A proposed amendment to the Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act (公務人員考績法) that is about to be submitted to the legislature has been the subject of considerable controversy because of a stipulation that 3 percent of civil servants must be given a “C” grade.
However, in many other advanced nations the civil service is being streamlined and underperforming bureaucrats are being shown the door.
New Zealand, for example, passed the State Sector Act in 1988 in an effort to improve the caliber of its civil servants. The act redefined the relationship between the heads of public service departments and their staff as something more akin to private sector employment contracts. Consequently, high-ranking officials in all government agencies are employed on a contractual basis.
The country’s Employment Relations Act specifically states that civil servants are no different from private sector employees in that they have to sign a contract detailing their employment period, job specification and salary. Moreover, agency heads — the employers — have to conduct regular performance evaluations of their personnel, as specified in the contract.
In Australia, the public service commissioner and public service agency heads of the various departments have control over the personnel within their respective agencies. They also have the right to decide the conditions governing the hiring of staff, as well as all things pertaining to the contract, the employment and the termination thereof, in line with the 1999 Public Service Act.
Compared with the situation in New Zealand and Australia, where civil service personnel are treated just like private employees, the recruitment and evaluation of bureaucrats in Taiwan is quite lenient.
In 2008, of 240,000 civil servants evaluated, 75 percent received an “A,” 25 percent were given a “B” and only 0.01 percent received a “C.” A mere three received a “D.”
Of the 20,000 Taipei City civil servants evaluated, only five received a “D” and lost their jobs as a result in the last decade.
Only one person was placed in the precarious position of receiving a “C” four times, and only two got a “C” three times. Could it really be that the caliber of civil servants is this high?
In a survey conducted last year by the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, only 55.3 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the overall quality of service provided by the government, with another 35.9 percent saying they were either “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied.” As many as 31.7 percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the efficiency of government services. Anything under the 60 percent satisfaction mark denotes a failure to satisfy the public.
It does seem, then, that the government needs to do better. The proposed amendment to the Civil Service Performance Evaluation Act is something that the government should welcome as it will be good for reform. The pan-blue camp should be jumping at this opportunity.
Liu Sun-chi is a research fellow at National Chengchi University’s Institute of International Relations.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS