Letters to the Editor, November 4, 2013
Stephen Vines is mistaken when he says "Since their establishment, Excos have largely comprised of senior bureaucrats who run government departments" ("Opaque governance exposes Exco as a joke", October 26).

Stephen Vines is mistaken when he says "Since their establishment, Excos have largely comprised of senior bureaucrats who run government departments" ("Opaque governance exposes Exco as a joke", October 26).
Prior to 1997 there were, in fact, only three official Exco members in addition to the governor, the chief secretary, the financial secretary and the attorney general. Other policy secretaries attended by invitation to submit their proposals and were allowed to be accompanied by a small number of more junior officers to answer specific technical points.
Vines also does a disservice to the quality of many former unofficial appointees. As I know from my own experience as a former civil servant, appearing before Exco could be a nerve-wracking experience. The questions from unofficial members were usually detailed and searching.
Woe betide the policy secretary who seemed not fully in command of his or her brief, or who couldn't answer questions to the collective satisfaction of the council. In such circumstances it wasn't at all unusual for the secretary to be told to go away and rethink aspects of the proposal and return at a later date with a revised paper.
As I left the civil service in 1996, I have no experience of how Exco has been working post-handover. My personal view is that it has become too large.
There also seems to be a dearth of unofficial members of the calibre of former senior members/conveners such as Lydia Dunn and Sir Sze-yuen Chung who, incidentally, were not appointed because they always toed the government line.