Advertisement
Advertisement

Guidelines needed to negotiate change

WE ARE WITNESSING the demise of the administrative state run by civil servants, a style of government which once led Professor Lau Siu-kai - who now heads the government's Central Policy Unit - to term Hong Kong a bureaucratic polity.

The ministerial system, ostensibly introduced to enhance accountability, has effectively relieved senior civil servants of governing powers. By bringing in 'outsiders' to help him lord over mandarins who had proved to be troublesome during his first term, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has staged a silent coup with Beijing's blessing.

In colonial times, the loyalty of civil servants was treasured and never in doubt, even at the height of the 1967 riots. In return, they were well rewarded in pay and benefits. This special relationship has been broken since the handover.

Sensing public dismay over civil servants' high salaries, the Tung administration has, in effect, embarked on a crusade against civil servants. But Mr Tung grossly under-estimated staff anger, as shown by more than 30,000 civil servants and their families who took to the streets on July 7 to protest against the legislated pay cut.

The rally reflected suspicion among many civil servants, who believe they are being victimised by a hidden agenda. The public seems to be in two minds about the civil servants' grievances, and now Mr Tung has found himself facing an unexpected political setback, despite the pay-cut legislation's passage.

Civil service unionism is becoming more militant, and alarm bells ring even louder when disciplinary forces, including the police, join in to voice misgivings.

Administrative officers are resorting to unionisation as they realise they are no longer the natural masters entrusted with running the government.

The constitutional challenge to civil service power began a decade ago with the introduction of directly elected seats in the Legislative Council in 1991. The takeover of the mandarins' policy-making powers by ministers from outside the civil service is the latest challenge.

Until 1997, senior civil servants saw the emerging political parties and elected legislators as the primary threat to their longstanding 'executive-led' dogma, which had served to justify their hold on governmental power. Since the handover, the chief executive and his close supporters have turned out to be their fiercest rivals.

Round one of the power struggle ended with the breakdown of Mr Tung's alliance with the mandarins. But it would be too early to conclude they were retreating into the background. The ministerial system is a half-baked concoction. The new ministers, particularly those from the 'outside', lack political deputies and operatives, and so depend on support within the civil service bureaucracy. So far, few have engaged in substantive policy development or have shown their political capacity.

In the pay-cut legislation saga, the government still had to rely on administrative officers to act like party whips to monitor and lobby legislators before and during critical votes, in blatant disregard for civil service neutrality.

Some new ministers expect their permanent secretaries to attend Legco meetings to answer questions. If civil servants continue to do these jobs, what are the ministers, who are paid to make and defend policy decisions, for?

The danger is that senior civil servants will remain politicised by allowing themselves to be dragged into the political arena.

Secretary for the Civil Service Joseph Wong Wing-ping found himself in an impossible position in the pay-cut dispute.

He spoke as a minister defending a collective political decision, rather than as the head of the civil service, who is supposed to lead his colleagues and represent their views and sentiments to the government. As a result, civil servants will increasingly see Mr Wong as 'one of them' rather than 'one of us'.

Government interests and civil service interests are no longer identical. Civil servants can no longer expect business as usual. New employment and management practices have been imposed and the service must reform to meet rising public expectations on performance and conduct.

Traditionally, civil servants' duties, benefits and welfare were regulated more by internal regulation than labour legislation, but such in-house rules no longer suffice in the new era, as expectations on all sides change.

The enactment of a proper civil service law may ultimately prove necessary, as even Britain - which for centuries has depended on conventions and codes to manage its civil service - is actively considering a Civil Service Act.

To meet the new challenges, a Hong Kong civil service ordinance should be used to set out clear principles of merit, integrity, and neutrality, with proper ethical standards for ministers and other political appointees. It should entrench procedures and mechanisms for appointments and staff consultation, as well as pay reviews and adjustments.

The government has embarked on managerial reforms - particularly in modernising pay and performance systems - to ensure value for taxpayers' money. It is therefore crucial for a proper legislative framework to give staff a sense of stability at a time of fundamental change.

The civil service is in disarray and morale is at its lowest. The full impact of so many shocks to the system would only be gradually felt many years later. Mr Tung has a lot to repair before confidence and cohesion can be restored.

Anthony Cheung Bing-leung is a professor in public administration at City University, and a former legislator

Post