Civil Service Appointments

The principle governing Civil Service appointments is to appoint “the best person for the job”. Ability and good conduct aside, the Commission has also to be assured that the selection process is fair and properly conducted and that the claims of all eligible candidates are duly and fully considered. In 2020, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 159 submissions. Of them, 1 130 were appointment-related and the remaining 29 were related to conduct and discipline. These submissions were the result of the hard work of B/Ds. Altogether, 140 recruitment and 704 promotion exercises were conducted by them. They involved 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 22 submissions concerning extension of service or re-employment after retirement. Of these, 20 further employment cases were conducted under the adjusted mechanism promulgated by CSB in June 2017. Another 173 cases involved extensions or termination of officers appointed on probation or trial service. The remaining 91 were other appointment-related cases.

Apart from tendering advice and observations on case-specific submissions, the Commission also provides comments to CSB on its formulation of new appointment policy. The Commission also works with the Bureau to improve and streamline appointment procedures and where appropriate proposes subjects for review. 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. It 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 will check to see that objective selection standards and proper procedures are adopted in the process. Introduction of new shortlisting criteria for recruitment exercises requires the Commission’s advice in advance before they can be adopted. We will examine them to ensure that they are appropriate and fair. We also advise B/Ds on improvement measures that can be taken to shorten the processing time so that offers can be made to successful candidates as early as possible.

In 2020, the Commission advised on 140 recruitment exercises involving the filling of 1 471 posts, of which 1 397 posts (in 135 exercises) were through open recruitment and 74 posts (in five exercises) by in-service appointment. A statistical breakdown of these appointments and a comparison table showing the number of recommendees in 2020 and that of the past four years are provided at Appendix V. Some specific observations made by the Commission on the recruitment submissions advised in the year are provided in Chapter 3.

In seeking the Commission’s advice on the recommendations of recruitment boards, B/Ds are required to provide all necessary information clearly and accurately in the recruitment board reports. To obviate the need for the Commission Secretariat to seek supplementary information or clarification further to their submissions, the Commission invited CSB to consider devising a checklist on information required and a template to assist B/Ds to prepare the recruitment board report. The Commission’s suggestion was welcomed and supported by CSB. Drawing from some good quality recruitment submissions sampled by the Commission, a CSB memorandum to give effect to the above advice was promulgated on 11 February 2021. The Commission believes that greater ease and efficiency will be gained on the part of B/Ds as well as the Secretariat of the Commission.

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 duties through a fair and equitable promotion system. In examining promotion submissions from B/Ds, the Commission will need to be satisfied that the proper procedures have been followed and that the claims of all eligible officers have been fairly and fully considered regardless of their terms of appointment against the criteria of ability, experience, performance, character and prescribed qualifications, if any. The Commission also makes observations on the proceedings of promotion exercises and matters relating to performance management with a view to bringing about improvements where shortfall is identified and enhancing the quality of the Civil Service promotion system as a whole.

In 2020, the Commission advised on 704 promotion exercises involving the recommendations of 8 881 officers for promotion or acting appointment. The competition is always keen and for some grades and ranks, a promotion may mean a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in their Civil Service career. Thus, the Commission has to ensure that every aspect and detail of the promotion exercises, not least the determination of the eligibility of candidates, are fairly and objectively decided by the promotion boards. A numerical breakdown of these submissions and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VI. 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 on the adoption of a package of measures to extend the service of civil servants, further employment of civil servants 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 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 2020, the recommendations of 20 FE exercises involving extension of the service of 62 officers were submitted to the Commission for advice. A breakdown of the number of extension of service or re-employment after retirement cases, including FE submissions, in 2020 and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix VII.

To ensure that all eligible and suitable FE candidates could be considered by a selection exercise and approval given in time before they cease active service⁷, B/Ds have to conduct FE exercises in a timely manner (i.e. no later than three months before the commencement of each FE selection cycle⁸). In examining an FE submission in the year, the Commission noted that the concerned FE selection board was conducted six months later than the time-frame stipulated in paragraph 6.19 of the Guidebook on Appointments. The department explained that it was unable to conduct the FE selection board earlier as it had to wait for the result of the promotion board of the next higher rank in determining the number of consequential vacancies to be filled at the FE rank. That being the case, the department should have made better forward planning with proper timelines worked out for the related boards to avoid the delay. The Commission noted that CSB had reminded the department to plan well ahead and strictly observe the action time-frame in conducting the related promotion and selection exercises in future.

Apart from the above case, the Commission is pleased that the FE scheme has been implemented smoothly and selection done in full accordance with the requirements set out in the Guidebook on Appointments. The Commission notes that as an on-going effort, CSB will review the implementation of the FE scheme. The Commission will continue to scrutinise the operation of the FE scheme and provide feedback to CSB as necessary.

CSB launched an Option Scheme for serving officers who joined the Government between 1 June 2000 and 31 May 2015 to seek extension of retirement by five years on 27 July 2018. They have two years to exercise the option commencing 17 September 2018. At the end of the option period on 16 September 2020, about 47 000 eligible civil servants (out of 56 000, or 83%) had taken up the Option for implementation on 15 March 2021. Unlike the FE scheme, their applications do not require the advice of the Commission prior to approval being given. Their extended retirement will add strength to our labour force and provide continuity in their service to the community.

The purpose of requiring an officer to undergo a probationary/trial period is manifold. They include –

Full advantage must be taken of the probationary/trial period to terminate the probationary/trial service of an officer if he/she is unlikely to become suitable for continued service or further appointment because of his/her conduct and/or performance. To maintain a high quality workforce, HoDs/HoGs should apply stringent suitability standards in assessing the performance and conduct of probationers/officers on trial to ensure that only those who are suitable in all respects are allowed to pass the probation/trial bar. 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, the HoD/HoG concerned should take early and resolute action to terminate his/her service under CSR 186/200 without the need to wait till the end of the probationary/trial period or recourse to disciplinary action.

Extension of probationary/trial period should not be used as a substitute for termination of service or solely for the purpose of giving an officer more time to prove his/her 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/her 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/her control. It is only in very exceptional circumstances where the officer, though not yet fully meeting the suitability standards, has shown strong indication to be able to achieve the standards within the extension period that an extension of his/her probationary/trial period should be granted.

In 2020, the Commission recorded a total of 26 cases requiring the termination of probationary/trial service of the officers concerned. These cases were all related to unsatisfactory performance and/or conduct. There were another 147 submissions recommending 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 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 VIII.

While B/Ds have in general been holding onto the suitability principle vigilantly for proper administration of the probation/trial system, the Commission is concerned about the lax standard adopted by some B/Ds in recommending extensions of the probationary/trial service of some officers who have misconducted themselves or whose performance has shown clear deficiencies. To cite a few examples, in a case of negligence at work, the management has failed to assess the consequential risk involved in determining the appropriate course to take. In another, only an advisory letter was issued to an officer who was habitually late for work. In yet another case where a heavier punishment should have been considered, the officer was only issued a verbal warning for insubordination and repeatedly flouting the departmental instruction requiring the wearing of proper uniform whilst on duty. The Commission considers that setting a more stringent standard is necessary especially when the department is keen to instill a consistent and strong sense of discipline among a large establishment of staff.

In cases involving more serious acts of misconduct, the department concerned should have reviewed the officers’ general suitability for continuous employment instead of taking summary disciplinary actions⁹ alone. Furthermore, meting out timely sanctions is just as important as the punishment itself if it were to serve the deterrent effect. The Commission noted from the cases handled in the past year that a long time, ranging from eight to 16 months, was taken by the management of a department to come to the view that termination of the probationary/trial service of the officer concerned was warranted and justified. Delay in action not only undermined the credibility of the department in its resolve to uphold a high standard of conduct and discipline, it also reflected adversely on the efficiency of the departmental management. In supporting the recommendations, the Commission has urged the department to conduct a comprehensive review on its system of operation with a view to improving the management of officers on probation/trial and the administration of the disciplinary system.

In addition and separately, the Commission has invited CSB to consider working with the departmental and grade management to reinforce the capability of supervisors in managing the performance and conduct of officers on probation/trial. Provision of enhanced training and experience sharing will be beneficial to assist them in the day-to-day management and supervision of these officers. The Commission will continue to collaborate with CSB in tightening the loose joints in the administration of the probation/trial system.

Appraisal is an integral part of the performance management system. It is a tool with which staff performance is monitored and assessed. It is also a means to provide feedback for staff development. Over the years, the Commission has stressed time and again the importance of timely completion of staff appraisals. This is more so in the case of officers on probation/trial. Undue delay in completion of their probationary/trial appraisals misses early opportunities for staff to be made aware of how they have been performing and may deprive them of the chance to improve their shortcomings in time for passage of his/her probation/trial bar.

During the year, the Commission noted repeated delays in the completion of probationary appraisals in four cases. In these four extension cases, more than half of the probationary reports concerned were completed late for more than three months. The Commission has advised the relevant B/Ds to write and remind the supervising officers of their duty to complete staff appraisals in a timely manner. Cases of acute delay should, in our view, be recorded in the supervisors’ own staff appraisal reports to underscore their role and performance in managing their subordinates.

Summary disciplinary action of verbal and written warnings are the first and second tiers of punishment in the Civil Service. It serves to enable frontline supervisors to correct and deter minor acts of misconduct in a swift and timely manner. While the prior advice of the Commission needs not be sought, extension and deferment of probationary period have to be submitted for our consideration. The Commission appreciates that the due process requires the management to establish clear evidence and allow the officer concerned to make representations and request for review. It remains our view that efficiency and promptness in action is just as important. Otherwise, the desired punitive and deterrent effect will be defeated. In two cases, the departmental management took over eight months to issue a verbal warning to the probationers. The Commission has reminded the concerned departments to expedite actions and not to be bogged down by minor details which are not germane to the case. Punishment should be proceeded with expeditiously.

Comprehensive records and up-to-date information are crucial in assessing the suitability of an officer on probation or trial for continuous appointment on permanent terms. In one case, the user department of the probationer had overlooked to report an incident to the GM for over 16 months. Had the omission not been discovered subsequently, the GM would have made a wrong decision on the suitability of the probationer for continued appointment in the absence of the information. As illustrated by this example, incomplete information and communication breakdown could prejudice the timeliness and propriety of the actions taken by the management. There is a need for the case officers to raise their level of alertness and vigilance in ensuring that concerted action is timely taken. The Commission has advised the department concerned to review and strengthen its reporting/monitoring mechanism so that comprehensive and up-to-date information could be gathered and communicated in good time for proper follow-up.

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. In a case seeking to further defer the passage of probation bar of an officer under on-going investigation by a law enforcement agency, the concerned department submitted its recommendation to the Commission more than a month after the expiry of the date for passage of the probation bar. The Commission considers that the delay is avoidable if the department had monitored the investigation progress more closely and exercised the necessary judgement in recommending a reasonable period for deferment. Late submissions were also found in three other cases by another department. The late submission was found to have been caused by internal communication problem in the processing team and the cases were overlooked. As all three cases were relatively straightforward involving extensions on account of sickness of the probationers, the Commission had managed to fast-track the scrutiny of these cases enabling our advice to reach the department before or shortly after the end-date of the probationary period. However, this was made possible only with the Commission Secretariat’s manoeuver of its already hectic schedule of work and priorities. The Commission has asked the department concerned to review its monitoring system and examine whether and to what extent the processing team should be held accountable for its oversight.

The establishment of an effective system to monitor and exercise supervision of staff performing outdoor duties is both a must and a challenge. In an extension case involving an officer on trial due to the issue of a verbal warning arising from his/her unauthorised absence from outdoor duties, the Commission was pleased to note that the concerned department had, in the wake of an incident of unauthorised absence from duty by a team of staff, revamped its staff supervision and quality assurance system with the aid of information technology. Besides issuing clear instructions to specify the frequency and procedures for field inspections (including surprise checks and inspections of staff attendance records), senior officers of the department were tasked to conduct briefings on staff discipline at a regular interval. Fitting departmental vehicles used for performing outdoor duties with the Global Positioning System, vehicle camera and recording system has helped the department not only in service delivery but in planning the service as well. The department’s initiative in exploring new and innovative measures for the enhancement of staff supervision is a good example other departments could follow.

Other appointment matters advised by the Commission cover cases of renewal, non-renewal or extension of agreement, retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O, secondment¹⁰, opening-up arrangement¹¹, review of acting appointment and updating of Guide to Appointment¹² . In 2020, the Commission advised on 91 aforesaid cases. A statistical breakdown of these cases and a comparison with those in the past four years are provided at Appendix IX.

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 seven B/Ds were put under close observation. After seeking the Commission’s advice, the Government retired one officer under s.12 on the grounds of persistent substandard performance. Two officers had subsequently been taken off the watch list, one after compulsory retirement on disciplinary grounds and the other one with intended action under s.12 held up due to health grounds. As at the end of the year, six officers remained under close observation.

The Commission will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases in the course of vetting staff appraisal reports in connection with promotion exercises. We will also closely monitor departmental managements’ readiness and timeliness in pursuing such administrative action.