Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor sent a clear message to the Law Society ahead of its election for five council members, warning that if its professional role is overridden by politics, the government will cut ties with it. Members of the Law Society should fully understand the moral gravitas of its decisions on a matter of such significance and keep in mind its obligation to uphold the public interest as a professional institution. It is hoped that this timely reminder and well-meant caution is appreciated by members of the Law Society.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, together with all sectors of society, hope that the Law Society, led by the new-term council, will not betray its commitment to professionalism, which affords the trustworthiness vital to its partnership with the HKSAR government on a wide range of legal matters
The Law Society has always played an important role in upholding the rule of law, with an impressive track record recognized by all sectors of the community. When the “black revolution” was ravaging Hong Kong in 2019, the Law Society firmly spoke up against violence with a stirring sense of morality and professionalism. However, undoubtedly there exists an insidious force in the legal profession working feverishly to turn the Law Society from a professional body into a political group. The election to fill five openings in its governing body — the council — on Tuesday is therefore regarded by some as an opportunity to change its political hue. This election is not just a routine exercise of structural maintenance because its result may change the public perception of the Law Society with existential ramifications, so to speak. It is safe to say its credibility and even viability hinges on its commitment to serving the public interest with pure professionalism instead of a power gamble driven by a political conviction or agenda.
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government, together with all sectors of society, hope that the Law Society, led by the new-term council, will not betray its commitment to professionalism, which affords the trustworthiness vital to its partnership with the HKSAR government on a wide range of legal matters. Many advisory groups are also willing to accommodate candidates recommended by the Law Society, including the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, which appoints judicial officers, and the Legal Aid Services Council, which administers the legal aid system. If, however, the Law Society’s newly elected council puts politics above professional integrity, it will risk jeopardizing the collaborative ties with the HKSAR government. Should that be the case, the Law Society will be nothing more than a fraternity of legal professionals, or might even reach a dead end, just as the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union did.
From a broader perspective, the opportunity for Hong Kong-based legal professionals to pursue their career goals on the mainland will be gone if the Law Society decides to become a political beast instead. As the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area development continues according to plan, the central government has launched initiatives to create more career development opportunities for legal practitioners by opening the door wider for Hong Kong legal services, such as allowing wholly-owned Hong Kong enterprises operating on the mainland to choose Hong Kong laws to be the applicable law when entering into civil and commercial contracts, and choose Hong Kong as the seat of arbitration. It would be sacrilegious of the Law Society to hurt the interests of its members by chasing the political “dreams” that have led the Bar Association astray.
The Bar Association, with its newly elected council, now tastes the bitter fruit of its own political prejudice. When Philip John Dykes, a human rights lawyer, was chairing the Bar Association, he did not only keep silent about the atrocities brought about by the “black revolution” but also openly joined groundless attacks on the HKSAR government, the Hong Kong Police Force and even challenged the constitutional order of the HKSAR built on the overall jurisdiction of the central government over Hong Kong. His collusion with the anti-China forces was broadly criticized and led to the departure of then-vice-chairman Edwin Choy Wai-bond. Dykes’ successor, Paul Harris, has led the Bar Association further down the path of self-destruction. Besides slandering the National Security Law in effect in Hong Kong, he is also implicated by the press as a supporter of “Tibet independence”. Such intolerable behavior has inevitably drawn fire from Beijing as well as the public in Hong Kong and cost the Bar Association its connections with the Chinese mainland. Harris’ political bias also aggravates internal division, resulting in the departure of council member Jeremy Bartlett and the resignation of another council member, Robin D’Souza. The walls are closing in on the Bar Association, and it is near the end of the road.
The Law Society has now reached a critical juncture where it has to decide its own fate, which will depend on whom its members will choose to run the governing body. If the council is dominated by political zealots after the election and chooses to sacrifice professionalism for politics, it will no doubt be hoisted with its own petard.
The author is a current affairs commentator.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.