At a Cabinet meeting this week, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) expressed dissatisfaction with administrative inefficiency. If high-level officials must blow their top before civil servants start doing what they’re told, he said, why doesn’t he simply create a “blowing my top” chop to use? The deteriorating efficiency of Taiwan’s government institutions has been lamented throughout the country, and it has been a millstone around the neck of Taiwanese competitiveness for years.
When a top official loses his or her temper, the matter at hand is often handled with a sudden newfound dispatch, but once it blows over, bureaucrats fall back into their old ways. This is a vicious circle that cripples Taiwanese officialdom, and Wu is hallucinating if he thinks blowing his top is the best way to insure administrative promptness. The more often top officials lose their temper, the more likely it is that the bureaucracy will become fatigued and in the end do nothing unless some official vents his anger. In the end, not even that will help.
Creating a “blowing my top” chop and simply losing ones temper is not going to improve things. Instead, the government must find a way to make systemic improvements and design a mechanism for handling official documents that will minimize bureaucratic indolence and inefficiency. If official business has not been attended to within a set deadline, red flags should be set off in the system and a list of names be immediately sent to the manager at the same time as an alert goes off to the case handler. If the premier can handle an issue before the day is over, then why should that be beyond the capabilities of a civil servant?
And if Wu thinks bureaucrats procrastinate because they are lazy, he is sorely mistaken. More often than not, it is a matter of avarice rather than laziness. We should not for a second imagine that low-level civil servants lack power. Unethical bureaucrats stall official documents to wield their power and force members of the public to pay them off. There is a close connection between laziness and greed, and if laziness can be eliminated, most of the problems caused by avarice will also be taken care of.
Civil servants have to change their attitudes. They have never made it their top priority to serve the public. Instead, they see the public as crooks trying to find legal loopholes to benefit their own interests, and that is also why administrative legislation and punishments are based on preventing corruption. In the process, they will hold fast and inflexibly to the law to protect themselves — if there is even the most minuscule difference between your situation and what the law prescribes, you might as well forget about passing a review or obtaining a permit.
The government also must change its attitude. Inflexibility among civil servants may be a problem, but as soon as their discretionary powers are expanded, accusations of influence peddling and graft will appear as low-level civil servants see their chance. Civil servants are there to serve the general public, and the government must establish a set of ethical rules and legislation that discourages these ills so we can improve administrative efficiency.
In the end, being a civil servant means having an iron rice bowl. Once someone has passed the civil service exam, they have a job for life, regardless of ability and performance. In addition, the performance evaluation system does not provide enough incentive to make them work harder and improve efficiency. Without major reform of the personnel system for civil servants, no number of “blowing my top” chops will improve the situation.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS