Social News
Special content
Written by: customer contribution
2021-02-22 08:00
Last update date: 2021-02-22 08:00
"At the beginning of Hong Kong’s return, the SAR government’s administrative management and civil servants were highly professional and highly commended, but social development became more and more complex and changeable, and government governance and administrative problems began to emerge, such as the inability to solve some social and economic problems. Structural contradictions, from local livelihood affairs to major crisis response, have also disappointed the public from time to time. The administrative departments have been criticized for bureaucratic rigidity, avoidance or "off the ground", and even public opinion claims that the "civil servant myth" has been shattered." Vice Chairman Zhou Haoding
In the "Global Competitiveness Report 2019" of the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong ranks 3rd overall in competitiveness and 5th in terms of system. However, in its sub-items, "the government's ability to respond to changes" and "the government's long-term vision" The rankings are only 17 and 16 respectively (the top two rankings are Singapore), which to a certain extent reflects the administrative problems of the Hong Kong government and how these problems affect Hong Kong’s competitiveness.
We believe that one of the directions for reforming Hong Kong is to improve efficiency through administrative reforms so that the government can respond faster and better to citizens' demands and social development challenges.
The DAB has been asking the government to use the "Land Resumption Ordinance" to expropriate land, build public housing, and rebuild the hope of "three years" of waiting list citizens.
At first glance, there are four issues that need to be resolved.
First of all, in the current promotion mechanism for civil servants, regardless of merit, as long as they don't make mistakes, they will be able to advance step by step until they retire. On the contrary, officials who act courageously may stop their careers if they make mistakes.
This can easily lead to bureaucratic circumvention.
Second, rewards and punishments are not clear.
Civil servants who work hard are not rewarded, and the mechanism for dealing with punishment is complicated, takes too long, and can be counted in years at every turn, making it impossible to distinguish between rewards and punishments.
Third, some departments have complicated work processes, too long involved, and no clear processing time standards, which has caused many tasks to be delayed and even fell into the sea.
This aspect is particularly prominent in land development planning.
Fourth, the overall coordination of different departments, as well as the cooperation between politically appointed officials and civil servants are insufficient.
A more prominent example is that government land involves different administrative departments, and these departments operate independently, causing many health and management problems that cannot be resolved for a long time.
Earlier, some people organized political gatherings in the name of civil servants and called on other civil servants to participate in political gatherings and strikes, with the intention of putting pressure on the government. The DAB considered that the principle of political neutrality of civil servants was seriously undermined and expressed regret.
We believe that the current promotion and discipline system for government personnel should be reviewed, and a clearer reward and punishment mechanism should be established. In particular, rewards must be emphasized to encourage government personnel to work bravely and actively solve problems for the public, while streamlining procedures to eliminate red tape and bureaucratic rigidity. Establish a new administrative style that can truly serve the public and respond to the needs of society.
At the same time, the SAR government should further improve the coordination of departments and the cooperation between politically appointed officials and civil servants.
On the other hand, Hong Kong has a good judicial system, which has played an important role in maintaining Hong Kong's status as an international city and financial center.
However, we should also see that some problems that have emerged in judicial work in recent years have attracted more and more attention from the society.
First of all, judicial review applications have soared, from only 112 before the reunification to 3,889 in 2019, which also reflects the abuse of judicial review.
Recent examples illustrate some problems.
The Court of Appeal criticized the review case concerning Ding Quan. The small house policy was enacted in 1972, the Bill of Rights Ordinance was enacted in 1991, and the Basic Law has been implemented for 23 years. The applicant is now requesting a review, and the time delay is astonishing.
At the same time, the applicant has no actual interests affected, and has no position to file a lawsuit.
The Court of Appeal held that even if the applicant wins the legal opinion, the court will not issue relief measures.
We should reflect on why the applicant can obtain legal aid for such a lawsuit without practical significance?
When the Legal Aid Department approves legal aid, it must strictly control unreasonable applications. However, studies have pointed out that as the number of successful cases for review applications continues to increase significantly, the proportion of successful cases is less than 40%.
It can be said that the abuse of judicial review has a lot to do with the lax control of legal aid approval.
It is worth mentioning that in the past 15 years, Cheung Chau review king Guo Zhuojian has filed more than 50 judicial review applications. Except for one victory and several voluntary withdrawals, the others have lost.
We believe that the current legal aid support judicial review system must be reviewed. Judicial review could have been a statutory channel for government supervision. However, abuse of judicial review must be avoided so that Hong Kong's judicial system can develop healthily.
Another issue of social concern in recent years is the sentencing of criminal cases by courts. Sometimes faced with serious crimes in violent crimes, the sentences are too light and not deterrent. The public is mistaken for the court to encourage violent crimes in disguise, and the public will inevitably question the court. The standard of judgment.
The society has always demanded that violators be punished as soon as possible. No matter what reasons the offenders use, they should not be above the law.
We believe that the objectivity and consistency of sentencing affect public confidence.
At the same time, judicial operations are not isolated from society. Courts must assume the responsibility of upholding the rule of law, public order and good customs, and social moral values.
We should adopt an open attitude and refer to the practice of common law regions such as the United Kingdom. We should actively study the establishment of sentencing committees to formulate and revise sentencing guidelines and set more objective standards for sentencing. Only in this way can we strengthen public confidence in the judiciary and strengthen the judicial system.
One point to add is that at present, courts often appeal through criminal cases, and the higher courts issue sentencing guidelines, which often takes several years and may not be able to keep pace with the times.
Huang Zhifeng’s attack on Civic Square that day, from the initial verdict of the Magistrates’ Office, to the final appeal of the new sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Final Appeal, took several years as an example.
Finally, there is of course a review of the mechanism for handling complaints about the conduct of judges. For example, when the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal Zhang Juneng took office, he pointed out that the current mechanism does have problems and there is room for improvement, and he promised to review it.
We believe that we can refer to the establishment of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office in the United Kingdom to provide a more credible mechanism to handle complaints about judges’ conduct that do not involve judgments.
Written by: Zhou Haoding, Vice Chairman of the DAB
(Photo provided by the DAB)
DAB feed