When Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office director Xia Baolong recently described Hong Kong’s executive-led system as a distinct governance model, he elevated it from an administrative arrangement to constitutional doctrine. A doctrine is not merely about structure. It is about how governance power is exercised. In Hong Kong’s executive-led system, that exercise begins with engaging the governed.

The national security white paper unveiled earlier this month highlights the need to achieve both high-standard security and high-quality development. Security and progress are mutually reinforcing, and a key bridge between them is engagement. Without structured engagement that builds consent, high-level security and high-quality progress cannot be fully realised.

Under the Basic Law, the chief executive is the head of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the head of the SAR government. Standing at the apex of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, the chief executive bears dual accountability – accountable to both the central people’s government and to Hong Kong.

This dual responsibility is central to the governance philosophy. A sound structure does not automatically produce good governance; the governance philosophy of engaging the governed is vital.

If the chief executive is the head of the system, the civil service is its backbone and operational limbs. Hong Kong’s civil servants have long been admired for their efficiency and competence. They are one of Hong Kong’s most valuable governance assets.

Yet given Hong Kong society’s sophistication and rising expectations, administrative competence alone is insufficient. A system may still falter if it does not embed effective channels for aggregating public opinion and building consent in policy formulation and implementation.

Under executive-led governance, legislators as the elected representatives of the Hong Kong people and civil servants as implementers of policy are not two parallel tracks moving separately. They are the left and right arms of the same constitutional body. Their common purpose is to support the chief executive in fulfilling dual accountability.

Civil servants ought to recognise that their expertise alone does not guarantee successful policy implementation. They must recalibrate their mindset, from one of top-down administration to one that incorporates structured bottom-up feedback loops as routine.

Engagement should not be an afterthought, to be practised if and when resistance emerges; it should be embedded in the policy design. The Civil Service College should strengthen this governance mindset and skill set in its training curriculum.

Two recent episodes illustrate why such a mindset and skill set are needed. The reversal of the seat belt rule for bus passengers was not due to community complacency about traffic safety. Rather, it exposed the government’s failure to fully engage commuters, elderly passengers and frontline transport operators in the policy’s design and implementation.

Likewise, the waste charging scheme was shelved after years of preparation not because of our community’s lack of environmental responsibility, but because implementers did not sufficiently engage the public to forge consensus and readiness. In both cases, the policy objectives had community support, but the policy design and implementation fell short.

Administrative efficiency without consensus-building risks producing technically correct but socially brittle outcomes.

We can also take a page from the mainland, where a local governance practice offers a useful lesson. “Street offices” (jiedaoban) form a foundational layer of governance across mainland Chinese cities and towns. These frontline administrative units gather feedback from residents and work alongside government departments to provide essential municipal services and maintain public order. They serve as channels through which residents’ concerns are aggregated, services co-designed, and concerns resolved before escalating into policy friction.

In Chengdu, which I visited recently on a study mission, these community platforms have evolved into integrated neighbourhood hubs where residents participate in co-designing services, resolving local issues and shaping district-level initiatives. Engagement is not symbolic consultation after decisions are taken, but rather iterative involvement before policies are formalised.

Hong Kong does not need to replicate mainland institutions. We already have our own network – comprising kaifong associations, community care teams, area committees and district councils – that links communities with government departments. Properly integrated into upstream policymaking, these bodies can effectively channel public concerns early, test feasibility and refine implementation strategies before friction escalates.

The Legislative Council likewise plays a critical role. It represents the organised voices of the whole community, reflecting concerns and interests that cut across the different sectors and policy areas, from the economy and finance to healthcare and education. Legislators have the networks and resources to actively engage their constituencies, synthesise public concerns and collaborate with the executive to ensure that policies and the relevant legislation are practicable and broadly supported.

Xia’s message, read in full, is not simply about strengthening the executive-led structure. It is about strengthening coherence, ensuring that the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary function in synergy under the chief executive’s leadership.

In China’s 15th five-year plan, Hong Kong faces a critical period of economic repositioning within the Greater Bay Area and beyond. Innovation, finance and industrial upgrading require policy agility. Policy agility, in turn, requires public confidence. And confidence can be built only when Hong Kong people see that their concerns are addressed before decisions are locked in.

As Hong Kong progresses from stability to progress, we should remember that stability is the floor, not the ceiling. Authority secured by law ensures stability. Authority grounded in consensus forges progress that can break through our ceilings.