Inside track
IT MIGHT ALMOST be called a new gold rush. Although few outside the civil service have yet realised it, many top bureaucrats see a pot of gold at the end of Tung Chee-hwa's plans to introduce an accountability system for his team of principal officials.
Their logic is simple enough. The current review - which is expected to produce some proposals for Mr Tung to announce in his October policy address - will inevitably result in a move towards some form of a quasi-ministerial system that will also, over the long term, make it easier to bring in high-flyers from the private sector.
After all, the driving force behind the change - which was first signalled in the 2000 Policy Address - is public dissatisfaction at the lack of any way to hold top officials accountable for their failures, as was so evident during last year's scandal over the use of short piles in several public-housing projects.
Change is only possible by loosening the iron rice bowl of the nearly absolute job security that top government officials currently enjoy and making it possible for them to be fired in much the same way as their private-sector counterparts.
But if, in future, they are to be subject to the same uncertainties as top executives in the private sector, then surely, the bureaucrats argue, they should also be entitled to receive similar salaries to compensate for such risks?
For all the talk of overpaid officials, it is difficult to deny that top government civil servants earn far less than those in comparable positions in private companies. There are good reasons for this, not least that many pampered bureaucrats would not last five minutes in the harsh world of the private sector.
Nonetheless, the discrepancy is large enough to have lured several senior officials away to higher-paying jobs in recent years. And it was highlighted when Antony Leung Kam-chung gave up a $10 million a year job with investment bank J P Morgan Chase for a comparatively modest $2.5 million salary, after he takes over as Financial Secretary on May 1.
Now, with the advent of an accountability system, the bureaucrats see a golden opportunity to close the gap. Some suggest salaries of $4 million to $6 million for principal officials under the new system. Others propose pegging them to two-thirds of the level in the private sector, arguing few will be prepared to take pay cuts on the same scale as Mr Leung.
And, of course, they argue these higher salaries should also be paid to the serving civil servants, who - since outsiders will probably only be brought in gradually - are initially expected to fill most of the ministerial-like posts under the new system.
So far, nothing formal has been put forward. But it is not difficult to foresee the explosive reaction when the Government goes before legislators, perhaps sometime later this year, to argue that - as part of this new system of accountability - some lucky bureaucrats should receive pay rises of up to 100 per cent.
The move towards a ministerial model was meant to make top officials responsible for their errors, not provide an excuse for some new gravy train. And if it is going to involve handing out such large pay cheques, then it might not be long before many begin to wonder whether Hong Kong wouldn't be far better off sticking with the present system.
After all, for all its many flaws, ignoring accountability and leaving most of the top posts in the hands of career bureaucrats does at least have the merit of being far cheaper.
Danny Gittings is the Post's Editorial Pages Editor
