Caiaphas at CoPF

The deterioration and debasement of what was once the pride of the country, the civil service, took decades of political capture, patronage and institutional neglect. Today’s poorly paid, overstaffed and often underutilised public service is routinely criticised at public forums, compared unfavourably with its more able and successful cousins in the private sector, and too often made the face of the State’s failures.

Reforming the public sector is one of Sri Lanka’s greatest challenges. But it would be naive to imagine that meaningful reform can be achieved in the near or even medium term. Rebuilding institutions and restoring a culture of professionalism is a long game. It requires razor-sharp, unwavering political will sustained well beyond election cycles.

Ordinary citizens have every reason to be frustrated. Dealing with bloated, inefficient institutions can test anyone’s patience. That frustration is sometimes reflected in how the Parliamentary Committee on Public Finance (CoPF) engages with the public officials who appear before it.

Some CoPF proceedings are painful to watch. Officials arrive unable to answer basic questions or demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the industries and institutions they oversee. That deserves scrutiny. Public officials entrusted with managing public resources must come prepared and be held fully accountable.

But accountability and humiliation are not the same thing.

Too often, proceedings descend into public admonishment. Officials are talked down to, interrupted, or treated as though they were schoolchildren standing before a headmaster. It may make for compelling online viewing, but it does little to strengthen institutions or improve governance.

This must stop.

Public servants should be questioned firmly. They should be expected to explain decisions, defend administrative actions and account for public money.

But they should not be publicly humiliated simply because they are less articulate, less media-savvy or less thick-skinned than career politicians. Unlike politicians, they have few public platforms and even fewer privileges with which to defend themselves. Parliamentary oversight can be robust without becoming a performance.

The larger institutional problem is that public servants are increasingly expected to defend policy choices that are ultimately political.

The majority of CoPF members belong to the ruling party. They, more than anyone else, should explain and defend Government policy. Civil servants implement policy; they do not make it. When officials are repeatedly called upon to justify political decisions while elected representatives remain silent, accountability becomes blurred.

Government MPs cannot sit through hearings as though they are hearing about Government policy for the first time. If the Opposition has every right to ask difficult questions—and it does—the Government has an equal responsibility to explain and defend its own decisions. That is how parliamentary accountability is meant to function.

None of this diminishes the work CoPF has done. Under Chairman Dr. Harsha de Silva, the Committee has become one of Parliament’s most effective mechanisms for improving accountability and transparency. It has exposed waste, questioned weak governance and forced long-overdue public scrutiny of State institutions.

But success does not excuse impropriety.

Wednesday’s parliamentary debate on the CoPF report into the $ 2.5 million Treasury scam offered a timely reminder. Members on both sides began by praising the report as bipartisan. Within minutes, the debate became predictably political. That is the nature of Parliament. Governments defend themselves; Oppositions challenge them.

But CoPF claims to aspire to something higher.

The Committee’s purpose is not theatre. It is to expose institutional failures, improve governance and strengthen public administration. That requires rigorous questioning, not ridicule; professionalism, not performance.

Expose the deepest, darkest flaws in the system. Demand better answers. Insist on higher standards.

But there is no need to destroy people in the process, nor to rend one’s robes like Caiaphas.