Civil service law under review by parliamentary committee

The bill to review the civil servant law was passed yesterday at its first reading in parliament with two abstention votes, but will nevertheless later be discussed at the committee level prior to its second reading.

In his introductory speech on the law review, Secretary for Administration and Justice André Cheong pointed out that if passed, the bill would be helpful in lessening excessive authorization, a term used to describe the current situation in which any policy or directive needs authority from each level before implementation.

Another major need for the law review, the secretary stressed, is that the law review would provide legal grounds for assigning civil servants to work at the Guangdong-Macao In-depth Cooperation Zone in Hengqin. He has also made similar comments on previous occasions.

Elaborating on the improvements to the issue of excessive authorization, Cheong said that the provision of everyday power being transferred from the supervisory entity to recipients, such as heads of bureaus, is included in the bill.

This is crucial to facilitate daily administration, the secretary said in response to several lawmakers’ questions, given that certain day-to-day matters are not currently within the bureau heads’ authority. For example, he highlighted, the proposal will allow bureau heads to authorize annual leave transfers due to personal reasons of the applicants.

The bill also proposes that civil servants be legally allowed to work outside of their regular workplaces “to avoid conditions such as gathering of crowds due to endemics or pandemics.” In addition, personal records will also be treated as valid in digital form if the bill becomes law.

Currently, there are four types of mobility methods in the public service: reassignment, requisition, dispatch and reallocation. The first three are applicable for permanent staff and contractors.

It is proposed that the four methods be merged into two, with reassignment and dispatch retained. Their applicability will also be generalized to all civil servants. A movement of staff can take place prior to the career structure or ladder of the concerned staff member exists in the recipient bureau. 

Regulations on internal transfer are also clarified in the bill, which will allow transfers to occur between general and special careers – the two types of career trajectories in the public service. The aforementioned reassignment and dispatch mechanisms will be applicable to all civil servants after the passing of the bill.

The eligibility for temporary regular assignments – which usually concern division, department or bureau heads – was also suggested to be expanded to suit the development of Hengqin, which is legally co-administered by both Guangdong and Macau. Currently, Macau civil servants assigned to Hengqin are considered to be on business trips, a situation which Cheong described as unreasonable.

The bill contains a proposal that concerns many civil servants as well as lawmakers. It proposes that in the future, when a reassignment or an internal transfer is deemed necessary in reality by a concerned senior official, the opinions of relevant heads of bureaus and civil servants will not be binding.

On the contrary, the current mode is that if the relevant civil servant is not willing to accept the move, it will not happen.

Defending the proposal, Cheong suggests that if no change is realized in this area, internal staff movement or transfers will remain as difficult as they are now. In fact, the current system allows a civil servant to refuse a designation to division or department head, which is sometimes not in the government’s interest.

Cheong also emphasized that the bill aims at altering the mindset that a civil servant is hired by a particular bureau. In contrast, they are hired by the government, which should have the right to redistribute them.

José Pereira Coutinho and ally Che Sai Wang abstained from voting on the bill due to the lack of consultation with local civil servant groups and the disrespect to civil servants’ rights to refuse reassignment.