The dispute between the ruling party and the opposition regarding the ordinances has reached the point of 'division of votes by signature' during the passage of the replacement bill. During the passage of the bill to replace the two ordinances brought by the government, there was a split in the signatures of the parliamentarians at the meeting of the House of Representatives on Monday.

When the bill is passed, the parliamentarians usually say 'yes' and 'no' and it is passed by voice vote, but in the replacement bill, the opposition parliamentarian asked for a division of vote by signature. When the speaker presented the bill for decision, the opposition demanded a division of votes and the minority and majority votes were calculated through signatures. 

"Bill to amend some Nepal Acts related to good governance promotion and public service delivery, 2081" and "Bill to amend some Nepal Acts related to cooperatives, 2081" have been passed by the House of Representatives on Sunday. Both bills were introduced to replace the Ordinance.

MPs have decided to pass the replacement bill brought in this way with their signatures. Usually, when passing a bill, it was decided by voice vote. Even during that time, the speaker of the assembly would announce that the bill had been passed by unanimous vote while the opposition MPs remained silent on a bill. But in the replacement bill, the parliamentarians of the government and the opposition decided by signing. Spokesperson of the Federal Parliament, Ekram Giri, said that there was a division of votes with the signatures of the MPs on the replacement bill.

'When any proposal is presented in the assembly, if 28 members stand up and ask for it to be decided by division of votes with signatures, it should be done according to the provisions of the rules and there is also a parliamentary practice,' Giri said, 'This is the first time that the vote has been divided by signatures on the bill since the beginning of this session of the Federal Parliament. Previously, the votes were split by voice vote, but this time, the votes were split with the MP's signature.' 

In the House of Representatives, on behalf of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, Minister of Communications and Information Technology Prithvisubba Gurung submitted a proposal to pass the Good Governance Promotion Bill. When the proposal was presented by the speaker for decision, the main opposition party, along with the Maoists, and the opposition parties RSVP, RPPA etc. According to Rule 29 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, they demanded the division of votes. The reason for asking for division of votes on the said bill was the claim of RSVP MP Ganesh Parajuli that the provisions of the bill are against the national interest. He said that since the minister rejected the important amendment proposal registered by the opposition party parliamentarians and the ruling party parliamentarians showed the arrogance of two-thirds, they had to demand division of votes.

In the Good Governance Promotion Bill, 23 single and two joint amendments were registered in the House of Representatives. Among them, ruling party UML MP Sarita Bhusal withdrew the amendment proposal, while other amendment proposals were rejected by the majority. One hundred and 45 MPs were present during the division of votes on the bill. Deputy Speaker Indira Rana, who was conducting the meeting, announced that 96 MPs voted in favor of passing the bill and 49 MPs voted against it.

The government claims that in this bill, a legal arrangement has been made to make the country's public administration public-oriented, accountable and transparent according to the wishes of the people. There is also provision in this bill to provide service to the customer within seven days . Provision of visa for non-resident Nepalese when they come to Nepal is made in this act . MP Madhav Sapkota mentioned that the Constitution has given social, economic and cultural rights to the non-resident Nepalis in addition to political rights and said that they should not be arranged for visas when they come to Nepal.

Similarly, the bill to amend some Nepal Acts related to cooperatives has also been passed by the House of Representatives with a split vote . The bill was passed by the majority of the ruling party in the division of votes. One hundred and thirty-six MPs were present in the House of Representatives when this bill was presented for decision. Speaker Devraj Ghimire said that the bill should be passed when presented for decision, 95 in favor and against  It was announced that the bill was passed by the majority as 41 MPs had declared their votes.

Maoist's chief whip Hitraj Pandey said that the amendments registered by the ruling and opposition MPs were not accepted and because they did not accept the suggestions, they had to ask for division of votes. 'The problem of cooperatives is nationwide. The voice of cooperative victims should be heard and this parliament formed an inquiry committee about it, it suggested, but the minister did not look at all the amendments we put forward for suggestions, and did not take any of the suggestions, instead of considering that the problems of the entire cooperative victims of Nepal will be solved when the bill comes according to that suggestion,' he said. He said that it is more painful to make a law to give justice to cooperative victims and to make ointment for pain. "We have asked for division of votes through signatures to convey to the common people that we are on the side of cooperative victims," ​​he said.

UML MP Surya Thapa, who is the chairman of the investigation committee formed by the House of Representatives to investigate cooperatives, said that despite trying to create a better system for cooperatives, the government felt that the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee were not properly assimilated. In his amendment, there should be a legal provision for the co-operative operators to be freed from imprisonment to recover the debt and return the savings. His amendment was to give time to the co-operative owners who are in jail, prison or custody to return the savings and for that they should be released from prison . For that, he suggested that the passports of the directors of cooperatives should be stopped, immovable property and bank accounts should be frozen in the name of the members of the same household, travel permits should be stopped, permission should be taken when going out of the city where the headquarters of the cooperative is located, etc., he suggested.

RSVP MP Sobita Gautam proposed that Rashtra Bank should be entrusted with the regulation of multi-purpose and savings and credit cooperatives. He argued that the concept of cooperative authority in the bill is at the center, but it cannot solve the problem as it is not autonomous and under the control of the ministry. "I don't believe that the problems of cooperatives will be solved as soon as the authority is formed." Until the cooperative becomes an autonomous body to solve the problem, the victims will not get justice from the cooperative,' she said. 

In response to questions raised by MPs, Land Management, Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation Minister Balram Adhikari said that the bill was brought to address the report of the parliamentary inquiry committee, the agreement reached by the government with cooperative victims, the suggestions of experts and the current needs. "This bill has been brought to solve the problems seen in the cooperative sector and to end the complications seen now," the minister said. 29 single and one joint amendment proposals were registered in this bill.