Getting On the Civil Service Track--Wang Tso-yung Talks About the System and Its Reform

Q: What do you think is the ideal bureaucratic structure for our country?

A: I have been suggesting that the government establish a better bureaucracy ever since the 1950's, because if we want to move up among the modernized, highly industrialized nations, then we need a highly efficient bureaucratic apparatus to handle the increasingly complex administrative tasks.

A healthy bureaucracy requires that recruitment, assignment, training, salary and promotion or transfer all be very comprehensive and fair.

For example in recruiting civil servants, a public, open examination is the best way. Only through fair competition can the best people be selected. So the exam system must be fair so that any person, regardless of political affiliation or background, need only to pass the exam and that should be enough for him or her to be employed by the country.

Further, there must be a system for training. Not only should there be an internship before taking the job, people should be allowed to continue study after beginning work to allow their knowledge to keep up with the times. Again, there should be a fair exam system for promotion of talent, and people should be given certain guarantees if they execute the laws. If public servants are executing their duties, then the government should guarantee that they will not suffer any threats or interference; only in this way can they fairly implement the law, not fear to offend people, and not be subject to threats or bribes.

At the same time, they must have better salaries. All of these people who have passed the national exams must be at least above average in education; they are the central support of the nation, and they should be given a salary as high or higher than that of the middle class. Only in this way can the dignity of the civil service be maintained. If salaries are too low, and their lifestyles are low class, how can they be respected by others? If they are not respected, how can they implement the law? So you can't just say that civil servants work for the nation, and they should understand that the government has financial restraints. This is completely wrong.

When I researched the development experience of many advanced democratic countries I discovered that these countries were able to advance quickly because they had an excellent bureaucratic system. That system could serve two functions:

First, administrative efficiency could be raised, because a complete bureaucratic system can develop specialized officers and administrators. They are each familiar with areas of administrative regulations and duties. They can come up with new ideas for improving things even as they implement the law, and make the government's administrative capacity continually progress.

Another function is bureaucratic neutrality. These systems clearly separate out political and administrative affairs. Although the political ministers might change with a change in ruling party, administrative officers below them--that is to say the bureaucratic system--no matter what party rules, would continue to serve according to the legal process of the country. They would have a status stipulated by law. This means that administration would not be affected by cabinet shifts, and can continue to operate as usual.

This point is very important for democratic countries, because the political lines often change in a democratic country. This election it's one party, with another party next election; or even if the ruling party is the same, the leaders change, like in Japan, which had three different premiers within half a year. Under these circumstances, if the bureaucracy is not neutral, wouldn't the country's administrative affairs fall into chaos?

Of course, after a change of premiers, there will be a change in policy, but after changes pass the legislative bodies to become law, and are turned over to the bureaucracy for implementation, there will not be any impact on the matters just because of a change at the top. Even more important is that when the country undergoes a major change, a sound bureaucratic system can maintain order and stability.

Japan is a good example. After World WarⅡ, Japan was a defeated nation, production stopped, people were poor; but despite the defeat, occupation, and collapse of the economy, because the bureaucratic system held firm, the government could act smoothly according to established laws and maintain social order and economic production, enabling the nation to quickly recover.

Only if the R.O.C. has a healthy civil service system can it quickly promote national construction and modernization.

Q: What areas need to be improved in the R.O.C. civil service?

A: Our biggest problem right now is that the examination system is not comprehensive.

Currently, besides recruitment through the higher and standard exams, there are other channels. For example, there is the system for military officers to transfer to the civil service; all they need is to have their background data checked, and don't even need to take any exam. That's too unfair. Retired servicemen and overseas Chinese get free points on their exams, and that's not very reasonable.

Article 21 in the just passed Education Law which allows all of the current 6,000-plus educators who had signed up to take the exam to become official staff without passing the exam is also a case of the interests of a small number of people wrecking the overall system. I hope that all citizens will have a common view that only through exams can the system be built up.

The special A-level examination is another terrible system. Holding this exam is mostly just to allow some people who have high positions in the civil service but no credentials to get their civil service certification. Also, some people with high education levels, like Ph.D.'s, or people with long seniority as civil servants can take the A-level exam. A person qualified at A-level means that he or she belongs in a high-level civil post, and is usually assigned to a high position, seriously obstructing normal channels for advancement. This is bad for morale!

Q: But if you eliminate the A-level exam, how can you attract talented people from outside the system?

A: It is not necessary that unusually outstanding people be civil servants. The way I see it, if they've graduated from college and pass the high-level exam, that's enough. Society as a whole relies on the average guy pushing it along, and not the performance of a few geniuses. So I think that it's enough if civil servants just have an ordinary amount of intelligence.

To put it another way, the so-called "outstanding talents" are perhaps people with a high level of education or specialized knowledge, but experience accumulated on the job is also knowledge! What civil servants need is experience at getting things done. Even if someone's a Ph.D., if they haven't got experience, they are of no help in administrative matters.

Moreover, if there is a good system for continued study, after civil servants have worked for a few years, if their knowledge is lagging you can send them back for study to make their work improve. So even if someone's been an official for decades, he or she has rich experience, often goes back to study, and can be the most outstanding kind of civil servant.

Q: But bringing in people from outside can perhaps raise efficiency and rejuvenate the system. If things just proceed in a fixed way won't the system become rigidified?

A: We need civil servants who are safe in their jobs and responsible about their duties, people who do their jobs every day, contribute all their lives, and slowly climb the ladder, not geniuses. So I don't approve of recruiting outside the system, because it makes the whole system chaotic.

As for rejuvenation, we have a retirement system! If the promotion channels can stay smoothly open, then there will continually be new people coming up from the bottom levels, and people will be continually retiring from the upper levels, so there won't be a problem of aging and ossification.

Q: In that case, since you have taken the office of Minister of Examination, how do you plan to reform the civil service through examinations? Do you have a timetable?

A: No, I don't have any timetable. It takes a lot of effort to do these things, and the pressure is enormous. As soon as I opened my mouth and said I wanted to eliminate the transfer system for military personnel, the military shot back and I got a visit from Minister of Defense Chen Li-an.

So what can I do? I can only choose a gradual approach. Originally the transfer system only required an oral exam, and now there's also a written test. The number of subjects had been raised, so that we can gradually approach equity, and after the degree of difficulty is comparable to the general exam, those people who thought to take the fast track will give up the idea voluntarily.

As for other things like adding points or special exams that violate the fairness of the system, we will choose a gradual approach to improve them. Take the A-level exam: It's already been decided that after holding it three times in the next five years that it will be halted. I think that the other problems can be resolved within two or three years.

Q: You have always promoted the idea that in the course of economic development, the government must adjust and transform to adapt to changed economic and social phases. Must civil servants also transform?

A: What I mean by government transformation and civil service transformation are two different things. Taking Taiwan for example, in the 1940's and 50's, the country was in a backward, poor condition. If you wanted to improve this, you needed a force to propel social development. But at that time the level of knowledge in civil society was low, and civil servants were a group who had received relatively higher education. At that time the government had to play the leading role.

Following gradual social progress, and the spread of education, the level of civil society came to be equal to that of the government. Under these circumstances it is OK to let go and allow the private sector to develop. What the government should do at this time is pass laws and regulations to set standards for society, for example in not allowing people to speculate on stocks, pollute the environment, pirate products, duck taxes, or exploit labor, and moreover must strictly enforce these rules, so people don't act anarchically and damage the public interest. These are all things a modernized society has to regulate. If the government doesn't handle them right, society will fall into disorder. Currently these things haven't been done right, so chaotic phenomena occur frequently.

As for the role of civil servants? Civil servants must do different work as the government's role changes.

In the 1950's the role of the civil servant was to lead and help along the public. After economic development reached a certain level, in the 1980's the nature of our work shifted to more passive establishment of the laws to let people freely develop within defined norms.

The problem is that our civil servants have not yet comprehended this shift, and are still stuck in the thinking and methods of the 1950's. They just think about playing the leading role and telling others what they should do and can't do, which product to develop-- these are not official topics, so there are always conflicts with private entrepreneurs. In fact in many things the people are more capable than officials.

Another thing, they don't do well the tasks they really should do, like regulating traffic, eliminating pollution, or public construction. This is also a defect caused by our bureaucratic system, because there has never been a good system for continued study and training to help them progress and transform.

Q: You said that a good civil service system must be neutral. Will the stipulations allowing civil servants to form associations contained in the civil service standards law now being considered by the Examination Yuan destroy administrative neutrality?

A: Association is a basic right, but civil servants must maintain neutrality in enforcing the law. That is, they can join political parties, but must act according to law in their public duties.

Taiwan is still in a transitional period, moving toward a democratic progressive society. So there are still some awkward phenomena, and not only among civil servants-- the party consciousness of all people is still quite deep. It will take time and a good civil service system to build up the concept and image of administrative neutrality.

Q: There is a common saying, "First class talent goes into business, second class talent into academia, and third class talent into government." Do you agree? How can outstanding talent be attracted into the government to serve?

A: I don't think it's quite so bad as that in Taiwan. I am very familiar with the business community and have taught in academics for over ten years, and I don't think there is any difference among these three. In fact, for Asians, in the traditional view, to be a civil servant is like being an official, and that's very respectable in the family line, so there is a lot of talent in government. Perhaps because managing an enterprise gets you into the thick of things, people with brains or luck can become famous, and after a few people get famous everyone assumes that the best people are all in business. In fact, there are a lot more people who fail in business. Civil service work is more stable. How could someone get famous working in the Ministry of Examination?

In Europe and the US, though there is no special avocation for civil service, it is not discriminated against either. People choose it depending upon their personality or wish. Some people like a more stable life, and choose the civil service, some others like competitive or risky occupations.

I hope that in the future Taiwan can progress to this point. The choice of work shouldn't depend on how outstanding someone is or on good or bad, but on personality and interests. In this way everybody can be satisfied in his or her roles and each develop his or her strong points.

When I researched the development experience of many advanced democrat ic countries I discovered that these countries were able to advance quickly because they had an excellent bureaucratic system. That system could serve two functions: First, administrative efficiency could be raised another function is bureaucratic neutrality.

We need civil servants who are safe in their jobs and responsible about their duties, people who do their jobs every day, contribute all their lives, and slowly climb the ladder, not geniuses.

So I don't approve of recruiting outside the system, because it makes the whole system chaotic.