The Audit Commission's investigations into the efficiency of government recruitment procedures have exposed a litany of quite worrying faults.

With a workforce of about 162,000, the government is by far Hong Kong's biggest employer - in which case you would anticipate that while choosy and somewhat punctilious in selecting newcomers to join its ranks, it would also have in place fixed and efficient procedures to assess candidates' qualities, so the best would be "cherry-picked".

During 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively, 9,784 and 9,595 additional Civil Service appointments were made. Presumably these newcomers filled vacancies in efficiently run bureaus and departments (B/Ds) that appreciate and act promptly on the staffing needs involved in keeping the wheels of government turning.

But it is obvious that not every B/D is quick off the mark when it comes to recruiting staff to fill vacancies caused by natural attrition, or perhaps to take up new positions as government services expand. Some dither instead of making expeditious decisions.

Not surprisingly, the government's recruitment policy is that B/Ds should conduct open recruiting exercises so they cast the widest net possible to single out the best and most appropriate candidates.

The main problem the Audit Commission discovered was what happened after the recruiting exercise had been completed, and the process moved forward to assessment and ultimate selection of the most suitable applicants.

What happened was that incisive and expeditious selection of the best recruits did not necessarily happen across all B/Ds.

Between 2010 and 2012, 343 open government recruitment exercises were conducted. But in 21 percent of those exercises in 2010-11, and 20 percent of those in 2011-12, there was a gap of more than eight months before any offers of employment were made.

Obviously the best-credentialed university graduates who applied for government vacancies would also have applied for jobs with the leading hongs, banks and commercial power houses, not to mention the glitzy multinationals which dot Central's landscape, instead of passively sitting around waiting for a reply from the government. In all likelihood, many would have commenced work before a reply from the government was received.

And, having waited so long for an answer from the government, all but a few (probably offspring of senior civil servants) would have bothered to reply to the government's belated approach.

The Audit Commission's investigations also found time-saving measures like e-mails were not used in 43 exercises. (Unbelievable but true!)

Oddly, the biggest offender turns out to be the Correctional Services Department. Could it be that since things proceed rather slowly sentence-wise in our penal institutions, its efficiency was equally affected?

(HK Edition 04/17/2014 page9)