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 2024, the Commission considered and tendered advice on 1 188 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. 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 2024, the Commission advised on 140 recruitment submissions involving the filling of 1845 posts, of which 1774 posts (in 135 submissions) were through open recruitment and 71 posts (in five 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 2024, the Commission advised on 732 promotion submissions involving the recommendations of 10 462 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 2024, the Commission considered 27 FE submissions and supported the extension of service of 65 officers. A breakdown of the number of submissions involving extension of service or re-employment after retirement advised by the Commission in 2024 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, usually for a prolonged period, on account of, for example, illness; 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 2024, the Commission advised on a total of 23 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 124 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 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 one-year pilot scheme in April 2023¹⁰ to strengthen the monitoring of summary disciplinary actions against officers on probationary or trial terms, particularly the standards applied by the departments. Based on positive feedback from the pilot departments after a year of implementation, and with the Commission’s support for its continuation, CSB regularised the pilot scheme across all B/Ds starting from 1 October 2024. The regularised scheme ensures that minor misconduct by government officers on probationary or trial terms can be handled in time by appropriate summary disciplinary action before their confirmation to the permanent establishment. The Commission appreciates CSB’s efforts in extending the pilot scheme to all B/Ds following its review, as well as its on-going efforts to monitor progress and ensure consistency in disciplinary standards.

In 2024, the Commission advised on 89 other appointment submissions. They cover cases of non-renewal or extension of agreement; secondment¹¹; retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O; 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, CSB, having consulted the Commission and collected views from the management and staff sides, promulgated the streamlined mechanism in September 2023.

The Commission is pleased to note that CSB has organised briefings and devised a procedural guide to facilitate effective implementation. We fully support CSB’s continuous efforts to remind –

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. The Commission is pleased to note the encouraging progress made, with all B/Ds having already adopted the standard six-tier rating scale for major grades and ranks.

During the year, the Commission advised on four cases of retirement in the public interest under s.12 of the PS(A)O. Except for one case invoked on the ground of loss of confidence arising from the officer’s presence near the scene of suspected unlawful activities, all the other three cases were invoked on the ground of persistent substandard performance. Insofar as cases involving persistent substandard performance are concerned, a total of 12 officers from nine B/Ds were put under close observation in 2024 due to their persistent sub-standard performance¹³. Two officers were ordered to retire in October and November 2024 respectively, and one officer resigned out of his own accord after he was notified of the support by the Commission to retire him in the public interest. For the remaining nine officers, two had improved their performance during the observation period and the s.12 cases were suspended, and seven officers remained under close observation or being processed as at the end of 2024. Following the implementation of the streamlined mechanism, the processing time of s.12 cases has been expedited notably, from approximately 31 months to around 10.5 months.

With the streamlined mechanism smoothly implemented last year, it is imperative for the Government to sustain its efforts in this regard. Apart from CSB’s commitment to collaborating closely with the departmental managements to enhance the monitoring of potential and on-going cases of s.12 action, the Commission will continue to draw B/Ds’ attention to potential s.12 cases during the processing of promotion submissions. We are confident that our concerted efforts will help uphold the high standards of the Civil Service and ensure that cases involving persistent sub-standard performers are addressed appropriately and effectively.

The Commission appreciates CSB’s commitment to enhancing the civil service disciplinary mechanism and its on-going efforts of introducing improvement measures. We are pleased to note the announcement in the Chief Executive’s 2024 Policy Address that CSB will review the PS(A)O and Public Service (Disciplinary) Regulation (PS(D)R). For this purpose, we understand that CSB is working in full steam on the review to explore whether there is room to streamline the procedures of disciplinary proceedings, thereby improving the efficiency and effectiveness in the handling of disciplinary cases. The Commission looks forward to providing its advice on CSB’s preliminary proposals in 2025.

As public expectations on civil servants have continuously grown, the Government has updated the Civil Service Code (the Code) in June 2024 to spell out the constitutional basis and order of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the constitutional roles and responsibilities of civil servants as a member of the executive authorities, as well as the core values and standards of conduct which civil servants should uphold. This important initiative has the full support of the Commission. As an independent statutory body, the Commission remains steadfast in its mission to uphold the impartiality and integrity of the civil service appointment and promotion systems. The Commission is equally committed to ensuring fairness and consistency in disciplinary punishments across the Civil Service, aligning its efforts with the core values and standards of conduct articulated in the updated Code.