论文部分内容阅读
The 2012 Nationwide Civil Servants’Recruitment Exam will put more emphasis on evaluating the virtue of the examtakers, says the State Administration of Civil Service.
For future recruitment of new civil servants, virtue is even more important than their competence. If an exam-taker has insufficient social responsibility or inadequate sense to serve the public, one should never be admitted as civil servant even if he or she scores high in the examination.
As soon as the news was released, a heated debate started. Some people thought the new regulation was reasonable while others thought it will cause more problems than it will solve.
Supporters say they think virtue as a standard for recruiting civil servants is a good idea. It aims at stopping the decline in morality of civil servants. On the other hand, opponents say it will easily cause inequality or under-thetable deals in the exams, because moral principles, such as one’s virtue, are hard to measure or test.
Necessary
Fei Xiang (http://cpc.people.com. cn): No matter if one is a decent human being or a civil servant, one should be virtuous, and anything else doesn’t matter. Generally speaking, if a government official violates principles, the reason is often problems with their morality rather than his caliber at work. Therefore, when recruiting civil servants, virtue should be the first and foremost standard because a good civil servant, especially a government official or a leader, should be examples of virtue for society. It’s quite necessary to evaluate exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting future civil servants, which will make sure the group is virtuous from the beginning.
Li Shuang (http://comment.scol. com.cn): We should continue testing and evaluating exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants. I think it’s right to enlarge the proportion of virtue when recruiting civil servants for government departments, because we need morally noble civil servants who can serve people in the country in a better way. As long as a good and constant standard can be set for evaluating virtue in a scientific way, the new regulation should be praised.
Also, it’s equally important to supervise long-term civil servants’ virtue to build a clean, efficient and dedicated group that makes a worthwhile contribution to society.
Unrealistic
Zhu Shaohua (Yangcheng Evening News): The new regulation says that the government shouldn’t admit people who have little social responsibility and little
awareness of serving the people. The regulation is very strict but doesn’t have a measurable standard. For example, college graduates have similar experiences. How can the government determine who is superior.
This new regulation will also cause breaches of ethics, because it may make it easier for government departments to recruit people who have done under-thetable deals with them.
Ma Zhiyuan (http://www.xinhuanet. com): We all know exam-takers have to go through fierce competition before being admitted as a civil servant. Sometimes more than 1,000 people compete for a single job vacancy, and a minor change in the rules can alter the final results and the destiny of the candidates.
The public worries that no specific and unified standards are set to measure the abstract moral character of people. For instance, if one contestant is enthusiastically dedicated to social welfare and always helps the poor and needy, while another works in a village and does his or her best to serve the people, how can we determine which one has better virtue?
For now, it’s not realistic to take virtue as a standard to recruit civil servants and the more practical way is to include it in the one-year probation period for new civil servants.
Also, virtue can change with the change of environment. If we only focus on the exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting but ignore it after they are admitted to government departments, their virtue may deteriorate or even become corrupt without a strict supervision system.
Li Jiming (http://news.hexun.com): Evidence shows the reason for corruption is the imperfect system, flawed management and slack supervision. So, if the atmosphere in China’s government departments is not good, even people of the best virtue will become corrupt eventually. No one is born as a corrupt government of- ficial and the problem lies in society. Also, environment plays the key role in regulating people’s behavior and cultivating virtue.
Therefore, instead of over-emphasizing the importance of evaluating examtakers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants, we should pay more attention to establishing a better environment and cultivating a better atmosphere to improve civil servants’ virtue.
Xiong Bingqi (Nandu Daily): Taking virtue as a standard for civil servants’ recruitment is said to be a way to improve moral levels. But, if not well considered, this new regulation could cause serious corruption for recruitment and won’t improve the overall quality of civil servants.
If virtue is taken into consideration in the interview, there must be specific standards for evaluating it, and it should be specifically regulated what proportion it should make up in the total score. Otherwise, people won’t be able to supervise the whole process to make sure of justice and fairness.
If testing people’s virtue is not part of the interview, it raises many problems. First, besides another procedure for testing, except for exams and interviews, how can we make sure this element is fair and just? Second, what proportion should the evaluation of virtue account for in the final decision? If it enables the power of veto, it would probably be used in under-the-table dealing. The State Administration of Civil Service should inform all of the rules of recruitment.
The problem is not in evaluating exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants but in the supervision of their power after they become civil servants. If their power is restrained and is in the spotlight, no civil servants would dare to violate principles. On the contrary, if their power is not properly supervised and restrained, even people of superior virtue may get corrupt.
Deng Qingbo (Guangzhou Daily): It’s not proper to evaluate virtue when recruiting civil servants.
The corruption of civil servants lies in flaws of management, such as overstaffing, insufficient supervision and the fact that few staff are dismissed for misbehavior.
Statistics show that since the dismissal system for civil servants was established in 1996, only 19,374 civil servants were fired up to 2003, 0.05 percent of the total number in the country, far less than the dismissal rate in companies, which is 5 percent to 15 percent. Even if civil servants with very serious problems, such as incapacity for work or moral problems, are found, they can’t be fired in time. Only when unqualified civil servants can be fired in time will there be improvment. If the atmosphere is improved, governmental departments would be a better place for people to have better motivation and better moral character.
For future recruitment of new civil servants, virtue is even more important than their competence. If an exam-taker has insufficient social responsibility or inadequate sense to serve the public, one should never be admitted as civil servant even if he or she scores high in the examination.
As soon as the news was released, a heated debate started. Some people thought the new regulation was reasonable while others thought it will cause more problems than it will solve.
Supporters say they think virtue as a standard for recruiting civil servants is a good idea. It aims at stopping the decline in morality of civil servants. On the other hand, opponents say it will easily cause inequality or under-thetable deals in the exams, because moral principles, such as one’s virtue, are hard to measure or test.
Necessary
Fei Xiang (http://cpc.people.com. cn): No matter if one is a decent human being or a civil servant, one should be virtuous, and anything else doesn’t matter. Generally speaking, if a government official violates principles, the reason is often problems with their morality rather than his caliber at work. Therefore, when recruiting civil servants, virtue should be the first and foremost standard because a good civil servant, especially a government official or a leader, should be examples of virtue for society. It’s quite necessary to evaluate exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting future civil servants, which will make sure the group is virtuous from the beginning.
Li Shuang (http://comment.scol. com.cn): We should continue testing and evaluating exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants. I think it’s right to enlarge the proportion of virtue when recruiting civil servants for government departments, because we need morally noble civil servants who can serve people in the country in a better way. As long as a good and constant standard can be set for evaluating virtue in a scientific way, the new regulation should be praised.
Also, it’s equally important to supervise long-term civil servants’ virtue to build a clean, efficient and dedicated group that makes a worthwhile contribution to society.
Unrealistic
Zhu Shaohua (Yangcheng Evening News): The new regulation says that the government shouldn’t admit people who have little social responsibility and little
awareness of serving the people. The regulation is very strict but doesn’t have a measurable standard. For example, college graduates have similar experiences. How can the government determine who is superior.
This new regulation will also cause breaches of ethics, because it may make it easier for government departments to recruit people who have done under-thetable deals with them.
Ma Zhiyuan (http://www.xinhuanet. com): We all know exam-takers have to go through fierce competition before being admitted as a civil servant. Sometimes more than 1,000 people compete for a single job vacancy, and a minor change in the rules can alter the final results and the destiny of the candidates.
The public worries that no specific and unified standards are set to measure the abstract moral character of people. For instance, if one contestant is enthusiastically dedicated to social welfare and always helps the poor and needy, while another works in a village and does his or her best to serve the people, how can we determine which one has better virtue?
For now, it’s not realistic to take virtue as a standard to recruit civil servants and the more practical way is to include it in the one-year probation period for new civil servants.
Also, virtue can change with the change of environment. If we only focus on the exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting but ignore it after they are admitted to government departments, their virtue may deteriorate or even become corrupt without a strict supervision system.
Li Jiming (http://news.hexun.com): Evidence shows the reason for corruption is the imperfect system, flawed management and slack supervision. So, if the atmosphere in China’s government departments is not good, even people of the best virtue will become corrupt eventually. No one is born as a corrupt government of- ficial and the problem lies in society. Also, environment plays the key role in regulating people’s behavior and cultivating virtue.
Therefore, instead of over-emphasizing the importance of evaluating examtakers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants, we should pay more attention to establishing a better environment and cultivating a better atmosphere to improve civil servants’ virtue.
Xiong Bingqi (Nandu Daily): Taking virtue as a standard for civil servants’ recruitment is said to be a way to improve moral levels. But, if not well considered, this new regulation could cause serious corruption for recruitment and won’t improve the overall quality of civil servants.
If virtue is taken into consideration in the interview, there must be specific standards for evaluating it, and it should be specifically regulated what proportion it should make up in the total score. Otherwise, people won’t be able to supervise the whole process to make sure of justice and fairness.
If testing people’s virtue is not part of the interview, it raises many problems. First, besides another procedure for testing, except for exams and interviews, how can we make sure this element is fair and just? Second, what proportion should the evaluation of virtue account for in the final decision? If it enables the power of veto, it would probably be used in under-the-table dealing. The State Administration of Civil Service should inform all of the rules of recruitment.
The problem is not in evaluating exam-takers’ virtue when recruiting civil servants but in the supervision of their power after they become civil servants. If their power is restrained and is in the spotlight, no civil servants would dare to violate principles. On the contrary, if their power is not properly supervised and restrained, even people of superior virtue may get corrupt.
Deng Qingbo (Guangzhou Daily): It’s not proper to evaluate virtue when recruiting civil servants.
The corruption of civil servants lies in flaws of management, such as overstaffing, insufficient supervision and the fact that few staff are dismissed for misbehavior.
Statistics show that since the dismissal system for civil servants was established in 1996, only 19,374 civil servants were fired up to 2003, 0.05 percent of the total number in the country, far less than the dismissal rate in companies, which is 5 percent to 15 percent. Even if civil servants with very serious problems, such as incapacity for work or moral problems, are found, they can’t be fired in time. Only when unqualified civil servants can be fired in time will there be improvment. If the atmosphere is improved, governmental departments would be a better place for people to have better motivation and better moral character.