Promotion and Human Resource Management  

With the conclusion of the 2023 promotion exercises in a Department, the percentage of unfilled vacancies for two ranks of a grade had exceeded 50% of the total number of available vacancies. Acknowledging the Commission’s concerns, the two promotion boards conducted in 2024 had put considerable efforts in identifying more eligible and meritorious officers for testing at the higher ranks, leaving about one-third of the higher rank vacancies unfilled, which was a marked reduction when compared with 2023.

Notwithstanding the improvement, the Commission considered that the percentage of unfilled vacancies remained relatively high and that there should be scope for further reduction. As a response, the Department has committed to lowering the percentage through a phased approach with the progressive target of not more than 15% in the coming few years.

To fill the temporary manpower gaps, the Department had also reviewed its HRM practices and dispensed with the previous practice of arranging prolonged intermittent acting appointments without going through a proper selection process as required under CSRs.

While appreciating the efforts made by the Department so far, the Commission has urged its senior management to continue to monitor the development of related issues and implement effective measures to rectify any improprieties identified. With the Department’s commitment, the Commission is looking forward to the filling of all the higher rank vacancies through the promotion avenue in the near term.

The situation in another Department is even more encouraging. In its three promotion exercises conducted in 2023, the percentage of unfilled vacancies ranged from about 15% to 50% of the total number of available vacancies at the respective ranks, which was apparently unsatisfactory. In response to the Commission’s advice, the Department had implemented a series of HRM measures to enable it to achieve the target of reducing the percentage of unfilled vacancies to 5% in two years.

The Commission was pleased to see the encouraging results. One promotion board conducted in 2024 was able to identify a sufficient number of suitable candidates to fill all the higher rank vacancies. As to the other two promotion ranks, the number of vacancies left unfilled was minimal given the need for some of the unrecommended contenders to further consolidate before consideration could be given to them for testing at the higher ranks.

Besides, the Department had avoided, as far as practicable, arranging the unrecommended candidates to take up acting appointments to fill the unfilled vacancies without going through a proper selection exercise. It would only arrange short-term acting appointments to meet operational needs with full justifications.

To enlarge the pool of eligible candidates in the long run, the Department had also put in place a series of measures to facilitate and encourage its grade members to attain the requisite training requirements for promotion, such as, drawing up a more robust training plan as well as arranging extra and designated training classes.

The Commission was pleased with the efforts made by the Department, and has encouraged the Department to keep up its good work. In time, the Commission is looking forward to seeing a healthy and vibrant succession in the grades concerned.

Given the Department’s distinct operational requirements, in-house training is essential to equip officers with the specialised knowledge and skills needed for their roles and career advancement. However, in a promotion exercise, the Commission noted that no in-house training was arranged by the Department concerned in 2023, resulting in a considerable number of officers not being able to obtain the prescribed professional qualification which is one of the promotion criteria. This had aggravated the manpower shortage of the Department.

Notwithstanding the Department’s explanation that the training had been rescheduled for late 2024 due to its extensive involvement in large-scale projects and events, the Commission is of the view that, as the prescribed qualification is a requirement for promotion eligibility, the Department bears the responsibility of ensuring that training is conducted in a timely manner to support staff development and succession planning.

The Commission urged the Department to promptly arrange the necessary training for the affected officers so that they could acquire the qualification and become eligible for consideration in the next promotion exercise. In response, the Department had arranged the training in November 2024, during which all officers concerned had successfully attained the prescribed qualification.

This case exposed deficiencies in the Department’s management of training resources, undermining the importance of staff development needs. The Commission had brought this case to the personal attention of the HoD concerned and reminded those responsible for training-related matters of the significance of ensuring prompt and effective scheduling of training. Additionally, the Department was requested to review its training policies and workflows to prevent recurrence of similar situation.

Similar to Case 4C, only officers having the prescribed qualification were eligible for promotion in a grade of another Department, with professional training provided in-house due to the Department’s unique operational needs. The Commission noted that the Department had faced significant challenges in filling vacancies, largely due to the lack of resources for in-house training. Due to the competing needs for other work priorities, only a few qualified officers were available to deliver the much needed in-house training, resulting in a limited pool of eligible candidates for promotion. More than half of the vacancies in two ranks of the grade had been left unfilled in consecutive promotion exercises.

We also observed that professional resources for in-house training were further stretched by the involvement of qualified trainers in considerable non-core duties, such as, event organisation and other administrative tasks.

The Commission has advised the Department to consider redeployment of its manpower resources, particularly relieving the qualified trainers from non-core duties to enable them to focus on their primary responsibilities, including providing in-house professional training. The Department has responded positively and is pursuing different measures to tackle the issues, such as, engagement of additional non-civil service contract staff to take over the overall responsibility of organising events. The Commission looks forward to seeing the Department’s enhanced training capacity to meet the career development needs of its professional staff.

An officer with an exemplary performance track record was waitlisted for long-term acting at the top priority in the last promotion exercise in 2022, with due regard that he would reach his prescribed retirement age in about two years’ time. However, instead of arranging him to act at the earliest opportunity, the Department only arranged him to commence acting two months prior to the current promotion board, even after other waitlisters with lower priorities.

Considering the officer’s brief acting experience, the current board was not convinced that he was fully tested meriting substantive promotion to the higher rank with a complexed and demanding portfolio. The board, therefore, recommended him to continue acting, alongside with all the other waitlisters. However, the board’s recommendation would render him ineligible for consideration for substantive promotion in the next exercise due to his impending retirement.

While the Department claimed that operational needs should take precedence when making the acting arrangement, and that the officer was fully aware of his position and would be allowed to continue acting until his retirement, the situation was highly undesirable. This could have been avoided through more thoughtful planning by the Department.

The Commission has urged the Department to review its HRM practices and enhance its manpower planning to ensure that long-term acting appointments are arranged in a timely manner in accordance with the priorities recommended by a promotion board, thereby safeguarding officers’ career prospects, fostering staff morale, and supporting its effective succession planning.

During the year, the Commission noted that in a few promotion submissions for the rank of deputy HoD (D3), most eligible officers at the lower rank of assistant HoD (D2) were aged 55 or above, with a prescribed retirement age of 60, implying that their prospects for further advancement to the senior directorate level were minimal. In one of these cases, the Commission even observed that all of the few eligible officers, who were of similar age, had been promoted to their current rank of assistant HoD on the same date. This resulted in an even narrower cohort of candidates with similar seniority and age profiles.

With the majority of officers at the assistant HoD level retiring around the same time, the Departments will risk losing a substantial number of experienced leaders within a short period, undermining the departmental leadership and directorate succession.

To address the directorate succession issue, the Commission has reiterated to the Departments concerned of the need to intensify efforts in identifying and developing young and bright officers from various ranks at the non-directorate level for meeting directorate succession needs. By nurturing talents of different age profiles earlier in their careers, the Departments can expand and make ready a pool of capable candidates for selection of the most suitable ones to shoulder higher responsibilities at the directorate level.

In reviewing a promotion submission, the Commission observed that in the individual appraisals of three close contenders in the last reporting cycle, the RO had initially assessed two officers as ready to perform higher rank duties, while another officer was deemed not yet ready. However, during the conduct of the promotion board two months later, where the same RO served as Board Chairman, the officer previously assessed as not ready was ultimately considered more favorably to the other two officers after a comparison of their relative merits.

This situation underscores the need for greater consistency and thorough evaluation in the appraisal process. When assessing an officer’s readiness for promotion, the RO should adopt a holistic approach by considering all officers at the same rank as well as thoroughly evaluating the full range of abilities and qualities required for the higher rank. If needed, the RO should consult the respective AO and CO to gather additional information and clarifications. This would help ensure that strong contenders are accurately identified and that the promotion board’s decisions are both fair and well-informed.

In a few cases, the Commission observed that the ROs expressed different opinions from the AOs and COs on the overall performance and/or promotability ratings of some appraisees. However, these discrepancies were not communicated to the appraisees, AOs and COs, raising concerns about transparency.

In particular, without being informed of such differences, the appraisees concerned were not aware of their level of attainment, which can hinder their professional growth, motivation, and ability to address areas for improvement. A transparent appraisal system not only ensures fairness but also enables appraisees to take ownership of their development.

In addition, it is essential for the AOs and COs to have a clear understanding of the assessment standards that underpin grading decisions. This shared understanding fosters consistency, mutual respect, and constructive dialogue, creating a more transparent and effective appraisal process.

Onus is on the HoD/HoGs to ensure that AOs/COs/ROs are clear with the set appraisal standards and apply them consistently in making, countersigning or reviewing performance assessment as given in the appraisal reports. The Commission has urged the Departments concerned to advise the ROs to strictly adhere to the established guidelines and diligently fulfill their roles, as ROs are best-placed and duty-bound to administer the appraisal system effectively.