Acknowledging achievements

---

Mahmudur Rahman
Every year a number of awards are announced. Some of these are at national level, some at ministerial level and again some at the private level. They usually aim at acknowledging achievements in various fields and sectors of society and pleasantly enough this has permeated even to scholarly achievements at schools. The private sector has come forward in a meaningful manner to do their bit in honouring unsung individuals who have made contributions without ever being asked to.
In certain areas, the government has also announced special awards such as those for the National Board of Revenue as a special incentive. But overall, government employees, under-paid as they are, are rarely recognised for going that extra step. This beggars the question, as to why not?
The large number of government employees across the country are often maligned for not doing their jobs properly and efficiently and it is almost a ritual that whenever a new government comes to power they call on the bureaucracy to "perform their responsibilities with sincerity and dedication". So does that indicate that without such a "call" they wouldn't? That is followed by the next question, "What if they do outperform?"
The stark difference in pay-scales of the public and private sector continues to grow glaringly apart. The Ershad government was the first to recognise that government employees too had to observe festivals and hence the introduction of festival bonus. It was a decision criticised by the private sector which was of the view that bonus accrues from profits.
Apart from the inflationary adjustments that are never made in tandem with the phenomenon, government employees do need the incentive to "out-perform". And the private sector will vouch for -- stretching objectives evaluated neutrally always separates the "on-target" performer from the "over-achiever". That's precisely why the private sector has special fiscal or other benefits to reward high performance. In this day and age it is high time government employees were given a similar system. Money-wise it is not as expensive as it may sound, especially if the targets -- such as coming 10% under-budget yet achieving their targets -- are sensible.
If the basic educational levels of entry-level personnel in public and private sectors are similar, why is it that there is such a difference in remuneration? No wonder, fewer of the bright-ones want to go into the public sector in the first place. The old adage goes "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". Without wanting to malign anyone let's take the essence. Unless bureaucracy is well remunerated the idea of curbing corruption and increasing efficiency can only be a pipe dream. (The writer is a former Head of Corporate & Regulatory Affairs of British American Tobacco, Bangladesh and former Chief Executive Officer of Bangladesh Cricket Board)