Civil Service Appointments

The principle governing Civil Service appointments is to appoint “the best person for the job”. Ability and good conduct aside, the Commission has also to be assured that the selection process is fair and properly conducted and that the claims of all eligible candidates are duly and fully considered. In 2019, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1162 submissions. Of them, 1126 were appointment-related and the remaining 36 were related to conduct and discipline. These submissions were the result of the hard work of B/Ds. Altogether, 197 recruitment and 715 promotion exercises were conducted by them. They involved hundreds and thousands of applicants and candidates whose applications for appointment and claims for promotion have to be meticulously assessed. In addition, the Commission advised on 26 submissions concerning extension of service or re-employment after retirement. Of these, 25 were further employment cases conducted under the adjusted mechanism promulgated by CSB in June 2017. Another 148 cases involved extensions or termination of officers appointed on probation or trial service. The remaining 40 cases were other appointment-related cases.

Apart from advising on case-specific submissions, the Commission also works with CSB to improve and streamline appointment procedures and where appropriate proposes subjects for review. An account of the Commission’s work is detailed in this Chapter.

Recruitment to the Civil Service is undertaken by CSB and individual B/Ds. It may take the form of an open recruitment or in-service appointment or both. Where submissions are required to be made to the Commission⁶, we will check to see that objective selection standards and proper procedures are adopted in the process. Introduction of new shortlisting criteria for recruitment exercises require the Commission’s advice in advance before they can be adopted. We will examine them to ensure that they are appropriate and fair. We also advise B/Ds on improvement measures that can be taken to shorten the processing time so that early offers can be made to successful candidates.

In 2019, the Commission advised on 197 recruitment exercises involving the filling of 1 944 posts, of which 1 885 posts (in 190 exercises) were through open recruitment and 59 posts (in seven exercises) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments and a comparison table showing the number of recommendees in 2019 and that of the past four years are provided at Appendix IV. Some specific observations made by the Commission on the recruitment submissions advised in the year are provided in Chapter 3.

The role of the Commission in advising the Government on promotions to the middle and senior ranks⁷ in the Civil Service is to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious officers are selected to undertake higher rank duties through a fair and equitable promotion system. In examining promotion submissions from B/Ds, the Commission will need to be satisfied that proper procedures have been followed and that the claims of all eligible officers have been fairly and fully considered regardless of their terms of appointment against the criteria of ability, experience, performance, character and prescribed qualifications, if any. The Commission also makes observations on the conduct of promotion exercises and issues relating to performance management with a view to bringing about improvements where shortfall is identified and enhancing the quality of the Civil Service promotion system as a whole.

In 2019, the Commission advised on 715 promotion exercises involving 9 200 officers. A numerical breakdown of these submissions and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix V. Some specific observations made by the Commission on these submissions are provided in Chapter 4.

To address the demographic challenges arising from an ageing population and the anticipated wastage of civil servants in the coming years, the Government announced in January 2015 the adoption of a package of measures for extending the service of civil servants. They include raising the retirement age of new recruits, streamlining the control regime on post-retirement outside work, promulgating the Post-retirement Service Contract Scheme to engage retired civil servants, revising the arrangements for final extension of service and implementing an adjusted mechanism for further employment of civil servants for a longer duration than final extension of service (hereafter referred to as “FE”).

Furthermore, to tie in with the goal of expanding the labour force and to respond to the aspirations of serving colleagues in the Civil Service, the CE announced in the 2017 Policy Address that serving civil servants who joined the Government between 1 June 2000 and 31 May 2015 would be given an option to retire at the age of 65 (for civilian grades) or 60 (for disciplined services grades) on a voluntary basis (hereafter referred to as “the Option”).

Under the FE scheme, eligible officers may be considered for FE through a selection process, which has been institutionalised by making reference to the modus operandi of promotion and recruitment boards. The Commission’s advice is required for FE if the posts concerned are under our purview. In 2019, the Commission had advised on 25 submissions on the recommendations of FE selection boards involving the extension of service of 65 officers. A breakdown of the number of extension of service or re-employment after retirement cases, including FE submissions, in 2019 and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VI. The Commission notes that as an on-going effort, CSB will review the implementation of the FE scheme. The Commission will continue to scrutinize the operation of the FE scheme and provide feedback to CSB as necessary.

CSB launched the Option on 27 July 2018 with the provision of a two-year option period commencing 17 September 2018. As at 16 December 2019, about 46% of the eligible civil servants had taken the Option. The Commission will keep the progressive implementation of the Option in view and seek a further update from CSB prior to the close of the option period in mid-2020.

The purpose of requiring an officer to undergo a probationary/trial period is manifold. They include –

Extension of probationary/trial period should not be used as a substitute for termination of service or solely for the purpose of giving an officer more time to prove his/her suitability. In accordance with CSR 183(5)/199(3), a probationary/trial period should normally be extended only when there have not been adequate opportunities to assess the officer’s suitability for passage of the probation/trial bar because of his/her absence from duty on account of illness or study leave; or when there is a temporary setback on the part of the officer in attaining the suitability standards or acquiring the prescribed qualifications for passage of the probation/trial bar beyond his/her control. It is only in very exceptional circumstances where the officer, though not yet fully meeting the suitability standards, has shown strong indication to be able to achieve the standards within the extension period that an extension of his/her probationary/trial period should be granted.

The number of cases involving termination of probationary/trial service advised by the Commission was 11 in 2019. These cases were all related to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct of the officers concerned. Submissions recommending extension of probationary/trial service had increased from 128 in 2018 to 137 in 2019. Most of these extensions were needed to allow time for the officers concerned to demonstrate their suitability for permanent appointment/passage of trial bar on grounds of temporary setback in performance, minor lapses in conduct or absence from duty for a prolonged period due to the officers’ health conditions, or pending the acquisition of requisite qualifications prescribed for continued appointment. A statistical breakdown of these cases and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VII.

To uphold the proper administration of the probation/trial system, HoDs/HoGs have the overall responsibility of overseeing the management of officers on probation/trial. Continual monitoring and regular feedback are necessary in determining whether approval for passage of the probation/trial bar should be given. They are also needed to enable the management to take appropriate action to address problems that may surface during the probation or trial period. In order that holistic management actions can be timely taken, information exchange and updates between different work units in a B/D is imperative.

In examining an extension case, while noting that the department has put in place an administrative “bring-up” system under the personnel section to consider and process the officer’s suitability for passage of the probation bar, another section was tasked to deal with staff being investigated for misconduct or involved in criminal investigation. Because of the compartmentalized division of duty with no internal guideline requiring the two sections to seek updates and exchange information, belated action was taken to seek an extension of the officer’s probation. In another case, the department submitted a recommendation to defer an officer’s passage of the probation bar on the grounds of prolonged sick leave having been taken by the officer concerned. Shortly after the Commission had supported the extension, the department made another extension submission as the officer concerned was found to be the subject of a criminal investigation. As the investigation was still on-going, a further extension had to be sought. The Commission considered that action should have been taken by the department to seek a longer extension to cover both circumstances in one-go.

The Commission considered the handling of the above cases far from satisfactory. The Commission has advised the relevant departments to strengthen internal departmental procedures and enhance the general management of probationers.

As a stipulated appointment guideline, stringent suitability standards should be applied to assess and determine whether an officer on probation/trial should be allowed to pass the probation/trial bar. In an extension case, the supervisors of an officer on probation sought the advice of the Commission for an extension on the grounds that improvement in performance was seen in the last five months before the due date of the passage of the probation bar. Upon scrutiny, the Commission noted that the officer had been repeatedly reported as displaying attitude and conduct problems throughout the probationary period. Just shortly before the end of his/her probationary period, the officer was issued with a verbal warning for insubordination necessitating the deferment of the passage of the probation bar with financial loss under the system of summary disciplinary action promulgated by CSB⁸ . While disciplinary action, albeit informal, was duly taken against the officer’s misconduct leading to the punishment of a verbal warning, the general suitability of this officer for continued appointment should have been considered also under CSRs 180 and 186. Given the officer’s persistent attitude and conduct problems, earlier decisive action should have been taken by the departmental management to terminate the officer’s probationary service.

In a case involving an officer on trial, the GM initially proposed to extend his/her trial service for six months with financial loss on medical grounds. On closer examination of the medical history presented, the Commission was unable to establish a causal relationship between the officer’s substandard performance and his/her health. Despite intensive coaching, the officer’s performance had not improved. Upon the request of the Commission, the GM subsequently revised its recommendation and decided to refuse the officer’s passage of trial bar. In tendering its advice on the case, the Commission has impressed upon the GM of the need to keep the performance of an officer on trial under regular review and should be more alert to the taking of prolonged sick leave.

In another extension case, the department originally recommended deferring an officer’s passage of probation bar for six months with financial loss in light of the large number of sick leave taken intermittently over a prolonged period and failings in conduct and performance. Without responding to elaborations sought by the Commission Secretariat, the extension submission was withdrawn by the department. The Commission later learnt that the reasons advanced by the management for withdrawing the proposal were that the officer’s performance had improved and that the sick leave taken was considered genuine. However, the department would consider issuing an advisory letter to advise the officer of the areas requiring improvement and that greater efforts needed to be exerted. This would suggest that the officer’s performance had yet to reach the required standard and in the view of the Commission, it was doubtful whether allowing the officer to pass the probation bar was fully justified at this juncture. The Commission considered the department’s act of withdrawing the original extension recommendation without first addressing the Commission’s concerns regrettable. It also reflected that the departmental management had not carefully thought through the appropriate management action it should take before making the submission.

According to CSB Circular No. 5/2015, a probationer who has been issued with a verbal or written warning will have his/her probationary period extended for six months or one year respectively with financial loss⁹, irrespective of when the warning is issued during the probationary period and subject to the requirements under CSRs 186(3) and 186(4)¹⁰ . A probationer issued with a warning should be duly informed of its implication on his probationary period and be cautioned to demonstrate remarkable improvement and exemplary performance, so that the probationer knows where he/she stands. To assist B/Ds in administering summary disciplinary action, CSB has issued a template for B/Ds to record the verbal and written warnings instituted against defaulting officers, in which a clause stipulating the effect of warnings applicable to the probationer is included in the execution. However, the purpose and effect of the system will be defeated if it is not properly administered. In examining an extension case, the department was found to have used a wrong template in administering a warning to a probationer. The crucial information that the probation period would be extended by six months was not specified therein. In another case, a number of officers were involved and one was a probationer. Not being aware, the issuing officer, when recording the administered warning in the personnel file of the probationer, had wrongly crossed out the reference in the form of an extension of the probation period. While the effect of the warnings had not been affected, the Commission has urged the concerned departments to strongly advise the subject officers to familiarize themselves fully with the operation of the warning system and to ensure accuracy in processing similar cases in the future.

While accuracy is a prerequisite, taking prompt and timely action is just as important in the administration of the warning system. For the avoidance of doubt, CSB has issued additional guidance to B/Ds again in January 2018 to clarify that they should proceed to extend the probation period of an officer who had been warned without waiting till the end of the probationary period. Despite the reminder, cases involving belated follow-up actions on warnings issued to probationers were still observed during the year. In an extension case, the Commission noted a long time gap of over two years between the issuance of a verbal warning and the submission for extension to the Commission. The department explained that due to administrative oversight, the officer responsible for administering the warning was unaware that the officer was still on probation. The Commission considers that in order to achieve the punitive and deterrent effect of the warning system, immediate follow-up action should be taken to extend the officer’s probationary period. Early action taken in this regard would enable the probationer concerned to correct and strive for improvement. While noting the remedial actions taken by the department in strengthening the administration of the disciplinary system on probationers, the Commission has reminded the department to coach staff responsible for disciplinary and appointment matters to familiarize themselves with the CSB guidelines and to observe the timeline for making submissions to the Commission.

As required under CSR 186(4)/200(4), recommendations involving extension or termination of probationary/trial service which fall under the purview of the Commission should as far as practicable be submitted to the Commission at least two months before the end of the probationary/trial period. The Commission considers it most undesirable if such cases could not be processed in time for the officers concerned to be informed of the management’s decision before the end of their probationary/trial periods.

In recent years, the Commission has noted the time spent by the Commission Secretariat in seeking supplementary and necessary information further to the submissions received from B/Ds. As the Commission needs to examine all information critically and comprehensively, time and efforts could be saved if all necessary information could be provided at the outset. To improve efficiency and in conjunction with CSB, we have prepared a checklist to assist B/Ds in preparing their submissions. The checklist was promulgated on 17 January 2020. The Commission is hopeful that the checklist would be found useful especially among B/Ds which are less experienced in dealing with problematic probationers whose probation period needed to be extended.

Other appointment matters advised by the Commission cover cases of non-renewal of agreement, retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O, secondment¹¹, opening-up arrangement¹², review of acting appointment and updating of Guide to Appointment¹³. In 2019, the Commission advised on 40 aforesaid cases. A statistical breakdown of these cases and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VIII.

Retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O is not a form of disciplinary action or punishment but pursued as an administrative measure in the public interest on the grounds of –

During the year, a total of eight officers from seven B/Ds were put under close observation. One officer had subsequently been taken off the watch list after he/she had retired from the service. As at March 2020, seven officers remained under close observation.

The Commission will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases in the course of vetting staff appraisal reports in connection with promotion exercises. We will also closely monitor departmental managements’ readiness and timeliness in pursuing such an administrative action.