June, 2008

Showcase of Political Participation by Few :
Political Appointment without Accountability

Jason TOO Kin-wai

To further expand the political accountability of the senior government officials, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yum-kuen appointed the first batch of eight under-secretaries (deputy directors of bureaux) and nine political assistants on 20th and 22nd May.

The expansion of the accountability system was first announced in the 2005-06 Policy Address and, after consultation in 2006, the Report on Further Development of the Political Appointment System issued in October 2007. The Political Appointment System (PAS) with the remuneration system was approved by the Finance Committee of LegCo, with 29 members for and 16 against government’s proposal, on 14 December 2007.

While the SAR government proudly announced the appointment, it was responded with queries and criticisms against the credibility of the appointees and the system. The issues include the citizenship of the appointees, their remuneration package and the selection process. It resulted in a motion, with accordance to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382), by a lawmaker to demand the Director of Chief Executive’s Office attend before the Council and disclose the materials regarding the salary and fringe benefits of the political appointees.

Credibility Test: Nationality and Right of Abode Issue
Soon after the announcement of the appointment, a local paper disclosed that five out of the eight under secretaries were holding passports or right of abode in foreign countries. LegCo members from pro-democracy camp queried their citizenship contravening the Basic Law Article 61 which states that: “the principal officials shall be Chinese citizens who are permanent residents of the Region with no right of abode in any foreign country and have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 15 years.” In view of the case that under secretaries will deputize for directors of bureau during the latter’s absence, the spirit of Article 61 should be applied to the under secretaries. However, Stephen Lam, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affair, replied to LegCo member Martin Lee on 4 June that “they are not subject to the requirement of having no right of abode in any foreign country, as in the case of Principal Officials."

The problem arises when Frederick Ma, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Affair Bureau, resigns because of brain tumor. Will Gregory So Kam-leung, under secretary for commerce and economic affair, be appointed to be acting secretary? If so, he performs the role of a principal official and the expectation for compliance to the Basic Law Article 61 is reasonable and justified. If not, he only shares limited political responsibility and becomes part of a political showcase.

Transparency Test: Recruitment and Remuneration Issue
Following the announcement, there were demands for the government to disclose the salaries of each political appointees. Initially the government was reluctant to provide detailed information on their remuneration package. But after oral questions by LegCo members and sustained public interest, the appointed under secretaries and political assistants decided to disclose their personal remuneration.

To much surprise, the monthly salary for the youngest appointee Paul Chan Chi-yuen, 28, political assistant for food and health, is HK$134,150 which is four times of his previous income. The most experienced appointee, Tam Chi-yuen, under secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs, does not receive the highest pay as Gregory So. Criticisms arise over how the pay levels of the appointees are commensurate with their experiences and expertise. Even though all the appointees denied that they take up the job because of the salary. Doubt has been cast upon the answer.

Sensitivity Test: Privacy and Public Expectation
The nationality and remuneration row over PAS illustrates the political insensitivity of an arrogant administration. While the public was concerned about the issue of right of abode in foreign countries and the pay level, the government appealed to personal data or privacy as excuse, suggesting that it was a private corporation’s commercial secret. The government’s excuse only fuels the flame of discontents among the public, which motivates further actions to challenge the recognition of PAS.

The credibility and transparency issues were hardly explained away. It is the political expectation rather than the legal or constitutional requirement that matters.

Political Participation by few or all?
For people of Hong Kong, they expect PAS with accountability and transparency. The appointment was claimed to broaden the political participation but the outcome is the closure of political circle. It is a counter example to a democratic system which should be open and accountable. Even though the present PAS is not accountable it does not get rid of people’s aspiration for open and responsible governance.

The Chief Executive is supposedly to be apolitical, but the political appointment only build up a de facto political party power base for the Chief Executive. As the Chief Executive was elected by less than 800 socio-economic and political elites in Hong Kong, the appointment only reinforce the administrative hegemony which is undemocratic.

The unexpected responses from the public is more than a quest for transparency and accountability, it is also a demand for universal suffrage and more open political participation.