I have always heard of public officers being unduly pestered or harassed by MLAs or ministers, during the course of their work. Recently, I witnessed an incident at a local government office, which questions the relationship of a public officer with an MLA/Minister who visits his constituency every Wednesdays.

According to established rules, a public officer of any ministry is answerable to his supervising officer, i.e the permanent secretary who delegates his authority downwards to other officers in the hierarchy. Let’s come to the incident to see how the relationship, ultimately the communication channel, between a public officer and an MLA/minister is flawed.

A front line officer, explains to a person, who is accompanied by a social worker or should I say a political agent, the outcome of an application. A senior officer intervenes, given the dissatisfaction of the visitors. They leave the office satisfied after taking cognizance of the provisions of the law relating to the application. Soon minister X, who is the MLA of the constituency, phones the office.

Minister: “Why have you told that person that the minister can’t do anything…?’’

Officer : “Mr minister, you’ve listened to what the person said; listen to my version now.”

Minister : “I don’t have to listen to you! I am getting you transferred!”

Some minutes later, both officers are summoned to their head office…

Such whimsical attitudes of MLAs have demoralizing effects on public officers who are there to implement the policies of the government in place. And it helps nobody to ostracize a public officer to show an illusory authority or power. As far as the given office is concerned, MLAs must appreciate that it takes a lot of courage, everyday, to face people who, marginalized by circumstances, come to ventilate their frustrations in front of these officers.

This petty incident, as it may seem, raises several issues for the civil service at large, which trade unions and the minister for Civil service affairs may attempt to address.

– Does an MLA/minister have the right to question a front line public officer on a particular case? We all know that dissatisfied applicants have the tendency to see their MLA. The officer allows or rejects an application on the basis of prevalent laws. My point is: how does an MLA/minister dispute a decision taken by a public officer within the limits of powers vested in him?

– An MLA/minister has the duty of care towards members of his constituency. However, we must appreciate that one’s rights cease where another’s start. Hopefully, there should not be a mismatch between the rights of an MLA and that of a public officer.

– I have been apprised of cases where public officers assist MLAs on Wednesdays to deal with matters pertaining to their ministry. I don’t know whether such officers suffer from politico-phobia (fear of politicians) or display an excess of zeal. Anyway this is a dangerous precedent.

–What is the basis of an MLA/minister taking sides, unilaterally, for a dissatisfied applicant and threatening a public officer of an immediate transfer?

– MLAs/ministers often issue letters/memos to recommend cases to public officers. Is this not tantamount to “traffic d’influence”? Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2002 reads: (i) Any person who gives or agrees to give or offers a gratification to another person, to cause a public official to use his influence, real of fictitious, to obtain any work, employment, contract or other benefit from a public body, shall commit an offence.

The three principles for the services sector (economy, effectiveness and efficiency) need optimum prevalence in the public service. This principle can be implemented in the above-mentioned issues in a simple way: like with like communication. Let MLAs/ministers issue complaint letters concerning members of the public to the respective minister who, with delegated authority will have a technical officer attend to the queries.

Organise an induction course for MLAs to acquaint them with the functioning of the civil service and, especially, the legal framework in which the public officer operates.

‘Putting people first’ is a beautiful concept, which prioritises the relationship between the public, public officer and the politician. Let not politicians smear this wonderful concept by putting themselves first. It will be dangerous if an MLA/minister blames the public officer for an Act of Parliament he himself has voted.

The MLA/minister is not the employer or hierarchical boss of the public officer and should therefore refrain from communicating horizontally. And should no longer avail himself of the two obsolete rules, namely:

Rule 1: The boss is always right.

Rule 2: If the boss is wrong, refer to Rule1.

<B>Raj MOONISAMY</B>