08-23-2006, 08:44 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Public service law</b>
Shailaja Chandra, Pioneer, 23 August 2006
<i>The much berated civil services could do with greater support from the legislature and judiciary in order to be more effective</i>
Some days ago there was a television programme to discuss the draft of Public Services Bill, 2006. The panellists were all former civil servants, adept at ordering others. I too was on the panel. The bill addressed the absence of values and ethics, the need to make the public services professionals, politically neutral and instrument of good governance. Every conceivable aspiration about Government being participatory, transparent, accountable as mentioned in the draft law. Our usual punch lines having been incorporated in the draft, we were left with little to add. So in one voice we lamented how laws could not change anything; how civil servants already have ingrained ethical values from day one; how there will always be rotten eggs in the basket who, law or no law, will ever remain rotten.
A week later, I had an opportunity to listen to a group of Members of Parliament speaking on the same subject - the absence of ethics and values in public life. Each one of them berated the state of corruption and lamented the nadir to which the system had sunk. The fact that professionals expensively trained at public cost are increasingly making forays into the civil services drew angry protests. The fact that middle-aged entrants joining the civil service could hardly become instruments of change was also decried. It is well known that increasing the age of entry into the civil services, introducing an Indian language (read mother-tongue) as one of the examination papers, permitting interviews in regional languages were all calculated to promote regionalism. As a result many members of the All-India services are today incapable of thinking nationally, much less globally.
Given this background the public service law cannot set the Yamuna on fire. First, it encompasses only the All India services and the Central services. The public, which seeks health care and education, electricity and water, fair play in taxation, good roads, unadulterated food, and proper enforcement of law, has little direct interface with the All India services or the Central civil services. Their daily interaction is with local and junior level functionaries like inspectors, licensing authorities, clerks, junior engineers, overworked doctors, insensitive policemen, shirking teachers, overcrowded buses and unsafe roads. In none of these areas do they ever meet the higher echelons of the civil service, Central or State. Therefore, if the public is to be benefited, the public service law must first address the problems that the citizen face, which cannot be overcome by demanding ethics and values from an insulated superior central bureaucracy.
A public services law is not a new idea. Historically, it was introduced in Australia, New Zealand and several other countries where lateral induction of professionals was undertaken in a big way. The newcomers had to be oriented in the concepts of allegiance to the constitution, the law and democracy. India has very few lateral entrants and for the foreseeable future they will remain a handful. Therefore, drawing an analogy with developed countries is not appropriate.
What the draft public service law does however provide is for the establishment of a Central Public Service Authority for good governance. The authority has a 12-point charter but an overarching responsibility is to recommend to the Government tenure for public servants. The law recognises that public servants need to be protected from victimisation and adverse consequences of refusing to follow inappropriate or illegal directions. But the Authority has only a recommendatory role. Government is expected to "consider" its recommendations but has the right not to implement them and give its reasons to Parliament. A stronger provision is called for if the public authority is to be taken seriously.
One provision, which is striking States that if a transfer, is made before the specified tenure, (generally three years) the public servant has to be suitably compensated for the inconvenience and harassment caused to him. We may yet see an end to the "off with his head" syndrome that has destroyed the careers of too many dedicated District collectors and demoralised some of the most resilient officers.
A federal Health Secretary in Pakistan, where I had gone as a part of a delegation became expansive after dinner. According to him, "bureaucracy the world over is the same. You refuse to compromise, call it a day, go home, and tell your spouse that from tomorrow you are writing your memoirs. Before long you become unwanted in your own house. A month later you check what your successor did with the same problem over which you marched off in such a huff. You discover that he compromised just 5 percent more than you were prepared to. He got to keep the job that you were eased out of. Therein lies the dilemma," concluded the Pakistani. How much are you prepared to compromise?
<b>Public service law or no public service law, the civil service reflects only one aspect of the governance of a country. What about the other two institutions, those who actually make the laws and those who sit in judgement on both?</b>
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...#092;nter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shailaja Chandra, Pioneer, 23 August 2006
<i>The much berated civil services could do with greater support from the legislature and judiciary in order to be more effective</i>
Some days ago there was a television programme to discuss the draft of Public Services Bill, 2006. The panellists were all former civil servants, adept at ordering others. I too was on the panel. The bill addressed the absence of values and ethics, the need to make the public services professionals, politically neutral and instrument of good governance. Every conceivable aspiration about Government being participatory, transparent, accountable as mentioned in the draft law. Our usual punch lines having been incorporated in the draft, we were left with little to add. So in one voice we lamented how laws could not change anything; how civil servants already have ingrained ethical values from day one; how there will always be rotten eggs in the basket who, law or no law, will ever remain rotten.
A week later, I had an opportunity to listen to a group of Members of Parliament speaking on the same subject - the absence of ethics and values in public life. Each one of them berated the state of corruption and lamented the nadir to which the system had sunk. The fact that professionals expensively trained at public cost are increasingly making forays into the civil services drew angry protests. The fact that middle-aged entrants joining the civil service could hardly become instruments of change was also decried. It is well known that increasing the age of entry into the civil services, introducing an Indian language (read mother-tongue) as one of the examination papers, permitting interviews in regional languages were all calculated to promote regionalism. As a result many members of the All-India services are today incapable of thinking nationally, much less globally.
Given this background the public service law cannot set the Yamuna on fire. First, it encompasses only the All India services and the Central services. The public, which seeks health care and education, electricity and water, fair play in taxation, good roads, unadulterated food, and proper enforcement of law, has little direct interface with the All India services or the Central civil services. Their daily interaction is with local and junior level functionaries like inspectors, licensing authorities, clerks, junior engineers, overworked doctors, insensitive policemen, shirking teachers, overcrowded buses and unsafe roads. In none of these areas do they ever meet the higher echelons of the civil service, Central or State. Therefore, if the public is to be benefited, the public service law must first address the problems that the citizen face, which cannot be overcome by demanding ethics and values from an insulated superior central bureaucracy.
A public services law is not a new idea. Historically, it was introduced in Australia, New Zealand and several other countries where lateral induction of professionals was undertaken in a big way. The newcomers had to be oriented in the concepts of allegiance to the constitution, the law and democracy. India has very few lateral entrants and for the foreseeable future they will remain a handful. Therefore, drawing an analogy with developed countries is not appropriate.
What the draft public service law does however provide is for the establishment of a Central Public Service Authority for good governance. The authority has a 12-point charter but an overarching responsibility is to recommend to the Government tenure for public servants. The law recognises that public servants need to be protected from victimisation and adverse consequences of refusing to follow inappropriate or illegal directions. But the Authority has only a recommendatory role. Government is expected to "consider" its recommendations but has the right not to implement them and give its reasons to Parliament. A stronger provision is called for if the public authority is to be taken seriously.
One provision, which is striking States that if a transfer, is made before the specified tenure, (generally three years) the public servant has to be suitably compensated for the inconvenience and harassment caused to him. We may yet see an end to the "off with his head" syndrome that has destroyed the careers of too many dedicated District collectors and demoralised some of the most resilient officers.
A federal Health Secretary in Pakistan, where I had gone as a part of a delegation became expansive after dinner. According to him, "bureaucracy the world over is the same. You refuse to compromise, call it a day, go home, and tell your spouse that from tomorrow you are writing your memoirs. Before long you become unwanted in your own house. A month later you check what your successor did with the same problem over which you marched off in such a huff. You discover that he compromised just 5 percent more than you were prepared to. He got to keep the job that you were eased out of. Therein lies the dilemma," concluded the Pakistani. How much are you prepared to compromise?
<b>Public service law or no public service law, the civil service reflects only one aspect of the governance of a country. What about the other two institutions, those who actually make the laws and those who sit in judgement on both?</b>
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_...#092;nter_img=1
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->