Public is questioning whether this is a serious government or a group performing a comedy show

As political promises vanish like mirages before the eyes of the public, citizens are left to contemplate a troubling question: did they elect a serious government, or are they merely witnessing scenes from a farcical comedy show?

Governments are elected to serve the people, protect the public interest, and provide high-quality essential services. At the very least, this is how the conversation usually begins. However, following the developments surrounding the dissolution of RDC and Fenaka in the Maldives, many citizens are now questioning whether the script was changed halfway through the performance.

Ahead of the 2023 presidential election, Dr. Mohamed Muizzu sought to reassure employees concerned about their job security. Reports indicate that he delivered this message in what he described as "clear Dhivehi." His pledge was simple: no employee would be dismissed from their post. The message appeared remarkably straightforward. There was no complex English terminology, no confusing legal jargon, and certainly no need for a dictionary to decipher his intent.

However, as events unfolded, the situation for employees at RDC and Fenaka took a different turn. The dissolution of these companies has raised serious questions regarding the assurances provided prior to the election. Does a promise made in clear Dhivehi become ambiguous once power is attained? Or does the meaning of a pledge shift the moment one moves from the campaign podium to the President's desk?

Perhaps what this nation needs now is a new dictionary. In that dictionary, the definition of the phrase "no employee will be terminated" needs to be completely rewritten.

The grand rhetoric of corporations

Following the decision to dissolve RDC and Fenaka, the government's policy regarding state-owned enterprises has come under intense scrutiny. As employees express growing concerns over their future livelihoods, the public deserves a detailed explanation of how these decisions align with prior assurances of job security.

This political rhetoric is truly astonishing. Before elections, promises are made and trust is built among the citizenry. Yet, when the reality finally unfolds on the ground, it takes on an entirely different form.

Admittedly, governments may have valid reasons for restructuring or dissolving state-owned enterprises. Financial constraints, operational failures, and administrative inefficiencies are issues that cannot simply be overlooked. However, if restructuring is deemed necessary, the public has a right to transparency, accountability, and a clear explanation as to why previous assurances could not be upheld.

A government should not expect to gain public support simply by announcing a decision. It must also clearly explain the implications and consequences to the citizens who will ultimately have to bear the impact of that decision.

Competence: A Matter of Choice?

The concerns extend beyond the grievances of the employees. Questions have also been raised regarding the qualifications and appointments of those entrusted with managing state-owned enterprises, as well as the overall governance standards of these entities.

In any responsible institution, the appointment of a Managing Director must be predicated on competence, relevant experience, leadership skills, and business acumen. Managing a major state-owned enterprise is a complex undertaking; it is not as simple as organizing a weekend football match or planning a fishing trip.

However, critics of the Road Development Corporation's (RDC) administrative framework have raised questions regarding whether established protocols were followed. It is reported that Nazim, who reportedly holds a diploma in sports management, was entrusted with leading an institution that employs over 4,000 staff members.

Holding a degree in sports management is not evidence that an individual is incapable of leading a major corporation. Exceptional leadership skills can be cultivated across a diverse range of fields. The real question is whether the appointee possesses the necessary competence, experience, and integrity required to fulfill such a demanding responsibility.

Managing thousands of employees, overseeing substantial budgets, and ensuring financial sustainability are matters of paramount importance.

If the institution's financial standing deteriorates under their leadership, the public has every right to question whether the appointment was based on merit or served merely as a gesture of political patronage.

The expectation is that professional responsibilities will encompass more than just the technical skill of navigating a vessel; they must also include financial management, corporate governance, and strategic planning.

Promotions: Lacking direction

Allegations surrounding promotions and recruitment within the Road Development Corporation (RDC) have raised significant concerns. Critics contend that personal connections with senior management have led to preferential treatment for certain individuals. Furthermore, it is alleged that these promotions were granted in violation of established human resources policies, with claims that numerous staff members received advancements without the necessary board approval.

Reports suggesting that approximately 20 levels of promotions were granted without board approval, if proven true, would raise serious questions regarding the company’s internal controls and corporate governance.

In a well-governed institution, career advancement should serve as a reward for competence, performance, and experience. However, under a flawed system, this process transforms into a perk reserved for those who demonstrate personal loyalty. While working hard and delivering results might eventually earn you consideration, being well-connected can suddenly open a fast track to promotion.

Why bother climbing the corporate ladder one step at a time when someone can simply install an escalator for their friends?

Setting humor aside, every promotion carries significant implications for payroll costs, organizational structure, employee morale, and operational efficiency. Decisions of this nature, when made without careful deliberation, can ultimately lead to substantial financial consequences.

The solution lies in conducting an independent and comprehensive audit of promotion records, salary obligations, HR policies, and board decisions.

Wage growth outpaces productivity levels

A state-owned enterprise cannot remain sustainable in the long term if its expenditures outpace its revenue and productivity. Excessive payroll growth, unjustified promotions, weak financial controls, and ineffective leadership can push an institution into a state of severe crisis.

Critics argue that one of the primary reasons for the Road Development Corporation’s (RDC) financial difficulties is its administrative and salary structure. This is a serious allegation that warrants a thorough investigation. Key areas of concern include whether salary increments were justified based on operational requirements, whether appointments were made in accordance with established procedures, and whether the management has been held accountable for the company’s performance.

This is a bitter reality. An institution may employ thousands of staff, operate numerous departments, and boast an impressive organizational chart, yet still fail to fulfill its core responsibilities.

Perhaps the organizational chart has become so overly complex that no one actually has the time to perform their substantive duties.

Ultimately, when financial crises inevitably surface, those responsible for the decisions often move on to new roles. Meanwhile, ordinary employees are left in a state of uncertainty, questioning whether their next paycheck will even arrive on time.

This is not corporate governance. It is a costly lesson in how state resources should never be managed.

State funds are not a personal wallet.

Allegations regarding the misuse of corporate funds for personal activities, such as fishing trips, must be treated as a serious matter and verified through financial records, expense reports, and independent audits. In the absence of sufficient evidence or official statements from the relevant authorities, such claims should not be regarded as established facts.

Nevertheless, the fundamental principle remains clear: state resources and corporate funds must be utilized strictly within legal boundaries to achieve the organization's objectives. Every expenditure must be commercially justifiable, properly authorized, and backed by an auditable record.

When public funds are expended without adequate oversight and accountability, it creates the impression that the distinction between a corporate budget and one's personal wallet has effectively vanished.

The general public does not want managing directors who merely occupy office chairs. Instead, the people demand leaders who recognize that their positions are a responsibility rather than a reward; leaders who understand that the budget is the property of the company, not their personal wealth; and leaders who acknowledge that state-owned enterprises are not playgrounds for personal interests.

Is this what the people voted for?

The government bears a heavy responsibility. It is the government's duty to ensure that state-owned enterprises are efficient, safeguard taxpayers' money, and provide essential services. At times, structural changes to the administrative framework are necessary. Occasionally, difficult decisions must also be made.

However, accountability should not be exclusive to a specific group of people or limited to a particular set of circumstances.

If assurances were provided to employees prior to the election, the government bears the responsibility of explaining the reasons behind any subsequent decisions that contradict those promises. If Managing Directors were appointed without due regard for their competence, the circumstances surrounding those appointments must be thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. In instances where promotions were granted in violation of established procedures, the relevant records must be audited. Furthermore, if there has been any misappropriation of company funds, the evidence must be investigated and appropriate legal action must be taken.

A change in government is no reason for the definition of "responsibility" to change.

Furthermore, the phrase "the people voted for us" must not serve as a convenient excuse for every decision made. An electoral mandate is not a "blank check" to act without restraint; rather, it is a sacred trust bestowed by the citizens, demanding integrity, competence, and a commitment to public service.

While the public may find such political theatrics amusing today, behind the spectacle lie serious concerns regarding the livelihoods of citizens, the state of public finances, and the erosion of trust in the government.

The tragedy of mismanaging state-owned enterprises is that the consequences are not confined to the decision-makers alone. Instead, such negligence forces employees into a state of uncertainty and places a heavy financial burden on taxpayers. Ultimately, this leads to a decline in service quality, leaving the general public to suffer the repercussions.