According to media reports, the direction for the central government’s reorganization will soon be decided. The Forestry Bureau and the Construction and Planning Agency, which administer national parks, are to be amalgamated into the planned Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources.
The Environmental Protection Administration has said that integrating the administration of soil conservation forests under the new ministry would be a good thing, but the opinion is not supported by the Council of Agriculture or the Ministry of the Interior, each for their own reasons.
It is not a good idea to hastily merge or reform conservation organizations, unless it is done with clear vision and goals. There are three main reasons for this.
First, organizational mergers are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. Bringing the administration of all soil conservation forests together under the new ministry would be a major organizational reform project and it is debatable whether it would be more effective.
Doubts about effectiveness will be raised no matter the form of merger. A hasty merger without concrete goals is likely to be for its own sake, meaning that it would become even less effective.
Second, mergers are not the only way forward. An organizational merger — or structural adjustments — is only one available method to improve effectiveness.
There are other factors to consider, such as the public’s demands and identities, political support, leadership, vision, resource allocation, clarity of work duties and purpose, labor, work identification, sense of satisfaction and so on.
Conservation organizations also include other ministries, such as the Ministry of Justice — which enforces environmental laws — local governments, civic groups and others.
In other words, if mergers are not accompanied by complementary measures, or are not designed in a goal or solution-oriented way — that is, to make conservation more effective — then it is doubtful whether they can achieve that goal.
The third aspect to consider is the challenge of merging organizational cultures. Conservation agencies have long been operating under different ministries and have developed their own cultures. Each agency has its own mindset, mode of operation, work habits, values and so on.
After merging, their gears must be reground so that they can mesh together and function smoothly, but this regrinding cannot be done in a day or two. According to organizational development theory, such a process takes at least 20 years.
In the absence of careful planning, a merger is doomed to fail, so it would be a good idea to research the case of the National Development Council — which was formed by merging the Council for Economic Planning and Development; the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission; and the Public Construction Commission — as well as the breaking up of the Government Information Office and the National Youth Commission to determine whether these agencies’ functions and effectiveness have improved or worsened as a result of the structural change.
Good conservation does not just depend on these few agencies. There is a complex network of related entities in the judicial, educational, interior affairs and foreign relations fields, as well as within local governments.
In such a complex situation, a merger that has no clear vision will take a lot of effort for no reward. It could have a negative effect on morale and even make conservation less effective.
It is therefore vital to take a cautious approach. Merging organizations is not something that can produce the desired effect in a short time. Nonetheless, consolidating resources and cross-agency cooperation are necessary.
Rather than focusing on mergers, it would be better to draw up a project that clarifies conservation goals, as well as work out how to integrate governmental and non-governmental resources. That would be a better direction for organizational reform.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor of political science at National Cheng Kung University and its Graduate Institute of Political Economy.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing