KATHMANDU: During a special session of the House of Representatives on Monday, Bhishma Raj Angdembe, a leader of the main opposition party, Nepali Congress, expressed strong dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Balen Shah.

Angdembe criticized the Prime Minister for failing to attend parliament when opposition leaders speak, breaking a well-established international democratic tradition.

Angdembe urged the PM to spend less time on social media and focus more on the sovereign parliament.

Full text of the address

Right Honorable Speaker Sir,

The government has completed its first 100 days in office. No one expects miracles in just a hundred days. However, these hundred days do project a picture of the government’s thinking, priorities, working style, perspective toward democracy, and the direction in which it intends to lead the country. Moreover, a hundred days is not merely an occasion to publish a list of achievements, but a time for self-reflection.

Meanwhile, I have read the achievements published by the government on this occasion, and my party has reviewed them. I take some of the government’s efforts positively. The government has appeared active regarding good governance, corruption control, administrative reform, service delivery, and certain structural reforms. Wherever positive work has taken place, the Nepali Congress does not hesitate to praise it. This is because when the government succeeds, it is ultimately the Nepali people and the nation of Nepal that succeed.

But in a democracy, a government is not evaluated by the booklet of achievements it prepares itself. Evaluation happens through the experiences of the citizens. It is measured by respect for the Constitution, accountability toward the Parliament, and the credibility of public institutions. It is based on whether the law is applied equally to everyone, and most importantly, whether a change has arrived in the lives of ordinary citizens.

Today, on behalf of the opposition party, I wish to raise a few questions. These questions are meant to make the government more responsible. Let us not forget that in a democracy, raising questions is not opposition; it is accountability. First and foremost, we want to talk about the Prime Minister’s parliamentary accountability.

The Constitution of Nepal makes the Prime Minister accountable to the Parliament. Parliament is the representative institution of the sovereign people. The Prime Minister is a member of that very institution, and his government stands on the trust of this Parliament. Therefore, the Prime Minister must remain accountable to it. Looking at the Prime Minister’s working style over the past hundred days, I must remind him that once you climb to the roof, you must not forget the ladder. Are you climbing to the roof of power only to forget the Parliament that put you there? Are you undervaluing the Parliament?

I want to ask the Prime Minister seriously: if Parliament is not your priority, how can parliamentary democracy be strengthened? If the Prime Minister deems writing messages on social media to be more effective than being present in Parliament, how can the dignity of the supreme representative institution of the people be maintained?

In a democracy, being popular and being accountable are not the same thing. At the same time, let me remind you that being famous and being popular are also not identical. To put it clearly, while becoming famous, we often live a delusional life thinking we have become popular. I want to tell the Prime Minister: it is easy to become viral on social media, but it is difficult to work deeply and seriously as the Prime Minister of the country. Therefore, Mr. Prime Minister, abandon the path of trying to go viral. Forget it. You have already become the country’s Prime Minister. Drive the nation correctly as Prime Minister. Drive on the expressway, but drive with immense control. If an accident occurs, not only you but the entire country will meet with disaster.

Speaker Sir,

Whenever the leader of the opposition speaks in parliament, prime ministers of democratic systems around the world sit on the front benches, listening with a proud smile. But here, instead of listening to the opposition leader with a smile, I do not see the Prime Minister present. Despite this, I will not go searching for him again. Being in parliament is his responsibility; reminding him is my duty. I know that since he is not here, I do not want to take the trouble of searching for him.

Speaker Sir,

Another important foundation of democracy is dialogue. Democracy runs on dialogue, moves forward through consensus, and respects dissent. But looking at the government’s working style over the past hundred days, preference was given to distance over dialogue, confrontation over cooperation, and unilateral decisions over consultation.

There was a need to move forward by forging a shared vision on matters of national importance. Instead, the government tried to forge ahead alone. Let it be remembered: you cannot reach your destination by wearing your shoes inside out. The democratic path is the straight and correct path. When the Prime Minister, who arrived through this correct path, tries to wear his shoes inside out, it is certain that the right destination cannot be reached. To reach the destination, one must walk the correct path. Furthermore, simply walking fast is not enough; the path you walk must be correct. The Prime Minister arrived via the path of a democratic constitution, but I get the impression that he is carrying North Korea in his mind. This is not a good sign at all.

I humbly request: the opposition party will support the government for the country’s prosperity, the strengthening of the democratic system, and the meaningful amendment of the Constitution. If the government extends a hand for national consensus, the Nepali Congress is always ready to play a positive role.

Speaker Sir,

The government claims to be democratic but performs undemocratic actions; it talks about good governance but does not disclose the sources of wealth. Yet, in its 100-day achievements, it claims to have launched an anti-corruption campaign by investigating assets. Naturally, I welcome the government’s willpower to control corruption. Whoever commits corruption, regardless of their party or position, must be brought within the ambit of the law. The Nepali Congress has no disagreement on this.

However, there is a question. The Prime Minister stated that for 35 years, there was no conducive environment to work in the country. Yet, immediately after becoming Prime Minister, nearly two hundred tolas of gold appeared in his asset declaration, along with bank balances exceeding tens of millions. Mr. Prime Minister! The Nepali Congress does not ask or investigate why you acquired gold. But what is the source of that gold? Asking that is the responsibility of the opposition. We will fulfill our accountability; we will not run away from this.

Speaker Sir,

Our core interest lies in controlling corruption. With due respect, I take names and say that the investigation into assets should begin with opposition leader Bhishma Raj Angdembe and Prime Minister Balendra Shah. Let my sloped lands in Tinghare, Silauti, and Phungsing of Umlabung (Nawamidanda), Panchthar be investigated. Let the Prime Minister’s nearly 200 tolas of gold also be investigated. I do not believe at all that the Prime Minister acquired gold through illicit means. But the voters who cast their ballots for you are asking from afar, “Wow… what could be the source of so much gold? Where did it come from?” Therefore, Mr. Prime Minister, let us investigate. Let us also investigate the assets of former prime ministers. Let us investigate whichever former high-ranking political figures and bureaucrats need to be investigated, but let us start from ourselves, not others. Mr. Prime Minister, are you ready? I am ready. It cannot be that you exempt yourself from investigation while conducting it only on others.

Speaker Sir,

The principle of selectivity must not be applied when investigating assets. The wealth investigation campaign against corruption must be credible. That trust will only be established when the Prime Minister himself is ready for an impartial probe and shows the same severity toward his own people as he does toward the opposition.

Furthermore, necessary laws are required for asset investigation, which was on the 100-point list of the ruling party, RSP’s manifesto. Forgetting that very promise and conducting investigations without framing laws regarding asset scrutiny will raise questions about its legal validity.

Speaker Sir,

The most serious matter of concern during the government’s 100 days has been the interference in the democratic process. It is astonishing—in a six-member Constitutional Council, which exists nowhere else in the world, the presence of just three members was declared a majority. I suppose this happened because the country has a miraculous youth Prime Minister who drives the nation on an expressway. Proudly enough, another wonder has been added to the world.

However, Speaker Sir, such a practice is against the Constitution. It is against the spirit of democracy. It has weakened the culture of consensus. Efforts have been made to bring constitutional bodies under the government’s influence rather than keeping them independent. The government has worked to weaken democracy rather than strengthen it. The Nepali Congress does not accept unconstitutional acts; it condemns them.

Right Honorable Speaker Sir,

I want to repeat—our objective is not to oppose the government for the sake of opposition. We want the government to succeed, because when the government succeeds, the Nepali people succeed. Changes will come into the lives of the Nepali people.

But the success of the government is not measured by how many bulldozers it operated; it is measured by how secure it made the lives of its citizens. The settlement of a citizen might have been illegal. But Speaker Sir, that citizen’s birth wasn’t illegal, was it? The womb of the mother who gave birth wasn’t illegal, was it? Their being born on Nepali soil wasn’t illegal either, Speaker Sir. Therefore, the sustainable management of landless settlers must be approached from a practical perspective. Instead, in the name of a solution, thousands of informal settlers and unmanaged residents were displaced right at the onset of the monsoon season without any alternative arrangements. That was a moment when the government showed zero humane sensitivity.

Before removing a family, shouldn’t the state at least think about where that family will sleep tomorrow? Shouldn’t the state consider the condition of the elderly, the infirm, pregnant women, and small children? Is it acceptable for the state to become so utterly heartless? Yesterday, in the name of management, they were forcefully removed from informal settlements and placed in shelters. And today, they are driven away overnight?

Speaker Sir,

Is this country only for the elites? Is it only for those who zoom around in black cars wearing black sunglasses and black suits? Is this country not for the landless settlers, unmanaged residents, the poor, farmers, and laborers? If it isn’t, then say so. If it is, then why is tyranny inflicted upon powerless citizens? Is this compatible with the character of a welfare state?

Therefore, my humble request is—let us solve the landless settlers problem. But let us do it humanely. Let us respect human dignity. Let us not unleash the arrogance of power upon powerless citizens. Remember, a government never triumphs over its own citizens.

Yet, recently, the police arrested informal settlers Dambar Tamang for criticizing the government. I demand his release. Meanwhile, a video emerged showing a minister of this government threatening to break a construction contractor’s legs. I do not think that was an AI-generated video. A member of parliament from the ruling party went even further, giving a violence-inducing, provocative, and law-defying speech about dragging the police on the streets. Perhaps that wasn’t an AI-generated video either. The Honorable MP must be around here somewhere. Yet, the government remained silent. Mind you, this is not a dark regime that shuts the voice of citizens. The Nepali people already made history out of such regimes seven and a half decades ago. Now, a repetition of such history will not happen, nor will we let it happen. There should not be a double standard where the big shots get away with saying anything while the ordinary people get arrested.

In a democracy, criticizing the government is not a crime. Disagreeing with the government is not a revolt, and democracy cannot be strengthened by suppressing dissent. Democracy becomes strong only when the government can listen patiently to its critics.

Speaker Sir,

The Constitution of Nepal is a national agreement born out of decades of struggle, sacrifice, movements, and political consensus of the Nepali people. Therefore, it is not that the Constitution cannot be amended; it can be. It is not a holy scripture to be called unalterable. But unnecessary tampering with the foundational spirit of the Constitution, democratic values, and the federal system in the name of amendment will not be acceptable to the Nepali Congress.

Intense dialogue has not even taken place yet on a serious subject like constitutional amendment. Attempts have been made to tamper with federalism, which has been institutionalized by the Constitution. Let it be remembered, Madhesh revolted for federalism. Federalism is a political achievement obtained through the sacrificial struggles of Indigenous nationalities, Tharus, Dalits, and women. Therefore, federalism is not a system that came easily. Let no one think it can be easily altered; rather, think about how to strengthen federalism.

Speaker Sir,

Let us hold a dialogue among all parties in parliament, parties outside parliament ranging from the Janata Samajbadi Party to various others, and constitutional law experts. Let us amend what needs to be amended, but without attacking the core structure of the Constitution.

Speaker Sir,

The current Constitution was promulgated when former Congress President Sushil Koirala was Prime Minister. The implementation of the Constitution commenced after immediate past Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba became Prime Minister. Therefore, the Nepali Congress bears the maximum guardianship and ownership of this Constitution. This is our responsibility. The process of constitutional amendment must be advanced in an all-party manner. The way the government is currently treating constitutional amendment lightly—by appointing someone who is neither an expert in constitutional law nor a maker of the Constitution as the coordinator to prepare a debate paper—is extremely immature. The Congress has had reservations about this from the very beginning. We have been saying that a Constitution Amendment Suggestion Commission should be formed under the leadership of a former Supreme Court Justice.

In the meantime, the ruling party has bent toward destroying federalism. A proposal to abolish provincial assemblies was passed, and it was termed the political viewpoint of the RSP. I want to ask the government—the current Prime Minister visited Janakpur and Jhapa before the elections and spoke about strengthening federalism. But the first general convention of the ruling RSP stated it would abolish provincial assemblies. Speaker Sir, should we believe Prime Minister Balen or his party RSP’s Chairman, Honorable Rabi Lamichhane? I want to ask. Just like popular singer Kunti Moktan’s song, “The love made while herding cattle was forgotten when going to work as farmhands,” what was spoken in Janakpur was forgotten upon reaching Chitwan. This is not good. The Prime Minister must not forget his words back then, when he said that citizens of Madhesh do not need to come to Kathmandu; all work will be done in Janakpur itself, and they would only visit Kathmandu for tourism, thereby strengthening federalism.

Speaker Sir,

When the government completed its 100 days, I thought the crowd seen at Tribhuvan International Airport belonged to relatives who had gathered to welcome back youths returning from abroad. Because at one time, I had heard a promise that within just 100 days of running the government, at least a hundred youths would be brought back from abroad and given employment within the country. For that, stickers were to be pasted in every alley of Australia, Europe, and America, a “Return to the Country” campaign for youth was to be run, and employment paying as much as they earned abroad was to be provided. But now it seems that was also a promise made to be forgotten. And so, the crowd seen at the airport did not belong to youths brought back to the country, but to youths being sent abroad. If not, from which flight did those minimum 100 youths, who were supposed to be brought back from abroad, arrive? Or has the aircraft meant to bring back our youth not even been able to take off from the runway yet? I want an answer from the government.

Speaker Sir,

Article 76(9) of the Constitution states that the number of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should be limited to a maximum of 25. The government did reduce the number of the Council of Ministers. However, by forming a secretariat of more than two hundred members, including 57 secretary-level advisors and personal staff, an additional burden was imposed on the state treasury. Austerity was publicized by claiming a reduction in the number of ministries, but priority was given to managing party workers by making hundreds of political appointments.

The question to the government is—if the administrative machinery is competent, why is such a large army of advisors required? What extra service did the public get from this? The citizens’ taxes ought to be spent on development, education, health, and employment, not to nurture an army of political appointees. Reducing the minister’s chairs and adding advisor chairs is not austerity; it is merely a way to hide expenses. This is a crude joke on the public’s taxes.

Speaker Sir,

The current government reached power by raising slogans of transparency. But the government appears completely opaque. Following allegations of hiding share ownership, the then Home Minister resigned. The report of the investigation committee formed after that has not been made public to this day.

We have repeatedly demanded that the said report be made public. But the government has continuously worked to hide it. What conclusions the report reached, who was held responsible, and what actions were recommended have not been brought before the public.

The main opposition, Nepali Congress, had demanded an independent, impartial, and high-level probe into all allegations related to the Home Minister. But the government seemed focused on covering up the matter rather than bringing the truth out. The working style of a government that cannot make public an investigation report concerning its own minister raises serious questions about good governance, transparency, morality, and public trust.

Speaker Sir,

The government made a grand declaration in its commitment paper to bring down multi-dimensional poverty to 10 percent within five years. But the budget has broken the back of the public by adding a 3 percent equity fee on education and health. There is no effective plan to control inflation, and no program to provide relief to the poor. On what basis will poverty be reduced then?

Commitments were made to provide subsidies to small farmers, the landless, and marginalized classes. But in the budget, a provision has been made to give a 40 percent subsidy to farmers who invest Rs 20 million. Has the government adopted a policy of using small farmers as a showpiece while distributing facilities to large investors?

Making a commitment to gradually render education and health free, yet adding new fees in those very sectors; claiming to bring health insurance within everyone’s reach, yet his own Finance Minister giving remarks that health insurance is unsustainable—is this the government’s policy or a contradiction? One thing in the commitment, another in the budget, and something else entirely in the ministers’ statements. This is why the government’s manifesto has become just a piece of paper to show the public, not a guide for implementation.

Speaker Sir,

The reports of the Gauri Bahadur Karki Commission and the National Human Rights Commission regarding the Gen Z protests that took place on September 8 and 9 last year have already been submitted to the government. But the government has kept both reports stashed away in drawers till now and has not made them public.

I want to say clearly—everyone involved in both the massacre of the 8th and the destruction of the 9th must be brought within the ambit of the law. I have said before in this very House: any report that sees the massacre of the 8th but ignores the destruction of the 9th, or sees the destruction of the 9th but sidelines the massacre of the 8th, cannot become the basis of justice.

Therefore, the government must immediately make both reports public. Especially, the report of the National Human Rights Commission should be made public, and impartial investigation, legal action, and implementation processes should be advanced based on it. No one should receive immunity under the cover of power or strength.

Speaker Sir,

The BYD vehicle scam has shown the true face of this government. Serious allegations were leveled against the Finance Minister for leaking confidential information regarding revenue rate changes to benefit specific traders. It made a show of taking more than 700 BYD vehicles into custody. After allegations were raised, there should have been an independent and impartial probe. But what did the government do? The minister facing allegations formed a committee under the leadership of employees from his own ministry and absolved himself.

Is this good governance? If one is to declare oneself innocent, how will the public believe it? The minister, who in the past accused others of “sprinkling holy water to cleanse themselves” in similar incidents, is today repeating the very same practice himself.

The measure of good governance comes from impartial investigation, not from speeches. If the government has moral courage, let it conduct an independent judicial or high-level probe into this episode. Otherwise, it will be proven that the slogan of good governance was merely a political slogan to deceive the public.

Speaker Sir,

The government has spoken about increasing agricultural production, reducing imports, and increasing self-reliance. All these things sound good in policy. But even in the middle of the monsoon season, farmers have not received chemical fertilizer. The government, however, claims that fertilizer is adequate. If so, why are farmers wandering around in distress? I want to ask the government.

Speaker Sir,

Elephant terror has taken as many as 25 lives so far. There is a painful situation where four members of a single family lost their lives. The government has not been able to bring an effective plan to control elephants that have been wreaking havoc for years. Local residents are forced to live insecure lives in their own houses and farmlands. The government cannot fulfill its duty merely by distributing relief. Let a long-term policy to protect citizens’ lives and farming from wild animals, an effective rescue mechanism, and swift intervention arrangements be implemented immediately. Protecting the lives of citizens is the first responsibility of the state.

Speaker Sir,

In conclusion, I only want to say this—looking at the list of 100-point governance reforms published by the government and the status of their implementation, it has been proven that they are nothing more than an elephant’s tusks meant only for show. Reform on paper, opacity in practice; good governance in speeches, selectivity in working style; democracy in commitments, unilateral decisions in practice. Hope was shown to the people, but the result turned out to be disappointing. I say it again—in a democracy, a government is not evaluated by its promotional booklets; the people evaluate it. The people must be noting down all these things in their black diaries. One day, the people will surely make a decision. In summary, the government’s claim of 100-point governance reforms is like an elephant’s tusks—meant for show and completely hollow.