Tweet
Did the Prime Minister Really Misunderstand the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (ARF) or Was It Done on Purpose?
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/16/131080/
NOVEMBER 16, 2012 12:58
Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia stated in his summarizing
speech on the Budget 2013 bill yesterday that they had taken into
account the objections of the ARF and 1/3 of members in the Struggle
Against Corruption Monitoring Committee would be from the opposition,
1/3 from NGOs showing opposition attitude, 1/3 from the government.
This statement was followed by clarification of the ARF. Aghvan
Vardanyan, the secretary of the ARF parliamentary group, clarified
that the Prime Minister had misunderstood them. And Artsvik Minasyan,
an ARF MP, had stated during a conversation with www.aravot.am, `We
put forward our proposals, and it will be clear very soon whether the
statements of the governing force are honest or not. If it really
wants to take measures to struggle against corruption, it should
accept our proposals.'
Is the level of the government's honesty clear, or did the Prime
Minister really misunderstand the ARF, or was it done on purpose? We
tried to get answers to these questions from Mr. Minasyan. He replied,
`There has been a misunderstanding. The Prime Minister really
misunderstood what we said. We will put forward our proposal in
writing in the short run and make it public, in order that we have a
clear viewpoint. We are grateful for cooperation, but what the Prime
Minister said was about the monitoring committee, which already exists
today. However, we are talking about an independent anticorruption
body. And an independent body should be free of the government's or
governing force's influence as much as possible and enjoy the
society's trust. And as a solution, we propose to increase the role
and weight of the opposition in that body. We will make public the
proposal in writing and in more detail in the short run to avoid such
misunderstandings.' In response to our question whether it was such a
confusing issue to cause misunderstanding, A. Minasyan said, `There
are many such bodies, perhaps, the misunderstanding was caused by
that. As for assessing honesty, let us wait a bit more, in order that
the positions on the anticorruption measures are clearer.'
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
Federation (ARF) or Was It Done on Purpose?
http://www.aravot.am/en/2012/11/16/131080/
NOVEMBER 16, 2012 12:58
Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia stated in his summarizing
speech on the Budget 2013 bill yesterday that they had taken into
account the objections of the ARF and 1/3 of members in the Struggle
Against Corruption Monitoring Committee would be from the opposition,
1/3 from NGOs showing opposition attitude, 1/3 from the government.
This statement was followed by clarification of the ARF. Aghvan
Vardanyan, the secretary of the ARF parliamentary group, clarified
that the Prime Minister had misunderstood them. And Artsvik Minasyan,
an ARF MP, had stated during a conversation with www.aravot.am, `We
put forward our proposals, and it will be clear very soon whether the
statements of the governing force are honest or not. If it really
wants to take measures to struggle against corruption, it should
accept our proposals.'
Is the level of the government's honesty clear, or did the Prime
Minister really misunderstand the ARF, or was it done on purpose? We
tried to get answers to these questions from Mr. Minasyan. He replied,
`There has been a misunderstanding. The Prime Minister really
misunderstood what we said. We will put forward our proposal in
writing in the short run and make it public, in order that we have a
clear viewpoint. We are grateful for cooperation, but what the Prime
Minister said was about the monitoring committee, which already exists
today. However, we are talking about an independent anticorruption
body. And an independent body should be free of the government's or
governing force's influence as much as possible and enjoy the
society's trust. And as a solution, we propose to increase the role
and weight of the opposition in that body. We will make public the
proposal in writing and in more detail in the short run to avoid such
misunderstandings.' In response to our question whether it was such a
confusing issue to cause misunderstanding, A. Minasyan said, `There
are many such bodies, perhaps, the misunderstanding was caused by
that. As for assessing honesty, let us wait a bit more, in order that
the positions on the anticorruption measures are clearer.'
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN