Two-Day Public Holiday Policy Criticized for Negative Impacts on Healthcare and Education

The Rashtriya Swatantra Party's (RSP) decision to implement a two-day public holiday, which initially generated public hope, is gradually proving to be a mistake. While government supporters hail it as a path to reform, the practical implementation of the holiday has resulted in hardship for the public, proving to be an immature decision.

In the initial days, the two-day holiday was presented as a historic administrative reform. The government claimed it would provide adequate rest for employees, increase office efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, strengthen family life, and improve overall state operations. Hearing such arguments, it felt as though Nepal was entering a new era. It seemed as though modernity and human sensitivity were being expressed simultaneously.

Naturally, the true test of any government policy lies not in its announcement but in its results. Announcements can be grand, but their evaluation is only known through the experiences of the public. Today, we can see the consequences of the two-day holiday in the eyes of patients queuing at hospitals. We see it in the worries of parents whose children's schools are closed.

Furthermore, it can be seen in the tired faces of rural farmers who find the government hospital in the district headquarters closed when seeking treatment. It is found in the distress of parents who see their children spending most of their holidays engrossed in mobile screens.

It has been nearly three months since the government was formed, and the two-day public holiday has been in effect for the same duration. Based on the experiences during this period, it can be clearly stated that the two-day holiday policy does not align with Nepal's social, economic, and geographical realities. It is unscientific. The previous holiday systems were comparatively more scientific and practical.

The implementation of the two-day holiday policy does not seem to have involved sufficient study and consideration of the actual condition of citizens, the capacity of public services, the weaknesses of the health system, and the potential impact on child development. Consequently, a single policy has negatively affected multiple sectors simultaneously.

This issue is no longer just about holidays; it has become a serious debate concerning the government's priorities and its accountability to the citizens.

The Constitution of Nepal grants every citizen the fundamental right to basic healthcare. However, rights are not fulfilled merely by being written on paper; they must be ensured in practice. Today, the state of government hospitals reveals a deep and painful gap between the spirit of the constitution and the reality faced by citizens.

With regular Outpatient Department (OPD) services closed on Saturdays and Sundays, government hospitals experience excessive pressure from Monday to Friday. Hundreds of people queue up in front of ticket counters at government hospitals early on Monday mornings. Elderly individuals, pregnant women, small children, and seriously ill patients are forced to wait for hours for their turn. Some patients return without even getting a chance to be seen. They face more hassle than treatment.

Seeing this scene raises the question: Is the government accountable to the people? Is it a sign of a civilized state for a patient to stand in line from four or five in the morning and spend the entire day waiting? Or does it show how weak the government's sense of responsibility towards its citizens is?

While implementing the two-day holiday decision, the government should have asked a fundamental question: What is the actual state of Nepal's health system? What is the availability of doctors in proportion to the population? What is the access to specialist doctors in rural areas? What is the condition of manpower and equipment in government hospitals? What is the attitude of health workers and staff in government hospitals? These questions were not explored, and no study was conducted on such issues.

Thousands of problems that existed in government hospitals in the past remain unresolved today. The government has taken no steps to address these issues. In such a situation, reducing the days of service cannot ensure citizens' right to health. More seriously, there has been no scientific public evaluation of the impact of this policy on the health sector.

Are government hospitals becoming centers for treatment, or are patients being pushed towards private hospitals? What has happened to patients who cannot afford treatment in private hospitals due to the closure of government hospitals? It appears no one has sought answers to these questions.

Nepal's health system is still highly centralized. Most specialist services are confined to major government hospitals in the country. District hospitals and hospitals in headquarters operate with limited manpower and resources. Therefore, seriously ill patients from villages are ultimately forced to travel to cities seeking hospitals there.

For patients, that journey is painful physically, mentally, and financially. Patients seeking treatment are becoming sicker. Moreover, the old practice of doctors in government hospitals referring patients to private hospitals and receiving commissions has not ended. The additional holidays have further facilitated that situation.

Imagine—how burdensome it is for a family to bring a patient from a remote hilly region of Nepal to a government hospital in Kathmandu? Travel expenses, accommodation costs, food expenses. All these can add up to lakhs of rupees. But if the hospital is closed, or if they have to wait for additional days due to excessive crowds, who will bear that extra burden?

For middle-class families in Kathmandu, a few extra days of expenses might be inconvenient but not devastating. However, for farmers, laborers, or low-income families who earn daily wages to support their families, each extra day is a financial disaster.

This is why, when public health services weaken, the affluent class goes to private hospitals. Expensive treatment is feasible for them. But low-income families drown in debt. Some have to sell their land. Some have to seek help from relatives working abroad. In this way, a patient carries the risk of financially ruining their family.

• Education Sector

Meanwhile, the problems in the education sector are also becoming serious. Another long-term effect of the two-day holiday is beginning to be seen in the education sector. When schools are closed, children are supposed to engage in creative activities, sports, reading books, or spend quality time with their families. However, the social reality in Nepal is the opposite.

Previously, schools operated from Sunday to Friday with only Saturday as a holiday, a system that seemed relatively scientific. Now, with both Saturday and Sunday being holidays, many children's time is being spent on TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and online games.

Technology is not the problem. The problem is its uncontrolled and purposeless use. Digital technology is an important medium for modern education. However, the tools that should be used for study are becoming instruments of entertainment and addiction. The government should have developed alternative creative opportunities for children during holidays. Community sports programs, library access, learning-related activities, and social participation programs should have been organized. But the reality is different.

Complaints are emerging that students' concentration spans are decreasing. The culture of short videos is weakening the habit of studying patiently. The ability to think, analyze, and draw conclusions on complex subjects is declining. This is not just a problem of today but a challenge to the intellectual capacity of Nepal's future.

Today's generation is the most connected generation in history to digital content. This presents both opportunities and dangers. The objective of social media companies is not education but to keep users on their platforms for as long as possible. They are receiving information but not acquiring knowledge. They are in contact but drifting away from deep relationships. They appear busy but are not becoming productive.

There is much discussion about digital literacy in Nepal. There is less discussion about digital discipline. It is easy to buy a mobile phone. It is difficult to develop a culture of its healthy use. Parents and schools are realizing this challenge. However, the state does not seem to have made it a policy priority.

Holidays and the Government

A bigger question than the debate over the two-day holiday has arisen today: For whom is the government? Are citizens or the bureaucracy the priority of the state? If citizens were at the center of policy-making, a thorough study of the impact on hospitals, schools, public services, and the economy should have been conducted before implementing the two-day holiday.

Arrangements would have been ensured so that health services would not be affected. Programs would have been introduced to make children's holidays productive. Service access for rural citizens would have been made easier.

But the reality has been entirely different. The holiday was announced, employees received benefits, but the question of alternative arrangements for citizens remained unanswered. This exposes a serious trend. Nepal's governance system is gradually becoming more employee-centric than citizen-centric. Although the purpose of public administration is to serve citizens, when office convenience becomes a bigger issue than service delivery, the fundamental purpose of governance is deviated.

• In conclusion

Now is not the time to get bogged down in emotional debates in Nepal. It is time for policy reconsideration based on facts, grounded in citizens' experiences, and responsible towards the future. If the patient load in hospitals has increased due to the two-day holiday, it should be reviewed. If children's screen time has become uncontrolled, a solution should be sought. If rural citizens have become more distant from services, that gap must be bridged.

The government's job is not just to defend its decisions but also to correct them when necessary. The success or failure of the two-day holiday decision will not be determined in the meeting rooms of Singha Durbar. It will be determined by the queues at hospitals, the suffering of patients coming from villages to Kathmandu, the children lost in their mobiles, and the parents worried about their children's future.

Access to healthcare, quality of education, creative opportunities for children, and the effectiveness of public services are the foundations of a prosperous nation. The state's success lies not in giving holidays to employees but in delivering justice to citizens. That justice should begin from the hospital door, from the classroom, and from service centers in the villages.

In a democracy, the government must be accountable to the people. This accountability should be visible not just during elections but in every policy-making and implementation. The government must conduct a comprehensive and independent impact assessment of the two-day holiday policy. That report should be presented in parliament. Civil society, experts, and the general public should have the opportunity to debate it openly.

Today, Nepal needs a healthcare system that provides timely treatment, quality education, a healthy childhood, and a decentralized system where rural citizens can easily access services in their own areas, more than additional holidays. The state's success lies not in giving rest to employees but in providing dignified services to citizens. This is the true standard of democratic governance.