Is Hong Kong’s administrative officer-led governing system over? Maybe not, but it’s the beginning of a new political culture for civil servants
- Promotion of tough security officials to the top of government reflects Beijing’s determination to transform civil service culture from political neutrality to patriotism
- Beijing is rebuilding Hong Kong’s governance team to reduce reliance on just one or two senior figures, with the city deemed a key battleground for China-US wrangling
It marks a paradigm shift in Beijing’s governance style for Hong Kong, underscoring the need to expand a political talent pool beyond the traditional bureaucrats and technocrats.
With security minister John Lee Ka-chiu becoming chief secretary and police commissioner Chris Tang Ping-keung succeeding Lee, some pundits see it as the end of the decades-long “AO era”, the initials referring to the powerful and skilled administrative officers who have dominated the government until now.
It is more of a reflection of Beijing’s disappointment in the system, and its determination to push for a transformation of civil service culture from one focused on “political neutrality” to “patriotism” now.
However, interpreting it as a “punishment” for civil servants but a reward for “hardliners”, as some pro-establishment figures have done, oversimplifies the implications. The reshuffle is to set the clearest criteria in meeting the new bottom line of allowing only “patriots” to govern Hong Kong”.
Different people have different definitions of the word “patriot”. To critics, it means those who blindly obey Beijing without independent and critical thinking; that’s why the term “Beijing loyalist” can be open to various interpretations, including negative ones.
For Beijing, simply being “loyal” without delivering desirable results is not enough.
The AO system is among the most important legacies of colonial British rule that Hong Kong maintains under a consensus reached between Beijing and London before the city’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.
There was no lack of praise from Beijing for the quality of the city’s civil service, in particular the value of administrative officers, during the early post-handover years. This group was dubbed the “elite of the elites”, with a guaranteed career-elevation path.
Beijing shows preference for law-and-order men to run Hong Kong, analysts say
But a major challenge arose when Hong Kong’s first post-handover leader, Tung Chee-hwa, introduced the accountability system in 2002 under which ministerial-level officials became political appointees. It was a result of frustration for Tung and Beijing over the many bureaucratic barriers blocking the former from exerting direct control over the civil service. Beijing described Tung as a “lonely” leader back then.
However, this system capped the administrative officers’ career ceiling at the government departmental level of permanent secretary. It was an open secret that their relationship with certain political-appointee ministers, especially those parachuted into the government, was not smooth.
Such office friction seems less important now, and if Tung’s reform was more about restructuring the bureaucratic system per se, the promotions now of Lee and Tang – both law-and-order veterans – have brought more profound implications to both the system and individuals.
Beijing is making it clear that it decides the city’s key appointments, and its role is no longer restricted to mere ceremonial endorsement.
What does Hong Kong’s defiantly buoyant property market tell us – and Beijing?
To be accountable to the Hong Kong public, key officials and rising stars in the government as well have to realise that they must also be accountable, perhaps more than before, to Beijing.
So, does this reshuffle offer any clue regarding Hong Kong’s coming leadership race?
It may be too early for that, but Beijing is rebuilding the city’s governing team, including the civil service as a whole, instead of relying on only one or two individuals, especially when it sees Hong Kong as a battleground for China’s geopolitical wrestling with the US and its allies.
