A Taiwanese official has said that the Hong Kong authorities have ignored three requests by Taiwan for the two governments to figure out together a special arrangement to handle the Chan case, bypassing the need for any radical legislative changes in Hong Kong. The Lam administration has also ignored narrow alternative approaches proposed by Hong Kong’s top legal professionals.

It does so at its peril: Aside from the sheer number of protesters on the streets on Sunday, it also has to contend with concern from the business community, an essential constituency.

Jimmy Lai, a local media mogul and pro-democracy icon, has argued that if the bill passes, “Hong Kong will just become another Chinese city ruled by the Communist Party.” Michael Tien, an old-money and pro-government tycoon, as well as other representatives of the business sector, have also expressed clear, if more polite, disagreement.

The extradition bill would apply retroactively, and many business people in Hong Kong who have, or once had, business operations in China may have paid bribes — or visited brothels or otherwise contravened Chinese law in ways that high-flyers there routinely do.

Hong Kong’s tycoons and major business leaders have long had an interest — and a say — in maintaining the rule of law in the city, if only because it makes for a more attractive investment climate. That’s one reason that back in 2003 some of them rallied around James Tien — then a member of the Executive Council, the local cabinet (and now an honorary chairman of the pro-business Liberal Party) — to oppose a controversial security bill under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution.

Business people in Hong Kong have even more reason to fear the extradition bill today. It could both destabilize the city’s business environment and expose them to reprisals or extortion by the Chinese authorities — especially if they have ties to the United States and the country’s trade war with China continues to rev up.