The question candidates ask most is whether the JRE has a prescribed memo format — yet the Civil Service Bureau's public description of the exam centres entirely on "analytical ability" and "writing ability", never once mentioning a fixed correspondence template. Candidates who spend hours memorising salutations and closing lines usually lose marks on structure instead. The JRE is the written test for the Administrative Officer (AO) and Executive Officer II (EO) grades: three hours, one English question and one Chinese question, and the two supply opposite kinds of material — so they need separate preparation.
What each paper tests, and why prep differs
The English question comes with substantial reference material, testing how you process information; the Chinese question usually has little or no background material, testing how you produce a viewpoint. Because the material differs so much, one structure cannot serve both papers. The main contrasts:
| Aspect | English question | Chinese question |
|---|---|---|
| Material | Extensive: statistics, clippings, stakeholder views | Little or none — relies on your own knowledge |
| Organisation | Define problem → analyse causes/impact → compare options → recommend with implementation | Frame the issue → state a position → build arguments → answer the strongest counter → conclude |
| Common pitfall | Paraphrasing the source material with a vague recommendation | Sitting on the fence, dodging the strongest counter-argument |
English paper: the fictional-city case and its material
The English question is usually set in a fictional city resembling Hong Kong — densely populated, developed, a government balancing competing interests under limited resources — so you think through the material in front of you rather than lean on memorised policy. An example: a fictional city has chronic congestion in its central business district and the government is weighing electronic road pricing, with a pack including traffic-flow statistics, air-quality data, business-chamber objections and an internal government assessment. Your job is to synthesise these conflicting sources and advise whether the government should act.
Finding more material than you can read in full is by design — it tests your ability to filter and prioritise. Scan the headings and sources for two or three minutes, then group them as for, against and neutral; reading same-stance sources together surfaces argument-and-counterargument pairs. Circle any quotable figure and note its source — "peak-hour speeds have fallen to ten kilometres per hour" beats a vague "traffic is bad".
English paper: recommendation structure and weighing options
A good recommendation should read like an internal document you could hand straight to your boss — no essay-style flourish, just clear layers.
- · Open: define the problem and objective — a sentence or two on the issue and the government's goal, which becomes your yardstick for weighing options.
- · Middle: analyse the options — each option's pros, cons and stakeholder impact, backed by the material.
- · Recommend: commit clearly — which option, why, and how you answer the main objections.
- · Close: implementation and risk — the steps and mitigating measures, showing thought about execution.
Weighing is not one line of good and one of bad — compare every option against the same criteria: effectiveness, cost, stakeholder impact, feasibility and risk. In the road-pricing example: the charge eases congestion and raises revenue but hits small shops and lower-income drivers harder; "do nothing" is gentlest on business but ignores worsening congestion; "expand public transport" faces little resistance but is slow and costly — none is a perfect answer.
A common mistake: writing every option as a 50-50 draw, then flinching from a verdict. Acknowledge the trade-off and the cost, then explain why your choice still wins on balance — more mature, and better scoring, than pretending a perfect answer exists.
Chinese paper: building an issue bank, arguing a position
No one can predict which question comes up this year, but the topic will centre on a public issue Hong Kong is actively debating with no single correct answer — common areas include housing and land, an ageing population, education, technology and privacy, environment and development, and social mobility and inequality. For each area, carry two reasons on each side and one concrete Hong Kong example, so you're not reduced to slogans on the day.
Structure the essay in four parts — introduction, case for your position, counter-argument and rebuttal, conclusion. The introduction names the crux of the issue in a line or two and states your position outright; the case section lays out one argument per paragraph with reasoning or an example; the rebuttal section raises the opposing view and explains why you still hold your position; the conclusion draws the threads together and restates it. The most common way to fail is a drifting position — decide which side you're on in the first minute, use "even if the concern about … holds, … remains more important", anchor to Hong Kong's concrete situation, and favour causal reasoning over emotive language.
The format myth, and the answer book in practice
Many candidates assume the JRE, like other civil service papers, has a set correspondence template — how to head it, which salutation, how to close. In the official sample questions, the English paper asks candidates to identify two major problems and propose workable measures, while the Chinese paper centres on a contentious social issue; in both, what's assessed is depth of analysis and clarity of reasoning, not fluency in drafting correspondence. Markers look for whether you defined the problem, reasoned logically, and gave a recommendation with practical detail.
The Chinese answer book uses ruled paper at 300 characters a page, a concrete way to budget length and time. An answer covering all four structural parts typically runs four to five pages, roughly 1,200 to 1,500 characters. At an ordinary handwriting pace, one page takes about fifteen to twenty minutes, and with planning and checking added, four to five pages lines up with the time for one question.
| Pages | Characters | Approx. time |
|---|---|---|
| 3 pages | ~900 characters | ~45–55 minutes |
| 4 pages | ~1,200 characters | ~60–70 minutes |
| 5 pages | ~1,500 characters | ~75–85 minutes |
The English question has no page quota, but reading time runs longer, so the three hours cannot simply be split down the middle — fold reading and sorting time into the English question's budget and leave the Chinese question enough room to work out a position.
Common mistakes and time allocation
With no material to read, the Chinese question makes it important to spend time thinking rather than writing — a workable rhythm is about 5 minutes to read the question and fix a position, 10 minutes to outline, 65 minutes to write, and 10 minutes to review. The English question is the opposite: reading is heavy, so budget roughly a third of the time to reading, sorting and outlining, most of the middle to writing, and a few minutes to proofread — don't let one question eat into the other's time.
Common mistakes: slogans with no argument ("we should care about livelihoods" without saying why or how says nothing); writing detached from Hong Kong's concrete situation; loose structure with no connectives; and English diluted by "might" and "perhaps" rather than decisive phrasing like "I recommend". Passing the JRE still leaves candidates competing for interview places by grade, result and vacancies. There is no shortcut, but there is a method: stockpile issues in advance, hold to the structure, commit to a position on paper, and watch the clock.
To tell the JRE and CRE apart, see our CRE vs JRE comparison; for fuller worked paragraphs, read our JRE model answer examples. Once through the written paper, prepare with our JRE interview guide, check the 2026 JRE timetable, or drill with our JRE study notes and practice.
