The Heads of Department Accountability System (HDAS), announced by Chief Executive John Lee Ka-chiu in the 2025 Policy Address, has become a hot topic across Hong Kong.

By the end of 2024, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region had about 173,000 civil servants, including roughly 1,400 at directorate rank, who mainly serve as directors of bureaus or departments at pay scales between D4 and D6, with monthly salaries of about HK$257,000 ($33,040) to HK$296,000. Within the framework of the government, secretaries of departments and directors of bureaus — as politically accountable officials — are primarily responsible for policy formulation, while department heads chiefly oversee policy implementation. The latter group is the backbone of the civil service and is pivotal to improving administrative effectiveness.

In a media interview, Lee noted that accountability does exist for department heads, but it has not been systematized or institutionalized. The HDAS is an enterprising reform designed to significantly enhance the management efficiency of department heads.

The adoption of the HDAS signals that the government has heard the public voices and taken heed of their demands for better governance outcomes.

With the “executive-led” principle, enshrined in the Basic Law, having been put into practice, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s role and governance philosophy have undergone a significant transformation. Since taking office, Lee has promised to embrace a proactive governance philosophy, meaning the government becomes proactive rather than responsive, and always acts rather than reacts, not to mention sidestepping difficulties.

Since the current-term SAR government took office, it has launched multiple reforms within the civil service, including updating the Civil Service Code, launching the Chief Executive’s Award for Exemplary Performance, and reviewing the Public Service (Administration) Order and the Public Service (Disciplinary) Regulation. These measures have produced visible results. Most widely endorsed by the public is the governmentwide mobilization mechanism, under which civil servants are promptly deployed into emergency teams during typhoons and other major incidents, dramatically accelerating response times compared with the past.

In any civil service, higher rank entails greater responsibility, better remuneration, and, by the same token, stricter performance expectations.

Viewed in this light, while the political accountability regime for secretaries of departments and directors of bureaus has been in place and the performance assessment system for the civil service at large has been significantly enhanced, the assessment intensity for directorate-grade officials still falls short of the extent that commensurates with their responsibilities. Systematic, institutionalized assessment for this cohort of officials is absent. The HDAS is precisely intended to fill this gap.

It is reasonable to expect that department heads and the wider civil service understand and support this accountability reform. It merits backing from the broader society as well because it is crucial to realizing proactive governance and thus attaining good governance

The SAR government has two core functions: policymaking and execution. For a long time in the past, the government largely played the role of a “night watchman”, who took no initiative to pioneer or innovate. It played safe in decision-making, and implemented policies in strict accordance with established procedures. No matter how abruptly the external environment had changed, how many problems had piled up, and how rapidly technologies were advancing, the government always acted leisurely under the governance philosophy of “positive active noninterventionism”.

The situation today is different. According to my own research, over the past three years, under the chief executive’s leadership, it has become routine for secretaries of departments and directors of bureaus to lead from the front. This is crucial to attaining good governance. Otherwise, if the decision-making team is on the front line while the implementation team moves at a leisurely pace, the mismatch is self-evident — it is unreasonable, uncoordinated, and out of sync, weakening the government’s overall effectiveness.

Decision-making and execution both matter. When decisions are sound, execution is forceful, and the two are tightly aligned, success follows; when the alignment is loose, achievement is out of the question.

At present, some government projects have met real hard nuts, and it’s time to crack them. The Northern Metropolis is a case in point, in which development has lagged behind expectations.

In his new Policy Address, Lee announced that he will establish and chair the Committee on Development of the Northern Metropolis, under which the following three working groups will be set up: the Working Group on Devising Development and Operation Models, the Working Group on Planning and Construction of the University Town, and the Working Group on Planning and Development, each led by a secretary or deputy secretary of a department. He also pledged to streamline the administrative procedures and introduce specific or targeted legislation to accelerate the development of the Northern Metropolis.

This underscores the government’s determination to break the deadlock and accelerate progress in the project. And the Northern Metropolis is just one example. There are many other tough issues to tackle. In such circumstances, strengthening departmental execution capacity is imperative, and implementing the HDAS is a logical choice.

Public attention has focused on the investigation mechanism under the proposed accountability system. It is divided into two tiers. The first level is of a general nature and is to be carried out by the department head concerned. The second covers serious accountability cases, in which systemic issues are suspected or there are indications that the department head is implicated, and is conducted by an investigation panel independent of the government.

Based on the findings, those concerned may face consequences ranging from warning, reprimand, not being granted a salary increment, relegation in rank, reduction in salary, compulsory retirement, and even dismissal. Some senior civil servants could have felt the pressure.

In truth, this feeling of pressure is good news for the public. Civil servants are there to serve residents; if service falls short, accountability is warranted. The rationale is straightforward. Civil servants should discard the old myth of “political neutrality” and abandon any mindset of a “job for life”.

The stricter the accountability, the stronger the motivation to discharge duties. Reinforcing administrative accountability is not only a practical necessity, but also a management approach aligned with human nature.

It is reasonable to expect that department heads and the wider civil service understand and support this accountability reform. It merits backing from the broader society as well because it is crucial to realizing proactive governance and thus attaining good governance.

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.