rethinking

A Civil Service Transformed: The Case of Hong Kong

Hong Kong is currently conducting one of the most significant experiments in applying Artificial Intelligence (AI) within the civil service. The aim: to increase government efficiency and address a growing fiscal deficit. According to a report by CNA on February 26, 2025, the city plans to leverage AI to manage a major civil service restructuring effort.

By April 2027, Hong Kong plans to cut around 10,000 civil servant positions — reducing approximately 2% of staff annually. These reductions are part of a strategic push to trim government spending while maintaining, or even enhancing, public service quality through digital transformation. AI is expected to shoulder some of the workload left behind. For example, the Census and Statistics Department is already using AI to handle verification tasks previously done manually.

To support this shift, Hong Kong has committed over HK$11 billion (approx. US$1.4 billion) in AI innovation and digital transformation funding. This includes a HK$1 billion allocation for R&D institutions and a HK$10 billion innovation and technology fund targeting strategic future industries.

A Global Pattern: AI as Evaluator, Not Just Executor

This ambition mirrors a broader global pattern. In Indonesia and across the Global South, artificial intelligence is no longer a distant buzzword. It is quietly reshaping the public sector — not just by automating tasks, but by evaluating the very people behind them.

Civil servants in several pilot regions are now being rated by AI systems based on data traces: collaboration metrics, email patterns, task outputs. These scores are then used to “recommend” which roles are redundant, inefficient, or low impact.

This echoes trends around the world. In the United States, the Department of Energy’s Office of the Inspector General (DOE OIG) has tested AI to flag anomalies in procurement and performance. In South Korea, AI has been trialed to detect underperformance in public health roles. Across parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, donor-funded projects use algorithmic scoring to evaluate local staff performance for continuity.

The Distorted Lens of Efficiency

On the surface, this sounds fair. After all, who wouldn’t want a government that works better?

But look deeper, and the danger reveals itself.

AI is not just a tool. It is a lens. And any lens distorts reality based on how it was shaped — by whom, for what purpose, and with which blind spots. In the name of objectivity, we risk building systems that reproduce the very inequalities we failed to fix manually.

The real question is not: “Can AI detect inefficiency?”
It is: “Who defines efficiency? And who benefits from its definition?”

Jobs with emotional, preventive, or contextual value — often held by women or marginalized communities — rarely register well on digital data. Loyalty and discretion, the backbone of many silent roles in diplomacy or social cohesion, are invisible to algorithms. The AI sees output. But not intention. It scores impact. But not nuance.

A Looming Social Risk in the Global South

Beyond governance concerns, there are critical social risks, especially in developing nations. The displacement of human workers by AI can exacerbate unemployment, particularly where alternative job opportunities are scarce. The digital literacy divide means many workers may not have the skills to transition into new roles that require AI fluency. And in countries where digital infrastructure remains uneven, the push toward AI-first public service may deepen inequality rather than bridge it.

A hopeful counterexample: Rwanda’s AI policy includes mandatory community consultations and AI literacy programs as preconditions for any government automation project. While still in early stages, this localized, participatory approach reflects an awareness of both technical and social impact.

Governance That Protects Human Dignity

Worse, the introduction of AI in bureaucratic job assessments often lacks three critical governance pillars:

Explainability – Can employees understand why they are marked “low value”? Or are they just shown a score?

Human-in-the-loop decision-making – Is there room for compassion, second chances, or clarification before action is taken?

Public transparency – Who audits the system? Who sets the parameters? And is the public informed?

Without these guardrails, AI becomes not a tool for reform — but a tool of quiet elimination. You are not fired. You are “scored out.”

In Global South contexts, this is particularly risky. Power is often personalized, and resistance to automation is framed as “anti-progress.” The pressure to adopt AI for prestige, for cost-cutting, or donor appeal creates a climate where ethical reflection is deemed a luxury.

But dignity is not a luxury.

Contextual Governance, Not Imported Frameworks

The solution is not to reject AI. It is to govern it.

We need multidisciplinary teams to co-design such systems. Ethics officers must be embedded from day one. Auditability must be built in, not patched later. And most of all, we must recognize that governance is not just about outcomes — it is about the process of deciding what counts as valuable.

Crucially, this governance must be contextually rooted. Borrowing AI regulatory frameworks from the Global North without adaptation risks deep mismatch. Social structures, political systems, cultural dynamics, and levels of digital literacy vary widely across the Global South. Most developing countries are still primarily users, not developers, of AI — making them more vulnerable to biases embedded in foreign-made systems. If not critically assessed, these biases could further marginalize local communities under the guise of algorithmic neutrality.

At the same time, reskilling and upskilling efforts must be scaled to support those displaced by AI-driven efficiency measures. Governments, educational institutions, and industry must work together to ensure that affected individuals — especially those from vulnerable communities — can transition into meaningful roles in the evolving digital economy.

What Kind of System Are We Building?

When AI becomes a gatekeeper of human worth, our silence becomes complicity.

It is not enough to build systems that work.
We must build systems that understand why people matter.

In an era where technological paradigms shift with geopolitical winds, where design thinking must account for cultural diplomacy, and where engineering solutions intersect with national security concerns, India faces an epistemic crisis in higher education. The disciplinary silos that have long characterized our academic institutions—compartmentalizing knowledge into business, technology, design, and social sciences—have become intellectual anachronisms. This essay argues not merely for incremental curriculum reform but for a fundamental reconceptualization of knowledge production and transmission across disciplines, with particular emphasis on geopolitical literacy as an intellectual cornerstone for students of all academic backgrounds.

The Epistemological Divide: Empirical Evidence

The data regarding interdisciplinary education in India reveals a stark reality that demands urgent intellectual attention:

• Among India’s premier technological institutions, only 4.3% offer substantive coursework in international relations or geopolitical analysis (IIT Council Report, 2024).
• Within design schools, a mere 2.7% incorporate geopolitical considerations into their curriculum despite the growing importance of cultural diplomacy in global aesthetics (Design Education Review, 2023).
• Computer science programs show particular deficiency, with 91% offering no coursework on the geopolitics of technology, despite India’s positioning in the global digital economy (National Association of Software Companies, 2024).
• Engineering students receive, on average, less than 3.5 credit hours of humanities education throughout their entire degree program (All India Council for Technical Education, 2024).

When juxtaposed against global benchmarks—where leading institutions mandate cross-disciplinary exposure—this disciplinary isolation represents not merely a pedagogical oversight but an intellectual impoverishment with profound implications for India’s future.

The segregation of knowledge into discrete disciplines reflects a Cartesian reductionism increasingly at odds with contemporary epistemology. The complex problems facing modern societies—from climate adaptation to artificial intelligence governance—exist in what philosopher Horst Rittel termed the realm of “wicked problems,” resistant to solutions derived from any single knowledge domain.

Consider these intellectual frameworks that demand cross-disciplinary integration:

1. Systems Theory Perspective: Complex adaptive systems that characterize global affairs cannot be understood through linear causal models typical of siloed education. As philosopher Edgar Morin argues, understanding complexity requires transcending disciplinary boundaries.
2. Epistemic Justice: The privileging of certain knowledge forms (technical, financial) over others (geopolitical, cultural) represents what philosopher Miranda Fricker identifies as “hermeneutical injustice”—denying students conceptual resources needed to interpret their reality.
3. Constructivist Learning Theory: Knowledge constructed through interdisciplinary engagement leads to cognitive frameworks better suited to navigating complexity, as educational theorist Jean Piaget established.
4. Critical Realism Philosophy: The stratified nature of reality (physical, biological, social, geopolitical) means that reduction to any single analytical level produces incomplete understanding—a perspective advanced by philosopher Roy Bhaskar.

NEP 2020: Potential and Contradictions

India’s National Education Policy 2020 ostensibly embraces interdisciplinary education, calling for “holistic and multidisciplinary education” as a foundational principle. Yet a critical analysis reveals significant contradictions between rhetoric and implementation mechanisms:

The policy states, “There will be no hard separations between arts and sciences, between curricular and extracurricular activities, or between vocational and academic streams.”

However, structural implementations reveal persistent disciplinary segregation:

• Credit allocation systems still predominantly favor disciplinary depth over breadth.
• Faculty evaluation metrics continue to reward specialization over integration.
• Administrative structures maintain departmental silos instead of problem-focused organization.
• Funding mechanisms disproportionately support traditional disciplinary research.

What emerges is a form of what sociologist Pierre Bourdieu would term “symbolic violence”—the appearance of change while reproducing existing knowledge hierarchies. True interdisciplinary education requires not merely allowing elective courses but fundamentally restructuring the epistemological foundations of higher education.

Geopolitics as Foundational Knowledge

The argument for geopolitical literacy extends beyond traditional international relations frameworks. Geopolitics offers essential intellectual scaffolding for understanding the context in which all disciplines operate:

For Design Students

Design does not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. Consider:

• The emergence of “strategic design” as a field addressing complex social problems requires understanding of geopolitical forces.
• Cultural diplomacy increasingly employs design as soft power—87% of nations have invested in design-forward cultural initiatives (UNESCO Cultural Indicators Report, 2023).
• Supply chain aesthetics are shaped by geopolitical realities—the movement of materials, labor, and production reflects power dynamics that designers must navigate.
• Design futures work must account for geopolitical scenarios—42% of failed design innovations demonstrated ignorance of geopolitical constraints (Design Management Institute, 2024).

For Technology Students

The bifurcation of global technology ecosystems along geopolitical lines demands attention:

• Semiconductor supply chains have become explicitly geopolitical, with India’s positioning requiring strategic understanding—the $10 billion India Semiconductor Mission operates in a geopolitical context students must comprehend.
• Data sovereignty regulations reflect geopolitical tensions—76% of new technology regulations in India’s key export markets derive from geopolitical considerations (MEITY Analysis, 2023).
• AI ethics frameworks diverge along geopolitical lines, with 63% of major differences attributable to geopolitical positioning rather than technical considerations (AI Ethics Global Review, 2024).
• Technology standards-setting processes have become battlegrounds for national influence—participation requires diplomatic as well as technical expertise.

For Other Non-Social Science Fields

• Agriculture students: 71% of agricultural market disruptions in the past decade stemmed from geopolitical events rather than climate or technology factors.
• Medical students: Global health security increasingly operates as a function of geopolitical relationships—pandemic response coordination shows an 84% correlation with geopolitical alliance structures.
• Architecture students: Urban resilience planning now incorporates geopolitical risk assessment in 67% of major global architectural firms.

Reimagining Interdisciplinary Education

Meaningful interdisciplinary education must transcend the tokenism of isolated courses to embrace what philosopher Hannah Arendt termed “praxis”—reflective action informed by theoretical understanding. This requires

Structural Reforms

1. Epistemic Integration: Core courses should integrate knowledge across disciplines rather than merely adding electives—for example, “Geopolitics of Design” rather than “Design” plus “Geopolitics.”
2. Faculty Development: Create joint appointments across departments and invest in faculty capacity to teach across disciplinary boundaries.
3. Assessment Revolution: Move beyond discipline-specific metrics to evaluate students’ ability to synthesize knowledge across domains.
4. Institutional Architecture: Reorganize academic units around problems rather than disciplines—establishing centers for “Technology Governance” rather than separate computer science and political science departments.

Pedagogical Innovations

1. Wicked Problem Studios: Project-based learning focused on complex challenges requiring multiple knowledge domains
2. Simulation-Based Learning: Complex geopolitical simulations where students from different disciplines must collaborate to address scenarios
3. Embedded Fieldwork: Place students in contexts where disciplinary knowledge must be applied within geopolitical complexities.
4. Collaborative Research: Structure research initiatives requiring teams spanning disciplines.

The resistance to interdisciplinary education reflects not merely administrative convenience but deeper intellectual commitments to particular forms of knowledge production. As sociologist Thomas Kuhn demonstrated, paradigm shifts in knowledge structures face resistance from established practitioners. This resistance takes several forms:

1. Epistemic Hierarchy: The implicit ranking of knowledge types that privileges technical over contextual understanding
2. Disciplinary Identity: Faculty self-conception rooted in disciplinary expertise rather than problem-solving capacity
3. Measurement Fetishism: Overreliance on discipline-specific metrics that cannot capture interdisciplinary competence
4. Resource Competition: Zero-sum thinking about curriculum space and faculty resources

Beyond Employability

While much discourse around education reform focuses on employability, the argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education runs deeper. At stake is what philosopher Martha Nussbaum identifies as the “capability for critical thinking”—the intellectual capacity to comprehend and engage with complex realities.

The segregation of knowledge domains impoverishes not merely professional competence but civic capacity. In a democracy increasingly facing complex, interconnected challenges, citizens require integrated understanding. This represents what political philosopher Michael Sandel terms “civic education”—preparation not merely for economic contribution but for meaningful participation in collective self-governance.

Empirical Evidence of Interdisciplinary Impact

The case for interdisciplinary education is not merely philosophical but empirically grounded:

• Teams comprising members with diverse disciplinary backgrounds demonstrate 43% higher problem-solving efficacy for complex challenges (Harvard Interdisciplinary Research Initiative, 2023).
• Organizations led by individuals with interdisciplinary education show 37% greater adaptive capacity during geopolitical disruptions (McKinsey Global Institute, 2024).
• Patents filed by teams with interdisciplinary composition show 28% higher citation impact and 41% greater commercial application (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2024).
• National innovation systems with higher rates of interdisciplinary collaboration demonstrate 23% faster response to complex crises (OECD Innovation Policy Review, 2023).

Beyond NEP 2020: A Radical Reimagining

While NEP 2020 provides rhetorical support for interdisciplinary education, implementation requires more fundamental reconceptualization. True interdisciplinary education demands:

1. Philosophical Reconciliation: Acknowledging that the fragmentation of knowledge is itself a historical construct rather than an epistemological necessity
2. Structural Transformation: Moving beyond departmental structures to problem-focused organization
3. Pedagogical Revolution: Replacing linear curriculum models with networked knowledge structures
4. Assessment Reconception: Developing evaluation frameworks that value synthesis and integration
5. Faculty Transformation: Recruiting and developing scholars capable of transcending disciplinary boundaries

The Intellectual Imperative

The argument for interdisciplinary geopolitical education transcends instrumental concerns about career preparation. What is at stake is nothing less than our capacity to comprehend and address the defining challenges of our era.

For India’s position in the global knowledge economy—and more fundamentally, for its democratic vitality—the integration of geopolitical understanding across disciplines represents not a curricular luxury but an intellectual necessity. The continued segregation of knowledge domains reflects not merely administrative convenience but an impoverished conception of education itself.

As philosopher John Dewey argued, education must prepare students not merely for the world as it exists but for creating the world that could be. In an era of profound geopolitical transformation, this preparation requires not the reinforcement of intellectual silos but their transcendence. The question is not whether design students, technology students, and others should be “allowed” to learn international relations—it is whether we can afford the intellectual impoverishment that results from preventing them from doing so.