IN the past few weeks, Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has stirred several hornets’ nests with announcements that civil servants will have the choice of going on contracts with higher salaries or remaining in their current tenure without a salary increase.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum blames incompetency in the three largest ministries of Education, Health and Agriculture. He states the “system is not bad, but the administration of the individual ministries is the problem”.
According to another news source, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said he had complained to the chairman of the Public Service Commission about a few permanent secretaries in particular, the Ministry of Health “is doing their own thing and … have no respect for the people they have employed, and show a level of authority without actually deserving that authority and respect”.
Many questions arise. Why force ordinary civil servants to go on contracts if the administration is at fault?
Did the Government not have a massive salary increases for permanent secretaries not too long ago? Did the Government not hire some expatriate permanent secretaries most of whom have gone now, for unknown reasons? Why blame the PSC when most of the PSC powers are gone?
What education reforms?
In the absence of the Minister of Education, who is facing criminal charges, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum also surprisingly announced key reform programs for the Ministry of Education supposedly to improve teacher-to-student ratios, restructure the education offices and ministry headquarters and especially the ministry’s human resources department.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the reforms sought “to promote merit-based recruitment and selection … improve internal processes and procedures, job evaluations, contract issuance and an entire range of other services that support school-based operations.
The public might well ask, is the A-G admitting this has not been happening for the 10 years he and Voreqe Bainimarama have been in charge?
Not only are teachers concerned about their unfair treatment, but also health professionals such as dentists, doctors and nurses. This is absolutely extraordinary given that for three decades, Fiji has been suffering from the emigration of precisely these professionals who are able to receive abroad, two to three times their Fiji salaries, plus all the other benefits for their families of living in developed countries.
How extraordinary the A-G claims that in contrast to previous years, private sector employees were now “showing interest to join the public sector” as indicated by the interest shown by some accountants from the big four firms in Fiji. Really?
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s proposed changes strike at the heart of centuries of civil service policies the world over and have predictably met with passionate opposition right across the board.
Mr Bainimarama should ask why his “right-hand man” is stirring the hornets’ (voters’) nest right before the 2018 election just as Ratu Mara did with his 1984 wage freeze.
The public should ask why the Public Service Commission and the commissioners are totally silent on all these changes which undermine the ethics of a good dedicated and principled civil service.
Predictable opposition
Several of the most important unions in Fiji are extremely unhappy with the proposed changes.
Fijian Teachers Association acting general secretary Peni Delaibatiki noted the changes were done without any consultation with the unions, created fear and insecurity among teachers, adversely affecting their moral and delivery of services.
Fiji Teachers Union general secretary Agni Deo Singh pointed out the only salary increase teachers received was that just before the 2014 election and was still inadequate; that some 2000 teachers had been demoted via the new contracts, contrary to Government claims that no one would be put on inferior terms; teachers on the ground were not at all happy; and the proposed changes would adversely affect the delivery of quality education.
Confederation of Public Sector Unions general secretary Rajeshwar Singh said Government was putting civil servants on forced contracts and effectively withdrawing from collective bargaining, in breach of Section 189 of the ERP (Amendment) Act Number 1 of 2016 and also the 2013 Fiji Constitution. He declared the CPSU would challenge the compulsory offer of contracts through available means
Fiji Labour Party leader and experienced unionist, Mahendra Chaudhry, noted that employment contracts fell under the purview of the Employment Relations Act and thus proper procedures must be followed under the collective bargaining provisions of the Act for any changes to be made to these contracts. He pointed out the announced civil service pay increase effective from August 1, 2017, was “a job evaluation award and should bear no relevance to an employee’s tenure of employment”. He advised the public service unions to “strongly resist” this “imposition on our people” and that their members should not sign up.
NFP leader Professor Biman Prasad called the move by the Ministry of Education to have permanent staff members sign five -year contracts before they are eligible for the increment as “blackmail” and an election “gimmick” to pacify teachers who had silently suffered over several years.
He noted the Bainimarama Government arrogance and ill thought out reforms seriously undermined the teachers’ professional, social and economic status. Moreover, the proposed measures were not only unethical but also unlawful, given employers were bound by their employees’ employment contracts.
In case some media hacks dismiss Prof Prasad’s criticisms as “cheap politics”, it is useful to analyse the proposed Government changes from first principles.
Civil service fundamentals
Note that private sector employees are to serve the interests of their employers and their performance is usually judged by their impact on employer profitability. It is generally accepted that private sector employers are free to hire and fire, to promote or demote, to increase or decrease salaries.
Civil servants on the other hand, are “servants” or employees of taxpayers and supposed to serve the public with integrity, without fear or favour.
In all good civil services, such as in Singapore or ancient China, civil servants are hired and promoted (or not) according to merit; qualifications, experience, track record, dedication and incorruptibility being crucial.
To ensure the right civil servants are appointed and perform as expected, there used to be a Public Service Commission operating within well-defined regulations which protected both the employer (the public), and civil servants, who in turn had clear appeals mechanisms if they thought they were being unfairly treated by the PSC.
Governments and their ministers (“agents”) are also supposed to serve the public (“principal”) in their employment of civil servants.
But economic and business theories have long recognised the “principal/agent” problem especially where managers are distant from the thousands of shareholders. The “agents” or managers can sometimes totally ignore the interests of the shareholders (“principal”) and begin to serve their own personal self-interest and objectives.
Thus, government ministers may sometimes, for their own personal objectives, quite unfairly treat their employees (civil servants) who do not fall in with the minister’s “game plan” even if the civil servant is being deeply faithful to the “public” and taxpayers.
Such unfair treatment of civil servants would have been extremely unlikely in the good old days and was of great value safeguarding the public’s interest.
This was especially important given governments and ministers come and go at the whim of voters while civil servants were supposed to go on and on serving the public (the great television comedy “Yes Minister” not withstanding).
From tenure to contract
In the above context, the proposed changes from tenure to contracts in which all power of renewal resides in the ministers, with no recourse to appeal, is clearly designed to ensure all civil servants will be encouraged to serve the Government and ministers concerned, or not have their contracts renewed.
A similar situation pertains to the Bainimarama Government’s 55-year retirement rule in that most civil servants at the top (usually reaching that age) must depend totally on pleasing their ministerial masters or simply have their contracts not renewed.
The proposed changes from tenure to contract are therefore a simple logical next step to what the Bainimarama Government has been already doing for the past 10 years, except they now wish to ensure all of these changes in civil service employment conditions are integrated into the 2013 Constitution.
Silence of the PSC
It is incredibly disappointing that throughout all this turmoil the PSC and its commissioners have been silent, including reputable private sector CEOs and a leading USP academic who should know better, even though Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is indirectly blaming them for whatever ills he perceives.
This should not be surprising given that the PSC Commissioners were equally silent over the imposition of the 55-year retirement rule, the abnormal massive increases in permanent secretary salaries just prior to the 2014 election, the appointment of many expatriates at senior levels in the civil service, and many other fundamental changes to the way that the Fiji public service has operated.
It is extremely sad and undeniable that after the 2006 military coup and the Bainimarama Government, the old PSC mode of operation has been totally undermined.
While powers over civil servants have been supposedly devolved to permanent secretaries, in reality the devolution has been to the ministers who have been able to freely hire, fire, demote, promote and remunerate, largely as they wished.
1984 wage freeze
and consequences
Some of us older folk and academics (including the late Simione Durutalo) were well aware of the implications of Ratu Mara’s Alliance Government unilaterally imposing the wage freeze in 1984, breaking all tripartite agreements in force then thereby antagonizing workers and unions.
That draconian wage freeze, which was completely unfair to workers in many industries which were doing well at the time, led to the workers of Fiji rising in protest and eventually forming the Fiji Labour Party under the leadership of the same Chaudhry now in the news. That allowed the NFP/FLP Coalition to get enough urban indigenous Fijian votes to defeat the Alliance Party.
No doubt Mr Bainimarama knows the lesson the loss of the Alliance Party was remedied by the 1987 coup which removed the elected NFP/FLP Coalition bringing in a military government temporarily.
But hold on, which lesson would Mr Bainimarama remember the 1987 coup was led by one Sitiveni Rabuka? Mr Rabuka is not only the SODELPA leader, the largest Opposition party, but many former RFMF stalwarts are now also supporting some Opposition party or another.
While the situation seems extremely messy, almost certainly, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.
* The views expressed are the author’s and not of this newspaper.
