KATHMANDU: The main opposition Nepali Congress (NC) is continuously obstructing the Parliament, demanding an investigation into the Chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), Rabi Lamichhane. Lamichhane, who also serves as the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister.
NC has alleged that that millions of rupees from cooperatives in Pokhara and Butwal have been embezzled.
As the Nepali Congress obstructs both houses of the Federal Parliament, Lamichhane and RSP leaders insist they should be given a chance to express their views.
Khabarhub spoke with RSP Vice Chairman and Labor Minister DP Aryal about the obstruction in Parliament and its impact on the parliamentary committee.
You say that the RSP is different from other parties, but why do you seem hesitant to investigate your party Chairman?
We have consistently emphasized the importance of allowing us to voice our concerns, after which appropriate actions should be taken.
Why, then, is Home Minister Rabi Lamichhane not given the platform to speak in Parliament?
In a nation built on the principles of free speech and democracy, everyone should have the opportunity to express themselves.
The undemocratic behavior displayed by the Nepali Congress, in stifling the voices of others, is concerning. Is this level of censorship acceptable?
Nepali Congress is presenting evidence implicating the Home Minister in the cooperative fraud case! Have you conducted an investigation?
Everyone has the opportunity to speak! We are prepared to form a committee.
Are you implying that we won’t form a committee after speaking in Parliament?
After speaking in Parliament, we will proceed with forming the committee.
Nepali Congress may have taught us to be resilient, but we do not wish to adopt such lessons.
The budget session has commenced. How will the parliament proceed?
If the Home Minister is allowed to speak, Parliament will progress.
Nepali Congress need not panic. Conflicts exist not only within Nepali Congress but also among the ruling parties.
Is there a provision in the law stating that a committee cannot be formed after we are allowed to speak?
Our stance and belief are that individuals should be allowed to speak and then a committee should be formed.
When we get the chance to speak, we will form a committee. Nepali Congress ought to have the patience to listen! Has the NC, as a democratic party, lost its patience to hear others out?
What will the Home Minister say in Parliament? Can’t he say the same thing outside?
The response to parliamentary inquiries should be provided within the parliamentary domain itself.
Conducting discussions outside the Parliament is irrelevant.
Our statements are grounded in thorough research, not constructed to boost personal egos.
The Parliament will receive the necessary responses within its confines.
It appears that Nepali Congress is unwilling to relent on this issue. What alternatives exist to the ongoing obstruction in Parliament?
The constitution outlines various procedures and avenues within the country’s legal framework.
We adhere to these processes and explore available options.
What is at stake here? How can we remain silent when Nepali Congress pursues us, driven by personal agendas?
We advocate for justice for victims of cooperative fraud.
Can you elaborate on these processes and options?
The government possesses several alternatives, and we are not concerned about them.
We continuously engage in discussions to consider available options without apprehension.
Is resorting to an ordinance to pass the budget an option?
Why rush for immediate solutions when there are avenues to address the situation?
Nepali Congress aims to split the ruling coalition, a tactic we have discerned.
The true character and intentions of Nepali Congress have been laid bare.
Ultimately, Nepali Congress should demonstrate the patience to listen to the Home Minister at least once.
Constructive government-opposition relations require mutual understanding, but there must be reciprocation in listening.
Could you shed some light on the recent exchange between the Home Minister and NC General Secretary Gagan Thapa? Was it a longstanding issue?
We refrained from making any remarks; the situation unfolded without our involvement.
The personal dynamics between them were unknown to us.
However, we abstain from engaging in petty politics. Our endeavor is to enhance the future prospects of Parliament and the nation.
Accepting the challenge presented by Chairman Lamichhane, we have moved forward.
Comment