Time to draw the line under a politically biased civil service

All attention at the moment is focused on the proposal by the chief executive-elect, Leung Chun-ying, to spend HK$72million per year to provide for four new minister-level posts and their support staff. Given the controversy over the justification and cost, it is natural for it to grab headlines.

But lurking under the surface is another related matter, arguably every bit as important and urgent.

By the time we have direct elections in 2017, it is essential that we separate the distinct role of political appointees from that of civil servants. In other words, we must create the politically neutral civil service we claim to already have, and put in place the structures and procedures to ensure the system can endure future changes of government.

The accountability system is already 10 years old, but relatively little has been done to make it function properly. The plain fact is what we have now is a mess. Far too many senior civil servants see a ministerial position as a promotion post which they can reasonably aspire to as the climax of their career. And far too many ministers fail to realise that they are responsible not just for making policy decisions, but are also politically accountable for the outcome of those decisions.

The first step should be to separate civil servants - in particular the members of the Administrative Service - from all political activity. They should no longer lobby legislators to support government policies or proposals. This should be the exclusive responsibility of policy secretaries, undersecretaries and political assistants. Civil servants could continue to attend Legislative Council panel meetings, but only in support of the political appointees and not to speak on their behalf.

Similarly, in dealing with the media and attendance at public forums, the public face and voice of the government should be the political appointee, not the civil servant. Far too often at present, the voice defending a particular decision belongs to a civil servant.

What credibility will that person have if the decision is reversed by a new administration?