“Bureaucratic inefficiencies and red tape have a tendency to slow the efforts of individuals and communities.” –Former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

This column has discussed the issue of red tape before, particularly after discovering how one applies for general entitlements and benefits at the workplace. Comparing it to the United States, where one merely provides an ID and social security number to human resources, then completes documentation with a healthcare provider, and they’re pretty much done, in the Philippines, it was a painstaking process of driving back-and-forth around the city to complete documentation with the Social Security System, National Bureau of Investigation, Home Development Mutual Fund (a government entitlement I don’t even need but am required to apply for), along with a couple other government offices.
Recently, I was informed, in order for a company to renew its business permit, I am required to get an x-ray. Not only does it appear intrusive but, in this job, I work from home and at no time am I handling food or involved in some situation where my personal health could endanger the public. As it was explained to me, it is needed to determine if I am “fit to work.” God forbid, the x-ray comes out with grave results, what happens next? Either the company is not eligible to receive a permit or I have to be let go because an x-ray determined I am “unfit” to sit in front of a computer and review news articles? Does a computer virus count as a “health condition?”
The process is quite ironic for a country that has a law called the “Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.”
However, looking over the law—as with many of the laws in the Philippines—there seems to be a complete misunderstanding of terms.
The Oxford dictionary defines “Red Tape” as “Excessive bureaucracy or adherence to rules and formalities.” Yet, when going over the text of the law, none of it has to do with reducing regulation as it appears the authors of the law seem to think “red tape” means “transparency.”
“It is hereby declared the policy of the state to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property,” the law reads. “The state shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees.”
In the same way many government officials think “right of way” refers to the direction in which traffic flows and not proper procedures while driving, there are a lot of issues that arise when laws are written up as a means of mimicking rules of other places instead of crafting organic policies where the definitions are clear.
Instead of reducing “red tape,” the law goes on to mandate government offices to clearly map out how citizens navigate the bureaucracy—something they call a “Citizen’s Charter,” which, as the law states, points out things such as the procedure to obtain a particular service, identifying who to speak with, knowing what documents to bring, and the applicable fees; nothing about making the process more efficient just making the public aware of the tedious process they are about to encounter.
According to a 2018 piece by Jon Sanders for the John Locke Foundation, he argued, “Government red tape slows down the economy.”
He points out instances of red tape as required training programs, limits on goods and services one can offer, additional taxes or fees on various transactions, certain licensing requirements, among other issues—all things the Anti-Red Tape Act outlines but does nothing about.
That same year, the Australian Public Service Commission (APS) penned a lengthy document entitled, “Reducing red tape in the APS.”
“We need to ensure that the regulatory and administrative processes by which we structure our decision-making do not lead to risk-averse, inefficient, and time-wasting behavior,” the commission wrote. “Unnecessarily burdensome and prescriptive administrative requirements can increase the cost of doing our business.”
The publication also provides a definition for “Red Tape,” noting: “Regulatory or administrative requirements that are unwarranted, ineffective, or not the most efficient option for delivering the required outcome.”
Again, they bring up issues that show up nowhere within the text of the Anti-Red Tape Act.
The phrase “unnecessarily burdensome and prescriptive administrative requirements” is a good description for having to get an x-ray for a work-from-home job./WDJ