The purpose of this paper is to answer and clearly examine the implementation of the Principals Official Accountability System in Hong Kong. It will try to examine the effect of this policy in maintaining neutrality of the Hong Kong civil service.
The Principal Official Accountability System is an innovative method implemented by then Chief Executive in order to minimize corruption and boost public confidence to the government. In the Principal Official Accountability System, the upper echelons of the government including the Chief Secretary for Administration, Financial secretary, Secretary of Justice and all other directors of the Bureau will be primarily responsible to the Chief Executives for their actions and policies ( 2003,).
Officials will no longer be encumbered by government structures and bureaucracy since they will no longer be classified as civil servants but officials serving at the pleasure of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. This condition would give them greater power to implement changes and reforms that will not be possible if these officials are labeled as civil servants. These officials will serve for a period of five years but would not exceed the term of the Chief Executive who appointed them. Officials under the POAS will cover certain areas that are assigned to them and to oversee the works of other interrelated departments. The POAS provides that accountability and responsibility departmental policies will be shouldered by these officials and that the failure or success of a policy or government measure will be solely dependent on them. They are accountable to the Chief Executive, community and their performance, success or failure can be one of the reasons for the termination of their contracts.
Principal officials are also appointed to the Executive Council wherein they directly participate in the decision making process. They are also instrumental in prioritizing policy agendas and regulations that will be employed by the Council. In the POAS, various departments will be integrated to avoid confusion and to compartmentalize the bureaucracy. Interrelated and connected departments and offices will be integrate put together to maximize the use and deployment of government resources. Because of the POAS, the original 16 policy bureaus were reduced to about 11.
Lastly POAS hopes to maintain and upheld an attitude of permanence, balance, political neutrality and dedicated service that will be instilled in the heart of a public officer (2002).
Political neutrality meanwhile refers to the impartiality that is possessed by a public officer or employee in dealing with official transactions. There must be no conflict of interest with regards to policies and regulations being executed by the government. Political neutrality would also mean having no sense of bias or prejudice while maintaining objectivity and detachment in deciding for example in favor of a particular bidder for a government infrastructure project. A public officer or employee is therefore expected to conduct transactions and dealings with individuals and groups without any hint of favoring or giving advantage to a specific company or organization (2002). In this way, any public perception of irregularity and corruption will be erase and at the same time this would lead to higher confidence of the society to the government and the employees that represents it.
For me, I would say that at least in theory, the Principal Officials Accountability System can help promote political neutrality in the civil service. The system provides for a proper check and balance between the different positions and officials that hold important and vital offices. In order to curb corruption and other allegations of mismanagement, the official must be held accountable for the failure or success of his projects. If a certain project or policy has not achieved its goals and aims, it is just right to replace the officer in question subject to the order of the Chief Executive. Aside from its check and balance property, this system can also acts as an encouragement factor to public officers and employees who are under the scrutiny of the Chief Executive.
This would mean that they are motivated and inspired to improve their performance and the performance of their specific departments and bureaus that they handle or face being removed from office. Since they are serving at the pleasure of the Chief Executive, the only basis that binds them from their government positions are the performance and accomplishment that they can present to the Executive (2003). In this system accomplishment and merit are the only factors that must be considered in retaining or removing an official. The POAS therefore eliminates nepotism and corruption because officers and government executives can be removed immediately if there are issues of impropriety, corruption and malversation of public resources that is evident erasing any doubts and suspicion on the public mind. If any allegations of corruption or mismanagement are committed by a public official, the official in question can be removed quickly erasing any cover ups or influencing a forth coming investigation.
At the beginning, I have said that POAS can be beneficial and advantageous in theory because in practice, the true aims and goals of this system is not realized. Although the former Chief Executive, initiated this system, certain sectors of the Hong Kong society labeled the POAS as the Accountability Avoidance System since he did not follow his own guidelines and requirements with regards to the performances and achievements of officials subjected to the rules and policies laid out by the POAS. Even if officials are embroiled in various anomalies and political scandals the former Chief Executive refused to remove his officers. Examples of these are did not remove who was tied to the Lexusgate scandal, who was responsible for the stock crisis and for the promotion of the Basic Law Article 23. Even if these officials are innocent, POAS must be strictly enforced to remove any bias on the part of the government and to erase the thought that the administration is condoning these illegal acts.
POAS in practice cannot also be successful in Hong Kong because power and authority to remove and nominate officials fell into the hands of one man, the Chief Executive. This heavy concentration of power can be detrimental to the government and to society because the tenure of an official is based on the perspective and viewpoints of the Executive ( 2003). The status of a hard working official will therefore be subject to the whims and impulses of the Chief Executive. Since only one person is deciding on the tenure and longevity of a public official it is therefore possible that decisions and choices will be influenced by inherent biases and prejudices.
0 comments:
Post a Comment