I have always been a strong defender of the civil service in Hong Kong to those who berate it. Try the mainland, I usually say in response, and see what it's like there. But I'm starting to change my mind.
It really hit me when a friend said recently that he thought Hong Kong's government spent most of its time talking about how not to do something. Since the handover, Hong Kong's civil servants have been practically shielding their trays from new work, thanks to a twin assault by private-sector developers - seeking to exploit their insecurity at lacking a real mandate to govern - and pro-democracy activists wanting to expose it.
The natural reluctance to avoid bold, ambitious projects - by people whose careers are built on not making mistakes - has been compounded in Hong Kong by the government's relationship with big property developers. The recent fuss over the West Kowloon arts hub illustrates this well. The government pushed so hard for its original plan because it was the easiest one: get Lord Foster to do a grand plan, then have a big property company fund its creation and manage it, too. That the plan was eventually pulled in the face of massive opposition should not be seen as welcome humility on the part of the Tsang administration. Rather, it is yet another indicator that the fundamental nature of this government's modus operandi is self-defeating.
Still, there is much to be said for the Independent Commission Against Corruption and a free media acting as watchdogs, and so it is natural to expect Hong Kong's civil servants to be cautious when considering ambitious ventures. Such restrictions do not apply on the mainland - or so conventional thinking goes.
The reality, however, is often quite different.
Mainland government officials are indeed subject to less external scrutiny than their peers in Hong Kong. They need to worry less about the consequences of a bold venture going awry, as they are judged more on the results they deliver than the way they are delivered.