http://sajha.com/sajha/html/OpenThread.cfm?forum=2&ThreadID=77312

She is a good speaker but poor presenter. I didn't find any reason why she laughed frequently in her first section of speech. On the top of this, she her gestures were crude.

i liked both the presentor and her fluency, grasp of english. heard such good english from a nepali mouth after a long time.

the only thing that got me is the way she mocked nepali politics giggling like a school girl. some seriousness wouldnn't have hurt much. however, sense of humor should be in a presentaion also and she did throw some.

wonder if her hubby speaks as well as she can and wonder where she got her edu.

She is a good speaker but like you pointed out, the giggling and use of hand is a bit immature. Maybe with time she will mature into a better speaker.

I'm wondering where her hubby comes into the picture??? She's about 23 and probably not married.

grgDai,

so, is she available? because the other english guy said smth like she is married. maybe i am wrong.

She is married to Robin Sitoula. They both run an organization called Sambriddhi.

Great Presentation!!! No nervousness in her voice. Also, sense of humor and  personal charm is a plus. A perfect Cosmopolitan Drink! You Rock Girl!!!!

As most of the people said, she is great speaker but lacks some skill on public speaking. She presented valid points though.

Personally I liked her presentation, specially the Content!!

She is definitely influenced by Libertarianism [ FREE TO CHOOSE Principal]. Her Speech had quite a few reference to that!

On Policy: Less Government Spending and Less Tax, Less Regulation
On Social Context: Free to Choose [this is what that difference them from Conservatives in US]

to understand  more please refer to Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (simple yet powerful book i have ever read on economics)

or FREE TO CHOOSE (MILTON FRIEDMAN) -> More In depth than Economics in one Lesson!!

I gather from the responses so far that we have great public speakers, orators  and grammatists on this thread so I will leave it to them to judge her  smile, laughter, presentation, gestures, marital status and  her use of pronouns and narrative mode. Seriously, guys! I find myself agreeing with some parts  of her analysis and   I feel compelled to defend at least two points:

"The Maoists in Nepal should be given their fair share of credit for spreading the idea of liberation and political consciousness to people who have so long been supressed and exploited by the the power elites. I hate that disgusting sarcastic smile this speaker brings on her face when she says "We brought them (Maoists) into power which was a very big mistake again." People voted for them for God's sake !!"

Sure, but unless we  are living in a  time warp, today's Maoists are a far cry from the  days when the People's War started.  They have now become the biggest obstacle to political stability and the rule of law because of their disregard for due process whether it be in the Constituent Assembly or in the streets, neighborhoods and villages. Through the policies they advocate and the  tactics they use today against the middle-class, professional classes and small businesses, they have shown an utter disregard for personal property and individual rights and provided us an insight into their subversive  agenda to grab power and wealth  in the name of the poor. 

I also challenge the notion that the Maoists have raised awareness in any meaningful and objective way amongst the underclass. Far from it, they have used propagandist tactics to brainwash the poor into believing  they can become rich overnight by taking to the streets and waging class warfare against the "rich". The so-called "consciousness" they might claim to have spread is   a political get-rich-fast scam  like those you saw in the US before the financial system tanked. Their bubble too will get busted once the poor realize people like teachers, lawyers, doctors, small businessmen, engineers, farmers etc are not going to part so easily with their hard earned income and assets. That is how I interpret her comment about the country making a mistake in voting the Maoists to power and I think she is right on the mark.

""Labor movement is restricted and we have the tightest labor laws in South Asia". 

This is so vague again. I don't know a friend in Nepal who have had problem working in Nepal irrespective of their nationalities. The reason Nepal needs some restriction in labor movement is due to the open and porous border with India. Nepal will collapse on the day migrants/workers flock from India in thousands. Bihar and Uttar Pradhesh, India's most impoverished states in the North surrounds Nepal. Nepal's economy will not be able to contain the sheer volume of migrant workers coming in from India. "

The labor laws in Nepal are archaic, restrictive and ineffective - take the case of migrant overseas workers. The laws on the books, as well intended as they are , have become nothing more than a source of corruption for bureaucrats and a means to harass the very poor people they are designed to protect.   You need  look no further than the immigration area of the  TIA to find it  swarming with government officers  preying on poor Nepalese going to places like the Gulf and Malaysia and extorting money from them.

There is nothing to stop Indian workers from coming into Nepal other than demand and supply. If the streets of  Kathmandu are not teeming with Indian workers today, it is not because we have effective laws that stop them at the border.  If anything it is because we don't have enough jobs to employ them. A no-brainer given that our people are leaving the country in droves to seek employment elsewhere. 

Where I part ways with her is I think her organization might have been somewhat disingenuous in representing itself to the Nepali people. She says (and I paraphrase) she cannot openly say she is a libertarian in Nepal for fear of bodily harm or danger to her life (at least that was the implication). If Sunil Babu Pant can say he is gay and face the consequences and Kamal Thapa can openly advocate bringing back the monarchy, she is just being a cry baby in my opinion.  If you hide your true beliefs behind a deceptive facade, just for the sake of acceptability, how are you any different from the Maoists who are doing exactly the same thing but from a different ideological angle? 

Vivant!!! Have we met yet?  This is how my X used to talk.   Jealousy in relationship? You'r unhappy she got married!! C'm I will buy you a beer. Do you like Stella? Thats my fav.  I am cutting down on my Ciggy. Craving for one!!!

Really i feel sorry for some of you guys who write long arse essays hoping someone would read it. why can't u keep it simple and to the few lines so it's not painful to real your looooooon gibberish. As per Arpita goes , wellll she's sexy, attractive little shy, speaks english better than most of the US graduates, gives nice presentation. but honestly, aren't u allsick and tired of presentations and bhashans like this all the time.they (all Nepali intellectual and leaders) talk like they're the best of the best in the world and they gonna do something, but all they can do is hope to get noticed by westerners and earn some money and of course foreign trips.. sad

damn sexy in sari, it's like 6 am in the east... maybe too much sex in saree is making your crazy.. hehe

Vivant, you are so right.
I don't even believe people voted for maoists. Its that maoists voted for maoists; 1. in their name 2. forging the name of dead 3. not letting other party supporters vote. 4 making non supporters vote by using threat.

MAOISTS ARE TERRORISTS. THAT EXPLAINS ALL.

Here is another article from here


http://www.141sercon.com/fnf/special/Arpita%20Nepal-20%20Years%20of%20the%20Fall.pdf

thanks for the pdf man