English | Dzongkha Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Favouritism tops corruption list in civil service

Sonam Penjor, Thimphu
May 25, 2016

Favouritism tops corruption list in civil serviceA research report, launched in Thimphu today, says favouritism in human resource management is the most prevalent form of corruption in civil service.

There are over 26,000 civil servants in the country.

“I think we all know why this particular factor comes in. It is because of the nature of our culture,” said the Anti-Corruption Commission’s Chairperson, Kinley Yangzom.

She said the research also debunked the common belief that bribery; one of the most alleged corruption complaints ACC receives, tops the list of corruptions in civil service.

“It was found rather untrue,” said the Chairperson.

The Royal Civil Service Commission’s Chairperson, Dasho Karma Tshiteem said they have realised people, in many cases, fall in foul of system because system has been designed poorly.

“In the research conducted by ACC, I see ways to deal with the problems by making changes in the system, thus reducing at least corrupt practices due to the design of the system.”

The Anti-Corruption Commission, Royal Institute of Management, Royal University of Bhutan and Audencia School of Management in France conducted the collaborative research.

They began conducting the research since April, last year.

The findings also say favouritism has an adverse effect on meritocracy and performance.

The research recommends developing policy for effective communication and coordination among the agencies, strict implementation of conflict of interests, and improving enforcement of Bhutan Civil Service Rules and Regulations.




2 Comments for “Favouritism tops corruption list in civil service”

  1. Dhom bow

    Congratulation to ACC & RCSC for the authenticated research.

  2. DHUR Pema

    This is 100 percent true research result. I have been in the civil service for the last 20 years and its system never improved especially when it came to appointments of officer in charges, the heads of divisions and field offices. In my research which of course will never be published, the heads of the agencies and the Departments tend to appoint candidates of their own choices without considering others who are either seniors or more qualified. Many a times seniors don’t even get chance to compete their juniors forget the appointment.

    Another result of my study in just one department I found that seniors did not like to go to field offices and they made sure they had something to do in Thimphu. The department who has no choice than appointing the junior officers to head field offices then resort to appointing their own candidates who actually please them forgetting the ones who do better jobs but are not connected them. There were cases (from my research) in the field offices where ineligible candidates (who will never cross SS1 (newest system) or P2) were heading the office while eligible candidates serve under them and there were field in charges who can never enter executive side of the career.

    Having said this and that, Human Resource Auditing the big topic of our civil service must be strictly implemented and right people out in right places even if it meant just officiating.

    My recommendation is that choice of people for field offices or division/sectoral heads must be based on the eligibility criteria which is already in place but not implemented. The career ladder which is very clear must be used to appoint the heads or the interim heads of offices (otherwise how can a person whose promotion would stop some where down the line prematurely because of qualification or cadre, head office full of other eligible cabdidates who can reach the peak).

    Another problem was with the so called “vested rights” which has beguiled the civil service. It is time that the vested rights are lifted because it is now 10 years since this was implemented and they have enjoyed enough and also many myst have resigned by now. Also, when vested rights were applied people in position were given benefits although they did not qualify. But those in position were appointed by the heads of the agencies or the departments and those who licked their boss’ feet got while others who remained straight forward people of their level did not. Those who did not go near their bosses never got an opportunity to prove their worth. Here, the so called favouritism which this report is talking worked for the boot lickers. Even today there are officials holding positions based on vested rights although civil service rules say that without qualification or passing civil service exams they can never go up after reaching the level set by BCSR 2012. I think it is time vested rights are revoked because many of them (my samples) who enjoyed vested rights also cleared the civil service exams and it is no more useful. Those who (very few now) are hanging on it must have already rechead that level from where they cannot move further, so no more hassles.

    By the way I m an independent researcher who is no more with civil service but is very fresh…

Leave a Reply to DHUR Pema


9 + = eleven

Copyright © 2018 BBSC.