EditorialHong Kong’s civil service accountability push is long overdue

Efforts to ensure accountability can nurture a more proactive culture and tackle problems before they spill into public view

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Listen

The Central Government Offices in Tamar on January 26. Photo: Jelly Tse

Published: 6:45am, 20 Apr 2026

Hong Kong’s civil service is by and large clean and efficient, making it one of the world’s best. While the 188,000-strong bureaucracy is managed by a plethora of well-established rules, expectation gaps in performance and accountability arise from time to time. The problems were highlighted in the recent setbacks over bottled water procurement and the bus seat belt law, with critics asking how such glaring blunders could escape layers of scrutiny.

The former case saw the former director of logistics investigated but cleared of any negligence in connection with a HK$52.9 million (US$6.8 million) contract with a supplier facing fraud allegations. In the latter case, authorities were forced to repeal the requirement for bus passengers to buckle up as it turned out that the amendment law passed last year effectively exempted previously registered buses.

The government’s latest move to institutionalise civil service accountability is therefore a timely step forward. Under a two-tier system, heads of departments will be tasked with conducting investigations into problems regarded as “of a less serious and isolated nature” involving working-level officers.

The Public Service Commission, an independent statutory body on appointments and promotions, is to be empowered to investigate department heads over “serious, widespread or systemic” problems related to policy and measure execution. If an investigation finds severe misconduct by department heads, they can be removed from service, required to retire or have their benefits eliminated.

The revamp announced by Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu in his policy address last year is long overdue. Since 2002, the accountability system for political appointees has effectively held ministers and their deputies politically responsible for policy blunders. While civil servants are not politically liable, the Civil Service Code stipulates that they have administrative accountability for their part in policy formulation, promotion and implementation and service delivery to the public. Directorate grade staff members are expected to lead by example and are held to higher accountability standards compared with their subordinates.

To what extent the new system can bring substantive change remains to be seen. In the case of the deadly Tai Po fire, it seems that the departments implicated in an array of problems highlighted in the ongoing public hearings would have a lot to answer for if the mechanism was in place. We trust the relevant bodies will be held accountable in due course, and that the new approach can nurture a more proactive culture among the senior echelons to tackle some long-standing and systemic problems before headlines are made and investigations invoked.

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Efforts to ensure accountability can nurture a more proactive culture and tackle problems before they spill into public view

Efforts to ensure accountability can nurture a more proactive culture and tackle problems before they spill into public view