TNAG-2091-FCO40-2977-Royal-Hong-Kong-Police-Force-1990 — Page 67

SECRET

FM HONG KONG

TO DESKBY 29093OZ FCO TELNO 1085

OF 290845Z MARCH 90

SECRET

HUB 431/1

134570 MDHIAN 6422

RECEP

3 0 MAR 1990

DESK

INDEX

FOR STONE HKD FROM SHIPLEY, SCS, HONG KONG

34

YRTELNO 672: LETTER FROM RHKPF SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION:

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

1. WE AGREE THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU SHOULD ANSWER THE POINT ON THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AS PROPOSED IN PARA 2 OF TUR ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS TO OFFICERS WHO HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE OATH.

2. THE LEGAL ADVICE YOU HAVE RECEIVED IS WORRYING. WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PERSON'S DUTY OF ALLEGIANCE AS A CITIZEN AND AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF A PARTICULAR FUNCTION E.G. AS A JUDGE OR POLICEMAN. IF AFTER 1997 POLICEMAN CANNOT CEASE TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CROWN FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES THIS WILL PRODUCE A NONSENSE. IT WILL BE UNACCEPTABLE TO THE CHINESE AND WILL ADD STRENGTH TO CLAIMS BY THE POLICE THAT THEY SHOULD ALL BE GRANTED ABOLITION OF OFFICE TERMS. YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FEW BRITISH EXPATRIATES BUT THE ENTIRE POLICE FORCE.

3. WE ARE APPROACHING OUR OWN LEGAL ADVISERS ON THE ISSUE BUT WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL IF YOU TOO COULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PROBLEM. THERE MUST SURELY BE SOME SENSIBLE WAY OF DIS-APPLYING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

WILSON

YYYY

PAGE 1 SECRET

35,