Civil Service Appointments

Civil servants, who are the backbone of the HKSAR Government, are duty-bound to observe and implement the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”, safeguard national security as well as uphold the Basic Law and the rule of law. Maintaining a workforce of civil servants, who are loyal to the Government, dedicated to their duties, committed to serving the community and at the same time objective and impartial in the discharge of duties, is of vital importance to the effective governance of the Government. In view of the foregoing, Civil Service appointment has to be highly selective to ensure that only the most suitable and meritorious are recruited and appointed into the Civil Service.

In 2023, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 353 case-specific submissions with breakdown below –

Apart from tendering advice and observations on case-specific submissions, the Commission also works closely with CSB to provide views on new appointment policies, improve and streamline appointment procedures as well as propose subjects for review, where appropriate, for a better and more efficient appointment system. In particular, pursuant to the initiative of strengthening the Civil Service management system as announced in the CE’s 2022 Policy Address, CSB consulted the Commission in 2023 on its proposals to streamline the prevailing mechanism of retiring civil servants with persistent sub-standard performance under s. 12 of the PS(A)O. An overall 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 Commission⁶, 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 2023, the Commission advised on 168 recruitment submissions involving the filling of 1 887 posts, of which 1 800 posts (in 159 submissions) were through open recruitment and 87 posts (in nine submissions) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments is provided at Appendix IV. The number of recruitment submissions advised by the Commission in the past five years is shown below –

The role of the Commission in advising the Government on promotions⁷ 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 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 as well as enhancing the efficiency and quality of the overall Civil Service promotion system as a whole.

In 2023, the Commission advised on 763 promotion submissions involving the recommendations of 10 407 officers for promotion or acting appointment. The number of promotion submissions advised by the Commission in the past five years is shown below –

Promotions have to be earned on the basis of merits, and hence are competitive. The recommendations of a promotion board have 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 service⁸ (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 2023, the Commission considered 23 FE submissions and supported the extension of service of 75 officers for a period ranging from four months to five years in aggregate. A breakdown of the number of submissions involving extension of service or re-employment after retirement advised by the Commission in 2023 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, including –

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 2023, the Commission recorded a total of 46 submissions requiring the termination of probationary/trial service of the officers concerned. Most of these submissions were related to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct.

There were another 179 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 submissions and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VII.

Summary disciplinary actions⁹ taken by B/Ds are outside the purview of the Commission (i.e. the Commission’s advice is not required before a verbal or written warning is administered). However, the Commission is concerned about the inconsistency in standards adopted by B/Ds in the issue of the warnings to some officers on probation/trial who have misconducted themselves. At the request of the Commission, CSB launched a pilot scheme in April 2023 to strengthen the monitoring of summary disciplinary actions against officers on probationary or trial terms, particularly the standards applied by the departments. A total of four departments were selected to participate in the pilot scheme, i.e. the Department of Health, the Fire Services Department, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. CSB will review the effectiveness of the pilot scheme and consider the way forward taking into account the operational experience one year after its implementation. The Commission appreciates CSB’s efforts in implementing the pilot scheme and gauging periodic feedback from the pilot departments in the interim.

In 2023, the Commission advised on 111 other appointment submissions. They cover cases of non-renewal or extension of agreement; secondment¹⁰; opening-up arrangement¹¹; review of acting appointment and updating of Guide to Appointment (G/A)¹². A statistical breakdown of these submissions 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 –

As an initiative to strengthen the management of persistent sub-standard performers and expedite the process for taking the necessary actions as announced in the CE’s 2022 Policy Address, CSB had reviewed and streamlined the s.12 procedures in the year. Having consulted the Commission and collected views from the management and staff sides, the streamlined mechanism was promulgated in September 2023. While maintaining the same threshold for invoking s.12 action¹³, a number of enhancements were introduced under the streamlined mechanism with a view to achieving timely termination of the service of civil servants whose performance persistently fails to meet the required standard of their ranks despite assistance and counselling provided by their B/Ds

In addition to organising briefings and devising a procedural guide to facilitate the effective implementation, CSB has reiterated to B/Ds that supervising officers should adopt honest reporting with zero tolerance towards persistent sub-standard performers and encouraged B/Ds to make good use of the streamlined mechanism. HoDs/HoGs have also been reminded to pay personal attention to potential and on-going s.12 cases to ensure that these cases should be handled under the streamlined procedures with reasonable progress. To facilitate the enforcement of s.12 action and to achieve consistency in performance assessment within the Government, CSB has taken on board the Commission’s suggestion in urging those B/Ds, which have yet to use the standard six-tier rating scale for overall grading, to adopt it in their appraisal forms.

During the year, a total of nine officers from nine B/Ds were put under close observation due to their persistent sub-standard performance¹⁴ and the Commission’s advice was sought on one case. The officer of that case was retired in January 2024. One officer had resigned out of his own accord after the observation period but before his case was put forward for consultation with the Commission. As at the end of 2023, seven officers remained under close observation.

The Commission is in support of the Government’s proactive move in stepping up efforts to tighten the management of persistent sub-standard performers. Moving forward, CSB is committed to working closely with the departmental managements in order to better monitor potential and on-going cases of s. 12 action. Additionally, we will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases in the course of processing promotion submissions, aiming to uphold the high standard of the Civil Service and ensure that cases involving persistent sub-standard performers are appropriately addressed.