Civil Service System in Thailand 129
only at level 1 of such model. Very few of the training programs conduct the pre-post assessment on knowledge and skills of the trainees, not to mention reaching the desired level 3 evaluation, which is considered the key to maximizing training effectiveness (Kirkpatrick 2007). Going beyond reaction evaluation, therefore, will be necessary for the civil service, as the government and taxpayers may demand an explanation on what is the return on investment from the training programs.
Regarding the preparation of leaders in the civil service, the OCSC has launched the High Performance and Potential System (HiPPS) since 2003. HiPPS was designed, under an integrated development approach, to systematically prepare high-potential officials to be ready for critical roles in senior management and specialist positions. Young talented officials who pass the intensive selection process will be prepared with a career plan against a benchmark position. In order to reach such a position, the official needs to rotate between targeted divisions in order to gain the required skills and knowledge. Although HiPPS has progressed impressively over its 6-year journey (i.e., the joining departments increased from 4 to 80 between 2003 and 2009), the size of HiPPS is still relatively small. Participating departments account for about half of all departments, and officials under this system number only about 230, more than 20 times below the target of approximately 5000 officials (OCSC 2009d).
6.6 Discipline and Merit Protection
6.6.1 Main Feature
The disciplinary system of the civil service is described by Chapter 6 of the 2008 Civil Service Act, “Discipline and Maintenance of Discipline”. In particular, the act groups the “Do” and “Don’t” behaviors for officials under section 82 and 83, shown in Appendix 2. This is an improvement over the previous act as disciplinary criteria were spread over several sections, making it difficult to understand (Pantumkomol 2007). For the most part, these are quite similar to what might be found in other merit-based systems.
It should be noted that section 83(8), which prohibits sexual violation or harassment, is a new item in the Civil Service Act. This shows how the social and democratic environment has influenced the trends of the civil service management. It is also interesting to point out that paragraph two of section 80 requires that officials carrying out their functions overseas must uphold the discipline of the civil service as well.14 This requirement reflects the CSC’s intention to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of the Thai civil service in the global community.
In cases of an allegation or a case of suspicion on a breach of discipline against a civil servant, the supervising official authorized to make an instatement order under section 57 (usually director general and above) will take preliminary consideration and decide whether the case has reasonable grounds. If the supervising official believes that such grounds exist, he/she may take the following actions: (1) if the case is a non-gross breach of discipline, the supervising official can order punishment as deemed administratively appropriate, which includes a written reprimand, deduction of salary, or reduction in salary; (2) if the preliminary consideration finds the case is a gross breach of discipline, a commission of inquiry will be appointed for further investigation. The mode of disciplinary action for a gross breach of discipline is dismissal and expulsion depending on the severity of the case.
14Such a paragraph reads “A civil servant performing official functions in a foreign country, in addition to maintaining discipline as provided in this Chapter, must also maintain discipline by carrying out acts and refraining from acts as prescribed by CSC Regulation.”
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
130 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
On the positive side, there have been several developments to improve the civil service’s culture and values. Owing to the growing democratic sentiment and globalization tide, especially in the 1990s, the public is increasingly demanding a change in the civil service’s working modality to become more transparent, accountable, responsive, and clean (Mutebi and Piyawat, 2007; OCSC 1999). On May 11, 1999, the cabinet approved the “creative values of public officials.” Such values are (1) adherence and relentless insistence on taking the correct action, (2) honesty and responsibility, (3) transparent and accountable performance of duties, (4) performance of duties without any unfair discrimination, and (5) result-based determination. To further strengthen the civil service’s ethics, these five values are under section 78 of the current Civil Service Act. In addition, paragraph two of this section allows government agencies to develop ethical rules in accordance with their technical principles and professional ethics.15 The act also aims to put the ethics into practice by requiring under section 79 of the act that the supervisor should warn those who do not comply with the ethics and use ethical matters as part of appointment, salary increase, and development considerations.
The OCSC also established the Ethics Promotion and Information Center in 1999. The center is expected to play an effective role in increasing the awareness of both officials and the general public for good governance and transparency in the civil service, and to promote the high moral and ethical standards that are crucial for positive development of the country (OCSC 2001). Moreover, the “Following in the Royal Footsteps Project” has been carried out to instill officials with a strong moral consciousness of devotion to the people and the nation as the examples set by His Majesty the King (OCSC 2004).
In addition to the disciplinary process, the new Civil Service Act has created the Merit System Protection Commission (MSPC). The MSPC is composed of seven commissioners selected by the Selection Committee comprising the president of the Supreme Administrative Court as chairman, a vice-president of the Supreme Court designated by the president of the Supreme Court, a qualified CSC commissioner elected by the CSC, and the secretary-general of the CSC shall be a member and secretary. The MSPC has its main responsibility in (1) protecting the merit system by advising and preventing government agencies from issuing or regulating unmerited rules and regulations, (2) considering appeals, and (3) considering complaints. There are three key benefits in setting up the MSPC. The first strength of the MSPC is its status and professionalism. That is, the MSPC is the semi-court institution that is not under the executive arm and the qualifications required for commissioners are very high.
Second, the MSPC will help improve efficiency in considering appeals. That is, the act requires the time for the appeal process does not exceed 120 days, with two 60-day additional consideration periods. In addition, the appeals consideration of the MSPC is final. If the appellant disagrees with the ruling, he/she should file a plaint to the Supreme Administrative Court. This process is different from the appeal process under the previous Civil Service Act where the appeal consideration by the CSC was submitted for the prime minister’s consideration.
The third benefit of the MSPC is to ensure non-political involvement in conflict management within the civil service. While section 123 of the act states that a complaint on a matter caused by the official’s supervisor must be lodged with the respective higher level supervising official, paragraph 2 of such a section makes the official file a complaint directly to the MSPC for matters caused by department head who reports to the prime minister, minister, or permanent secretary.
15Paragraph two of section 78 reads “A government agency shall prescribe rules on ethics of officials in accordance with the work descriptions in such government agency pursuant to technical principles and professional ethics.”
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC