#q1#The higher the call for the abolition of the civil service examination, the louder the opposition, why?
**Description:**
Recently, calls for the abolition of the "political examination sitting" in the civil service examination have continued to heat up. More and more people believe that the "joint sitting of political trials" is not in line with the spirit of the rule of law and restricts the freedom of civil servants to choose their jobs. However, the move also drew opposition. Why has the abolition of the "joint political trial" caused such a big controversy? Let's explore the reasons for this.
**Body:**
With the progress of society and the rise of the concept of the rule of law, the call for abolishing the "joint sitting of political examinations" in the civil service examination is getting louder and louder. More and more people are questioning the rationality and necessity of this system. They believe that the "joint sitting of political trials" restricts the freedom of civil servants to choose their jobs and does not conform to the principle of a society governed by the rule of law. As a result, various calls and discussions have appeared on the Internet about abolishing the "political trial joint sitting".
First of all, abolishing the "joint sitting of political trials" can better reflect the spirit of the rule of law. In a society governed by the rule of law, everyone should choose a job based on their own personal qualities and abilities, and should not be limited by political factors. As a special occupational group, the selection of civil servants should pay more attention to ability and quality rather than political orientation. Therefore, the abolition of "political review and trial sitting" can make the recruitment of civil servants fairer and more transparent, and reduce the possibility of political manipulation.
Second, the abolition of the "joint sitting of political trials" is conducive to alleviating the public's distrust of the civil service. For a long time, there have been doubts and criticisms from the public about the quality and style of the civil service. The abolition of the "political examination joint sitting" can allow more capable and responsible talents to enter the civil service and improve the overall quality and image. In this way, public trust in civil servants will be strengthened, laying a solid foundation for building a trusting government.
However, the abolition of the "political trial sitting" is not without controversy. Some people are worried that the abolition of the "joint political trial" will lead to the entry of some unscrupulous elements into the civil service, which will bring unrest to society. They believe that political appearance is one of the important criteria for evaluating whether a civil servant is loyal and reliable, and the abolition of the "political trial joint sitting" may allow some people with bad intentions to blend into the civil service. In addition, some fear that the abolition of the "political trial sitting" will lead to political manipulation of the civil service, which will lead to a loss of neutrality and credibility.
Although there is a certain amount of controversy, we should make it clear that the call for the abolition of the "political examination and joint sitting" in the civil service examination is not unfounded. It reflects the society's dissatisfaction and expectations for the civil servant selection mechanism, and is also a call for the development of a society governed by the rule of law. To solve this problem, we need to improve the civil service selection mechanism through legislation and institutional reform on the basis of balancing the interests of all parties, so as to ensure the quality and professional ethics of the civil service.
In short, the abolition of the "political examination and joint sitting" of the civil service examination has sparked extensive discussion and controversy. There are no single reasons for this, ranging from calls to comply with the spirit of the rule of law and improve the fairness of selection, as well as concerns about maintaining the integrity and integrity of the civil service. On this issue, we need to adhere to the rule of law thinking, balance the interests of all parties, and find a balance that can not only select outstanding talents, but also ensure the integrity and political reliability of the civil service.