Government Reform Must Not Create a No Man's Land

Government Reform Must Not Create a No Man's Land
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 9, 2012

Summary: The government is undergoing its second stage structural reform. It began on New Year's Day. In recent days chaos has prevailed. Rival ministries are fighting over the most desirable agencies. Undesirable agencies have become orphans. Even more seriously, some agencies are seizing the opportunity to expand their scope and increase their staff. As a result, the greater the transformation, the greater the bloat. These phenomenon are undermining the original intention of improving government efficiency.

Full Text below:

The government is undergoing its second stage structural reform. It began on New Year's Day. In recent days chaos has prevailed. Rival ministries are fighting over the most desirable agencies. Undesirable agencies have become orphans. Even more seriously, some agencies are seizing the opportunity to expand their scope and increase their staff. As a result, the greater the transformation, the greater the bloat. These phenomenon are undermining the original intention of improving government efficiency.

The chaos is mind-boggling. For example, the Construction and Planning Agency was supposed to be incorporated into the Ministry of Communications. In the end however, only a handful of personnel were transferred. The Ministry of Communications was supposed to be upgraded. It was supposed to become the figurehead for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Directorate General of Highways. The Central Weather Bureau was supposed to be subsumed under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. But that decision was reversed long ago. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environmental Resources and Ministry of Science and Technology did not want it. As a result, it became an orphan. No one wants the Central Weather Bureau. The Forestry Bureau, on the other hand, has a vast forest resources. As a result it has become a bone of contention between the Council of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environmental Resources. So far no one knows where it will end up.

The reason for this chaos is not hard to understand. First of all, the scale of the government's restructuring is much too great. It is attempting to dissolve the boundaries between all the ministries, then re-assemble them. This is not something that can be done overnight. Secondly, the Executive Yuan Organization Law was hurriedly amended three years ago. Many problems have yet to be ironed out. Failure to do so led to today's result: cutting and grafting and total gridlock. The current batch of legislators also have their own ideas. They want to do some cutting and grafting of their own. Thirdly, the various ministries cannot rise above their parochialism. They are unwilling to relinquish their current resources. They are unwilling to take over thorny sectors. They are engrossed in expanding their spheres of influence. These all add to the difficulty of restructuring.

One factor however, is the most puzzling. Government reform is the cornerstone of the government's long-term plans. Yet the Executive Yuan has not treated this as a high priority. It entrusted the responsibility solely to the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC), an agency which commands little prestige. Therefore, many ministries will attempt to haggle during the coordination process, and even subvert the administration's agenda. The final round of restructuring will be difficult. Yet the Executive Yuan has not sought consensus through internal negotiations. Instead, it has allowed cadres to lobby individual legislators and attempt to directly amend the law. This has provided the ruling and opposition parties the opportunity to engage in confrontation and back room deals.

Consider the root of the problem. The restructuring of the government is meaningful and necessary, The government should make reasonable changes to its organizational structure in response to changing times. The government should urge government agencies to reevaluate their function and their performance. But it must never forget that restructuring is merely the means, not the end. The end is to create a government that better serves the people, and more effectively uses government and social resources. Will restructuring result merely in the hanging of new signs everywhere? Will policy implementation remain hobbled by outdated thinking? Will the governments' problem-solving ability remain as weak as before? If so, then the restructuring can hardly be termed a success.

Furthermore, restructuring is not simply the dismantling of various agencies and reassembling them elsewhere. It is evolution that enables the new organization to function more effectively. Otherwise, the government is merely rearranging the blocks in a game of Lego. In other words, reinventing government requires internal software integration, not external hardware reorganization. The former is the key. Alas, a number of problems have appeared. Executive branch agencies apparently cannot even solve the hardware problems. Solving the software problems is going to be a case of "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

The Central Weather Bureau has been reduced to an orphan. The Forestry Bureau has become a bone of contention. These are passing phenomenon that will eventually be resolved. But unmanned service windows reveal the failure of upper echelon government official thinking. Restructuring has exposed their lack of direction. The greatest irony is in the existing government structure. The Forestry Bureau sits on valuable resources. Yet it was a neglected agency. Now, during restructuring, it has become a bone of contention between rival ministries. This is truly a paradox. Just what role do the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environmental Resources want the Forestry Bureau to fulfill?

What is the most worrisome aspect of the governmental restructuring? Some organizational functions were omitted during agency consolidation. They were relegated to a no man's land. But no one noticed. This is the most common pitfall during reform. The scale of the current restructuring is especially great. It was allowed too little time and given too little promotion. The public is accustomed to the current government structure. They no longer know where to seek solutions to many problems, old and new. Moreover, restructured agency personnel must be transferred hither, thither, and yon. New personnel must settle in and adapt to their new environment. If they are not properly settled, they will inevitably feel resentment. The public may not realize how much harm reinventing the government has already done.

Reinventing government requires time to iron out the kinks. But the process must be accelerated. Otherwise it will lead to social discontent. Premier Chen must pay more attention. He must resolve inter-ministerial differences. He must not allow rival ministries to treat restructuring as an opportunity for haggling. He must not allow the current administration to become the object of opposition party and public ridicule.

政府改造不可改出三不管地帶
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.01.09

政府第二階段組織改造，已於元旦上路，連日來亂象頻傳；各部會爭相搶奪熱門單位，冷門機構則因部會推拒而淪為孤兒。更嚴重的，是有些部會趁機大伺擴張架構，膨脹員額；如此一來，越改造越臃腫，勢將失去提升政府效能的初衷。

檢視最近發生的亂象，令人感到匪夷所思。諸如：原預訂納入交通部的營建署，最後只移撥了一小撮人，使得交通部提升為「交通及建設部」淪為有名無實。而原隸交通部的氣象局則因早早被劃出，卻又不為「環境資源部」及「科技部」接納，成了部會棄兒。相對於氣象局的無人關愛，林務局則因擁有龐大的台灣山林資源，成為農委會及環境資源部爭奪的對象，至今尚不知歸屬何方。

之所以出現這些亂象，原因不難想見。第一，政府組織改造的規模太大，要打破所有的部會疆界，再重新組裝，絕非一朝一夕之事。第二，行政院組織法的修法工作三年前在倉促間完成，許多問題未及細思，留下了今天左支右絀的扞格難題；而本屆立委又有不同看法，希望再修枝鋸幹。第三，各部會不脫本位主義思維，或不願割捨既有資源，或不願接手棘手部門，或汲汲於擴大勢力範圍，更增加整併與再造的困難。

除了上述因素，最讓人不解的是，政府組織改造是國家長期布局的奠基工程，但行政院卻將此重擔交由層級不高、威望不重的研考會一肩承擔。因此，許多部會在協調中擺出討價還價的姿態，乃至要推翻前議。而對於最後整併上的疑難，行政院竟不透過院內討論尋求共識，卻放任若干部會逕自向個別立法委員遊說，企圖直接訴諸修法，這又為朝野對峙及密室協商提供了翻雲覆雨的機會。

正本清源，政府的組織改造當然是有意義、也有必要的工作，不僅可使整個政府架構因應時代及社會的變化而作出合理的調整，也可敦促政府部門重新檢視自己的功能和績效。但絕不能忘記的是，改造只是「手段」，而不是「目的」；其最後目的，是要實現政府對人民的更佳服務，以及對國家、社會資源的更有效整合運用。若組織改造的結果，只是許多部門掛起新招牌，但在行政作業上使用的卻仍是老套思維，解決問題的能力也依然疲弱如故；那麼，這次改造絕對難稱為成功。

進一步說，組織改造並不是把各單位拆解、再進行組裝這麼簡單的事，而是要讓新的組織在功能上產生「進化」，效能變得更強；否則，這就只是一場政府級的「樂高」遊戲而已。換言之，政府再造所追求的，不是外表的「硬體重組」，而是內部的「軟件整合」，後者才是核心重點。但從目前浮現的問題看，行政部門顯然連硬體的組合都無法解決，對軟體的進化恐怕更是心餘力絀。

從這個角度看，氣象局淪為部會孤兒，以及林務局變成爭奪對象，其實都尚只是暫時現象，最終會獲得解決。但此一空窗現象，實實在在地反映出政府改造「上層思維」的貧乏，才會在整併時面臨找不到方向的困境。最諷刺的是，在現有的政府架構中，坐擁珍貴資源的林務局原是一個受冷落的部門，如今它卻在改造時變成部會間爭奪的搶手貨，真是咄咄怪事。試問，農業部或環境資源部都想好要林務局扮演什麼角色了嗎？

不可諱言，政府改造最令人擔憂的是，既有的組織功能在部門整併中遭到遺漏或疏忽，而被推到三不管地帶，乏人聞問。這也是改革中最常見的陷阱。一則因為這次組織變動極大，二則是時間短促而宣導不足，而一般民眾早已習慣原有的政府架構，許多新舊問題不知要由什麼部門提供解決。更何況，各單位人員隨組織異動而遷徙，必然產生新的人事安頓及環境變動的適應問題，若缺乏妥適的安頓，必生怨懟；在這種情形下，民眾恐怕未享政府再造之利即先蒙其大害。

政府再造需要時間來磨合各部門的接縫，但這個過程必須加快，才不會導致社會怨聲載道。陳揆也必須對此付出更多關注，解決部會間的歧見，不能任由各方把整併工程當成買賣在那裡討價還價，讓在野黨和民眾看笑話。