Constructing and Contesting the ‘Order’ Imagery in Media Discourse: Implications for Civil Society in Hong Kong

Abstract

This article examines the role of the mass media in the discursive field of civil society in Hong Kong with reference to three case studies. The civil space is defined and redefined through the interplay between a dominant discourse of order versus chaos on the one hand and an opposition discourse of civil society on the other, the latter being mixed with certain ideological, pragmatic and marketing considerations by the mass media.

Keywords:

• Civil Society
• Mass Media
• Law and Order
• Hong Kong

Notes

1. Oriental Daily, July 13, 1997. South China Morning Post, May 16, 1999.

2. South China Morning Post, May 16, 1999.

3. Media coverage of the family talks was scant and it disappeared in a few days altogether. See South China Morning Post (July 4, 1997, July 18, 1997), and Oriental Daily (July 13, 1997, July 18, 1997).

4. In July 1997, the provisional legislature amended the Public Order Ordinance which stipulated, among others, that marches of more than 30 people or sit-ins of more than 50 people required a seven-day advance notification to, as well as a notice of no objection from the police. Non-conformance to such legal requirements would subject the protesters to criminal punishment. The police, moreover, were empowered to regulate demonstrations and consider banning them on the grounds of ‘national security’ and ‘rights and freedom of other people’, on top of ‘public safety’ and ‘public order’.

5. Ming Pao, editorial, August 17, 2000; Economic Journal, editorial, August 28, 2000; SCMP, editorial, August 29, 2000; Apple Daily, editorial, September 28, 2000.

6. The crux of the public debates concerned whether the object of struggle should be about democracy or democracy with livelihood concerns, and whether the homosexual groups, among other grassroots groups, should take the lead in the demonstration. From another angle, at stake was the meaning of democracy: a conventional conception of formal representative democracy, as opposed to a broader conception of inclusive and participatory democracy that aims to respect differences and minority rights on an equal footing.

7. Ku (2002, forthcoming) has discussed the two facets of civil society, namely, state power versus individual freedom, and inequality versus inclusion.