Civil Service Appointments

Maintaining a workforce of civil servants who are dedicated to their duties, committed to the rule of law, and being objective and impartial in the discharge of duties is of vital importance to the effective governance of the Government. As a backbone of the HKSAR Government, all civil servants are duty-bound to observe and implement “One Country, Two Systems”. Civil Service appointment has therefore to be highly selective to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious are appointed and recruited into the Civil Service.

In 2021, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 379 submissions. Of them, 1 350 were appointment-related and the remaining 29 were related to conduct and discipline. These submissions were the result of the hard work of B/Ds. Altogether, 157 recruitment and 742 promotion exercises were conducted to fill new vacancies and replenish the manpower needs of B/Ds. Behind these two figures are 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 further employment cases were put up under the adjusted mechanism promulgated by CSB in June 2017. Another 247 submissions involved extension or termination of officers appointed on probation or trial service. The remaining 178 were other appointment-related cases.

Apart from tendering advice and observations on case-specific submissions, the Commission also works closely with CSB to provide comments on new appointment policy, to improve and streamline appointment procedures and to propose subjects for review where appropriate. 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 which may take the form of an open recruitment or in-service appointment or both. Where submissions are required to be made to the Commission⁵, we will need to be satisfied that objective selection standards and proper procedures are adopted in the process. B/Ds are required to consult the Commission in advance on the introduction of any new shortlisting criteria in a recruitment exercise to ensure that they are appropriate and fair. We also advise B/Ds on measures to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the recruitment process so that offers can be made to successful candidates as early as possible.

In 2021, the Commission advised on 157 recruitment submissions involving the filling of 1 597 posts, of which 1 545 posts (in 150 exercises) were through open recruitment and 52 posts (in seven exercises) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments and a comparison table showing the number of recommendees in 2021 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.

Since September 2008, BL knowledge assessment has been included in the recruitment process for all civil service positions. Applicants for civil service positions requiring academic qualifications at or above completion of secondary education level must sit for the BL Test, the result of which will carry an appropriate weighting in a candidate’s overall assessment. To promote the learning and deepen the understanding of the BL, CSB has reviewed and decided to require a pass result in the BL Test as an entry requirement for these positions in all civil service recruitment exercises advertised on or after 6 August 2021. Regardless of the performance of the candidates in other parts of the assessment, applicants for the civil service posts concerned must obtain a pass in the BL Test to qualify for consideration of appointment. The Commission is in full support of setting knowledge of the BL as a mandatory requirement for entry into the Civil Service. Looking ahead, CSB has undertaken to review and update the assessment content of the BL Test to include the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR in the scope of the assessment to reflect the requirements of the jobs under application. The Commission looks forward to offering our views in the course of the CSB review.

The role of the Commission in advising the Government on promotions⁶ in the Civil Service is to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious officers are selected to undertake the 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 matters relating to performance management with a view to bringing about improvements where inadequacies are identified and enhancing the quality of the overall Civil Service promotion system as a whole.

In 2021, the Commission advised on 742 promotion submissions involving the recommendations of 9 634 officers for promotion or acting appointment. Promotions have to be earned and based on merits. In a great majority of cases, competition is keen. The recommendations of a promotion board have therefore to stand up to scrutiny and the relevant board has to answer the queries raised by the Commission and provide justifications and objective evidence to support them. 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 guard against any real or perceived conflict of interest in Civil Service appointments, the Government has established a well-tested declaration of interest mechanism governing the conduct of Civil Service recruitment and promotion exercises. The chairman and members of a recruitment/promotion board are required to declare, before the board meeting, whether their relationship with any of the eligible candidates would constitute or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest. The Appointment Authority (AA) will, after taking into account the degree of closeness of the relationship involved and the associated real/perceived conflict of interest, decide on an appropriate course to take. The AA may direct changing the composition of the board, or requesting the board chairman/members to withdraw from the board temporarily, or to abstain from assessing the claim of the declared candidate.

In consultation with the Commission, CSB conducted and completed a review in November 2021. The declaration mechanism is streamlined such that if a board chairman or member declares an interest with a candidate, and the relationship so declared has been considered by the same AA in a previous exercise, it is not necessary to submit the declaration again provided that there is no change in the details of the declaration and that no mitigating action (such as withdrawing from the board temporarily or abstaining from assessing the claim of the declared candidate) is required to be taken. The Commission supports the refinement and considers it sensible to strike a balance between safeguarding the integrity of the mechanism and minimising bureaucratic red tape. CSB has also taken the opportunity to remind B/Ds to impress officers appointed to be chairmen and members of promotion boards on the importance to exercise prudence and judgement in making declarations.

Pursuant to the Government’s policy decision announced in January 2015 to extend the service of civil servants, an adjusted mechanism for further employment beyond retirement age for a longer duration than final extension of service (hereafter referred to as “FE”) was fully implemented from June 2017 after consulting the Commission.

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 2021, 25 FE submissions were put up to consider applications for extension of service. With the support of the Commission, the service of 126 officers were extended for a period ranging from about four months to 4.5 years in aggregate. A breakdown of the number of extension of service or re-employment after retirement cases advised by the Commission in 2021 and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VI.

In 2021, CSB completed a review of the FE scheme as planned. The review results reaffirmed that the FE scheme has provided B/Ds an avenue to retain experienced civil servants to sustain the services of B/Ds. It has also served to meet short-term manpower gaps and facilitate succession planning particularly for grades which are experiencing severe bunching of retirement at certain ranks. In light of the experience gained in implementing the scheme, CSB has fine-tuned some arrangements in respect of applications for final extension of service (up to 120 days)⁷. With effect from September 2021, irrespective of whether the final extension is to take effect upon attaining the retirement age or after the completion of FE of the officer concerned, all applications henceforth will be processed and approved in accordance with CSB Circular No. 2/2016 and the approving authority is the same as that set out in Civil Service Regulation (CSR) 276(4). The advice of the Commission on these applications is no longer required. CSB has assured us that the total duration of the FE period(s) and the final extension of service to be granted for an officer will be capped at a maximum of five years under the present policy. The Commission is pleased to note that applications for FE were considered and approved with full regard to the approval criteria thereby safeguarding the interests of serving officers with no undue promotion blockage caused as a result of the FE. The Commission will continue to monitor the operation of the FE scheme and provide feedback to CSB as necessary.

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

To maintain a robust workforce, HoDs/HoGs should adopt stringent suitability standards in assessing the performance and conduct of officers on probation/trial to ensure that only those who are suitable in all respects are allowed to pass the probation/trial bar. According to the guidelines promulgated by CSB and as provided for under CSRs, termination of an officer’s probationary/trial service is not a punishment. If at any time during the probationary/trial period, an officer on probation/trial is found to have failed to measure up to the required standards of performance/conduct or has shown attitude problems and displayed little progress despite having been given guidance and advice by their supervising officers and/or the GM, the HoD/HoG concerned should take early and resolute action to terminate his service under CSR 186/200 without the need to wait until the end of the probationary/trial period or recourse to disciplinary proceedings.

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 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 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 control. It is only in very exceptional circumstances where the officer, though not yet fully meeting the suitability standards, has shown positive and strong indication to be able to achieve the standards within the extension period that an extension of his probationary/trial period should be granted. Besides, the period of an extension should not be decided arbitrarily. Rather, B/Ds should fully consider the circumstances and merits of each case and assess the time required by the management to come to a view on whether the officer concerned should be allowed to pass the probation/trial bar.

In 2021, the Commission recorded a total of 69 cases requiring the termination of probationary/trial service of the officers concerned. It represents a 165% increase from 26 cases in 2020. Among them, 56 cases were related to unsatisfactory performance/conduct, and the rest were related to probationers who failed/refused/neglected to comply with the requirement to sign a declaration to uphold the BL, bear allegiance to the HKSAR, be dedicated to their duties and be responsible to the HKSAR Government⁸. There were another 178 submissions involving extension of probationary/trial service in the year. 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 a 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.

B/Ds have in general been vigilant in applying a stringent standard in assessing an officer’s suitability for passage of the probation/trial bar. In some cases, however, the Commission has noted inadequate supervision on the part of frontline managers. In examining a termination case, the Commission was concerned that the multiple and prolonged acts of misconduct of a probationer only came to light through investigation of a complaint lodged with the department. Had the supervising officer conducted regular checks instead of just relying on telephone communications and weekly verbal reports, proactive management action to terminate the service of the probationer would have been taken earlier. The case has highlighted the need for B/Ds to adjust and innovate their management strategy in exercising staff supervision especially over those working in outposts. The Commission has advised the department to review its existing practice and consider the adoption of new technologies to facilitate supervising officers to better discharge their supervisory duties. While public complaint can serve as a feedback, proactive monitoring and quality service assurance must remain a prime responsibility of the management.

Appraisal is an integral part of the performance management system. It is a tool with which staff performance is monitored and assessed. It is also a means to provide feedback for staff development. For officers on probation/trial, timely feedback is all the more important as they need to know how they have been performing and be given the chance to improve their shortcomings. In an extension case of the trial service of an officer, the Commission was disappointed to find that out of six appraisal reports written during the trial period, three were completed late with one late for 14 months. Moreover, the written assessment of all the three reports was almost identical. Such practice defeats the very purpose of performance appraisal as a tool to assess an appraisee’s progress or otherwise over a specified period of time. The Commission has advised the GM to draw from this case and remind its grade members to perform their performance management duties diligently and properly.

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 a case seeking to defer the passage of probation bar of an officer who was under on-going investigation by a law enforcement agency, the department concerned submitted its recommendation to the Commission for advice after the expiry of the date for passage of the probation bar. While the GM was fully aware that the officer was under investigation and should have alerted the appointments section of the department, it was not done until close to the end of the probationary period. The Commission considers that had there been closer communication and better co-ordination between the two sections, the case could have been dealt with earlier for timely submission to the Commission. The Commission has invited the department to review its internal processing procedures and enhance its reporting and monitoring mechanism in this regard.

In another case, the probationary period of an officer on continuous sick leave had to be extended on account of the sick leave taken and the subsequent period during which only light duties were performed. The extension was intended to allow the department to thoroughly assess the officer’s fitness to perform his principal duties based on the advice to be obtained from a further medical board. However, the department concerned had overlooked the need to secure the medical board advice promptly within the extended period. As a result, a further extension had to be sought. As arranging a medical board is a critical task in the process, the Commission has advised the department to factor it in when considering an appropriate period for extension. The administrative work of having to seek a further extension could be saved.

According to CSB Circular No. 5/2015, the probationary period of an officer issued with a verbal or written warning⁹ should be extended for six months and one year respectively with financial loss¹⁰. As the extension is to take effect from the end date of the original probationary period regardless of when the warnings were issued, management action to seek the advice of the Commission should be initiated immediately thereupon without waiting until the end of the probationary period. However, belated follow-up actions to seek extensions on warnings issued to probationers were still observed during the year.

In an extension case, the advice of the Commission was sought one year after the warning was issued. As formal notice of extension is given to officers issued with warnings only after the Commission has advised, the Commission is concerned that the punitive and deterrent effect of the warning might be weakened with the lapse of time. In our view, the officer should be told of the consequence of extension as close to the issue of warning as possible. Noting that this was not the only case coming from the same department, the Commission has invited its senior management to review its internal processing procedures and address the Commission’s concern at a systemic level. We have also asked CSB to offer assistance as necessary.

In 2021, the Commission advised on 178 other appointment cases. They cover cases of renewal, non-renewal or extension 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. 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, the Commission advised on 73 cases of retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O. Except for one case invoked on the ground of persistent substandard performance, all the other cases were invoked on the ground of loss of confidence arising from the officers’ failure/refusal/neglect to comply with the requirement to sign a declaration to uphold the BL, bear allegiance to the HKSAR, be dedicated to their duties and be responsible to the HKSAR Government. Insofar as cases involving persistent substandard performance are concerned, apart from the case in which s.12 action was invoked (as mentioned above) and completed, four officers who were put under close observation during the year had subsequently been taken off the watch list due to the retirement in public interest of one officer under s.12 on the grounds of loss of confidence and the suspension of s.12 action for three others due to health grounds. As at the end of 2021, three officers remained under close observation due to their persistent substandard performance.

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