Observations on Promotion Cases

Promotion in the Civil Service is premised on meritocracy. It is not an entitlement nor a reward for long service. An officer has to demonstrate that he is suitable in all respects to discharge the more demanding responsibilities at a higher rank before he could be promoted. The Commission assists the Government to ensure the selection of the most meritorious officers for advancement through a fair and equitable promotion system.

The Commission has set a very high standard for the staff of the Commission Secretariat to scrutinise the recommendations for promotion. In examining promotion submissions from B/Ds, the Commission will need to be satisfied that the exercises are conducted properly and in compliance with the relevant CSRs as well as the prescribed rules and procedures. We are pleased to note the continued maintenance of a high level of compliance by B/Ds in 2021. However, room for improvement in some cases was still observed. While specific observations and comments had been conveyed to the B/Ds concerned, we have cited some noteworthy cases for illustration which could serve as a ready reference and a useful reminder for B/Ds.

Apart from general compliance, the Commission also attaches importance to the quality of the submissions. A clear and well-written board report not only facilitates our scrutiny work, much time is saved in the process. During the year, the Commission was particularly impressed by the good work done by two departments. In addition to presenting comprehensive and accurate information as required under the Guidebook, the justifications for the selection of each recommended candidate were clearly accounted for with concrete evidence. The board reports also gave details on and provided an evaluative comparison of the merits of the close contenders relative to the recommendees. The Commission commends the work of the concerned departments and has encouraged them to keep up with their good work.

In examining the reports of some other promotion exercises, the Commission Secretariat has come across some careless mistakes which required rectification before the advice of the Commission could be sought. There were five such cases last year where inaccurate information was found in respect of the number of vacancies and eligible officers; discrepancy between the performance ratings recorded in the staff appraisals and the board report; and the commencement date of acting of eligible officers. The Commission considers it vital that all information provided in the promotion board reports can be assumed to be accurate without the need for further cross-checking. The occurrence of these five cases, though small in number, has reminded us that the meticulous scrutiny done by the Commission Secretariat is not only worthwhile but is necessary and we should continue to do so. Instead of being embarrassed, the Commission hopes that the departments concerned will take our observations and advice in the spirit of not wanting the same to be repeated again in the future.

The Guidebook specifies that summaries of performance should be provided to facilitate the promotion board to assess the merits and suitability of all eligible candidates for promotion and a template is included for adoption. Despite the advice we have given in the past, we still found cases in two extremes: some providing very short and brief summaries and others copying word-for-word from the appraisals in great lengths. The greatest difficulty the Commission has however is to find the individual assessment of the board repeating comments from the candidates’ appraisal report and a recommendation which lacks substantiation. The Commission has to know the bases on which the promotion board recommended an officer for acting; in what areas an officer needs to be tested with a recommendation of acting with a view (AWAV)¹⁴ to substantive promotion; and why substantive promotion was not recommended. We appreciate that B/Ds are obliged and always forthcoming in responding to our request for elaborations. In some cases, however, our wait for a reply could be a long one. In the end, some recommendations may be revised and in others the Commission is able to lend full support to the recommendations after receiving the boards’ elaborations and further justifications. We believe that had fuller information on the deliberations of the board been given in the reports, the advice of the Commission could be tendered earlier. The B/Ds will then be able to implement the recommendations of the conducted promotion exercise sooner.

Paragraph 3.5(a) of the Guidebook sets out the general principle and method in determining the number of promotable and acting vacancies in a promotion exercise. Vacancies anticipated to arise within the current appraisal cycle should be counted as promotable vacancies. As for supernumerary or time-limited posts, they should also be counted as promotable vacancies when sufficient permanent vacancies will become available to absorb the promotees before the lapse of the supernumerary or time-limited posts concerned. Other than vacancies in the current appraisal cycle, B/Ds should also ascertain the number of vacancies arising in the first six months of the next cycle so that the filling of them can be planned ahead by long-term acting for administrative convenience (AFAC)¹⁵ or short-term acting appointment. Whether the same number of candidates will be recommended is a matter to be deliberated by the promotion board.

During the year, the Commission is encouraged to note in one promotion exercise that despite the relatively large number of vacancies involved, the vacancy position including the emergence date of each vacancy was detailed clearly in the board report with information on some significant changes since the last exercise updated. The clarity and relevance of the information provided have greatly facilitated the Commission Secretariat’s scrutiny and is truly a shining example for other boards to follow. The Commission has conveyed our appreciation to the concerned department for the work so well done.

Miscalculation of vacancies is problematic and may directly affect the fair claims of eligible candidates for promotion. In one case, the department overlooked the impending retirement of two officers at the promotion rank and understated the number of promotable vacancies. In another case, the department did not count a time-limited vacancy as a promotable one overlooking a permanent vacancy would arise before the lapse of the time-limited post to absorb the promotee. Another department was also found to have excluded a time-limited vacancy for consideration. Much time and efforts had to be spent to sort out the vacancy position. Getting this right is absolutely necessary as the last thing the Commission wants to see is to find deserving officers being left out in a promotion exercise because of an administrative error or oversight. The Commission has reminded the departments concerned to closely observe the relevant guidelines and be more vigilant in calculating the number of both promotable and acting vacancies.

According to CSR 125, the effective date of substantive promotion of an officer is normally the date on which a vacancy in the upper rank becomes available; or the officer takes up the duties of the higher office; or the officer is considered capable of performing the full duties of the higher office which is usually the board date, whichever is the latest. Some promotion boards appeared to be confused and unclear in determining the effective date of promotion of some recommended candidates. As observed, they had overlooked the fact that the officers recommended for promotion had been performing the higher rank duties on a continuous basis when the board met. The original recommendations were revised upon our enquiry and the recommendees were ultimately promoted to take effect from the board date in compliance with CSR 125.

The key task of a promotion board is to make fair assessment on the claims on all eligible candidates and identify the most meritorious officer(s) for advancement. Without accurately determining the eligibility of candidates may give rise to concerns over the integrity of the promotion boards. It is therefore imperative upon the boards to include all candidates who are eligible for consideration and exclude those who are not.

In examining two promotion submissions during the year, the Commission noted that some candidates had erroneously been omitted for consideration. In the first case, two officers were not considered in that exercise on the ground that they would have less than 12 months’ active service if promoted¹⁶. However, the concerned board had overlooked that while the prescribed retirement age for officers at the eligible lower rank is 55, it is 57 at the promotion rank. They should not therefore be excluded at the outset. In the second case, the concerned board had mistakenly treated an officer’s secondment to another organisation as a trial appointment and thus, classified him as an ineligible candidate ^{See 16}. Although rectifications were subsequently made upon the Commission Secretariat’s enquiry, the Commission has reminded the concerned departments to be more vigilant in determining the eligibility of officers in the future.

Including candidates who are not eligible for consideration is also a grave error and should not be allowed to happen. In the promotion exercises for a rank covering different work streams, officers were required to be in possession of the specified professional qualification as a pre-requisite for consideration for promotion in the respective streams. In examining the promotion submission of a particular work stream, the Commission noted that two candidates included for consideration in the last promotion exercise were not considered eligible in the current one. The department explained that upon further review of the qualifications possessed by the two officers, they were not the specified professional qualifications as required. Although no irreparable consequences had resulted as neither of them were recommended in the last promotion exercise or the current one, such negligence does not put the concerned professional department in good light. We have reminded the department to exercise extra care in ascertaining the qualification attainments of all candidates in determining their eligibility for consideration. Instead of relying solely on the vetting work of the staff in the personnel registry, we have requested the GM to check and confirm the professional qualifications possessed by the candidates prior to the conduct of any promotion exercises.

According to paragraph 3.21 of the Guidebook, where the pool of eligible candidates is large, a promotion board may devise shortlisting criteria relevant to the performance of duties in the promotion rank to reduce the number of eligible candidates to a more manageable size. This would help expedite the proceeding of the promotion board to achieve administrative efficiency. Such shortlisting criteria, however, should not debar the board from considering exceptionally meritorious candidates who meet the eligibility criteria but not the shortlisting criteria. The Commission has long advocated that B/Ds should exercise prudence in devising shortlisting criteria in promotion exercises. In cases where only a small number of eligible officers is involved, the promotion board should consider all candidates and not adopt any shortlisting criteria. Consistency with previously adopted criteria aside, promotion boards should have due regard to the vacancy position of the current exercise and the practical effect after their adoption.

During the year, the Commission observed that two promotion boards of a department introduced a new shortlisting criterion respectively and screened in a small pool of candidates for serious consideration. Given the small number of eligible officers in both exercises (i.e. 18 and 38 respectively), there was no apparent need to further trim the number. The Commission has advised the concerned department to review the appropriateness of the newly introduced shortlisting criterion in future promotion exercises.

In another promotion exercise, by following the same shortlisting criterion adopted in previous exercises, the number of shortlisted officers was found to be even smaller than the number of available vacancies. While consistency is a relevant factor, adoption of a previous shortlisting criterion should not be considered mechanically without regard to prevailing circumstances. In this case, the board should have considered relaxing or even doing away with the shortlisting criterion to allow for a larger pool of candidates to compete for advancement. The Commission has advised the concerned department to remind the next promotion board to be more critical in considering the adoption of shortlisting criteria.

In assessing and selecting suitable candidates for promotion, a promotion board should mainly refer to the performance of an officer as portrayed in the appraisal report over a period of time, normally in the past three years. The personal knowledge of promotion board members should only serve to supplement but not override the assessment in the appraisal reports. The Commission supports using performance track record as a basis for assessment of and comparison between candidates whereas hearsay or unsubstantiated comments not recorded or borne out in the reports should not carry any weight. This explains why the Commission attaches such importance to the performance appraisal system and for being critical about the quality of appraisal reports. Performance and ability aside, it is incumbent on promotion boards to evaluate the personal attributes of a candidate not least the officer’s passion and commitment to serve.

In one exercise, the promotion board waitlisted several officers for acting appointments on the basis of their meritorious performance track records despite knowing that they had repeatedly declined the department’s invitations for them to attend the training courses required for taking up the higher responsibilities. Although acting is not a requisite condition for promotion, long-term acting appointments are often recommended as a means to ascertain that an officer is suitable in all respects for substantive appointment to the higher rank. In this case, the concerned officers’ refusal to be trained is not a question of personal choice. The management had to consider whether, in the absence of the required training, they would be fit and could be entrusted to perform the higher rank duties. Upon review at our request, the board subsequently decided to remove them from the acting list. Promotion boards should bear in mind that apart from good performance, an officer has to demonstrate the possession of all necessary qualities and attributes required of the higher rank.

In another exercise, while the chairman and one member of the promotion board had knowledge of an incident which had reflected negatively on the abilities of two candidates, they did not apprise the board of it because the incident happened after the last appraisal cycle and hence not captured in the appraisal reports for the board to review. Without reference to the incident, the board collectively recommended the substantive promotion of the two officers concerned on the strength of the available performance appraisals. When the board’s recommendations were subsequently submitted to the AA for endorsement, the AA noted that the board’s attention had not been drawn to the incident. As instructed by the AA, the board convened again to consider the claims of the two officers afresh. After deliberation, the board concluded that the original recommendations should be revised and recommended both officers to continue to AFAC for further observation. The Commission commended the AA’s due diligence in considering the board’s recommendations. In our view, the board chairman and member should have supplemented the board with the information as it was a substantiated and relevant factor for consideration.

According to paragraph 3.38 of the Guidebook, a promotion board, before making its recommendations, should have reviewed officers who have been recommended for acting appointment in the previous exercise(s), if any. Mechanical comparison of performance ratings of officers who have been acting in the higher rank on the recommendation of a previous promotion board with those at the substantive rank is inappropriate given their different levels of responsibilities.

In one submission of a department, the board, after reviewing the promotion claims of eight officers who had commenced acting pursuant to the recommendations of previous boards, recommended five officers without acting appraisals for substantive promotion and the other three for AWAV ^{See 14}. Because the latter three officers had commenced acting earlier, their acting performance was assessed in a full report form. In another exercise conducted by the same department, the promotion board considered the claims of three officers who had taken up acting appointment prior to the board meeting at different time intervals. One officer without acting appraisal was recommended by the board for AWAV for six months while the remaining two officers with written assessment on their acting performance were recommended to continue to AFAC ^{See 15} in the higher rank. On detailed examination, the Commission noted that the two boards had made reference to the performance ratings given in the written appraisal reports mechanically and overlooked that they involved assessment at different levels, one at the substantive and the other at the acting rank. The two boards had erroneously compared the performance ratings attained by the officers concerned without due regard to the different levels of responsibilities they discharged. Such comparison was clearly inappropriate and unfair to the officers concerned. Upon review at our request, the two boards accepted our advice and revisited the claims of the officers concerned. The Commission was satisfied with the equitable outcome achieved in the revised recommendations. The Commission has advised the concerned department to remind future promotion boards to be more mindful in examining and comparing the merits of all eligible candidates. In following the guidelines of the Guidebook, there should also be a better understanding of the rationale behind the stipulated rules.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, CSB has promulgated the implementation of streamlined arrangements for declaration of interest in recruitment and promotion exercises after consulting the Commission. With clearer guidelines promulgated by CSB and advice tendered by the Commission over the years, we are pleased to note that B/Ds have largely heightened their vigilance in handling declarations to guard against conflict of interest with appropriate decisions taken in conformity with the prevailing guidelines.

In two cases, the Commission was perplexed by the appointment of two officers who for clear reasons of conflict of interest should not have been appointed to be members of the two promotion boards. In both cases, their spouses were among the candidates eligible for consideration. The relationship was declared and duly reported to the AAs and both decided rightly to have the two officers replaced. What amazed and concerned the Commission was why the relationship was not known in the appointment approval process and had been proceeded with until the declarations were made. As every officer is required to report his marital status, including changes while employed in the Civil Service, the Commission is unsure whether the original appointment made was due entirely to administrative oversight or there are other issues beneath the surface which should be tackled at a systemic level. It is indeed not uncommon to find married couples working in the same grade or department. There are however appropriate measures and firewalls in place to prevent any possible conflict of interest. GMs in particular have been extra cautious in exercising grade management functions over them. The Commission has therefore asked the two departments concerned to look into these two cases and be more vigilant in the future.