The government’s contradictory stances [Archives:2005/900/Opinion]

December 5 2005

By Prof. Dr. Abdulaziz al-Tarb
It might be Yemen in its contemporary history has not had a government whose words and actions were as contradictory as it is the case nowadays with the present government.

The president of the republic, in such a situation, has to speedily intervene to protect the ruling General People's Congress (GPC) against anger of the people who are severely harmed as consequence of exaggerated rise in prices, lack of security as well as application of wages strategy with temperament not keeping rights acquired through high-ranking decisions, such decisions as those taken by the presidency or the prime minister.

Issuing futile pledges and unleashing promises and slogans contradictive of actions are of the characteristic descriptions of the present stage at a time we are at the threshold of the local elections, as well as the presidential elections in September 2006.

For instance, it is supposed that the Ministry of Civil Service should not tackle the situation of those appointed under presidential decrees, or granted leading titles in return for their distinguished services and efficiency. In countries all over the world those people are dealt with through an office or a body affiliate of the presidency. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Civil Service, while implementing its stillborn strategy, practices a right it does not possess but rather it has been one of its own judgments that would not serve the national unity and stability under the current state of inflation.

The question is which authority would appoint an ambassador of one of his rank and higher, is it the Civil service Ministry? Or are not they under presidential decrees? What then gives the Ministry the right to deprive a constellation of leaders, who served under difficult circumstances, of their rights, given the fact that their salaries ten years ago or at the realization of Yemen's unity were better than now? How can the Ministry deprive them of the increments taken pursuant to the government decision? They have not quitted their posts but rather the public interest had dictated the appointment of other persons instead of them. How would the Ministry pension many of those persons without waiting for settling their conditions and granting them their legal allowances?

As an expert in organization and administration, I believe in the necessity of the president's intervention and his giving clear-cut directives regarding those persons' acquired rights. I also suggest setting up a committee, from outside the Ministry of Civil Service, to study the issue of those people and to present appropriate recommendations so that the domestic form would be keen on adherence with the ruling. Those persons should not find themselves forced by intervention of influential persons to guarantee justice for them in rights acquired under valid laws and the constitution.

All magnates of corruption who sabotaged and benefited want to lead the country towards the point of no return, as they did after the war of 1994 when they demanded cancellation of nationalization laws and the return of property to their previous owners. The president's interference and his intervention regarding a just compensation had deprived those beneficiaries and owners of the houses, who wagered on a civil war, of their opportunity. Today, the president should interfere to restore esteem those who have served and are still serving in security, armed forces and civil service as well as to the martyrs and retired ones. The president is requested to give his directives to have their degrees adopted and accordingly grant them the decided increments. Those intended to be pensioned earlier should be given the privileges and the allowances they deserve.

It is to be admitted that all have paid expensively due to latest economic reforms. Would the president interfere to return the rights to their owners? Would he do that at a time he is running the forthcoming presidential elections and the GPC is facing an unenviable competition in the local elections and preparations for the parliamentary election? All that while taking into consideration that the GPC has not implemented the promises of its electoral platform.