Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region
Following is a question by the Hon Carmen Kan and a written reply by the Secretary for the Civil Service, Mrs Ingrid Yeung, in the Legislative Council today (July 16):
Question:
Regarding the monitoring of the operation of government departments and the performance of civil servants, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has compiled statistics on the following information in respect of the investigations/audits conducted by the Office of The Ombudsman and the Audit Commission (Audit) since 2015 (set out in a table):
(i) the subjects and names of government departments involved in the investigation reports/audit reports completed each year; and
(ii) the number of investigations/audits conducted on various government departments, and the subjects on which investigations/audits had been conducted repeatedly (set out by department and year);
(2) whether it knows which of the subjects examined by Audit mentioned in (1) have not yet completed the follow-up work in accordance with the recommendations of Audit and the Public Accounts Committee of this Council;
(3) of the measures put in place by the Government to improve the operation of government departments which have been investigated/examined repeatedly and found to have problems; whether it has held the then responsible personnel (including accountability officials and civil servants) responsible and imposed punishments; if so, of the details, including the number of the relevant personnel being punished (with a breakdown by the investigated/examined subjects and government departments) and the form of penalty imposed; if not, the reasons for that, and whether it will study the establishment of the relevant mechanism;
(4) whether the authorities have put in place an incentive mechanism for government departments with outstanding performance, so as to further increase the incentive of government personnel; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether they will study establishing the relevant mechanism; and
(5) since the promulgation of the updated Civil Service Code (the Code) last year, of the number of civil servants who have been issued with notifications by the Government under section 12 of the Public Service (Administration) Order and not granted increments as a result of substandard performance (with a breakdown by rank), and how such number compares with the data before the Code was updated; of the measures in place to enhance the effectiveness of rewarding and punishing civil servants for their performance, e.g. whether it will study reforming the incremental point system to improve their overall performance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
The current-term Government has all along been result-oriented and citizen-centered, striving to provide quality public services, while at the same time deepening reforms and introducing various enhancement measures. According to the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2025 published in June this year, Hong Kong’s global competitiveness rises from the fifth place last year to the third. In terms of government efficiency, Hong Kong’s ranking rises from the third to the second place globally, indicating that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government’s policies are working, various policies have yielded results, and that Government departments are also operating highly effectively in providing the requisite services for the public, foreign investors and tourists, etc. To ensure that the quality of public services is maintained and further enhanced, we attach great importance to the investigation/audit reports and valuable advice provided by the Office of The Ombudsman (OMB) and the Audit Commission. Respective departments will examine and study the reports in detail and follow up on the relevant recommendations.
Having consulted the Administration Wing and the OMB, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Audit Commission, as well as the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, my reply to the question raised by the Hon Carmen Kan is as follows:
(1) Established under The Ombudsman Ordinance, the OMB is an independent statutory body responsible for investigation works on maladministration. It is not a government department nor an organisation under the HKSAR Government. Under the legislation, apart from investigating complaints lodged by complainants against alleged maladministration in government departments and public organisations, The Ombudsman is also empowered to initiate direct investigation operations where injustice may have been caused by maladministration. The direct investigation operations are prompted mainly by subjects of significant public interest.
Over the past decade, the OMB has completed a total of 98 direct investigation operations involving 40 departments, covering a wide range of areas including medical and health, transport, buildings, lands, planning, labour, environmental protection, food and environmental hygiene, education, social welfare, housing, culture, recreation and sports. In general, the OMB completes eight to ten direct investigation operations per year.
During this period, the departments involved in the highest number of direct investigation operations were, in descending order, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (17 operations), the Lands Department (13 operations), the Housing Department (11 operations), the Transport Department (9 operations), the Environmental Protection Department (8 operations), the Home Affairs Department (8 operations), and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (8 operations).
Each direct investigation operation has its own uniqueness. In the past decade, none of the direct investigation operations were repeated. However, the OMB has carried out different direct investigation operations on different topics under some major areas, such as public housing, tree management, water seepage, after-death arrangement.
For instance, food and environmental hygiene, lands matters, public housing, transport and recreation and sports are major areas. Examples of direct investigations conducted by the OMB in the area of food and environmental hygiene include regulation of swimming pools, enforcement against defective sewage works of New Territories exempted houses, regulation over sale of food in hot/cold holding and non-pre-packaged beverages by means of vending machine, after-death arrangements; an example of direct investigations in the area of lands matters is enforcement against unauthorised land developments; direct investigation examples in relation to public housing include housing for senior citizens, combating abuse, recovery, refurbishment and reallocation of public housing, illegal parking in public housing estates; examples in the area of traffic and transport include arrangements for driving tests, on-street parking spaces designated for people with disabilities; examples in relation to recreation and sports include obstruction of passageways by bicycles owned by operators of bicycle rental services, as well as repairs and maintenance of outdoor recreational and sports facilities. The OMB has conducted direct investigation operations on such topics.
It is worth noting that the frequency of the departments or their subject areas being involved in direct investigation operations might be affected by various factors including nature of service, service target and prevailing concern in the society. Therefore, the frequency of departments under investigation does not represent the operation situation or performance of the department.
On the other hand, value for money audits are conducted by the Audit Commission to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which government departments and organisations have discharged their functions, and the results of such audits are published in the Director of Audit’s Reports.
In the past ten years, the Audit Commission completed a total of 174 value for money audits covering 63 government departments (including the relevant policy bureaux), covering a wide range of areas including public works, commerce and industry, social welfare, buildings, lands and planning, recreation, culture and facilities, education, employment and labour, transportation and environmental protection. In general, the Audit Commission completes over ten value for money audits per year.
During the period, the departments involved in the highest number of audits in their respective policy areas were, in descending order, the Environment and Ecology Bureau (27 audits), the Development Bureau (18 audits), the Education Bureau (16 audits), the Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau (14 audits), the Labour and Welfare Bureau (14 audits), the Transport and Logistics Bureau (13 audits), the Environmental Protection Department (12 audits), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (12 audits), and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (12 audits).
In the past ten years, the Audit Commission conducted two audits on the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales, involving the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Trade and Industry Department. The audit findings were published in Chapter 1 of the Director of Audit’s Report No. 84 and Chapter 7 of the Director of Audit’s Report No. 66 respectively.
The Director of Audit takes into account a number of factors, including the significance of the project, its timeliness, the amount of public money and risks involved, and the benefits to be brought about, in selecting the subjects for value for money audits and deciding on the priority for conducting the audits.
(2) The number of value for money audits for which follow-up actions have not been completed in accordance with the recommendations of the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Legislative Council (LegCo) is 42, as set out in Annex. The Government has been reporting regularly to LegCo on the progress of implementing the recommendations in the form of Government Minute and annual progress reports, and the Audit Commission discusses with the PAC annually the progress of implementation of the recommendations by the audited organisations.
(3) and (4) The HKSAR Government adopts a proactive and positive attitude in following up the investigations of the OMB and the audit reports of the Audit Commission as well as the recommendations therein, and carefully scrutinises and takes on board the recommendations to improve the relevant policy measures and public services. As the Ombudsman explained to this Council at its meeting on July 8, some government departments are responsible for more services which are in close contact with the public, and hence they may receive more complaints, and as mentioned above, the Director of Audit will take into account factors such as the significance of the subject, its timeliness, the amount of public funds and risks involved, as well as the benefits to be brought about, in selecting the value for money audit subjects and in determining the priority for conducting the audit; therefore, a department’s performance cannot be measured solely on the basis of the number of investigations conducted by the OMB and the number of projects selected for audit. Some of the complaints received by the OMB involved no or only minor maladministration, and the OMB has successfully concluded 555 such cases by way of mediation. Departments and bureaux will strive to follow up on any areas of improvement in the economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the administrative operations, administrative systems, administrative procedures or in the discharge of duties identified by the OMB and the Audit Commission upon completion of their investigations/audits. The causes of departmental maladministration, inefficiency and ineffective use of resources are numerous and often not homogeneous. The Government as a whole also pays close attention to deep-seated issues, such as over-emphasis on procedures to the detriment of effective achievement of objectives. The current-term Government adopts a result-oriented approach at all levels, and this element is emphasised in our daily work as well as in the leadership training of senior and middle-level civil servants. If a civil servant is found to be incapable of performing his/her duties or to have a less than positive attitude towards his/her work in any of the investigations or audits, his/her supervisors will reflect this in his/her appraisal report, and if he/she is under consideration by a promotion board, the board will also take into account deficiencies in his/her ability or attitude towards work. If an investigation or audit reveals that a civil servant has misconducted himself/herself, the department will deal with the case in accordance with the civil service disciplinary mechanism. As regards politically appointed officials, the Government will act in accordance with the Code for Officials under the Political Appointment System.
The current-term Government is committed to setting up a performance-based management system. In respect of awards, the Government endeavours to implement various commendation schemes for civil servants, including the Chief Executive’s Award for Exemplary Performance, the Secretary for the Civil Service’s Commendation Award Scheme, the Civil Service Outstanding Service Award Scheme, to give due recognition to departments and individuals with outstanding performances in different areas, encourage civil servants to strive for excellence and provide quality services to the public. The Civil Service Outstanding Service Award Scheme aims to recognise government departments and teams in providing exemplary services, encourage civil servants’ innovation, and promote a people-oriented and “one government” public service culture. The OMB has also set up an annual Ombudsman’s Awards Scheme to recognise the contribution of departments and public organisations to the improvement of public administration. Individual and team awards are also presented to public officers in recognition of their outstanding performance and professionalism in serving the public.
(5) In September 2023, the Civil Service Bureau promulgated and implemented the streamlined mechanism of retiring civil servants in the public interest on the ground of persistent sub-standard performance (the streamlined mechanism) under Section 12 of the Public Service (Administration) Order (Section 12 action) to strengthen the management of staff with sub-standard performance. From September 2023 to the end of June 2025, a total of 16 officers were issued with Section 12 Notification due to their sub-standard performance. They were advised to improve their performance to the acceptable standard within a specified observation period; otherwise Section 12 action would be taken. Among these officers, three officers were ordered to be retired due to persistent sub-standard performance; two officers resigned upon receipt of the Section 12 Notification; two officers with Section 12 action suspended as their performance was improved to the acceptable standard; and the cases of nine officers are still ongoing. When compared to the five–year period from September 2018 to September 2023 (i.e. before the implementation of the streamlined mechanism) in which a total of 12 officers were issued with the notification under the old mechanism informing that Section 12 action would be taken (i.e. 2.4 officers per year on average), 16 officers have been issued with Section 12 Notification since the implementation of the streamlined mechanism, indicating a higher usage of the streamlined mechanism by departments. The average processing time has also been largely reduced from 31.5 months for cases processed within the five years before the implementation of the streamlined mechanism to 10 months after its implementation. Apart from the 16 officers mentioned above, some officers have resigned before the commencement of the observation period when they were informed of the department’s intention to initiate Section 12 action against them, and the Government does not keep information on the number of such cases. As regards the granting of increments, a total of 12 and 21 civil servants were not granted an increment due to unsatisfactory performance in 2023 and 2024 respectively.
The civil service is an integral part of the HKSAR’s governance system. The current-term Government has been attaching great importance to the enhancement of the civil service management system. The Civil Service Code updated last year states that accountability for performance is one of the core values, and that civil servants should be held accountable for their decisions and actions in discharging their public duties. We will continue to push ahead with the relevant work.