[ad_1]
Public scrutiny of civil servants is one of the exciting innovations introduced by the 2010 Constitution. The examination was not only aimed at obtaining the most appropriate choice for civil servants, but also to emphasize that civil servants are civil servants.
The latter were therefore eligible to participate in the evaluation, both in person and through their elected representatives. At the technical level, the audit was to measure at least three “conformance” tests.
First, the candidate’s compliance with the integrity requirements set forth in the Constitution and applicable law. To facilitate the measurement of this aspect, members of the public were permitted to provide adverse information to the review board so that the applicant or nominee could be held accountable. Second, it was intended to assess the applicant’s intellectual rigor. Measures included both academic and professional qualifications and evidence of competence demonstrated by previous achievements and candidate diversity during interviews.
Finally, the interview was to test suitability for responsibility in question. Twelve years after the new mediation, evaluating her vetting process on these three parameters revealed varying levels of success. For completeness assessment, I believe this train has left the station for a long time. During the first few years of judging, the public was actively sending adverse information so that it could be used to challenge the decency of the candidates. The interview panel was very adamant about clarifying questionable issues of integrity. Investigations at that level have since been left solely to the review of a judge who, due to questionable integrity, has lost his appointment or promotion. Indeed, some have lost their jobs because of their verifiable integrity claims.
As for other positions, this is currently just a formality rather than an accomplishment. Whether the question is mundane or substantive, the answer is nonchalant. We all know they don’t take Chapter 6 compliance seriously.
For example, interestingly, people were asked about their wealth, which was understandably substantial, but among civil servants whose wealth increased exponentially between this survey and the previous survey. Even, there were no serious questions about the source of wealth. The public has also given up on raising issues unless they are “sponsored”. However, I believe there are still positives to this aspect of the question. I know some people
With regard to intellectual rigor, review boards tend to overestimate academic qualifications as indicators of intellectual ability or undermine educational qualifications as tests of intellectual ability.
Panels either treat degrees as the ultimate proof of intellectual talent, or dismiss educational accreditation as if it doesn’t matter if you went to school or not. The answer is somewhere in the middle.
Not only is formal education a good measure of intellectual ability, but school expands one’s worldview and is also a good measure of personal discipline. They are essential starting points. As for suitability, the review board seems unprepared and unsure of what they are looking for. I was amused by how the Chief Cabinet Secretary was interviewed on this question.
The interviewers asked tough questions about people’s upcoming minutes, but seemed oblivious to the issues they were raising. Some follow up questions were pathetic. It would be good for our legislators to oversee the review of cabinet ministers in the United States, a similar presidential system. No candidate dares to give a flippant answer, as we witnessed in
That said, the judging process provides great infotainment in an otherwise boring news cycle.
We can see leaders bewildered or hesitant with perplexing and sometimes vexing questions. But judges are more than ever convinced that the processes designed and implemented are no longer fit for purpose unless reformed.
[ad_2]
Source link