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 State Order and Good Governance Committee of the House of Representatives agreed on the 'cooling off period' when the civil bill report was passed, but there was a difference when it was passed by the House on Sunday.
To go down on the wording and spirit with which the committee settled a long-standing issue is to be wrong about both the process and the intent. Now it is time to question the integrity and competence of the Speaker who sends the report to the staff house for auditing and the MP who is responsible for reading it or not.
How did the report go to the House different from the consensus in the committee? More serious is who added the conflicting provisions at what stage. What was left for the player who was skilled in persuading the MP to persuade the people?
What do you think when employees, committee chairpersons and ministers who always think that only they should get opportunities and others should not get opportunities? When the chief secretary and the secretaries are marching to pressurize to remove the 'cooling of period', how can we believe that such employees work for the country and the people? Our employees have to earn money no matter how old they are.
– Purushottam Ghimire , Jorpati, Kathmandu
