Observations on Promotion Cases

Appointing the best person for the job is the foundation of a meritorious civil service. In our case, character, ability, experience and together with any required qualification are prescribed as the criteria for promotion in the Civil Service. An officer has to demonstrate that he/she is suitable in all respects before he/she could be promoted. Promotion has to be earned: it is not an entitlement nor a reward for long service, but a recognition that the selected officer is capable and ready to perform the more demanding duties in a higher rank. The Commission assists the Government to ensure that only the most deserving officers with demonstrable ability and potential are promoted. Needless to say, the selection process has to be conducted fairly and objectively and that the claims of all eligible officers are duly and fully considered.

The Commission sets a very high standard for the staff of the Commission Secretariat to scrutinise each and every recommendation for promotion. We have to ensure that promotion exercises are conducted properly and are in full compliance with the CSRs and the rules and procedures governing them. The Commission is pleased to note the continued maintenance of a high level of compliance in 2020. In some cases, however, there was scope for further improvement. While specific observations and comments had been conveyed to the B/Ds concerned, we have chosen some noteworthy cases to illustrate and serve as a reminder for B/Ds.

To realise the potential of capable and suitable officers to take up higher responsibilities in the delivery of services to the community, B/Ds should make maximum use of the available vacancies to promote deserving officers at the earliest possible opportunity. Paragraphs 3.5(a) and 3.42 of the Guidebook on Appointments set out the general principle and method in determining the number of promotable and acting vacancies in a promotion exercise as well as the effective date of promotion. Vacancies that are expected to arise within the current reporting cycle should be counted as promotable vacancies. Supernumerary or time-limited posts should also be counted as promotable vacancies if sufficient permanent vacancies will become available to absorb the promotees before the lapse of the supernumerary or time-limited post concerned. Once it is confirmed that a permanent vacancy will arise before the lapse of a supernumerary/time-limited post, it should be counted as a promotable vacancy in the upcoming promotion exercise. HoDs/HoGs have no discretion in choosing as to when or whether to count a post as promotable, and policy support from their Permanent Secretary (and also from CSB if the Bureau is the AA of the rank concerned) should be obtained prior to the conduct of a promotion exercise to fill all promotable vacancies. Whether the same number of candidates will be recommended is a matter to be deliberated by the promotion board. Other than vacancies occurring in the current reporting cycle, B/Ds should also ascertain the number of vacancies which are expected to arise in the first six months of the next reporting cycle so that filling them (e.g. by long-term acting for administrative convenience (AFAC)¹³ or short-term acting appointment) could be planned ahead.

Accurate calculation of vacancies in accordance with the above rules is the first and foremost requirement before any promotion exercise can be conducted. Miscalculations of vacancies have to be corrected up-front lest it should affect the recommendations of a promotion board. While supernumerary or time-limited posts should also be counted as promotable vacancies if sufficient permanent vacancies will become available to absorb the promotees before the lapse of the supernumerary or time-limited posts concerned, the Commission had found miscalculations in four submissions. After rectification upon the Commission Secretariat’s query, the effective dates of promotion of a few promotees in two cases were advanced, and some more officers were recommended for promotion with policy support obtained afresh in another. Had the promotion boards been provided with the accurate vacancy position, the promotions of the recommended officers could have been effected earlier. In the latter case, the department had omitted to report some time-limited vacancies which could be used for acting by deserving officers to try out their capabilities at the higher rank. The Commission has reminded the concerned departments to observe the relevant guidelines closely and exercise due diligence in counting vacancies for promotion and/or acting.

In other cases, there appeared to be confusion on the part of the concerned department in seeking the policy support for filling promotable vacancies. In a promotion exercise, the department had obtained policy support to fill one possible consequential vacancy for promotion but it was revealed that there should be two such vacancies available as at the Board date. In the case of another department, despite the Commission’s advice previously given, a number of anticipated vacancies that could only be used for acting appointments was erroneously counted as promotable vacancies when policy support was sought. Although no candidate was recommended by the board to fill the aforesaid vacancies, the policy support obtained for an inflated number of vacancies could have resulted in promotions leading to over-establishment. The Commission has reminded the departmental management to be more vigilant in the future.

In another case, the number of candidates recommended or waitlisted for AFAC appointments was found to have far exceeded the number of vacancies reported in the promotion board report without any explanation. It was only upon the Commission Secretariat’s enquiry that the board clarified that the recommended list was to cater for some possible vacancies. While it is in order for promotion boards to recommend a waiting list for promotions or acting, the boards should have set out the vacancy position clearly and comprehensively for the Commission’s scrutiny. Time could have been saved and need for clarification could be obviated.

Promotion boards should normally be held within six months from the end-date of the last appraisal cycle. B/Ds should submit promotion board reports to the Commission for advice within two months after the board meeting. Late conduct of promotion boards and late submission of promotion board reports were not conducive to maximizing staffing resources for the effective and efficient operations of B/Ds. It will also affect B/Ds’ manpower development plans and posting arrangements for officers identified as fit for promotion/acting. During the year, the Commission was satisfied with B/Ds’ overall adherence to the timelines in completing the promotion exercises. The Commission is gratified to note that despite the extraordinary challenges posed by the COVID-19 epidemic resulting in the implementation of social distancing measures and the work-from-home arrangements, the B/Ds had endeavoured to keep to the planned schedule of work. For the small number of late submissions, the Commission notes that the departments concerned were heavily engaged in the work relating to the control and combat of the COVID-19 epidemic.

For promotion exercises involving a large number of eligible candidates, it is not uncommon for such boards to convene more than one meeting to deliberate and conclude their recommendations. The time-gap between such meetings should be kept the shortest possible to ensure that the boards’ recommendations could be reached within a reasonable time-frame with the integrity of the boards’ proceedings kept intact. In one promotion exercise, the board meetings were organised in seven half-day sessions spanning over a span of two weeks. While recognizing that there might be practical difficulties involved in securing the availability of board members amid their busy work schedules, the Commission considers that appropriate and due priority should be given to the conduct of promotion exercises.

In a promotion exercise, the Commission had raised query on the appointment of a retiring officer to a promotion board tasked to identify a suitable officer to succeed the vacancy vacated by him. The appointment was problematic because the same officer was subsequently recommended for FE. The Commission noted that the concerned officer had not submitted any application for FE when the promotion board was held¹⁴ . Nonetheless, the officer’s appointment to the board might still give rise to a potential/perceived conflict of interest. Arising from this case and the Commission’s concern, CSB had issued supplementary guidelines in March 2020 to advise B/Ds not to appoint any retiring officer to promotion, selection or recruitment boards unless it is confirmed that there is no foreseeable FE need for the rank concerned.

The key task of a promotion board is to make fair assessment on the claims of all eligible candidates to identify the most meritorious officer(s) for advancement. It is incumbent upon the concerned boards to ascertain the pool of eligible candidates accurately. Including a candidate who is not eligible for consideration or omitting one who is otherwise eligible is a grave error. In one case, the Commission noted that a promotion board had included a candidate on pre-resignation leave for consideration. In another case, the department had mistakenly treated a written warning under appeal as an on-going disciplinary case such that the concerned officer was put forward for continued AFAC appointment. After examination, the Commission is satisfied that the former case was a sheer oversight and the latter a misunderstood interpretation of the relevant governing guideline on appointment. Although neither case had caused irreparable consequences to the boards’ recommendations, the Commission has called on the departments concerned to be more vigilant in the future.

According to paragraph 3.21 of the Guidebook on Appointments, where the pool of eligible candidates is large, a promotion board may devise shortlisting criteria relevant to the performance of duties in the promotion rank to reduce the number of eligible candidates to a more manageable size. Such shortlisting criteria, however, should not debar the board from considering exceptionally meritorious candidates who meet the eligibility criteria but not the shortlisting criteria. The Commission has long called on B/Ds to be critical in devising shortlisting criteria. In addition to consistency, due regard should also be given to the vacancy position and the practical effect of the adopted criteria.

Last year, the Commission was pleased to note that a promotion board took heed of our previous advice and introduced a new shortlisting criterion to reduce the pool of candidates to a more manageable size for detailed examination. Striking a balance between the number of vacancies available and the experience and exposure required for the higher rank responsibilities, the adoption of shortlisting criterion had enhanced the board’s efficiency. Timeliness in the submission of the board report has also significantly improved. Another board also exercised its judgement appropriately in relaxing the shortlisting criterion previously adopted after considering the increased number of vacancies and the need to enlarge the pool of candidates for succession planning. In another case, however, the promotion board decided to continue to use the same shortlisting criteria with insufficient regard to changed circumstances in the year. As observed by the Commission, a substantial proportion of officers falling short of the service criterion were given exceptional consideration by the promotion board and were recommended for accelerated advancement on account of their meritorious performance. The result would seem to suggest that the adopted service criterion was redundant. Some other boards had, on top of a service criterion, adopted performance attained by an officer as an additional shortlisting criterion. As staff’s ability is already an established selection criterion stipulated in the CSR, using a certain overall performance rating attained by an officer as an additional shortlisting criterion may not be appropriate. After all, the given rating has to be read in totality with the assessment in the entire performance report and only represents one of the factors for consideration by promotion boards. In a different case, the promotion board had chosen to introduce a shortlisting criterion notwithstanding that the pool of candidates was not unmanageably large. Shortlisting ten officers against six vacancies did not appear to be justified nor conducive to healthy competition. The Commission has advised the departments concerned to review the appropriateness of the shortlisting criteria in future exercises.

Although not specified as a requirement, promotion boards usually follow the well-established principle of giving due weight to the recommendations of the last promotion board in recommending or prioritising AFAC appointments. Prolonged acting appointments have to be reviewed regularly every six months and on occasions of promotion exercises being conducted, their acting appointments have to be considered afresh. For officers who have been appointed for long-term acting through a selection process, their claim for promotion is normally higher than other eligible officers in the same exercise. While promotion boards have generally followed this principle in making their recommendations in the year, deviation from this norm was noted in a few cases. In these few cases, the promotion boards had recommended a common date for promotion for all selected candidates without regard to those who were acting on the recommendation of a previous board. Under the due weight principle, the latter group should be promoted at an earlier date than those newly recommended. Upon the Commission’s request and after revisiting the matter, the boards had duly revised their recommendations. The Commission has advised the concerned departments to brief future promotion/selection boards of this guiding principle and its underlying rationale.

The Commission makes observations and gives advice and suggestions to B/Ds from time to time for improvement in the writing of board reports. In the past year, the Commission noted some improved quality ones and others which were maintained at a high and pleasing standard. Common to all the good quality reports, we have found the deliberations on the claims of individual candidates for advancement were detailed clearly with reference to the assessment given in the appraisal reports. Comparison of the relative merits of close contenders was clear, thorough and well-supported with elaborations which helped to strengthen the boards’ justifications. In response to our earlier advice tendered in a previous exercise, a department has beefed up the summary of performance on individual candidates in the individual assessment forms. The Commission has written to convey our compliments to the departments concerned.

However, there were others where inadequacies were found. Very often, the summaries of performance as required to be provided in the candidates’ individual assessment forms were found to be too brief and general without pinpointing what weakness had hampered the advancement of the officer concerned. In one board report, different formats were used to provide the summaries of performance on recommended candidates vis-à-vis non-recommended ones without any given reason. In one case, the summaries on certain candidates were found to have omitted the deficiencies or areas requiring improvement as recorded in their appraisal reports. We have reminded the B/Ds to ensure that both the strengths and weaknesses as portrayed in appraisal reports should be faithfully provided in the summaries and in a uniform format to facilitate the boards’ fair deliberations on all candidates.

For non-recommended officers, the boards’ assessment tended to be brief and to the same effect that they were not as meritorious as the recommended ones and/or competition was keen. The Commission Secretariat had to seek supplementary justifications which lengthened the time for our advice to be given. In one case, no close contender was identified by the board even though there was a vacancy left unfilled and some eligible candidates were observed to have put up meritorious performance during the review period. It was unclear as to why these officers could be not given a chance for testing at the higher rank when vacancies were available. In other cases, the comparison of relative merits of close contenders was no more than an arithmetic summation of the competencies ratings attained without giving any specific and evaluative assessment. Extra time was taken by the Commission Secretariat to seek further justifications from the boards. We have drawn these inadequacies to the concerned B/Ds and look forward to their improvement in the future.

In accordance with the Guidebook on Appointments, if a board chairman or member declares that there may be a conflict of interest in assessing the claim of an eligible candidate, the AA should, after taking into account the degree of closeness of the relationship involved and the associated real/perceived conflict of interest, determine whether there is a need to change the composition of the board; and if not, whether a temporary withdrawal or abstention from making assessment on certain candidates will suffice.

The Commission has advised AAs that they should err on the conservative side in considering declarations of conflicts of interest. With advice and observations tendered by the Commission over the years, we are pleased to note that B/Ds have largely heightened their vigilance in handling declarations to guard against conflict of interest with appropriate decisions taken in conformity with the guidelines issued by CSB.

However, in one promotion exercise, the Commission noted that an officer originally appointed as a board member had to be replaced in two consecutive promotion exercises due to the same declaration of some close relationship with some candidates being considered. As the declared relationship remained a concern to the AA of the department, we have advised the department to consider if the officer would be suitable for appointment again in future exercises. In another case, noting the inconsistent handling of the same declaration of interest of a board member as reported in two consecutive promotion exercises, the Commission has asked the department to examine the declaration procedures and exercise prudence in future.