- •Public Administration And Public Policy
- •Contents
- •Acknowledgments
- •About The Authors
- •Comments On Purpose and Methods
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Culture
- •1.3 Colonial Legacies
- •1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
- •1.3.2 Latin Legacy
- •1.3.3 American Legacy
- •1.4 Decentralization
- •1.5 Ethics
- •1.5.1 Types of Corruption
- •1.5.2 Ethics Management
- •1.6 Performance Management
- •1.6.2 Structural Changes
- •1.6.3 New Public Management
- •1.7 Civil Service
- •1.7.1 Size
- •1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •1.7.3 Pay and Performance
- •1.7.4 Training
- •1.8 Conclusion
- •Contents
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Historical Developments and Legacies
- •2.2.1.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of King as Leader
- •2.2.1.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.1.3 Third Legacy: Traditions of Hierarchy and Clientelism
- •2.2.1.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition of Reconciliation
- •2.2.2.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of Bureaucratic Elites as a Privileged Group
- •2.2.2.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.2.3 Third Legacy: The Practice of Staging Military Coups
- •2.2.2.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition for Military Elites to be Loyal to the King
- •2.2.3.1 First Legacy: Elected Politicians as the New Political Boss
- •2.2.3.2 Second Legacy: Frequent and Unpredictable Changes of Political Bosses
- •2.2.3.3 Third Legacy: Politicians from the Provinces Becoming Bosses
- •2.2.3.4 Fourth Legacy: The Problem with the Credibility of Politicians
- •2.2.4.1 First Emerging Legacy: Big Businessmen in Power
- •2.2.4.2 Second Emerging Legacy: Super CEO Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.4.3 Third Emerging Legacy: Government must Serve Big Business Interests
- •2.2.5.1 Emerging Legacy: The Clash between Governance Values and Thai Realities
- •2.2.5.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters
- •2.3 Uniqueness of the Thai Political Context
- •2.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •3.1 Thailand Administrative Structure
- •3.2 History of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.2.1 Thailand as a Centralized State
- •3.2.2 Towards Decentralization
- •3.3 The Politics of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.3.2 Shrinking Political Power of the Military and Bureaucracy
- •3.4 Drafting the TAO Law 199421
- •3.5 Impacts of the Decentralization Reform on Local Government in Thailand: Ongoing Challenges
- •3.5.1 Strong Executive System
- •3.5.2 Thai Local Political System
- •3.5.3 Fiscal Decentralization
- •3.5.4 Transferred Responsibilities
- •3.5.5 Limited Spending on Personnel
- •3.5.6 New Local Government Personnel System
- •3.6 Local Governments Reaching Out to Local Community
- •3.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Corruption: General Situation in Thailand
- •4.2.1 Transparency International and its Corruption Perception Index
- •4.2.2 Types of Corruption
- •4.3 A Deeper Look at Corruption in Thailand
- •4.3.1 Vanishing Moral Lessons
- •4.3.4 High Premium on Political Stability
- •4.4 Existing State Mechanisms to Fight Corruption
- •4.4.2 Constraints and Limitations of Public Agencies
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 History of Performance Management
- •5.2.1 National Economic and Social Development Plans
- •5.2.2 Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform
- •5.3 Performance Management Reform: A Move Toward High Performance Organizations
- •5.3.1 Organization Restructuring to Increase Autonomy
- •5.3.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.3 Knowledge Management Toward Learning Organizations
- •5.3.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned
- •5.3.5.1 Organizational Restructuring
- •5.3.5.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.5.3 Knowledge Management
- •5.3.5.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.4.4 Outcome of Budgeting Reform: The Budget Process in Thailand
- •5.4.5 Conclusion
- •5.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •6.1.1 Civil Service Personnel
- •6.1.2 Development of the Civil Service Human Resource System
- •6.1.3 Problems of Civil Service Human Resource
- •6.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •6.2.1 Main Feature
- •6.2.2 Challenges of Recruitment and Selection
- •6.3.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.2 Salary Management
- •6.4.2.2 Performance Management and Salary Increase
- •6.4.3 Position Allowance
- •6.4.5 National Compensation Committee
- •6.4.6 Retirement and Pension
- •6.4.7 Challenges in Compensation
- •6.5 Training and Development
- •6.5.1 Main Feature
- •6.5.2 Challenges of Training and Development in the Civil Service
- •6.6 Discipline and Merit Protection
- •6.6.1 Main Feature
- •6.6.2 Challenges of Discipline
- •6.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •English References
- •Contents
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Setting and Context
- •7.3 Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization
- •7.4 Post Independence, New Economic Policy, and Malay Dominance
- •7.5 Centralization of Executive Powers under Mahathir
- •7.6 Administrative Values
- •7.6.1 Close Ties with the Political Party
- •7.6.2 Laws that Promote Secrecy, Continuing Concerns with Corruption
- •7.6.3 Politics over Performance
- •7.6.4 Increasing Islamization of the Civil Service
- •7.7 Ethnic Politics and Reforms
- •7.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 System of Government in Malaysia
- •8.5 Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization
- •8.6 Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization
- •8.7 Reinforcing Centralization
- •8.8 Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization
- •8.9 Where to Decentralization?
- •8.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Ethics and Corruption in Malaysia: General Observations
- •9.2.1 Factors of Corruption
- •9.3 Recent Corruption Scandals
- •9.3.1 Cases Involving Bureaucrats and Executives
- •9.3.2 Procurement Issues
- •9.4 Efforts to Address Corruption and Instill Ethics
- •9.4.1.1 Educational Strategy
- •9.4.1.2 Preventive Strategy
- •9.4.1.3 Punitive Strategy
- •9.4.2 Public Accounts Committee and Public Complaints Bureau
- •9.5 Other Efforts
- •9.6 Assessment and Recommendations
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •10.1 History of Performance Management in the Administrative System
- •10.1.1 Policy Frameworks
- •10.1.2 Organizational Structures
- •10.1.2.1 Values and Work Ethic
- •10.1.2.2 Administrative Devices
- •10.1.2.3 Performance, Financial, and Budgetary Reporting
- •10.2 Performance Management Reforms in the Past Ten Years
- •10.2.1 Electronic Government
- •10.2.2 Public Service Delivery System
- •10.2.3 Other Management Reforms
- •10.3 Assessment of Performance Management Reforms
- •10.4 Analysis and Recommendations
- •10.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.2.1 Public Service Department
- •11.2.2 Public Service Commission
- •11.2.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •11.2.4 Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit
- •11.2.5 Administrative and Diplomatic Service
- •11.4 Civil Service Pension Scheme
- •11.5 Civil Service Neutrality
- •11.6 Civil Service Culture
- •11.7 Reform in the Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.2.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.3.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.4.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.4.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.5.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.5.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.6.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.6.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.7 Public Administration and Society
- •12.7.1 Public Accountability and Participation
- •12.7.2 Administrative Values
- •12.8 Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance
- •12.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Constitutional Framework of the Basic Law
- •13.4 Changing Relations between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •13.4.1 Constitutional Dimension
- •13.4.1.1 Contending Interpretations over the Basic Law
- •13.4.1.3 New Constitutional Order in the Making
- •13.4.2 Political Dimension
- •13.4.2.3 Contention over Political Reform
- •13.4.3 The Economic Dimension
- •13.4.3.1 Expanding Intergovernmental Links
- •13.4.3.2 Fostering Closer Economic Partnership and Financial Relations
- •13.4.3.3 Seeking Cooperation and Coordination in Regional and National Development
- •13.4.4 External Dimension
- •13.5 Challenges and Prospects in the Relations between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •References
- •Contents
- •14.1 Honesty, Integrity, and Adherence to the Law
- •14.2 Accountability, Openness, and Political Neutrality
- •14.2.1 Accountability
- •14.2.2 Openness
- •14.2.3 Political Neutrality
- •14.3 Impartiality and Service to the Community
- •14.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong
- •15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance
- •15.3.2 Adoption of Performance Pledges
- •15.3.3 Linking Budget to Performance
- •15.3.4 Relating Rewards to Performance
- •15.4 Assessment of Outcomes of Performance Management Reforms
- •15.4.1 Are Departments Properly Measuring their Performance?
- •15.4.2 Are Budget Decisions Based on Performance Results?
- •15.4.5 Overall Evaluation
- •15.5 Measurability of Performance
- •15.6 Ownership of, and Responsibility for, Performance
- •15.7 The Politics of Performance
- •15.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Structure of the Public Sector
- •16.2.1 Core Government
- •16.2.2 Hybrid Agencies
- •16.2.4 Private Businesses that Deliver Public Services
- •16.3 Administrative Values
- •16.4 Politicians and Bureaucrats
- •16.5 Management Tools and their Reform
- •16.5.1 Selection
- •16.5.2 Performance Management
- •16.5.3 Compensation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 The Philippines: A Brief Background
- •17.4 Philippine Bureaucracy during the Spanish Colonial Regime
- •17.6 American Colonial Regime and the Philippine Commonwealth
- •17.8 Independence Period and the Establishment of the Institute of Public Administration
- •17.9 Administrative Values in the Philippines
- •17.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Toward a Genuine Local Autonomy and Decentralization in the Philippines
- •18.2.1 Evolution of Local Autonomy
- •18.2.2 Government Structure and the Local Government System
- •18.2.3 Devolution under the Local Government Code of 1991
- •18.2.4 Local Government Finance
- •18.2.5 Local Government Bureaucracy and Personnel
- •18.3 Review of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its Implementation
- •18.3.1 Gains and Successes of Decentralization
- •18.3.2 Assessing the Impact of Decentralization
- •18.3.2.1 Overall Policy Design
- •18.3.2.2 Administrative and Political Issues
- •18.3.2.2.1 Central and Sub-National Role in Devolution
- •18.3.2.2.3 High Budget for Personnel at the Local Level
- •18.3.2.2.4 Political Capture by the Elite
- •18.3.2.3 Fiscal Decentralization Issues
- •18.3.2.3.1 Macroeconomic Stability
- •18.3.2.3.2 Policy Design Issues of the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.3.2.3.4 Disruptive Effect of the Creation of New Local Government Units
- •18.3.2.3.5 Disparate Planning, Unhealthy Competition, and Corruption
- •18.4 Local Governance Reforms, Capacity Building, and Research Agenda
- •18.4.1 Financial Resources and Reforming the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.4.3 Government Functions and Powers
- •18.4.6 Local Government Performance Measurement
- •18.4.7 Capacity Building
- •18.4.8 People Participation
- •18.4.9 Political Concerns
- •18.4.10 Federalism
- •18.5 Conclusions and the Way Forward
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Control
- •19.2.1 Laws that Break Up the Alignment of Forces to Minimize State Capture
- •19.2.2 Executive Measures that Optimize Deterrence
- •19.2.3 Initiatives that Close Regulatory Gaps
- •19.2.4 Collateral Measures on Electoral Reform
- •19.3 Guidance
- •19.3.1 Leadership that Casts a Wide Net over Corrupt Acts
- •19.3.2 Limiting Monopoly and Discretion to Constrain Abuse of Power
- •19.3.3 Participatory Appraisal that Increases Agency Resistance against Misconduct
- •19.3.4 Steps that Encourage Public Vigilance and the Growth of Civil Society Watchdogs
- •19.3.5 Decentralized Guidance that eases Log Jams in Centralized Decision Making
- •19.4 Management
- •19.5 Creating Virtuous Circles in Public Ethics and Accountability
- •19.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2 Problems and Challenges Facing Bureaucracy in the Philippines Today
- •20.3 Past Reform Initiatives of the Philippine Public Administrative System
- •20.4.1 Rebuilding Institutions and Improving Performance
- •20.4.1.1 Size and Effectiveness of the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.1.2 Privatization
- •20.4.1.3 Addressing Corruption
- •20.4.1.5 Improving Work Processes
- •20.4.2 Performance Management Initiatives for the New Millennium
- •20.4.2.1 Financial Management
- •20.4.2.2 New Government Accounting System
- •20.4.2.3 Public Expenditure Management
- •20.4.2.4 Procurement Reforms
- •20.4.3 Human Resource Management
- •20.4.3.1 Organizing for Performance
- •20.4.3.2 Performance Evaluation
- •20.4.3.3 Rationalizing the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.3.4 Public Sector Compensation
- •20.4.3.5 Quality Management Systems
- •20.4.3.6 Local Government Initiatives
- •20.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Country Development Context
- •21.3 Evolution and Current State of the Philippine Civil Service System
- •21.3.1 Beginnings of a Modern Civil Service
- •21.3.2 Inventory of Government Personnel
- •21.3.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •21.3.6 Training and Development
- •21.3.7 Incentive Structure in the Bureaucracy
- •21.3.8 Filipino Culture
- •21.3.9 Bureaucratic Values and Performance Culture
- •21.3.10 Grievance and Redress System
- •21.4 Development Performance of the Philippine Civil Service
- •21.5 Key Development Challenges
- •21.5.1 Corruption
- •21.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 History
- •22.3 Major Reform Measures since the Handover
- •22.4 Analysis of the Reform Roadmap
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •23.1 Decentralization, Autonomy, and Democracy
- •23.3.1 From Recession to Take Off
- •23.3.2 Politics of Growth
- •23.3.3 Government Inertia
- •23.4 Autonomy as Collective Identity
- •23.4.3 Social Group Dynamics
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Functions and Performance of the Commission Against Corruption of Macao
- •24.2.1 Functions
- •24.2.2 Guidelines on the Professional Ethics and Conduct of Public Servants
- •24.2.3 Performance
- •24.2.4 Structure
- •24.2.5 Personnel Establishment
- •24.3 New Challenges
- •24.3.1 The Case of Ao Man Long
- •24.3.2 Dilemma of Sunshine Law
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2 Theoretical Basis of the Reform
- •25.3 Historical Background
- •25.4 Problems in the Civil Service Culture
- •25.5 Systemic Problems
- •25.6 Performance Management Reform
- •25.6.1 Performance Pledges
- •25.6.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.7 Results and Problems
- •25.7.1 Performance Pledge
- •25.7.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.8 Conclusion and Future Development
- •References
- •Contents
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Civil Service System
- •26.2.1 Types of Civil Servants
- •26.2.2 Bureaucratic Structure
- •26.2.4 Personnel Management
- •26.4 Civil Service Reform
- •26.5 Conclusion
- •References
20 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
Philippines for the moment but the government must be open to discover new methodologies to achieve optimum results.”
By contrast, Macao has been lagging in NPM initiatives, adopting them only since the handover in 1999. Performance pledges were first adopted in 2001, but despite efforts, chief executive Edmund Ho indicated in 2005 that “conservative bureaucratic culture still existed stubbornly in some government departments and that their service delivery had derailed from the concept of putting people first.” The key problems noted are lethargy, lacking meritocracy, small group politics, corruption, and non-responsiveness. Privatization is not part of the Macao performance management strategy. Relative to other governments, Macao has taken only a few steps toward NPM.
In conclusion, how successful are the performance management efforts? In many ways, the experience is consistent with that of elsewhere. While important and necessary gains have been realized in dealing with customer service and efficiency, and use of e-government, many of the larger issues have gone unaddressed. This concerns not only inherent problems in applying these tools to the public sector, but the broader issue that is succinctly stated by Mangahas: “there are defi nitely a critical mass of good performers in the system. However, political interference, political patronage, and governance issues are major stumbling blocks to government efficiency and effectiveness.” The case may be exacerbated in the Philippines, but the basic pattern is evident almost everywhere. This sentiment is echoed by Cheung in Hong Kong, who states: “Judging from the rather ambiguous and even superficial way in which performance measurement is put to use in Hong Kong, the lesson seems to be that unless the various stakeholders in government genuinely believe that performance measurement represents a fairer, more reliable, and generally more effective process to drive resource allocation, performance evaluation and reward decisions, it will continue to exist more on paper as a managerial rhetoric than as an effective tool to inculcate a fundamental shift in organizational thinking and behavior.”
In Thailand, too, “a meaningful budget reform cannot be achieved simply by relying solely on technical improvements. Technical improvements are good innovations, but they are inadequate. The role of Parliament in the budget process must also be strengthened in order to ensure that the budget policies, priorities, outputs, and outcome are actually responsive to the needs of the people; this means that the political aspect of performance budgeting reform must be taken into account as well.” Likewise, “considerations regarding political policy, approach, and intervention need to be reviewed for a successful performance management reform.” In Malaysia, Yeoh writes, “The last decade has seen numerous attempts at enhancing public administration. In recent years, however, Malaysians have observed acutely the manner in which public administration regulations are hampered by political influence.” In Malaysia, this interference is seen as a result of corruption, and a lack of inclusiveness and transparency in Malaysian public decision making. Yeoh notes that without the ability to correct these problems, “it is difficult to push for public administration reform.”
The conclusion seems inescapably clear that the next round of reforms need to address the bigger targets.
1.7 Civil Service
The quality of public service is obviously impacted by the quality and motivation of public service personnel. As in the rest of the world, concern for these aspects is reflected in strategies related to recruitment and selection, pay and incentive strategies, and training.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Public Administration in Southeast Asia: An Overview 21
1.7.1 Size
In Malaysia, according to Manaf, during the early “Post-colonisation era, the civil service formed the largest employment in the country, employing about 300,000, or 16 percent of total employment. In 1997, the number reached almost 700,000. Today, if the armed forces and police force are included, the Malaysian civil service numbers about 1.2 million employees for a population of about 27 million. Thailand has about 2 million civil servants for a population of about 65 million. In both Thailand and Malaysia, the civil service makes up about 3% of the total population, but in the Philippines about 1.5 million civil servants serve a population of 92 million people, which is only 1.6%. Macao has about 21,000 civil servants for a population of about 0.5 million, though the additional number if contract employees is thought to 30%–50%. Hong Kong has 160,000 employees for a population of 7 million, but relies increasingly on state-owned enterprises and contract services. Hong Kong’s civil servants do not include most teachers, who work in the state-subsidized private school system, or most medical personnel, now employed by the Hospital Authority. By comparison, in the United States about about 20 million people work for government (civilian workers) out of a population of about 309 million, which is about 6%, and a significant amount is additionally contracted, perhaps doubling this number.16 Hence, by most accounts, the relative size of the public service is modest in Southeast Asia.
1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
Historically, the civil service in Thailand, Malaysia, and Hong Kong is seen as a collection of the nation’s best brains to guide the country. Even if expectations have fallen short, entry has remained highly competitive. While concerns about the ability of the public service to lead nations in the modern age are increasingly common, selection into the civil service remains highly competitive. Thailand has a civil service examination, and in July 2009, amidst the economic downturn, more than 500,000 people applied for the competitive examination for less than 10,000 vacant positions in various departments. In Hong Kong, being a civil servant is the third highest prestigious occupation, behind doctor and teacher, slightly ahead of politician and businessman. In recent years, hiring has been sparse, as Burns states that “entry into Hong Kong’s civil service is highly competitive and for the most prestigious posts (e.g., in the Administrative Service) requires… passing a battery of examinations, tests, and interviews with a success rate of no more than 0.2 percent.”
In the Philippines, of the 132,602 who took the civil service examination in 2008 (professional level, i.e., university degree holders), 12,279 or 9% passed. At the sub-professional level, 4,707 or 13% passed out of 34,521 takers. Pay is not too good, and while “civil service appointment is competitive. The system, nonetheless, does not necessarily attract the best and the brightest despite efforts to do so.”17 In Macao, caps have been placed on civil service hiring, but exempt contracts are given instead, which are often renewed. Also, Yu writes that, “many civil servants received inadequate education. Before the handover, nearly half of Macao’s civil servants received only a secondary school education or below… and many low-rank Chinese officials were promoted to senior positions to fill up the vacancies left by the Portuguese. However, many of them did not possess sufficient management experience.”
16The amount of off-budget jobs is large; Paul Light estimates an additional 8 million jobs in 2002 for the federal workforce alone (http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/0905politics_light.aspx).
17Private communication from Joel Mangahas, December 2009.
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
22 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
1.7.3 Pay and Performance
Pay varies greatly. In Hong Kong and Malaysia, within the private sector the pay is competitive. In Hong Kong, rewards at the top have been exceedingly generous,18 and Burns writes, “salaries in the civil service compare well with those in the private sector. Indeed, controversies in Hong Kong have focused claims that the civil service is over-paid compared to the private sector, not underpaid.” In Malaysia, Manaf writes, “over the years, civil service pay in general has much improved, although it will never be able to match the salaries of the larger corporations of the private sector… with the 2007 increase, civil service pay has become more comparable, if not better than the private sector.” Yu writes that Macao civil servants’ pay is very competitive and attracts many citizens applying for a position in government.
But in Thailand, Piyawat writes that “pay difference between the civil service and the private sector is one of the most challenging factors under the compensation system. The current entry level pay gap between the two sectors is approximately 20% for bachelor degree graduates in the field of social science... and climbs to about 40% for master degree graduates.” In the Philippines, “bright and talented young people seldom consider a career in the government. It is publicly perceived that the government is a poor employer in terms of pay, job satisfaction and career growth… (but) past reform efforts have steadily and significantly changed working conditions in the civil service. Government pay is now relatively at par with the private sector, at least for the first and second level positions.”19
Thailand like other countries has introduced a system of merit increases, which are conducted twice a year. Interestingly, Hong Kong has rejected pay for performance schemes because it finds them too difficult to implement. “In the absence of performance-based pay arguably the incentive for civil servants in Hong Kong to work hard is promotion and in 2006 more than 1,100 civil servants were promoted to middle and senior management and professional positions out of a total of some 33,000 or so positions in this range. Promotion opportunities are relatively few and highly sought after, in part because most civil servants have already reached the top of their current rank pay ladder.”
Lam writes that prior to changes, Macao’s employee performance assessment system involved 11 categories and that punishment for having an “average” or “poor” performance was quite harsh. However, this system did not lead to better performance, because in practice, assessors became lenient, consequently undermining the purpose of the assessment. As a result, legislators and scholars criticized civil servants for covering up poor performance and giving out “good” or “excellent” ratings as the norm. In 2004, rating categories were changed. Employees obtaining the “excellent” rating are rewarded with either a 10-day paid vacation or prize money equivalent to half a month’s pay. Those receiving the “excellent” or “very satisfactory” ratings will have their contract renewed, but those rated “slightly dissatisfactory” will have to go through a performance improvement process, including retraining, job redefinition, or job reallocation, and potential internal transfer or transfer out. Those rated “dissatisfactory” are investigated and those creating difficulties during the investigation will have their contracts terminated for pre-emptive reasons. While the evidence is still out on the effectiveness of this new scheme, the experience, not unlike elsewhere, may be that periodic changes are necessary.
18Hong Kong’s Chief Executive is the second highest paid in Asia (after Singapore), earning $5.15 million per year plus benefits, in 2008.
19C. De Leon, “Reforms In The Civil Service The Philippine Experience.” http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/ public/documents/un/unpan007437.pdf (accessed December 7, 2009).
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Public Administration in Southeast Asia: An Overview 23
Interestingly, managers and staff in Hong Kong have resisted pay for performance plans, noting that “there is widespread reservation and skepticism on the feasibility and practicability of introducing performance pay in the civil service” and few, if any, success stories from overseas experiences. Instead, in Hong Kong the belief is that promotion is the reward for performance. However, such decisions often reflect considerations of seniority and promotion opportunities are scarce: “In the absence of performance-based pay, arguably the incentive for civil servants in Hong Kong to work hard is promotion and in 2006 more than 1,100 civil servants were promoted to middle and senior management and professional positions out of a total of some 33,000 or so positions in this range.” Also, by 2008, various government agencies had hired 16,000 employees as “non-civil service contract staff,” which include fi xed-term appointments, no automatic salary increments, and no possibility of promotion.
1.7.4 Training
Malaysia and Thailand have huge, well-respected, central training institutes. Founded in 1972, the Malaysian National Institute of Public Administration (INTAN) provides training for the whole public sector, with courses in areas such as economic development and policy management, quality management, financial management, information technology, and languages. Throughout the 1990s, INTAN played a major role in enhancing awareness and commitment toward quality and continuous improvement among public sector employees, and this was followed by realignment in its courses toward achieving Vision 2020. INTAN also plays a central role in the selection and training of the Malaysian Administrative and Diplomatic Service (ADS). As Manaf writes:
Short listed candidates will first sit for a written test which covers topics on general knowledge about Malaysia and its environment, problem-solving skills, comprehension, and written essays in English and Malay language. Those who fared well in the exams will be short listed to attend the PTD Assessment Centre (PAC). The PAC is a three-day programme and is held in all INTAN campuses throughout the country... Being appointed as an ADS officer is just the beginning as there are four more stages that an ADS officer has to go through upon gaining entry into the service; the first being a ten-day course called “PTD Unggul.” The course serves as the foundation course in educating ADS officers on the need to subscribe to an excellent work culture and the role they have to play in fulfilling the aspirations of the nation and its stakeholders. At the end of the course, the young recruits are made known of their job assignments and which ministries or departments they are attached to, be it at the state or federal level. And so begins the next phase of the career path of an ADS officer, where he or she will then undergo a six-month on-the-job training. The six-month stint is next followed by the compulsory requirement to attend another six month of Diploma in Public Administration (DPA) course at INTAN’s main campus in Bukit Kiara. The DPA course not only stresses on the academic aspect of public administration, but also emphasises on elements such as discipline and character building in order to mould a “super” ADS officer.
In Thailand, the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) provides much of the graduate education in public administration for the Thai civil service. For example, its Master’s in Public Administration program has over 2000 students throughout its various campuses. By contrast, training in the Philippines’ civil service is supply driven. “It is usually tied
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC