Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Journal of Pragmatics Research
Ka Hang Wong
University of Technology Sydney, Australia
Humanities Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Discursive Sovereignty: How China Constructs Hong Kong as an “Internal Affair” Ka Hang Wong
Journal of Pragmatics Research Vol. 8 No. 1 (2026): Journal of Pragmatics Research
Publisher : UIN Salatiga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18326/jopr.v8i1.116-137

Abstract

This study examines the discursive construction of sovereignty in Hong Kong through a critical discourse analysis of political speeches, legal documents, and press releases spanning from the 1984 Sino-British negotiations to the post-2020 National Security Law era. The research aims to investigate how the totalitarian party-state in China legitimizes its authority over Hong Kong while simultaneously ignoring forms of British nationality held by Hongkongers, and how democratic states, particularly the United Kingdom, respond through visa and asylum pathways. Using a qualitative methodology grounded in Critical Discourse Analysis, the study traces the historical and ideological roots of the narrative of “internal affairs” as constructed through key state discourses and examines how these discourses intersect with concepts of self-determination, civic participation, and legal frameworks. The findings reveal that China employs a combination of hegemonic persuasion and institutional control to frame Hongkongers’ political aspirations as illegitimate, while international responses reflect broader tensions between democratic protection and authoritarian compliance. The research highlights the ongoing contestation of norms surrounding sovereignty, rights, and freedom, illustrating how Hong Kong has become a frontline in the global struggle between democratic and authoritarian discourses. The study concludes that understanding these dynamics provides insight into the mechanisms through which states assert power, control narratives, and shape transnational perceptions of legitimacy, with implications for both international relations and civic activism.
Regulating Speech: A Comparative Analysis of Australia’s Racial Vilification Offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law Ka Hang Wong
Journal of Pragmatics Research Vol. 8 No. 2 (2026): Journal of Pragmatics Research
Publisher : UIN Salatiga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18326/jopr.v8i2.483-509

Abstract

This article undertakes a comparative critical historiographical analysis of Australia’s proposed 2026 racial vilification offence and Hong Kong’s National Security Law (NSL) to examine how legal regimes regulate speech through differing constructions of harm, threat, and legitimacy. Drawing on Flowerdew’s Critical Discourse Historiography (CDH), the study approaches law as a historically situated discourse that encodes assumptions about state power, social fragility, and political belonging. Through close textual analysis of statutory language and associated discourse, the article examines how the presence or absence of contextual exemptions shapes the legal boundaries of punishable expression, revealing a divergence in the presupposed ontology of power underpinning the two regimes. Although the proposed Australian offence was withdrawn, Australia’s hate speech framework operates within a liberal-democratic tradition that presupposes a strong state governing a pluralistic society, in which exemptions and contextual interpretation function as mechanisms for balancing harm mitigation against expressive freedom. By contrast, Hong Kong’s NSL presupposes a weak and vulnerable state, foregrounding sovereignty and security as overriding values and discursively constructing dissent as an existential threat. The absence of meaningful exemptions within the NSL facilitates a form of performative citizenship, in which loyalty is enforced through the policing of alternative political narratives. By situating both regimes within their historical and ideological trajectories, the article argues that exemptions are not peripheral technicalities but central discursive mechanisms that determine whether speech regulation functions as social governance or regime preservation, offering Hong Kong’s experience as a cautionary lens for debates on speech regulation in liberal democracies.
Co-Authors