Civil Service Appointments

To lead Hong Kong to meet challenges ahead and embrace changes for advancement, we need a capable government that can deliver and achieve results. Maintaining a workforce of civil servants who are committed to their duties, dedicated to serving the public and be ready to take up responsibilities is instrumental to developing and sustaining a capable government. It is therefore imperative to uphold the fundamental principle of Civil Service appointment of appointing and recruiting the most suitable and meritorious into the Civil Service.

In 2022, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 265 submissions. Of them, 1 193 were appointment-related and the remaining 72 were related to conduct and discipline. These submissions were the result of the hard work of B/Ds. Altogether, 132 recruitment and 746 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 23 submissions concerning extension of service in the form of further employment conducted under the adjusted mechanism promulgated by CSB in June 2017. Another 196 submissions involved extension or termination of officers appointed on probation or trial service. The remaining 96 were other appointment-related cases.

Apart from tendering advice and observations on case-specific submissions, the Commission also works closely with CSB to provide views on new appointment policy, to improve and streamline appointment procedures and to propose subjects for review where appropriate for a better and more efficient appointment system. 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 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 2022, the Commission advised on 132 recruitment submissions involving the filling of 1 606 posts, of which 1 551 posts (in 127 submissions) were through open recruitment and 55 posts (in five submissions) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments and a comparison table showing the number of recommendees in 2022 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.

As the backbone of the HKSAR Government, the Civil Service is duty-bound to observe and implement “One Country, Two Systems” and to support the HKSAR Government in its governance. Civil servants should also have strong awareness of and be responsible in safeguarding national security. As reported in the last Annual Report, CSB undertook to review and update the assessment content of the former Basic Law Test to include the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR (the National Security Law) in the scope of assessment. The Commission fully supports the initiative which is aimed to ensure that new recruits are well-suited for Civil Service employment and able to meet the requirements of the applied posts. In June 2022, CSB promulgated the introduction of a new Basic Law and National Security Law Test (BLNST). Under the new requirement, all applicants for Civil Service posts have to sit for the BLNST and a pass has become an entry requirement for all Civil Service recruitment exercises advertised from July 2022 onwards. In scrutinizing recruitment submissions, the Commission is pleased to note that B/Ds have ensured full compliance with the new requirement in the recruitment process.

Maintaining effective governance counts on the collective and concerted efforts of civil servants at all levels. Directorate civil servants at the core and highest echelons of the Government play an additional leading role in fostering effective governance. The Commission will continue to scrutinize the appointment submissions involving directorate ranks critically and meticulously and see to it that the principle of meritocracy is upheld and procedural propriety is observed.

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 responsibilities 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 fair claims of all eligible officers have been duly and fully considered on an equal basis regardless of their terms of appointment against the objective 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 2022, the Commission advised on 746 promotion submissions involving the recommendations of 9 512 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.

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 institutionalized 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 2022, the Commission considered 23 FE exercises and supported the extension of service of 80 officers for a period ranging from four months to five years in aggregate. A breakdown of the number of cases involving extension of service or re-employment after retirement advised by the Commission in 2022 and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VI.

Requiring an appointee to undergo a probationary/trial period serves manifold purposes. It provides an opportunity for the officer to demonstrate his suitability for further appointment in the Civil Service. It also enables the appointment authority (AA) to assess the performance and conduct of the appointee and be satisfied that he/she is fit for continuous employment. For some specific Civil Service jobs, a probationary/trial period also gives the appointee time to acquire the necessary qualifications or pass the prescribed tests for further appointment. To uphold the proper administration of the probation/trial system, HoDs/Heads of Grade (HoGs) have the overall responsibility of overseeing the management of officers on probation/trial including the provision of necessary training, coaching and counselling to help them fit into their jobs. Continual monitoring and regular feedback on their performance aside, B/Ds have to be mindful and be prepared to take decisive action to address any problems that may surface during the probationary or trial period.

To maintain a high quality Civil Service, it is vital for HoDs/HoGs to 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 for continued appointment. According to the guidelines promulgated by CSB and as provided for under Civil Service Regulations (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 GMs, 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.

While fair opportunities should be given to new appointees to pursue a long-term career in the Government, extension of probationary/trial period should not be used as a substitute for termination of service or solely for the purpose of giving an appointee 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 2022, the Commission recorded a total of 46 cases requiring the termination of probationary/trial service of the officers concerned. Most of these cases were related to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct. There were another 150 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.

While B/Ds have followed closely the general guidelines in administering the probation/trial system and prudence is called for in deciding on what to do with problematic ones, deferring a decision until close to the end of the probationary period is not conducive to the maintenance of service standard in the Civil Service. In examining two termination submissions, the Commission noted that the unsatisfactory performance of the two probationers had begun to come to light soon after their appointments. Despite intensive guidance and coaching, they continued to perform poorly and tremendous time and efforts had to be taken by their supervisors to manage their sub-standard performance and not letting them affect or disrupt the smooth operation of the office. By the time the recommendation to terminate their probationary service reached the Commission for advice, almost three years had lapsed. Considering their persistent poor performance and the long length of time given for them to improve to no avail, the supervisors should have escalated the case to a higher authority for determination. Accommodating non-performers is unfair to the other colleagues and can be demoralizing if management is perceived as tolerating incompetence. In full support of the termination recommendations after scrutiny, the Commission had advised the two Departments concerned to be more alert to the management of probationers at different levels and offices of the organisations.

Summary disciplinary action of verbal and written warnings are the first and second tiers of punishment in the Civil Service. It allows B/Ds to tackle and deter isolated acts of minor misconduct expeditiously. While the Commission’s prior advice of instituting summary disciplinary action is not required, extension of probationary period has to be submitted for our consideration⁷. In the past year, the Commission continued to observe in some cases the long time taken by the management to mete out the punishment defeating its very purpose. In one case, the verbal warning was only issued some nine months after the officer was held to account for having misconducted himself. In two other cases, the time taken was even longer with a time lapse of eight and 12 months respectively. In our view, the long delay not only undermined the deterrent effect of the warning, the necessary extension of the probationary service would likewise be delayed. Consequently, the punitive effect of extension would also be weakened. The Commission has reminded the Departments concerned to expedite actions in tackling similar cases in future.

Performance appraisal is a two-way process between the appraising officers (AOs) and the appraisees. An appraisee needs to be made aware of any aspects requiring improvement and the AOs should be candid in making performance assessment. For officers on probation/trial, comprehensive and timely reporting is all the more important as they need to have feedback on how they are performing for improvement and development. To achieve comprehensive reporting for effective assessment work, the AOs should give a distinctive and objective account of an appraisee’s actual performance and progress, including strengths and weaknesses, during a specified appraisal period based on the assessment standard adopted for the rank. However, in an extension case, the AO had repeated the same assessment on a probationer in his two consecutive reports. In another case, two different AOs had given almost identical written assessment on a probationer in a series of his appraisal reports. In yet another case, the probationer who had received a written warning due to negligence at work was still given an assessment that was almost identical to his previous three appraisal reports. Giving identical or nearly the same assessment on work performance over different periods of time totally defeats the purpose of the performance appraisal system and is not conducive to the career development of probationers. May it be due to the AO’s report writing skills or the AO’s ignorance, the Commission considers that they should be directed to attend training programmes run by the Civil Service College to improve the quality of their performance appraisal writing.

Quality of appraisal writing aside, timely reporting is also imperative especially for officers on probation/trial so that they could work to improve any identified inadequacies. In two extension cases, the Commission noted that their first probationary reports were completed late for more than six months. In another case, the AO was found to have completed the first two appraisal reports of a probationer in one go resulting in a delay of completion for about one year. Completing staff appraisals in a timely manner is the responsibility of all AOs. Failure or acute delay does not reflect well on the supervisors’ own management capability. The Commission appreciates that delays in the completion of appraisal could be caused by the appraisees themselves. The Commission has therefore urged GMs to maintain close oversight of the schedule of completion and take all necessary steps to ensure their timely completion.

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 as early as possible but in any event before the end of their probationary/trial periods.

In some cases, B/Ds were not able to meet the deadline if the incidents leading to the extension/termination of probationary/trial service occurred towards the end of the probation/trial period for which the Commission had expressed understanding. Other late submissions due to inadequate forward planning or communication gaps within the organisation, however, cannot be accepted as justification. On the advice of the Commission, the Department concerned had immediately taken remedial action and introduced a bring-up system for close monitoring of similar cases and to forestall recurrence. Another Department withheld the submission of an extension case until an issue on increment had been sorted out, which though related, was not germane to the recommendation of the extension. We have advised the departmental management to impress upon all responsible personnel not to lose sight of the prime purpose of seeking the extension and should prioritize the associated administrative work with common sense.

In 2022, the Commission advised on 96 other appointment cases. They cover cases of non-renewal or extension of agreement; secondment⁸; opening-up arrangement⁹; review of acting appointment and updating of Guide to Appointment (G/A)¹⁰. 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 nine officers from nine B/Ds were put under close observation due to their sub-standard performance. Four officers had subsequently been taken off the watch list, as two had been dismissed on disciplinary grounds, one had resigned out of his own accord, and one had made improvement in performance. As at the end of 2022, three officers remained under close observation, and the cases of two officers were being processed by CSB.

The Commission will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases in the course of scrutinizing 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.