It had to happen.
See the following piece in the HK standard about the new president of the HK Bar Assoc, Paul Harris, SC.
Article author Cheng Huan a senior counsel who practices in Hong Kong says chillingly
That is the raison d’etre for the bar’s existence. It is to be hoped Paul Harris’ remarks have not jeopardized the desired good relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong’s barristers. As I have said many times before, the Bar Association is best advised to stay well out of politics.
Once they have brought him down it is only the judiciary left and as they used to say in the cartoons…..
Bar chief forces Beijing to lay down law
City talk | Cheng Huan 22 Feb 2021
The sustained and devastating criticism of the newly elected chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association by the central government liaison office, the People’s Daily, China Daily and other pro-Beijing media is unprecedented but it should not come as a great surprise.
Paul Harris, SC, the new head of the bar, had clearly, in Beijing’s view, crossed a red line and broken Beijing’s patience.
First, let us consider the historical context. Ever since 1997 the central government has studiously refrained from interference with Hong Kong’s legal professions and has faithfully abided by the principles of one country, two systems in its dealings with the local judiciary.
For example, I have never heard of any attempt by the powers that be in Beijing to interfere with or influence in any way the appointment of our judges. Beijing has always kept its distance.
But now, all of a sudden, a red line has been crossed. Harris uttered words that earned him a sharp rebuke and condemnation. This chastisement of the bar chairman almost certainly amounts to a watershed moment for the association.
It is hard to imagine how Beijing’s previously benign approach to the perceived importance and influence of the Bar Association can continue.
What incurred the wrath of Beijing authorities was what they perceived to be the “arrogance” of Harris when he suggested that, as bar chairman, he would attempt to persuade Beijing to amend certain aspects of the newly enacted National Security Law.
But the Chinese government naturally perceives the law to be inviolable as it was passed into law by the China’s highest legislative body, the National People’s Congress. The government views any attempt to interfere with the the law as presumptuous and arrogant.
Within days Harris was lambasted. I myself have been a member of the bar for more than 40 years but I never heard anything like it before. It is especially serious because the new chairman has only just begun to adjust to the influential duties the job entails.
In late January, and only days after he was elected chairman (unopposed), the People’s Daily accused him of being arrogant in seeking amendments to the law.
Two days later China Daily joined in, criticising the Bar Association for becoming “more politicized in recent years” and “making use of its influence in society to abuse activities that cause mayhem in Hong Kong.”
No doubt the newspaper was referring to the Bar Association’s widely perceived bias against the police and its frequent criticisms of the force’s handling of anti-government protests.
Then the local liaison office stepped forward with an even more robust denunciation. It accused Harris of dragging the Bar Association into the “abyss” and predicted that “disastrous consequences” will surely follow.
We must remember that the chairmanship of the Bar Association is a highly influential job. The law stipulates that the Bar’s 1,600 or so members can only practice their profession when they have obtained something called a practicing certificate, issued every calendar year by the Bar Association and signed by its chairman.
More importantly, the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission, which recommends to the chief executive who should be made magistrates and judges, must include a member of the Bar Association.
Inevitably, that member is usually the bar’s chairman.
The chief justice invariably consults the bar council when appointing senior counsel. In other words, the top job at the bar is highly influential and a critical link among barristers, judicial officers and the chief executive.
It goes without saying that an independent Bar Association is very much in the interests of Hong Kong’s legal system. Its primary responsibility, though, must be the protection and the interests and livelihoods of the bar’s barristers and senior counsel.
That is the raison d’etre for the bar’s existence. It is to be hoped Paul Harris’ remarks have not jeopardized the desired good relationship between Beijing and Hong Kong’s barristers. As I have said many times before, the Bar Association is best advised to stay well out of politics.
Cheng Huan is an author and a senior counsel who practices in Hong Kong
