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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS