Continuing the business of government in between regime or leadership change

The University Grants Commission and the National Education Commission are appointed by the President for a fixed term. We should be able to trust the boards of these institutions to give a reasonable timetable for their resignation, even if legally they can serve until the end of their term

This is not the first time that a regime changed, and the board members got marching orders from minions in their organisation who have now got close to the ears of the executive. People who have served with dedication have to leave like thieves at night even before a new board is in place. There must be a better way – not just for civility but for the benefit of the country

The State apparatus consists of the executive, ministries, departments and public enterprises. A regime change is signified by the election of a new President and the formation of a new Cabinet of Ministers headed by the President. A Cabinet reshuffle also signifies a change in leadership of a ministry within the regime. 

Vehicles and public enterprises as trophies of victory

The most visible sign of a regime change is of course the display of vehicles left on Galle Face Green by departing advisors and additional staff at the Presidential Secretariat. These vehicles on display are probably only a fraction of all Government vehicles given/taken for private use by politicians and senior officials in Government. An all-paid vehicle with a driver and a fuel allowance is perhaps the first sign of power experienced by a politician joining the Cabinet or advisor rank and officials rising to senior ranks. Claiming more than one car seems to be the norm for senior politicians. 

The next visible sign is the exodus of boards of public enterprises. The public enterprises, like cars, have become winning trophies for an incoming regime. The appointments to 100+ departments and many more of their satellites in provinces and districts are overseen by the Public Service Commission. But the 540+ public enterprises, each with its own boards of 3-20 members, allow a free range for an incoming regime to place their supporters and family and friends. 

The evolution and functions of public enterprises

The Government elected in 1945 had about 15 ministries and about twice as many departments. The director generals of these departments were household names those days. They were known for their integrity and efficiency. University of Ceylon and Ceylon Tea Board were the only non-departmental entities existing at that time according to ChatGPT. Today we have 110+ departments and 540+ public enterprises.

Public enterprises were gradually added to the State’s portfolio as the need arose. According to the Central Bank, the development of public sector enterprises in Sri Lanka dates to the Second World War period of 1939-1945, when several SOEs were set up to provide essential goods whose supply had been curtailed during the war. By 1957, with the socialist bent of the then Government, several important SOEs had commenced operations, including those related to cement, paper, ceramics, leather and footwear and bus companies were nationalised to form the Ceylon Transport Board in 1958.

With time, various commissions, councils, agencies, and authorities that did not produce goods or supply services were added to the mix, with some like the University Grants Commission performing only regulatory functions. The reasons for establishing statutory bodies or companies which are not part of the government civil service are presumably to:

• Perform specialised tasks 

• Attract suitable employees with attractive salary scales

• Speedier decision making as required by the enterprise

• Act with only light touch guidance from political authorities

Today, the public enterprises have deteriorated to the point that they are treated as vassals of the minister in charge.

Public enterprises reduced to instruments of power and privilege 

In the rush to divide up the trophies and exercise power, the business of public enterprises have become secondary matters. 

For example, soon after the establishment of the Prime Minister’s office recently, a circular was sent by that office asking public enterprises to halt all their board meetings. This kind of misguided direction reflects the patronising attitude of politicians towards these public enterprises. The possibility that these institutions might be carrying out functions of Government independent of the political whims seem to escape the powers. 

Further, boards of some public enterprises have been asked to resign and more requests/demands are sure to follow, irrespective of urgency of the business of the enterprise. For example, opening of the portal for applications to university admission and the other business regarding university admissions are ongoing, but a minion apparently conveys a message from the President to the Commission asking for their immediate resignation, and the Commission packs up and leaves. 

The Board of the UGC should have behaved differently, I think. The board of the University Grants Commission is a body of professionals appointed by a President for a fixed term and terms of termination include well-articulated conditions. It is understandable that an incoming government would like to appoint a new board, and the current board members offer their resignations. But, if the commission felt that ongoing work must be wrapped up and a transition period is required, as an entity serving the public, they should have stated so and stayed on to ensure the admission process goes smoothly while abstaining from decisions that are not of high immediacy. 

In the US, there is a time lag between the election of the President in early November and the swearing-in of the President in January. This period allows a new government to finalise the new set up and the old government wrap up their work. In Sri Lanka we have a lag period of sorts because the Government is incomplete without the legislature, its other half. Therefore, it is appropriate that the President and his Cabinet of two behaves as a care-taker government, allowing public enterprises a grace period to conclude their ongoing business.

In the short term, civility and efficiency in the transitions

This is not the first time that a regime changed, and the board members got marching orders from minions in their organisation who have now got close to the ears of the executive. People who have served with dedication have to leave like thieves at night even before a new board is in place. There must be a better way – not just for civility but for the benefit of the country. 

My own experience of a regime change was in 2004. Kabir Hashim was the outgoing minister of tertiary education. The staff of the ministry organised an event where the new minister was welcomed by the old minister. In his short handing-over speech Kabir quoting from Siṅgāla sutta (Discourse to Sigala) talked about duties and obligations employers and employees or something. We had kiribath and sweetmeats afterwards. That is how it should be. 

We have three types of appointments where measures should be taken to ensure civility and efficiency in the transitions.

Boards serving fixed terms: The University Grants Commission and the National Education Commission are appointed by the President for a fixed term. We should be able to trust the boards of these institutions to give a reasonable timetable for their resignation, even if legally they can serve until the end of their term. In the present case, any time before the new Parliament is sworn in should have been the timeframe.

Boards serving at the discretion of the minister: These boards should not exist in my opinion. The legislation for the Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission and the Vocational Training Authority leaves the appointments and removal for boards wide open to the discretion of the Minister in charge. The annual churn of Chairman of the boards of the VTA in the past five years is a case in point. Perhaps the term of these boards can be limited to three years and initial terms given for 3-5 years terms in a random manner so that there is planned churn with some continuation of the boards. 

Chief Executive Officers appointed and dismissed at the discretion of the Minister: These kinds of situations too should not be allowed, IMO. Within the education sector, the National Institute of Education (NIE) Act allows for a Director General to be appointed by the minister in charge for a term of four years. The problem here is that if a minister makes a political appointment, an incoming new regime will have difficulty working with such an officer. Ideally all CEOs should be appointed by the relevant board according to a transparent process of recruitment perhaps subject to the approval of the minister. The TVEC Act leaves open the process of appointing a DG and terms of termination undefined, leaving room for political appointments or removals, but, I also should mention that I was such a political appointee once.

In the long term, fewer trophies 

The powers and privileges to be bestowed through a staggering 545+ public enterprises could present a problem for the NPP government because these institutions lay open avenues for corruption and inefficiency by mortals who would be appointed to these. Long term solution is a scientific audit of these enterprises to drastically reduce their number. 

Some of the functions of these enterprises can be taken over by existing departments. Currently we have a situation where departments and public enterprises engage in turf wars. We also have departments and/or public enterprises set up to do functions that are devolved to provinces, adding a second layer of redundancy. Restructuring public enterprises is another story for another day.