Two years after the creation of two new levels of political appointees, doubts remain as to whether they have improved governance in our city or provided taxpayers with value for money. The government sought to justify these posts, which cost HK$65 million a year, by arguing they were necessary for the development of our political system. It cited a need to groom political talent ahead of democratic reforms, to draw on a wider spectrum of expertise, to better promote government policies and to prevent top civil servants from being drawn into the political arena. Last week, after a mid-term review of the undersecretaries and political assistants, Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Stephen Lam Sui-lung said they had 'performed their tasks and job descriptions according to the original design'. However, given the amount of public money being spent on them it is not enough that they have merely 'performed their tasks'. Had the government sought to justify the creation of these posts based merely on a desire to boost manpower, it is unlikely the legislature would have passed the budget for them. What lawmakers and the public wish to see is an assessment of how close we are to achieving those admirable aims of improving accountability, promoting policies, maintaining the neutrality of the civil service, and the creation of a new political culture. So far, the evidence is difficult to find. These new appointees got off to a bad start on the 'accountability' front over a failure to make public their exact salaries and whether they held right of abode in foreign countries. It was only after much public pressure that these matters were disclosed. Now it has emerged that the undersecretaries, despite deputising for ministers, do not have to go through the same procedures of disclosing their interests to the legislature. Then there is the aim of improving the promotion of policies. These past two years have witnessed increasing public scepticism towards government policies, while surveys on the appointees have been stopped due to near-zero recognition rates. It is hard to see how the appointees can help to promote policies and improve accountability if the public don't even know who they are. Meanwhile, more and more former civil servants are being appointed to these posts, which arguably politicises the civil service. Former members of the media are also among the appointments. This trend sends a message to talented people in the media and civil service that they are effectively auditioning for a future highly-paid appointment depending on how they perform regarding government policies. The chief executive has made it clear the appointees are supposed to share his vision. This might help unify the government but can only be detrimental to the civil service, the media, and society as a whole. It is also unclear how appointing former civil servants helps groom political talent, or attracts a wider spectrum of expertise. Compared with lawmakers, who are remunerated at close to HK$70,000 a month, the new appointees must do far more than perform tasks to justify their salaries, which can reach HK$211,500. Senior lifetime civil servants earn less. The public does not wish to see the so-called accountability system further discredited, since it would be a costly failure. It merely wishes to see the government give an account as to how far it is from delivering what was promised. That would go a long way to giving meaning to 'accountability'.