The civil service code requires public servants to uphold the principle of political neutrality, and the Basic Law says they are responsible to the government of Hong Kong. That seems straightforward. When the head of the civil service says they also serve the country – the first time their role has been defined in this way – it prompts calls for clarification. Secretary for the Civil Service Patrick Nip Tak-kuen said civil servants were also public servants under the People’s Republic of China, in keeping with “one country, two systems”, and needed to keep their dual roles in mind. They should be careful about what they say and avoid raising doubts over their ability to carry out duties.
The issue of neutrality and loyalty became topical after civil servants took part in a protest rally last August. Then, the government said that under the code, public servants shall serve the chief executive and the government with total loyalty and to the best of their ability regardless of their own political views. That has been a consistent line. In reply to a lawmaker in 2004, former civil service secretary Joseph Wong Wing-ping said a key element of political neutrality was that it was built on allegiance to the government.
The question is whether the dual roles cited by Nip are mutually exclusive, or incompatible. Some people see inconsistency in terms of the tradition that civil servants are above politics and do not take a stance. Arguably, however, the two roles need not be fundamentally incompatible. In principle, civil servants have to bear in mind the national interest. They should not do something or take part in activity that knowingly undermines the sovereignty or national security of the nation. Even if that is seen as a new requirement it is not unusual. Many countries ask public servants to vow to safeguard the nation’s interests and sovereignty. It depends on how it works in practice if civil servants are to have regard for the national interest.
Nip said the dual identity “is not a new thing, just rarely discussed”. But detail of civil servants’ responsibility and how it is to be exercised is unclear. Detail is paramount at the practical level. Given perceptions of ambiguity, clarification is needed not only at the operational level, but so as not to hinder or confuse civil servants in their roles of serving Hong Kong and the national interest.