<![CDATA[This article examines how sedition is discursively constructed in Hong Kong through legal and institutional discourse, particularly in relation to publications, and how these constructions reflect changing relationships between political authority, communication, and security across changing constitutional contexts. Drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the study analyses three interconnected processes: the historical recontextualisation of sedition from a Crown-based constitutional framework into a post-handover sovereignty framework; the presuppositions of political authority, belonging, and loyalty embedded within contemporary sedition discourse; and the securitisation of publications and communicative practices. The analysis examines colonial and contemporary sedition-related legal provisions, together with official institutional discourse surrounding recent publication-related investigations. Through the discussion of the Sheep Village case and the 2026 bookstore investigation, the article demonstrates that sedition is not a fixed legal category but a discourse whose meaning changes according to broader constructions of authority and legitimacy. While colonial sedition law was embedded within a framework of loyalty towards the Crown, contemporary sedition discourse presupposes the legitimacy of the post-handover constitutional order and increasingly frames challenges to that order as forms of political disaffection or security risk. The article argues that the transformation of sedition in Hong Kong reflects broader struggles over constitutional identity, political belonging, and the boundaries of legitimate communication.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
