Called to account, and found wanting
Like most people, I am generally opposed to the killing of infants - but a strong case can be made for arranging a dignified burial for the accountability system, which celebrates its fifth birthday on Sunday.
It was brought into being by the then chief executive, Tung Chee-hwa, groping around for ways to instil confidence in his floundering administration. Much was promised. The government called it 'a momentous step forward in the evolution of Hong Kong's public administration', saying that it ensured principal officials would assume responsibility for their policy portfolios, would be more efficient, accountable and 'sensitive in setting priorities', not to mention that it would improve relations between the executive and legislative branches.
It was also said the system would bring new blood into the administration and let the chief executive appoint non-civil-servants to these leading posts, while allowing him to fire ministers for substantial failures.
Now that not one of these aims has been achieved, decency requires the government to declare the system deceased.
Last week, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen cleared almost all the non-civil-servants out of office. Even the 'outsiders' brought in hardly merit this description. Norman Chan Tak-lam, the new director of the Chief Executive's Office, has spent only a brief time in the private sector after a lifetime in public service. The fuss surrounding the youthful revolutionary activities of Tsang Tak-sing, the new home affairs minister, obscures the fact that he has become a thoroughly house-trained member of the bureaucracy after spending almost a decade in the Central Policy Unit. Only Chan Ka-keung, the new financial services secretary, is a genuine outsider.
Meanwhile, in the same week, Donald Tsang confirmed that the accountability system had no real meaning in terms of responsibility. Having established an independent inquiry into allegations of impingement on academic freedom at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, he dismissed its findings and publicly declared that he had tried to prevent the resignation of Fanny Law Fan Chiu-fun, the official found culpable of some of the claims against her, while Arthur Li Kwok-cheung, the so-called accountable minister, was declared to have no responsibility for his subordinates.
In fact, not one minister has been dismissed for their shortcomings: financial secretary Antony Leung Kam-chung and security secretary Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee resigned following public outrage over major failings. But they departed under a hail of praise: in other words, they were never called upon to accept responsibility.
It may be argued that principal officials are more aware of public opinion and more sensitive to it, but this is usually expressed in continued bleating about what Mrs Law called the 'unhealthy political system'. The officials, from Mr Tsang down, are never slow to express their frustration about opposition to their plans, seemingly viewing accountability as an additional burden rather than an opportunity.
The system is a farce which needs to be put out of its misery, but it is hard to see what can take its place when the bureaucracy is turning in on itself and any hint of genuine government accountability is deemed contrary to the Basic Law.
Stephen Vines is a Hong Kong-based journalist and entrepreneur
