the past, there were only two main types of organizations in the Thai public sector, government

agency and the state enterprise. Now, “there are many kinds of public agencies in the Thai public
sector, ranging from the lowest level to the highest level of autonomy, as follows: government agen-
cies, service delivery units (SDUs), public organizations (POs), autonomous organizations, state
enterprises, public company limited, and independent agencies under the constitution.” Many of
these operate with increased autonomy, and have their own establishment act.

1.6.3 New Public Management

Throughout much of the world, the overarching framework for improving performance in the last
decade has been new performance management (NPM), with its themes of greater citizen and cus-
tomer responsiveness, performance measurement and accountability, and services streamlining.
Process-re engineering, e-government, and re-organization (with some measure of agencification
and contracting out) are the widely used strategies. Strategies for improving individual perfor-
mance are discussed below, in the section on the civil service.
Cheung notes that performance management began in Hong Kong in 1992 with perfor-
mance pledges and the establishment of an Efficiency Unit. A program management system was
instituted in 1993, requiring each department to establish performance measures and targets for
its programs. These evolved into separate effectiveness (service quality) and efficiency measures.
Reports are annually submitted to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. In 2002,
the budget processes emphasized relating resource allocation to performance and policy results. In
recent years, the emphasis has been to:

◾ Focusing on the changing needs of the community

◾ Shifting from a process-oriented approach to a customer-oriented approach
◾ Developing the management system to cater for continuous changes
◾ Recognizing the effort and flexibility of government departments in supporting changing
policy objectives
◾ Measuring performance for government units involved in delivering integrated services
◾ Linking up budget with performance result
◾ Adopting a life cycle perspective for continuous improvement

Still, Cheung concludes that despite a decade of practice, serious questions remain. Performance
measures are not always used or quantified, do not always address program outcomes, and have
unclear or misleading information. There are problems with inter-departmental coordination,
spending does not always reflect “budgeting for results,” and pay for performance schemes have
been rejected. Citizens seem more satisfied, but their involvement and participation is minimal.
E-government is used in many countries. Ponlapat and Tippawan state that in Th ailand, after
Thaksin Shinawatra came to the power in 2001, there was a big leap in information technology
usage in the public sector. He attempted to launch many e-government projects, i.e., e-auction,
smart card, and GFMIS (Government Fiscal Management Information Systems). During 2001–
2006, the government under Thaksin had spent approximately 90,000 million baht (about $2.5
billion) for e-government projects. In 2002, the Thai cabinet made a resolution that every depart-
ment and state enterprise had to procure through e-auction and report the progress of implemen-
 Thailand also uses Performance Agreement as a tool for monitoring and evaluating the per-
formance of government agencies. The concept of the Balanced Scorecard has been applied as a
framework of performance evaluation. The number of agencies that implement knowledge man-
agement, including Communities of Practice, is increasing (from 46.8% in 2001–2005 to 76%
in 2006), but only 34.3% of implementers fully use knowledge management, whereas 41.1% of
implementers use it with limitations.
In the area of budgeting, Thailand has had an excellent record of budget control. Public
debt in Thailand has been quite low by international standards. The core objective of the bud-
get reform in Thailand was to reduce centralized budget control by granting spending agencies
more flexibility in their spending. Ponlapat and Tippawan describe how in 1999, the Bureau
of the Budget agreed to ease detailed central control over spending agencies by reducing some
line-item details in their budget allocations and moving toward block grants on the condition
that the spending agencies must be able to pass seven hurdle standards. Slow progress was actu-
ally the problem in Thailand because the hurdle standards were set at such a high level that
hardly any organization could fulfill them. Being dissatisfied with the pace of progress, the Thai
government decided that all ministries and agencies (not just pioneers) would move to the new
performance-based budgeting system—which was now termed the strategic performance-based
budget (SPBB). This became effective in fiscal year 2003. In the SPBB framework, the first 4-year
Government Administrative Plan was implemented in 2005. The plan was divided into nine
strategies, and agencies need to show how their spending furthers these goals.
In Malaysia, the Administration Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU)
is tasked with administrative modernization and human resources planning. Interest in mod-
ernization started early. In 1982, MAMPU launched a campaign based on Islamic values, which
included calls for a clean, efficient, and trustworthy public administration. Performance reports
were first introduced in 1979, and in 1982, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was also estab-
lished under the Anti-Corruption Act. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, under the Excellent
Work Culture, the civil service was to be transformed into a more customer-focused, result and
performance-oriented, responsive, accountable, and innovative public service, and a broad range
of total quality management (TQM) and NPM reforms were introduced such as quality circles,
and a very broad range of e-government initiatives. The early 1990s saw the introduction of revi-
sion in procedural matters of the public service delivery system, and a landmark initiative in 1996
was for Malaysia to require its entire Government machinery to adhere to ISO standards, the first
country in the world to do so. Yeoh assesses that “collectively, performance management reforms
in Malaysia have resulted in improving efficiency at the bureaucratic and public service delivery
system levels.” Yeoh cites a range of competitive rankings showing how Malaysia’s ranking has
improved in the world.
Domingo and Reyes note that performance management has long been a fi xture in the
Philippines: “Since the Independence period, reform measures and program towards stream-
lining the bureaucracy have been a continuing effort and various measures have been adopted
and legislated to promote the performance of the bureaucracy in the Philippines.” In recent
times, these have focused on “reorganization, streamlining, reengineering, reinventing, perfor-
mance management, and quality management, among others.” They conclude that “the shift
to results-based management is gaining ground in the Philippines,” and their chapter includes
many examples of improved service quality and responsiveness to citizens. Still, the develop-
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 han-
dover 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 poli-
tics, corruption, and non-responsiveness. Privatization is not part of the Macao performance man-
agement 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. Th is concerns not only inherent problems in apply-
ing 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 inter-
ference, 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. Th is 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 stake-
holders 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 rheto-
ric 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