Tweet
THEY'LL PROCLAIM THEIR MISTRESSES AND HORSES AS MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
ARMAN GALOYAN
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22997.html
18/08/2011
Interview with Karapet Rubinyan, ex-deputy speaker of the National
Assembly
To ground illegitimacy of the National Assembly, the Armenian
National Congress published a list of 76 members of parliament who run
businesses, notwithstanding Article 65 of the Constitution. Meanwhile,
MPs say they are shareholders, and have handed over their business for
accredited management, and deny managing their businesses personally.
Is this a breach of the Constitution?
Violations are obvious, the society can see that these members of
parliament do not take part in the meetings of parliament. The society
can also see that they don't have the wits to hide from television and
press what new business projects they launch and what business meetings
they have. By the way, they had better not deny running businesses
because thereby they also prove themselves to be liars, as well as
annihilate the last justifying circumstance for their absenteeism.
Mr. Rubinyan, an MP is not the executive director of the company he
owns, another person is. It turns out that they don't run a business
personally, documents justify them.
It's clear cheating. They know that no government agency is going
to check and prove the opposite. I'll give an example how tax bodies
handle businessmen-common mortals. The businessman who owns a company
but is not a legal employee of his company is fined as soon as they
find him in the office of his company. He works there illegally,
the formulation is. I mean, if they wish, they fight, even if it
takes transgressing.
Meanwhile, a similar breach by a member of parliament is already a
matter of national security, without exaggeration, and besides the tax
bodies, the National Security Service and the Police and Prosecutor's
Office should handle it. Meanwhile, it only worries the press and
the opposition.
Every time the Congress accuses the authorities for one unlawfulness
or another, the first response is: so was in your time, and it began
when you were in government. Anyway, I wonder if similar things were
observed when you were in government.
I'm not denying there were such things. Not for justifying, I should
just say that those were the first years following the enforcement of
this constitutional provision, and monopolization and oligarchy which
cause the state to decay were not matters of national security yet.
What do you think will follow up the publication of the abovementioned
information?
A government which seeks to get the confidence of people, a legitimate
government would have set to fight this phenomenon even without the
publication of this list. It makes no sense to expect anything from
the president administration, which does not separate its personal
and national interests, and the bandits surrounding it. It is hardly
possible, all they will do is some formal events. Most probably they
will pledge that entry of oligarchs to the parliament will not be
"willful". It's all lies. Either we will rid of this criminal regime
or we will witness a modification of the same phenomenon. Don't you
know instances when they proclaimed their children, mistresses or
horses as members of parliament?
ARMAN GALOYAN
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview22997.html
18/08/2011
Interview with Karapet Rubinyan, ex-deputy speaker of the National
Assembly
To ground illegitimacy of the National Assembly, the Armenian
National Congress published a list of 76 members of parliament who run
businesses, notwithstanding Article 65 of the Constitution. Meanwhile,
MPs say they are shareholders, and have handed over their business for
accredited management, and deny managing their businesses personally.
Is this a breach of the Constitution?
Violations are obvious, the society can see that these members of
parliament do not take part in the meetings of parliament. The society
can also see that they don't have the wits to hide from television and
press what new business projects they launch and what business meetings
they have. By the way, they had better not deny running businesses
because thereby they also prove themselves to be liars, as well as
annihilate the last justifying circumstance for their absenteeism.
Mr. Rubinyan, an MP is not the executive director of the company he
owns, another person is. It turns out that they don't run a business
personally, documents justify them.
It's clear cheating. They know that no government agency is going
to check and prove the opposite. I'll give an example how tax bodies
handle businessmen-common mortals. The businessman who owns a company
but is not a legal employee of his company is fined as soon as they
find him in the office of his company. He works there illegally,
the formulation is. I mean, if they wish, they fight, even if it
takes transgressing.
Meanwhile, a similar breach by a member of parliament is already a
matter of national security, without exaggeration, and besides the tax
bodies, the National Security Service and the Police and Prosecutor's
Office should handle it. Meanwhile, it only worries the press and
the opposition.
Every time the Congress accuses the authorities for one unlawfulness
or another, the first response is: so was in your time, and it began
when you were in government. Anyway, I wonder if similar things were
observed when you were in government.
I'm not denying there were such things. Not for justifying, I should
just say that those were the first years following the enforcement of
this constitutional provision, and monopolization and oligarchy which
cause the state to decay were not matters of national security yet.
What do you think will follow up the publication of the abovementioned
information?
A government which seeks to get the confidence of people, a legitimate
government would have set to fight this phenomenon even without the
publication of this list. It makes no sense to expect anything from
the president administration, which does not separate its personal
and national interests, and the bandits surrounding it. It is hardly
possible, all they will do is some formal events. Most probably they
will pledge that entry of oligarchs to the parliament will not be
"willful". It's all lies. Either we will rid of this criminal regime
or we will witness a modification of the same phenomenon. Don't you
know instances when they proclaimed their children, mistresses or
horses as members of parliament?