III. Briefing by the Secretary for the Civil Service on the Chief Executive’s 2023 Policy Address
Strengthening civil service training
Members enquired whether the Civil Service College (“CSC”) would introduce training programmes on the Chinese nation’s history, socialism with Chinese characteristics and the history of the Communist Party of China, to dovetail with the Patriotic Education Law of the People’s Republic of China. The Administration advised that CSC had included the relevant topics in different training programmes on national affairs and would continue strengthening civil service training to promote patriotic education.
Members enquired whether Mainland officials would come to Hong Kong under the Civil Service Staff Exchange Programme to share with Hong Kong civil servants their work experience and if so, the number and ranks of participating Mainland officials in the past. The Administration undertook to provide the information after the meeting and advised that the exchange programme was a two-way arrangement to enable Hong Kong civil servants to gain a deeper understanding of the development of the country and the work of the host government agencies.
(Post-meeting note: The Administration’s response was issued to members vide LC Paper No. CB(4)986/2023(01) on 17 November 2023.)
Performance-based management system
Members noted that in the five financial years from 2018-2019 to 2022-2023, a total of 1 124 civil servants were punished with formal disciplinary action for serious misconduct or criminal conviction, and 195 of them were removed from the service. Members enquired about the types of disciplinary action taken against the remaining 929 civil servants. The Administration undertook to provide the information after the meeting.
(Post-meeting note: The Administration’s response was issued to members vide LC Paper No. CB(4)986/2023(01) on 17 November 2023.)
IV. Strengthening the management of persistent sub-standard performers
Streamlined mechanism
Members sought information on the number and percentage of civil servants obtaining an overall rating of “5” (i.e. unsatisfactory level of performance) and “6” (i.e. poor level of performance), and the alternative performance appraisal system(s) used by grades not adopting the six-level rating scale.
The Administration advised that the CSB had not collected from bureaux/departments the number of civil servants obtaining an overall rating of “5” and “6”. In fact, these civil servants only accounted for a small percentage of the civil service in general. A few departments/grades had adopted different performance rating scales (e.g. an eight-level rating scale. To facilitate the enforcement of Section 12 of the PS(A)O (“Section 12 action”), these departments were asked to adopt a six-level performance rating scale as soon as possible. Meanwhile, they should apply similar benchmark for their performance scale as appropriate and inform their staff the equivalent ratings triggering Section 12 action.