This chapter examines the relationship and effects of perceived discrimination on the integration among new arrivals from mainland China and its implications to the Hong Kong community. It also explores how perceived discrimination, which may affect the integration process of migrants, would mean to higher education in Hong Kong. By exploring the relationship between perceived discrimination and integration, the chapter argues that discrimination or perceived discrimination significantly influences the immigrant’s prospect of successful immigration, which, in turn, affects the future development of society.
[Copyright © 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore]

In the last few decades, higher education expansion is becoming increasingly a growing trend in the Asia and Pacific region. With strong conviction to produce more people better equipped with knowledge and skills for coping with the challenges of the globalizing economy, many governments in the Asia and Pacific region have increased higher education enrolments. The massification of higher education has generated significant pressure for graduate employment and eventually affected upward social mobility, with imbalanced supply and demand in terms of higher education graduates. This article sets out against the context highlighted above to critically examine the influence on Asian societies when these higher education enrolments are expanded, as well as its consequences to graduate employment and the impact on social mobility.
[Copyright of Journal of Education and Work is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1049023]

This article attempts to investigate the relationship between the massification of higher education, labour market and social mobility in contemporary China. Though only a short period of time has elapsed from elite to mass education, China's higher education has been characterised as a wide, pervasive massification process. Similar to other East Asian countries/economies like South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the expansion of higher education in China has also generated a great impact on labour markets and social mobility. The massification of higher education has increased college access and in general enhanced the extent of equity and equality in society. Nonetheless, the situation has become far more complex as returns of education have flattened out recently and social mobility has slowed down in general. University students have started to doubt the ability of higher education to improve their competitiveness in the job market. This, in turn, has led to a wide dissatisfaction with higher education development in China, particularly when higher education has experienced highly intensified competition in the context of world-class university movement. Realising that students from different family backgrounds may encounter diverse experiences in graduate employment and opportunity for upward social mobility, this article critically reflects upon how variations in social capital and cultural capital have impacted on graduate employment and social mobility as higher education has massively expanded in China.
[Copyright of Journal of Education and Work is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2015.1049028]

In July 2010, the State Council of the People's Republic of China published an Outline for National Educational Development with a strong conviction to transform China from an economic power into a country of "soft power" and "strength in human resources". In order to realize such a policy goal, the Chinese government has attempted to review its current education policies and systems to initiate reforms to promote innovation and creativity in education. One of the major reform directions is to foster more collaboration between educational institutions in Mainland China with overseas partners, including institutions from the Greater China region (Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau). Despite the noble policy goals set out by the Chinese government in asserting its soft power through the transformations to be introduced to its education systems and the proposal to engage in international collaborations, many citizens in the Mainland, especially the children of migrant (peasant) workers, are currently confronted with insufficient provision of education. This article critically examines issues confronting peasant worker children's education, with particular reference to the most recent policies and strategies adopted by the governments in Mainland China to deal with the growing educational demands from migrant workers' children. This article will also discuss policy implications for the Chinese government which has failed to deliver quality education to children of peasant workers when China is seeking to become a country strong in human resources.
[Copyright of Asia Pacific Journal of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2011.594248]

This new century has witnessed the rapid and frequent emergence of many new information and communications technologies (ICTs). On one hand, digitalisation enhances our economic, social and political lives. But on the other hand, it leads to certain negative social impacts. One prevalent problem is digital divide -- the gap between different social groups (namely, the 'haves' and 'have nots') in access to and in their different usages of ICTs. It has been of concern that digital divide will exacerbate existing inequalities, erode traditional community ties, socially exclude the disadvantaged and hinder the growth of the knowledge economy. All these will pose damage to the social fabric internally and international competitiveness externally. This article aims to examine the recent policies and coping strategies adopted by Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong to bridge the digital divide and their economic, social and political implications.
[Copyright of Globalisation, Societies & Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.710118]

This article critically reviews the national innovation systems of the four little tigers in East Asia, namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea, in fostering R&D and technological research. A national innovation system is characterised by the interactions between the state, industries and universities in promoting innovation. This article attempts to explore such interactions in the four societies, paying particular attention to the role of higher education. Specifically, university-industry collaboration is the main body of analysis. Drawing from comparative perspectives, this article finally maps out the national innovation systems of East Asia.
[Copyright of Globalisation, Societies & Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2012.710120]

In the era of globalisation, competition has also become global. In higher education, countries worldwide are attaching increasing importance to international ranking exercises and subscribing to the 'world-class universities' paradigm, complemented by various strategies to benchmark with leading universities in order to enhance the global competitiveness of their universities. This is particularly so in Asia as it emerges as the centre of fast-growing economies of the world. Against this wider global policy backdrop, this article reviews major policies introduced and strategies employed by the government and universities/higher education institutions of Hong Kong in the quest for world-class status. It critically examines the 'politics of competition' among institutions for both state and non-state resources, in recruiting and retaining global talent, and in internationalising their curricula in order to achieve their global aspirations. It also explores the intra-institutional 'politics' within institutions involving tensions between teaching and research, and among different discipline areas.
[Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.564998]