Parliamentary sessions are often defined by the significance of the deliberations that take place within them. In this regard, the recent proceedings of the National Assembly (NA) will be particularly noted for the expressions of dissatisfaction voiced by several Members of Parliament concerning the Action Taken Report (ATR) submitted by the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC).
The dissatisfaction centered on the RCSC’s response to the NA’s earlier recommendations, specifically the proposal to discontinue the practice of forced ranking—particularly the use of the “Partially Meeting Expectations” (PME) category in performance evaluations. Members asserted that the ATR did not adequately address or reflect the intent of the recommendations put forth by the Assembly.
Both the NA and the RCSC have articulated their respective rationales for the actions undertaken, citing relevant provisions of the Constitution in support of their positions. As is appropriate, reference to the Constitution is necessary, given that all institutions and individuals are bound to uphold and act in accordance with its provisions in the execution of their duties.
Meanwhile, a broader issue has emerged and the question is whether the constitutional provisions being invoked are clearly and uniformly understood by all stakeholders. The ultimate say is with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
However, a critical question that merits closer examination is whether institutions should rigidly adhere to their mandates without periodically reviewing, refining, or amending rules, regulations, and legislation that may no longer serve their intended purpose or are proving counterproductive in practice.
In a dynamic and evolving legal and governance environment, the relevance and effectiveness of legal instruments must be continuously assessed. The purpose of any legislative or regulatory framework is not merely to enforce compliance, but to ensure that the underlying objectives of justice, efficiency, equity, and public welfare are effectively realized.
It is for this reason that Acts of Parliament and subordinate legislation are subject to amendment—sometimes at regular intervals. Such amendments are not indicative of institutional instability or inconsistency, but rather reflect a responsive and adaptive legal system. Amendments allow the law to evolve in line with emerging needs, societal developments, and practical challenges encountered during implementation.
Therefore, the reluctance or failure to revisit outdated or not constructive provisions in the name of institutional mandate preservation may, in fact, hinder progress and undermine the spirit of good governance. Institutions must strike a balance between upholding their constitutional mandates and exercising the legal and moral responsibility to refine the legislative frameworks they operate within, in the interest of public service and national development.
While every citizen plays a vital role in the progress of the nation, civil servants form the bedrock of the State’s administrative and institutional framework. Civil servants carry out the day-to-day functions that sustain governance, ensure service delivery, and uphold the rule of law.
Unlike elected officials, whose tenures are limited to defined terms, civil servants serve the State over extended periods—often for several decades. Their continuity, institutional memory, and technical expertise are essential for maintaining stability, consistency, and efficiency within the public sector.
Given the critical role they play, it is imperative that public policies concerning the civil service are designed to enhance, not impair, their motivation, morale, and professional performance. If existing policies are found to be counterproductive, demotivating, or detrimental to the effective functioning of civil servants, such policies must be reconsidered, reformed, or repealed in a timely manner.
