Motion debate on the 2025 Policy Address(1st debate session)
President, I speak in support of the Motion of Thanks. The new Policy Address focuses on the two major themes, namely economy and people’s livelihood. Its contents are substantial and its objectives are clearly defined, enabling members of the public to gain a more accurate understanding of the policy direction and key policy priorities. I would like to express my special gratitude to the Chief Executive for taking on board various suggestions put forward by the “G19” and me, covering aspects such as finance, housing, talent admission and encouraging childbirth. It has demonstrated the Government’s willingness to listen to public opinions, as well as its sincerity and resolve to promote interactions between the executive and legislative branches.
As a member of the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service, I am particularly concerned about the Government’s measures to strengthen the governance systems. The Policy Address has announced the establishment of the Heads of Department (“HoD”) Accountability System, under which reform initiatives will be introduced in three areas: delineating responsibilities, streamlining workflows, and implementing an incentive mechanism. It will help resolve the issues that might have arisen from the blurred lines between policy formulation and policy execution in the past by specifying that Secretaries of Department and Directors of Bureau are responsible for policy formulation and accountable for the relevant work, while HoDs will focus on their roles as executors and be held responsible for execution blunders, thereby fundamentally enhancing synergy through drawing a clearer line. I sincerely hope that the new system can genuinely enhance governance rather than being rendered as a new set of rigid rules and precepts that impede administrative efficiency. We should especially encourage officials to make commitments courageously and avoid taking a conservative stance and prolonging the decision-making process due to over-emphasis of accountability, which will ultimately lead to counterproductive outcomes.
Business organizations have widely adopted the “three lines of defence” management model, i.e. frontline operations, middle-office risk management and backend audit will perform their respective functions and assume their respective responsibilities. By contrast, the HoD Accountability System relies on independent investigations conducted by HoDs and the Public Service Commission. I suggest that the Civil Service Bureau can consider assuming the function akin to a “second line of defence”, serving as a unit to comprehensively enhance the forward-looking governance systems. At the same time, the independence and credibility of the Public Service Commission are of paramount importance to the overall institutional design. The Commission has currently included a considerable proportion of independent members. If the caseload continues to increase in the future, the authorities may need to appoint more independent members to serve on the Commission to ensure that all the rulings are credible and convincing.
Regarding the performance appraisal system for civil servants, I have noted that under the existing six-level rating scale, scoring results are heavily clustered in the high-score range, resulting in an abnormal distribution and making it difficult to differentiate staff performance accurately. I strongly recommend that the Government takes a cue from the practices adopted by the private sector by introducing percentage caps for each rating scale. To enhance motivation, departments that receive the Chief Executive’s annual commendation for exemplary performance may be allowed to relax the percentage caps for the rating scales of “Excellent” and “Good” in that year as a form of reward.
Strengthening the connection between civil service pay adjustments and work performance is equally important. Over the past five years, only a handful of civil servants were not granted salary increment due to unacceptable performance. The authorities should consider revamping the system so that only civil servants with good performance are entitled to salary increments, while special rewards should be granted to those who have consistently achieved outstanding performance. For example, the authorities may consider options such as granting more than one incremental jump to encourage civil servants to strive for excellence.
I strongly support the establishment of the AI Efficacy Enhancement Team. However, we should remain vigilant that if departments are allowed to decide optimization projects on their own, they may tend to select projects with less challenging objectives, making it difficult to fully realize the actual value of artificial intelligence (“AI”). I am glad to see that the working group has selected departments including the Companies Registry, Transport Department and Buildings Department that frequently interact with the public for the pilot scheme. It has embodied the governance direction of providing convenience to people and business as well as the authorities’ genuine commitment to effectively implementing well-intentioned initiatives. Since more departments will adopt relevant technologies in the future, it is essential to evaluate their application cases through central coordination, enabling members of the public to directly and swiftly experience service improvements brought by AI, thereby significantly enhancing the experience of the general public.
President, this is the end of my speech in this session. I will speak again in the next debate session.