Page
Cont'd M 2
Should it be decided to maintain after 1997
the requirement that policemen take an oath of
office, the form of the oath set out in the
Schedule to Cap 232 will be changed by, for example, substituting "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government" for "Her Majesty
and Her Heirs and Successors".
Ι am unaware of any form or procedure for
the renunciation of oaths and can see why the
renunciation of an Oath of Allegiance might be
troublesome. But where, as here, we are speaking
of an oath of office and, in simple terms, a
change of employer, I see no difficulty.
For existing officers it would, I suggest,
be possible to deal with the matter in what will, in any event, be necessary legislative amendments.
Such an amendment may render the earlier oath
of no effect or application. It may provide
for a similar oath in favour of the HKSARG.
Alternatively the form of oath taken in
mid 1997 by serving officers might include a
short preamble reciting the circumstances which
lead to a later oath in favour of the HKSARG.
Whether or not some expression of renunciation
is desirable is a matter for decision. But at
the end of the day one cannot realistically
continue to be bound to continue to serve another
who was, but no longer is, one's employer.
office
On а commonsense view the oath of must simply fall away when the relevant employment
relationship ceases. It is wrong, in my view,
to suggest that those who have taken the oath
of office must forever
forever remain bound by it. And
remain