A topical term, “political neutrality”, adopted by both colonial and Hong Kong governments to demonstrate impartiality in policy implementation, has in recent weeks once again been evoked with regard to civil servants. This comes in response to the overt participation of some of them in the anti-extradition bill campaign in the past year (“ Hong Kong civil servants ‘not allowed to join anti-government protests’ ”, July 10). Regrettably, “political neutrality” for the demonstrated objective has never genuinely existed under either of the systems of governance, but been an instrument to manage civil servants’ loyalty. For a long time, many key policies themselves in different spheres tell of political positions, such as the political reform of 1995, the 2010 electoral reform, infrastructure planning, and permitting the listing of companies with weighted voting right structures . In spite of the political slant of these policies, civil servants have implemented them without reservation, and even unknowingly followed the associated political position. These actions do not exemplify the so-called political neutrality. In the 90s, along with the countdown to the end of British governance in Hong Kong, the colonial administration speculated over whether their governing power would be undermined by losing civil servants’ support which might politically turn towards China. “Political neutrality” of civil servants was then widely propagated to reassure Hongkongers of civil servants’ support and the government’s power. After reunification in July 1997, the Hong Kong government inherited all civil servants from the colonial government, but their loyalty could be in doubt. “Political neutrality” was retained in the civil servant’s code and managed to subtly manipulate their mentality to elevate their loyalty. Again, “political neutrality” was used to secure civil servants’ support for the government. In short, both the colonial and Hong Kong governments have pursued “political neutrality” with the aim of hailing the rectitude of civil servants, but the truth is that this is to secure the loyalty of the civil service under different regimes, rather than genuine neutrality. C.P. Lee, Causeway Bay