VietNamNet recently published an interview titled "Those afraid of staff streamlining aren't fit to be public servants." Do you share this view with Dr Doan Huu Tue, the interviewee?

In my opinion, Tue’s exit from state agencies didn’t represent the majority. If Tue had remained a public servant, with his capabilities, he would surely have continued to get a promotion.

Unlike other civil servants, Tue’s work was not at a standstill, and he did not feel an ideological impasse when deciding to leave the state agency. Tue’s situation is quite different from the workers subject to the upcoming layoffs who lack the capability to continue working at state agencies, or who cannot satisfy requirements at work. 

However, Tue’s story is a wake-up call, ringing the alarm bell over the phenomenon that competent individuals and talented workers might leave the public sector for various reasons. That would be a big loss to the state apparatus.

The courage of the leadership

What is your view on the workers who "deserve to be laid off?"

Currently, agencies are just beginning reorganizations, while no specific lists or timelines are fixed. However, I think two groups of workers are subject to the apparatus streamlining.

The first group of workers involves those at the agencies ceasing operations. They will be immediately impacted. But this group is smaller compared to the second group, i.e., those at the agencies which are going to merge with others.

For this second group, I notice insufficient attention to how individuals initially entered the state environment.

These public servants should think about how they obtained their positions in the public sector and what they did over the years.

During my workdays, when visiting localities, people often jokingly advised me not to ask someone about their field of expertise or which major they studied, but ask who their parents were or whether they were relatives of high-ranking officials.

It is not by chance that people say that in order to become a public servant, one needs to have one or more than one of the following things: relations (with high ranking officials who have the authority to appoint officers to positions); money (to give bribes to high ranking officials in exchange for high positions); descendants (relatives or the next generations of high ranking officials); or intelligence.

If someone becomes a public servant through money or relations, what significant contributions could they offer?

Many of the officers who enter the public sector thanks to the first three conditions have questionable capability. They even could not pass the civil service exams. 

For those who become public servants thanks to their real capability, I can say for sure that the possibility of them being laid off is very low, because the apparatus streamlining is carried out based on officers’ achievements.

Do you think that officers will compete with each other to avoid being dismissed?

Such competition is unlikely. One can improve a little during a short time, and no one can turn from a bad worker into an excellent one to avoid layoffs.

In general, leaders of organizations and state agencies know who is good and who is bad at work. However, the current evaluation system, in many cases, does not reflect staff’s real capability.

Previously, statistics showed that fewer than one percent of civil servants do not accomplish their duties each year, and the figures don’t truly reflect the real situation. 

In addition to the unreasonable evaluation system, public servants are not assessed based on their true worth because comments are based on feelings, because of a tendency to maintain harmony and avoid conflicts among colleagues.

I know many officers who cannot create any valuable work and their major mission is attending meetings and conferences. Everyone knows that the officers are bad, but no one makes negative comments about them.

However, as the apparatus streamlining campaign has kicked off and agencies will have to downsize their personnel, leaders and officers will have to change their assessment methods. While relationships still influence decisions, transparency in workforce evaluations will be critical. Will leaders have the courage to assess staff objectively?

If the officers to be laid off are really bad at work, will they become better when they have to leave the public sector, which is a familiar environment to them?

to be continued...

Ngan Anh