SAYING GOODBYE TO THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD

                       

A friend posted/shared this on Facebook the quote from the Honorable Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Albert F. Del Rosario, on the "great sacrifices" in joining the government service.

Not a few have served in the bureaucracy and left "to make a living".  I have great respect and admiration for the honesty of these few, to accept that the yellow brick road is nowhere in the government service (where there seems to be nothing but the howling dogs of politics.)

Would the venerable Albert del Rosario carry the Foreign Affairs portfolio if he was much younger and better off in business? 

I can't help but think of my own experiences in government service.

My first job was in the DPWH where unpleasant experiences abound because of principles. Sometimes I am "borrowed" by other Agencies to assist in special tasks that I was exposed to various bureaucratic idiosyncrasies.  

Disgusted, I left to join the rat race in the corporate arena in one of the top Philippine corporations and earn well enough as a middle management government worker.  While enjoying the city life of a yuppie, everything came sweetly and passed but was devoid of deeper meaning.

I was somewhat well off when I was in the private sector. Yes, I became "poor" after I was asked to join the government shortly after EDSA 1.  I was endorsed  (or was I forced?) to the bureaucracy to keep alive the spirit of militancy.

But I didn't mind as I was living a relatively comfortable life then as we had a small family business (which I have to divest after my parents died) and I have generous relatives anyway.

I was not in need as my pay envelope remains unopened until the next payday. Or was it because there was not much to expect?  Look, in the middle eighties, our company gives us P 130.00 per day as travel allowance, while TEV in the government was pegged at P 30.00 or something. Modesty aside, our basic pay then was higher than many bank workers. The Salary Standardization Law for government workers came much, much later.

So much has to be done in the government sector then (and even now), to modernize, rehabilitate its old image, and to conform the idealisms of post-EDSA I. But entrants from the private sector are met by hostilities by old-timers who refuse to modernize and adopt corporate efficiency.

Many old timers desperately cling on to cob-webbed practices and theories.  Reminds me of Peter Pan, the boy who refuses to grow up.

Even in correspondence, the stereotyped to the absurd abounds. Common were communications that always start with "I have the honor....", and the errant entry in disbursement vouchers "To payment for".   Shouldn't it be "In payment for" or "To pay for.."? 

Even the other acceptable letter forms were a no-no, like the hanging or block.  The indented is the sole acceptable form. 

I am not aware of any administrative law that curtails or supersedes the rules of English grammar or the need to modernize.  Global competitiveness was not earlier anticipated that we are lagging behind due to the late start.

The great difference I have noted between government and private service is that the former is closely hierarchal, that is, who is right is always the one on top and nobody dares to question.  Robotic if not idiotic civil service I should say.   In the latter, there is much consultation and new ideas are welcome from everyone.

Through the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in its thrust to professionalize the bureaucracy, and the efforts of organized Human Resource Management practitioners, we have seen great improvements in the past decades. 

Everyone wants to see meritocracy institutionalized and functioning, beyond Inaugural and State of the Nation Addresses,  and beyond Career Executive Service Board (CESBoard)  issuances. But to this day it remains not unlike the romantic blue moon.

The general lamentation is that in biblical times "even dogs have to eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table", but now even dogs may be appointed to key government positions, with not a few instances widely publicized in the mass media.

Having third-level eligibility is not a guarantee of promotion.  Never mind if (prior to the unified third level examination) the two-stage Career Executive Service Examination (CSEE) is one of the most difficult government examinations, with a passing rate of 4% when I took it, compared to the four (4) stage Career Executive Service Examination with a usual passing rate of 100%, so says former CSC Chair Carina Constantino David.

Security of tenure solely seems to be in those days the honey that attracts the "bees" to the government, never mind the call of public service.  Add to this the mass migration of teachers to non-teaching jobs in the civil service attendant to the waning budget for education.

 

The spirit of public service?  What is that? Is it still in vogue? No, Let Juan de la Cruz fend off for himself!

Of course, the Bureau of Customs and the Land Transportation Office, among others, are often viewed as a cake, icings and all, made as a reward to political supporters in any administration.  The "spoils system" is still very much alive in this contemporary or neo-feudal environment.

Both employments have their own tales of intrigues, and disgust, but there are fewer inept and sloppy people in the corporate world, that if government service is to be competitive in international relations the concept of meritocracy should be institutionalized in the recruitment and promotion process.

Merit and fitness should not be allowed to rot in senseless rhetorics and slogans.  The bureaucracy should be shielded from politics, for isn't it that the Civil Service Commission as the central personnel agency of the government was made a Constitutional body to be immune from legislative, executive and even judicial pressures?

The "Anti Padrino Law" conceived by Senator Merriam Defensor Santiago is laudable, provided all would abide.  The 8th Congress of the Philippines also came up with a House Resolution enjoining members of the House from interfering in the recruitment process in the bureaucracy which solons respected.

 

Many have eagerly joined the service to scavenge or plunder.   They think money is easy in some agencies, and like pirates, they swooped and kill.  Laughing money or crying money, it doesn't matter.  for this are mine, mine, and mine. Not far from many drivers who think driving is an absolute right and that recklessness is a way of life.

 

Little do these employees think that "Carmi Martin" or "Carmina Villaruel" as a gay proposed (Bad Karma, to be subtle about it) is swift to come.  Statistically,  diabetes is the number one gift that Ms. Carmi Martin bears.  How many have escaped administrative or criminal charges but have prematurely died of diabetes complications?   As Legal Officer and Resident Ombudsman for many years, I have come up with the numbers.  Yes, some have nursed lingering illnesses instead but lived miserable and shameful life.

Frustrating, irritating, and painful (the murder attempts, threats, and ridicule) it may have been but to be able to live a purpose-driven life has made me stay. Good men leaving the public service is nothing different from betraying the public trust.

Genuine commitment to public service and knowing that there are many in the bureaucracy who remain untainted by the system is the true reward that one can get.  The bureaucracy is not hopeless.   What is needed is the will, the leadership, and the opportunity to polarize the aspirations of good men.

We PITY, rather than envy those who have acquired great assets in just a few years in service for they have lost the respect of people, their dignity, and honor.  Much they have lost the moral right to live in a decent society.