OSDs and contractual appointments
THE issue has a lot to do with the morale of public servants, and most would really like to be that -- public servants; but because of the disagreeable practice of the governments over all these years, many of them have been turned into servants of the ruling party; the noble idea of "government servant" has been distorted and turned on its head.
This iniquitous instrument had been wielded by every political party that came to power, in lesser or greater degree. Perhaps it is only in Bangladesh that one would find employees of the republic being paid for doing nothing at all. It has been a blatant attempt to politicise the administration, little realising that this would sap the innate strength of the civil servants, that of unquestioned loyalty to the state.
Some statistics may help put the matter in perspective. The number of OSDs in 1996, when the BNP government relinquished power, stood at 355, which came down to 174 when the AL handed over the reins in July 2001, which went up to 758 at the end of the BNP-led alliance tenure in Oct 2006. And it was brought down to 58 by the CTG by Aug 2007.
No government can expect to run an efficient administration by forming coteries which they expect to be unquestionably faithful to them. It alienates the rest, apart from working as a disincentive.
The same old practice continues even now, in spite of the grand coalition's commitment to "change" for the better. As of now there are nearly a hundred bureaucrats on special duty. It is unacceptable that so many should be OSD when in fact many ministries and directorates are without the full complements of officers.
The matter turns from the ridiculous to the bizarre when the government chooses to reengage retired civil servants and diplomats on contractual appointments despite the fact that so many public servants are being kept as a sinecure. Reportedly, such appointees number more than a hundred.
Several such appointments have become a matter of public discourse, particularly that of our permanent representative (PERMREP) at the UN in New York. One must add that in the recent spate of reshuffle in the administration, the ministry of foreign (MOFA) affairs has been by far the worst affected. We have in the past seen some weird appointments in the MOFA, where, not diplomatic acumen but kindred links, as in one particular case to the head of the state, was given preference to fill up that post.
The onerous responsibility of representing Bangladesh at the UN has been reposed on a senior teacher of economics in the US. He has been living in that country for more than two decades and is an expert on many things, but regrettably, he has no diplomatic experience. But that is not the only reason the appointment has raised so many eyebrows. And clarification to several questions regarding the PERMREP designate's appointment is in order.
Firstly, is it a fact that the gentleman is also a US citizen? If that be so, is it possible, under the law of the land, for persons holding dual citizenship to assume public office or represent Bangladesh in an international forum? I know for certain that one can't participate in elections in Bangladesh with that status. Is he, having taken oath of allegiance to the US flag, the right person to uphold the interest of Bangladesh at the highest international forum. Isn't there a clash of interest involved in this case? Which way will he vote at the UN when the two countries have different positions on the point at issue?
It would appear that the government considers him indispensable and for whom it feels it must find a high-stature job. Otherwise how does one explain the undue haste in appointing him our rep to the UN so soon after his agreemo was turned down by the Saudis?
Declining an agreemo is not the normal practice; it is done only in exceptional circumstances. Although normally no explanation is offered for turning down an agreemo, there must have been compelling reasons for the Saudis for not agreeing to our nominee as ambassador. And although no reasons have been given it will be well for the government to find out through its own channel why that was so.
One would also like to know what would be his status in the US. Surely, a US citizen is not entitled to either diplomatic privileges or immunity. One recalls a similar incident during the time of the 4-Party alliance rule where the US government refused diplomatic status to a Bangladeshi holding dual citizenship, whom the alliance government wanted to appoint as a press minister at Bangladesh mission in Washington.
As it is, appointment of several retired diplomats on contract has done little to enhance the morale of the MOFA. On the other hand it has only helped to convey the wrong message, which is that the current crop of our diplomats is either not capable of delivering or not trusted enough by the government. I for one hold views quite to the contrary.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments