically important, but as the trade relationship becomes even more lopsided, China stands to command more influence as a buyer than Russia does as a supplier.
- Xi and Putin have underscored that trade cooperation is expanding across sectors, but over the past two decades, it has become more concentrated in raw materials.
- “The trade structure is diversifying.,Of course, energy accounts for over 70 percent of our exports, but this is natural,” Putin said last year.
- He went on to highlight Russia’s exports of nuclear power systems, aircraft, and even a missile warning System.
- Russia is China’s largest arms supplier, providing 70 percent of China’s arms imports between
- 2014 and 2018.7
- These examples—nuclear, aviation, and arms exports—are politically appealing because
- They portray Russia as technologically advanced and strengthen the impression of deeper cooperation on strategic issues.
- Russia exported a greater range of products to China during the 1990s, when China was still developing.
- China is increasingly competitive in global arms sales and has surpassed Russia to become the world’s second-largest arms producer.
- Russian firms have accused China of illegally copying Russian military hardware Chinese firms are likely to jettison their Russian partners, as they have with other foreign firms, after becoming self-sufficient in producing more sophisticated gear.
- The U.S.-China trade war revealed Russia’s eagerness to replace U.S. agriculture exports to China but also highlighted the barriers it faces.
- “There’s a niche being freed up in China [by the U.S. tariffs] and we can grow into it,” an official in Russia’s Far East told the Wall Street Journal last year.
- “We can sell all we can grow—the demand is unlimited,” But Russia’s ability to grow is limited.
- Russia’s soybean production was already ramping up prior to the trade war.
- Rising land costs, poor infrastructure, and bureaucratic red tape all stand in the way of greater output these constraints will not be addressed overnight, but the worse U.S.-China trade relations become, the greater incentive Russian officials have to address them.
- Russia’s defensive interests limit the most ambitious proposals for deeper integration.
- Russia drives the EAEU and has pursued relatively modest trade agreements with outside partners to protect its weaker industries.
- The EAEU-China trade agreement, which went into force last year, does not lower tariffs.
- Russian officials have also resisted establishing a free trade area that covers members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
- Given China’s sheer size, Russia is likely to continue avoiding deeper freetrade arrangements.
- The longer Russia waits, the more sophisticated China’s production of higher-value goods becomes.
- As aresult, Russia may find it has less and less to protect.
- China and Russia are deepening their cooperation in telecommunications, but paradoxically, their governments’ similarities constrain data flows.
HUWAEI-A CASE STUDY
- Russia was one of the first foreign markets that Huawei entered.
- Huawei formed a joint venture in 1997, and despite achieving little to no business for several years, it decided to remain in the Russian market even as many Western companies were leaving.
- A breakthrough came in 2001 when a Russian government delegation visited China.
- By 2003, Russia was among Huawei’s top markets.
- Russia’s decision to use Huawei equipment in its 5G trials was announced just as the Chinese firm was receiving more scrutiny in Western markets.
- The deal was signed during Xi’s visit to Moscow in 2019, further underscoring its
- symbolic importance.
- Despite the fanfare, Russia is still considering other options for its 5G network and has several issues to resolve, including spectrum allocation.
- Huawei could end up with a smaller role than Xi and Putin’s signing ceremony suggests. Nor is Russia’s choice on Huawei all or nothing.
- It may benefit from hedging and using a combination of different suppliers.
THE RED SPACE
- China and Russia are also cooperating in developing alternative global navigation satellite systems, which have both commercial and military applications.
- Russia’s GLONASS system was developed during the Cold War but did not reach its operational capacity of 24 satellites until 1995.
- China’s BeiDou satellite network was completed in June and claims to have over 400 million users across 120 NATIONS
- In 2015, China and Russia established a committee to coordinate these efforts and signed an agreement in 2018 to improve compatibility and interoperability.
- They have conducted trials to test equipment along Belt and Road transportation routes and agreed to host each other’s base stations.
- These systems, and satellite communications more generally, complement terrestrial and submarine cables, which carry the vast majority of data globally Xi and Putin have embarked on what they claim is a long-term effort toward greater economic Integration
- As Putin explained last year, “I think if we pool the efforts of the already established agencies, organizations, and even concepts and create an integrated network, we can arrive at what I have repeatedly said—a large Eurasian partnership.
CAN ALL THIS BE INSTITUTED ANY TIME SOON? HARDLY.
- Putin’s proposal for a“Greater Eurasian Partnership” and suggestions of “linking” the BRI and EAEU serve an immediate political purpose.
- But they overlook economic fundamentals that could produce more friction in the years ahead.
- Standing in the way of deep integration are significant structural barriers.
- Trade and investment are limited by Russia’s one-trick economy and its recognition that deep integration would be deeply disruptive.
- Government propaganda can boost people-to-people ties, but only to a point, and while the two neighbors share a border, deep-seated cultural differences remain and have been exacerbated by the pandemic.
- China and Russia’s common preference for controlling information limits data flows.
- Collectively, these factors reveal a partnership of unequals that will become even more lopsided in the future.
- China already towers over Russia in nearly every dimension, and if it can navigate its own domestic challenges, it will loom even larger in a decade.
- During that period, Beijing will need Moscow’s help, or at least its acquiescence, to continue expanding westward.
- No country is positioned better than Russia to spoil China’s overland ambitions.
- But isolated from the West, Russia has few alternatives to deepening economic ties with China.
THE MIGHT OF DESPOTS
- Even a decade from now, it may not be clear to what extent China and Russia’s partnership depends on the authoritarian personalities at the center of it.
- In 2030, Xi and Putin will be 77 and 78 years old, respectively.
- If they remain in power, unexpected events could test their personal relationship.
- Leadership transitions in Central Asia could create turmoil and different views in Moscow and Beijing about how to respond.
- China’s Belt and Road is likely to develop sharper military edges as China seeks to protect its investment and personnel abroad, including in Central Asia.
- The possibility that Russia could lean again toward the West and away from China seems far-fetched at present.
- As China moves deeper into Russia’s backyard, Moscow’s calculus could change.
- Russia’s greater challenge will be atoning for its behavior abroad and convincing the West, particularly the United States, to reengage.
- U.S. allies ,particularly those in Europe and Japan, have stronger economic incentives for engagement.
- Given those differences, the United States should work closely with its allies to ensure any economic incentives (and disincentives) are coordinated for maximum effect.
- The United States and its allies should also highlight the risks that China’s westward expansion poses and protect the strength of Western financial systems. In public statements, the U.S. government should avoid exaggerating the depth and cohesiveness of the China-Russia partnership.
- Lumping them together is overly generous to Russia, especially economically, and is music to the ears of both authoritarian leaders.
- U.S. policymakers should also approach sanctions with more prudence.
- Misuse of these defensive measures, especially without a coherent offensive strategy, weakens Western financial systems and incentivizes other countries to consider alternatives.
- Despite the deep flaws in their economic visions, Xi and Putin are putting forward ideas that are designed to resonate with third countries, especially developing economies.
- In responding to these development , the very least the United States and its allies can do is avoid unintentionally driving China and Russia together.
- An even more powerful response would be to work together to offer an allied vision for economic development and back it with financial support to incentivize participation and deliver tangible results.
- The best answer to Xi and Putin’s global ambitions is to offer superior alternatives.
THE ABRAHAM’S HEIRS
The Abrahamic accord
- We, the undersigned, recognize the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace in the Middle East and around the world based on mutual understanding and coexistence, as well as respect for human dignity and freedom, including religious freedom.
- We encourage efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue to advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.
- We believe that the best way to address challenges is through cooperation and dialogue and that developing friendly relations among States advances the interests of lasting peace in the Middle East and around the world.
- We seek tolerance and respect for every person in order to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter their race, faith or ethnicity.
- We support science, art, medicine, and commerce to inspire humankind, maximize human potential and bring nations closer together.
- We seek to end radicalization and conflict to provide all children a better future.
- We pursue a vision of peace, security, and prosperity in the Middle East and around the world.
- In this spirit, we warmly welcome and are encouraged by the progress already made in establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and its neighbors in the region under the principles of the Abraham Accords. We are encouraged by the ongoing efforts to consolidate and expand such friendly relations based on shared interests and a shared commitment to a better future.
Israel has niche strengths in
- Defence , security and surveillance equipment
- Arid farming
- Solar power
- Horticultural products
- High tech
- Gem and Jewellery
ISAAC –ISHMAEL’S OPPORTUNITIES
- Tourism, real estate and ﬁnancial service sectors on both sides have suﬀered due to the pandemic and hope for a positive spinoﬀ from the peertopeer interactions.
- Israel has the potential to supply skilled and semiskilled manpower to the GCC states, particularly from the Sephardim and Mizrahim ethnicities, many of whom speak Arabic.
- Even the Israeli Arabs may ﬁnd career opportunities to bridge the cultural divide.
- Israel is known as the startup nationand its stakeholders could easily ﬁt in the various dutyfree incubators in the UAE.
- Geopolitically, India has welcomed the establishment of diplomatic relations between the UAE and Israel, calling both its strategic partners.
- The IsraelGulf Cooperation Council (GCC) breakthrough widens The moderate constituency for peaceful resolution of the Palestine dispute, easing India’s diplomatic balancing act.
- The Israel GCC ties may provoke new polarisations between the Jihadi fringe
- and the mainstream.
- The possibility of the southern Gulf becoming the new arena of the proxy war betweenIran and Israel cannot be ruled out, particularly in Shia pockets.
- India would have to be on its guard to monitor and even preempt any threat to its interests in the Gulf.
- Manage the economic fallout of the ISRAELGCC synergy.
- With defence and security cooperation as a strong impetus, both sides are ready to realise the full potential of their economic complementarity.
- The UAE and Bahrain can become the entrepôts to Israeli exports of goods and services to diverse geographies.
- Israeli foray into the Gulf has the potentialto disrupt the existing politico-economic architecture India has carefully built with the GCC states.
- India has acquired a large and rewarding regional footprint, particularly as the preferred source of manpower, food products, pharmaceuticals, gem and jewellery, light engineering items, etc.
- Indians are alsothe biggest stakeholders in Dubai’s real estate, tourism and free Economic Zones.
WORDS OF WISDOM
- In the evolving scenario, there may be scopefor a proﬁtable trilateral synergy, but India cannot take its preponderance as a given.
- It needs to keep its powder as dry as the shifting sands of the Empty Quarter
THE HAMMERED POLICY
THE FACTORIES ACT 1948
The Factories Act of 1948 deﬁnes any manufacturing unit as a factory if it employs 10 workers (and uses electricity) or 20 workers (without using electric power).
These thresholds are being raised to 20 and 40 workers, respectively.
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT OF 1947
Requires any establishment employing over 100 workers to seek government permission before any
the threshold has been raised to 300,with the government empowered to raise it further through notiﬁcation.
NOTE: These changes have been debated for over two decades but were not proposed in the 2019 Bill.
THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT OF 1946
Requires employers to formally deﬁne conditions of employment under them if they have at least 100 workers.
The 2020 Bill has increased this threshold to 300 workers.
THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO EXEMPT ESTABLISHMENTS FROM ANY OR ALL OF THEIR PROVISIONS.
The Code on Industrial Relations governs working conditions, trade unions, retrenchment and layoﬀs, dispute resolution, and establishes industrial tribunals.
- The Government may, in public interest, exempt any new industrial establishment from the provisions Of this Code.
- The Code on Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions speciﬁes leave and maximum Work hours, requires health and safety norms including adequate lighting and ventilation and welfare measures
- It subsumes 13 Acts including the Factories Act.
- The State government to exempt any new factory from its provisions in the interest Of Increased economic activity and employment generation.
- Given that every new factory would lead to incremental employment,
- Such exemption for a limited period of three months only during a “public emergency”.
Note: This gives wide discretion to the state government to exempt new factories from basic safety and welfare norms.
THE 2019 BILL CONTRACT LABOUR CODE
Applicable to establishmentswhich employed at least 20 contractworkers and to contractors supplying
at least 20 workers.
- The thresholds have been raised to 50 workers.
- Prohibits theemployment of contract workers in any coreactivity, and speciﬁcally permits
employment in a speciﬁed list of noncore activities including canteen, security and sanitation services.
THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY THE 2019 BILL
The GOVERNMENT to prohibit employment of women in undertaking operations that could be dangerous to their health and safety.
Removes this power toprohibit employment and instead allows the government to require employers to provide adequate safeguards.
- Setting the thresholds for application of various social security schemes,
- Specifying safety standards and working conditions,
- The power to increase the threshold for establishments that have to seek permission before retrenchment.
- Whether such features should be hardcoded in the acts. Whether there should berelaxations for small enterprises to reduce their compliance burden.
- Should safety standards apply to everyone while others that provide job security could be based on the size of the ﬁrm?
- The occupational safety bill (which prescribes safety standards and maximum work hours) exempts small establishments from its purview while the industrial relations bill applies to all.
- All the three Bills (both the 2019 and 2020 versions) also show a major shift in approach from the earlier laws.
- Many essential features of the law are no longer speciﬁed in the Codes but have been delegated to be prescribed by the government through Rules.
THE CHILDREN OF SOIL
THE MONETISED BLEEDING SWEAT
- The prices of agricultural commodities are inherently unstable, primarily due to the variation in their supply, lack of market integration and information asymmetry – a very good harvest in any year results in a sharp fall in the price of that commodity during that year which in turn will have an adverse impact on the future supply as farmers withdraw from sowing that crop in the next / following years. This then causes paucity of supply next year and hence, major price increase for consumers.
- To counter this, MSP for major agricultural products is fixed by the Government, each year. MSP is a tool which gives guarantee to the farmers, prior to the sowing season, that a fair amount of price is fixed to their upcoming crop to encourage higher investment and production of agricultural commodities. The MSP is in the nature of an assured market at a minimum guaranteed price offered by the Government.
- The MSP is fixed on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The CACP is a statutory body and submits separate reports recommending prices for Kharif and Rabi seasons. The Central Government after considering the report and views of the State Governments and also keeping in view the overall demand and supply situation in the country, takes the final decision.
- In case of sugarcane, MSP has been assigned a statutory status and as such the announced price is termed as statutory minimum price, rechristened as Fair Remunerative Price (FRP).
- There is statutory binding on sugar factories to pay the minimum announced price and all those transactions or purchase at prices lower than this are considered illegal. MSP for the different agricultural crops viz., food grains, oil seeds, fibre crops, sugarcane and tobacco are announced by the Government of India before their sowing seasons. This makes it possible for the farmer to have an idea about the extent of price insurance cover provided by the government for the crop. The number of crops covered by MSP scheme has now increased to 24.
Initially, MSP covered paddy, rice, wheat, jowar, bajra, maize, ragi, barley, gram, tur, moong, urad, sugarcane, groundnut, soybean, sunflower seed, rapeseed and mustard, cotton, jute and tobacco. From 1994-95 onwards, Nigerseed and Sesame were included under MSP Scheme of CACP, in addition to the edible oilseeds already covered by theCommission. Similarly, during 2001-2002, the government enhanced the terms of reference of the Commission byincluding lentil (masur).
While recommending price policy of various commodities under its mandate, the Commission keeps in mind the various Terms of Reference (ToR) given to CACP in 2009. Accordingly, it analyzes
1) Demand and supply;
2) Cost of production;
3) Price trends in the market, both domestic and international;
4) Inter-crop price parity;
5) Terms of trade between agriculture and non-agriculture;
6) A minimum of 50 percent as the margin over cost of production; and
7) Likely implications of msp on consumers of that product.
It may be noted that cost of production is an important factor that goes as an input in determination of MSP, but it is certainly not the only factor that determines MSP
THE FAULT LINE
GENERATION OF ANNUAL INCOME
- Small farmers which constituted 65% of the total farming households earned 60% of their annual income from agriculture
- Medium farmers which constituted 19% of the total farming households,it was 68%.
- The large farmers which constituted 16% of the farmers’community received 74% of their annual income from the cultivation.
AWARENESS ABOUT MSP
- The 81% of the cultivators are aware of MSP fixed for different crops.
- 10% of the farmers who were aware of MSP, came to know about it before the sowing season whereas 62% of them came to know about MSP after the sowing season.
- Finally, 28% of the farmers, although knew about the MSP, they were not able to recollect whether MSP was declared before or after the sowing season.
- Medium of Awareness: It was noticed that 18% of the farmers came to know about MSP for their produces through their own efforts and 29% through the newspapers.
- Only 7% of the farmers came to know about MSP through the State officials.
- Further, 11% of the farmers knew about MSP from the FCI officials whereas 34% of them received information from the knowledgeable persons such as Village Headman, Sarpanches, School Teachers and Gram Sevaks.
- The remaining 1% of farmers knew about MSP through the traders.
MODE OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS:
It was found that 32.13%, 40.29% and 27.4% ofthe farmers received their MSP payments in cash, Cheques or in the shape of Bank deposits respectively.
TIME TAKEN IN GETTING PAYMENTS:
20%, 7%, 8%, 51% and 14% of the farmers of the sample States received their MSP payments on the spot/same day, within 2 to 3 days of sales, after 3 days but within one week of sales, after a week but within onemonth of sales and after a period of one month respectively.
MEDIUM USED FOR SALES:
- 67% of the farmers sold their produces through their ownarrangement whereas 21% of them sold through Brokers.
- The shares of sales through the private and Government agencies were 8% and 4% respectively.
IMPROVEMENT IN FARMING PRACTICES:
It was found that 78% of the farmers adopted improved methods of farming such as: high yielding varieties of seeds, organic manure, chemical fertilizer, pesticides and improved methods of 83 Evaluation Report on Minimum Support Price harvesting, etc. for increasing the production as a result to the MSP declared by theGovernment.
EFFECTIVENESS OF MSP:
- It was found that 21% of the farmers of the sample States expressed their satisfaction to the MSP declared by the Government.
- While 79% ofthem showed their dissatisfaction to MSP due to the various reasons, almost all ofthem (94%) wanted MSP to continue.
STATE SPECIFIC FINDINGS
The awareness about MSP was there among farmers and most of them sold their crops at MSP. Though there was discontentment among the farmers regarding MSP not covering the costs, there was general support for the continuance of MSP to avoid exploitative practices. The wholesale prices of paddy were observed to be below MSP but the expected prices of farmers were not met through MSP. The payment was delayed and at times more than a month.
There was no PPC in one out of two selected districts. Even 2-3 PPCs in a district is quite inadequate. Non availability of rice mills in many areas and available mills not interested to make agreement with PPC are the main reasons for few PPCs. The charges provided for milling to the millers is not economic from the millers’ point of view.
Though the farmers knew about MSP, the awareness levels regarding the time of MSP announcement and the payment system was very slow. None of the interviewed farmers sold paddy or wheat only at MSP. Sugarcane was sold at FRP in the district West Champaran. The reason for not selling at MSP was that purchase centres were located at a distance which required high transportation costs and there was no transparency in the system. The involvement of middlemen was very high at the Block purchase centres. But during the year when study team visited, the farmers were optimistic about selling their produce at MSP and some had already sold because of the presence of purchase centres in the villages itself.
33 per cent of the farmers were aware of MSP and also with the time of its declaration. Most of the respondents agreed that MSP should continue and the reason cited for this was that MSP determines the market prices so farmers indirectly benefit from it. It also provides psychological support that it would insulate the farmers from the falling prices. The wholesale prices in the State were higher than the MSP and also the expected prices of the farmers were far higher than the MSP.
More than 80 percent of the farmers in three out of four villages in the district Bellary and, at least 80 per cent of the households in the district Mandya were aware of MSP. However, none of them in Bellary knew about MSP before the sowing season. In district Mandya, 10 per cent of the households in one village knew about MSP declaration before the sowing season and rest after the sowing season. Majority of the households, Government representative and knowledgeable persons were in favour of continuance of MSP. The reason cited was that MSP 84 Evaluation Report on Minimum Support Price prevents wholesale prices from falling and thus, it ensures income to the farmers by acting as a floor price.
The MSP has not influenced the structure as well as the quantum of inputs since many of the farmers are not even aware of MSP. It also did not help in adoption of modern technology and crop planning as the declaration come well after the sowing season.
In the selected districts of Yavatmal, Kolhapur and Lature 75%, 30% and 33% of the households respectively were aware of MSP. In Yavatmal 17%, in Kolhapur 73% and in Latur 44% knew about MSP before the sowing season and rest after the sowing season. About 56 per cent of the selected farm households opined that the MSP should continue as it ensures a minimum price for their produce to the farmers.
only 56 per cent of households were aware about MSP and out of them 22 per cent knew about it before the sowing season. MSP was below the wholesale prices for all the crops except for Bajra and maize in 2008-09. The expected prices were much higher than the MSP declared which shows that the farmers were dissatisfied with the MSP.
It was revealed from the field investigation that the MSP rates were declared after the sowing activity during the reference period leading to the dissatisfaction of the farmers. However, it was found that the MSP rate for the major crops like Paddy was always remunerative to the cultivators, as it was covering the cost of cultivation in addition to some profit. Therefore, the procurement of Paddy by the State Government was working effectively. On the other hand, the MSP rates for the pulses such as: Green Gram, Black Gram and Ground Nut were always less than the open market prices which led to no procurement of pulses and oil seeds. It was also noted that there had been an increase in the acreage for paddy cultivation in Tamil Nadu, at the same time there had been a major decline in the acreage for groundnut cultivation.
All the farmers were aware about MSP but none of them knew it before the sowing season. According to the Government functionaries, the declaration was done before the sowing season. All the functionaries surveyed, agency involved in the implementation of MSP and the knowledgeable persons were in favour of continuation of MSP, which indicates that in spite of all the lacunae, people on the whole have benefitted from the MSP policy. This is on account of the fact that MSP has provided a huge degree of income and market security to the farmers. The wholesale market price for wheat has been higher than the MSP for all the years of the reference period, while for paddy it has been lower over the same period in the State. Further, the expected price of wheat and paddy was higher than the MSP and wholesale market price due to the increase in prices of the various farm inputs.
All the framers were aware of MSP but they got to know about it only after the sowing season. The respondents at various level opined that MSP 85 Evaluation Report on Minimum Support Price should continue as it provides marketability of their produce and it also determines the floor price and thus, ensures some guaranteed returns to the farmers.
MSP system has failed completely in the State as none of the farmers sold their produce at MSP. Intermediaries are quite common owing to the non-existence of mandis/market places for paddy. The rice millers have also accepted the fact that they are not in direct contact with the farmers (except the camps organized recently by the mills on the instructions from the government). It is very difficult for the mills to make small purchases from the farmers while it is convenient to deal with the middlemen for the bulk purchase.
THE COUNCIL’S CODE
WITHDRAWAL AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS
- WITHDRAWAL OF MEMBER
The Chairman may direct any member whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the Council and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.
- SUSPENSION OF MEMBER
(1) The Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business thereof.
(2) If a member is so named by the Chairman he shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the Session:
Provided that the Council may, at any time, on. a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the Council.
Latest posts by Team CP (see all)
- On This Day-3rd Feb - February 3, 2023
- Headlines of the Day – 3rd Feb - February 3, 2023
- Daily Quiz- 2nd Feb - February 2, 2023
Latest posts by Team CP (see all)
- On This Day-3rd Feb - February 3, 2023
- Headlines of the Day – 3rd Feb - February 3, 2023
- Daily Quiz- 2nd Feb - February 2, 2023