The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region civil service is no longer what it used to be after the 2019 social unrest. Previously, it was often praised for its high degree of integrity, efficiency and loyalty, and most of all, for its distinctive political neutrality. Now it’s no longer unusual to see large numbers of civil servants openly participating in anti-government movements. Many civil servants were found to have posted disrespectful personal attacks against the chief executive and highly biased comments on social media platforms about the police, totally ignoring their obligations to remain neutral in their views and loyal to the government.
We are reminded of a well-publicized case involving a High Court judge joining a signature petition against the proposed Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill. Some government departments even tolerated “Lennon walls” set up by their staff in government offices. We have seen rebellious civil servants forming new unions and organizing public assemblies in Chater Garden to condemn the government. Civil servants took sick leave en masse in response to the call by opposition parties to go on strike. As a result, many public swimming pools were forced to close due to the lack of lifeguards on duty. Yet we have not seen any disciplinary action being meted out for such blatant violations of civil service rules, including mass submissions of false sick-leave certificates. But the worst offenders were those who actually took part in riots and violence, even attacking police. At least 43 civil servants have been arrested on suspicion of participating in such unauthorized protests and violent activities, including officers from the customs, immigration and fire services disciplined services, and even a staffer in the chief secretary’s office.
Such bad behavior by civil servants would never have been tolerated in the British colonial days, when they were not even allowed to speak to the press without permission. The police and administrative officers had to take an oath of allegiance to the queen. Dissenters were likely to be locked up in the Special Branch detention center on Mount Davis, interrogated, or even expelled from Hong Kong without trial!
Evidently, the current lapse of discipline in the civil service was sparked by an overly tolerant attitude by previous secretaries for the civil service after reunification. It is therefore gratifying to see the newly appointed Secretary for Civil Service Patrick Nip Tak-kuen vowing to crack down on any civil servants who violated the principle of political neutrality, or who participated in unlawful activities. However, Nip can learn from the ICAC’s proven three-pronged approach consisting of education, prevention and enforcement in formulating his strategy to tackle these problems.
All civil servants must attend compulsory refresher courses on the Basic Law and take annual online tests to ensure their correct understanding of it
In regard to education, civil servants clearly lack total familiarity with the Basic Law. If even the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau could have misinterpreted Article 22 of the Basic Law resulting in the fiasco of issuing three contradictory press releases in one evening on the role of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR, what can we expect of ordinary civil servants’ understanding of the Basic Law? Therefore, all civil servants must attend compulsory refresher courses on the Basic Law and take annual online tests to ensure their correct understanding of it. Those who fail the test should get a black mark on their performance assessment reports. Additionally, all civil servants at officer-grade level should attend study visits to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. This would give them a better understanding of the significant modern developments on the mainland and help them establish closer cooperation with their mainland counterparts.
In regard to the prevention side, civil service regulations should be reviewed. The rights of the civil servants to speak to the press or public should be restricted to ensure political neutrality and uniform adherence to the official line on any government policy or public controversy. This is elementary management practice and not a case of restricting civil servants’ right to free speech. In a landmark case last year in Australia, its supreme court ruled that it is justified for the government to dismiss an immigration officer for criticizing a government decision on her Twitter account, even under a pseudonym. All civil servants of officer grade and above and all officers of the disciplined services irrespective of rank should swear to uphold the Basic Law. They should also take an oath of allegiance to the motherland and the SAR government. Stricter positive vetting should be implemented on all recruitments and promotions, which should include people’s political inclinations. Candidates who demonstrate support for the Hong Kong independence movement or sympathy with political extremists and violent protesters should be excluded from government service.
On the enforcement side, the Civil Service Bureau (CSB) should expand its existing staff discipline unit to establish a central complaint system to cover all social-unrest-related allegations. Presently, these complaints are often dealt with in an ad hoc manner by the respective departments. For example, a departmental officer alleged to have published anti-police slogans on his social media platform would often be let off lightly. We even have cases in which government teachers were found to have called on their social media for “all ‘black’ police and their families should die and not a single one should be spared!” Even though these teachers have clearly demonstrated their unsuitability to continue as government teachers, the Education Bureau did no more than issuing them a warning. Considering the potential damaging influence they are having on students, such teachers should be dismissed outright as a deterrence to others. A central complaint unit manned by CSB staff would ensure uniformity in dealing with such complaints, and sufficient deterrent punishment could then be meted out.
At present, civil servants indicted for committing criminal offenses remain on full pay until they are charged in court, and their pay will then be reduced to 50 percent. As it usually takes many months before those social-unrest cases are prosecuted, this is hardly a deterrence for a civil servant arrested in riots as they would then enjoy full pay without work for months. A more-realistic deterrence regime should see a civil servant be put on 75 percent pay once he or she is arrested. Of course, if he or she is exonerated, full pay should be restored retroactively.
As can be seen from the ICAC’s successful track record in public engagement, the key element is to encourage public complaints. If we want to deal with subversive civil servants effectively, we need to identify them first. The most efficient way to do this is to encourage public and internal complaints. The CSB should launch a public complaint hotline to receive all complaints on civil servants’ misconduct and to investigate every pursuable complaint. This should be done under a zero-tolerance policy if we are to put an end to such damaging internal sabotage.
The author is an adjunct professor of HKU Space and a council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies. He is also former head of operations for the ICAC and retired as its deputy commissioner. He is an active international anti-corruption consultant.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
