Mongolia's prime minister resigns after losing vote of confidence
WASHINGTON — Mongolia 's prime minister resigned early Tuesday after he failed to receive enough support in a vote of confidence in parliament, Mongolian media reported. The country's embassy in Washington confirmed it.
Prime Minister Oyun-Erdene Luvsannamsrai received 44 votes, well short of the 64 needed, according to news site ikon.mn.
The vote followed weeks of protests sparked by reports of lavish spending by the prime minister's son. Some called for the prime minister to step down.
Before the vote, Oyun-Erdene warned that the vote could lead to instability and shake Mongolia's fledgling democracy.
'If governance becomes unstable, the economic situation deteriorates, and political parties cannot come to consensus. It could lead the public to lose faith in parliamentary rule and potentially put our democratic parliamentary system at risk of collapse,' he said.
He defended his integrity but acknowledged a mistake: 'dedicating too much time to major projects while paying insufficient attention to social and internal political matters.'
Oyun-Erdene had held the post for four years and survived previous calls to step down.
Last year, parliament was enlarged from 76 seats to 126 following electoral reforms. It resulted in a coalition government.
Landlocked between Russia and China, Mongolia has struggled to become more democratic after its party-state era. A communist state during the Cold War, it has been transforming into a democracy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Protesters have said the country's mineral riches have benefited business interests and the wealthy, while many Mongolians still live in poverty.
'It's very difficult to build that foundation for democracy' at a time that Mongolia also must tackle economic problems, which are a major source of people's frustration, said Erin Murphy, deputy director and senior fellow of India and emerging Asian economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
'We still have to see what happens next and how the new government plans to tackle these issues,' she said.
While democracy is yet to thrive in Mongolia, 'it is taking root,' Murphy said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
41 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Chinese Student Trolled Over ‘Humanity' Speech at Harvard
A Chinese graduate student drew wide applause with a speech at Harvard's commencement ceremonies in late May. Online, it was a different story. In her address, Yurong Luanna Jiang, who studied international development at the Harvard Kennedy School, spoke about her program's diverse student body, recounting how on an internship in Mongolia last year she helped Indian and Thai classmates in Tanzania translate writing on a made-in-China washing machine over the phone.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is Sir Keir Starmer a Right-wing extremist?
Is Sir Keir Starmer KC – Left-wing human rights lawyer, former director of public prosecutions, and Labour Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – a dangerous Right-wing extremist? Common sense, evidence and reality say emphatically not. Government materials issued as part of Prevent training programmes give a less clear answer. The Prime Minister's warning that uncontrolled migration risks turning Britain into an 'island of strangers' would appear to risk falling foul of the definitions used in a Prevent course taken by thousands of public sector professionals with a duty to make referrals to the scheme. This defines 'cultural nationalism' as a type of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideology, including the belief that 'Western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups'. Sir Keir is no more an extremist than any other writer who has expressed concern over the unprecedented scale and pace of migration and cultural change in recent years. Why, then, has the Government risked labelling him as such? The short answer is that, riddled with political anxieties over the composition of terrorism in Britain – 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Police network's live investigations involved Islamism in 2023, compared with 10 per cent for the extreme Right – Prevent has given the appearance of loosening the definition of the latter in order to provide an artificial 'balance' to its work. As the Shawcross Review found in 2023, the programme has adopted a 'double standard' when dealing with Islamists and the extreme Right. The results have been farcical, with an 'expansive' definition of Right-wing extremism capturing 'mildly controversial or provocative forms of mainstream, Right-wing leaning commentary that have no meaningful connection to terrorism or radicalisation' even while Prevent funded organisations whose leaders have publicly made statements 'sympathetic to the Taliban' and referred to militant Islamists as 'so-called 'terrorists' of the legitimate resistance groups'. Such absurdities might be overlooked if Prevent had also proved ruthlessly effective at preventing atrocities. It has not. Prevent has failed to identify dangerous and violent suspects on multiple occasions, including Southport killer Axel Rudakubana, who was referred and dismissed on three occasions before carrying out his attack. A deradicalisation programme that seems to show less interest in deradicalising potential terrorists than in policing Right-wing thought is unfit for purpose. It beggars belief that two years after the Shawcross Review we are once again having the same conversations. Prevent must be reformed – or if incapable of change, dismantled entirely. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The case a federal judge called 'Kafkaesque'
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. Have you ever had a word stuck in your head? I can't seem to shake this one from a court decision this week: entombed. The haunting term came from the chief federal trial judge in Washington, D.C., James Boasberg. He's presiding over a lawsuit from scores of Venezuelan immigrants held in a Salvadoran prison known for human rights abuses, called the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT for short. The judge wrote a 69-page opinion, published Wednesday, explaining why the Trump administration must work to let the immigrants challenge their rushed renditions to that prison back in March. Boasberg opened with a nod to Franz Kafka's 'The Trial.' The Obama appointee compared the ordeal to that of Kafka's protagonist, Josef K., whose absurd legal saga is a helpful shorthand to draw attention to farcical affairs. While the term Kafkaesque can seem dramatic, it applies here. After all, U.S. agents hustled the men out of the country without due process, backed by the purported authority of an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, whose factual and legal propriety has been called into grave doubt not only by judges around the country but by U.S. intelligence agencies. On the latter front, a declassified memo released last month showed that officials had rejected President Donald Trump's basis for citing the act. He had claimed the Venezuelan government controlled the gang to which these men allegedly belonged. But experts in Trump's own government disagreed. So, Trump's use of the law was bogus from the start. On top of that, at a hurried hearing in March, Boasberg had ordered the U.S. to keep custody of the men — an order the government ignored, and that disobedience is the subject of separate contempt litigation that the administration is appealing. But that foundational sham and defiance wasn't the issue in Boasberg's ruling this week. His narrower, modest point was that the men never got due process to challenge their removals under the act. 'Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, [government] Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members,' the judge wrote, adding: 'But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government's say-so.' Our word-of-the-week then emerged when the jurist observed that 'significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.' Entombed in CECOT. Now what? Boasberg said the government must facilitate the plaintiffs' ability to challenge their removals. But he left it to the government to decide how to make that happen. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' the judge wrote, giving the administration a week to come up with a plan. We'll be eagerly awaiting the official response — or, the latest emergency Supreme Court appeal from a judge's effort to bring the administration into legal compliance. At any rate, it doesn't seem like anyone is going anywhere anytime soon, even if Boasberg's order stays on track, which is not a sure bet. Until then: entombed. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
