Civil, not servile

Despite constant pledges, the official accountability system has seemingly failed to get off the ground – with some saying it’s an almost impossible mission due to the local political structure

In the wake of the nepotism scandal of the city’s former and current Secretaries for justice and administration, as well as a series of irregular practices committed by civil servants highlighted in the latest watchdog report, accountability has recently, and belatedly, become one of the key words in the local political lexicon.

While officials reiterate they would continue to improve the political accountability of officials, the pledge seems like another hollow slogan – the system has often been criticised for failing to live up to the vision, given the opaqueness of the Administration and the political landscape of the city, say observers.

After years of discussion about the accountability system authorities finally published two statues stating the obligations and responsibilities of officials in 2009 and 2010, respectively -one for principal officials like Secretaries, and another for bureau directors and heads of division and departments.

Although the two statues have gradually come into force – and are regarded as the fundamental planks of the accountability system – the closest example that officials are being held responsible for their mistakes is Fong Soi Kun, former Director of the Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau.

Fong was held responsible for not issuing timely warnings when Typhoon Hato struck the city in 2017, leading to the deaths of 10 people. But he retired from the civil service before authorities could conduct an investigation and impose disciplinary action, leading to criticism that he took advantage of a loophole in the accountability system to avoid heavy penalties.

Bad example

“Although there are statues here concerning the obligations of principal and senior officials there is a lack of a clear follow-up penalty system,” said legislator Ho Ion Sang. “This makes it difficult for the accountability system to be effectively in place.”

Due to the lack of transparency of the government it is also almost impossible for the public to know whether changes in the top positions of public bodies are due to periodic personnel shuffling or whether officials are being held accountable for sub-par performances, the lawmaker added.

Guilherme Ung Vai Meng, for example, the former Director of the Cultural Affairs Bureau, retired in 2017, weeks before a report from the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) came to light lambasting him for bypassing the standard procedures for staff recruitment.

“It’s no wonder the public thinks the accountability system here exists in name only,” said Mr. Ho. “Without a proper official accountability system this will also set a bad example for middle-to-low level civil servants.”

Mounting pressure

Calls for the government to optimise the system have intensified again in recent times after the corruption watchdog, which also conducts the functions of Ombudsman here, found Florinda da Rosa Silva Chan and Sonia Chan Hoi Fan, the former and current Secretary for Administration and Justice, not violating any regulations for recommending family members to work in the Public Prosecutor’s Office in 1999 and 2008, respectively, given the lack of applicable regulations at the time.

But the CCAC still criticised the actions of these officials, saying the incidents conjured up a negative image of the city’s administration and urged the government to continue improve the accountability system. Weeks later the annual working report of the watchdog highlighted a number of cases of malfeasance and irregular practices of civil servants, exerting further pressure upon the Administration to optimise accountability.

In April, the Legislative Assembly approved three motions initiated by Assembly members to debate the integrity and accountability system of officials.

Nelson Kot Man Kam, president of Macau Civil Servants Sports Association, said there are already clear and strict rules supervising and holding low-to-middle level civil servants accountable for mistakes.

“But the accountability system for officials has been far from satisfactory,” he lamented. “Whenever there are cases concerning them the Administration will skirt the responsibility and let the CCAC conduct investigations before taking any action.”

Whilst he thinks it is of paramount importance to enhance the transparency of the system, he stressed “it is also important for officials to be aware that they are under public scrutiny.”

Pledges

Amid mounting public pressure, optimising accountability has been included in official rhetoric for years. In the Policy Address of 2013, the government pledged it would enhance the awareness of accountability among officials with promotions and talks about integrity while it would also establish ‘a comprehensive performance assessment system for officials.’

Four years later, the government was still vowing in its Policy Address to continue to facilitate the performance assessment system for officials, while ‘strengthening the accountability system’.

In the Policy Address for this year, authorities said a taskforce had been formed last year to conduct a comprehensive review of the obligations and disciplinary system for officials, and that the taskforce had made recommendations for possible changes: this year, the Administration would formulate a proposal and undertake consultation . . .

A third-party academic report on public opinion of government departments would also be completed by mid-2019, which would serve as part of the basis for the assessment of public bodies and officials, the Policy Address for 2019 reads.

Beijing appointments

“The government has always said it would improve, strengthen and optimise the officials’ accountability system but as yet there hasn’t been any successful outcome,” said political commentator Larry So Man Yum.

The academic referenced the challenges for the implementation of an accountability system – especially for principal officials – resulting from the political structure here.

“The principal officials here are appointed by the central government,” he said, “so the termination of their jobs depends upon Beijing.”

The principal officials here refer to the five Secretaries, heads of the CCAC and the Commission of Audit, the Commissioner-General of the Unitary Police Service, and the Director-General of Customs.

“When talking about holding them accountable, what could be the possible disciplinary actions? Sacking them or fining them? But are these feasible . . . ?” Mr. So questioned.

The principal officials’ accountability system in Hong Kong has similarly been under attack and criticism regarding its efficacy for years, he pointed out.

“Like Hong Kong, the Macau Administration is not set up by popular vote, meaning the public has limited means to impose pressure upon the government and hold [officials] accountable,” So concluded.


One pct hike in civil service force

In the third quarter of last year the number of civil servants in the city reahed 31,583, representing a growth of 0.97 per cent over 2017, according to the latest figures from the Public Administration and Civil Service Bureau.

The growth was the lowest for the past five years, when annual growth exceeded 4 per cent in 2014 and 2015, respectively, the figures show.

The areas under the Secretariat for Security accounted for the largest share of the civil service force, or more than 35.6 per cent, followed by the Secretariat for Social Affairs and Culture (27.4 per cent) and the Secretariat for Administration and Justice (13 per cent).

Nearly two-thirds of civil servants, or 20,507, were born in Macau, while Mainland Chinese-born workers represent a significant 28 per cent, or 8,843 civil servants. Only 289 personnel born in Portugal are in the Macau civil service, or just one per cent of the total, the data reveals.

While the city is touted as a platform for China and Portuguese-speaking countries and a world tourism centre, the figures show that some 31 per cent of civil servants speak and write Portuguese, and that just 60 per cent can speak and write English.