Latest news with #FederalParliament
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Liberals shock with bombshell announcement - only to backflip hours later: 'It's time to scrap Net Zero and Save Australia!'
The governing body of the South Australian Liberal Party adopted a policy of abandoning net zero - only for the party's leader to walk back the move hours later. Leaked documents showed that at a meeting of the state council on Saturday party members debated whether to drop the emissions reduction target. 'That the State Council calls upon the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, if achievable, to rescind their policy of Net Zero by 2050,' the motion for debate stated. The policy was reportedly agreed at the meeting, with outspoken Liberal Senator Alex Antic claiming it as a victory. 'Today the governing body of the South Australian Liberal Party voted to call upon the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party to rescind their policy of Net Zero by 2050,' he posted on X alongside the words 'net zero' with a red cross through them. 'It's time to scrap Net Zero and Save Australia!' But hours later, SA Liberal Leader Vincent Tarzia walked back the claims, telling reporters that 'none of these policy discussions bind any of the parliamentary wings of the party'. Despite the party leader pouring cold water on it, Senator Antic continued to gloat. On Monday, he shared a video of US President Donald Trump at one of his rallies rambling about how he was 'going to win so much you may even get tired of winning'. 'President Trump when asked about the South Australian Liberal Party membership rejecting Net Zero on the weekend (Haters are going to say this is fake!),' was Antic's accompanying caption. SA Labor frontbencher Tom Koutsantonis claimed that the 'Alex Antic takeover of the SA Liberals is now complete'. 'While ordinary South Australians are worried about the cost of living and ensuring their kids have a good job and a good home, the South Australian Liberals are obsessing over the culture wars,' he said. 'The SA Liberals are now the most extreme and shambolic political operation in the country. 'They are not a party fit for government. They are a party of division.' In March, 200,000 homes and businesses around the Yorke Peninsula were plunged into darkness in South Australia following a power outage. Other items on the agenda at Saturday's meeting concerned changes to school education and rescinding the state's 'disastrous' voice to parliament. The motion claimed it had 'made no progress Indigenous Australians and seeks to divide us by race, and to divert savings made by abolishing the Voice to frontline services for indigenous communities'.
NZ Herald
21-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Survey reveals nuances of support for Under 16 social media ban; Lawyer shares his ‘AI horror story'
But within that, there were some interesting nuances. Those with a 'younger family' (77%) were more likely to support a ban than those with an 'older family'. Support for the ban was weakest (relatively speaking, at 62%) among those aged 18 to 24 and generally stronger the older the recipient. Support was also relatively weak, at 69%, among those who described themselves as 'innovators' or early adopters of products and strongest among the self-described tech 'laggards', at 83%. Having said that, some of the innovators who did support a ban had some of the most cutting comments about social media. Source / 2degrees, Ideally The survey didn't capture people's political affiliation but it did find that support for a ban was weakest among those earning less than $75,000 (perhaps also correlating with the 18 to 24 age group's relative lack of enthusiasm for a ban) and stronger with higher earners. 'It's as addictive as crack and twice as harmful,' said an Auckland man earning over $150,000. Source / 2degrees, Ideally On the other side of the fence, a Canterbury woman, also in the $150,000-plus bracket, said, 'A ridiculous bill – which would be policed how? Students need to learn how to use social media for good. It's a part of life. There are adult MPs who misuse social media, so why should competent 16-year-olds who aren't using it for nefarious purposes be penalised?' Other telling comments included: 'I communicate with my grandchildren over WhatsApp.' 'No way to police it. It's easy to make accounts with a fake age.' 'Waste of taxpayers' money.' 'Social media and its algorithms promote material that is harmful to the psyche of developing minds, including horrific world news, and opens possibilities of bullying or mature content before their time and in general does more harm than good for young adults.' 'Our 16-year-olds are nearly adults. Taking away their internet would be cruel and would be treating them as little children. Surely there are better ways of protecting them?' 'Yes, there are some areas that are problematic but this is for parents to negotiate.' The top reasons for supporting a ban were: The influence social media has on minors: 23% Impact on mental health: 18% Exposure to harmful content: 18% Bullying concerns: 16% The top reasons opposing the ban: Enforcement challenges: 21% Parental responsibility: 17% Freedom of choice: 15% Educational or social opportunities: 11% The experience across the Tasman, so far, indicates that the 'enforcement challenges' camp could have a point. READ MORE: Under-16 social media ban: Three pain points as Australia grapples with how to implement it Australia's Federal Parliament passed an under-16 social media ban in November last year – which is scheduled to be implemented in December this year. But there are still unresolved questions, including which – if any – age verification technology is practical (the legislation prohibits sharing government ID such as a passport) and which services should be included. There are a couple of interesting background political factors. In Australia, Labor originally proposed an under-16 ban but was dawdling with no real political will to get it off the line. It was a groundswell of popular support that saw it eventually pushed ahead and passed by 102 votes to 13 in the House of Representatives (and a big majority in the Senate) as politicians on both sides of the aisle sensed which way the wind was blowing. There were shades of the ultimately very popular cellphone ban in schools here. In New Zealand, National has gone from the lean-back of a Private Member's Bill (dependent on being picked from a biscuit-tin ballot to even have a shot) to the more lean-forward strategy part of its 'programme of work' – which means the Government could put forward legislation for a ban, if it leads to that, on a set timetable. Nothing is set at this point but Education Minister Erica Stanford – a go-to when the PM wants action – has been set on the case. And there have been signs Act is softening its opposition as figures on the right like Jamie Beaton, Anna Mowbray and Cecilia Robinson speak out strongly in favour of an under-16 ban. Beaton weighed in with: 'Social media algorithms, designed by some of the smartest artificial intelligence engineers on the planet, are more addictive than many drugs ... I see shocking numbers of young people with ADHD-like symptoms from extensive social media use.' Not everyone on the right supports a ban. The New Zealand Initiative's Eric Crampton has raised privacy, practicality and philosophical objections. But momentum is building. Lawyer shares his personal AI horror story There's no doubt artificial intelligence (AI) is the Next Big Thing and every white-collar worker needs to be adopting it and keeping up with the play. But tech specialist lawyer Rick Shera reminds us that we're still very much in the early days – which means being very mindful of the technology's pitfalls at this point. 'AI-powered recording and transcription tools have become incredibly popular, promising a simple way to capture every detail from meetings - whether it's a board discussion, a client meeting or even just a brainstorming session,' Shera wrote in a post for Lowndes Jordan, where he is a partner. 'However, before you hit that record button, it's important to understand the potential issues, especially when dealing with confidential or sensitive information.' He offered his own 'horror story'. 'I was recently on a call and left it, with others remaining to discuss items that did not involve me,' Shera said. 'Later – and I think this was an automatic function of the application – I received a transcript link and could see the conversation that continued after I'd logged off. 'Thankfully, nothing confidential was discussed in that part. 'But, more worryingly, the AI attributed a statement, made by someone else after I'd left, to me!' In its present state of development, 'AI transcription isn't foolproof. It can mishear, misinterpret, and even invent things,' Shera said. 'Imagine an incorrect transcript later being used as evidence that you remained in the meeting or said things that you did not. It may be hard to prove otherwise. It is therefore critical to check all recordings and transcripts carefully at the time, whether you are the recorder or the person being recorded.' That process eats up a lot of the time savings from AI. On a related note, the New York Times reported this week that while AI is getting more powerful, its hallucinations (errors as the imperfect artificial intelligence tries to fill in blanks) are getting worse and 'will never go away'. So there's no guarantee that a presentation, document summary or spreadsheet created by an AI is error-free, either. Min-Kyu Jung, the ex-Bell Gully solicitor who recently raised $28m for his legal automation start-up Ivo, earlier told the Herald that while his start-up's software can be used to create legal contracts and carry out other work far faster than a human: 'Ultimately, large language models [LLM] are probabilistic and will still sometimes make errors. 'Lawyers should be expected to independently verify LLM outputs in the same way they might verify the work product of a junior lawyer before giving it to a client.' 'Google tax' dies a quiet death The digital services tax or 'DST' – a flat 3% tax on all of Google, Facebook and other Big Tech firms' New Zealand revenue – has been a dead man walking for some time. Former Finance Minister Grant Robertson first floated the idea of a 3% or 6% DST in 2019 but then put it on the backburner, even through most of Labour's absolute-majority second term. The Digital Services Tax Bill (for a 3% tax) was introduced in the final days of Parliament before the 2023 election. It didn't have time to get to a select committee, let alone pass. It was assumed the National-led Government would quash it. The amount involved is small (an estimated $98 million per year), unless you're willing to take on Google, Facebook et al about how they report their New Zealand revenue net of hundreds of millions of inhouse expenses booked offshore. And official advice was that even that small take could be nullified by retaliatory taxes (and that was before US President Donald Trump kicked off his latest tariff push on 'Liberation Day'). But Revenue Minister Simon Watts surprised by keeping it on the table ... that is, until this week, when it was discharged two days ahead of Budget 2025. 'We have been monitoring international developments and have decided not to progress the Digital Services Tax Bill at this time,' Watts said. 'A global solution has always been our preferred option, and we have been encouraged by the recent commitment of countries to the OECD work in this area.' But there was already little danger of the OECD finally getting an effective global regime together before Trump pulled the US – home of most Big Tech, of course – from its efforts. Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
ABC News
21-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
From Bruce and Page, to 'Joh for Canberra', to a principled split — the history of the conservative coalition
The strained marriage of the Liberal and National parties has reached breaking point, with the minor party leader David Littleproud announcing his party will split from the Coalition. It marks a break in a century-long tradition, but it's not the first time tensions have forced the parties apart. Since the 1920s, the conservative partners have drifted apart and come back together, securing the Nationals an at-times outsized and consistent presence in Australia's federal parliament. Looking back through the history books perhaps offers some insights as to how this relationship could change today. The Country Party (predecessor to The Nationals, one of several confusing name changes throughout history) first realised its political power after the 1922 election. The Nationalists (which would later become the Liberal Party) needed to boost their numbers to form government. At the time tariffs were high, which until then had protected Australia's manufacturing industry. But it also meant farmers were paying more for things like fuel, fertiliser and labour. Seeing a chance to meaningfully advocate for his rural constituents, Country Party leader Earle Page negotiated with the Nationalists and eventually became deputy prime minister under Stanley Bruce in 1923. This was the first formal coalition between the country and city conservative parties, where they maintained their separate identities, but shared the role of government. "There are many, many rural agrarian protest parties who popped up around the world in the early 20th century, particularly in the wake of World War I," observes Stephen Wilks, an academic research editor in the national centre for biography at the Australian National University. "Most of them died out … the Country Party (and the Nationals as they are now called) have survived as a viable entity ever since, and that's, I think, partly because the coalition has given them a practical say in government whilst preserving their autonomy." Everything was going fine until 11 months into their third term of government, when former prime minister William "Billy" Hughes was expelled from the Nationalists in September 1929. Hughes then convinced another five members of the Nationalists to cross the floor and vote with the opposition Labor Party over an industrial relations bill. It triggered an election that saw the Bruce-Page government heavily defeated — the Nationalist prime minister even lost his own seat. The result split the historic coalition, but after some time in opposition, the parties reunited once more in 1949. This marked the start of an enduring force in Australian politics, which has seen the Coalition govern for roughly two-thirds of the last century. Australia's population shifted throughout the 20th century. In 1911, about 60 per cent were living outside major cities; by 2006 is was roughly 40 per cent. After the wool industry boomed in the 1950s, demand — and jobs — began to drop off as synthetic fibres entered the market. Bigger tractors and other machinery were also making agriculture less labour-intensive, and people began to drift from regional communities. So too did some of the Nationals' voting base. In the 1970s, the Country Party became the National Country Party, in an effort to address the changing population and rebrand as a party looking out for "the good of all Australians". (It would later drop the "Country" entirely and become known as the National Party, and finally, The Nationals.) But the often populist, bullish approach by the no-nonsense Nationals over economic reform or regional infrastructure spending, often led to clashes with their urban Liberal colleagues. There have been several splits at the state level, with Country Party groups in Victoria and Western Australia going their own way or even forming brief alliances with Labor during the 1950s and 1970s. But the most famous split came in the 1980s, when Queensland's premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen thought he might have a crack at being prime minister himself. The "Joh for Canberra" push didn't eventuate — by the time the 1987 election rolled around, Bjelke-Petersen was forced to abandon his federal ambitions. But he did succeed in splitting the coalition apart, and cleared a path for Bob Hawke to beat the up-and-coming Liberal leader John Howard and win a third term in government. The Nationals and Liberals managed to get the band back together before the next election — a scenario that the current leadership has indicated they very much hope to repeat. The federal Coalition returned to power in 1996 under John Howard, with late Nationals leader Tim Fischer his deputy. The marriage survived the tumult of the post-Port Arthur massacre gun reforms and the introduction of GST, helped by the common electoral threat of an ascendant Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party. The sailing was relatively smooth for the Liberals and Nationals for the following decades. But regional communities continued to shrink, and workers in high-vis and work boots began flying in and out of dwindling hubs to service a growing coal and iron ore mining industry. And then in 2016 along came Barnaby Joyce, a climate change sceptic who was steadfast on advocating for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. The so-called climate wars followed, as prime ministers came and went at a frequency not witnessed before. Meanwhile, Joyce became a magnet for scandal, his extramarital affair with former advisor Vicki Campion prompting then-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull to institute a "bonk ban". Turnbull's failure to launch a national energy guarantee — a plan that did not convince the Nationals — and rally the Coalition around a climate policy, was among the factors that led to him being ousted as leader in 2018. By the 2022 election, the Nationals had finally agreed to join the Liberals in committing to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, just in time for Australia's appearance at the UN climate conference. After a term marked by scandal, natural disasters and a global pandemic to boot, in 2022 the Scott Morrison-led Coalition lost government. It was a turning point for the Liberals, who lost several long-held inner-city electorates across the country to independents. The Nationals didn't lose a seat. After 2022, Littleproud took over the leadership of the National Party. The renewable energy rollout across regional Australia was beginning to create tension in some communities as heavy investment saw wind turbines, expanses of solar panels and new transmission lines being built across the country. The Nationals took it up as a key issue, pushing for nuclear energy as an alternative to renewables. In 2024, Liberal leader Peter Dutton announced the Coalition's plan to build seven nuclear power plants on the sites of retiring coal stations across the country. But the policy that Littleproud described as "a vision for regional Australia" struggled to cut through with voters as Labor, the Greens and energy experts questioned the Coalition's costings. By the 2025 election, nuclear was a liability for the Liberal Party, whose electorates largely support renewables and action on climate change. In an unexpected Labor landslide, the Coalition lost another 14 seats — including that of opposition leader. It was a bruising defeat, predominantly felt in Liberal seats. (The only seat lost by the Nationals was to the incumbent but newly independent Andrew Gee in Calare, who defected from the Coalition in 2023.) While the Liberals lost their own leader, Littleproud boasted one of the most decisive margins in the country, and it was Nationals-held seats and regional electorates where the Coalition managed to win over voters (despite some hefty swings towards Labor). The result put the Liberal-National tensions in the spotlight, and under pressure to reach a coalition agreement with new Liberal leader Sussan Ley, for the first time in more than 50 years, the relationship fractured. At lunchtime on Tuesday, Littleproud, flanked by his Nationals leadership team Kevin Hogan and Bridget McKenzie, announced that the party would split from the coalition. "Our party room has got to a position where we will not be re-entering a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party after this election," Littleproud told a crowd of reporters. "The National Party will sit alone on a principle basis." Among the sticking points were the $20 billion Regional Australia Future Fund, divestiture powers for supermarkets, universal mobile service and, of course, the controversial nuclear policy. "The Coalition has only been breached three other times in our history … but, a reasonable request was put to a trusted partner and it was refused," McKenzie told reporters. Digging their heels in, the Nationals leaders insisted their policy on nuclear was pragmatic. "We want to see that it is part of a technology-agnostic approach to reducing our emissions and energy grid. You cannot run an economy of the industrial scale the size of Australia on an all-renewables approach," Littleproud declared. The split is a move that has left political experts "surprised". "I'm not surprised that there's been a split, but what I am surprised about is that it's been initiated by the National Party," said Linda Botterill, a visiting fellow at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Dr Botterill says for a long time the Nationals have maintained a consistent number of seats, but it's "concentrated". "They've got a very solid and reliable electoral base … even though they've only got 3.6 per cent of the primary vote. So the question is, is this a real split? Is it a temporary split? Are they just seeing someone else?" Dr Botterill explains that while in coalition, there has been a tacit agreement that neither party will run a candidate against a sitting member of the other party. So could the split see the Liberal and National parties cannibalise each other? Only 3.6 per cent of Australians voted for the National Party in 2025, but in coalition with the Liberals, the Nationals have been able to have a much bigger voice in Australian politics. And according to Littleproud, the decision to walk away from the coalition is all about having a bigger voice. How effective they'll be while going it alone remains to be seen. In a lot of ways this stubborn resolve to be free to speak up hasn't changed since William McWilliams first founded the Country Party in 1920. "We intend to support measures of which we approve, and hold ourselves absolutely free to criticise or reject any proposals with which we do not agree. Having put our hands to the wheel, we set the course of our voyage," he said at the time. "We are out to secure a fair deal for the man on the land. I know this will not please all my honorable friends, but this is the course we have set ourselves, and we shall steer straight ahead without hesitation, accepting any and every responsibility that may accrue from our actions as a party."
Business Recorder
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Two-thirds of political parties lack functional websites: FAFEN
ISLAMABAD: Despite increasing digital engagement in Pakistan, nearly two-thirds of the country's political parties lack a fully functional website, revealed a report by the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) on Sunday. Titled 'Assessing Web Presence of Political Parties in Pakistan,' the report finds that only 35 percent or 58 out of 166 registered political parties maintain fully or partially operational websites. Even among the 20 political parties currently represented in the Federal Parliament and/or Provincial Assemblies, just 14 (70 percent) have functional websites. This web presence is a prerequisite for compliance within the overall purview of Section 208(4) of the Elections Act, 2017, which mandates political parties to publish updated lists of their central office bearers and executive committee members on their websites. Among those political parties with functioning websites, only 40 parties (69 percent) comply with the legal requirement of publishing a list of central office bearers on the website, and just six (ten percent) with publishing the names of their executive committee members. While many parties maintain active social media profiles, they cannot serve as a substitute for an official website. The short-lived and algorithm-driven nature of social media feeds make them less suited for hosting structured and accessible information. FAFEN's assessment of political parties' websites found that those with parliamentary representation generally offer more content-rich digital platforms compared to other parties. Among them, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leads by providing on its website 18 out of 30 distinct types of information that FAFEN examined. It is followed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) with a score of 15; however, its website is currently blocked in Pakistan and can only be accessed through a virtual private network (VPN). The website of Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP) scored 12; Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) 11; Awami National Party (ANP) nine; Haq Do Tehreek Balochistan (HDT) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement Pakistan (MQM-P) eight each; Sunni Ittehad Council and Pashtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP) seven each; Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) and Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam Pakistan (JUIP) six each; Majlis Wahdatul Muslimeen (MWM) five; Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) four; and Pakistan Muslim League Quaid (PML-Q) one. Among the parties without parliamentary representation, the highest score was 13 that was achieved by Pakistan Tehreek Shadbad (PTS). Thematically, most websites were more forthcoming in sharing contact information and general organizational details, while financial transparency remained the most under-reported area. The most consistently shared content was the aims and objectives of political parties, featured on 88 percent of websites. Section 201(1)(a) of the Elections Act, 2017 mandates the political parties to include this information in the party constitution. Contact details for at least one party office were present on 83 percent of sites, while 79 percent linked to official social media handles. The list of central office bearers (Section 208(4)) was available on 69 percent of the websites, although it was not always clear whether these reflected the most recent intra-party election results. Similarly, membership procedures (Section 203) were outlined on 69 percent of sites. The availability of foundational documents, campaign material, and financial disclosures varied considerably. Only 38 percent of parties shared their constitutions on websites, albeit with little to no information about any recent amendments. Moreover, while 62 percent posted at least one general election (GE) manifesto, only 12 percent uploaded their latest manifesto clearly mentioning their electoral promises for GE-2024. Notably, just one party published its consolidated financial statement, which is required to be submitted to the ECP annually under Section 210(1) of the Elections Act, 2017. Moreover, FAFEN found the statements of assets and liabilities of party office bearers on only one website. No website provided information about the party's elected general council(s), which is legally mandated to have at least one meeting per year under Section 207(2) of the Elections Act, 2017. Similarly, none of the websites had information about the procedure for selection of candidates for elective offices for which Section 206 of the Elections Act 2017 instructs the parties to adopt a transparent and democratic procedure. The method of electing office bearers (Section 201(1)(f)(i)), process of suspension or expulsion of members (Section 205), the tenure of office bearers (Section 201(1)(d)), or an explicit declaration of prohibition on foreign donations (Section204(3)) were each available on one website. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Times of Oman
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Nepal govt moves to amend the constitution to face monarchists
Kathmandu: With growing royalist sentiment, the Nepal government has clarified that it will defend the incumbent system and constitution, expressing its intention to advance the amendment process. Nepal's President Ram Chandra Paudel, while presenting the plans and policies of the KP Sharma Oli-led government, announced that the constitution amendment will be advanced further in the coming year. Reading out the draft in the joint meeting of the Federal Parliament, President Paudel stated that the Constitution would be reviewed, and the amendment process would be initiated based on consensus to address existing weaknesses. "This government is determined to protect the far-reaching achievements brought about by the sacrifices, struggles, and movements of the Nepali people by strengthening the federal democratic republic against those who exploit the negative thinking that emerges from time to time in society, spread rumors about the constitution and system, and create chaos," the President said, hinting at the resurging royalist movement. "To strengthen the constitution and the federal democratic republican system of governance, to oppose any reactionary-resurgent anarchic activities against it. To review the constitution, strengthen its strengths, and correct the shortcomings seen during its implementation, to proceed with the process of amendment based on consensus," President Paudel added further. Nepali capital Kathmandu on March 28 saw the bloodiest pro-monarch clash, which left two people dead, with arson and vandalism all across the capital. Since the overthrow of a two-century-old monarchy in 2006 with the reinstatement of Loktantra, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party has been waging the demand for the monarchy. Police arrested over a dozen party leaders, cadres, and members following the deadly violence of March. Formed in the 1990s after the lifting of the ban on the formation of political parties by the monarchial system, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) has since served as the force always supporting the Kingship. It has also been taking part in periodic elections and presenting its demands. In 2008, right after the overthrow of the monarchy rule in Nepal, the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) secured eight seats in the Constituent Assembly out of the 575-seat parliament. In the 2013 election, it was able to secure 13 seats. In 2017, it fell to 1 seat, but it bounced back in the 2022 election with 14 seats. The party has been supporting the Hindu State and Kingship as interdependent in the tiny nation buffered between two giants, India and China. As per the census of 2022, the Himalayan Nation of Nepal has a population of 30.55 million and a Hindu population of 81.19 per cent. The Monarch of the Himalayan Nation, which follows the lineage of the Shah dynasty, was revered as an incarnation of the Hindu God Bishnu. With the abolishment of the monarchy, it was limited to a very small group, which is now reemerging. In 2005, the last monarch of the Himalayan Nation, Gyanendra Shah, staged a royal coup, taking over all the power, dissolving the parliament and cabinet, and ordering political leaders to be kept under house arrest. A year later, following the mass uprising, Gyanendra, unable to face international pressure, had to step down from the post and reinstate the parliament. The successful movement that changed the political landscape of the Himalayan nation, sandwiched between India and China, is called the "People's Movement II." Gyanendra, at the time, had tried to suppress the movement by deploying all levels of security forces, which resulted in the death of 18 people in 19 days and injuring more than 4000, mainly children, as per the record of Human Rights Watch of the year 2006. Then, the insurgent CPN--Maoist came to mainstream politics in Nepal, ending a decade-long insurgency by signing a comprehensive peace accord on November 21, 2006. Two years after abolishing nearly two and a half centuries-old monarchy, the Himalayan nation became a republic and a secular state on May 28, 2008. Within less than two decades of the new governance practice, the Himalayan nation is now divided into pro and anti-monarch factions.
