In his 2025 Policy Address last September, Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu unveiled his plan to establish a Heads of Department (HoDs) Accountability System. The move is intended to render the political accountability required of department secretaries and bureau directors in policy formulation, and the administrative accountability required of civil servants in implementing policy initiatives better articulated with each other, with clarification of their respective roles. Designed to drive HoDs to establish effective management teams and operating systems, the initiative will enhance departmental efficiency by institutionalizing accountability mechanisms for HoDs.
Recently, the Civil Service Bureau submitted a paper to the Legislative Council detailing the proposed HoD Accountability System, including expanding the functions of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and establishing a two-tier investigation mechanism. Because investigations and penalties are inherently sensitive, public discourse has largely fixated on them. However, the accountability system is a comprehensive framework; to focus solely on disciplinary measures risks missing the forest for the trees. From my perspective, the system is designed to ensure that HoDs diligently perform their duties, take the initiative, and bolster administrative efficiency to strengthen overall governance.
Fundamentally, the proposed system addresses a critical shortcoming in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s operational structure. The executive-led system, underpinned by the Basic Law, is a defining feature of Hong Kong’s governance, and its primary prerequisite is high administrative efficiency. Since taking office, Lee has explicitly proposed building a “proactive government” by reshaping the administrative culture through continuous reform. Over the past few years, the public has clearly witnessed an increasingly proactive government focusing on results. In the IMD World Competitiveness Booklet 2025, Hong Kong was ranked second globally in “government efficiency”, reflecting not only the excellence of its civil service but also the actual effectiveness of the incumbent administration’s reforms.
That said, Lee has observed that there is still room for improvement in government performance. The operation of the government can be summarized by a simple formula — decision-making by political appointees coupled with implementation by the civil service. The current administration has updated the Civil Service Code with new measures including: highlighting 12 core values; establishing a governmentwide mobilization mechanism; and implementing a management system with clear rewards and punishments, among others. Consequently, the policy-execution capacity of the civil service has significantly improved — as evident in the handling of black rainstorms and the rescue operations following the deadly Tai Po fire in November.
As senior civil servants, HoDs (such as directors and commissioners) serve as a crucial link between high-level policymaking and front-line execution, bearing the primary responsibility for policy implementation. While they face high expectations from both top government officials — including the chief executive, secretaries of departments, and directors of bureaus — and the general public, there were previously no clear guidelines on how they should lead their departments or face accountability when departmental performance fell short. To fill this void, the HoD Accountability System explicitly defines the roles and responsibilities of directorate officials for the first time and introduces a dedicated assessment framework. It aims to encourage HoDs to exercise strong leadership, effectively execute policy decisions, and boost departmental efficiency. Ultimately, this will ensure seamless government operations and deliver better public services.
Establishing the HoD Accountability System is a vital step in revolutionizing governance concepts and improving administration. It will further elevate the government’s operational effectiveness and further promote good governance in Hong Kong
Furthermore, the proposed system incentivizes proactive governance. According to the Civil Service Bureau, under the HoD Accountability System, departmental heads are tasked with five core responsibilities. First, they must enhance overall team-management efficiency, upgrade operational systems, and cultivate a sound organizational culture. Second, they are required to personally acquire an in-depth understanding of their departments’ services, particularly the operation of essential and critical functions. Third, they must establish appropriate delegation, supervision, and management mechanisms across all tiers; this ensures effective staff oversight to prevent or promptly resolve issues while clearly delineating responsibilities. Fourth, HoDs must maintain robust management frameworks — encompassing operational protocols, internal guidelines, and procedures — and conduct regular reviews to adapt to evolving circumstances. Finally, they are expected to exercise rigorous leadership by formulating comprehensive risk management and contingency plans, alongside instituting systems to gather feedback from key internal and external stakeholders.
Equally important is the proposed system’s role in preventing management failures. While providing robust support for proactive leadership, it acts as a safeguard by activating an investigation and disciplinary mechanism when necessary. Some have questioned why permanent secretaries are excluded from such investigations and whether investigations will be fair. The rationale is straightforward: HoDs directly manage teams and implement policies, whereas permanent secretaries assist HoDs in formulating policies and allocating resources without directly managing departments. Thus, their exclusion from investigations is logically sound.
Fairness of investigations is ensured by three principles. First, no conflict of interest should exist. Traditionally, when departmental issues arise, the government appoints an independent senior official to investigate the root causes and hold responsible personnel accountable. Second, investigations must be authoritative. As an independent statutory body advising the chief executive on civil service appointments and discipline, the PSC is uniquely positioned for this role. Entrusting investigations to an external institution effectively dispels the perception of “self-investigation”. Third, impartiality must be upheld. Concerns that the PSC chairman — typically a retired senior official — might be biased are groundless. Appointed by the chief executive, the PSC chairman has traditionally been selected from among the highest-ranking retired civil servants, while the commission’s members are drawn from diverse backgrounds, including various professions, academia, and the business sector. Furthermore, the commission’s annual reports frequently feature candid critiques of government departments, leaving absolutely no doubt about its objectivity and fairness.
Ultimately, establishing the HoD Accountability System is a vital step in revolutionizing governance concepts and improving administration. It will further elevate the government’s operational effectiveness and further promote good governance in Hong Kong.
The author is vice-chairman of the Committee on Liaison with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Overseas Chinese of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and chairman of the Hong Kong New Era Development Thinktank.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
