So, the Public Sector is about to get its own law, which law is being touted as the knight in shining armour that will bring fairness, efficiency and transparency to a service that is crucial to the nation’s well being and management. Humbug!

Good governance refers to accountability and transparency, but in a Public Service and Sector that are rife with clans, dealing and wheeling, good governance is hard to find indeed. Appointments and promotions are pre-booked even prior to being published, and when there is a call for applications, the question on everybody’s lips is “for whom was this issued?” Accountability is a pipe dream. Suffice it to query how many senior public servants have been brought to task, and publicly investigated or censured for any mismanagement or even irregular practices. In the corridors of this collared power, rumours abound about a number of the highest-ranking officers in the service. Rumours are admittedly just rumours, but some of them are repeated and transmitted with a consistency and conviction that automatically brings to mind the adage of “where there’s smoke there’s fire!” yet the action taken remains a big fat zero. Occasionally we hear of the departure or resignation of key ranking personnel. Just this week, two senior public sector officials resigned, one from the MTA and the other from the Film Commission. Their departure remains unexplained, and the public is not deemed worthy of being informed of the facts. Then we brag about transparency!

Public service and public sector officials have the responsibility of administering public funds and public assets. The selection process for such posts should be exhaustive and thorough and not just a rubber stamping exercise within a framework that tries to give it respectability. This process does not need a whitewashing or cosmetic exercise intended only to give the impression of a healthy and functioning sector. It needs a complete overhaul, and needs a real public scrutiny, possibly through a Parliamentary Commission. This should not stop however with the selection process. The monitoring of performance should also be an ongoing exercise that is not limited to subjective and limited exercises that fall far short of requirements. Where necessary, the accountability of non-delivering officials should be enforced and, if justified, they should be asked to go, with the reason for their departure being subject to transparency. Dirty linen, with which the public service and sector are amply saddled, should be washed and at least hung out to dry once clean. Avoiding the removal of rotten apples to give a semblance of business as usual, is counter-productive and, besides allowing the rot to fester further, demoralises competent and valid officials. In a small society such as ours, cover-ups and concessions only serve to fuel speculation of even more serious wrongdoing.

As long as there is no real will from the very top to make the public service and sector act as it should, no law will do this. Aesop queries which mouse is going to bell the cat, and this analogy best suits the situation. Which public servant will be the first to raise his hand on a matter, knowing full well that this act will probably result in him or her being ostracised or blacklisted, irrespective of the veracity of the case? In such a situation, with the proposed bill being parented by the donkey of clannish management and the jenny of keeping up appearances at all costs, the law, once enacted, can only be an ASS.