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.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS