The way in which the controversial new Hong Kong security law was introduced clearly says: "Dear citizens of the city, this is none of your business. This is a question of national security." China's national security.
This may still be somewhat understandable from a legal perspective: After all, the "one country, two systems" principle does refer to "one country" and the Chinese government's "One China" policy has been recognised by most states in the world.
Nevertheless, Beijing should not be surprised that the law has been seen as an affront in Hong Kong and the Western world. Although the city state's mini-constitution, which is known as the "Basic Law," explicitly requires the introduction of a national security law, it also underlines the fact that Hong Kong should regulate it "on its own."
That Hong Kong has not succeeded in doing this over the past decades is no reason to simply ignore its residents now, particularly not after months of protests and the landslide victory of pro-democracy forces in last November's local elections. Many people feel blindsided.
Outrage in the West
Beijing has now provided the West with a wound that it can pour salt on. US President Donald Trump has already revoked Hong Kong's special status and indicated that sanctions could be imposed on certain Chinese government officials. This comes at the right time for Trump's election campaign.
Meanwhile, Britain has temporarily exempted future homeowners buying properties below £500,000 (€551,750) from paying stamp duty in order to shore up its battered economy. There is speculation that people wanting to leave Hong Kong could try to benefit. Other nations have also announced that they will grant asylum to Hong Kong residents who are persecuted under the law.
Communist Party gets the final say
The law's major problem is obvious: in order to tackle activities that the Basic Law classifies as "subversion" or "terrorism," Beijing security forces are allowed to carry out investigations and make arrests independently of the Hong Kong Police Force.
They can also conduct searches without a warrant, freeze assets and intercept online communications. In theory, anybody arrested in Hong Kong for "opposition activity" can be brought before a court on mainland China.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with this. Germany also has state and federal courts. However, the rule of law in mainland China and Hong Kong has developed very differently. The Communist Party has much more say in China.
In principle, there is also nothing wrong with criminalizing secession attempts. This would be considered unconstitutional in Germany too.
Certain Western analysts have asked themselves why this internationally accepted right should not apply to China, especially as it does not explicitly contradict the "One country, two systems" principle agreed with Britain. The answer is simple: China does not have adequate rule of law.
Fair trials are unlikely
Some might also argue, with good reason, that Germany's Criminal Code also stipulates that offenses committed abroad, such as high treason, the endangering of the rule of law, the endangering of external security or treason within Germany, is punishable by law. Like in Hong Kong, this is irrespective of the law in the country in which the crime took place.
Whatever the argument, however, there remains a big difference with other countries that China likes to keep quiet about: In Germany, Hong Kong and — with some exceptions (Guantanamo) — in the US, the probability of a suspect receiving a fair trial by Western standards is high. This is not the case in mainland China.
In this respect, it is indeed good and right that the new security law expressly respects Hong Kong's Basic Law. But if the sentences are passed according to Beijing party standards, the accused will get little out of it.
How will Beijing interpret the law?
In terms of content, Article 4 of Hong Kong's security law guarantees that "human rights shall be respected." This includes "the freedoms of speech, of the press, of publication, of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration, which the residents of the Region enjoy under the Basic Law."
For now, it seems as if the media will be allowed to continue reporting with a critical perspective. There are currently no subjects being reported about abroad that cannot also be covered by leading Hong Kong papers such as the South China Morning Post.
However, there are many questions regarding the implementation of the security law, precisely because Beijing can now lay down the law. In future, will demonstrations, in which people demand more autonomy or a development of the welfare state be allowed, but not protests where people call for independence from Beijing?
Another crucial question is how draconian the penalties imposed on Hong Kong will be if Beijing thinks the security law has been violated?
Where does 'subversion' begin?
Many Hong Kong public institutions are already showing caution: school children and students have been encouraged to refrain from all political activities during school hours. Apparently, public libraries and bookstores will also be combed for "subversive" content.
If people follow the law, then the newly established "national security agency," headed by the hard-liner Zheng Yanxiong, will not be able to accuse all those who criticize China of endangering the country's security. But where does "subversion" begin from the point of view of the Communist Party?
The law has not yet been used to set an example by targeting a pro-democracy leader. Some prominent activists, including 26-year-old Nathan Law, have already left Hong Kong for their own safety. Others, like Joshua Wong, are still running for election to Hong Kong's parliament, the Legislative Council, in September.
Some 610,000 participated in the oppostion primaries. But Beijing's Hong Kong Liaison Office said the symbolic protest vote, with the motto "power for democracy," was a "serious provocation" which possibly violated Article 22.
That already gives an indication of Hong Kong's future.
Frank Sieren has lived in Beijing for over 25 years.