Control Yuan President Wang Chien-shien’s (王建煊) recent remark that civil servants are “idiots” sparked debate from various quarters. I cannot say I agree with him.
In fact, I would have to say that they are very intelligent people. If they weren’t, how would they be able to pass the stringent civil service examinations? And how could they survive in a difficult, rigid, inefficient environment for their entire working lives, working for senior managers who they are not supposed to question?
Let’s look at the statistics. The acceptance rate for the civil service examinations last year was a mere 1.18 percent — it is obviously very difficult to get in. Also, since 1997, there has been a trend for those who are accepted to be better educated. Well over 90 percent have a university degree or higher, and a growing number hold a masters’ degree, or even a doctoral degree.
With these high standards and low acceptance rates, the current civil service examinations are evidently every bit as exacting as the old imperial examinations. You’re not going to get in unless you’re either really intelligent or a fountain of knowledge. It seems slightly strange, then, to say these people are idiots.
I also imagine their jobs are incredibly demanding. Civil servants have a lot of issues to deal with on a daily basis and, what’s more, they have to make sure that everything they do is to the letter of the law: There is no room for error.
They have to mediate between different government departments and iron out any mutual differences or sticking points that arise. Finally, they need to deal with requests from their superiors and have their work constantly appraised. You would surely need to have a very high emotional quotient (EQ) to do this. Otherwise, you would just leave.
Our civil servants are blessed with high IQs and EQs, and yet Wang still chose to describe them as idiots. There are two possible explanations for this: Either he considers the majority of civil servants his intellectual inferiors, or the system they work in is ineffectual and weighed down by policies and measures that are hard to justify.
I think it would be safe to discount the first explanation, given the things Wang has said and done in the past. The second is more probable.
We have all this talent joining the ranks of the civil service every year, and yet the government constantly falls short of public expectations. The root of the problem must lie in the rigidity of the system and excessive bureaucracy. The point is not that the civil servants were originally stupid; it is that the civil service system in Taiwan makes them so.
Civil servants devote themselves to executing government policy and upholding the law. The problem is that the laws that government departments are asked to abide by are inflexible and overly complex, and quite often contradict each other. Something that would be simple in a private company gets bogged down in government institutions and is handled in a totally ineffectual manner.
The other thing civil servants do is exactly what they’re told. The majority of senior managers are all talk and precious little action. They worked their way up through the ranks of the same system and are a product of it. Government departments have their own “special” appraisal system. If individual civil servants want to work their way up, they had best not challenge their superiors.
The senior managers call the shots in the appraisals. If you act too smart, or have too many ideas, you are likely to tread on people’s toes, and that is unlikely to help your chances for promotion. Over time this means that you will become passive, coming to accept that “the boss is always right” and doing what your superiors say without question.
Before you know it you are a puppet. How can you avoid being dumbed down in such an environment?
If Wang feels the need to call civil servants a bunch of idiots, he might want to think about justifying the existence of the Control Yuan, overhaul governmental departments and make senior managers pull their weight. Maybe then our civil servants will be able to fully realize their potential.
Hsu Yu-fang is an associate professor and chairman of the Chinese Department at National Dong Hwa University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
High-tech manufacturing in India, backed by billions of dollars in government subsidies, has attracted cheerleaders and critics. Optimists point to Apple Inc’s decision to build an alternative supply chain to hedge against China. A quarter of all iPhones now roll out of factories near Chennai, employing tens of thousands. Skeptics counter that much of this manufacturing is mere final assembly — screwdriver work that adds little value. The fact that a much smaller economy such as Vietnam exports more merchandise shows that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” initiative remains more hype than reality, they said. One way to settle
Taiwan heads to the polls next month for local elections. Beneath the campaign ads lies a deeper question: What do we call this place and who gets to decide? In the pages of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), that question has been playing out across three centuries. The entries for “Formosa” and “Taiwan” chart an island’s journey from colonial fantasy to self-named reality. Names are rarely neutral; they are the first act of possession. Nowhere is this more evident than in the OED, where the two entries serve as a linguistic seismograph for one of the world’s most enduring geopolitical fault lines.
Only 107,812 babies were born in Taiwan last year, barely half the number recorded in 2016. The nation is now a super-aged society, with more than one-fifth of its population aged 65 or older. The National Development Council forecast that the population could fall from an estimated 23.2 million this year to just 12.1 million in 2075. The decline in the working-age population would be even more severe. The number of people aged 15 to 64 is projected to plunge from an estimated 15.8 million this year to 5.1 million by 2075, a reduction of about 67 percent. By then, people
There are two space races that the democracies must win: one to deter military campaigns near Earth, and the other to secure positional deterrence on the Moon and beyond. The good news is that the US is engaged in both races, which will also benefit US allies and partners in Asia, including Taiwan. On Sept. 14, US Air Force Secretary Troy Meink disclosed, “...the US now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the Joint Force against hostile adversary action.” No details about these “space control weapons” have yet been disclosed. However, a graphic apparently issued by French Space Command and posted
RSS