In a Ministry such as the Ministry of Public Administration in particular, it is very necessary to hold the scales absolutely evenly. The Secretary is the head of several services and he must forget the fact that he himself came from one of those particular services. There has to be justice and equity involved in approaching and deciding on inter-service problems and issues. Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly appear to be done.

Once again we come back to the old issue of credibility. This is not always an easy matter. Even if one possesses strong values in regard to fair play, problems come in various permutations and combinations. Some are what may be called in tennis parlance “line calls.” Issues are so finely balanced that one could decide them either way. My own belief was that even in such circumstances, the deciding or clinching consideration should not be merely that your own service was one of the parties. In such a situation one had to look further and consider what the best solution would be for the public service in general.

If happily, this coincided with the interests of one’s own service, it was perfect. If it didn’t, one had to banish any thoughts about one’s service. There were a few occasions, happily not many, where I had to dismiss powerful representations made to me on behalf of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service and hold for other services such as the Engineering Service. In some such instances, I could see the expressions on the faces of some change as if they were looking at some apostate.

On one occasion when my friends and colleagues were becoming increasingly adamant I was constrained to state that I was the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, and not Secretary to a Ministry of the Administrative Service. It was difficult. But it had to be done. These after all were not private matters. I have always been of the view that a country cannot proceed on a basis other than of justice, equity and awarding the right place to the right person or organization. One did not have the right to make convenient personal adjustments on public issues.

The bifurcation of the Ministry

On August 24, the Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils and Home Affairs was bifurcated into two separate Ministries. It was a political decision by the President who had decided to give the MP for Wattala, Mr. John Amaratunge, a Cabinet portfolio. My friend and colleague Mr. Austin Fernando, who served with me earlier as my Commissioner of Co-operative Development and Registrar of Co-operative Societies was appointed as Secretary to the new Ministry of Provincial Councils and Home Affairs. I remained in what was now a new Ministry of Public Administration.

Just as in personal life, separation and divorce in institutions led to disputes. As in the case of personal life disputes mainly revolve around the division of property and money. It is amazing what happens when the same space as well as other resources comfortably enjoyed by one have to be shared by two. All the human tendencies towards the jealousy of possessions come to the fore. Fortunately, Austin and I had worked together and enjoyed considerable understanding and rapport. Even then it was difficult to effect the division of space and resources that was now called for.

The natural tendency towards resistance to change was bad enough. But parting with favourite rooms, comfortable cubicles, attractive equipment, familiar floors and much loved vehicles, were a huge problem. The incumbent Minister and Deputy Ministers did not like it either. The Secretary therefore had to engage himself in a major negotiation with both parties, political as well as official. Eventually, after much effort, frayed tempers, and on the part of some. sullen acquiescence, the deed was done, and the new Minister and his staff moved in. Fortunately, human beings are also quickly adaptable. Once the trauma is over, they put down roots in the new conditions, as happened in this case.

Meeting with Chief Minister Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

By this time Mrs. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga had been elected as the Chief Minister of the Western Province, and occupied the old Home Ministry building, within a short distance of the Ministry of Public Administration. One day one of her officers telephoned me and said that she desired an appointment to see me to discuss a few official matters. By this time I had known the family for quite sometime, although I knew her perhaps the least, because she was out of the country, pursuing her education.

I informed the officer that she needn’t trouble herself to come to the Ministry, and that I will walk across to her office. A date and time were fixed, and I sauntered across. Given the intense and even narrow nature of our politics, even such a gesture could have been misinterpreted. I was aware that someone could have raised the question, “You don’t go to see other Chief Ministers, why did you go to see this one?” Fortunately, the Minister was a decent person and I had a long and well established track record of never being involved in any politics at all.

Apart from all these, my nature is to always relate to people as persons and not to a collection of designations or any perception of their importance. For instance, I am much closer to some of my very loyal former drivers and office aides or peons than to many persons of public importance I had dealt with, including political figures. In the case of Mrs. Kumaratunga, I had known her as well as the family, and worked under her mother, and that was good enough a reason to extend this courtesy to her.

She had gone out of Colombo and was almost one and a half hours late for the appointment. She apologized profusely for having kept me waiting when she came. We had a pleasant conversation, after a long time. Little would anyone have even dreamed that within a few short months she would be Prime Minister, and then President of Sri Lanka.

Deployment of officers

One of the issues that concerned and even worried me was the question of the deployment of officers in major services such as the Administrative Service. It was not possible to meet everybody or to get to know everybody. As mentioned earlier, there was no proper data base either. Officers used to suddenly turn up before me after finishing a scholarship or a period of overseas training, because they were supposed to report to the Secretary, Public Administration. The question of posting them then came up.

Here, two issues caused me concern. One was to find an appropriate position where the officer’s training could be used, or at the least prevent his deployment into an area totally incompatible with his training. This was not easy, because most of the time appropriate slots were already filled, and the correct placement of one would involve the shifting of several. The other matter that worried me, was the fact that some of these officers were manifestly very bright, but little known. How does one design a career path for them?

This too was tied up with several other factors including Ministerial preference. I thought that at least starting from the senior level of Additional Secretaries, even through a process of trial and error, something ought to be done to look at all the available talent before making an appointment instead of going on the principle of proximity and the accident of availability, as seemed to have been the method followed in many instances. As I had stated on an earlier occasion some appointments were even made on the principle of antiquity and propinquity. I was aware, from my reading and various discussions that I have had, that many countries had some kind of system by which senior officials were identified for promotion. Britain for instance. had a system where the Secretary of the Cabinet chaired a small committee of senior Permanent Secretaries which met and considered a list of senior officials for promotion to the Permanent Secretaries grade.

The Committee’s recommendations were submitted to the Prime Minister, and it was the practice, other than in very exceptional circumstances, for the Prime Minister to approve these recommendations. I was keen to establish a process whereby all relevant senior officers could be considered for promotion, rather than the hit or miss system which prevailed. I therefore telephoned the Secretary to the President, and discussed this matter. I suggested a committee headed by him. He however did not think it would work for a number of reasons. I thought the attempt should be made. Matters were at that when other events overtook all this.

Administrative Reform

The issue of Administrative Reform was a much discussed matter. There was a Public Service Restructuring Unit situated in the Ministry of Policy Planning, which eventually came over to us. Lending Agencies such as the World Bank were also pushing reforms. There was no doubt that reform was necessary. This would have to pertain to a number of areas. I have already referred to the absence of a proper data base or an organized system of promotion. Some of these things tended to create considerable frustration in the public service.

To the extent matters were not institutionalized, there existed significant scope for political interference and arbitrary action, sometimes on the part of officials themselves. I was of the view that tinkering with reforms was not going to be effective. It was true that individual initiatives and single actions could lead to certain. improvements. It was important that these be effected. But the problems were much larger. The public service was getting less and less attractive as a career for bright young people.

Therefore, the whole question of the quality of recruitment, which in turn was linked with the package of remuneration as well as future prospects had to be addressed; better deployment and the reduction of over staffing had to be tackled; greater transparency in appointments and promotions instituted; issues of training and specialization as well as the acquisition of relevant multi-skills determined.

All these would have then led onto the restructuring of Ministries, the determination of their subjects and functions according to some logic, the constitution and role of the Public Service Commission and a number of other matters. It was a major task which a Ministry immersed in day to day problems and issues would have had little time to systematically handle. Therefore, a reform mechanism had to be conceived.

In the meantime many foreign teams came to visit us periodically to discuss administrative reforms. Delegations from the IMF and the World Bank tended to view most issues from a macro-economic angle. During my discussions I found that their approach to reform constituted an integral part of reducing the budget deficit. The prescription was simple. It was important to get the budget into alignment. The public service was over-manned. Therefore, reduce numbers in the service and release resources. Have a much smaller public service, paid very much better than they were paid currently.

Not that there weren’t elements of truth in this argument. But the whole approach smacked of administrative reforms being a minor by-product of overall macroeconomic reforms. There were many who were put off by this approach. They thought it was too simplistic. They felt that the major interest of these agencies were to reduce the size of the public service with some sops thrown in by way of some incentives.

This in turn led to a loss of credibility and a resistance to these views by a significant number who were of the view that this whole issue was important enough to be addressed quite distinctly and separately. I had begun discussions with several important Secretaries on finding a way of reconciling these differences and setting up an effective mechanism for administrative reforms when other issues intervened.

(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, autobiography of MDD Peiris)