Interview with civil servants who refused to swear allegiance— choosing an undistorted life

Earlier this year, an oath of allegiance with no way back was sent to the 180,000 civil servants in Hong Kong. They had until the end of February to decide whether to remain loyal to the regime or to resign and leave. 

Last month, there were rumours of waves of resignation in the government. The majority of those resigned were professionals such as health care workers in the Department of Health, social workers in the Social Welfare Department and engineers in the Housing Department. In an interview with the media, the Secretary for the Civil Service, Nip Tak-kuen, revealed that about 200 people had not signed the statement of allegiance and the exact number would be reported to the Legislative Council later. 

200 was probably an underestimate of the wave of departure. The Stand News interviewed three resigned civil servants who had left the government because of the oath, all of whom had submitted their letters of resignation at the end of last year before the government issued the notice regarding the oath. They were unwilling to state their positions and did not state the actual reasons of resignation. They also pointed out that some of their colleagues were afraid of leaving a record of refusal to take the oath and the regime would settle the scores afterwards. So even if they intended to resign, they still signed the statement.

Speaking to the media, Nip said that if civil servants could not accept the responsibility of swearing loyalty to the Basic Law and the government, leaving the government "is not a bad thing for the civil service team".

"I believe they want to use it to drive people away." Helen, a resigned senior Executive Officer (EO), told the Stand News, "It's like Chairman Mao's move to 'lure the snakes out of the hole', they can list the 'yellow ribbon' out, but we cannot do anything about it."

All of her colleagues returned their statement of oath on time and "signed with a laugh," at least on the surface. "It's really about how you look at things, how you look at politics and how you look at yourself." Helen's take was that the post-oath working environment would become politically driven with a prevailing culture of throwing others under the bus. “You can no longer enforce procedural justice. The operation of any department and public services will be weird."

Jane, a former professional grade civil servant, described the treatment towards civil servants over the past two years as "pushing to the limit a step at a time". Initially it was a warning against attending political rallies. And then it came the suspension and dismissal of colleagues who were arrested even if they were not convicted. Then they issued the statement of oath, the need to use the Leave Home Safe app and, more recently, the urge for vaccination. "You can see that they will deprive you of your rights, but you dare not speak out, as speaking out means opposing the government and disloyalty. So you have to take whatever they give.”

"If you choose to sign or do something you don't want to do, you're giving in. Then, you will give in every time afterwards, and you will fall back again and again."

It was a long night. They might not be the ones who would stand in the forefront of resistance, but at least they had decided what to say no to.

From neutrality to loyalty

Many civil servants and even union representatives said that the terms of the oath were vague. But in Helen's view, the eight-page long oath and its explanations were in fact quite clear and were not missing a beat, meaning that your entire body, mind and time must be devoted to the regime.

Examples included "must be fully loyal to the incumbent Chief Executive and the Government and must perform his or her duty to the best of his or her ability" and "must perform his or her duty to the best of his or her ability, energy and attention as a matter of priority should the Government require it.”

The oath can affect life outside work

“If I go to help as a pro-democracy volunteer during my vacation, they will say that I cause troubles during vacation instead of taking a break. Why don’t you attend more national studies?" Helen said that a while ago, all her colleagues had to watch a seminar video on national security law together. Many of them fell asleep. "One day if they look back the recording and find that you were asleep, you will be in big trouble."

The provision also reads, "If a civil servant expresses his/ her personal view without regard to the appropriateness of the medium, channel, manner and target audience of his/ her expression, which leads the community to associate such view with his/ her status as a civil servant, causing others to perceive or suspect that he/ she may be biased in the performance of his/ her duty, or calling into question the principle and belief held by the officer, his/ her department, grade or the entire civil service team, it is in conflict with the oath/ statement of 'dedication to duty and accountability to the HKSAR Government.” As long as "it cause others to doubt", your statement is unacceptable.

The interpretation of the content of the oath also states that "the expectation and responsibility (to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR) had existed even before the civil servant took the oath or signed the statement.” It could be said that the government was paving the way for holding civil servants accountable for their past conduct of 

speech.

A vague definition of violation

"I think “blue ribbons” (pro-government) will be fine. But the “yellow ribbons” are in danger." Helen said, "especially the latter, they must have tagged or shared something on Facebook or signed petition for action from foreign countries ...... I don't believe that using fake account or VPN will work. As long as there has been a presence on the internet, it will always be there and will not be destroyed."

They were not joking. Oath was rarely written like this before. But I'm surprised how can some people [civil servants] still think they can get away with luck? Essentially it is like holding the marriage certificate and trying to take away half your saving in a divorce. In fact, being fired is considered a minor consequence. Violation of the oath of office is a criminal offence. They might even sue you under the National Security Law.

Another departed professional grade civil servant, Rachel, said she could not find out what else she could do under the oath and its interpretation.

"A lot of things was said to violate the oath. But it was not clear under what circumstances I could express my opinions and still fulfil the requirements of the oath. It's hard to understand what the government wants you to do with the word 'allegiance' because it's a matter of loyalty. Honest advice grates on the ear. But it seems like any opposing voice is seen as trying to bring the government down."

A shifted focus of duty

"We started out as civil servants with the idea that we should serve the public, and that stakeholders should be public-oriented and we should have the interests of Hong Kong at heart. When I joined, I was told civil servants should be politically neutral. But now we are told we should be loyal to the government. That does not seem neutral. But rather to support the government no matter what and any decision made by Carrie Lam must be supported."

Looking at the eight paged oath, there are only two references to "political neutrality," which are not in the body of the oath. The words "allegiance", "support" and "devotion to duty" are mentioned dozens of times and are in almost every paragraph.

“Neutrality means when I serve the general public, the political view of them would not affect how I serve them or how I execute my duty.” Jane said this was a value she had always recognized and she should not bring her personal political stance into her work. “But when we talk about 'loyalty', this means outside of work your own philosophy has to be the same as that of the government.

It is now like, I can not have my own ideas or stance."

From "neutrality" to "loyalty", the scope of the examination extends to the mind and heart after work. The regime wants you to "surrender".

The situation during the colonial era

Helen did not think it would be a lie to say that the allegiance and accountability to the Basic Law and the HKSAR "already existed" for civil servants even before they signed the statement. As an EO, she recently discovered when filing in documents there had always been an "Oath of Allegiance" category, which had existed since the British colonial era.

"What I had learned from the past was impartiality, that is, you can't be biased in favor of people you know or have conflicts of interest when you perform public duty. It was said that you as a civil servant cannot openly express your opinion on any government policy. What's not involved in 'any policy'? Civil servants could not enjoy freedom to the full extent. It's a fact from the colonial era, they are not wrong."

The Civil Service Regulations state that civil servants must do their utmost to promote the interests of the government. But the documents civil servants sign when they join the service simply state that they agree to abide by the Code and the detailed provisions of the Code are contained in a variety of manuals and guidelines. Official articles are densely written and circulated regularly every few months up to a year. Very few people read them, except Helen, who used to read the articles carefully.

"What do they mean by 'publishing'? Does sharing on Facebook count? I think it does. So I always remind my juniors that in fact they should not speak on Facebook or  in the office. They took the job and had to respect the requirement, which had existed for decades."

"Of course, it was treated as a disclaimer or precautionary clause. If you do something serious or harmful to the government, they can use the clauses to ‘settle the account’. Yet, it was never used to do so. They just observed what the government actually did which was fine so they didn’t think there's a problem."

"Obedience" is determined by the regime

At the same time, the working culture in the civil service had always been about obedience. "It's like when I was filling in appraisal for a colleague. If I feel that a colleague is doing a good job and has a good attitude, I give that person a 'B'. Yet, if my boss wants to give that person a 'C', while I don't agree with my boss’ explanation, I still have to give a 'C'."

Helen often handled complaints from the public. Sometimes knowing that her colleagues had done nothing wrong, she had to issue a letter to "admit it's their fault" and think of a way to say something that could comfort the complainant and at the same time be accepted by her boss and colleagues. The truth was not important, but being worldly and tactful was the way to go. “Every day I had to do things that do not represent my real opinion."

“Even if I wrote ‘I am a pig’ in the reply, everybody would still sign.” She said self-deprecatingly, "So this time, many colleagues did not even look at the oath, they thought, 'Come on, I really am obedient. I am not anti-government.' But they do not understand that being obedient or not is not determined by you. It is defined by the regime. They are using their usual obsequious attitude to deal with this matter, which is a misjudgment."

The consequence of signing the oath

Through her civil servant's lens, the most glaring point of the affidavit notice was that it did not state the consequences of refusal to sign. It stated that if the affidavit was not returned signed by the deadline, "the government will initiate action to terminate your employment based on the actual circumstances of your case." Isn't that clear? But Helen said that "termination" could mean many things. "A forced early retirement? Dismissal? Disciplinary action? It's different."

"If they say, 'I'll fire you if you don't sign it’ then it's all fair and square.

Or I will ask the police to investigate whether you have broken the law or not. If so, I will fire you. If you simply do not want to sign, then I will let you retire. It's fair. But they did not say so. They said they would look at the 'actual situation of the case'—that is, there is no uniform treatment. Person A may be in trouble and person B may not be. It is the worst way. In the past, there was a boundary. If the boundary is whether there is a crime or not, that is a boundary. But there is no boundary, then they can use anything to settle the score. It could be that you might have offended your boss or your subordinates.”

Helen, a civil servant born in the 70s, has worked in the old system for more than 20 years and finished paying her mortgage two years ago. If she resigned, she would have to find a way to earn a living in the next ten years or so. She would be able to receive a monthly pension of more than $10,000 when she reaches the age of 60. "If I stay low and continue to work, there would be an extra 6 million in pension. If I get promoted, the extra might be over 10 million. But I will have to live with fear and trepidation for the next ten years or so. I also have to follow the rules after work. Then what is the point of living?"

She has been a volunteer for the democratic camp outside work since 1997. “In the past, if I worked hard and did my job well, they couldn't do anything to me. In the future, I will surely be dead as I will surely be thrown under the bus, when even reading the Apple Daily is a crime." The relatively generous income in the past allowed her to be a financial contributor. Some of her friends advised her not to resign and should take your enemies’ resources. "Oh no. You are too naive. The chance of having a positive outcome continuing to work is slim while that of running into trouble is more than 50%."

"The regime wants to make an example and to make people feel chills down their spines. The best way is to find a mild person [in the opposition] and make them end up in a miserable situation. Well, this person is not very radical. She is one of the 'peaceful, rational and non-violence' protestor. There is a pension waiting for her. This person will get into trouble. First, discipline her and then fire her. Take all her benefit away and then sue her. Send her to China. They will do anything nowadays. If they make an example out of her in this way, this story will be more miserable than Jimmy Lai's, right?"

A race to show loyalty

For Jane and Rachel, who were under the new civil servant contract, there was no pension and their pay, leave and various allowances were not comparable to those under the old contract. It was similar to the private market. They had less to lose if they resigned. More obvious in the past two years than ever, they have started to see a culture of overly aggressive "loyalty" among their colleagues under political pressure. And this made them very uncomfortable.

"For example, in their work Whatsapp groups, some pro-government colleagues are particularly interested in criticising the ‘mobs’,” Rachel said, "And during the days of the non-cooperative movement, some colleagues specifically let people know that they were craving to return to work. They said in the group that they deliberately left home earlier as they were afraid of the traffic issue and told people 'oh I arrived at blablabla station at seven o'clock." The colleagues who arrived late because of traffic congestion seemed to be labelled as someone who was not diligent. They would be suspected of taking part in the movement."

From late 2019 to early last year, the senior management was particularly sensitive to everyone's working hours and attendance rate. "Being 10 minutes late would be reported to the senior." Jane said, "During that time, some colleagues hurt themselves and there was a lot of speculation. Colleagues, who were genuinely sick and took time off, were suspected of being out in the street to cause troubles.

” They were worried that under this culture, supporting the government would become a condition to "get to the top". “People may think that as long as I speak out in support of the government, the boss will be impressed and this will become a standard for evaluation."

The reason for not swearing allegiance

Since last year, even though their colleagues probably were aware that they were all pro-democratic, they were getting less and less likely to talk about politics. Even the word "oath" became a sensitive word and they dared not discuss it. "Some of my friends don't dare not to sign the statement even though they plan to resign because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing so." Jane explained, "If someone knows that you refuse to take the oath, will that be considered a violation of the national security law? If they target you, they may interpret your refusal as violation of the national security law. They can even make you repay the salary you received in the past." 

Therefore, they all chose to resign before the announcement about the oath. They preferred to resign without a job waiting in line to being forced to show their stance. Although she had not found a new job yet, Jane felt that "there's no point in making a oath that could affect my life just because I want to stay for a short period of time.”

They stressed that the people who stayed behind also had various ideas. "I have friends who have told me that they want to widen the economic circle. In addition to having spending from within the economic circle to keep the cash flow, they can input money originally outside of the circle. I also have friends who want to continue to influence something using their positions.” Rachel said. 

"I used to think like that.  But now I start to feel it is not as useful.” Jane said. “I have seen many independent minded people unable to play their role in the face of various constraints. But I don't want people to judge a civil servant by whether he or she takes the oath or not because there are so many difficulties and many things to consider.”

The demise of civilisation and regulations

Helen's original position was a position of influence. “There is a departmental secretary, usually an EO, in every department. The secretary is very important as he or she is in charge of a lot of money and human resource deployment." In the past, she would help some of the lower classes within her remit, such as giving them advice on various applications and seeing how to handle them case by case. But political task can also be pressed down to her at any time. "For example, the Home Affairs Department does not grant money or face masks to the members of the District Council while give them out to the pro-government politicians. Those are my counterparts. If I work in the Home Affairs Department, I would have to do the same.”

"It's more dangerous because you have control over the resources. If you are only a clerk, they will not target you. But in the future, they will definitely find someone with a mainland background to be the department secretary."

"The most miserable thing is that you may not qualify for the job so I don't want to hire you. Yet, if my senior wants to collude with your dad, my boss will make me give you an "A". This will also be untraceable as while my name will be on the book and I am responsible for the execution of the matter. I have to turn a blind eye toy boss’ violation. If the matter is exposed I will be the one who bears the consequences and public criticism......" The more Helen talked, the more unimaginable it became. “That is why I say that the pro-democrats that stays will be in so much pain.”

She thought that Hong Kong civil servants in the past were excellent, although the public thought that civil servants were bureaucratic and inefficient. But behind the scenes, it was because they followed all the procedures. Even more than 20 years after the handover, procedural justice was still maintained.

There has been no obvious invasion of the mainland governing culture in the government organisation unlike the private market. 

“That's why they had to make this whole thing (oath) to control us. Because in the past we didn't need to submit to them, we just needed to submit to the regulations. I don't take bribe. I don't care about political inclinations. I just do my job and follow my code of conduct. I will grant you the money if you submit all the receipts to the district councilors, ignoring the yellow and blue. I am colorless. That is why the Communist Party doesn't like it as I accept their salary but in an not tilted towards them. The system left behind by the former dynasty can protect the civil servants to be civilised citizens and it is helpful for a civil society, in which to the Communist Party, the people are not submissive."

After taking the oath, she estimated that corruption would emerge in a few years. "The day to day operation of public service and resource allocation rely on civil servants to deliver. When they are tilted towards a certain group, there will be people who will benefit. The second is the prevalence of whistleblowing. "Even if you are politically neutral and carry out your public duties according to the regulations, you will still offend some people. They will attack you with the system, just like the Cultural Revolution."

Just do your best no matter how bad the situation is

In the past, at its peak, she was donating more than $10,000 a month to political groups she identified with. But that was no longer possible after her resignation. "I am not so great that would take such a big risk in order just to donate a big chunk of money. And we have now entered a political situation where money can no longer solve the problem."

In this chaotic era, she had to save herself before anyone could come up with a way to win. As a member of the invisible post-70s generation, she experienced many failed democratic movements. "Our fellow comrades said the low point was now. But my low point was in 2005. We won in Article 23. When Donald “Bow tie” Tsang became the chief executive, people felt excellent about it. At that time, I went to Mongkok to distribute leaflets and talked about democracy. People just walked past you pretending not seeing you. We have done that for many years. I was very sincere, but what could I do? In those days, no one would care about you even if you set yourself on fire."

She thought that in the long human history  people were in misery or oppression in 80% to 90% of the time. Misfortune is the norm. There will be no trauma with no hope. "We seldom thought about winning among our generation. No matter it is social movement, political situation or school, we just did our best and that's it. Life is not about what you will achieve. It’s about what you will do. In the end, even if I don't achieve what I intended, I did try. My life will be complete."

Source：Standnews #Mar09

#Interview #Civil #Refuse #Swear #Allegiance

https://bit.ly/3wME6VM