KATHMANDU: Minister for Women, Children and Senior Citizens Shradha Shrestha has responded to social media criticism following her recent address in the National Assembly, saying that asking for clarification on technical matters should not be mistaken for incompetence.

Short clips from her speech circulated widely online, with some users mocking her remarks and labeling her an “Incompetent Gen Z Minister.” Critics questioned her understanding of parliamentary procedures after she sought clarification from officials during discussions on a bill.

However, the minister has firmly rejected that narrative.

Responding to the backlash, Shrestha said she may not have been fully clear about certain procedural details at the moment, but emphasized that seeking accurate and verified information is a responsible approach, not a weakness. She said requesting facts from the concerned ministry before answering in Parliament reflects transparency and accountability.

“As a minister, giving correct information is more important than giving quick answers,” she indicated, adding that she stands by her decision to seek proper clarification.

Supporters have also defended her, noting that consulting secretaries or joint secretaries during parliamentary proceedings is a normal and healthy practice. They argue that complex laws and technical provisions often require expert input.

Shrestha is not a career politician. Before entering government, she spent years working at the Nepal Tourism Board, contributing to the development of Nepal’s tourism sector. Backers say judging her overall capability based on a brief moment in Parliament is neither fair nor objective.

They stress that a minister’s primary role is to set policies and provide direction, while technical and legal details are handled by professional staff, including secretaries, legal officers and subject experts.

Admitting “I will gather clear information and respond” is widely seen by many as a sign of honesty. Observers say it is better to verify facts than to offer guesses or inaccurate answers in the House.

Political analysts note that Nepal’s parliamentary system has long been a learning process with representatives coming from diverse professional backgrounds. Initial procedural confusion is not unusual, and experience builds confidence over time.

Similar situations have been seen internationally. In 2019, US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez faced criticism for asking experts to clarify technical financial regulations during a hearing, but later analysts said consulting specialists is part of a healthy legislative process. In countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, ministers frequently return with detailed answers after checking facts, a practice seen as accountability rather than incompetence.

Experts say policymaking everywhere relies on teamwork and institutional expertise, not individual memorization of every law.

At its core, the debate raises a broader question: should leaders be encouraged to seek facts openly, or pressured to pretend they know everything? Many argue that honesty, learning and transparency are the stronger foundations for democracy.