Public servants not political servants

The Agriculture Ministry has been at the centre of controversy for several months due to a Cabinet decision to lease out a new building in Rajagiriya at the exorbitant cost of Rs. 26 million a month despite there being far better use for tax funds. 

The lease has received much censure from the JVP and other officials preventing the ministry from making use of the building and it has remained empty for more than half a year. It is unclear whether the public would have to bear the rent cost though as the Government has not officially reversed its decision.  In the meantime one ministry secretary was transferred out and another has come under fire over the building lease, unjustly, as the lease decision was a Cabinet move. 

Cabinet papers should be sent to the Cabinet with the approval of both the subject minister and the secretary, especially since it is the latter that actually runs the nitty-gritty functions. Yet this is often not the case. When public officials reject blatantly unfair decisions they, and not the politicians concerned, are most frequently victimised. In fact Cabinet spokesman Dr. Rajitha Herath this week admitted that as many as 7,000 public servants had been summoned before the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) to record statements over shady deals done by politicians of the previous Government. 

While no one would argue that the FCID has the right to gather evidence an unfortunate result is that public servants become even more cagey and insecure about their role. True public employees should be made accountable but they must also be empowered to act when they see injustice. But under the current system public officials are often caught between a rock and a hard place because not only can they not protest top level political decisions they can also then be held responsible under the law for acts that they had no influence over.         

The Agriculture Ministry issue underscores the need for public servants to be allowed to play the role of whistleblowers without being penalised as it is an essential function of good governance. 

In Sri Lanka’s deeply politicised public system, top posts are often decided by politicians. Ministry secretaries, for example, are appointed by the Minister and during every Cabinet reshuffle a fresh set of appointments are made, undermining the independence of public servants.

The Financial Regulations and Administrative Regulations assume that ministry secretaries have the power to make independent decisions when they simply do not because their jobs are in the hands of politicians. This leads to negligence and in some instances blatant collaboration with corrupt practices because public servants do not have the freedom to speak out.

Why is it that the Government, having come to power promising good governance, is so reluctant to introduce whistleblower protection and give a fair hearing to public officials? Why is it not possible to empower public officials? Why should they not act as policy watchdogs? Why should their careers be under the power of politicians? As public servants they exist to work in public interest, not protect political agendas.

Governments have a responsibility to facilitate whistleblowing and in so doing protect public interest whistleblowers. Laws which recognise the right of those who act in the public interest not to suffer harm or threats of harm and which build on the democratic principles of free speech and freedom of information are critical. Unless public officials are given these powers they will continue to be pawns.