The very term ‘public servant’ implies that State officials of whatever rank and capacity have to serve the public, not necessarily the Government or politicians. It is the long-term interests of the public that they pledge to uphold, not the short-term power plays of politicians. There was a time when public servants were zealously and fiercely independent and impartial, though the creeping politicization of the public service had dented this over the years.
Many Presidents, Prime Ministers and Governments have paid lip service regarding the independence of the public service, only to use it later to fulfil their political ends. But President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the first former military officer and civil servant (the military is also a public service) to become the President of the Republic, knows how crucial it is to maintain the independence, impartiality and integrity of the public service. If he did not have a free hand as Defence and Urban Development Secretary, the war could perhaps be still going on and Colombo could still be a stinking city. He was able to take effective and swift decisions because the political powers that be gave him the freedom and support to work without fear or favour.
Hence, he made it clear on several occasions that he wants to ensure an independent, impartial and corruption-free public service that would not bow down to the unjust demands of anyone regardless of rank, stature or political affiliation. He pledged that he and the Government would protect all public servants who take correct and bold decisions for the benefit of the public. He also pledged to appoint persons with subject knowledge and suitable qualifications to discharge their responsibilities to govern State institutions efficiently and profitably. However, given the past record of Sri Lankan leaders vis-à-vis the public service, one could be forgiven for not giving much thought to these sentiments. In fact, many Opposition politicians challenged the President to ‘walk the talk’ on the public service, saying these pledges were mere rhetoric.
All these apprehensions have been effaced with the Government’s unambiguous and swift response to the episode involving District Forest Officer Devani Jayathilake and State Minister of Inland Fisheries Industry Sanath Nishantha Perera, where Devani vehemently opposed a plan by the latter to clear a part of the Kadolkele mangrove conservation area in Negombo to construct a playground apparently for the children of fisherfolk. Devani explained lucidly how this could destroy entire ecosystems at a time when the Government is striving to increase the forest cover.
With the electronic media giving wide coverage to the exchange of words between the intrepid young Forest Officer and the State Minister, an entire nation awaited with bated breath the possible response of the Government. The question on everyone’s mind was, will the Government, as the President himself has promised, stand by the courageous Forest Officer or side with the Government politician? One need not have worried on this score, since the first response came from the Wildlife Minister S.M. Chandrasena himself, who unequivocally said the woman Forest Officer was 100 percent correct and that the State Minister had no knowledge of the law.
Not much later, Cabinet Spokesman Minister Bandula Gunawardena said President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the entire Government stood for the brave District Forest Officer. This is a vindication of the President’s commitment to protect the public service and public servants who do the correct thing. The entire nation will no doubt be grateful to the Government for this stance. Devani’s courage and fortitude, as well as the Government’s commendable response, will no doubt inspire a new generation of public servants to act according to their conscience and conviction, and not according to the whims and fancies of politicians. This episode may well mark a turning point for the public service, for all Sri Lankans now know that there are forthright and honest public servants who are not afraid to make their voice heard, even in the presence of powerful Government politicians.
But this episode does not end there. Holding a separate news conference later, the State Minister concerned has said that Rs.300 million has already been spent on this project, out of a proposed Rs.1 billion. The authorities must investigate this claim and check whether any harm has already been caused to the delicate mangrove ecosystem in the area in the name of development. Being a grassroots politician, one can understand the State Minister’s concern for the welfare of his core constituency (fisher folk, in this instance), but he should realise by now the dangers of destroying a pristine environment for a project that can most probably be built elsewhere without causing much environmental damage. He should now educate his supporters and the area’s fisher community accordingly.
This also brings us to the vexed battle between the environment and development. The latter is no doubt essential for a country such as Sri Lanka and some damage to the environment is inevitable in most development projects. This is why an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is now mandatory for all development projects (the Government should probe whether an EIA has been done for the Kadolkele project). In any case, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has given clear instructions that the environment must be safeguarded when embarking on any development project. If the harm caused to the environment exceeds any perceived benefit of a development project, it should be stopped forthwith. Sri Lanka is a biological hotspot with one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world and we must strive to keep it that way.