appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Mike Rowse

Alarm and despondency could spread through Hong Kong’s civil service in the coming weeks as the significance of last month’s policy address begins to sink in. The proposal to introduce a heads of department accountability system and make other changes to performance assessment methodology is a real game changer.
Despite ritual praise of our 170,000 officials as “an outstanding team”, it is clear Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu feels there is considerable scope for improvement in management, and under existing arrangements it is too hard to fire or otherwise discipline non-performers.
The main change involves creating a new system to put heads of department on the same level of accountability for implementation as ministers have for policy formulation.
The Public Service Commission will become a problem investigation agency in addition to its traditional remit of acting to ensure fairness in all matters relating to civil service recruitment, promotion and management. How it will handle the revised schedule and any conflicts of purpose remains to be seen.
The Civil Service Bureau has also been charged with strengthening the performance appraisal system applicable to all civil servants to make it focus more rigorously on effectiveness.
The first thing that needs to be said is that a system of accountability already exists as part of the current disciplinary process which covers all civil servants up to and including heads of department. I know this for a fact as that process was applied to me personally 20 years ago. It would be interesting to learn which particular recent events caused the chief executive to conclude that the existing system was insufficient.

The only incident to attract media attention in the past few weeks was the contract to supply drinking water to a number of government offices, but that seems rather small beer.
In assessing the merits of the new proposal, it is worth emphasising the fundamental differences between ministers and civil servants. The former are political appointees with no expectations as to security of tenure. They hold office at the pleasure of the chief executive and for no longer than his own term of office.
In theory, he can keep them on even if they make a mistake or he can terminate them without giving any reason, though normally he would only do so for cause. After leaving office, they can return to their previous positions in business, academia or the professions.
Civil servants are in a completely different situation. A career in the civil service would for many be how they planned to make a living and support themselves and their families for the bulk of their adult lives. Having committed themselves and passed the relevant recruitment exams, they have a legitimate expectation of permanent employment unless they blot their copybook.
If an officer faces the possibility of termination, demotion or some other financial penalty – as they do under existing disciplinary procedures and will do under the new scheme – then they are entitled to due process. An officer forced out does not have another career to fall back on but must start again.

Many details of the new arrangements are unclear at this stage. For example, it is not clear who would draft detailed charges and how the Public Service Commission’s processes would dovetail with those previously conducted by the Civil Service Bureau.
If there are sufficient grounds to pursue a case, then the charge needs to be put to the officer in writing, giving them an opportunity to respond. If, after considering the response, the commission feels there is a case to answer, then formal hearings will have to be held. This will involve witnesses giving evidence under oath with an opportunity for the accused to be cross-examined. As we know from the precedent case of Rowse vs the chief executive (HCAL 41/2007), the officer is entitled to representation by counsel to ensure a fair hearing.
The aftermath of any such case would also have challenges of its own. If the charge is substantiated and the Public Service Commission concludes termination is warranted, that would be the end of the matter (unless the officer seeks a judicial review). But if the penalty is less than termination, then the officer may opt to continue in service and would still have the right to challenge the penalty. In these circumstances, it might be better if this were under a different director of bureau as relations with the director who suggested the investigation may be rather frosty.
If the officer is acquitted, there is the matter of reimbursement of legal costs and once again the issue of whether to continue to work for the same director of bureau. Indeed, if the case is dismissed, should the minister quit instead?
Irrespective of the outcome in any particular case, there is one consequence that can be confidently forecast. Department heads will go to extraordinary lengths to protect themselves against the possibility of future disciplinary action in what is sure to be perceived as a more hostile environment. Every policy initiative proposed by the minister will be scrutinised for the potential of problems in principle and difficulties in implementation. These will be spelled out in a detailed briefing note to the minister so that the officer cannot later be accused of failure to warn.
Whether the hoisting of so many protective administrative umbrellas will slow government work remains to be seen. I for one wouldn’t rule it out.


President Xi Jinping calls on China, US youth to advance bilateral cooperation

Tung Chee-hwa’s legacy helps lay foundations for better tomorrows

‘His love for Hong Kong was profound’: Tung Chee-hwa honoured at state funeral

Hong Kong’s first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa honoured with state funeral

Hong Kong politics

Will new accountability system be fair to Hong Kong’s civil servants?

People ride the escalators at Hong Kong’s government offices in Tamar on January 6. Photo: Jelly Tse

Chief Executive John Lee delivers his 2025 policy address at the Legislative Council in Hong Kong on September 17. Photo: EPA

From the left, Secretary for Development Bernadette Linn, Secretary for Housing Winnie Ho, Permanent Secretary for Development (Works) Ricky Lau and Doris Ho, Permanent Secretary for Development (Planning and Lands), hold a press conference to elaborate on the 2025 policy address, on September 19. Photo: May Tse

Hong Kong doubles down on innovation and accountability for its future

People take in the view of Hong Kong’s skyline from Tsim Sha Tsui on February 10. Photo: Eugene Lee

Hong Kong’s new civil servant accountability system to ensure government ‘keeps fit’

City leader John Lee has said he hopes the new accountability measure will increase public confidence in the government. Photo: Edmond So

John Lee first floated the idea of introducing a new mechanism to hold senior civil servants accountable in June. Photo: Dickson Lee

Accountability system for Hong Kong’s top civil servants is long overdue

A man looks at the government’s headquarters in Tamar, Admiralty, on February 22, 2025. Photo: Edmond So

Opinion

Hong Kong Opinion

News

Hong Kong

Politics

Unlike ministers, civil servants forced out do not have another career to fall back on but must start again


Unlike ministers, civil servants forced out do not have another career to fall back on but must start again.


John Lee

John Lee policy address 2025

Government Logistics Department

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Will new accountability system be fair to Hong Kong’s civil servants?

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Unlike ministers, civil servants forced out do not have another career to fall back on but must start again

Unlike ministers, civil servants forced out do not have another career to fall back on but must start again