the SARG. This does not affect the personal allegiance owed as a British subject to the Queen.
4.
The official duty of loyalty is a matter between employer and employee. At present, although the
Secretary of State has obligations in respect of members of HMOCS, he is not the employer of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong: their employer is the Government of Hong Kong and it is to that Government that they owe their loyalty in respect of their official duties. The consititutional position is
that the Crown in respect of Hong Kong (and of each other Dependent Territory) is separate and distinct from the Crown
in respect of the United Kingdom (though Ministers of Her
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom advise The Queen
in both regards, and the Governor and thus the
Administration are subject to such instructions as he may receive from the Secretary of State). From 1 July 1997 the
employer of those former HMOCS officers who choose to remain
will be the Government of the SAR.
5. Some officers have commented that the financial
incentive element of the benefit scheme we have proposed
implies that we see tham as "mercenaries". That is not the
case. We respect the members of HMOCS. We know that they face difficult decisions about their future careers, with
important implications for their families. We appreciate
that financial considerations of the kind which our scheme
envisages can only be a limited factor in such decisions.
However the Government believe that HMOCS members can
continue to make a valuable contribution to Hong Kong. We therefore consider it appropriate that our scheme should
include some elements of incentive, and avoid elements which
would tend to encourage officers to leave prematurely. It is also our earnest wish that our continuing discussions with the Chinese authorities in the JLG and at the political
PJZAYL/2