Last month, I went to the National Taxation Bureau office in Kaohsiung’s Lingya District (苓雅) to apply for a tax payment certificate. I figured it would be a straightforward task — something I could wrap up in about half an hour — but I was instead taught a shocking, three-day lesson.
Upon arriving at the bureau, I took a number and waited patiently. When my turn came, the staff member took one look over my documents and dryly said: “You’re missing documents. Come back after completing them.”
Of course, I asked what documents were missing exactly, but all I got was a formulaic and impatient response — no explanation and no guidance. It was as if my questions were an unwelcome disturbance.
After returning home with vague instructions and doing some online research, I was confident that I had collected all of the necessary documents. I returned to the bureau the next day, only for a staff member to point out some new issue with my paperwork. Surprised, I asked why the person helping me the day prior had not mentioned it. He shrugged and said: “Those are just the rules.”
It was not until the third day of navigating these contradictory standards that I finally managed to complete the process and get my certificate. As I left the bureau, all I felt was deep exhaustion and a sense of powerlessness.
The experience led me to reflect. Why should retrieving a simple administrative certificate require someone to make three separate trips? Why can the information not be provided all at once? Why should the standards of execution vary on an individual basis?
First, this is not just an issue of individual attitudes, but one of systemic failure. My experience felt akin to a mirror reflecting the long-standing systemic issues in public services.
The second issue is that processes are primarily focused on fraud prevention rather than providing convenient public services. Multiple layers of checkpoints and complex regulations have been put in place to prevent rare cases of system abuse, thereby disproportionately burdening the vast majority of the law-abiding public with wasted time and mental anguish. The role of public servants is to point out your mistakes, not help you solve problems.
Next is the lack of transparency and standardized procedures. Why can all requirements not be clearly and completely communicated in one sitting? Behind this problem lies a severe information imbalance that leaves the public at a disadvantage. The fact that standards vary on an individual basis highlights a failure in the standardization of internal processes, leaving the public helpless.
Finally, there is the failure to implement a user-centered approach. Private enterprises optimize their customer shopping experiences by studying the “user journey,” but how many government agencies design their processes from the public’s perspective? The shadow of agency-centered thinking is all around — from the organization of information on Web sites and the word choice on application forms to the flow and guidance at service counters — demonstrating a lack of user-centered consideration.
Improving the efficiency of public agencies would require effort to be made in three key areas: mindset, technology and systems.
First, a shift in mindset — from that of “managers” to “servants” — is necessary among personnel. The core values of public servants should evolve from a passive compliance of execution “according to the law” to cultivating an attitude of serving the public. Performance evaluations should not merely focus on the number of cases handled, but also include service quality indicators such as public satisfaction and single-instance resolution rates.
A second necessary step is to empower the government through digital technology. Many services have already transitioned to be completely online. The government should invest resources to optimize Web sites and app interfaces, allowing the public to easily access information, fill out forms and upload documents. The integration and connection of back-end databases could also prevent people from having to repeatedly upload identical documents to different agencies.
Last, there is a need to establish clear and unified standardized procedures to optimize public service systems. Services frequently used by the public require the development of nationwide, easily understandable standard operating procedures to ensure that frontline staff receive comprehensive training. A list system should be implemented — if any documents are missing, staff should be obligated to provide people with a checklist detailing all necessary documents to prevent any unnecessary back-and-forth.
My three-day ordeal was by no means an isolated incident — it reflects the daily realities of countless Taiwanese. Reform to improve efficiency in public services is a necessary step that can no longer be delayed.
Lin Wen-pao is a professor in the Department of Business Management at National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS