Why not try being an insider?

(Baonghean) - Finally, the exact figure of 100,000 people has been included in the draft Decree on the plan to streamline the workforce over 6 years (2014-2020) submitted by the Ministry of Interior for comments.

Public opinion was inevitably somewhat surprised by the rather unexpected appearance of a policy considered "hot," especially during this "Celebrating the Party - Celebrating the Spring" period. Although it is still only a draft document, meaning it still has to go through many review steps, multiple levels of assessment, expert opinions, and especially the final approval of the Prime Minister before it can be implemented, given the long delays in policy implementation, it will likely take a considerable amount of time for this policy to reduce the number of corrupt civil servants to become a reality. However, the draft Decree immediately received attention, not only from civil servants but also from society as a whole.

People's concern is understandable, because this is a persistent and pressing issue within the system, an objective requirement of the development process, and a story considered very difficult. It's difficult because it directly affects people, and moreover, it affects... officials. When a policy, even in its nascent stages, receives so much attention, it's certainly not just "papers from the heavens" (a line from the 2014 Tet Comedy Show). For a long time, the effectiveness of the civil servant workforce has been mentioned as one of the most "persistent" limitations. Public opinion seems to have reached a saturation point, and everything remains unchanged. The term "civil servant carrying an umbrella" is rampant across various forums.

Taxpayers have reason to be indignant upon hearing that up to 30% of public servants are wasting state funds by "doing nothing"! Somewhere, public opinion expresses its complaints through mockery: "Everyone has a job, but no one wants to work – no one wants to work, but everyone gets a salary – everyone gets a salary, but no one's salary is enough to live on – no one's salary is enough to live on, but everyone still... lives." People have long awaited the government to do something to demonstrate, first and foremost, its attitude, and then to gradually "resolve" the problem of this "stockpile" of civil servants. In a recent statement, Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc said: "In our system, up to 30% of civil servants are unnecessary because they work in a way that involves simply showing up in the morning and leaving in the evening, without bringing about any work efficiency." Thus, from high-ranking leaders to ordinary citizens, everyone recognizes and condemns this reality. The draft decree on downsizing the workforce was therefore created to help alleviate the policy-related shortage.

However, this issue has raised many concerns in public opinion. First, there's the figure of 100,000, a seemingly "nice" and round number, but one that doesn't appear to stem from any scientific investigation. People suspect a subjective interpretation of this significant number. Someone even tried the calculation: currently, there are about 2.8 million civil servants nationwide. If we take 30% of 2.8 million, this number is about 840,000 people... Yet, in six years, we've only managed to "resolve" less than one-eighth of that number. Can this be considered "fundamental"? At this rate, when will our civil service system become truly streamlined? Suppose after six years we manage to "resolve" 100,000, what will happen to the remaining 740,000? Does it really require a period of "eight times six" (48 years)? Therefore, it's not unreasonable for someone to say that the policy itself is correct and good, no question about it, but the level of "targets" is a bit... "amusing".

The second concern is that the draft seems insufficient to instill confidence in the possibility of a non-negative outcome during the downsizing process. There are worries that while there will be "reduction," the "quality" of the workforce is uncertain; will there be any opportunistic maneuvering? Concerns about corruption, and even the shift from "showing deference" to "avoiding" are raised. Some say "we're afraid before we even start," while others say "we have to be afraid to do anything." That's public opinion, but these concerns are not unfounded and are not without merit.

Another concern is that 80% of those laid off are in the category of "early retirement." This means that in just a few years, even without the "downsizing," they would still have to retire according to the regulations. So, what is the point of downsizing in this case? Only 20% are actually laid off, while reality confirms that "civil servants" essentially have no age limit! Admittedly, this is just a draft, so we have a responsibility to contribute our voices to its development. We still lean towards not setting such a long-term figure. Perhaps we should set a general goal, then develop a pilot project for one or two years, after which we will summarize and evaluate the results, and simultaneously develop a roadmap to definitively resolve the remaining "staffing shortage."

It's still the same old story: "It's easier said than done...", so we want all of us to try putting ourselves in the shoes of those involved to understand, empathize, and act in the most appropriate way. Put yourself in the position of policymakers to see the difficulties, put yourself in the position of civil servants to cooperate... Especially if you are a civil servant, boldly put yourself in the position of those "being laid off" to empathize. Who knows, this might motivate us to strive harder and may also be the necessary preparation for change within ourselves. After all, recognizing our limitations and voluntarily stepping down to make way for progress is also a cultural practice... it's also a contribution, and it's also a way of building!

Nguyen Khac An