Spread the love

By Our Reporter

After the government started preparing a draft to provide lifelong facilities to former VIPs—former president, vice president, former prime minister and former Speaker, it drew severe criticism from the public as well as the lawmakers.

The news about the law spread at a time when the pro-royalists organised the massive rally on March 9 and announced a movement for the restoration of the monarchy and Hindu kingdom and end corruption.

Though the government in the beginning denied drafting such a law, it later backtracked from the plan owing to public criticism. 

When the social sites were full of comments against the plans to give lifelong facilities to former VIPs, the lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties raised voice against the proposed law, prompting the government not to forward the drafting of the law.

Lawmakers, speaking in the ’emergency time’ in the meetings of the House of Representatives, expressed dissatisfaction over the issue of providing life-long benefits to former distinguished office-bearers.

One of them was Nepali Congress lawmaker Ram Krishna Yadav, who said that the facilities should not be provided to former distinguished office-bearers at a time when the country’s economy was weak.

“It has been reported in the newspapers that a law is being made to provide life-long benefits to former distinguished officials. The country is passing through a weak economic condition. In such a situation, the issue of giving lifetime benefits to former distinguished officials is untenable,” he said.

Similarly, Devendra Paudel of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) expressed dissatisfaction over the proposal to provide service facilities to the former distinguished office-bearers at a time when the country’s economy is weak and the government should instead provide relief to the people.

Prakash Jwala of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Socialist) opined that the former distinguished office-bearers should not be given facilities in such a way that the state will have to bear additional financial burden when the country’s economy was deteriorating.