This article offers a new explanation for considerable continuity in citizenship education policy in Hong Kong despite the change from British to Chinese sovereignty. Focusing on the form by which citizenship education is carried out and the instruments by which it has been promoted, the article argues that citizenship education has been both enabled and constrained by a distinctive policy paradigm developed out of traditional Chinese moral education, a British ambivalence toward political education, and a reaction against Mainland Chinese Communist political education. A comparison of citizenship education policy in China, Britain, and Hong Kong reveals that a key aspect of this paradigm is a fear of indoctrination, which has been made explicit in public sentiment, policy debates, and policy programs.
[Copyright © 2006 Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business.]

Several education hubs have emerged in Asia and the Middle East in recent years with a specific focus on cross-border higher education. Through considerable efforts in policy planning and generous funding, these hubs aim to transform a country or city into an eminent destination for education, research, and training. The inherent design of these hubs raises many questions about higher education's contribution to international relations as large numbers of local and foreign actors congregate. Specifically, some education hubs are leveraging cultural heritage and colonial legacy as an instrument of soft power by emphasising shared cultural identities and values. By engaging in cultural diplomacy, education hubs seek to exert influence on the international stage. However, assumptions about shared identities and values as well as the prevailing political climate of the local society present serious challenges for policy implementation. Alternatively, an education hub can also engage with international actors based on an enduring faith in the venture of science to propel the knowledge economy - another kind of norm that underpins soft power. This paper compares Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong as education hubs that engage in soft power and cultural diplomacy.
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1037551]

Generally speaking, after the Chinese Communist Party had gained political power, the colonial Hong Kong Government intended to resist the spread and influence of communism and to that end implemented Civic Education in Hong Kong. The present study disagrees with this simple description and analysis. The postwar Hong Kong was confronted with the complex Chinese civil war situation while the British maintained their colonial governance. Faced with the rising power of the Communist Party, the victory of the war and the outbreak of the Korean War, the entire geo-political transformation process influenced the administration and strategy of the Hong Kong Government. The question was that did Hong Kong conduct the Nationalist education as civic education before 1949 and under the cultural and educational influence of the Communist across the border? Hong Kong had to implement the embargo policy of the United Nations and the Cold War’s strategy between the capitalist world and the communist blocs. It was not necessary for Civic Education wholly revealing a responding problem but it can partly explain the real situation.
[Copyright © 2015 Scienceweb Publishing.]

在2013/14學年就讀公營學校的非華語學童為25,384人，政府以非華語學童政策來照顧這些少數族裔的教育；而因近年南亞裔學童在香港增加，指定學校的存廢和非華語學童學習中文成為了香港教育的爭議課題。為了剖析香港少數族裔學童的教育情況，本文從少數族裔在香港的教育、政府對非華語學童教育的照顧、非華語學童教育的現況、香港指定學校的興替、支援非華語學童的中文學習、非華語學童的其他需要和挑戰等方面作出分析和討論。
[Copyright © 2015 香港青年協會.]

Language in education debates in Hong Kong focus on the role and status of English (as the former colonial language and an important means for international communication); Cantonese, the mother tongue of the majority of the population; and Putonghua, the national language of China. I will examine language in education policy from an historical perspective, with particular emphasis on the period after the retrocession of Hong Kong in 1997. The questions I will address include: How have the role and status of each of the three language changed over time? What are the major influences on policy decisions? What do policy changes reveal about educational values and ideologies in Hong Kong? Who wins and who loses out?