Is this the end of Hong Kong as we know it?

As protests raged in Hong Kong on Wednesday, the city’s leading official, Carrie Lam, drank champagne and celebrated with colleagues from Hong Kong and Beijing. The night prior, the government in Beijing had passed a controversial law that it said was meant to protect national security. Yet the demonstrators protesting across Hong Kong saw the law as something much more sinister. In their eyes, it was an infringement upon their distinctive rights, unique liberties that had allowed their city to flourish as an economic hub and shine as a bastion of freedom in a country they saw as anything but free.

Police had banned protests, but it didn’t stop thousands of residents from taking to the streets on the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover. Twenty-three years prior, the UK had given Hong Kong back to China. Under a joint declaration between the UK and China, Beijing agreed to allow Hong Kong a special level of autonomy under a political framework known as One Country, Two Systems. That framework allowed Hong Kong to return to China while still retaining its unique freedoms and capitalist system it had developed under British rule. But since that handover in 1997, many Hongkongers have protested against what they see as a slow takeover by the mainland government in Beijing, even though China had agreed to allow the One Country, Two Systems framework to operate for 50 years.

The national security law passed by the mainland government last week was seen as the most significant infringement upon Hong Kong’s autonomy as of yet. By midday, the protests had turned chaotic as police fired pepper spray and water cannons at demonstrators. One officer was stabbed, and another six were injured in the ensuing violence. Police arrested nearly 400 protestors, 10 on the grounds of violating the national security law. Some of those ten, including a 15-year-old girl, had protested with signs that called for Hong Kong’s independence from mainland China. Police, meanwhile, had held their own signs, warning that certain banners, chants, slogans, and behavior could constitute acts of secession or subversion punishable under the national security law.

Elsewhere in the city, a different scene was on display. Banners and signs celebrated the law and the 1997 handover, while Zhang Xiaoming, the executive director of the governmental office dedicated to handling affairs in Hong Kong and Macao, a former Portugese colony, reaffirmed statements made by supporters of the bill who said the law would only target a small minority of individuals “who want to interfere in Hong Kong affairs.”

To Carrie Lam, the protestors’ grievances were overblown. The law was the most significant development in relations between her city and the mainland, she said, with the aim of deterring secessionist and terrorist acts. Concerns over its violations of human rights were frivolous, she continued, as such rights were “not absolute”.

When

May 22 - China’s National People’s Congress announces plan to create national security law for Hong Kong.

June 30 - Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress approves law.

July 1 - Hundreds of demonstrators arrested during protests against law.

Why

On June 30, China’s highly powerful Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed a controversial national security law for Hong Kong. The law had been shrouded in mystery after it was first announced by the National People’s Congress in May. Its details were not made public until Tuesday night, hours after it went into effect.

But even before it was passed, many Hongkongers and foreign governments and citizens had expressed deep concerns about its implications for the city’s autonomy and liberties. UK’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, had promised to grant residency and a path to citizenship to nearly 3 million Hongkongers with or eligible for British National Overseas (BNO) passports, along with their dependents. Other governments, including the US, had also expressed concern.

Nonetheless, China moved forward with the law.

The government in Beijing says the law is intended to ensure Hong Kong’s unique political system and freedoms and would only target a small number of individuals. Critics argue the opposite, saying the law will infringe upon liberties, such as freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

Details of the law are laid out in 66 articles that define four categories of offenses and grant the Chinese government exceptional power to enforce the law. The law supersedes any inconsistent local laws, its interpretation is left up to the highly powerful Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, and it is applicable to foreigners and individuals residing outside of Hong Kong.

The acts criminalized by the national security law are secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with a foreign country or entity. Each offense carries a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Critics say that the vague definitions of the categories make it easy to use against any acts or speech critical of the government.

The law gives the local and national government the ability to enforce its measures through the creation of political bodies and a law enforcement department. One of the political bodies created by the law is the Committee for Safeguarding National Security (CSNS), which is responsible to the Hong Kong government but the mainland one in Beijing. The committee head is Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, who is appointed by the Chinese government. Any decisions made by the committee will “not be amenable to judicial review,” and no one will be allowed to interfere with its work.

In addition to the CSNS, the law also establishes the Office for Safeguarding National Security (OSNS). The Chinese government will create the office which, among other responsibilities, will oversee, guide, coordinate, and support local agencies in protecting national security. It will be allowed to collect and analyse intelligence and information pertaining to national security and oversee certain judicial cases. While the law states that the office will abide by local and national laws and not infringe upon freedoms and liberties, the law also says that the office will not be subject to local jurisdiction while performing its duties. The law orders the OSNS to develop working relations with several agencies, including the Hong Kong Garrison of the People’s Liberation Army, and cooperate with the CSNS. In conjunction with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the local government, the OSNS will also strengthen “management” over foreign government entities, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and foreign media operating in Hong Kong. On Friday, China appointed as head of the OSNS an official famous for his hardline approach toward protestors during a land requisition dispute in 2011.

In addition to the political bodies, the law calls for a special police department specifically meant to protect national security. The Chief Executive will select the department head, but only after seeking the opinion of the OSNS. The department’s duties will include intelligence collection and analysis, investigations, and “carrying out tasks of safeguarding national security assigned by the Committee for Safeguarding National Security”, among others. The department’s police force will also be allowed to search private property and electronic devices, force the deletion of information endangering national security, require foreign political agents and organizations to provide information, intercept communications, conduct covert surveillance upon approval from the Chief Executive, and require suspects to answer questions and provide information.

The law also instructs the city’s justice department to create a specialized prosecution division for handling cases pertaining to national security. The prosecutors inside the division must be approved by the CSNS after being selected by the Secretary for Justice. Like the special police department, the division head will be appointed by the Chief Executive after seeking the opinion of the OSNS. The Chief Executive will also select the judges who oversee the cases. In certain circumstances, the OSNS will have the right to assume jurisdiction over cases. These circumstances include “complex” cases involving a foreign country or “external elements”, “serious situation(s)” that the local government is unable to handle, or when a “major and imminent threat to national security has occurred.” Defendants and suspects would be afforded the right to a lawyer while also being subject to the mainland’s criminal procedure law.

After the law’s passage, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he would follow through with his promise to grant residency to nearly 3 million Hongkongers who hold or are eligible for BNO passports along with their dependents. China threatened to respond with countermeasures, without specifying what the measures would be. China’s UK ambassador, Liu Xiaoming, said the residency grant would violate a joint declaration between the countries signed in 1984 to smoothen the transition of the city during its handover to China. He insisted that all Hongkongers were Chinese citizens, regardless of whether they held BNO passports. The UK views the national security law as a breach of its joint declaration with China, and Australia said that it is working to provide a safe haven for Hongkongers as well.

While questions remain about the extent to which China will enforce the new national security law, its passage is posed to further tarnish relations with countries like the US, UK, and Australia, which have been increasingly wary of China and critical of many of its policies.