FREE delivery to all EXCLUSIVE BOOKS stores nationwide. FREE delivery to your door on all orders over R450. Excludes all international deliveries.
|
R 5,039.76 Price and availability exclusive to website
This book is a cross-disciplinary study, incorporating political science, law, and sociolinguistics in its examination of Hong Kong’s National Security Law which has impacted many aspects of life in the city. Through a critical discourse analysis lens, it details the lead-up to the Law’s introduction in 2020, a textual analysis of the Law itself, the “selling” the Law to the public, the accompanying electoral changes, the effect on civil society, and the discourse of dissidents in exile. It ends with speculation on what the future will bring to the so-called “One Country, Two Systems” as it goes forward. The book caters for the general reader, the university student, and seasoned academic who want to be informed about the changes in Hong Kong as it transitions to be more “fully China”. The book ultimately argues that the “One Country, Two Systems” experimental framework had always been problematic from both a rhetorical and ideological perspective.
This book is a cross-disciplinary study, incorporating political science, law, and sociolinguistics in its examination of Hong Kong’s National Security Law which has impacted many aspects of life in the city. Through a critical discourse analysis lens, it details the lead-up to the Law’s introduction in 2020, a textual analysis of the Law itself, the “selling” the Law to the public, the accompanying electoral changes, the effect on civil society, and the discourse of dissidents in exile. It ends with speculation on what the future will bring to the so-called “One Country, Two Systems” as it goes forward. The book caters for the general reader, the university student, and seasoned academic who want to be informed about the changes in Hong Kong as it transitions to be more “fully China”. The book ultimately argues that the “One Country, Two Systems” experimental framework had always been problematic from both a rhetorical and ideological perspective.
