TNAG-2092-FCO40-2978-Royal-Hong-Kong-Police-Force-1990 — Page 92

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