Friday Sep 20, 2024
Friday Sep 20, 2024
Wednesday, 1 November 2017 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
Questioning of public servants by the Financial Crime Investigation Division (FCID) on alleged fraud and corruption deals have not put an end to politicisation of the public sector, the Chairman of the committee appointed by the National Human Resources Development Council to look at new ways of working in the public sector Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha claimed.
“The public sector was struck and it has been struck more because the FCID has started grilling the public servants on alleged fraud and corruption deals. Most of the public sector top officials are now frightened and nervous to carry out their duties,” he said.
In a hard-hitting interview, Prof. Wijesinha told the Daily FT that the Sirisena Government had committed a crime by not fulfilling the 2015 election manifesto, which pledged to set up an independent public service. “Still the politicians who want to serve themselves take ad hoc decisions and influence the public servants,” he charged.
The committee chaired by Prof. Wijesinha, who was the former Minister of Higher Education, has proposed several radical measures to change the present situation in the public sector to make it efficient, professional and accountable and a sector free of political influence and arbitrary changes.
Following are the excerpts of the interview:
By Shanika Sriyananda
Q: Can you explain about the committee that you are involved in and its main purpose?
A: This committee was appointed by the Chairman of the National Human Resources Development Council (NHRDC) Dinesh Weerakkody. During our meetings we have found that the work tasked to the NHRDC was not progressing well as the country’s public sector cannot move forward. The public sector was struck and has been struck more because the Financial Crime Investigation Division (FCID) has started grilling public servants on alleged fraud and corruption deals. Most of the public sector’s top officials are frightened and nervous to carry out their duties. But this questioning process has not stopped politicisation of the public sector because we still have a situation where the politicians who want to serve themselves take ad hoc decisions. The obvious case in point is Arjuna Mahendran’s case at the Central Bank which has completely ignored the advice of his team. There was no professionalism. This is the same with the case of former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake’s deal with the bank.
Due to this unfortunate situation in the public sector, the underlings in public institutions are also frightened to carry out their responsibilities. In this backdrop, NHRDC Chairman Weerakkody has appointed a committee to look into new ways of working with the public sector to create a greater degree of professionalism and accountability.
Q: What was the response you got from the prominent public servants in the sector?
A: They were delighted to hear that there is a committee to revive professionalism in the public sector. The committee includes myself, the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and two others. We wrote to the Ministry of Public Administration, SLIDA, the Public Service Commission and Chamber of Commerce. There was a very good support from the chamber as they are the ones who have suffered badly due to public sector incompetency. Everyone has contributed effectively to the report.
We made our first draft very soon, circulated it and received comments within a very short period of time. Then we approached distinguished public servants like former Foreign Secretary H.M.G.S. Palihakkara and former Secretary to several ministries Dharmasiri Peiris to get their inputs. They were very positive and requested us to make recommendations soon. They are very keen for a good change as they are the ones who have seen the public service collapse.
Since I was in the public sector as a ministry secretary, it was an advantage for me to be in this committee as I am very well aware of how the public sector functions.
Q: Normally the announcement of the recommendations of these committees drags for several months. How did you meet this challenge?
A: The committee decided not to delay the final outcome and with the support of the NHRDC team and my team at TVEC, we worked towards meeting our target to release the final set of recommendations in September. Weerakkody appointed the committee in June and we prepared the final report in September. This shows the dedication, efficiency and capacity of the public sector if it is guided properly. The NHDRC, which works with both the public and private sectors, has adopted it without any changes.
Q: But what are your plans to make it a national policy for the public sector?
A: The NHRDC has decided that it must be implemented immediately and instructed Weerakkody to present the report to President Maithripala Sirisena, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and others. Weerakkody wanted to present it to the Prime Minister but it is being delayed by nearly two months now as PM Wickremesinghe is never in the country.
Q: Will this important document too gather dust?
A: I am impatient with the delay and don’t think there is any point in waiting for more days. Most of the public servants who have heard about this report are very happy and they are waiting for the Government to implement these recommendations. I firmly believe that if we – the media, the Public Servants Association and all the activists for good governance – push the Government to implement the recommendations, it will become a successful move to revive the public sector.
Q: Creating an independent public service is in the President’s 2015 manifesto.
A: This is why we have decided to send the report to the President. If the Government implements these recommendations, it will fulfil the 2015 election manifesto, which pledged to create an independent public service.
Strengthening the Public Service Commission will not be effective if the ministry secretaries are appointed by the politicians. In fact, when I suggested this when we were discussing the Constitution PM Wickremesinghe said that he should be able to appoint others. I told him that he can but he needs to give good reasons why he wants to make those appointments.
If the Public Service Commission appoints the secretaries and PM says he wants to appoint Charitha Ratwatte instead of the PSC’s nominee, then the PM needs to give reasons why he wants Ratwatte to be a secretary. The PM just can’t say “Ratwatte was my university friend and I want to appoint him as the secretary”. Then he should say that Ratwatte has a good track record and qualification to be a secretary and he has to get the approval from the PSC. But these appointments need to be on paper and should not be appointed on verbal instructions. The importance of the position should be noted and clear guidelines, including screening procedures, should be formulated.
Q: When you were the Minister of Higher Education, the then Chairman of the University Grants Commission was removed suddenly. Did this happen in a similar manner?
A: I was very angry with the way Prof. Kshanika Hirimburegama was removed and no one consulted me. When I asked the PM, he said I could appoint a person I liked. This is a totally unethical way of appointing top officials for the country’s most responsible posts. I think these officials should not be appointed because they have close connections with the President, PM or some influential politicians in the country. They should be appointed because they are the best for the respective posts.
Q: One main recommendation is that the ministry secretaries should be appointed by the PSC. Do you think is practical as most of the appointments are still made mainly on political affiliations?
A: Yes, I agree that most of the vacancies, including the top posts, in the public sector are not filled without political influence. Soon after this Government came into power in 2015, they sacked most of the Government sector employees who are over 60 years old. But if you are a friend of a politician or have some kind of political affiliation, you get an extension. Dhara Wijetilake, who was an excellent public servant and a secretary to several ministries, was one of them.
When appointing and removing public servants from their posts, there should be a written justification and a rationale. Even when the PSC appoints an official they should be able to give a reason for selecting the person to hold the respective post. The President can appoint the ministry secretaries but it should be on the recommendations of the PSC or the PSC can always consider the views of the President when making appointments. We do not say to take away the power from the ministers but they should consult the PSC when making appointments. But now there is no rationale and ministers make appointments according to their whims and fancies.
Q: In the recommendations, continuity of work after a change of a minister or a chairman of a public institution is mentioned.
A: This is a vital move as at the moment there is no system of a friendly exchange of duties. I was appointed as the Chairman of the TVEC. There should have been a provision for my predecessor to meet me and explain what he was doing so far. In my case I know the last three chairmen and I had no issue but in most of the State institutions the former chairman and the present chairman don’t talk to each other. This affects the work and disturbs the continuity of the process.
With the appointment of the new ministers the previous work gets disrupted and the new minister sets his own programs and changes the entire system. The energy of the public servants and the money spent on previous projects get wasted as there will be new projects under the new minister. What we want to maintain in the public sector is continuity and professionalism. The minister must be accountable for his role. When a minister wants to remove me from the post he can, but he should be able to say why and make sure the next chairman is aware of what I was doing.
Q: Do you think that apart from politicisation, personnel affiliations have also contributed to the present bad shape of the public sector?
A: Definitely; several appointments are given due to personnel affiliations of politicians. This is very wrong as these posts are very powerful positions which will make important decisions for the country. However, to prevent such appointments in the public sector, we have divided the recommendations into different areas like independence, continuity, professionalism, efficiency, work plans and accountability of the public sector.
Q: Most Government sector employees lack communication skills and English language proficiency. What do you propose to improve these?
A: This is why the SLIDA must have a very clear training program. It is an urgent need, especially since the second level of the public servants are very weak in these skills. The permanent secretaries, who are now in the service, are generally good, but the next batch can’t communicate in English, which is essential for them to handle projects proposed by Americans and Australians.
There is no proper coordination because we lack officers who are competent to handle these projects. Most of the documentation is in English and our officers can’t understand due to their lack of knowledge in English. They need to improve communication, reading and writing skills.
The training program needs trainers who focus not only grammar but mainly presentation, reference and speaking skills. We have started a program at the Vocational Training Centre to train 200 English teachers and they are doing well. Similar training programs should be started in other State sector institutions.
Q: Some of the ministry secretaries are being questioned by the PRECIFAC, FCID and CID for some allegedly corrupt deals that took place during the previous regime. Do you think that when these recommendations are implemented they will have more accountability on what they do in future?
A: Yes, this is one reason why we want to bring changes to the public sector. The Government has to do regular reviews on what they do and they should be feel free to say no even to the respective ministers. The ministers should give their instructions in writing and the public servants should have the absolute right to refuse to do something that is not have given in writing if they think they will be questioned.
Top public servants, including ministry secretaries, function now in isolation and once they are in the proposed Development Secretaries Forum (DSF), the senior public servants can engage in more effective coordination and consultation. They will also develop collegiality. When they have issues they always can discuss that with their colleagues before taking decisions. This will strengthen their togetherness. They can be more accountable for their own decisions in future
Q: Another important recommendation is to limit the Cabinet to 25. Can you explain why rationalisation of the Cabinet is urgent?
A: This is a desperately urgent move because at the moment the Government has to spend a massive amount for unnecessary expenses from the Supplementary Budget monthly to maintain lots of vehicles and to provide other perks for this big Cabinet. Every minister has nearly 20 officers and most of them get vehicles. We have lots of troubles with the minister’s private staff and some of them intervene in some of the important appointments in the State institutions. Once it happened to me and they had complaints against me. I said we don’t listen to underlings but if the minister told us we would look into the matter. But, later when I informed this to the minister he said he was not aware of such a decision. Since most of the public sector officials are afraid to inform these to the minister, his personnel staff give directions without the minister’s approval. These behaviours should stop to protect the public service.
On the other hand, the ministers should have a limited number of private staff and the minister should give reasons and qualifications when appointing his personnel staff. Mostly the ministers appoint their wives as coordinating secretaries and their qualifications are questionable.
When I was in Parliament, I found that MPs pay less to their private staff. They asked me to put the salaries of my personnel staff to my personal account, but I refused, asking them to pay my staff directly. But there are MPs who get the stipulated salaries of their private staff to their accounts and pay only the half of the salary to a staffer and the other half remains in the MP’s account.
Q: The present Government claimed that the previous Government had spent a huge amount of money on importing vehicles for MPs but this Government continues to import vehicles. Your views?
A: If you study the supplementary estimate for vehicles, which is a publicly available document, you will see how much is spent for the each of the MPs to import vehicles. What is the use of having the minister of public administration and the minister of home affairs when each of them having five coordinating secretaries, who are given State-run vehicles? Minister S.B. Dissanayake had 11 vehicles when I took over the Ministry of Higher Education.
It is ridiculous and a crime what is happening in the country now and it is criminal of this Government, which had a manifesto to get rid of all these irregularities, for not implementing what they have promised.
Q: According to the recommendations of the NHRDC report, one ministry is dedicated to reconciliation, resettlement and rehabilitation, which were given priority by the previous Government as well as this Government. What do you have to say about the progress made in these 3 Rs so far?
A: There is no reconciliation at all now. Every day extremist ideas are coming from both sides. Who does reconciliation? It is technically the President but he didn’t have anything to do with it and handed over the task to former President Chandrika Kumaratunga. What has she done for the last three years? Nothing, except arranging dramas where Colombo 7 girls perform dances to bring back unity. The same thing happened when the Peace Secretariat was there. A large amount of money was spent on Colombo 7 dancers to perform items on unity. These allocations must be spent on grass root level programs to give the opportunity for the people who feel deprived.
There is a National Reconciliation Policy but it doesn’t have any power to reconcile people. At the moment absolutely nothing is being done to bring people together. There is no clear cut policy. It is very true that people are worried about their loved ones. They need closure but what has been done to bring closure?
They have set up the Office of Missing Persons but why don’t they look at all the material there is to show that the number of dead or missing is much less than that the international community claims? Lots of Tamils are very worried as they think that 40,000 people had died during the war. Even Lord Baron Naseby has said that the figure is 7,000 and not 40,000. Unfortunately, Sri Lankan politicians do not take any interest in looking at these facts.
The Paranagama report has recommended a Truth and Reconciliation Committee but no one is interested about it. Why don’t they follow the Paranagama report, which is an excellent report? Sadly, it is being completely ignored as the commission was appointed by former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.
I prepared a draft reconciliation policy with full inputs from the UNP, TNA, Tamils and Muslims and sent it to Kumaratunga in 2015. She wrote to me saying that it was a good document and she would use some of my views in her policy document. But in the rest of the letter she attacked Mahinda Rajapaksa. He was defeated; why couldn’t she take the good policy forward?
Kumaratunga, who could produce a policy within a month, has failed to produce a policy for two years. Anyway, they have come up with their policy this year but there is no action taken based on it so far. Now they have been given another six months to produce the final report. This is why we have suggested that all the Government institutions should report on what they have done every three months. The public has a right to know how and on what the Government has spent money.
Q: What are your suggestions to implement an effective process of reconciliation?
A: We have suggested to work towards restorative justice, not retribution and punishing people. It should be like an apology where in the case of people who lost their loved ones, the remaining family members are taken in and given priority in education, livelihood restoration and employment opportunities while confirming to them that their loved ones who went missing had died in the war. This is also recommended by the Paranagama report to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to look into the truth on what happened and get the families of missing persons into the reconciliation process.
But nothing has been done so far other than starting to build an amity school following a proposal by former Minister H.M. Fowze. This is the project for which President Sirisena’s name has been nominated for the Nobel Prize. We do not know how long they will take to build this school. If the Government is really keen to reconcile the communities through education, what they should do is bring children from all communities together at the primary school level to learn in the same space.
Q: How positive are you that we will have a corruption-free efficient public service in future with your recommendations?
A: If these recommendations are pushed to the right people in the Government, it will give us hope, but I have to say that I do not see the right people in the present political system. We need a political leadership that looks for honest and efficient people. I believe by changing the electoral system, the political parties get the opportunity to select better candidates of better calibre.
When we continue with the preferential votes system, we will get more and more incompetent people into Parliament. The selection process in the Westminster style makes the party responsible to select the good candidates. But this doesn’t happen now and when they select 20 candidates from one area everyone wants to get their kith and kin into Parliament. Most of the candidates are their sons or wives. This situation can be changed with electoral reforms, which are absolutely necessary at this juncture to select the best in the respective areas to represent the people.
Q: Do you think the commitment to change the present political landscape should come from the top?
A: It is a two-way process. Yes, the commitment for a significant change should come from the top and also from the grass-root level. What I have to say is that we need a visionary political leadership to bring the change that was pledged in the 2015 election manifesto. How can we hope for a change when the pledges, including a change to the present electoral system, are not fulfilled so far?
Q: Do you mean to say that President Sirisena is not a visionary leader?
A: I can say that he is a visionary leader compared to all others but he doesn’t have the capacity to implement the things he promised, partly because he is very frightened of possible rivals within the Government. He lacks genuine and quality politicians to support him. He was elected on his manifesto but he doesn’t have guts to implement it and he lets the others who have no concern about the manifesto engage in decision making. The Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence Pablo de Greiff has insulted President Sirisena but surprisingly he remains silent.
