政府又偷換概念，將宣誓效忠的對象「中華人民共和國香港特別行政區」直接簡稱為「 香港特區」，然後謊稱反正《基本法》第99條要求公務員對「香港特別行政區政府／香港特區政府」負責，所以公務員「從來都有責任擁護《基本法》和效忠香港特區」云云。
根據尊貴的高等法院原訟法官區慶祥（當時官階），「中華人民共和國香港特別行政區」是一個必須整體看待的詞語。換言之，只真誠地效忠香港特別行政區（或其永久或非永久居民）法律上並不足以構成真正及誠實地擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區；宣誓或作出聲明者必須同時無條件尊重及接受中華人民共和國統治香港的正當性。
明顯地，香港公務員自古以來都從來未曾需要對中華人民共和國負責，宣誓要求將徹底改變現狀。
Chief Executive of HKSAR v President of Legislative Council [2017] 4 HKLRD 115 at paras 86(6), (7):
'Moreover, when the adoption of a rising intonation by Mr Law whenever he read only the word “國” in all the three references to the phrase “the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China” (中華人民共和國香港特別行政區) was understood together with his references to “totalitarian authority” which he would not “subjugate” to in the Opening Statement, Mr Law was also objectively conveying the message that he did not respect or recognise the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the sovereign of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It must be noted that the words “中華人民共和國香港特別行政區” constitutes one complete phrase and meaning in the LegCo Oath, referring to the special constitutional arrangement that Hong Kong is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China. In targeting and focusing only on the word “國” in this phrase by adopting a rising intonation, Mr Law was objectively expressing a doubt on or disrespect of the status of the People’s Republic of China as Hong Kong’s legitimate sovereign country.
'... [T]he recognition of the People’s Republic of China as Hong Kong’s sovereign is fundamental to the One Country, Two Systems principle, which in turn is fundamental to the enactment of the BL and the underlying constitutional model in establishing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the People’s Republic of China as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s sovereign is inconsistent and contrary to swearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China and to uphold the BL. In the premises, objectively viewed, Mr Law could not and did not manifest a genuine and truthful intention to commit to and abide by these obligations in the LegCo Oath when purportedly taking it.'
題為編輯所擬