UML’s Contradictory Role on “Cooling-Off” Period Sparks Tensions in National Assembly
UML faces political isolation in the National Assembly after tabling amendments to remove the “cooling-off” period for civil servants, despite its minister defending it.
The political controversy surrounding Nepal’s Civil Service Bill has deepened as the National Assembly debates amendments to remove the proposed two-year “cooling-off period” for retired or resigned civil servants.
The issue intensified after five lawmakers from the main opposition party, CPN-UML, registered amendments seeking to strike out the “cooling-off” clause. The move contradicts the public position taken by UML’s own Minister for Information and Communication, Prithvi Subba Gurung, who stated the government supports the provision.
Passed earlier by the House of Representatives, the bill includes a clause preventing former bureaucrats—particularly secretaries and joint-secretaries—from receiving constitutional, diplomatic, or other government appointments within two years of retirement or resignation. The clause was controversially removed during committee deliberations, triggering political backlash.
Now, with the bill under review in the upper house, UML’s internal contradiction has placed it in political isolation. The ruling Nepali Congress has reaffirmed support for the cooling-off provision, stating it reflects public sentiment. As a result, UML's proposed amendments are unlikely to pass in the 59-member National Assembly, where UML holds just 10 seats (plus 1 nominated).
Chief Whip of UML Gopal Bhattarai, along with lawmakers Indira Devi Gautam, Rukmini Koirala, Sumitra BC, and Sonam Geljen Sherpa, tabled the amendments. However, UML's lack of support from other parties—including ruling alliance members—has left its position politically vulnerable.
Congress Whip Krishna Bahadur Rokaya argued the cooling-off period is necessary to preserve institutional integrity, stating, “We must reflect the voice of the people. The provision must stay.” Congress has even initiated cross-party lobbying to preserve the clause.
Meanwhile, UML’s contradictory approach—defending the clause in public while undermining it legislatively—has drawn criticism. Analysts say it underscores a broader political pattern of strategic ambiguity, where parties attempt to appeal to multiple constituencies without clear policy coherence.
The controversy is currently under investigation by a parliamentary inquiry committee led by NC’s Jeevan Pariyar, which is reviewing how the provision was removed from the bill during the House process. UML had earlier demanded the resignation of NC’s Ram Hari Khatiwada, who chairs the State Affairs Committee.
As tensions mount, the fate of the cooling-off provision remains uncertain. However, UML’s internal contradictions and legislative isolation may weaken its influence over final bill provisions.