Although my contact with Hong Kong government officials has been limited, it is most reassuring and satisfying that I have rarely met one who came across as unpleasantly aloof or bureaucratically rigid. On most occasions, the officers in charge had obviously bent backward in their attempts to solve problems arising from my oversights.
Because of my personal experience, I find it most regretful that some senior government officials have apparently projected a less-than-desirable public image of being uncaring, or even arrogant, making them easy targets of criticism and ridicule by social activists and political commentators.
A more sensible analysis points to the fact that government officials sometimes commit public relations follies largely because they have little or no experience in politicking. This is, of course, not necessarily a bad thing because career bureaucrats are not supposed to be baby-hugging politicians.
But under Hong Kong's political system, it is unavoidable that senior government officials are called upon from time to time to play the role of the politician in defending controversial policies, or defusing an outbreak of public discontent. As past events have shown, such a role does not come naturally to many government officials who are better known for their administrative expertise rather than their holistic insights.
For that reason, the move by the government to introduce an additional layer of political appointees to the top level of the government bureaucracy seems to make sense. Of course, the implementation of such a policy has stirred much public debate on the qualification and suitability of some candidates, the pay scale of the appointees, the extent to which they are required to disclose their financial interests, and the issue involving their nationalities as some of the candidates are known to be holding foreign passports.
None of these issues are trivial. But their significance pales in comparison to the key question about the future role of the career civil servants.
The government has tried to address that concern by proposing to issue a new code of conduct that would, among other things, specify the respective responsibilities of the political appointees and the career civil servants and set the guidelines of their working relationship. That new code is said to be in the drafting stage.
The existing code, which was drafted in 2002 to address issues arising from the introduction of the accountability system of government, places special emphasis on civil servants' political neutrality. Civil servants are bound by the code to "tender advice and take decisions lawfully and on the merits of the case without taking into account political considerations".
The code specifically requires "accountable principal officials", including political appointees, to accept the core values and political impartiality of civil servants. In view of the latest move to broaden the ministerial level of the government, there is a need for a revision of the code to better preserve the much-cherished core value of the civil service.
As Joseph Wong Wing-ping, former secretary for the civil service, wrote in his column in a local newspaper that a "comprehensive and balanced code" that is acceptable to the civil servants and the political appointees would "help reassure the public". As a member of the public, I support the structural changes that promise to make the government more accountable. But I appreciate any reassurance that these changes would not in anyway undermine the integrity and efficiency of the civil service that we have taken for grant for so long.
(China Daily July 8, 2008)