Five join Hong Kong Law Society council in controversial election

One person reportedly backed out of the race for his safety

Five join Hong Kong Law Society council in controversial election

The Hong Kong Law Society has added five new members to its council following a controversial election, the Law Society Gazette reported.

Lawyer Jonathan Ross, an incumbent candidate, had reportedly backed out of the race, citing his safety as well as that of his family. Before the election, Hong Kong chief executive Carrie Lam had also cautioned the Law Society that the government would cut ties with the organisation if it became politicised.

Liberal members could only secure a majority in the organisation by winning all five available seats in the 20-strong council, with seven of the seats taken by reportedly liberal members. However, three candidates supported by liberal groups failed to win against Jimmy Chan Kwok-ho, Tom Fu Ka-min, Justin Yuen Hoi-ying, Ronald Sum Kwan-ngai and incumbent Careen Wong Hau-yan in the 24 August election.

All five newly elected members have or have had connections to the Beijing liaison office in Hong Kong.

The winning candidates explained that their ties to the liaison office were irrelevant to the election. According to the South China Morning Post, their campaigns had championed “professionalism over politicisation.”

“During the election period, in the face of unprecedented challenges and our politicised society, we played our little part in hoping to unite our profession,” Wong said in a statement published by the Gazette.

The Hong Kong Free Press reported that following the results of the election, the 12,000-member Hong Kong Law Society is “dominated” by members linked to the establishment.

A supposed pro-opposition stance had already led to the dissolution of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union. The Hong Kong government has also detained lawyers acting for democracy supporters under the country’s national security law.

Last year, the International Bar Association slammed the new legislation, describing it as “contrary to the norms of international law.”