In private, some civil servants have started to wonder whether it is the Chief Executive's style to practise cronyism. People can understand why he needs to take one or two special advisers, but what special skills do a chauffeur and a secretary have that make them indispensable? The Secretary for Civil Service, Lam Woon-kwong, leapt to Mr Tung's defence in suggesting that the private chauffeur was offering a personal service so more flexibility should be allowed in the staffing arrangement.

Mr Tung offered a different justification, saying that, as his OOIL staff knew his personality and style better, keeping them would help him work with a high standard of efficiency.

The reasons Mr Lam and Mr Tung offer might sound credible if applied to a private company. But in the public sector there are well-established rules and procedures that cannot be bent arbitrarily.

Yes, the post of Chief Executive is the most senior position in the SAR Government. But that does not make it any more special than any other Government job.

All Government staff are only servants of the community. The difference between the Chief Executive and his chauffeur is only in their relative degrees of responsibility: that is already reflected in the chief's higher remuneration.

Strictly speaking, his chauffeur is not offering Mr Tung a personal service because the SAR Government has recruited him only to provide a driver's service to the chief. There is no justification for exceptional arrangements.

It is regrettable that Mr Lam should be confused about this basic concept. He should have known that the civil service system does not encourage officers, junior or senior, to bring their personal secretaries or drivers with them when they are given new postings.

So how can he convince Government staff that the direct recruitment of outsiders in contravention of the standard procedures is justified? Mr Tung's own defence is even more flimsy. The bureaucracy is not a private company and Mr Tung needs time to settle in. A Government personal secretary who is familiar with the Government system should be of more help to Mr Tung when he is feeling his way in his new role.

If Mr Tung is genuinely concerned about efficiency, it makes more sense for him to engage incumbent civil servants. Governors of the last regime came and went. They did not bring drivers and secretaries with them but they still worked with a high standard of efficiency because the civil service has many capable staff.

Engaging non-Hong Kong civil servants in the Chief Executive's Office was an innovation by former Governor Chris Patten. At the time the decision was made, many civil servants doubted its appropriateness.

Mr Tung is his own man. His willingness to pay tax, unlike Mr Patten, is commendable.

Surely, if Mr Tung can carry through that spirit of correcting the wrongs of Mr Patten, he will not only deflect criticism of cronyism but win more trust from the civil servants with whom he has to work in the next five years.