Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) lawmaker Amresh Kumar Singh said on October 15, 2026, that a two-thirds majority does not make every government decision correct, speaking in the context of Nepal’s Parliamentary Hearing Committee rejecting two proposed ambassadors. The committee rejected Giri Bahadur Sunar’s nomination for Saudi Arabia and Chudamani Kharel’s nomination for Malaysia. Singh said that in a democracy, law, procedure and national interest must stand above the government.
Majority does not settle whether a decision is right
Singh’s central point was that a government’s strength in parliament cannot, on its own, establish that every decision it takes is sound. A two-thirds majority may show substantial political support, but he argued that it does not remove the need to assess government actions against legal requirements, proper procedure and the country’s interests.
The remarks followed the committee’s rejection of the two ambassadorial nominees. That decision brought the question of parliamentary majority into focus: the government may have broad support, but its proposals remain subject to scrutiny through the parliamentary process. Singh’s comments drew a distinction between the strength of a government’s mandate and the standards that should guide particular decisions.
Reports by Nagarik News and Nepal Press reported Singh’s position in the wake of the committee’s action. His stated emphasis was on the principles that should guide decisions, rather than on majority figures as a measure of whether a specific choice is correct.
Committee rejects nominees for Saudi Arabia and Malaysia
The Parliamentary Hearing Committee rejected Sunar, who had been proposed as ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and Kharel, who had been proposed as ambassador to Malaysia. Their nominations were the immediate context for Singh’s remarks. The committee’s decision meant that the two proposed appointments did not receive its approval.
Singh’s comments linked the outcome to a broader democratic principle: government authority operates alongside requirements for legality and procedure. In his view, the national interest must also remain central. The three standards he named - law, procedure and national interest - frame his argument that a government cannot treat a large parliamentary majority as a substitute for scrutiny of its decisions.
The significance of his remarks lies in that distinction. A majority can provide political backing, but Singh said it does not make every decision automatically valid or appropriate. By making the point after the committee rejected the ambassador nominees, he placed the committee’s action within a wider discussion about how democratic institutions should assess government proposals.
Law, procedure and national interest
Singh’s statement does not mean that the size of a majority is irrelevant to government, but it rejects the idea that numerical strength alone should determine whether a decision is right. His message was that decisions must be considered on their own merits and against the standards he identified. In this case, the committee’s rejection of the two nominees underscored that proposed appointments can face scrutiny even when a government has substantial parliamentary support.
The episode also highlights the distinction between proposing candidates and securing approval through the relevant parliamentary process. Sunar and Kharel had been proposed for diplomatic postings to Saudi Arabia and Malaysia, respectively, but the committee rejected both nominations. Singh’s response was to stress that democratic legitimacy depends not only on the government’s strength, but also on respecting rules and placing the country’s interests above political authority.
His remarks therefore focused on accountability as well as majority rule. For Singh, the presence of a two-thirds majority cannot by itself close debate over a government decision. Lawful procedure and the national interest remain the standards against which such decisions should be judged.
