Since last year, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has required all civil servants to take an oath or sign a declaration to uphold the Basic Law and allegiance to the Special Administrative Region.
On Monday, the Secretary for Civil Service of the Hong Kong Government, Nie Dequan, gave an update on the matter in the Legislative Council. As of the end of March this year, about 6,500 new civil servants have signed a declaration of allegiance; and about 170,000 civil servants who joined before July 1 last year have signed a declaration of allegiance. “Most have signed the declaration”, but as of April 1, there were still 129 people who ignored it or refused to take the oath of allegiance.
Nie Dequan said that most of the 129 people are civilians, and a few are members of the disciplinary forces, of which 25 have already resigned. He emphasized that the Hong Kong government will continue to follow up the rest who refuse to take the oath of allegiance. “They can be ordered to resign and I believe they will be dealt with in a few months.”
On the same day, the Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service Bureau of the Hong Kong Government, Yang He Beiyin, stated that all civil servants who refused to sign allegiance declarations, except for a few who were on unpaid leave, had been suspended.
When Nie Dequan responded to a question from the Legislative Council, he stated that he had sent a letter to the department to which the 129 people belonged requesting an explanation, and some of them had received a reply. He said that if a reasonable explanation is not provided, the authorities will “seriously question whether the civil servants concerned are willing to assume the basic responsibilities of civil servants and whether they are suitable for retention.”
As for the number of foreigners among civil servants who refused to take the oath of allegiance, Nie Dequan responded that there were no “non-Chinese people” in his impression, “but the details are not available for disclosure at the moment.” There is also a question from Members, if civil servants cannot perform their duties loyally, “does the government provide them with pensions?” In this regard, Nie Dequan did not respond directly, but emphasized that new civil servants will not be hired if they do not sign the declaration, and current civil servants who do not sign will be deemed unfit to continue to serve, will be terminated and “ordered to leave the civil service.”
In addition, some members asked whether there will be a mechanism to “monitor whether civil servants meet the standards” in the future. Nie Dequan said that “there has always been a mechanism to follow up”. After taking the oath, continue to pay attention to whether civil servants violate the oath or act against the government as a whole.
Nie Dequan emphasized that as a civil servant in the Hong Kong government, he must be dedicated to his duties and support the government’s governance. Even in non-work situations, he should not say something “not in line with supporting the Basic Law and loyal to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”
Those who do not dare to declare that they hold BNO and foreign nationality are not eligible to stand for election to the election committee
On Monday, the Hong Kong Legislative Council held its second meeting on the “Improvement of the Electoral System (Comprehensive Amendment) Bill 2021”. During the meeting, some members asked whether candidates for election committee elections in the future need to declare whether they have any BNO, foreign passport or right of abode?
According to relevant regulations, Hong Kong public powers, including members of the Election Committee, need to take an oath or sign a declaration to uphold the Basic Law and allegiance to the SAR; on the other hand, they do not need to disclose whether they have a BNO, foreign passport or right of abode. There may be interests on both sides. conflict. In particular, BNO is currently highly sensitive in Hong Kong society. In a sense, it is almost regarded as equivalent to the “right of abode in the UK”. It is difficult to ensure that the holder is absolutely loyal to Hong Kong and the SAR government in making decisions about relevant interests.
Mai Meijuan, a member of the Legislative Council of the Federation of Trade Unions, requested in the Legislative Council that for such an important public office of the Election Committee, whether elected or ex officio members, they must submit a statement to disclose whether they have a BNO, foreign passport or right of abode.
The Permanent Secretary of the Hong Kong Government’s Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau Tang Renguang responded that since the members of the election committee have no nationality requirements, the statement “does not make any relevant requirements.” However, Deng Renguang said that the investigation of the qualification review committee may involve foreign passports and other related materials, and the specifics need to be understood.
In this regard, Mai Meijuan expressed dissatisfaction. She emphasized that the problem is not the eligibility of the election committee, but a statement stating whether the person holds a foreign passport, “especially BNO”. Mai Meijuan said that even if there is no relevant legislation, it should be dealt with. The fundamental question is whether it should be disclosed.
“If you want to run for the election and hold a public office in Hong Kong, you don’t even dare to say whether you hold a passport from another place, so you will not be eligible to run for the election!”
Mai Meijuan also said that certain information of public officials should be known to the society, and it is better to tell them by yourself than to get the bottom line. Legislative Council member Xie Weijun also supported that foreign nationality, right of abode and BNO should not be so-called privacy. He said that the election committee is a vital public office. Even if it is not required by law, it is necessary to disclose whether the candidate holds a foreign nationality, right of abode or BNO, etc., “especially in some sectors that require voting. China, this will be an important basis for voters to vote”.
The People’s Daily denounced the Hong Kong University Student Association for discrediting National Security Education
The central media “People’s Daily” published an article today (19), naming and criticizing the Hong Kong University Student Association for discrediting National Security Education. The time has come to be indispensable. The article pointed out that the Hong Kong University Student Union issued an open letter a few days ago to discredit the implementation of the National Security Education Program at the University of Hong Kong as “ruining the autonomy of institutions” and “ashamed of the scholars”. The criticism is provocative, discrediting “one country, two systems” and undermining the constitutional order, describing the past of the Hong Kong University Student Union. In the publication “Xue Yuan” magazine published “Hong Kong Independence” article, and also held a painting exhibition to beautify the black violence. They have long been stigmatized on the evil road of anti-China chaos in Hong Kong, questioning that they are not students, but thugs hiding in the campus.
The article did not mention by name Ye Zhilin, the president of the Hong Kong University Student Union. Some people described her as “the second in Zhou Ting”, but the article warned: “Look at Zhou Ting, who is serving his sentence, and you should know: I knew why we had to wait for the anti-China chaos today. Hong Kong activists only have prisons and handcuffs. We also warn the Hong Kong rioters who are hiding in the campus: those who play fire will set themselves on fire.”
The article also pointed out sternly that Hong Kong education that has gone astray must undergo a drastic reform. This requires consolidating the foundation, establishing a sound education system that is compatible with “one country, two systems”, and cultivating the younger generation’s national identity; it also requires drastic medicine to remove the “malignant tumors” in the ivory tower, and let the poisonous teachers , Drug students will lose their place to live, return the peace of the campus, and return the hope of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong current affairs commentator Feng Weiguang believes that the terms “malignant tumor” and “must control” in the “People’s Daily” are very important. The Hong Kong University Student Association does have a very obvious tendency to “Hong Kong independence” and continue to do various things to challenge the law. The bottom line and red line of Hong Kong are suspected of violating the Hong Kong National Security Law.
Wang Zhenmin: Investors are not afraid of the National Security Law, but Hong Kong is still unstable after the legislation
Recently, Wang Zhenmin, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Research Center of Tsinghua University, responded to the so-called “improving Hong Kong’s electoral system or leading to the loss of investors”, saying that investors are not afraid of the National Security Law, even if Hong Kong is still unstable after the National Security Law. Wang Zhenmin emphasized that capital is the most honest, “where stable investors will go.”
Wang Zhenmin said that the central government’s prescriptions for the chaos in Hong Kong, whether it is enacting a national security law or improving the electoral system, are the facts that Hong Kong has returned to the motherland and that the state exercises sovereignty and governance. Things in Hong Kong are not decided by foreign countries, nor can people supported by any foreign country be in power in Hong Kong. “Otherwise, Hong Kong will not be recovered, or the gains and losses will be lost after recovery. Therefore, the central government will never allow Hong Kong to be controlled by external forces.”
Wang Zhenmin then pointed out that the central government’s decisive move to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system actually saved Hong Kong and saved “one country, two systems.”
He said that the Hong Kong issue needs to be addressed from the perspective of the international and domestic overall situation. First of all, last year and this year, the two sessions were still included in the Hong Kong agenda despite the shortened duration of their sessions, which shows the “importance” of Hong Kong to the country. Secondly, the changes in the US policy toward China, including the major changes in the current policy toward Hong Kong, reflect the US attempt to use Hong Kong to prevent China’s development, and the central government will naturally not tolerate this.