After the three elections of the Election Committee, the Legislative Council, and the chief executive were successfully held, the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong” has been largely realized in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Recently, the HKSAR government said it intends to delete the requirement of “political neutrality” for civil servants from the Civil Service Code. This move has triggered some controversy in the city. Not surprisingly, the political opposition does not approve of it, and some leaders in the patriotic camp have also expressed doubts about it. To a certain extent, these controversies reflect the different expectations of various parties, including the civil servants themselves, regarding the appropriate “political behavior” of civil servants under the new situation of “patriots administering Hong Kong”.

From a historical point of view, the advent and institutionalization of the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants are related to the emergence of the modern sovereign state, political parties taking turns in power, and the establishment of the modern civil service where the principle of meritocracy is sacrosanct. Under the circumstances of the modern era, civil servants owe their allegiance to the government led by the party legally empowered to lead the country. Civil servants are legally required to pledge allegiance to the government led by the new ruling party if there is a change in the ruling party. The so-called “political neutrality” of civil servants means in principle that they should maintain “neutrality” between different political parties, and not favor or owe allegiance to any political party, let alone “loyalty” to an opposition party or parties.

During British rule, the Hong Kong government was a political entity that monopolized all constitutional powers and had been in power for a long time. It would not tolerate political forces that threatened or undermined its authority, governance or prestige. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, under the febrile anti-communist ambiance in Western countries, the Hong Kong government felt that local patriotic groups and people who supported or sympathized with the Communist Party of China were thorns in its side. Accordingly, not only were they discriminated against and incessantly harangued by the administration, but the latter also deliberately instilled and propagated public resentment against them. The government adroitly used the civil service as a “sharp weapon” to harass, isolate, and contain the patriotic forces. At that time, the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants was rarely mentioned or openly preached. On the contrary, not only could civil servants not remain “neutral” to the colonial government; they also had to stand firmly on the same side as the administration. Both were required to jointly engage in political action to suppress or eradicate the “hostile elements” that were detrimental to governance, and resolutely had to uphold the legitimacy, prestige and effectiveness of the colonial regime. 

However, after Hong Kong’s eventual return to China became a foregone conclusion, to “exit with glory”, cultivate anti-communist and anti-China forces, and maintain the interests and influence of Britain and the West in the upcoming HKSAR, the colonial government blatantly ignored China’s vociferous opposition and vigorously undertook so-called “representative political reform” under the guise of “returning power to the people” but with the intention of encouraging the establishment and development of local political parties, especially those with anti-communist and anti-China credentials. At the same time, to counteract anti-communist and anti-China parties, patriotic political parties emerged one after another with the support of Beijing. True to form, the colonial rulers would never allow any local political party to come to power irrespective of their political predisposition. Even so, a unique type of “party politics without a ruling party” was born in Hong Kong. To show that the colonial government would “fairly” treat these newly emergent political organizations that were unprecedentedly independent of the colonial government, the colonial government started to advocate and publicize an “idealized” version of the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants, a principle that came from the modern British civil service but was never practiced in Hong Kong nor throughout Chinese history. On the one hand, the colonial government continued to insist on the absolute allegiance of civil servants to the colonial government. On the other hand, it required “in principle” that civil servants should hold an “impartial” stance toward different political and social organizations and forces in Hong Kong. In actuality, however, civil servants had to continue to carry out the real policy of the colonial government to discriminate against, suppress, divide, and isolate the patriotic parties and forces. Because civil servants had been inculcated with anti-communist and pro-Western values through colonial education and on-the-job training in the colonial government for a long time, some of them inevitably developed a strong sense of antipathy to the Communist Party of China and the patriotic forces. Consequently, these civil servants were not averse to these policies of the colonial government, and they tended to believe that discrimination against or hostility toward the patriotic forces was in the best interests of Hong Kong. Therefore, the “idealized” principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants was practiced only partially in the final years of British rule. 

Of course, a more ideal situation would be that most civil servants are sincerely patriotic, have a correct understanding of “one country, two systems”, China’s Constitution, the Basic Law, and the National Security Law for Hong Kong, recognize the central government’s comprehensive jurisdiction over the HKSAR, willingly uphold the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong”, are willing to work together with the patriotic forces, and take responsibility for safeguarding national sovereignty and security

In practice, therefore, the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants announced by the colonial government would not allow civil servants to invoke the “political neutrality” principle as a talisman to resist the implementation of the policies and orders of the colonial government, nor did it require them to maintain “neutrality” between the patriotic forces on one side and the anti-communist and anti-China forces on the other. If the way this principle was practiced in British-ruled Hong Kong was replicated in the HKSAR, it would mean that Hong Kong civil servants would be loyal to the HKSAR government and earnestly implement the policies and orders of the HKSAR government even if they disagreed with those policies and orders. They would also adopt a position of supporting the patriotic forces and rejecting the anti-communist and anti-China forces even if they disliked the former and continued to feel politically close to the latter. Regrettably, the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants in the HKSAR has been interpreted the other way by the anti-communist and anti-China forces and by some civil servants, which seriously weakens the prestige and effectiveness of the HKSAR government’s governance and derails the practice of “one country, two systems”.

This alternative interpretation of “political neutrality” is mainly manifested in the fact that the way it was practiced by the colonial government (namely loyalty to the political master and hostility toward its enemies) was upended by the anti-communist and anti-China forces and some civil servants. To these people, “political neutrality” means that civil servants of the HKSAR should not be allegiant to the new, “pro-communist” or “pro-Beijing” regime and should not be biased in favor of the patriotic forces. Instead, they should be loyal to the Hong Kong residents. Some of these people even believe that if the policies and decisions of the HKSAR government violate their “political beliefs” or “political morals”, civil servants should not follow or execute them faithfully. This novel doctrine of “political neutrality” of civil servants has been assiduously disseminated in Hong Kong since 1997 by these people and their foreign patrons. During the riots in 2019-20, a small number of civil servants openly opposed the HKSAR government, especially the police force’s way of handling the rioters, and tried to stir up Hong Kong residents’ anti-government fervor inside and outside the government. According to the alternative interpretation of the principle of “political neutrality”, civil servants can maintain “neutrality” toward the HKSAR government and not owe allegiance to it. When implementing policies, they should lean toward the anti-communist and anti-China forces which are deemed by some people to be more representative of Hong Kong residents. If the above is not allowable or impossible, civil servants should then resort to being “impartial” toward all political forces as demanded in the “idealized” version of “political neutrality”. 

In 2002, the HKSAR government established the “Accountability System for Principal Officials” to strengthen the government’s accountability to society and limit the obligation of political responsibility only to the chief executive and the principal officials, so that the civil servants who implement government policies do not have to bear political responsibility for them. However, the government does not state that civil servants are relieved of the need to perform duties which might be regarded by some civil servants as “political work”. At the same time, the so-called “political work” is often expansively defined by some people with ulterior motives. Even explaining government policies and canvassing support for the government in the Legislative Council and society, implementing policies and measures that are conducive to strengthening patriotism, promoting national education, Chinese Constitution education, Basic Law education and national security education are all regarded as “political work” that should not be done by civil servants, otherwise, the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants will be contravened.

Today, with the central government’s successful efforts to bring order out of chaos, the realization of the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong”, and the disintegration of anti-communist and anti-China forces, it is necessary to deal properly with the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants in the HKSAR under the new situation. I think that those who support or oppose the removal of the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants from the Civil Service Code will agree that civil servants must be accountable to the HKSAR government and faithfully implement its policies and directives even if they have different “political beliefs”, “political loyalties” or understandings of “political work”. Of course, a more ideal situation would be that most civil servants are sincerely patriotic, have a correct understanding of “one country, two systems”, China’s Constitution, the Basic Law, and the National Security Law for Hong Kong, recognize the central government’s comprehensive jurisdiction over the HKSAR, willingly uphold the principle of “patriots administering Hong Kong”, are willing to work together with the patriotic forces, and take responsibility for safeguarding national sovereignty and security. If the definition of the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants in the Civil Service Code includes the above content, then it is not inappropriate to still retain it in the document. However, given the longstanding disputes over the definition of the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants in the government and society, the HKSAR government’s definition of “political neutrality” of civil servants may not be “authoritative” enough to achieve the effect of “giving the final word” and clearing up doubts in society. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to delete the principle of “political neutrality” of civil servants from the Civil Service Code.

The author is a professor emeritus of sociology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and a consultant of the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macao Studies.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.