The circulated proposal about changing the weekly holiday system to three days has sparked a broad debate in local circles, focusing mostly on the duality of rest and productivity. However, focusing the issue solely on the number of days off overlooks the most important aspect of the public administration equation, which is the efficiency of service delivery and the continuity of government asset operations. The real challenge is not the number of hours the employee spends behind a desk, but in the ability of the institution to meet community and economic needs without disruption.
The issue lies in the traditional model that aligns the operating hours of the institution with the employee’s working hours identically. This alignment creates productivity gaps, where the interests of citizens and businesses are disrupted at the same time the employee rests, turning a holiday into an organizational burden rather than a driver of social balance.
Moving towards a system that grants the employee a three-day weekend while government agencies operate six days a week represents a radical shift from a school-like attendance mentality to a management mindset focused on assets and services. Within this framework, the government institution no longer appears as an entity that opens and closes its doors based on the employee’s calendar, but rather as a sustainable service platform.
Ensuring that the institution remains active and accessible to citizens throughout the week, including their official holidays, relies on rotating workforce shifts (Rotational Shifts). This not only achieves economic sustainability but also reduces the accumulated pressure on current workdays, distributes operational load evenly, and diminishes both traffic congestion and pressure on public facilities.
The success of this model primarily depends on redefining performance. If we continue to see government work merely as the number of attendance hours, then rotation will be seen as administrative chaos. However, if we shift to a model of accountability for results, then flexible timing becomes a tool for improving job life quality without compromising the citizen’s right to access services.
The challenge here is not technical; it is a governance challenge. It requires administrative systems capable of managing complex schedules and ensuring seamless task transitions (Handover) among employees, so that the service seeker does not feel a change in the responsible official as long as the service remains stable and standardized.
Economically, the governmental apparatus cannot be isolated from the overall economic cycle. Both the citizen working in the private sector or the government employee on their day off need a time window to manage their transactions without having to take leave from their job. Providing a government service six days a week strengthens the concept of public service as an accessible right and transforms government agencies into enablers of growth rather than being time bottleneck points. Moreover, giving the employee three days off contributes to revitalizing other sectors such as domestic tourism and entertainment, enhances human resource efficiency by providing adequate time for recovery and self-development, which will positively reflect on morale and productivity during actual work hours.
The debate about the three-day weekend should transcend the logic of gain and loss for the employee, to become a discussion about the identity of the service-oriented state. Are we facing an administrative device that adapts to the needs of society and the economy, or a device that imposes its own rhythm on everyone?
The flexibility in human resource management, versus the rigidity in sustaining service provision, is the equation that could redefine the relationship between the citizen and the institution. The most important question remains: Do our administrative systems have the capacity to transition from a culture of attendance to a culture of service availability?
