Effective Civil Service Code enforcement crucial to delivering good governance

In Hong Kong, the Civil Service Code (the Code), which lays down the core values of the bureaucracy, was promulgated on Sept 9, 2009. These core values are commitment to the rule of law; honesty and integrity; objectivity and impartiality; political neutrality; accountability for decisions and actions; and dedication, professionalism and diligence. But a mission without execution is delusion. Critics get the impression that the Code has not been strictly enforced to deliver good governance and boost support for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government.

More seriously, or perhaps fatally, the drafters of the Code did not foresee the complicated political situation after the “Occupy Central” movement in 2014. They failed to emphasize the need to safeguard national security and foster a sense of national identity among civil servants. Besides, the need to have a comprehensive understanding of “one country, two systems” is as important as, if not more than, the highly publicized “core values”. The “black-clad” riots have served as a sad reminder that some of our civil servants could not stand the test of the critical times.

Lacking fighting spirit, they neglected their sacred duties at the critical junctures to safeguard national security, uphold the rule of law and implement the central government’s overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong. Some civil servants even refused to support the lawful and reasonable measures taken by the police to put down the riots. It’s time to review the Code in order to remind our top civil servants of the need to perform the above sacred duties. It’s good to know that Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu promised in his Policy Address to update the Code next year. High-capacity government is usually associated with bureaucracies that are competent, loyal, committed and coherent.

Against this background, some commentators have drawn our attention to the 15 bureaucracy-related regulations recently issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. These regulations are called “Regulations on Promoting the Ability of Leading Cadres to Go Up and Down”. Unlike the Code, the 15 regulations lay down clear yardsticks to determine whether offenders shall be sidelined or screened out. One regulation that governs conflict of interest arising from the business activities of spouses and children of leading cadres is more specific than the general principles laid down in paragraph 3.4 of the Code.

These 15 screening regulations are as follows: 1) Political ability is not strong enough, lacking due political judgment, political comprehension and political execution. 2) Shaken ideals and beliefs. 3) Insufficient responsibility and fighting spirit. 4) Deviation from people-centered development ideas. Indulging in image project. 5) Violation of democratic centralism. Cronyism and formation of cliques. 6) Weak organizational concept. 7) Lack of professionalism and sense of responsibility. 8) Lack of leadership ability. The work in charge has been in a backward state for a long time or has major mistakes. 9) Decision-making in violation of regulations or insufficient and prudent decision-making arguments, resulting in the loss and waste of public funds, State-owned assets, State-owned resources, damage to the ecological environment, damage to public interests and other consequences. 10) Formalism and bureaucracy. 11) Misconduct, anomalies, violation of social morality, professional ethics and family virtues, resulting in adverse effects. 12) Adjustments are necessary because of the existence of spouses and children moving abroad, and the spouses, children and their spouses running businesses and other situations. 13) The annual assessment was determined to be incompetent, or determined to be basically incompetent for two consecutive years. 14) Unable to perform duties normally for more than one year because of health reasons. 15) Other circumstances that make them unsuitable for the current position.

Admittedly, we cannot directly apply Regulations 1 to 4 to Hong Kong because of the vast political and socioeconomic differences between Hong Kong and the mainland. Nevertheless, these four context-specific regulations can be modified to adapt to the actual situation in the city. In accordance with Regulations 1 and 2, top civil servants, sharing the same political beliefs with the chief executive and principal officials, should be equipped with the political ability to safeguard national security, maintain their sense of national identity, uphold the rule of law, and implement the central government’s overall jurisdiction over the city. In accordance with Regulation 3, top bureaucrats shall not withdraw from battle at critical junctures and shy away from protecting people’s lives and property. Below are examples to strengthen the case for using the 15 regulations as important reference materials for reviewing the Code when the time is ripe.

Recently, the long-standing problem of abandoned vehicles in back alleys has highlighted the buck-passing culture among officialdom in Hong Kong. The failure of the Education Bureau to pay adequate attention to the serious mental-health problems of local students has also attracted much criticism. The suicide rate of those under 15 shows an upward trend. A buck-passing culture and the neglect of mental health problems breach Regulations 3, 7 and 8.

Critics often blame loopholes in Hong Kong’s existing child protection mechanism. Recently, the issue of child abuse has also stolen the limelight in local newspaper headlines. The notorious child abuse case at the Hong Kong Society for the Protection of Children has exposed the failure of the Social Welfare Department to conduct adequate site inspections to properly supervise the society’s child-care supervisor and her staff members at the material times. It’s a violation of social morality and professional ethics as stipulated in Regulation 11.

It should be remembered, too, that the HKSAR authority’s clumsy response to the fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic has dealt a fatal blow to the reputation of the bureaucracy in general and the health-related departments in particular. In breach of Regulation 3, the poor performance of the public-healthcare sector threatened the safety of people’s lives. Based on the above analysis, we urge the HKSAR government to consider our proposals when it reviews and updates the Code.

Junius Ho Kwan-yiu is a Legislative Council member and a solicitor.

Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, a part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and the Macao Basic Law Research Center, and co-founder of the Together We Can and Hong Kong Coalition.  

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.