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
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
RSS