Sincere and enduring

(Baonghean) - “Some people say that being a civil servant is actually very easy: you just do the same job, the same function, and after doing it for so long, it becomes a skill, a habit, and then you become proficient and the work becomes easy. If you don't have the ambition to strive, then you just smile and talk at the right time and place, come and go on time, don't get too close to anyone, and you just climb the ranks in order, retiring effortlessly! If you want to have this or that role, you just put in a little more effort, take on additional responsibilities in the organization, show respect to superiors and superiors, actively self-criticize and review yourself,… and...”.

If we consider people like the ones mentioned above as "diligent civil servants" in disguise, then what kind of civil servants are those who are stuck doing one job poorly, fail to adhere to schedules, and show disrespect to superiors and subordinates? Clearly, they are not the model of "sincere and steadfast" civil servants that the collective encourages individuals to emulate, unless the common good turns into a chaotic marketplace where anyone can do or say whatever they want.

My grandmother was very diligent in going to the temple and often lectured me about Buddhist teachings, but what I remember most is the saying, "Live with a good heart." Why? Because a good heart is not only important in how we live with ourselves and others, but it's essential for all aspects of a person's life: eating, living, walking, standing, working, enjoying life, and so on. A conscientious action must be the result of thoughts for oneself and others. "For oneself" isn't about calculating profit and loss, but about aligning with one's conscience and principles to see if what one is about to do contradicts the values ​​one has built and respects.

If you can identify at which station that behavior veered off the rails of conscience, how can you correct the deviation? If not, begin by considering the consequences of this behavior for those around you and always remember: Treat others the way you want to be treated. The essence of the heart is actually the respect we must have for each other and for ourselves.

At this point, some might loudly argue that having a good heart means not harming anyone. But if we let the lazy thrive alongside the diligent, then "gold and dross will be mixed together," and who can distinguish between them? For example: A leader who dares not offend anyone, feigning blindness and deafness to right and wrong, good and bad, to cling to their position or for a greater ambition, will only achieve mediocre and lackluster results for the unit, agency, city, province, etc., they lead. Such people leave behind a complete and utter legacy, because they don't dare to face the difficulties of the beginning, so their careers ultimately become bland and unsustainable; how can a foundation be built before it's even constructed? If "living with a good heart" means struggling to harmonize individual and collective interests, then individuals will naturally be eliminated and ostracized so that the collective can thrive—in other words, "dying with a good heart"!

Living with a conscience, working with a conscience: of course, not everyone is selfless enough to fully implement this. Ultimately, within a group, there must be individuals, and ensuring the interests of each individual is both the right and the responsibility of the group. What's wrong with each public servant working and striving for themselves and then for the group? Perhaps the challenge lies in finding a balance between "me" and "us," ensuring that "when the water rises, the weeds rise." Therefore, someone with ambition who benefits the group is infinitely better than someone who considers themselves selfless but is a parasite, dependent and dependent. Those who are considered self-serving but at least don't harm the group are also showing genuine sincerity!

Hai Trieu