With great power comes great scrutiny. State officials aren't above it
The public administration ministry's proposal to relax a rule that requires public servants to submit wealth statements every five years has caught our attention both for the audacity of the attempt and its potential to encourage corruption among the 14 lakh government employees. The ministry has instead suggested collecting such information from employees' annual tax returns to the National Board of Revenue (NBR). While the proposed move—included in the draft amendment to the Government Servant (Conduct) Rules, 1979—may seem to be streamlining the process of wealth monitoring, in reality, the removal of an additional layer of scrutiny could create scope for dishonest officials to engage in illicit activities with little fear of detection.
What's audacious about this attempt is that the five-year requirement, too, was an exercise in relaxation as public officials were previously mandated to submit wealth statements every year. But neither timeframe apparently sat well with officials, prompting the ministry to consider eliminating the necessity altogether. Why should the existence of a rule, no less one so essential for accountability in public service, be subject to the whims of non-compliant officials? We have seen similar instances where the interests of public service took a back seat to that of individual officials, notably when the administration included a provision in the Public Service Act to shield government employees from arrests on criminal charges by making it mandatory for police to take "prior permission"—a clause subsequently struck down by High Court as "illegal" and in contravention of the constitution.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
The draft service rules, far from turning away from that questionable legacy, seem to be extending it. As well as proposing the removal of the obligation to turn in financial reports, the ministry has kept unchanged a provision that says public servants or their family members "cannot acquire or transfer immovable property abroad without permission from the government." This indirectly implies that they may be permitted to acquire wealth and conduct business abroad, which they cannot while in government employ. All these, in the words of an expert, "may open the floodgates of illicit [wealth] transfers on the one hand, and encourage corruption on the other." Such concessions or privileges not just risk legitimising money laundering and illicit wealth accumulation, but also are discriminatory and unconstitutional in nature.
In light of these concerns, it is crucial that the higher authorities critically examine these provisions and others in the service rules for government employees before making a final decision. They must always uphold the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness in public service, and remove all problematic clauses that can enable corruption and malfeasance. As well as proper service rules, they must also ensure compliance. In the past, we have seen how public officials blatantly violated the rules, including by owning and running businesses on the side. This must not be tolerated.
Comments