Kathmandu, May 13: The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) under the House of Representatives has revealed that more than Rs 7.33 trillion in arrears still need to be settled, highlighting a massive audit and accountability backlog in government spending.
Committee Secretary Ekram Giri informed a meeting on Tuesday that the total outstanding irregularities currently stand at Rs 7,33,19,09,00,000, all of which fall within the committee’s oversight responsibility for clearance and review.
The committee is mandated to ensure that public funds are spent as approved by Parliament and cost-effectively and transparently. Its jurisdiction includes reviewing public accounts, the annual report of the Office of the Auditor General, and related financial oversight matters.
Lawmakers in the meeting stressed the seriousness of the issue, noting that the volume of unsettled irregularities is extremely large and requires urgent attention alongside new audit findings.
Some members proposed introducing a structured work calendar for parliamentary committees to improve efficiency and accountability. One lawmaker argued that rather than rushing through discussions, the committee should allow extended deliberation where necessary, while also maintaining clear records of monthly progress.
Another member noted that not all irregularities should automatically be interpreted as corruption, urging a more nuanced review of audit findings.
Others warned that the scale of the backlog itself reflects the need for stronger institutional seriousness. They emphasized that both old and newly identified irregularities must be addressed systematically.
Some lawmakers called for a more “action-oriented” approach from the committee, stressing that public criticism over inefficiency must not be repeated. They argued that resolving irregularities should become a priority task rather than a routine formality.
The discussion highlighted a recurring concern in Nepal’s public financial management system: large audit backlogs, slow settlement processes, and limited enforcement capacity.
While the figures point to a significant accountability challenge, the meeting also reflected a broader political consensus on the need to make parliamentary oversight more structured, timely, and result-driven.
People’s News Monitoring Service
संसद्को संयुक्त बैठकमा राष्ट्रपतिको सम्बोधन भइरहँदा प्रधानमन्त्री बीचैमा उठेर हिँडेको घटना सम्भवतः संसारकै संसदीय इतिहासमा दुर्लभ होला । नेपालका प्रधानमन्त्री बालेन्द्र शाहले भने सोमवार संसद्को संयुक्त बैठकमा राष्ट्रपति रामचन्द्र पौडेलले सरकारको वार्षिक नीति तथा कार्यक्रम वाचन गरिरहेकै बेला बीचैमा बैठक छाडेर बाहिरिएको नयाँ ुकीर्तिमानु बनाएका छन् ।
विपक्षीहरूले प्रधानमन्त्री शाहको यस व्यवहारलाई ‘अशोभनीय’, ‘संसदीय मर्यादाको उल्लङ्घन’ तथा अमर्यादित, अभद्र र गैरजिम्मेवार प्रवृत्तिको संज्ञा दिएका छन् । प्रधामन्त्री शाहको दल राष्ट्रिय स्वतन्त्र पार्टीबाट भने अहिलसम्म यस अशोभनीय व्यवहारका सम्बन्धमा कुनै धारणा सार्वजनिक भएको छैन ।
संसदीय लोकतन्त्र लामो अभ्यास र परम्पराबाट विकसित हुँदै आएको हुनाले यसका केही निश्चित् मान्यता तथा स्थापित अभ्यास छन् । संसद्भित्रको आवागमनमात्र होइन बसाइ, बोलाइ र भाषासमेत संसदीय हुनुपर्छ भन्ने मान्यता विश्वका सबै संसद्हरूमा प्रचलित छ । संसद्भित्र असंसदीय शब्द, भाषा र व्यवहार प्रकट भएमा अभिलेखबाटै हटाएर अस्वीकार गरिन्छ ।
प्रधानमन्त्री शाहको यो विवादास्पद व्यवहार भने संसदीय त हुँदै होइन मर्यादित पनि मान्न सकिँदैन । यद्यपि, संसदीय आचरण उनका लागि नौलो भएकाले शाहले त्यसरी बीचैमा बैठक छाड्न नहुने थाहा नै नपाएको पनि हुनसक्छ । जेहोस्, यो घटना विश्वको संसदीय इतिहासमा असंसदीय आचरणका रूपमा उल्लेख हुनेछ ।
संसद्को मर्यादा हनन हुँदा सबैभन्दा बढी हानि भने प्रधानमन्त्रीकै हुन्छ । कारण संसद्को प्रमुख सभामुख भए पनि नेता त प्रधानमन्त्री नै हो । राष्ट्रपतिले संसद्को संयुक्त बैठकमा सरकारको नीति तथा कार्यक्रम प्रस्तुत गर्ने कार्यक्रमलाई विशेष महत्त्व दिने परम्परा छ । यस दिन संसद् भवनमा राष्ट्रपतिको आगमन विशेष समारोहपूर्वक हुनुले पनि यसलाई पुष्टि गर्छ ।
संसदीय लोकतन्त्र भएका मुलुकहरूमा राष्ट्राध्यक्षको सम्बोधनमा अमर्यादित व्यवहार गर्दा संसद्को मानहानि ठहरिन्छ । त्यस्तो अवस्थामा पदबाट राजीनामादेखि क्षमायाचनासम्म हुने गरेका उदाहरण छन् । राष्ट्राध्यक्षको सम्बोधनमा विपक्षीले अवज्ञा गर्दा भारतमा सांसदहरू निलम्बित गरिएका थिए । सत्ता पक्षले मर्यादाहीन व्यवहार देखाएको उदाहरण त बिरलै पाइन्छ ।
यस घटनाले सरकारको नीति तथा कार्यक्रमप्रति नै प्रधानमन्त्रीको अनादर झल्काएको छ भने यसलाई सामान्य मानियो भने भविष्यमा अन्य सदस्यहरूले पनि राष्ट्रप्रमुखको उपस्थितिलाई हल्का रूपमा लिने खतरा रहन्छ । प्रधानमन्त्री स्वयं त्यस अराजकताका सिकार बन्न सक्छन् । साथै विश्वका अरू लोकतान्त्रिक देशहरूले यस्ता व्यवहारलाई अराजकताको संकेतको रूपमा हेर्ने हुनाले देशकै अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय साखमा समेत आघात पुग्न सक्छ ।
प्रतिनिधि सभामा प्रधानमन्त्री शाहको दल राष्ट्रिय स्वतन्त्र पार्टीको झन्डै दुईतिहाइ बहुमत छ । सैद्धान्तिक स्पष्टता र लोकतान्त्रिक प्रतिबद्धता नभएको दलका भएकाले रास्वपाका लागि विपक्षका दृष्टिमा असंसदीय र अशोभनीय ठहरिएको प्रधानमन्त्री बालेन्द्र शाहको आचरण खासै आपत्तिजनक नलाग्न पनि सक्छ ।
तर, संसद्को संयुक्त बैठकमा राष्ट्रपतिकै सामु शाहको संसदीय मर्यादाविपरीतको व्यवहारले अराजकता बढाउन सक्छ । र, अहिले देशमा अराजकता बढ्यो भने सबैभन्दा गुमाउने त रास्वपाले हुन्छ । रास्वपाका लागि मर्यादाको कुनै अर्थ छ भने यस प्रकरणमा उसले प्रधानमन्त्री शाहसँग स्पष्टीकरण माग्नु उचित हुनेछ । रास्वपाले पुराना गलत परम्परा तोड्ने नाममा स्थापित लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य मान्यता नै भत्काउनु प्रत्युत्पादक हुन सक्छ ।
संसद्भित्र प्रतिपक्षी दलहरूले यस विषयलाई चर्कोरूपमा उठाउन सक्छन् । सङ्ख्या सानो भए पनि विपक्षीहरू एक भए भने संसद्को कामकारबाही नियमित रूपमा सञ्चालन हुनसक्दैन । त्यसैले पनि यो विषयलाई साम्य बनाउन प्रधानमन्त्री शाहले नै आफूले नजानेर वा कुनै बाध्यताका कारण त्यस्तो व्यवहार गरेको हो जानकारी संसद्लाई दिनुपर्छ ।
व्यक्तिगत स्वभाव जेजस्तो भए पनि सार्वजनिक पदमा बहाल व्यक्तिले संस्थागत मर्यादा भुल्नु हुँदैन । संसदीय पद्धतिअनसार निर्वाचित संसद्मा बहुमत प्राप्त दलको नेताका हैसियतले प्रधानमन्त्री रहुन्जेल उनले संसदीय मर्यादा र परम्पराको पालना गर्नै पर्छ । यसैले प्रधानमन्त्री शाहले आत्मसमीक्षा गर्दै संसद्मा स्पष्टीकरण दिनु नै यो गल्ती सच्याउने उत्तम विकल्प हुनसक्छ ।
बैठकबाट बीचैमा बाहिरिँदा सदनको, राष्ट्रपतिको भन्दा बढी अपमान सभामुखको भएको छ । यसैले सभामुखले यस विषयलाई गम्भीरतापूर्वक लिनुपर्छ । प्रधानमन्त्रीले संसदीय मर्यादा पालना गर्न नपर्ने हो भने अरू कसैलाई पनि संसदीय आचरण सम्झाउने नैतिक अधिकार सभामुखको हुनेछैन । विपक्षीहरूले पनि यस विषयलाई संसद् अवरोध गर्ने कारण बनाउनु उचित हुँदैन । सभामुखले ‘रुलिङ’मार्फत यस्ता घटना दोहोरिन नदिने सुनिश्चित् गर्नुपर्छ ।
People’s News Monitoring Service
SEE results within a month. Now, need to address concern that home center has some drawbacks. local teachers grading answer sheets may have issues of favoirism and lack of objective assessment
The publication of the Secondary Education Examination (SEE) results within 29 days marks a noticeable shift in Nepal’s school education system. For years, students waited nearly three months for results, trapped in that awkward national ritual where teenagers refresh websites and adults pretend grades define destiny. This time, the wait ended in less than a month. That alone matters. The pass rate also improved by more than 4 percent, suggesting that the system did not just move faster but also produced better outcomes on paper.
At first glance, this looks like a rare administrative success. The government set a one-month deadline, and the National Examination Board delivered. Answer sheets were checked at examination centers instead of being sent elsewhere, cutting delays. Supplementary exams were scheduled quickly as well. In a bureaucracy often known for leisurely movement, this is almost suspiciously efficient.
The shorter timeline has clear benefits. Students no longer lose months in uncertainty. That matters for mental health, college admissions, and family planning. In Nepal, SEE still carries symbolic weight far beyond a school exam. It is treated as a major turning point, even though it is simply one step in a much longer educational journey. Releasing results quickly helps reduce unnecessary stress and allows students to move into higher studies without long gaps.
The improved pass rate also deserves attention, but not blind celebration. A rise from 61.81 percent to 65.98 percent is significant, yet numbers alone do not tell the whole story. Better results can come from stronger teaching, more preparation, and improved student discipline. They can also come from changes in testing patterns, evaluation methods, or easier access to model questions. The truth is usually a mix of all three, because education systems are never as simple as a percentage headline suggests.
Several factors appear to have contributed this year. Many schools reportedly kept students in intensive study programs for months before the exam. Some provided boarding and extended coaching. Students also had access to model question sets, which likely made preparation more targeted. That can help students perform better, but it also raises a larger question: are students learning concepts, or just training to predict the exam? Humans have a talent for turning education into a strategy game.
That distinction matters because SEE should measure learning, not memorization. If students improve only because they practiced likely question patterns, the system may produce better grades without producing better understanding. That would create a comforting illusion. The government could claim progress, schools could advertise success, and parents could celebrate. Meanwhile, many students might still struggle with basic writing, mathematics, or analytical skills when they move to higher education.
The quick checking process has also triggered skepticism. Some questioned whether evaluating answer sheets at the exam centers might inflate grades. Officials insist teachers acted ethically, and there is no evidence yet to suggest widespread irregularities. Still, trust in public exams depends on transparency. The board should publish a clear review of how the new system worked, what safeguards were used, and whether independent verification was carried out. Faster results are valuable only if the public believes they are fair.
The more encouraging sign lies in what this change could lead to. If the board can process results in one month, it can also modernize other parts of the education system. Digital evaluation, stronger teacher training, and regular academic assessments throughout the year could reduce the excessive pressure placed on one final exam. SEE has long been treated as a life-defining event, which is absurd for children barely entering adulthood. Education should build skills over time, not force everything into one high-stakes test.
The government now has an opportunity to turn this administrative improvement into broader reform. It should use the faster results system to rethink the purpose of SEE itself. Exams should assess critical thinking, communication, and practical understanding, not just repetition of textbook answers. Schools need support to improve teaching quality in rural and urban areas alike. Provinces with lower educational outcomes should receive targeted investment, not generic speeches about equal opportunity.
A quicker result and a better pass rate are welcome. They show that reform is possible when institutions are pushed to act. But speed is only the first step. The real goal should be to make SEE a gateway to meaningful learning, not just a more efficient way to sort teenagers into GPA categories and send them off to the next round of collective anxiety.
Login to add a comment