Civil Service to Axe Five Permanent Secretaries

Maldives Civil Service has given an entirely new meaning to the word 'permanent' by deciding to sack five permanent secretaries barely a year after they were appointed. Five is not a small number considering that they represent about 25% of all permanent secretaries.

The genesis of the problem dates back to last November, when the new MDP government took over and decided to reduce the number of ministries. This left some permanent secretaries in the lurch as their ministries were either dissolved or merged with other ministries. To 'solve' this issue Civil Service Commission (CSC) took the controversial step of assigning two or more permanent secretaries to some ministries, which according to most legal experts contravenes Civil Service Law.

Perhaps it is this ill advised step that led to the current fiasco. Had the Commission assigned the extra permanent secretaries as additional secretaries or joint secretaries at that point in time, it could have been acceptable all round. But in its infinite wisdom CSC refused to countenance this obvious solution all these months. It stuck to its guns so stubbornly as to vitiate the whole atmosphere. So in the end when CSC finally did accept the 'joint-secretary' solution under duress, there were no takers for it.

The way Maldives Civil Service is headed, it does not appear as if it is achieving its purpose. The raison d'être of a civil service is to maintain continuity in policy when governments change. Here we have a situation where 25% of permanent secretaries are sacked in one year. In the coming 4 years if President Nasheed decides to reorganize ministries a couple of times more, the remaining 75% could very well lose their jobs too.

It's not as if we are inventing civil service for the first time in the history of civilization. Why can't we learn how others approach similar problems? One thing we know for sure is that senior civil servants all over the world continue in their jobs (at least in rank and salary) till retirement age. That's why they are called permanent.

AG Says a Ministry must have One Permanent Secretary

Attorney General's Office has given its legal opinion to the Civil Service Commission that permanent secretary posts of ministries abolished since 11 November 2008 remain automatically terminated. AG Office also noted that the Civil Service Law is formulated to have one permanent secretary in each ministry.

The legal opinion comes as no surprise. Everyone except the civil Service Commission has been saying all along that the Commission's decision to retain 2 to 3 permanent secretaries in some ministries is illegal. Article 54 (Haa) of the Civil Service Act says a Permanent Secretary's post must be created and filled in each responsible office of the government. The wording of this article and its context leaves little doubt as to its meaning: each ministry must have one and only one permanent secretary.

Having two permanent secretaries in a ministry is more than a mere cosmetic issue. It dilutes the responsibilities of a permanent secretary (PS) described in Article 55 of the Act, and weakens the line of authority from minister to PS and downwards to civil service staff.

Simply not true

In its defense Civil Service Commission has said that it is the practice in some developed countries to have more than one permanent secretary in an institution. This is misleading. In countries with posts equivalent to permanent secretaries (head of the civil service in an institution equivalent to a ministry) such posts are single. They may be supported by deputy secretaries, joint secretaries, additional secretaries, second permanent secretaries or other similar posts. But this is an entirely different matter. The permanent secretary remains one.

[For related article in Dhivehi click here]

The Age of the Stupid?

If we had a film of the legislative events of the time of Maldives’ first Constitution (circa 1932), one would be tempted to label the period as the ‘Age of the Stupid.’ A legislative committee was working overtime to produce all sorts and manners of laws, which were becoming increasingly more difficult for citizens to bear. Thoroughly fed-up with the laws, the people of Male (‘Havaru’) came out on the streets, tore the laws and banished the legislators. More than 75 years after the episode we have a new Constitution and a sense of Déjà vu is permeating the atmosphere. Another Age of the Stupid?

In 1932 the Legislative Committee drafted laws to cover ‘monumental’ issues such as fire crackers (Lonumedhu Fataas), demolishing public wells on Male waterfront, cutting trees and 40 other similar topics. Visitors to Male soon found they had no place to take a bath. Boat owners found out that they couldn’t get timber to repair their dhonis. In short, the ill conceived laws made life impossible for the people.

After 75 years, today the new Constitution has given an endless list of rights, of which criminals are taking full advantage. A labor law is creating tension in the workplace and draining the government budget. A civil service law has led to loss of job security for hundreds of public servants. An information law is putting government officials in the dilemma of being legally obliged to provide information which is not readily available.

Looking at the legislative ‘masterpieces’ of today, future generations may be tempted to label the era as another Age of the Stupid.

Doctors aren’t Saints

By Dr. Faisal Saeed

A man goes to the doctor with an ailment. The doctor cures this ailment and asks to be paid. The man refuses to pay, saying that by virtue of having become a doctor, doctors have special moral obligations to patients and the society and asking for payment for his services brings into question his humanity, his morals and the oath to honor the profession. He goes on to caution that such demands would ruin the faith of the public in the profession and portray doctors as being inconsiderate and materialistic.

It is unfortunate that the current strike by doctors is viewed in such a perspective that a strike is incompatible with the medical profession. It is disappointing that the Human Rights Commission denounced the strike by suggesting that doctors were trying to hold to ransom the rights of patients for material gain, when it wasn't so. The strike was limited in that doctors attended emergencies and care was provided for inpatients. As advocates of human rights the commission should rather question why policy makers allow unnecessary suffering of patients by improper allocation of healthcare resources.

While it is true that doctors have special obligations to his patients and society, a person who chooses to become a doctor does not make any declaration, implicit or explicit, that he/she will abstain from trying to make his/her life as fulfilling as possible and like any other individual they too have the right to pursue happiness. The actions of doctors should be judged by the same standards as those used for other professionals. When the Civil Service Commission fails to provide a just payment for their services, it is unfair to suggest that doctors should work under any circumstance. Several doctors, while employed full time as professionals, have been denied the professional allowance and exploited due to the Commission's refusal to review its rules.

If doctors have special obligations, they can demand special benefits and go on strike, as long as the demands are reasonable and it does not undermine patient care. The provision of healthcare is a joint responsibility of the government, hospitals and doctors and each element should support the other.

Teachers on the agitation trail once again

Accusing the government of neglect in finding a solution to their salary issue, teachers have threatened to agitate once again –this time for more than one day. Earlier in July 2008, teachers had agitated for one day, protesting against the government's failure to implement the 'new' salary scale for teachers.

A spokesman for the Teachers Association, which spearheaded last year's agitation, says this time the protest will be wider with more participation in the atolls. However, with the changed situation he could find support for agitation among teachers much below his expectations.

Much has changed since July. Recently the Civil Service Commission has announced a point system to classify jobs across the whole spectrum of Civil Service. Under the system, which will be implemented across the board, salaries will depend on the points scored by each job. There will be no place in the system for special salary scales for individual sectors or professions. Thus the 'new' salary scale that is the bone of contention for the agitation is actually as dead as a dodo.

Will the Civil Service Commission give a special package to the agitating teachers? Not likely. Giving special treatment to any particular group will open a Pandora's Box of agitation from all other sectors, resulting in the collapse of the Civil Service reform package. At best what the teachers could expect is a fair evaluation of the points their profession scores vis-à-vis other professions. Under these circumstances not many teachers are likely to join the protest.

Civil Service Reforms

Yesterday the Government and the Civil Service Commission jointly announced reforms in the civil service ranging from salary restructuring to changes in working hours. As with any major change the reactions from the people have been mixed. Here is a sampling of some comments I heard.

Abolishing Professional Allowance: This has been a very divisive issue. Those without university degrees widely welcomed the move, citing equal pay for equal work. However others, particularly those with degrees, say the move will discourage graduates from joining government service.

Working Hours: Few people believe the new working hours will benefit either employees or the government. For employees the need to remain in the office till 4 pm will preclude them from doing any part time work in the afternoon. Given the traffic conditions in Male employees will have a tough time returning in one hour after taking lunch at home.

From the government point of view the break in service from 12 Noon to 1 pm would cause inconvenience to the public. Further, employees returning late from lunch would cause further delays to waiting customers.

Financial burden: Employees would definitely welcome the increased pay packet. But people who think beyond self interest have some doubts whether the economic burden can be borne by the ailing economy.

Civil Service and Job Security

When the Civil Service was instituted it was hyped to provide job security to the 35,000 odd government employees in the Maldives. They were promised protection from politically motivated and arbitrary dismissals. Join the Civil Service and assure a lifelong career, they were promised. But today hundreds of civil servants under threat of dismissal from 'redundant' government offices are wondering where the promises and assurances have gone.

Whatever its faults – be it discrimination, favoritism or nepotism – Maumoon government rarely practiced arbitrary dismissal from government service. In fact if the Civil Service Commission goes ahead it with the current spate of planned dismissals, the Commission would be responsible for more involuntary dismissals from service in one year than Maumoon in thirty years.

When an assistant secretary who has served faithfully for over 15 years in her job, her only means of subsistence with her two kids, faces dismissal just because her ministry is no longer deemed expedient, it matters little to her whether the dismissal is politically motivated or legalistically justified. What matters to her is she faces destitution tomorrow. What matters to us as citizens is that the State has failed to protect job security for its people.

The Civil Service Law requires employment in the service to be career based. What it means to most people is that once a person chooses a civil service job one is assured job security as well as the opportunity to go up the steps in a hierarchy, provided one performs satisfactorily in one's job. In the Maldives Civil Service things don't work out exactly that way. For example, when a DG position falls vacant, it is openly advertised with no preference given to in-service candidates. Even Deputy DGs in the same department will have to compete for the job with all those who apply including fresh graduates. In other words getting the DG post is more or less equivalent to getting a new job. In effect someone in a deputy DG post has two choices: remain in the post for ever or find another job. One wonders how one could call it a career based system.

No one says an unproductive person must be retained in the civil service. But are all those currently under the guillotine unproductive, and if so how does one know? The staff appraisal system is still in its infancy and in most offices appraisal forms are filled mechanically at the end of the period, the same way overtime approval forms are filled towards the end of each month. Can one rely on such appraisals to decide someone's future?

Is the Civil Service on Right Course?

Article 54 (Haa) of the Civil Service Act says a Permanent Secretary's post must be created and filled in each responsible office of the government. To anyone except the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the wording of this article and its context leaves little doubt as to its meaning: each ministry must have one and only one permanent secretary. But today some ministries have more than one permanent secretary. What gives?

Having two permanent secretaries in a ministry is more than a mere cosmetic issue. It dilutes the responsibilities of a permanent secretary (PS) described in Article 55 of the Act, and weakens the line of authority from minister to PS and onwards to civil service staff.

Perhaps the most serious accusation leveled against the erstwhile Public Service Division (PSD) of the President's Office was its tendency to create posts for people. CSC came with the promise of making the practice history. But history appears to be repeating with vengeance.

How does the performance of CSC compare with that of PSD? In the late 1980s, PSD introduced the post of Director General (DG) as the senior most public servant in a ministry. For more than 5 years PSD managed to maintain a single DG in each ministry. Similarly after introducing the post of Executive Director (ED), PSD managed to maintain a single ED in a ministry for 3 to 4 years. Compared to this CSC managed to maintain a single PS in a ministry for just about 6 months. Interestingly, throughout the presidency of Ibrahim Nasir, he managed to maintain a single Director to head each department and a single Vakeel to head each division of a ministry.

CSC inherited an extremely top heavy bureaucracy. Let us hope the Commission manages to take decisive action to streamline the civil service.