In recent interactions with different professional groups, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has exhibited starkly differing tones on economic matters, revealing a troubling inconsistency in his approach to governance. This variation was strongly visible in his responses to the Engineers’ Association via speech and the Nepal Bar Association in a meeting – over few weeks earlier and recently on August 3rd, raising serious questions about the government’s handling of economic policies.
The Engineers’ Association Demand
During the 62nd Engineers’ Day, the Engineers’ Association of Nepal demanded a minimum salary of NPR 37,000 per month to be enforced. Prime Minister Oli’s reaction was one of surprise and apparent support with regard to the number quoted.
“घरभाडा रु ३० हजारभन्दा तल पाउनुहुन्न । बजार, महिना चलाउन एउटा परिवारलाई कमसेकम रु ३० हजारभन्दा तल हुन्न होला। ३७ हजार…”
PM KP SHARMA OLI
He acknowledged the high cost of living, including house rent and basic family expenses, suggesting that the proposed salary is indeed a bare minimum. His comments indicated a positive stance towards meeting the engineers’ demands, reflecting an understanding of the economic pressures faced by professionals in Nepal.
However, despite this acknowledgment, there was no direct commitment to enforce the demand. If the salary is justified on paper, why not take immediate steps to enforce it?
This hesitation exposes a gap between expression and action, raising doubts about the government’s sincerity in addressing the genuine needs of professionals. While also raising questions that if the speech was only to please the mass?
Concerns shared with Nepal Bar Association
Conversely, in a meeting with the Nepal Bar Association, Prime Minister Oli adopted a completely different tone. Here, he emphasized the need to consider the country’s economic capacity when making judicial decisions, particularly those related to salary increments. Oli highlighted the impracticality of implementing salary increases without considering the state of the economy. He pointed out that judicial decisions must be realistic and aligned with the economic situation to ensure they are actionable.
This approach starkly contrasts with his earlier statements to the engineers, revealing a selective application of economic realism. Why should the financial realities suddenly matter more when it comes to decisions that would impact all government activities and not when it’s about private sector?
Confusion in Governance
This duality in Prime Minister Oli’s responses is not just a balancing act; it signals towards confusion. On one hand, he sympathizes with engineers about the high cost of living, yet on the other, he dismisses similar concerns from governmental employees who are paid even lesser under the form of economic judgement. This selective empathy underscores a troubling inconsistency in policy-making.
Furthermore, the economic struggles are not limited to government alone. Companies across Nepal are grappling with the same financial pressures. The Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) has attempted to ease this burden with monetary policies, but increasing the minimum wage further from what it already is at (but not enforced) without a broader economic strategy would only add pressure to businesses already on the brink. Why is this aspect conveniently ignored in the government’s narrative?
Ignoring Broader Economic Implications
The failure to consider the broader economic implications of increasing wages only for private sector but ignoring the public sector is a oversight. If the government is genuinely concerned about the economic state, why not adopt a holistic approach that addresses both public and private sector challenges? The inconsistency in Prime Minister Oli’s stance reveals a lack of comprehensive economic planning, further eroding public trust.
Prime Minister Oli’s contradictory responses to the demands of different professional groups highlight a deeper issue within the government’s approach to economic policy. The selective application of economic realism and the failure to consider broader implications reveal a troubling inconsistency that undermines the credibility of governance. For a truly sustainable economic policy, the government must move beyond expressions/speech and adopt a logical, inclusive approach that addresses the needs of all sectors.
This article aims to shed light on the government’s double standards and calls for a more consistent and realistic approach to economic policymaking. The needs and challenges faced by various professional groups and the broader business community must be addressed holistically to ensure sustainable development in Nepal.
