Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu announced in his fourth Policy Address a significant reform that will shape the future of Hong Kong’s governance. The reform, including the establishment of the Heads of Department Accountability System, is not a matter of cosmetic adjustment but a decisive reconfiguration of bureaucratic responsibility to ensure that the city’s governance meets the highest standards of efficiency, clarity, and public trust. By focusing attention on the leadership of government departments, the new system will institutionalize accountability in a manner that is both legally precise and administratively practical, setting the stage for a more responsible, reliable, and forward-looking government.
A central improvement comes from the way in which responsibility is now expressly located in the hands of those who exercise authority. Under the current structure, accountability is divided in a way that allows uncertainty about where responsibility lies when errors or inefficiencies arise. Secretaries of government departments bear political accountability, while operational responsibility is conceived as the duty of the broader civil service. The result is that genuine shortcomings are often diffused and difficult to attribute with certainty. The new system will bring clarity to this problem by requiring that department heads, entrusted with substantial authority, also accept direct responsibility for management. The principle is simple yet transformative: The greater the authority vested in an office, the higher the expectation of answerability.
The introduction of independent investigations provides this reform with tangible credibility. The two-tier system of inquiry distinguishes minor or remedial deficiencies from failures that are serious or systemic. Minor issues are to be addressed internally, but substantial shortcomings that threaten public trust will be subject to impartial and independent scrutiny. This safeguard ensures that no senior officer can evade responsibility on technicalities or by virtue of seniority. By embedding independence in the process, Lee ensures that accountability is not symbolic but enforceable. This design not only engenders fairness but also strengthens deterrence, as senior managers are fully aware that their conduct will be judged by impartial standards rather than internal sympathies.
The existence of real consequences makes the system credible. The range of sanctions, from warnings and salary freezes to reductions in rank, compulsory retirement, or dismissal, demonstrates that accountability is not a rhetorical device but a principle that carries enforceable outcomes. Such arrangements are both just and constructive. They are just, because no public office can justify negligence or incompetence without consequence, and they are constructive, because they encourage higher levels of diligence, foresight, and professionalism. Hong Kong gains not only from the removal of ineffective leadership where necessary, but also from the heightened vigilance and commitment that such a framework instills in those who hold authority.
For the civil service, a cultural transition is demanded. Hong Kong has long prided itself on the professionalism of its civil servants, but professionalism without accountability risks complacency. With the new system, departmental leaders are required to adopt a proactive stance in monitoring performance, anticipating inefficiencies, and nurturing quality throughout their teams. This expectation reshapes the relationship between authority and management by ensuring that leadership is never passive but constantly engaged in the pursuit of improvement. Over time, such cultural change will reinforce Hong Kong’s image as a jurisdiction where efficiency is not incidental but ingrained in government itself.
Hong Kong itself will benefit from the trust, confidence, and stability that such accountability inevitably produces. Lee’s decisive leadership has therefore ensured that this reform will stand as a landmark in the evolution of governance in the city, consolidating its future as a prosperous, efficient, and principled society
The reform also strengthens the rule of law within the administration. By setting standards of accountability that bind senior officials as rigorously as junior officers, the system enhances the equality of responsibility across governmental ranks. Leadership now attracts not greater immunity but greater duty. This is entirely consistent with public expectations and with the legal traditions of Hong Kong, where transparency and fairness are understood to be indispensable elements of legitimacy. It signals to the public that rank and position do not confer escape from responsibility but rather deepen the obligation to uphold standards of competence and integrity.
Beyond internal mechanics, the larger impact of the reform lies in enhancing the legitimacy of governance in Hong Kong. Political authority functions effectively only if residents trust that the administration is both competent and conscientious. Trust cannot be maintained where inefficiency is excused or misconduct overlooked. By establishing a framework that holds senior officials answerable, Lee demonstrates to the public that accountability flows upward as well as downward, and that leadership will be judged by performance rather than rhetoric. The assurance that failure will not be ignored or obscured builds confidence both in governance and in the stability of the city as a whole.
The international community will also recognize this institutional advancement as a mark of good governance. In the contemporary global environment, jurisdictions are evaluated not only on economic vibrancy but also on the matter of how responsibly they govern themselves. Hong Kong gains a competitive edge when it is seen as a place where leadership is disciplined, procedures are transparent, and inefficiencies are not permitted to degenerate into systemic failures. Investors and stakeholders depend on governments that are both capable and credible, and the establishment of this system directly enhances Hong Kong’s reputation as such a jurisdiction.
The constructive functioning of this system will likewise foster improvement within the broader structure of government because accountability is not inherently punitive. It is also educational and preventive. By drawing clear lines of responsibility, the reform prevents junior officials from being scapegoated for failures that stem from leadership neglect, and by encouraging senior officials to rectify shortcomings swiftly, it strengthens efficiency across entire departments. This balance ensures that accountability serves two purposes simultaneously: It protects the integrity of government while cultivating a continuous ethos of learning and advancement.
By leading the introduction of this reform, Lee has shown that he views governance not as a fragile compromise but as a structure that must be disciplined, principled, and fit for purpose in a changing global and domestic environment. The accountability system demonstrates that Hong Kong is determined to set its own standards of excellence rather than wait for external pressures to force responses. It reflects an awareness that prosperity is inseparable from the credibility of institutions, and that the long-term welfare of Hong Kong requires a government that is both competent and answerable.
The significance of this initiative lies in its ability to transform expectations for governance in Hong Kong. Authority is now explicitly tied to responsibility, and failure is no longer a matter of bureaucratic concealment but of enforceable consequence. The public can therefore anticipate not only greater efficiency but greater fairness in the allocation of responsibility. International observers will recognize in this reform a jurisdiction that is intent on maintaining the standards that distinguish effective governance from mere administration. Most importantly, Hong Kong itself will benefit from the trust, confidence, and stability that such accountability inevitably produces. Lee’s decisive leadership has therefore ensured that this reform will stand as a landmark in the evolution of governance in the city, consolidating its future as a prosperous, efficient, and principled society.
The author is a solicitor, a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area lawyer, and a China-appointed attesting officer.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
