Action needed to ensure civil servants' political neutrality

Tony Kwok writes it's shameful to see civil servants being highly biased and breaching Civil Service Code, and CSB should take effective measures to deal with loyalty crisis

It is a universal principle that all civil servants must adhere to political neutrality. In the British colonial era, they took the most serious view of this principle. At that time, all police officers had to swear allegiance to the queen. All civil servants were not allowed to visit the Chinese mainland and Taiwan unless given special permission. They were not allowed to speak or write to the press unless given official sanction. If the government had any doubt about their loyalty, civil servants could be dismissed without giving any reason, as per Colonial Regulation No 55.

So it is quite shameful to see so many civil servants now in different government departments openly breaching such strict civil service guidelines over the past six months of unprecedented turmoil in Hong Kong. Many were found to have posted in their social media accounts disrespectful personal attacks against the Hong Kong chief executive and highly biased comments about the government and the police force in particular. Some even belittled the "one country, two systems" concept. A well-publicized case even involved a High Court judge joining a signature petition to abolish the proposed Fugitive Offenders Bill; a vice-principal and a schoolteacher making hostile remarks on the internet cursing "all police and their families (and that they) should all die and go to hell". It was rumored that one government department even tolerated a "Lennon wall" set up by its staff in the office! In August, there were many "anonymous" signature petitions allegedly from civil servants against the chief executive, and worse, they were allowed to assemble in Chater Garden to condemn the government - something that would be unthinkable anywhere else in the world.

To top it off, we have seen civil servants arrested for participating in unlawful assemblies and riots. Those arrested included officers from customs, immigration, and even a staffer in the chief secretary's office!

Meanwhile, the cross-departmental coordination in the government's fight against this bald-faced challenge to its rule was in shambles. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department was found to have refused police vehicles to standby at its parking compound, and the Lands Department promptly issued demolition orders for so-called illegal structures on mainland-invested banks installed to guard against repeated criminal damage by the blackshirts. It seems that bureaucracy has gone haywire and commonsense has been thrown out the window just when we need to be flexible in presenting a united front against this anarchy that threatens our way of life.

The secretary for the civil service, in his appearance before the Legislative Council, refused to disclose the number of civil servants arrested but revealed the Civil Service Bureau (CSB) has received complaints against 43 civil servants, alleging their participation in unlawful assemblies or violent activities, or who have made public critical comments discrediting "one country, two systems", and that such cases were being looked into. This figure, undoubtedly, is just the tip of the iceberg.

It is clear that our civil service has a loyalty crisis, and there are indeed many enemies within that need to be dealt with urgently as internal sabotage can be more damaging than an outside threat. We should therefore welcome a sensible proposal requiring all civil servants to swear to uphold the Basic Law and take an oath of allegiance to the Hong Kong SAR government to ensure that civil servants of all ranks and grades will work in solidarity toward common goals, and safeguard the core values of our mandated "one country, two system" governance concept. Indeed, Article 99 of the Basic Law states that public servants must be dedicated to their duties and be responsible to the government, and have a constitutional role to give their best in serving the chief executive and the SAR government.

However, no preventive system is effective unless it is backed up with strong enforcement. A well-publicized public complaint channel should be set up by the CSB to deal with any breach of the Civil Service Code, which requires civil servants to be politically neutral. A strong investigation team should be created to enforce a zero-tolerance culture, including dismissal if necessary. The case of the vice-principal and schoolteacher who were merely punished with a warning letter is clearly inadequate.

The CSB should also issue a strong reminder to all civil servants on their restriction on speaking publicly or in social media. They can refer to a recent landmark court case in Australia in which they dismissed a civil servant working in the Immigration Department for using a pseudonym to criticize the government's immigration policy in her Twitter account. The dismissed civil servant took her case all the way up to the highest court in Australia, which ruled that the official was lawfully sacked.

There are also cases in which government departments' internal information and data were leaked to the press. This may constitute misconduct under the common-law offense of "misconduct in public office". The CSB, in consultation with the Department of Justice and the Independent Commission Against Corruption, should issue reminders to civil servants on the possible serious consequences of their misconduct.

But the most important measure that should be taken is resuming proactive political vetting of all civil servants, both in recruitment and before promotion. Ideally, the special branch should be resurrected as part of the Hong Kong Police Force to perform this important function, just as before the unification. It is worth noting that intelligence gathering is an integral part of most mature governments. Political vetting should include checking the individual's social media accounts, which is actually a common practice now in private-sector recruitment. In a recent case, one of the organizers of a civil servants public protest demonstration in Chater Garden in August was a labor officer working in the Labour Department. He was said to have been an activist involved in the 2012 public protest against the inclusion of national education in the school curriculum. Yet he was recently promoted. Under the British colonial administration, he could not possibly have passed the political vetting for his recruitment and promotion!

We just do not know how many subversives we already have in the civil service working against the government. We can only be sure that they have the potential to cause more harm than an external enemy that we can identify and guard against!

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.