[01 Weekly Editorial] Substitution needs to change minds and accountability is innovating

editorial

Written by: Hong Kong 01

2020-04-27 06:00

Last Wednesday (April 22), Chief Executive Lin Zhengyue met with the media and announced the personnel changes of the accountability team. In addition to the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, Nie Dequan will be transferred to the Secretary for the Civil Service, Liu Jianghua, the Civil Affairs Bureau, Luo Zhiguang, the Civil Service Bureau, Yang Weixiong, Innovation and Technology Bureau, and Liu Yixiang, the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau, were removed It was Lin Zheng ’s accountability team, and the biggest change since the implementation of the accountability system.

Lin Zheng did not give a specific explanation for the personnel "earthquake". The outside world can only interpret whether the officials of Lok Ma were "accounted" and "accountability". On the one hand, some officials who made mistakes still sit in their seats. The Secretary of Justice Zheng Ruohua and the Secretary of the Security Bureau, Li Jiachao, who dealt with improper demonstrations and amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance last year, remain unaccountable; One member of this wave of personnel changes, he just made inconsistent remarks on the status of the Liaison Office, exposing a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Basic Law and unfamiliar with the relevant literature, but apparently he has not been prosecuted for this. Redeployment.

Apart from looking at the changes of senior officials' personnel with the attitude of hunting novels and gossip, what is more worthy of consideration is what is the meaning of "accountability" itself? Since the outbreak of anti-revision laws, society has called for officials to "account". It ’s not a cold day. The movement was triggered by political contradictions, but it completely detonated the public grievances accumulated under the long-term distortion of the social and economic structure. The current problem is not caused by the current chief executive and accountable officials, but by the governors who have been unable to promote reform and govern Hong Kong for a long time.

In this regard, the "anti-amendment example" is only the result, not the cause. If we only treat "accountability" with the thinking of "making a big-headed Buddha", we will not be able to cure Hong Kong's society. Therefore, both the government and society must change their understanding of what is meant by "accountability".

"Anti-revision" is only the result, not the cause. (Profile picture / Associated Press)

Public Servant Mentality Do Less Mistakes

All along, the so-called "accountability" is considered to be that officials are held accountable after making important mistakes. This concept has formed a long-standing civil servant culture in Hong Kong. In the civil service system, as long as you follow the rules of the past, you will not make mistakes, and your career can be as stable as Taishan. On the contrary, proposing changes that are different from the past may create new troubles and increase the risk of career advancement. Within this system, civil servants have developed a set of philosophical philosophy of "leave less and make less mistakes" in order to avoid causing trouble to the upper body. Because of this, the Hong Kong government has a long-standing and indifferent work culture.

In retrospect, the first Chief Executive Dong Jianhua established the accountability system for senior officials to a large extent in order to break through this systemic impasse. However, along the way, the thinking of the accountability system has obviously not broken through the above framework. Although neither the chief executive nor the accountable officials belong to the civil service system, they have not seen anything out of the box. Many accountable officials, including two chief executives, are originally from the civil service system, and it is perhaps understandable that it is difficult to get rid of the influence of the values ​​of public servants. The elites recruited from outside the public servant system are all "one into the Houmen deep like the sea", which shows that the accountability system has gone astray.

Not only the civil servants themselves, but the legislature responsible for overseeing the operation of the government has exactly the same requirements as "accountable" officials. Leaving aside the established factions that have always had the image of "royalty", even the democratic factions that often ousted officials. The reason why the democratic faction urges officials to step down is often to pursue the wrongdoing of an official, such as a senior official operating a "private house", an official "stealing" to buy a house, etc. The "Five Major Appeals" raised in the Anti-Amendment Movement last year, asking Lin Zheng to step down, was only to hold him accountable for amending the "Fugitive Offenders Ordinance" and performing poorly.

Democrats often like to use public opinion to measure whether an official has stepped down. Just as Tu Jinshen, a member of the Democratic Legislative Council, responded to this appointment with public opinion to analyze which officials should step down. Popularity certainly has its reference significance, but the reality is that some officials have high popularity, not so much because of their brilliant political achievements, but because they have not done anything that caused controversy.

In response to this appointment and removal, Tu Jinshen, a member of the Democratic Legislative Council, used public opinion to analyze which officials should step down. (Profile picture)

Governance thinking must be dismissive and accountability should be reform-based

Officials should be held accountable for their mistakes. But we should seriously think about it: Should n’t officials be held accountable for being mediocre in politics and only asking for “nothing to happen during their term of office”? Ordinary civil servants are understandable with a "part-time job" mentality, but if the chief executive, principal officials, and some senior officials are like this, this culture and thinking will become one of the obstacles to Hong Kong's reform and resolution of current political issues. Big obstacle.

Some people with unknown reasons think that Hong Kong officials in colonial times were often referred to as elites and high-quality. In the past, there was no problem with governance. What is wrong with following the colonial era's "high-quality" system? Or maybe it is because after the reunification, the "boss" replaced them, which prevented these elites from showing their strengths. This kind of thinking not only ignores history, but also highlights the numbness of turning a blind eye to changes in the world pattern. It is also a typical example of "Han Fei Zi" called "Politics of the First King, Governing the People of the World."

First of all, Hong Kong ’s past development achievements have their historical background and epochal factors. Some successful methods of governing Hong Kong in the past continue to be used, and they may not necessarily solve the current social problems. Not to mention far, is it feasible to use the British Hong Kong government's means to deal with the demonstration against anti-revision law last year? Is it feasible to deal with the economic difficulties caused by the current epidemic with the concept of the financial market officials not intervening in the free market?

In the past, Hong Kong's economy has been able to develop rapidly with the help of mainland and global factors. Opportunities are everywhere, and young people have a high ladder. Even if colonial officials "rule and do nothing", Hong Kong has embarked on a road of prosperity. However, once removed from their era and placed in the present Hong Kong, these old elites may not be able to govern Hong Kong. For example, the two prestigious financial ministers in the colonial era such as Chi Lejia and Guo Bowei, the "free economy" they advocated can not only solve the current dilemma, even the fundamentalist "free market" economic view is like a curse. Hong Kong's economic reforms have stalled. Going out of the world, the neoliberalism in western countries is also facing difficulties. The reason is not because the times are changing, but can't the political thinking of the politicians catch up?

This kind of Song dynasty's belief that as long as you go back to the past, everything is good, "old Hong Kong" feelings, so that many people can not clearly understand what the "responsibility" of "question" in the end of accountability should be. We have always emphasized that what Hong Kong needs most now is to comprehensively and drastically promote reforms politically, socially and economically. Adapting to the times, the so-called "accountability" should be based on "reform"-whether officials have the consciousness and determination, ability and skill, and whether they dare to challenge the structure of vested interests. If the high-ranking people are only greedy for comfort, they only need to do less and make fewer mistakes. Even if they do not make any big mistakes, they will just waste the time of Hong Kong people. The standards of social supervision officials should be based on what they have done and what reform achievements they have achieved.

If the high-ranking people are only greedy for comfort, they only need to do less and make fewer mistakes. Even if they do not make any big mistakes, they will just waste the time of Hong Kong people. (Profile picture)

Establish and improve the assessment system to clarify the accountability standards openly

Back to this personnel change. The four outgoing bureau chiefs have been poor at work. For example, Technological Innovation is a new industry that the Hong Kong government is determined to develop in recent years. As the first Technological Director, Yang Weixiong must have been given a heavy responsibility, but since he took office, Hong Kong has not seen a breakthrough in the field of Technological Innovation. The lack of sufficient Chen is equivalent to no responsibility. Another example is Liu Jianghua. Because of his political background, he has been burdened with "original sin" from the moment he took office. He lacks good job in his work. According to a survey by the Hong Kong Institute of Public Opinion, Liu Jianghua and Yang Weixiong ranked third and fourth among the 13 accountable directors. As for Luo Zhiguang ’s popularity, he was ranked in the middle, and Liu Yixiang ranked second, but this Does it reflect that the latter two have done better? Or is it because they basically have nothing to enter the public eye?

On the whole, whether it involves political factors as guessed by the outside world or is removed because the ability is not recognized by the chief executive, this personnel change has somewhat broken the previous concept of "nothing is wrong", but it is still not enough to be refreshing. The SAR Governance team should build a spirit of reform on this basis, and reflect it in the accountability of officials. It should not even stick to the apparent political ethics. When the incompetent officials are removed, they clearly indicate the reasons for their accountability. Now this personnel transfer has neither explained nor emphasized the importance of reform, but only found some officials to "sacrifice the flag."

The central government's recent high-profile statement on the power to supervise Hong Kong is obviously equivalent to what we call "accountability." Earlier, the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office and the Central Liaison Office bombarded Legislative Councillors Guo Rongkeng. They will be elected as "public officials' misconduct". Some legislators think they can manipulate politics by disregarding other norms, laws and responsibilities.

Due to his political background, Liu Jianghua bears the "original sin" from the moment of taking office, and he lacks good job in his work, and he is as good as sin. (Profile picture)

On the other hand, at the Fourth Plenary Session of the Nineteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China in November last year, the Central Committee has mentioned the need to improve the system of appointment and removal of chief executives and principal officials of the SAR. On the surface, the appointment and removal process of the principal officials of the SAR has been effective for many years, and there seems to be no need for improvement. However, from the perspective of the state ’s management requirements for administrative agencies, the supervision of the governance of the SAR obviously also includes the Officials have new "accountability" requirements.

Whether it is within the Legislative Council or within the government, Hong Kong itself should establish a mechanism to improve the overall accountability system, rather than waiting for the central authorities to correct everything like a child who is not growing up. In the Legislative Council, it is necessary to put an end to the use of voters to "cross bridges" to manipulate the populist politics; in the government, there must be a set of open and transparent accountability standards and mechanisms that include training, assessment, rewards and punishments. To get out of the present dilemma, Hong Kong must start by eliminating the old thinking of "did less and do less" by officials. It is necessary to push the powerful officials to the reform train and measure their level by political achievements, not just stick to the superficial public opinion. .

[01 Weekly Editorial] Competition in the epidemic please invite the government to work harder!

[01 Weekly Editorial] Hong Kong is so poor that it only needs money to "emancipate the mind"

[01 Weekly Editorial] "Distributing money" is forced to rebirth in Hong Kong and still looking at structural reform

[01 Weekly Editorial] How to solve the deep dilemma due to the lack of governance ideas

Read more weekly articles: [01 Weekly News Page]

Please pay attention to the 211th issue of "Hong Kong 01" weekly newspaper published on April 27. It is available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores.

You can also subscribe to the weekly report here to read more in-depth reports.

Lin Zhengxin's civil servant anti-revision demonstration Yang Weixiong Liu Jianghua Luo Zhiguang Liu Yixiang Lin Zhengyue 01 views