Where exactly does the buck stop? Senior Hong Kong civil servants are asking themselves that question after the unveiling of a new accountability system targeting department heads.
They point to the deadly Tai Po fire last year as an example. An independent committee investigating the tragedy heard evidence officials gave contractors at the blaze-hit Wang Fuk Court estate advance notice of inspections, potentially allowing problems to be concealed before fire-safety checks on scaffolding nets.
Who is at fault for the notice: the frontline officers involved or the senior civil servant overseeing them?
“Opinions are divided among ourselves,” said a veteran civil servant, speaking on condition of anonymity. “In this case, the senior official can say this was an execution problem by frontline staff. Such a high-ranking official doesn’t micromanage to this level.”
But another said: “Can the head truly shrug off supervisory accountability? It may depend on whether he or she turned a blind eye to questionable practices. But it’s hard to prove.”
The new mechanism targets department heads for “widespread, repetitive, systemic” failures, aiming to clarify administrative blame.
Former ministers, high-ranking bureaucrats and political observers pointed to the practical challenges of attributing responsibility amid scandals, and questioned the government’s decision not to make it a legal requirement to publish full investigation results.
Some, however, expressed optimism a “baby step” had been taken with the change and it could provide momentum for broader reforms to turn the 170,000-strong civil service from an “iron rice bowl” bureaucracy into an innovative, performance-driven force able to meet the changing needs of society.
The debate comes amid a string of recent incidents that have exposed shortcomings in governance, from flaws in seat-belt legislation covering buses to a bottled water procurement scandal involving allegedly fraudulent documents.
Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu has framed the new system as a bold measure to “drive performance” and promote “self-improvement” within departments. Will it live up to this pledge?
Gap in the system?
When the bill on the “Heads of Department Accountability System”, which is being scrutinised in the Legislative Council, was unveiled earlier this month, the Civil Service Bureau said the mechanism excluded most permanent secretaries – the highest-ranking civil servants at directorate pay scale point 8 (D8).
Instead, it mainly targeted 60 heads of departments, civil servants at D5 or D6 grades.
Critics said the exclusion created a “gap” in the accountability system as permanent secretaries played a crucial role in driving policy and interdepartmental coordination.
Two weeks later, the Civil Service Bureau said that after “considering views in society”, permanent secretaries would be included and the new system would be named the “administrative responsibility two-tier investigation mechanism”.
It stressed that civil servants regardless of rank, including permanent secretaries who directly report to policy bureau chiefs, would be accountable for their administrative responsibilities.
Hong Kong’s civil service system was largely inherited from the British, serving as a politically neutral, stable administrative force under the colonial government.
In the early years following Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the first chief executive, Tung Chee-wah, faced challenges in holding top-ranking civil servants accountable, because they were not members of the Executive Council or administratively accountable to the city leader.
In 2002, Tung introduced a Principal Officials Accountability System, creating a layer of political appointees and leaving civil servants, including permanent secretaries at the top of the bureaucracy, to focus on administrative execution.
Since then, principal officials – the chief secretary, the financial secretary, the secretary for justice and ministers – have been appointed by the central government on the recommendation of the chief executive, and employed on contracts.
The new accountability system will cover high-ranking civil servants below the political level. It will operate on two tiers, on top of the established disciplinary mechanism for all civil servants.
Whenever a department has serious problems that are “widespread, repetitive, systemic”, or in cases where department heads are implicated, the city’s leader or other principal officials can instruct the Public Service Commission, a statutory body that primarily advises on civil service appointments, to launch an investigation.
If an investigation and subsequent hearing find severe misconduct by department heads, they can be removed from service, required to retire or stripped of their benefits.
For less serious problems involving mainly working-level officers, heads of departments can investigate internally.
The question is whether the new system can clearly assign responsibilities to the relevant people in an environment where civil servants increasingly have to deal with accelerating political priorities and stretched resources.
Who should take the rap?
Former transport minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung recalled telling the then-chief executive that he “was ready” to step down after the 2012 Lamma ferry tragedy that claimed 39 lives.
“Accountability isn’t just about following scientific rules; it’s also about ethics and about what happened ‘on my watch’,” Cheung said.
But when an internal bureau-level investigation later ended, the findings triggered a backlash from victims’ families and lawmakers as the then director of marine, Francis Liu Hon-por, was notably not among those punished or formally investigated.
Cheung remained in his role until the end of his five-year term in 2017, while Liu retired in 2014. Another 17 marine officials up to directorate level faced disciplinary action but their names were not disclosed for privacy reasons.
Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Cheung argued that political and administrative responsibilities were often intertwined because the policymaking process was “diverse and complex”.
Ministers rely on senior civil servants to give “honest advice” on policy options. Bureau chiefs take the final political responsibility for policy delivery, while bureaucrats are accountable for flaws in execution.
“If the policy design itself is problematic, flawless implementation will still spark an outcry. Who is to blame then? The minister or the department head? It is open to debate,” said Cheung, now an adjunct professor in the public policy division at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
He pointed to the key principle of “supervisory accountability”, under which supervisors can be held accountable for failing to exercise oversight. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) advocated the policy, and the government adopted it in the 1970s.
“A supervisor cannot defend themselves by merely saying, ‘I knew nothing’ about what my subordinates have done,” Cheung said.
“Supervisory accountability is supposed to be a culture ingrained in the government machinery, but it’s often overlooked today.”
Last August, the government came under scrutiny over a HK$52.9 million three-year bottled water contract awarded to a mainland Chinese company that allegedly submitted fake documents.
An internal investigation cleared the Government Logistics Department’s then director, Carlson Chan Ka-shun, of negligence but a Silver Bauhinia Star medal he was to be awarded was rescinded. Three other department officials were found to have failed to fulfil their duties and would not be granted pay rises.
“If the saga is further investigated, one must ask: why is there such a culture where a mainland firm with zero track record can win a major bid?” Cheung said, questioning if the department head or the permanent secretary played a role in such a work culture.
In a meeting on Tuesday to address lawmakers’ questions, Secretary for the Civil Service Ingrid Yeung Ho Poi-yan said the new system aimed to motivate department heads to become more committed to resolving issues beyond the scope of their own responsibilities through interdepartmental discussion.
Yeung said that if the commission concluded the issue was related to policy design, the evidence would serve as “a foundation” for the government to decide where blame lay.
“I believe the government will consider the result [of the investigation] and attribute political responsibilities in an appropriate manner,” she said.
A government source familiar with the design of the new mechanism said that although permanent secretaries were covered, the “major targets” would still be department heads because they played the most important role in “managing civil servants at the working level”.
A senior official who works closely with a bureau chief argued that stopping the buck at the department level – rather than with permanent secretaries who directly report to ministers – could reduce “political risks”.
“It can avoid the risk of the ball bouncing back towards the bureau chiefs, as their work and decision-making is closely linked to their permanent secretaries,” he said.
Another concern over the new system is the government’s refusal to make it a legal requirement to publish full investigation results to remain in line with the existing internal disciplinary mechanism.
The government revealed that from 2020 to 2024, only 65 civil servants had their salaries frozen due to poor performance. But details were not made public.
Civil service chief Yeung has said the government will announce major findings while balancing the need to keep certain privacy-related information confidential.
But a former minister who asked to remain anonymous said the mechanism should mirror that of the ombudsman, who releases reports on every direct investigation.
“The duty to disclose should be written into law to ensure it is legally binding,” he said.
Lau Siu-kai, a consultant to the semi-official Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies think tank, said the initial “baby step” on accountability would ensure civil service morale was not affected.
He said it would be important for the government to manage civil servants as “the biggest stablising force” of the establishment and ensure talent would not be deterred from joining the administration.
Perception problems
Other countries have moved to reform their civil service systems with the aim of enhancing accountability.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration finalised part of its overhaul of the US civil service system, giving the president the power to hire and fire an estimated 50,000 federal employees. But the move met fierce resistance from civil servants.
The British government updated its management framework for senior civil servants last year to better align pay with results and make it easier to identify underperformance.
In mainland China, high-ranking officials often face swift and severe punishment over major accidents or policy failures. For example, after the collapse of a section of the Meizhou-Dabu Expressway in Guangdong in 2024 that claimed 52 lives, 32 officials were held accountable, with some being punished for failing to identify systemic risks in the infrastructure they oversaw.
Lau argued that the civil service’s long-established disciplinary procedures, which emphasised fairness and procedural justice, made it difficult to adopt bold moves seen elsewhere.
He said the new mechanism could pave the way for a comprehensive reform of the civil service to keep up with the changing needs of society and higher expectations from the people and the central government.
“Today, the government is being judged on its adaptability, its ability to innovate, and its success in integrating with national development amid geopolitical tensions,” he said.
Lau said these new missions and expanding government functions required reforms that made it easier to fire career civil servants and improved flexibility in recruiting talent.
“If firing is still so hard under the existing ‘iron rice bowl’ culture, how can new talent easily come in to strengthen the government’s ability to solve problems and deliver better results?” -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
