2) The Oath of Fidelity of Executive Counsellors already constitutes an oath of office and there is no purpose in repeating it merely as an alternative to the Oath of Allegiance; to the extent that the Oath of Fidelity does not, at present, provide for the attestor to uphold the laws, that could be added at the end of the Oath of Fidelity;
3) The real parallel to the alternative provided for the Legislative Counsellor would seem to be the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance in the case of Executive Counsellors and its substitution by the Oath of Fidelity as so amended;
4)
The above proposals would not give the Executive Counsellor the same options as the Legislative Counsellor has, i.e. either to take an oath of allegiance or an oath of office; he would be required only to take an oath of office (or or fidelity as it is described). That would not prevent any Counsellor from taking, additionally, an oath of allegiance if he so wished.
5. I would therefore suggest that in reply to Hong Kong telno 1425 you point out that their proposal duplicates, in its essentials, the existing Oath of Fidelity, except for the undertaking to uphold the laws. That could be tacked on to the Oath of Fidelity and the obligation, subject to the Ministers and the Palace's agreement, to take an oath of allegiance dispensed with, save on a voluntary basis.
HKK 011115
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY 24 JUN 1986
REGISTRY
lAction Taken
двана
Paul Fifoot