The Bar Association has long been a pan-democratic outfit. Under Philip Dykes, it has been no different. Indeed, in the past three years, which coincided with the worst political crisis and riots in Hong Kong since 1967, it was seen, at least by Beijing, as aligning closely with the protest movement. New chairman Paul Harris may, hopefully, be more constructive. A confrontational approach will not get the association, or Hong Kong, anywhere. His first public remarks after an uncontested election sound promising. “On the one hand, I don’t like violent demonstrators, and on the other hand, I don’t like the authorities that abuse their power,” he said. That sounds at least like an attempt to be more even-handed. More significantly, he has drawn a connection in terms of public safety between the draconian national security law and extradition arrangements with Western countries. What do we mean when we say the word China? Many of those countries have suspended extradition in light of the law. Harris argues that by amending some provisions, it’s in everyone’s interest to be able to exchange criminals rather than serve as their safe havens. It’s an interesting idea. But the whole dispute has much more to do with international politics than just a matter within the narrow confines of extradition law. From Beijing’s point of view, Harris’ suggestion may also be seen as a “Trojan horse” attempt to weaken the national security law, with no guarantee that those foreign governments involved would consider resuming extradition. While Beijing sees all aspects of the law as its own internal affairs, Western governments have been responding to the law as part of their overall foreign policy challenges to China. Either way, it’s more about politics than law. Hong Kong has no alternative to ‘laam chau’ and Beijing’s intervention Perhaps Harris speaks closer to his own heart when he claims the security law violates key provisions under the Basic Law and threatens the rule of law. His argument is not new. Other activists, notably University of Hong Kong law professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, have made the same case. Harris wants the law changed. Maybe for him, it’s really not about extradition, but just something to motivate or interest Beijing to change course; a foot in the door, so to speak. But the law was passed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee and local courts have repeatedly affirmed its status as the ultimate authority in interpreting what is constitutional in Hong Kong. Harris has a tough battle ahead.