Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor told the media during her trip to Beijing that she felt at ease after the National People’s Congress passed a decision authorizing its Standing Committee (the NPCSC) to introduce a national security law for Hong Kong. She has reason to be at ease, as do most Hong Kong residents.

The new law will once and for all spare law-abiding residents the kind of violent rampages and terroristic acts that have plagued the city for more than half a year. The new law will allow them to lead their normal lives as they should. Most importantly, the city will be freed from unending political wrangling, allowing Hong Kong society to refocus on economic development as well as to tackle its deep-seated social problems for the betterment of overall well-being. It is safe to say that the security legislation has heralded a new era for the city.

The chief executive, however, seems to be unsettled by at least one thing — doubts about the Hong Kong Bar Association’s professional integrity and impartiality — to the extent that she felt the need to call out the professional society twice in less than two weeks. Fielding questions from the media in Beijing, Lam again unequivocally rebutted the Bar Association’s earlier claim that the NPC’s decision on the national security legislation for Hong Kong has undermined the latter’s autonomy and violated Article 18 of the Basic Law.

The Bar Association in effect took issue with the NPCSC’s power to introduce the proposed legislation in Hong Kong; it interpreted the Basic Law in a way that fits its argument when it issued a statement on May 25, without the slightest regard for the authority of the nation’s top legislature. It had conveniently “forgotten” that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law “shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress”, according to Article 158 of the Basic Law. Misinterpretation of the Basic Law by intention is nothing short of usurpation of the NPCSC’s power.

It puzzled many that professionals who are supposed to know law better than laymen dispute the universally acknowledged fact that national security is a matter for the central authorities in every country.

It came out that the Bar Association’s statement was cooked up by a bar council “whose political inclination was manifest through their past acts or omission”, according to an open letter by a member of the association. The statement and a relevant letter issued to the president of the American Bar Association on May 25 in the name of the Hong Kong Bar Association were written without any prior consultation of the Hong Kong Bar association’s members, according to Simon Chiu, a member of the Hong Kong Bar Association of over 30 years’ standing who has no partisan political affiliation. The letter and statement “do not represent my view, a feeling shared by many barristers, and citizens, in Hong Kong”, Chiu protested in his open letter.

Ironically, some key members of the Hong Kong Bar Association have been among the most vocal in promoting “democracy” in the city. Members like Chiu have a good reason to speak out against such undemocratic, opaque maneuvers — for the sake of the organization’s reputation. A professional body would undermine its own reputation and credibility should it allow political stances to encroach on its professional integrity.