WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1993
I HAVE EXPRESSED THE VIEW PREVIOUSLY IN THIS COUNCIL, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT AT A TIME WHEN ALL IS CHANGE, AND I MAY SAY, PERHAPS ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTY POLITICS REFERRED TO AGAIN BY MISS EMILY LAU WHEN ALL IS CHANGED, THE COMMUNITY IS ENTITLED TO LOOK TO THE CIVIL SERVICE FOR CONTINUITY AND STABILITY. AND SO IN THE
BASIC LAW, THE SECTION DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT HONG KONG'S EXISTING SYSTEM WILL REMAIN BASICALLY UNCHANGED. ARTICLE LOL ENVISAGES THE PRINCIPAL OFFICIAL POSTS FORMING THE MAINSTAY OF AN EXECUTIVE-LED GOVERNMENT, ACCOUNTABLE TO THE LEGISLATURE (ARTICLE 64) - VERY MUCH THE SYSTEM WE ENJOY AT PRESENT.
UNDER OUR PRESENT SYSTEM
THE CHIEF
-
-
AND I SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD LOOK FOR CHANGE
SECRETARY, FINANCIAL SECRETARY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL POSTS ARE THE PINNACLE OF BOTH THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CIVIL SERVICE. APPOINTMENT TO THESE POSTS HAS NORMALLY BEEN BY WAY OF PROMOTION FROM THE LEVEL BELOW, ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE OCCASIONALLY BEEN DIRECT APPOINTMENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE CIVIL SERVICE OR TRANSFERS PREVIOUSLY FROM OTHER BRITISH TERRITORIES. WHATEVER THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT, THESE POSTS ARE QUITE CLEARLY PART OF THE CIVIL SERVICE AND ARE NOT "POLITICAL" APPOINTMENTS. BRANCH SECRETARIES ARE NORMALLY PROMOTION POSTS FROM WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE, ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN APPOINTMENTS FROM OTHER GRADES AND, VERY EXCEPTIONALLY, FROM OUTSIDE THE CIVIL SERVICE.
OF
THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE SENIOR OFFICIALS ARE THEREFORE CAREER OFFICERS WHO HAVE RISEN TO THEIR PRESENT POSITIONS BY DINT MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND PROVEN COMPETENCE AS ADMINISTRATORS, MANAGERS AND POLICY INITIATORS. IN THE CASE OF THOSE WHO HAVE RISEN THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE. THEY WILL HAVE EXPERIENCED A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF POSTINGS IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY, AND EARLY EXPOSURE TO PUBLIC ISSUES. THIS IS SURELY ONE OF THE STRENGTHS OF OUR PRESENT SYSTEM AND LONG MAY IT CONTINUE. I AM GRATEFUL TO MR MCGREGOR AND OTHER MEMBERS FOR THEIR RECOGNITION OF THE CALIBRE, THE STANDARDS, THE LOYALTY AND THE IMPARTIALITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
-
I AGREE WITH MR. WONG THAT THESE POLICY SECRETARIES CANNOT BE, AS HE PUTS IT, "ANONYMOUS AND FACELESS". BUT I SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. AT THE VERY LEAST THEY HELP TO PUT A HUMAN FACE ON THE BUREAUCRACY. THE PUBLIC HAS COME TO EXPECT THEIR SENIOR OFFICIALS ΤΟ BE ABLE TO STAND UP, IN PUBLIC AND IN THIS COUNCIL, ΤΟ EXPLAIN AND DEFEND GOVERNMENT POLICIES, ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE; AND THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR
OR FAVOUR, WITHOUT WONDERING WHETHER THEIR ADVOCACY OF A PARTICULAR POLICY WILL AFFECT THEIR CAREER. THIS IS WHAT IS MEANT BY A NEUTRAL, APOLITICAL CIVIL SERVICE. AND I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH MR FRED LI AND OTHER MEMBERS WHO HAVE EMPHASISED THIS POINT THAT CIVIL SERVANTS SHOULD REMAIN NEUTRAL. OF COURSE, "APOLITICAL" DOES NOT MEAN THAT SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN AREAS OF POLITICAL CONTROVERSY. MANY OF THE ISSUES WITH WHICH THEY DEAL ARE INDEED POLITICALLY CONTROVERSIAL. BUT "APOLITICAL" MEANS THAT THEY DO NOT ALLOW PERSONAL OR PARTY POLITICAL BELIEFS OR ALLEGIANCES TO INTRUDE INTO THEIR PROPER ROLE AND FUNCTION, WHICH IS, IN AS OBJECTIVE A WAY AS POSSIBLE, ΤΟ PUT THE PUBLIC WELFARE ABOVE INDIVIDUAL INCLINATIONS. THERE MAY INDEED BE FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING HERE THAT PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS DEALING WITH POLICY AND POLITICAL ISSUES MEAN THAT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS THEMSELVES ARE ACTING IN A POLITICAL ROLE. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IT IS THE GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE THAT TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
/MR ALLEN