THERE'S A LONG-RUNNING battle within Hong Kong's ruling classes that threatens to worsen as the year proceeds.
On one side we have the civil service, trained and nurtured in colonial times, and regarded by many as a model for clean, efficient administration. On the other, a post-handover elite is increasingly impatient with what it sees as an overpaid, under-performing civil service out of touch with the needs of present-day Hong Kong.
The tension between the two has for the most part simmered under the surface since the British withdrawal but has erupted into the open again with the very vocal questioning of civil service pay and efficiency by Liberal Party chief James Tien Pei-chun.
Pay is not the real issue. The real question concerns the role of the civil service in post-colonial Hong Kong.
This is an issue Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa has to tackle as a matter of urgency assuming he is returned to office. Unless he clearly sets out what he expects the civil service to do, friction will continue between the new and old ruling elites.
The scope for conflict will be far greater once the new accountability system is put in place unless Mr Tung distinguishes between the roles of senior civil servants and his new quasi-ministerial appointees.
The normal role of the civil servant is to implement the policies of the government. In most countries civil servants do not create or initiate policy - that is seen as the prerogative of elected ministers. In Hong Kong however, this distinction has never been clear. The colonial governor and his policy secretaries created and executed policies, and were answerable only to Whitehall.