## Notes from 03 March 2026 [[2026-03-02|← Previous note]] ┃ [[2026-03-04|Next note →]] [Great point](https://geoffmulgan.substack.com/p/eric-morecambe-and-the-challenge) by [[Geoff Mulgan]] on how bad HR is in government. We really need better ways to induct and mentor top leaders - both politicians and officials, so talented people don't end up in the wrong roles. ___ [[Federation of American Scientists (FAS)|FAS]] announced the launch of its new [Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI)](https://fas.org/publication/cri-launch/), a hub meant to modernize how government implements policy by bridging high-level regulatory design with on-the-ground execution. While Brazil’s [[Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência (SBPC)]] often comes across as corporatist, focusing more on defending the interests of a specific group (civil servants) than redesigning institutions, FAS feels almost abundance-pilled. They are interested in using scientific knowledge to build state capacity and modernize rules. ___ Read a [report on Hong Kong](https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/hong-kong-throws-open-two-top-civil-service-posts-in-bold-shake-up-of-governing-ranks/) opening two high-level civil service jobs to public competitive recruitment for the first time. These are senior posts historically filled internally through the Administrative Officer (AO) grade, [[Public Sector Reform in Hong Kong|Hong Kong]]'s equivalent of a career fast-stream where promotion to the top follows a closed, seniority-based track. The move breaks with the traditional weberian (?) logic: both roles are now advertised externally, offered on fixed-term three-year contracts with no further posting or promotion, and framed around mission-driven leadership and organizational change. The report states that the selection criteria include passing the _Basic Law and National Security Law Test_ (BLNST), political acumen, and law enforcement experience as a "distinct advantage". What interests me is how the reporting reveals three governance logics operating simultaneously, not within the recruitment exercise itself but in the way the whole shift is framed and justified. - The **traditional administrative logic** is the baseline being disrupted: the closed AO track, lifetime careers, internal promotion as default. That system is presented as the old order, the thing being reformed. - The **[[New Public Management (NPM)]] logic** provides the modernizing narrative: open competition, fixed-term contracts, results orientation, "reform-minded leaders". - But underneath both sits a **national security logic** that functions as a quiet veto mechanism - not a traditional _[[Nomenklatura System|nomenklatura]]_ requirement like party membership, but a filter that determines who can actually pass through the door that NPM discourse has opened. The BLNST test, the emphasis on enforcement backgrounds, the requirement for "political sensitivity" in a city where that phrase has a very specific post-2019 meaning... these don't replace merit or modernization, but constrain who qualifies as meritorious. The three logics don't conflict; they layer, and the layering is what makes the exercise politically functional: it reads as modernization while operating as controlled selection.