Commitment of Hong Kong civil servants will be assessed by national security efforts, chief says
- Secretary for the Civil Service Ingrid Yeung says she expects staff to recognise the paramount importance of safeguarding national security
Hong Kong civil servants’ commitment to their duties will be assessed by observing how they uphold national security in their work, a factor that will also become part of their performance evaluation, the head of the government workforce has said.
Secretary for the Civil Service Ingrid Yeung Ho Poi-yan also said in an exclusive interview with the Post that “wholehearted support” for management decisions was “basic work ethics”, as she explained why the government had banned staff from criticising policies in an official capacity.
The government updated its code of practice for public servants two weeks ago, including clauses in response to the implementation of the city’s domestic national security law in March.
The top “core value” in the Civil Service Code is “upholding the constitutional order and national security”, followed by workers being “people-oriented” and having a “passion for public service”.
Yeung said she expected government workers at all levels to recognise the paramount importance of safeguarding national security and to be able to make policies “more watertight” and less susceptible to threats.
“In their daily work, they should be able to ensure that processes, internal regulations and so on are designed in such a way that will best safeguard national security,” Yeung said in the wide-ranging interview.
“We assess how they perform in this area in the same way we assess how they perform in other areas … We will not have ‘safeguarding national security’ graded as a specific competency, but it will be part of the overall performance assessment.”
The civil service had 172,610 staff as of the end of last year. Including time-limited and permanent posts, the workforce comprised 192,315 individuals.
Under the revised code, civil servants are not allowed to criticise government policies in their official roles. When expressing opinions in a personal capacity, they should avoid their views being “mistaken” for the government’s position.
Asked if criticism on personal social media accounts was permissible, Yeung said: “Not to criticise the employer publicly in his capacity as an employee of that company or organisation is just ‘basic work ethics’.
“Once the management has made a decision, you’ve got to support the decision, and the rolling out of it wholeheartedly, otherwise nothing can get done … there is no question of not supporting it or refusing to do it.”
Yeung dismissed concerns that the rule would create a chilling effect that would hinder colleagues from raising constructive comments to improve governance.
She said if colleagues “genuinely believed” their views should be adopted, they could express them through various internal channels. They might still express their disappointment, but their personal feelings should “remain personal”, she added.
She said the government would not “police” civil servants’ private social media accounts but if complaints alleging misconduct arose it would investigate.
Under the code, violations affect the assessment of a civil servant’s performance and promotion prospects and may lead to disciplinary action.
Over the past five years, 1,124 civil servants faced formal disciplinary action as a result of serious misconduct or criminal convictions.
Among 50 dismissal cases, four were related to “misconduct bringing disrepute to the government”, 20 were over “unauthorised absence/unpunctuality” and 21 were related to non-compliance of vaccine pass requirements during the coronavirus pandemic.
