With strong support from Beijing, Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) won an uncontested second term as chief executive of Hong Kong. Due to the poor performance of officials and complaints from the public, Tung has proposed an accountability system for officials which in effect amounts to a ministerial system. Beginning on July 1 the territory's efficient civil service will be replaced, creating a major change in the way Hong Kong is administered.
The territory's civil service has been known for its efficiency and honesty, and has been called one of the world's best civil services.
Even China approves of it. Article 103 of the "Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China," stipulates that: "Hong Kong's previous system of recruitment, employment, assessment, discipline training and management for [sic] the public service, including special bodies for their appointment, pay and conditions of service, shall be maintained, except for any provisions for privileged treatment of foreign nationals."
After the transfer of sovereignty from the UK to China in 1997, all department secretaries and officials, apart from those in the Department of Justice (British citizens), were retained.
Only five years later, however, the Chinese promise of 50 years without any changes to the way Hong Kong is administered is being tossed out. In order to implement a new accountability system, Tung forced the former chief secretary for administration, Anson Chan (陳方安生), to resign a year ago. She was succeeded by Financial Secretary Donald Tsang (曾蔭權), whose replacement in the finance post was Antony Leung (梁錦松).
Of the three department secretaries, both Elsie Leung (梁愛詩), the secretary of justice, and Antony Leung, are patriots who have been brought into the system by Tung from outside the ranks of the civil service. The only holdover from the British era is Chief Secretary Donald Tsang. Together with Tung and the Executive Council -- which Tung appoints -- these three department secretaries have become the decision makers in Hong Kong. Among them are a few covert members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
This year, however, Hong Kong's economy has not improved and it is not very convincing when Tung tries to blame this on his officials.
Tung's official report to the Legislative Council (Legco) on April 17 finalized the structure of the new accountability system. It will consist of three department secretaries and 11 bureau secretaries. The three departments will remain the same as today, while the 11 bureaus will be created by merging some of the current ones.
The 14 secretaries will not have the administrative neutrality they enjoyed in the past when they worked in accordance with a complete legal system. Rather, Tung will make political appointments and the appointees will, in turn, be accountable to Tung. If any mistakes are committed, the person judged responsible for the error may be dismissed at any time. Whether any mistakes are actually committed will of course be decided by Tung.
This constitutes a change from the rule of law to rule by man. Since not all of these secretaries will be officials appointed from among the bureaucrats remaining from the old system -- and therefore protected by that system, Tung will be able to create his own clique. The department and bureau secretaries will create a "cabinet" together with members from the Executive Council. Bureau secretaries who are not appointed will be demoted to standing secretary-generals responsible for implementing policies handed down from above.
The reaction in Hong Kong to this new system is complicated. Since Tung has previously criticized public officials for, among other things, their high salaries and laziness, some in Hong Kong consider it a positive reform because they hear the word "accountability." Newspapers, including so-called "intellectual" newspapers, also approve of the move towards accountability.
Democracy advocates and scholars, however, believe that this will bring Tung one step further in the expansion of his dictatorial powers. CCP loyalists are of course supportive.
The question is: To whom are these officials accountable? In ministerial systems in democratic countries, public officials are accountable to popularly elected leaders and legislators. Tung, however, is not popularly elected, and neither are most of the Legco members. Accountability to Tung is therefore accountability to him personally and not to the citizens of Hong Kong.
If Beijing or Tung really are set on reform, they should first imple-ment democratic reforms to institute elections of both Legco members and the chief executive on the basis of one person, one vote. A true ministerial system in which officials are accountable to the chief executive will only exist when that chief executive is democratically elected.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS