Indian Newslink July 15 Digital Edition

JULY 15, 2016
12 VIEWLINK
The English Fortnightly (Since November 1999)
Issue 350 | July 15, 2016
Containing immigration
numbers and fraud
Immigration has all the makings of Election 2017 issue.
The change in governments in Australia, United Kingdom, United
States of America and possibly other major players in the UN Security
Council could have an impact on migration in their respective
countries.
There is an outcry in all of them to check migrant inflow.
Immigration is an emotional issue which most ethnic communities
would defend as ‘essential.’ Their reasoning is obvious and understandable.
The Ruling National Party and immigration advisors and immigration
lawyers are defending a liberal immigration policy. Their reasoning is also
obvious, although may not be understandable or even less, acceptable.
A majority of us, including those involved with this newspaper are migrants.
The difference is only in the year when migration took place. But
all of us went through a robust immigration process- there were no short
cuts.
And most of us would prefer a more selective immigration regime.
Auckland breaking
Times have changed and New Zealand, more importantly, Auckland
stands at the precipice of breaking down- in terms of infrastructure, housing
and other essential supplies. The government’s policy of directing
migrants to other smaller cities does not seem to work. Auckland is indubitably
the commercial and industrial hub. Migrants know that most employment
and business opportunities exist here.
Is Auckland liveable City? Is it a loveable City? Should we not set aside
our emotions and approach migration with a sense of purpose and reality?
These questions were posed at a Panel Session organised by
Multicultural New Zealand at its Annual General Meeting held in Auckland
last month. The Panel comprised five candidates contesting the Auckland
Mayoralty.
The opinions were varied.
Winston Peters warning
The views of New Zealand First Leader and senior parliamentarian always
provoke public debate. While his comments would anger Asian communities
including Indian, mainstream media would support him.
But not this time since most newspapers, radio and television stations
are National supporters.
Mr Peters has called for a review of our immigration policy and slow
down the process. He has said that too many people are coming into our
country and that a majority of them have questionable educational certificates
and job experiences.
“The biggest driver of record immigration has been a mass influx of people
coming in, many on work visas, and many low skilled, as Treasury
points out. (Prime Minister John) Key refuses to recognise that his open
door immigration has put enormous pressure on New Zealand – emergency
departments are overloaded, schools are struggling to cope, housing is
in crisis, wages are depressed, and migrants are being used as cheap labour,”
he said.
Mass Rejections
But a recent TVNZ Report should make us think and appreciate Mr
Peters’ concern.
The Report said that in the last year, almost 10,000 applications filed by
Indians in India were rejected by Immigration New Zealand (INZ).
“A majority of these applications were from unlicensed agents and advisers,
who use false educational qualifications and financial statements to
apply for student visas and there are warnings the problem could be more
widespread,” TVNZ said.
Massey University Pro-Vice-Chancellor (College of Humanities & Social
Sciences) Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley warned that would be an
‘ongoing issue.’
“It is a big industry in India, so I am not surprised at the number that
Immigration New Zealand have found. They have a major reputational risk
for us as a destination for Indian students; we have to get on top of it because
otherwise an important industry in this country is at risk,” he said.
Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said that the matter is being
investigated.
“INZ and Education NZ have gone into that market to make sure that
people are very, very clear about the expectations for being a student in
New Zealand,” he said.
Inexcusable methods
The number of cases involving rogue employers, immigration and education
advisors and employers who defraud gullible public appears to be
on the increase but the trend can be reversed with greater vigilance and
discretion.
People should come forward without fear and lodge their complaints
with the authorities so that appropriate action can be initiated against the
offenders.
Indian Newslink is published by Indian Newslink Limited from its offices located at Level
1, Number 166, Harris Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 and printed at Horton Media
Limited, Auckland. All material appearing here and on our web editions are the copyright
of Indian Newslink and reproduction in full or part in any medium is prohibited. Indian
Newslink and its management and staff do not accept any responsibility for the claims
made in advertisements.
Managing Director & Publisher: Jacob Mannothra
Editor & General Manager: Venkat Raman;
Production Manager: Mahes Perera; Graphic Designer: Shine Kumar
Phone: (09) 5336377 Email: info@indiannewslink.co.nz
Websites: www.indiannewslink.co.nz; www.inliba.com; www.inlisa.com
Our management system finds
favour in India
Modi with P K Mishra and Nripendra Misra
Udhay Madhukar in India Today
The Narendra Modi government
created a flutter
among bureaucrats recently
when nine of the
42 officers from the 1999 batch
whose names had been put forward
for empanelment were not
selected.
Most of them, as usual, had
outstanding grades. The reasons
behind the rejection ranged
from poor performance on delivery
to a lack of personal
integrity.
This was not an arbitrary decision
but part of a massive reform
process initiated in the
selection procedure in June
2016.
“There is a premium on competence
and honesty for the first
time in the history of the All-
India services,” a top bureaucrat
involved in the process said.
Like in the past, the Central
government committee of
experts, comprising former
bureaucrats, will recommend
candidates to be
empanelled for the post of joint
Secretary, Additional Secretary,
Departmental Secretaries and
Chief Secretary.
These officers will be first
short-listed on the basis of their
grades in Annual Performance
Appraisal Reports (APAR).
New Procedure
According to the new procedure,
however, the committee
will also prepare pen portraits
of these officers in a seven-page
format with multi-source feedback
(MSF) based on four criteria-functional
skills such as
handling of finance, regulation,
technology, execution and policy-making;
domain expertise in
sectors like economy, energy, agriculture,
education and tourism;
behavioural competence
such as communication skills,
team spirit, long-term vision, humility
and empathy; and financial
and intellectual integrity.
“This will make it impossible
for non-performing and corrupt
officials to reach the top,” an official
at the Prime Minister’s
Office (PMO) said.
The old method of empanelment
by the expert committee
had several flaws.
It examined the annual grading
of an officer done on a scale
of one to 10 for the last 16 years,
and then aggregated these
marks. The committee was allowed
to moderate the final tally
based on its feedback of the
candidate.
The committee could marginally
increase or decrease the final
tally, as the case may be, if
not satisfied with the marking.
“The whole process was not
positive selection but negative
disqualification. In a way, it was
elimination rather than selection,”
a professional in the PMO,
who played a key role in finalising
the new selection criteria,
said.
System failure
The system failed miserably
to distinguish between the
Good, the Average and the Bad
because officers usually gave
high grading to their junior colleagues,
either in a spirit of camaraderie
or so as to not upset
the apple cart.
Till 2006, a senior official had
to evaluate his or her junior’s
performance under three grades
– Outstanding, Very Good and
Good.
This used to be a confidential
process.
However, since 2006, thanks
to a court order, the senior officer
is bound to show his or her
junior the comments written in
the appraisal form.
This ‘transparency’ resulted in
most officers giving superlative
grades to juniors.
The provision was also exploited
by certain states such as
Madhya Pradesh, which often
gave 10 out of 10 to its officers
so that the state could get the
maximum number of bureaucrats
empanelled.
Changing grades
The Union government is now
working on changing the methodology
of grading.
“The method of writing the
APARs-which remains the preliminary
basis for selection-is
also being changed to be more
meaningful,” an official said.
The Personnel Department
database has been completely
transformed by integrating different
sets of data for a comprehensive
360-degree evaluation
of officers.
Last year, the PMO and the
Cabinet Secretariat examined
the APARs of 1250 All-India service
officials, including IAS, IPS,
Indian Postal Service, Indian
Revenue Service and seven services
of the Railways, and empanelled
750 of them.
“With the new criteria of merit
and quality being applied, the
number this year may come down
to 550. Fortunately, we have a good
talent pool. Otherwise, we would
have fallen short on officers,” a bureaucrat
said.
The new system also specifies
norms for conducting the MSF.
It requires one of the expert
committee members to speak to
one senior, one junior and one
from the peer group of the officer
applying for empanelment
and take feedback on the three
criteria. A fourth feedback has
to be organised from a person
who has dealt with the officer as
a customer as an interface.
These feedbacks have to be
filled in a seven-page format,
with the names of the four interviewees.
Finally, the member
must mention whether he
or she recommends or strongly
recommends the candidate for
empanelment.
According to sources involved
in the process, this is done to
sketch a complete and precise
picture of each candidate, portraying
their personality and
specifying the jobs for which
they are most suited.
Meanwhile, of the nine officials
rejected for empanelment
last month, one has the reputation
of being a very competent
official and had earlier been
posted in Delhi.
But there was negative feedback
on his integrity.
Another officer got a high rating
on integrity but was seen to
be poor on delivery and leadership
qualities. A third officer
was rejected because his motivation
levels were found low in
high-pressure jobs.
New Zealand ticked
Before applying the new selection
method, the government
studied top management practices
of several countries such
as the United States, United
Kingdom, Singapore and New
Zealand, and also of private entities
like McKinsey & Company,
General Electric and the Tata
Group.
The New Zealand government’s
method of selection was
found to be the best and the
most updated while the US system
had not undergone any
major change in the past two
decades.
The Union government is also
simultaneously working on reforms
in the selection process
of the Chairman, Managing
Directors and Directors of nationalised
banks.
The above is an edited version
of an article that appeared in
India Today website.