Theoretical Framework: To successfully explore the complex interplay between journalistic media, policies, and their role in fostering and perpetuating a unique cultural framework in Hong Kong, it is essential to utilize sociological and anthropological theories, including those on framing, intersectionality, and policy myopia.

Framing

Framing, as conceptualized by Gamson (1996), is not merely a top-down imposition of narratives by political elites but a dynamic, discursive process where language, symbols, and prevailing societal norms combine to legitimize particular ideologies within physical and symbolic spaces.This framing process involves strategic actors, including media, policymakers, and marginalized communities, utilizing symbolic and material resources to collectively interpret and influence policy and societal issues (Pan & Kosicki, 1997; Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). The media acts as both facilitators and participants, shaping narratives while creating spaces for public discourse that enable interactions between the public and elites. This collaboration influences the production of frames, albeit often embedded with systemic biases and personal prejudices.As Chan (2009) highlights, media does not merely report on policies but actively shapes them through a reciprocal relationship with policymakers. Media coverage can amplify public sentiment, creating pressure on policymakers to align their decisions with dominant narratives. This is particularly evident in issues concerning foreign domestic workers (FDWs), where media frames often emphasize economic utility or moral failings, guiding policy responses that reflect and perpetuate these portrayals. The dynamic two-way interaction between media and policymakers ensures that these narratives are not only maintained but reinforced, embedding systemic biases into Hong Kong’s sociopolitical landscape. Importantly, this process is not uniform or unidirectional. Various groups, including foreign domestic workers themselves, actively engage with, and sometimes resist, dominant narratives, demonstrating agency in how their stories are told and understood. For instance, while some narratives might emphasize vulnerability or victimhood, others highlight economic empowerment and strategic decision-making - as exemplified by workers who successfully support their families while navigating Hong Kong's complex social landscape. This relationship between media, policy, and public discourse creates what might be called a cultural feedback loop. While media outlets and political elites often initiate certain narratives, these frameworks are continuously negotiated, challenged, and transformed through public engagement (Gamson, 1992; Pan & Kosicki, 1997). Rather than viewing media framing as a simple tool of oppression or empowerment, we might better understand it as a contested space where various actors - including domestic workers, employers, advocacy groups, and policymakers - negotiate meaning and influence outcomes. Chan (2009) further illustrates how media framing functions within a cultural feedback loop, where dominant narratives shape public attitudes, and these attitudes, in turn, influence media and policy frameworks. For FDWs in Hong Kong, this feedback loop sustains a culture of bias, as media often portrays them as either victims requiring strict regulation or as contributors to social problems. These frames not only inform public perception but also legitimize policy decisions that fail to address the complex realities of FDWs’ lives, reinforcing cycles of discrimination. This complexity suggests that examining media framing requires careful attention to multiple perspectives and competing interests, acknowledging that beneficial and exploitative elements often coexist within the same system. Such an understanding allows us to recognize both structural constraints and individual agency, emphasizing that multiple truths can coexist within these complex social dynamics. This theoretical framework provides the foundation for analyzing how media representations and policy decisions in Hong Kong mutually reinforce and challenge existing power structures while shaping public discourse about foreign domestic workers. Framing not only dictates the narrative of a certain issue but further frames social groups as well, the framers are in a sense being framed

Intersectionality

Within Hong Kong’s sociocultural landscape, foreign domestic workers’ identity markers and categorizations bear a complex and nuanced history, with profound implications for both institutional structures and interpersonal dynamics. These markers, encompassing nationality, gender, class, migration status, and economic position, fundamentally shape their lived experiences and social positioning within Hong Kong society. To understand these intersecting dimensions of identity and oppression, we turn to Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality, developed in her seminal 1989 work. Crenshaw’s framework provides crucial insights for understanding how multiple identity markers intersect and operate within any given mainstream culture, particularly relevant when examining the experiences and the current perceptions of FDWs in Hong Kong. She analogizes identity to a traffic intersection, where various aspects such as race, gender, class, and migration status converge, aptly capturing the complex dynamics these women navigate daily. This intersection of identities creates unique vulnerabilities and challenges that cannot be understood by examining any single aspect in isolation.The application of intersectional praxis, the practical implementation of intersectionality theory, reveals how discrimination against foreign domestic workers stems from the intricate interconnections of various axes of oppression. For instance, their experiences are shaped not merely by their status as foreigners or as women, but by the compound effect of being foreign women working in domestic labor, often from Southeast Asian countries, and typically from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These overlapping identities interact with Hong Kong’s legal frameworks, social hierarchies, and cultural attitudes to create distinct patterns of marginalization and resistance.This theoretical framework becomes particularly valuable when analyzing how media representations and policy decisions interact with these various forms of oppression. Media frames often reflect and reinforce existing power dynamics, sometimes portraying foreign domestic workers as either helpless victims or over eager economic opportunists, rarely capturing the complexity of their lived experiences. Similarly, policies that appear neutral on the surface often have discriminatory impacts when viewed through both an intersectional and framing lens, revealing how different aspects of identity compound to create unique barriers and challenges.The recognition of intersectionality in the context of foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong is paramount for understanding and addressing their multifaceted challenges. This includes examining how gender-based discrimination intersects with xenophobia, misogyny class prejudice, and labor exploitation. Moreover, intersectionality helps illuminate how these workers exercise agency and resistance within constraining structures, challenging oversimplified narratives of victimhood while acknowledging genuine structural obstacles. This theoretical approach thus provides a more nuanced framework for analyzing how multiple systems of oppression and privilege interact with media representation and policy formation. It reveals deeper power imbalances while acknowledging the complexity of individual experiences and forms of resistance within these systems. Such an analysis helps avoid reductionist narratives while recognizing how various forms of marginalization can simultaneously operate and reinforce each other within Hong Kong’s sociopolitical landscape.

Policy Myopia

Building on the insights provided by framing and intersectionality, it becomes evident that policy development and implementation often rely on reductive narratives that overlook the complexities of intersecting identities and systemic inequalities. This shortsightedness, commonly referred to as policy myopia, prioritizes immediate political or economic gains while disregarding the long-term structural changes needed to address entrenched inequities. For foreign domestic workers, this myopic approach exacerbates existing marginalization, as policies fail to account for their nuanced realities. Examining policy myopia as a framework enables a deeper understanding of how such governance practices not only reinforce systemic injustices but also hinder meaningful progress toward equity and inclusion. It is crucial to note that once policies are implemented, media influence diminishes, solidifying biases that were embedded during earlier framing stages (discourse, history etc.). This rigidity, coupled with media-driven narratives, limits the adaptability of policies affecting FDWs, perpetuating systemic inequalities contributing to the failure of myopic policies. One of the key drivers of policy myopia is bounded rationality, which restricts policymakers’ ability to account for the complexity and interconnectedness of social issues. Policymakers may adopt overly simplistic solutions or disregard structural inequalities that require nuanced, long-term strategies (Nair & Howlett, 2017). For example, immigration and labor policies affecting FDWs often focus narrowly on regulatory compliance or economic contributions, neglecting the intersection of race, gender, and class dynamics that shape these workers’ vulnerabilities. This reductionist approach perpetuates cycles of marginalization by failing to address the broader cultural and structural forces that maintain these inequities. Moreover, the rigid nature of myopic policies undermines their adaptability to evolving societal contexts. As Nair and Howlett explain, myopic policies are often designed with a static understanding of current conditions, rendering them ineffective as circumstances change. The rhetoric embedded within myopic policies not only reflects existing biases but also actively contributes to framing narratives that perpetuate a culture of discrimination against FDWs. These policies often emphasize the economic utility or regulatory compliance of FDWs while neglecting their social and human dimensions, reinforcing stereotypes that frame them as disposable labor or helpless victims. Such representations are mirrored in media narratives and societal attitudes, constructing a biased cultural framework that normalizes their marginalization.The very existence of these policies creates a structural environment where exploitation becomes more likely. Building on this, Chan demonstrates that media-driven narratives not only reflect public sentiment but actively shape policy priorities, creating a cyclical relationship between representation and governance. For FDWs, this manifests in policies that emphasize regulatory compliance over their human and social dimensions, perpetuating stereotypes that frame them as disposable labor. These policies, supported by media frames, construct an environment where exploitation becomes normalized, further marginalizing FDWs within Hong Kong’s sociocultural framework.

Combined Application

These theoretical frameworks, framing, intersectionality, and policy myopia, offer an integrated perspective for analyzing the intricate dynamics that define the experiences of FDW in Hong Kong. Framing theory sheds light on how media narratives and public discourse influence societal perceptions and reinforce power imbalances. Intersectionality underscores the layered nature of discrimination, revealing how overlapping identities such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status compound oppression. Policy myopia highlights the shortcomings of governance systems that prioritize simplistic, short-term solutions, often exacerbating systemic inequities. When applied in tandem, these frameworks provide a nuanced understanding of how media portrayals, legal frameworks, and cultural norms intertwine to shape not only the realities of foreign domestic workers but also the broader social fabric of Hong Kong