• 
• 

Published on March 6, 2008

In the United States, it is normal practice for the new president to install his own team to replace that of his predecessor, and there is no resistance from the civil servants who are removed, Samak said.

"So what's wrong if this elected government wants to make changes in the administration?" he asked.

After only a few weeks in office, Samak's government has made several changes in key positions at the Ministry of Justice, the Public Health Ministry, the Prime Minister's Office and in the Police. There have been unclear reasons given for each change.

The rumour mill has produced speculation that the next reshuffle will take place in the Foreign Ministry, where many diplomats and senior officials were said to be slated for removal as they failed to provide good service to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was in self-imposed exile for the past year and a half.

In theory, the elected government, which received its full mandate from the election, has complete authority to make changes in the civil service administration - in order to carry out its policies and directives as promised during the election campaign. Officials in the bureaucracy who resist the government's policies or go against its directives are deemed worthy of removal from their tasks.   

In practice, reshuffles cannot be made easily unless the government can prove beyond doubt that particular officials resist government policies or are found guilty of misconduct.

Reshuffles in the bureaucracy cannot be made on day one when the new government takes office, since none of the state officials, from clerks up to the  permanent secretary, are "political appointees".  

Elected politicians who take the helm cannot bring their own teams to replace people in the existing positions as happens in the United States during the transition period when there is a change of president.  

The United States president has the authority to make changes and bring members of his team into as many levels and positions - including ambassadors - as he sees fit. They are basically political appointments, and those officials are subject to direct political change at a later date.

But, like other officials in the Thai bureaucracy, diplomats and officials at the Foreign Ministry are not political appointees and they should not normally be subject to political change. The government and the foreign minister have no free hand to make reshuffles so long as the officials in position commit no wrongdoing, do not cause "damage" to  the country, and do not resist the government's policies.

There was speculation that former prime minister Thaksin gave a checklist to Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama to remove Virasakdi Futrakul from the permanent secretary position as he did not serve Thaksin well last year, but this turns out to be nonsense.

So did the rumours that ambassador to London, Kitti Wasinondh, ambassador to Tokyo, Suvidhya Simaskul, and ambassador to Moscow, Suphot Dhirakaosal, would be removed for the same reason.

The rumour mill has also tipped the current  ambassador to Norway, Jullapong Nonsrichai, to be the next permanent secretary at the Foreign Ministry, as he is regarded as having served Thaksin well.

 If this reasoning is used as an excuse to make changes in the Thai diplomatic mission, Noppadon should not be qualified to serve as the foreign minister any more, since the appointment could be seen as absolutely personal.

Ambassadors to those particular posts where Thaksin has travelled in exile should be able to serve the former prime minister, as well as all Thai citizens abroad.

The new foreign minister should be smarter than someone who regards everything as personal. He should know very well that the appropriate time to make reshuffles is only when vacancies arise due to retirement or loss of staff for personal reasons.

The positions currently under doubt include the ambassador to Washington, as Krit Garnjana-Goonchorn will be transferred to the Office of His Majesty's Principal Private Secretary, and the director-general of International Organisations, Vipawan Nipatakusol, who wants to be the ambassador attached to the ministry.

The minister needs to fill the vacancies quickly as there is a long procedure for an ambassador to submit his credentials to the host country. Krit will leave the Washington embassy in May.

Foreign Minister Noppadon told reporters on Wednesday that he will not make drastic changes in diplomatic positions until the annual reshuffle in October, when many senior officials and diplomats are due to retire. At present, it was not necessary to change the permanent secretary as Virasakdi still performed well, he said.

Reshuffles in the bureaucracy is a sensitive issue, as they can be easily politicised. Unless the government creates a clear level in the administration for political appointment, as other countries have, change should be limited and only with acceptable reason.

Supalak ganjanakhundee

The Nation