The Public Service Commission (PSC) resorted to paid advertisements, last week, to refute the allegations of racial imbalance and discrimination in the higher levels of the public service. The ad is mischievous and misleading. This expenditure could fund a study to determine why Indo-Trini public servants cannot seem to progress beyond a certain level in the service.
The PSC has gone on the defensive, instead of pro-actively confronting the distasteful reality that discrimination is occurring under its nose and watch. The dilemma, of course, is how does the PSC admit that it has been facilitating and supporting an entrenched bias without admitting failure and incompetence. I prefer to focus on the institutional failure and incompetence of the PSC, because I cannot believe that there was/is a racial conspiracy against Indian public servants which is part of the policy/agenda of the PSC.
Indeed, Indians Kenneth Lalla, SC, and Michael Mahabir were chairman and director, respectively, of the PSC when I started doing cases of discrimination, and they defended and perpetuated the status quo with equal zest and fervour. Thus, prison officer Dougnath Rajkumar was never promoted since he joined the service more than 30 years ago, despite the fact that he was appointed to act for over 14 years as a prisons officer II, and no staff reports had been prepared for over 15 years.
Bypassed for promotion
Similarly, the man who could have risen to be the first Indo-Trini Commissioner of Prisons, Khimraj Bissessar, was discriminated by being constantly bypassed for promotion in the senior levels of the prisons service under Lalla’s chairmanship. He was bypassed because the PSC unquestioningly rubber-stamped the recommendations of the Prisons Commissioner.
The then-director, Ms Jean Roseman, conceded in court that Bissessar was, in fact, treated unfairly, and this led to a landmark judgment in his favour.
Before going to court, both Rajkumar and Bissessar had written several letters complaining about the injustice inflicted upon them, and begged Lalla to intervene. Haridath Maharaj was bypassed for promotion to the office of Transport Commissioner in favour of Ruben Cato, despite the fact that he has been acting in that office for almost four years without complaint.
It is untrue to suggest that his qualification consists of only two O-Levels. Mr Maharaj, like so many other public officers, pursed numerous courses in the public service which were designed to qualify transport officers for promotion in that division. Mr Maharaj successfully completed numerous courses, and was elevated through the ranks until he became eligible for the post of Transport Commissioner.
Assuming that the PSC was correct about Maharaj’s lack of qualifications, however, it is a serious indictment on the commission that they would have appointed Maharaj to act as the nation’s Transport Commissioner for over three years (during which time he received excellent staff reports) in the first place. Is the PSC in the habit of appointing unqualified people to act in senior offices for such a prolonged period? And if Mr Cato was so better-qualified, why did the commission not appoint him to act, instead of Mr Maharaj, in the first place.
With respect to the PSC’s boast about Mr Cato’s degree, Mr Cato was allowed to pursue a three-year degree at the UWI as a full-time student despite the fact that he never obtained the necessary approval for study leave. He therefore continued to draw his salary as a public officer even though he was, in fact, pursuing his degree as a full-time student at the UWI. This is a violation of the Civil Service Regulations that ought to have led to disciplinary action. Mr Cato was instead rewarded with a promotion. Are Indian public officers (who complain about discrimination in the selective granting of study leave) equally entitled to pursue full-time degrees at the UWI without the approvals for study leave whilst they continue to receive their salary without threat of disciplinary action?
Publish statistics
With respect to the PSC’s claim that there is no discrimination against Indian officers rising to the senior levels in the public service, publish statistics regarding the ethnic composition of the hierarchy in the public service from the level of chief technical officer and head of department upwards, so that the population can judge for itself whether there is an ethnic imbalance.
And assuming that Maharaj was not suitably-qualified, I ask, what about the cases of Devant Maharaj, Feroza Ramjohn and Ganga-Persad Kissoon, where they were all recommended for higher office because they were the most qualified and experienced candidates and had, in fact, topped the relevant promotion interviews but were unceremoniously bypassed in favour of non-Indian public servants?
The PSC should take a leaf out of President Richards’ book (who immediately invited the Indo-Trinbago Equality Council (ITEC) to a meeting at his residence) and invited ITEC to meet to have constructive and meaningful dialogue instead of wasting public servants’ tax money on useless advertisements. This money could be better utilised to publish apologies at our long overdue meeting.
By Anand Ramlogan