SBPA : The Aftermath, Day 4
Sunggoh
lama aku tak masuk sini. Sebagai langkah mula untuk mengerapkan
kembali hubungan blog ini, aku kepilkan sebuah komen mengenai pembatalan
SPBA yang diumumkan pada hari batik terkini (8 Mac 2012). Sebenarnya
aku menganggap komen ini adalah responds tidak langsung atau responds
segera terhadap satu tulisan dari sebuah blog.
Sila
baca. Anda mungkin mengalami kesulitan untuk ke blog berkenaan kerana
malware issues. Tetapi cuba-cubalah sendiri kot kot boleh ke sana.
Don Usssooong Montenegrao
11.3.2012
Why the Malaysian public should be concerned with the cancellation of the New Civil Service Remuneration Scheme
by Ridzuan Kushairi on Saturday, 10 March 2012 at 18:08 ·
Don Harry's Lomography
Recently,
the Prime Minister of Malaysia, His Honourable Dato Sri Najib Tun
Razak, announced the cancellation of the New Civil Service Renumeration
Scheme (SBPA). This announcement came after lengthy negotiations that
came to a stalemate between the bureaucrats of the SBPA and the
bureaucrats that represent the Civil Service Union. This announcement
came with either feelings or elation or trepidation amongst the civil
service. Now that the announcement has been made, the feeling of shock
still reverberates across the service. I am a supporter of the SBPA for
the very fact that it will serve the public well through a holistic
remuneration policy. So this is a public sector issue, why should the
public be concerned? The next 3 paragraphs will be on the background of
the policy and discontenment.
When
the SBPA was initially announced, there were 2 areas of discontent -
the Exit Policy and the Salary scale. I searched quite a bit online to
understand the source of the discontentment. And my search found the 2
topics too.
The
Exit Policy is one of the clauses under the SBPA that deals with
ineffective civil servants who have performed badly , civil service
posts that are redundant, "sleeping" civil servants, and at the same
time invigorate the civil service by allowing them to opt for different
schemes under the civil service without loss of pensions or affecting
their seniority. There are around 25-27 schemes of service under the
public sector. The different schemes represents separation of duties and
responsibilities in the public sector. Some civil servants have seen
this as effort as an avenue for a blakcmail opportunity, where superiors
can use this as a trigger mechanisim to create fear in their
subordinates. (note: the firing of civil servants under the SBPA takes 3
years and through many committees represented by independent panel and
the civil service Union. Under the old scheme, the only way a civil
servant can be fired is if they are found guilty of an offence in the
courts of law. In some small offences, even when found guilty in the
courts of law, they can still serve the government if the court serves
them a low jail sentence or suspended sentence).
Of
the 2 discontentment, the biggest argument is the salary scale. The
salary scale is in the "Lampiran C". We can call the document a photo of
what civil servants make from top to bottom. I have not seen the scale,
but apparently the upper crust of the civil service will be getting a
huge chunk of money. Now this is where its interesting. When we talk
about the upper crust, the picture is of management. Malaysia's civil
service is enshrined under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution. What
it basically means is that every civil servant in Malaysia is a
bureaucrat. Unlike other countries, only their decision makers are
bureaucrats. So when every civil servant in Malaysia is a bureaucrat,
those who fulfil the criteria of upper management would benefit from
this huge chunk of cheese, and not only the traditional managers, the
PTD. The discontentment occurs when some find that their salary is
readjusted downward, slightly upward and no adjustments. I dont know why
this happens but one thing is for sure, but for me this is a non issue
for 4 reasons. Firstly, the SBPA bureaucrats have given assurances that
this would be negotiated within the next 1-2 years, by which all
salaries would already seen 1-2 increments. This would be done through
studies, observations and negotiations. Secondly, the readjusted
salaries would be backdated to when the policy is enforced. Thirdly, the
downward adjustment, will not break out of the market rate. and
Fourthly, they are not compelled to accept SBPA, and have the option of
rejecting the downgraded salary.
I
dont know the intrincacies of the implementation as im far away. But im
made to understand that those that make the premier grade would have to
resign, then re-assigned as contract managers in the upper crust. What
is clear is that if this is true, then this will involve civil servants
who deal with public administration like managing public money, managing
publis sector human resource, managing public land etc. What isnt clear
to me is that will this effort also affect other services in the upper
crust? To make it simple, most ministries have basically 2 services -
the ones that deals with the core of the Ministry, while the other deals
with Public Administration. For example, Ministry of Education has a
Director General who deals with education related matters like
curriculum and schools, and a Secretary General that deals with Public
Administration like finances, human resources. Again the purpose of this
difference is the concept of focus of duties and responsibilities. But
this is also covered unde the SBPA by allowing cross service option.
What is clear is that the Sec-Gen would have to resign from the service
and then be re-appointed as Contract Managers. What isnt clear to me is
will the Dir-Gen also resign and then be re-appointed? This concept
applies to all other services that has a Dir-Gen. Could this be a factor
of the cancellation of the SBPA?
So
that is the background of the SBPA and their issues. In all, there is
no logical or applicable reason for the discontentment. As any
discontentment has been covered under the SBPA policy, through studies
and negotiations, and the option of not accepting the SBPA offer. The
next few paragraphs will discuss why the public of Malaysia should be
concerned.
The
public should be very concerned with this issue for the fact that civil
servants are representative of every layer of society. Yes, so do
politicians, but im not talking about politicians. Basically the civil
service cannot move without any provision of the law and civil service
principles. If the move outside the provision of law and principles,
they can be reprimanded in the courts of law or by central bodies.
The
public might not see it, but some civil servants are prominent figures
in society. There are civil servants, whether they are PTDs, teachers,
lecturers, police, army, engineers etc, who become Ketua Kampung, Ketua
Masjid, heads of PTAs, heads of social organisation, heads of sports
organisation etc. Look into any social or formal organisation around
you, and you will find a civil servant being a prominent figure. This is
by virtue of their standing in society, very much a social interaction
and leadership trait following.
Now
why is this perspective important? Now as ive said over and over again.
I cannot find any logical reasons for the rejection of the SBPA. Where i
cannot find, i cannot read and i cannot understand. I have not found
any logical basis of the discontentment. I have to repeat this again and
again. So when the civil service rejects the SBPA, this reflects the
environment that they operate under. It is human nature to voice
opinions by their environment. Its a getting emotional support thing.
The
basis of discontentment is covered under SBPA. This is a very important
point. So if the basis of discontenment is covered under SBPA, then why
are people rejecting this? Three possible and real logical reason is
that:
i) Civil servants dont read/ refuse to read/lazy to read the circulars, policy etc; and
ii)
Civil servants read but cannot/ do not want to/refuse/lazy to
understand the policy. (note: the SBPA is in BM and not some wierd
Vulcan language)
iii)
Civil servants based their opinion on opinions of their environment, ie
political influence or bias or personal weakness, and not based on
facts. Opinions are important but opinions with no factual basis is not.
If you are not a civil servant, go ask your civil servant friends or family 2+1 questions.
i) Have they read the policy? (if yes, go to Q.2, and if no, why not?)
ii) Do they understand the policy? (if they understand) What is the policy about? (if they dont understand) Why not?
Most
probably you will get answers of lazy, its not my job scope, its
complicated (im sure we have some Vulcans in our civil service who write
Vulcan policies), i dont know..
So why should this concern the public..The impact of the 3 possible reasons is this...Think about it...If
your civil servants dont read these circulars that affects them
professionally, then how do you expect the civil servants to read other
national policies that affects or dont affect their job scope? And if
these national policies are not read, then how do you expect the public
to benefit from the potential implementation of these national policies?
Now
the most worrying part is that these civil servants are trained, they
have to sit for assessments and they are evaluated in their jobs. If
they are trained and knowledgeable, then how come they dont understand
the SBPA?
The
possible reason is that they answer assessments based on experience
rather than written policies, or basically they are lazy to understand.
Following experiences is not wrong, but again are these experiences based on the policies, and procedures?
Now
you have possibly a bunch of lazy civil servants running the country,
not knowing national policies within their job scope and outside their
job scope. So how does the public expect national policies to be
implemented, supported and relayed the right information to the public?
And
the worst part of this is that, you have a bunch of civil servants
running the country based on perception of their environment rather than
the constitution and the rule of law. This is a dangerous move, as any
actions by the public sector based on perception is based on a very high
notion of bias. This could be a probable reason why laws and policies
are inconsistently applied across the country. Of course, following the
law will not eliminate bias as we are not all born as prophets, but the
law reduces the opportunities of bias based on human weakness.
So
if you want to see where your country is heading, look at the civil
servants in society. Go out and have a look at your civil servant. If
you observe civil servants as progressive, rational people, then the
country would be heading in a progressive and rational way. But if you
observe civil servants as lazy and not reading circulars, then you will
get the same problem of implementation under any situation over time.
This is a product of your environment
Don Harry,
The Mafia Warlord and Despot of the Civil Service...
http://usssooong.blogspot.com
Comments
Post a Comment