KATHMANDU: Nepali Congress parliamentary party leader Bishmaraj Angdembe has accused Prime Minister Balen Shah of undermining the dignity of his office through his recent remarks in Parliament.
Speaking in the House, Angdembe said the Prime Minister’s address on May 31, which he described as being delivered in a rap-style, had weakened the dignity of the executive office. He remarked that Parliament’s rostrum is not a rap battle stage.
While noting that he personally admired the Prime Minister’s style, Angdembe said the content and manner of the speech raised serious questions about the seriousness and responsibility expected from the head of government. He further alleged that the Prime Minister had not considered the impact of his statements.
Angdembe also claimed that during the same parliamentary session, members had felt the Prime Minister had spoken in a unilateral and inappropriate manner, though they initially assumed it was a slip. However, he added that the nature of the expression later appeared more questionable.
He demanded that the Prime Minister return to Parliament and formally withdraw the controversial remarks.
In the same speech, Angdembe also objected to statements made by Rastriya Swatantra Party Chair Rabi Lamichhane regarding border issues during his visit to India. He questioned Lamichhane’s remarks that border discussions should not be conducted in a drum-beating manner, asking why sensitive issues such as Kalapani were not raised during the visit.
Meanwhile, the Congress leader also raised strong concerns over Finance Minister Swarnim Wagle in connection with alleged irregularities in tax rate adjustments and the controversy surrounding the finance bill.
Angdembe questioned why serious allegations against the Finance Minister were being met with silence, saying there appeared to be selective outrage in Parliament.
Referring to procedural aspects of the Federal Parliament, he questioned the legality of amendments and corrections related to the economic bill, including a five-point correction letter sent to the Secretariat before the formal amendment process had begun.
He asked why there was ice-like silence over serious questions involving the Finance Minister while other issues had triggered immediate political reactions.
Comment