The Civil Service Bureau issued a circular last Friday demanding all civil servants not yet taken a loyalty pledge to the Hong Kong government sign a declaration upholding the Basic Law, bearing allegiance and being responsible to the government with dedication to their official duties. They must return the signed declaration within four weeks in order to avoid being reviewed for their suitability to remain in the positions. Those who are unwilling to pledge allegiance are said to be “not suitable to carry out the duties required of them as public servants” as their refusal represents “wilful neglect of official instructions,” according to the China Daily. The state-run newspaper further warned that “taking the oath is not ceremonial but a legally-binding pledge made by public officeholders to the HKSAR.”

The move to set up an oath-taking exercise is the government’s latest countermeasure in response to a series of political campaigns organized by some civil servants during the anti-extradition law amendment bill movement of 2019. On one occasion, tens of thousands of civil servants reportedly attended a rally in Central, demanding the resignation of their head Carrie Lam over her mishandling of the movement, among other things.

To most people, the declaration’s wordings may not appear particularly alarming at first sight. After all, it is customary for civil servants in other countries to pledge allegiance to the government they serve and to the ideals defined in the constitution, a view held by the post-Beijing camp in defense of the new oath-taking requirement. A similar requirement also applies to government officials and lawyers in China. Yet, the devil is hidden not in the declaration itself but in its ever-changing interpretations monopolized by the Hong Kong government.

Under a somewhat narrower interpretation put forward by the government, civil servants who are convicted of any offense endangering national security are by default in breach of their declaration. To a certain extent, this interpretation is consistent with the requirements stipulated under Articles 6 and 35 of the National Security Law (NSL) which relate to the disqualification of civil servants and others from holding public office. Under another interpretation, four categories of improper conduct are currently considered contrary to upholding the Basic Law, namely advocating Hong Kong’s independence, refusal to recognize China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, soliciting foreign interference in internal affairs and, most noticeably, other acts that endanger national security. One would immediately recognize the last category’s catch-all feature, enabling the government to conveniently count any activities unacceptable to it or Beijing as “other acts.” Regardless of what interpretations are being put forward by the government, what amounts to a breach of declaration is ultimately up to Beijing.

Understandably, few would have known exactly where the “red line” is drawn with regards to improper conduct. The Bureau refused to elaborate on what activities within each category are deemed improper conduct, claiming that it would be infeasible to compile an exhaustive list of forbidden activities. Nor did the Bureau address the criteria to be adopted for judging whether allegiance had been pledged out of “dishonest” intent, a pretext increasingly employed by the government to disqualify democratic lawmakers and candidates standing for elections. In any event, civil servants are told not to “incite discontent in the society against the administration of the government” in their official capacities. Tellingly, divergence from the government’s view or rhetoric is strictly forbidden.

The new oath-taking requirement has already produced a chilling effect among civil servants active in social movements. A day after the government issued the circular, a newly-founded civil servants’ union already announced its disbandment out of concerns over the safety of its core members under the new requirement. Chairman of another civil servants’ union with a longer history believed that its members would likely refrain from attending rallies or public processions from now on. Very soon, participating in union activities as civil servants would put them at risk of not only violating their declaration, but also falling foul of the NSL provisions governing public officers. The harsh punishments and serious legal consequences instill a feeling of dread across the entire body of the civil service.

Aside from asserting absolute control over 180,000 civil servants, what else does Beijing attempt to achieve through implementing the new oath-taking exercise? The plight of the ethnic minorities in Xinjiang may offer us a clue. To embark on an annual hajj pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, Chinese Muslims must first pledge allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) through a government website in order to apply for a travel permit. Authorities justified the policy as a necessary measure to curb “subversive political activity” disguised as religious travel. The same rationale can apply to almost anything surrounding Hongkongers, be it travel, work or study. For people living under dictatorship, the ritual of oath taking is nothing more than an apparatus to indoctrinate them to turn away from freedom and embrace authoritarianism.

(Dr Jack Kwan is a MIT-trained consultant based in Boston.)

We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]

Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.

The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play