The pro-establishment talking points to try to massage the dramatic announcements made in Beijing into the local opinion are starting to emerge.
For a quick overview of the narrative being pushed to try to influence HK’s middle ground (more on that later), let’s turn to SCMP...

SCMP board editorial are a great source of how a certain part of the pro-Beijing machine tries to reach out to “reasonable minds”, mostly international minded or outside the city. Today’s editorial is not exception. https://amp.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3085730/security-law-should-ensure-citizens-keep-legitimate-rights-and?__twitter_impression=true

In this piece positioning itself as a balanced call to reason, the narrative is the following:
- HK needs security laws. Last year’s troubles are proof of that.
- the HK legislature and political climate in HK are such that passage of local laws is not likely to happen

- Beijing is aware of this, and is simply making a move.
- it’s a “controversial move”, but Beijing has ledges the laws won’t hurt freedom. All they have to do now is assuage fears by clarifying what will o into those laws.

SCMP has become good at writing editorials that look balanced and reasonable on the surface - and hard to disagree with.
They make reasonable points (people are worried, Beijing should provide clarity) and do just enough to aknowledge issues but never challenge the goals of BJ.

Let’s take a look at the key assumptions made here.
1/ “Like it or not, being an inalienable part of China gives Hong Kong the duty to defend national security”
Not really, considering HK is a tiny 8 million rounding error under no particular threat at the moment.

Is HK on the brink of falling to the hands of independant forces? Not really - no one wants HK to become independant and those who nourish such dreams are fringe individual with zero capacity to organize politically or otherwise.

If national security isn’t about a pro-independence party or organisation, then what is it about that would justify such a focus? SCMP doesn’t waste any effort giving it some thought, but instead accept this talking point from Beijing as the starting point of their discussion.

2/ “This [thursday’s announcement] is no doubt a highly controversial move”
Here, SCMP recognizes and euphemises the obvious to preserve a façade of objectivity - but immediately moves on.

It would be more accurate to speak of consternation, and explain why the move is causing huge concerns, but that would give space to the opposing point of view. The editorial prefers to not examine that perspective.

3/ “Beijing is obviously worried about what happened over the past year and is keen to get such a law in place at all costs.”
Here, Beijing’s perspective framed as a mere and very human “concern” in a way meant for us to empathize with... an authoritarian regime facing dissent.

It’s not said clearly, but it’s the closest SCMP accidentally gets to saying the quiet part loud: Beijing did not like last year’s demonstrations and is determined to put in place the legal tool to kneecap any similar dissent in the future.