[2] All the posts were created, ostensibly to work closely with bureau secretaries and top civil servants to implement the Chief Executive's policy blueprint and agenda in an executive-led government.
[4] The public furore led Hong Kong affairs in-charge Xi Jinping to refer to "the recent difficulties", and to urge Tsang to "govern sensibly and reasonably.
He promised more ideas would be announced in the Chief Executive's Policy Address in October, saying proposals would be open for consultation by the civil service, political groups and the community.
However, its passage through the Executive Council was reportedly hastened as a result of the heightened debate on universal suffrage driven by Regina Ip and Anson Chan,[9] undeclared candidates in the 2007 Hong Kong Island by-election.
[8] Lam further argued that Hong Kong's political team of 14 Policy Secretaries was too thin compared with Canada and the United Kingdom, for example, where two or three layers of ministers speak on behalf of the government.
[10] The proposal appeared to coincide with the ideas contained in a study by the Bauhinia Foundation to increase civic engagement launched in early July 2007.
[8] Lau Kong-wah, vice chairman of the government-friendly Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) remarked that two more directorate-level layers may make it less easy to implement government policies.
[8] Frontier convenor Emily Lau said the requirement for new appointees to agree with the chief executive's philosophy suggested the government was merely looking for a way to offer well-paid jobs to its supporters.
Tsang added that restricting the posts to those without overseas abode rights would be detrimental to the aim of absorbing and grooming more talented political hopefuls.
[28] An editorial in The Standard said that a nationality restriction would reduce the pool of potential talent available for government, and accused "the opposition" of singling out So because of his membership of the DAB.
[30] As at 4 June 2008, five undersecretaries had declared they were giving up their foreign passports citing public opinion as an overriding factor, and one assistant had also initiated the renunciation process.
He said that the Basic Law made it clear that Principal Officials must be Chinese citizens and Hong Kong permanent residents with no right of abode in a foreign country.
He pointed out that deputy directors of bureau were not principal officials, are not appointed by the Central People's Government, and as such are not prohibited from having right-of-abode in a foreign country.
[17] Pan-democrats continued to charge that the recruiting of political appointees was a "black-box operation", but Chief Secretary Henry Tang defended the transparency of the process.
Tsang added: "Although the mechanism is different from that of civil servants, impartiality and internal checks and balances were already included – [the appointments had been] scrutinised and approved by a recruitment committee.
[33] Director of the Chief Executive's Office, Norman Chan, admitted the government had underestimated the public reaction on the nationality of political appointees.
[4] In a continued attempt to contain the row, Stephen Lam said on 16 June that the future appointees would be contractually bound to reveal their salaries and be advised to disclose their nationalities.
"[17] Leading figures in education lamented the "waste of HK$4m" for their sectorial deputies, and expressed their concern about the exact roles Kenneth Chan and Jeremy Young would play.
[1] The undersecretary's pay of HK$220,000 per month (US$28,000) is more than the salary of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and also more than Alan Greenspan earned as the chairman of the US Federal Reserve.
[48] An opinion piece in the Asia Times suggested the scheme would reward loyalists, bolster support for Tsang and please Beijing, under cover of fostering political talent.
Only two of the eight new deputies have professional backgrounds that can recommend them for the position, thus reminding the author of the chief executive's "bent to surround himself with lightweight, Beijing-friendly political lackeys loathe to offer dissenting views.
"[49] Frank Ching believes that the system of political appointees has eroded the importance of the civil service, the highest-ranking of whom now implement policies instead of draw them up.
He implied that the decline in morale since 2002, due to three successive layers of political appointees being introduced, has caused once loyal and silent bureaucrats such as John Chan and Joseph Wong to criticise the government vocally.
He observed that when the proposed scheme was before Legco, councillors failed to ask the government to explain or clarify what specific criteria or guidelines the Appointments Committee and principal officials would use.
Xi advised Tsang how the "difficulties" he faced [in making the appointments] could be overcome:[5] "Our expectations for the administration team can be summed up in two phrases: [govern] sensibly and reasonably; solidarity and high efficiency"The Democratic Party tabled a motion to invoke Legislative Council (Power and Privileges) Ordinance to force the government to disclose the criteria for choosing and justification for making each appointment, and for determining their remuneration.
Donald Tsang delivered an unprecedented 20-minute speech prior to the start of the debate on a motion tabled by Lee Wing Tat in an attempt to quell the criticism.