Experts have suggested that the government establish new standards by disclosing satisfactory sources of wealth and tax details.
We use Google Cloud Translation Services. Google requires we provide the following disclaimer relating to use of this service:
This service may contain translations powered by Google. Google disclaims all warranties related to the translations, expressed or implied, including any warranties of accuracy, reliability, and any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
The assets of the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-led government have been made public in accordance with the election pledge to make all assets public before assuming public office. The assets of 16 members of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, were made public on Sunday, 17 days after the formation of the government.
The person whose assets are in question should himself disclose the source of his assets and the tax he paid - Dipesh Ghimire , Good Governance Campaigner According to the information released by the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the financial condition of the members of the Council of Ministers appears to be strong. Prime Minister Balendra Shah has shown that he has Rs 14.6 million in cash in his bank account. He said that the source of this is income received from social media such as Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and Spotify. His assets include 190 tolas of jewelry.
Similarly, he has 9 annas of land in Kathmandu, 1 bigha and 2 katta in Dhanusha, and 9 bigha in Mahottari. Among other assets, he has also shown 4 million Facebook followers and the number of YouTube and Twitter followers. This is the first time that a person in public office has shown social media and the followers on it as a source of income.
Only rich people became ministers. The message went out that one must be rich to be a minister. Aren’t all 30 million Nepalis equally rich? This also gives a picture of the economic inequality between ministers and the people. - Bidhyadhar Mallik, Former Secretary Good governance activist Dipesh Ghimire says that the background and participation of past and present politics are different. ‘In the previous movements, farmers, remote villages and people from disadvantaged communities were represented. The issues, representation and leadership were the same. Now it is different,’ he said, ‘The Gen-G movement was carried out by young people representing the middle-class society in urban areas. Those who came to leadership representing them should not be compared to those before.’
Ghimire said that it is positive to make the property details of all ministers public within two weeks of the formation of the government. ‘Who has how much property? That is a secondary issue,’ he said, ‘Those whose property is in question should themselves disclose the source of it and the tax paid.’ He said that it should be taken as natural for citizens to raise questions about the property of people in public positions.
‘Nowadays, youth have succeeded in earning income not only within the country but also from abroad. They have also been earning income from social media. However, the main question is whether the properties are within the tax ambit or not? Is it income that has been paid in taxes or not,’ Ghimire said. He says that a government formed on the foundation of good governance can set a new standard by disclosing the satisfactory source of property and tax details.
The previous two governments had not made the property details of the Prime Minister and ministers public. When the government led by KP Sharma Oli and Sushila Karki did not make its asset details public, questions were raised about the government from the perspective of good governance. Now, questions have also been raised when the asset details of the members of the Council of Ministers are made public. There is widespread trolling on social media regarding the gold and other assets held by the Prime Minister and ministers. There is criticism about the need to make the source of assets public.
Former Secretary Bidyadhar Mallik, who was also the Finance Minister, says that all the ministers appear wealthy when looking at their asset details. ‘Ministers appear richer than the income of the average Nepali. Being rich in itself is not bad. It is good for everyone to be prosperous,’ he said, ‘Only rich people become ministers. The message has been sent that they must be rich to be ministers. Aren’t all 30 million Nepalis equally rich? This has also given a picture of the economic inequality between ministers and the people.’
As Mallik said, the data from the National Statistics Office also shows that a large population is still below the poverty line. According to the Nepal Living Standards Survey 2079/80 of the National Statistics Office, about 20.27 percent of the population in Nepal is below the poverty line. According to the 2078 Census, the population of Nepal is 29.164 million. Accordingly, the number of citizens below the poverty line is approximately 5.9 million.
They cannot even meet the expenses required to meet their minimum basic needs. The latest survey by the Statistics Office has placed those who cannot meet the annual expenses of Rs 72,908 below the absolute poverty line. According to a study by the World Bank, the number of citizens in Nepal who earn a middle income (earning $3.65 to $10 per day) is 60 to 65 percent.
Ministers should be able to tell where all this gold, land and money came from, its legal source and proof of tax payment - Padmini Pradhanang, Former President, Transparency International Nepal 'How do the rich ministers of the government represent the people who voted for them with their bare hands? How do they think about them? What plans, work and results are being brought to eliminate their poverty and develop their capacity, many things become clear,' said Mallik, 'This government is moving fast. But the benefits of that speed should not be only for the urban poor. It is important whether this government represents the one whose vote it has brought.’
Former Finance Minister Rameshwor Khanal has commented that income statements and proof of tax payment submitted to the Internal Revenue Office are more reliable sources. There is a legal provision that persons holding public office must submit their asset details to the relevant body. However, the law does not make it mandatory to make them public. The asset details of ministers including Khanal, who was the Finance Minister in the previous electoral government, were not made public.
Section 50 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2059 BS provides that a person holding a public office must submit the asset details in his or her family’s name to the designated body and officer within 60 days of the date of assuming such office. However, there is no mandatory provision to make the asset details public. Section 50(4) of the Act provides for keeping the submitted asset details confidential. Due to this loophole in the law, sometimes the asset details of the members of the Council of Ministers have not been made public.
Since the Prime Minister and ministers are accountable to the public and are subject to questions from the general public, the practice of making the asset details of ministers public by taking a decision from the Council of Ministers was also prevalent in the past. However, as soon as the asset details were made public, criticism and questions started to arise regarding the assets of the ministers, some of them stopped making the asset details public in recent times.
Former head of Transparency International Nepal, Padmini Pradhananga, says that the ministers concerned should also answer the questions that have arisen in the minds of the people after the asset details are made public. 'Recently, land, gold and cash worth crores have been seen with young people. People are surprised by this. The assets of some ministers also seemed a bit unnatural. That has raised questions,' she said, 'The government, which has started good practice by making its asset details public, should be able to ask ministers where all this gold, land and money came from, its legal source and proof of tax payment. It would be better if the ministers concerned took the initiative themselves. That would further increase people's trust in them.'
Some ministers have lived abroad, worked in foreign organizations and have ancestral property. 'Even though there are no questions about those, people are raising questions about those whose jobs and businesses are unknown to the public. To have so much wealth, did one have to be a wealthy person or have a big business? It is difficult to acquire such wealth with just a job,' she said, 'It would be better if a government that questions others' assets and is eager to investigate corruption first makes its own people clear.'
