“It is mandatory to apply dismissal as a penalty” to any civil servant who fails in their duty of loyalty to the Macau SAR or in defending the constitutional order of the PRC, according to the proposed amendment to the ETAP submitted to the Legislative Assembly. The controversy intensified when the Secretary for Administration and Justice, André Cheong, admitted that even comments on social media—or at a coffee shop—could influence the evaluation of this duty.
In truth, upon dissecting the letter of the new statute, legal experts consulted by PLATAFORMA downplay a text they see as normal, adhering to general principles and values already outlined in the Penal Code or the National Security Law.
The duty of loyalty already applied to civil servants (Article 279, No. 2, d of the ETAP). Moreover, even in the private sector, such a commitment exists (Article 11, No. 1, 5 of the Labour Relations Law), notes lawyer José Álvares. He concludes: “On one hand, the aim was to explicitly include matters related to state security laws—which are highly relevant worldwide due to geopolitical tensions. On the other hand, it was about precisely defining what this duty of loyalty entails. Notice that the Secretary for Administration clarified that not every act violates the duty of loyalty; only those done in bad faith to defame, slander, or insult the political system enshrined in the PRC Constitution and Macau’s Basic Law.”
Other Issues
Another legal expert, a public servant speaking anonymously, says: “Honestly, I see no problem with the oath,” nor with the “requirement to respect the sovereignty and security of the state.” In fact, these are “general principles and values that already existed in the Penal Code and the National Security Law.” Now, with the advantage of being “more explicit, which is a good thing. More complicated, for instance, is when the National Security Law mentions harming the economy and the well-being of the Chinese people without providing any description.”
Furthermore, the same expert recalls that the ETAP amendment proposal contains articles that are “perhaps more complex and about which no one is talking.” For instance, Article 39, which allows disciplinary proceedings to be published in the Official Gazette before being concluded—effectively disregarding the presumption of innocence—or Article 102, which permits medical boards to enter a public servant’s home to verify medical certificates.
In truth, the issue highlighted as central does not concern this legal expert, though they admit to doubts about the commission responsible for evaluating these duties and the criteria it will follow. “It remains to be seen how much leeway there is for freedom of opinion, disagreement over procedures, and policies… but what we see are general principles, especially regarding issues that do not impact the daily lives of most civil servants.”
José Álvares points to New York, where officials also swear allegiance to the state constitution and the federal constitution. In Macau, the aim seems to be to “reinforce this duty of loyalty among civil servants.” Drawing an analogy to a company, Álvares suggests: “If an employee doesn’t even believe in the vision and mission of the employer, does the employer want them to work for them? I don’t think any employer would say yes. First, if someone doesn’t accept the political system, they shouldn’t be contributing to it. Second, their performance, inevitably, won’t be the most productive.”
While acknowledging that these requirements may cause “some alarm,” Álvares emphasizes the essence: “Someone offering constructive criticism in good faith would never be accused of disloyalty; what’s at stake are actions genuinely against the system.” While refusing to sign the oath may put a public servant in a “difficult position,” there is no reason for them to refuse. “It’s merely reinforcing already existing obligations,” Álvares concludes.
No Pressure
The Macau Civil Servants’ Association (ATFPM) has avoided the debate, and its president, Pereira Coutinho, did not respond to our inquiries. Jorge Fão, now representing retired pensioners (APOMAC), was a former leader of the ATFPM. He notes the silence from those most directly affected: “The recognized representatives of civil servants have not, to date, expressed any objections to the new requirement for a declaration of loyalty (…) which suggests that no one feels pressured by the new text of the oath.”
Fão also recalls that under the Statute of Overseas Civil Servants, “several declarations had to be submitted, one of which was very controversial.” Times are different now, and Fão recognizes that today they reflect “the focus on national security” as an “essential issue for Chinese leaders.” For this reason, he accepts the need to “strengthen this aspect from all angles, not underestimating the important pillar of the civil service.”
In this context, Fão concludes that “it is understandable why many countries consider loyalty within their civil service to be important,” seeing no hidden political agenda but rather a clear intent to “transmit, with greater precision, to civil servants in Macau the need to be loyal to the Macau SAR and the PRC—nothing more.”
