(by Lakshman de Mel)

The speech of Milinda Moragoda, on the State of the Public Service carried in The Island of 3 July could not have come at a more appropriate time. It is certainly much more than a whiff of fresh air that could dispel the gloom and despondency that has descended on the Public Service over the past several years. Public Servants should be able to look forward to a much better deal than what they have so far got. They could now console themselves that all is not lost.

Sri Lanka at the advent of independence inherited an elite Civil Service which could have been the pride of any country. Its successor the SLAS continued to attract the best talent from our universities, products of free education and imbued with a sense of dedication and service to the country. But as the Minister has highlighted very soon things changed and changed for the worse.

The overbearing and domineering role of the political master disturbed the cordial partnership that should have ideally existed between the master to the servant in the task of nation building. The public servant has a duty and an obligation to advise his political master. The relationship is not a new concept. The Panchatantra an ancient Indian book of instruction to kings and princess on political theory succinctly puts it this way.

“A clever servant shows his master
the gleam of triumph or disaster
from good or evil sources springing
and shows him wit decision bringing.”

This cordial and healthy relationship has been recognised from ancient times and is in keeping with our ethos of mutual respect and tolerance so essential for good governance.

However these considerations were lost sight of and as the Minister points out “SLAS became the servant of politicians rather than of the people. It became a service that slowly over the years lost its professional edge”. The Minister hits the nail on the head when he says quite candidly part of the problem was also caused by successive governments going through a period of populism where they tried to break the back of what they saw as an elite organisation created by the British”. It was mentioned in the memories of a senior civil servant recently that when the then Minister in charge of the Public Service was cautioned that with the abolition of the CCS only servants will be left, the Minister’s curt reply had been that this was exactly what they wanted!

Drastic and fundamental changes in the Constitution by emasculating the PSC, knocked the bottom of the independence and self-respect of public servants. Indeed they became nothing but servants! To save his job and through sheer necessity to survive the public servant had to become servile, a sycophant and a mere cipher in the machinery of government. He had no choice.

As the Minister points out candidly “those public servants who attempted to maintain a non-partisan line were criticised and sidelined by politicians”. The policy became one of “do as you are told or else”. It is well known that in the mid 60s, a senior permanent secretary who had the courage to tell his Minister that he was there to give him the advice that was good for him, and not what he would like to hear, was booted out overnight.

The worst calamity that befell the already beleaguered public servant was the advent of the political appointee. As the Minister states: “As the politicians have trusted the public servant less and less, they in their there was frustration have appointed more and more people who they believe they could trust.

Often people with no knowledge of what it takes to run a government service but who have the ear of the Minister. These people are often close friends or family. For they were the only people the politician felt he could trust”.

The intrusion by the adventurers into the public service made the career public servant to feel miserable, unwanted and discarded to the periphery of affairs. The political appointee on the other hand had no serious stake in that he had no professional career in the public service to look forward to and his interests were pure expediency and short term. Their advent for a brief flirtation with the public service has demoralised the regular public servant who has a genuine grievance that plums of office that should be rightly theirs are being snatched away from them and interlopers rewarded with them.

It is as a result of these unfortunate developments that we see a public service, a body of good honest human beings, reduced to complacency and lethargy with very low morale and initiative.

The public servant on reading this speech should have ample reason to revive his spirits’ and hopes for the future. The magnanimous statement of the Minister that “We do recoginse that people make mistakes and provided that they are genuine mistakes they shouldn’t be penalised for them. Show me a person who doesn’t make mistakes and I will show you a person who does nothing”, certainly reflects a refreshing and volatile new approach to the ills that affect the public servant. It is an assurance that the much maligned public servant will no more be a convenient scapegoat or whipping boy for sins that are not his.