In the old British colonial days, I was impressed with the pro forma requiring government officials to sign off their letters to anyone with the phrase, “I remain sir/madam your obedient servant”. This amplified the true spirit of public service most succinctly.
Thus, it is difficult for me to grapple with the complaints raised by the civil service unions over the recent announcement by the Civil Service Bureau that all newly recruited civil servants who joined the service after July 1 are required to swear to uphold the Basic Law and to pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Firstly, legally speaking, the Basic Law states very clearly in Article 99 that all civil servants “must be dedicated to their duties and be responsible to the SAR Government”. According to the Civil Service Code, it states that civil servants “shall serve the Chief Executive and the Government of the day with total loyalty and to the best of their ability, no matter what their political beliefs are”. The oath is just a reiteration of an already existing solemn legal requirement and a reminder of the signatory’s obligation.
Civil service staff unions complained that the oath is ambiguous, and they took issue with wording such as “uphold” and “allegiance”. They insisted that these words should be clearly defined, and suggested that there should be wider consultation and explanation, and subsequently a clearer definition be laid down in the civil service regulations and even amend the law if necessary! It is clear they are just trying to muddy the water over easily understood words and to throw up roadblocks over a straightforward procedure of pledging loyalty to the government and their employer.
All civil servants carried with him public duty as well as significant public power and authority, which, if abused, can cause great harm to society. ... It is certainly not just a job. It is a public commitment!
The unions’ facetious hairsplitting challenges are an insult to all civil servants, as most of them have no qualms complying with the new requirement, which they have already met in practice, and are now embarrassed by this needless hoopla that only distracts them from work. The simple truth is that upholding the Basic Law is the duty of every HKSAR citizen, let alone its civil servants. Serving with loyalty to one’s employer in the private sector is expected and in fact should be reinforced as the civil servant would in effect be serving the public. Just as in the private sector, if a civil servant cannot serve the public with a genuine sense of humility and commitment, then his only honorable course of action should be to resign, instead of quarreling with the employer over the terms of employment, which were already settled before he reported for work. And if he were in the private sector and goes around bad-mouthing his employer’s products and services, guest what would happen to him? There is no reason why the same commonsense rules should not apply in government. So let’s stop this nonsense about further defining the meaning of loyalty!
The fact is, the words in the oath are nothing new. Article 104 of the Basic Law requires the chief executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and all members of the judiciary to swear to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. If any member of the Legislative Council, including opposition members, would not even attempt to challenge the meaning of the oath, and have been readily signing declaration forms to this effect before their elections, how can our well-paid civil servants go public with their ignorant demands, and even launch their thinly disguised opposition to the SAR government!
They should also know that in the British colonial days, all police officers and all administrative officers had to swear allegiance to the queen before assuming their posts. They did not make any fuss at that time to seek to clarify the definition of the “queen”!
What the civil service unions should reflect on is the reason why the SAR government has introduced this new measure at this point in time.
It goes without saying that they all knew it was triggered by the enemies from within. The elephant in the room is that at least 46 civil servants have been arrested for riot-related offenses, and probably many more had participated in illegal public protests and assemblies. Also, in August 2019, thousands of civil servants joined in the anti-government protests in Chater Garden for the first time in history, defying a warning from the authorities to remain politically neutral. They even formed a new civil service union in open opposition to the government. Many civil servants created anti-government “Lennon walls” in their offices openly, staged sit-in protests outside their offices, and joined the labor strikes called by the riot organizers, with mass application of false sick leaves, forcing many public utilities, such as swimming pools, to close. The list goes on.
Indeed, it is the civil servants’ open hostility during the citywide disturbances that tipped the central government’s hand in introducing the National Security Law. Many civil servants’ misdeeds during last year’s violent social unrest verge on criminal offenses under the National Security Law, e.g., Article 22(3), for seriously interfering in, disrupting or undermining the performance of duties and functions of the HKSAR, by staging sit-in protests and labor strikes, etc.; and Article 26, by providing support and assistance such as “government internal information” to a “terrorist organization” (street riot groups). For example, there have been numerous disclosures of police officers’ personal and family information on social media, believed to be divulged by unscrupulous civil servants in various government departments to facilitate the opposition’s doxxing of law enforcement officers. And Article 29(5), by provoking hatred amongst Hong Kong residents toward the Central People’s Government or the HKSAR, with their anti-chief-executive messages on their social media.
Article 3 of the National Security Law stipulated that “it is the duty of the HKSAR (which should include all civil servants) under the Constitution to safeguard national security and the Region”. The oath merely formalizes their obligation under this law
I was utterly amazed with the remarks of one of the civil service unions’ chairmen, who argued against the need to take an oath as it is “just a job”! All civil servants carried with him public duty as well as significant public power and authority, which, if abused, can cause great harm to society. This is why civil servants generally enjoy higher pay and better staff benefits such as housing, education allowance, healthcare and security of tenure to ensure civil servants perform their roles with total dedication and loyalty and not be distracted by other mundane concerns. It is certainly not just a job. It is a public commitment!
Indeed, what is disappointing is the slow approach of the Civil Service Bureau in introducing this oath-taking, and to merely apply it to the small group of newly recruited civil servants. But what about the 180,000-odd serving civil servants, some of whom are clearly black sheep who pose a real internal threat?
I see no reason why these civil servants should not sign either a paper declaration or swear a verbal oath now. If they refuse, they are basically saying that they would not uphold the Basic Law and be loyal to the HKSAR. Let them resign if they wish!
In the meantime, political vetting similar to those of the Special Branch in the British colonial era should be reintroduced to weed out those misfits in the civil service or to block them from joining.
Our civil service has sadly become a source of internal threat in our national security. Taking an oath is just a token gesture, albeit a legally significant one, and the secretary for civil service must stand firm against any opposition against this requirement. He should learn from the National Day speech of Luo Huining, head of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government in the HKSAR, on his “three nevers” advice to the senior government officials: “Never compromise on the right principle, never shirk responsibility, and never delay in pushing the right policy!”
The author is an adjunct professor of HKU Space, and a council member of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
