Hong Kong civil service chief defends guidelines calling for firing of city employees charged with protesting during probation period

Civil service chief rejects criticism that dismissals violate presumption of innocence, saying that is an issue for courts, not employers, to weigh

‘We cannot just use the bar of criminal responsibility to decide whether the staffer should pass probation,’ Patrick Nip says in TV appearance

2-MIN READ2-MIN

Anti-government protesters open their umbrellas as police approach during an unlawful demonstration on July 1, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover from British to Chinese sovereignty. Photo: K. Y. Cheng

Published: 5:51pm, 23 Aug 2020Updated: 5:51pm, 23 Aug 2020

Hong Kong’s civil service chief has defended new guidelines calling for the dismissal of government employees charged with taking part in unlawful protests during their probation period, brushing aside concerns it would violate the presumption of innocence.

The practice, announced in an internal Civil Service Bureau memo earlier this month, came hot on the heels of the June 30 imposition of a Beijing-decreed national security law banning acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces.

In the case of employees arrested but not charged, officials are to examine relevant “facts and circumstances” or seek legal advice in determining their employment status.

Asked if the administration had imposed more stringent requirements on civil servants following the security law’s adoption, Patrick Nip Tak Kuen on Sunday insisted the new memo was merely an elaboration of existing public service regulations, which stipulate requirements for staffers’ conduct, acts and job performance.

Patrick Nip, Hong Kong’s civil service chief, on Sunday used his blog to defend against accusations that the city’s firing policy for staffers on probation violated the presumption of innocence. Photo: Winson Wong

He also dismissed the suggestion the practice was against the common law principle of presumption of innocence, something critics have argued as civil servants could lose their jobs before a court had found them guilty.

“The court judgment is a ruling on criminal responsibility, but the issue in question now is … a relationship between the employer and the employee,” he said, adding all employers have their own requirements for staff.