This paper compares public-private partnerships (PPPs) in education in post-war Singapore and Hong Kong. After the Second World War the Singapore government shied away from PPPs, while the state in Hong Kong collaborated extensively with the non-state sector in education. Singapore was a small city-state flanked by two Muslim nations, and its post-war regime faced challenges from the Malayan Communist Party. These pressures curbed the state's involvement with missionary and Chinese bodies in education. Hong Kong, however, was a mono-racial society without any anti-Chinese neighbours, and its authorities were seldom challenged by a militant antagonist. Thus, its government was freer to involve non-state agents in education. This study reveals that PPPs are viable only when suitable non-state partners exist and when the state does not believe that such undertakings would expose the school system to an antagonist. It also urges scholars in future to explore the socio-political preconditions for PPPs.
[Copyright of History of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2014.979256]

Using the case of the Hong Kong Polytechnic (HKP), this paper examines academic drift in colonial settings. The HKP, like polytechnics in the UK, was supposedly a service sector institution. Under the binary system in the UK, schools in the service division were governed by the state educational bureaucracy, while the universities - the autonomous sector - were under the University Grants Committee (UGC). When the HKP was being founded, however, it became an institution under the UGC of Hong Kong. This article argues that the HKP could cross the binary line because a polytechnic unsubordinated to the local colonial state would be more serviceable to external agents' interests. This finding suggests that researchers of academic drift - who have hitherto studied exclusively sovereign nations and the impacts of internal factors - should also examine the cases in dependent territories as well as the effects of external influences on such shifts.
[Copyright of History of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2014.930185]

Using the case of Chinese schools in post-Second World War Hong Kong, this paper explores the unintended consequences of an incomplete hegemonic project. After World War II, anti-imperialist pressures and rising educational demands in the local setting propelled the colonial authorities to be more active in providing and funding Chinese schools. This development created a considerable number of vernacular institutions that were either directly state-run or generously government-financed. Nevertheless, this concession was circumscribed because the regime eschewed universal and compulsory education, and many Chinese schools remained private and unaided. Producing three different types of vernacular institutions, the state's partial incorporation of Chinese institutions unwittingly divided these schools and pre-empted them from forming a united, antagonistic identity. These findings urge us to examine carefully, when using Gramsci's concept of hegemony, the extent of compromise the powerful have actually conceded. They also hint that hegemony should not be conceived only as a conscious, conspiratorial project, for state practices occasioned by conjunctural forces may produce unintended consequences that have profound repercussions on political power.
[Copyright of British Journal of Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.674789]

After World War II the Singapore government, wishing to blend the island's several ethnic communities into a national whole, endeavored to replace Chinese schools, which imparted students with cultural-linguistic traits sharply different from those promoted in other schools. This policy, nevertheless, elicited tough resistance from Singapore's ethnic Chinese population. The government, finally, was forced to recognize Chinese schools as a discrete and integral section within the educational system. This approach reduced the tension between the government and the Chinese masses. However, it allowed Chinese schools continue to produce social fragmentation and slowed state formation. In contrast, although the government of Hong Kong had never aimed to replace Chinese schools, many of its policies unintentionally Sinicized non-Chinese schools and blurred the cultural distinctiveness of Chinese institutions; this, consequently, prevented Chinese schools from becoming a catalyst of social disintegration and helped consolidate state domination. This study suggests the connection between state formation and the educational system is reciprocal and interactive. It also urges scholars to pay more attention to the unintended consequences of state intervention when examining state formation and education.
[Copyright of International Studies in Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620210701433761]

After World War II, Chinese residents of Singapore demanded the establishment of local Chinese universities. The ruling regime, however, which was under the shadow of the neighboring Malay-dominated Malay Peninsula, was forced to suppress the development of such schools. In Hong Kong, the British needed to install a Chinese university to counter Beijing's and Taiwan's campaigns for recruiting students from the colony. As Hong Kong was a monoracial Chinese society, the government, not having to worry about the reaction of other indigenous groups, met this challenge by founding a fully recognized Chinese university. This research demonstrates that under diverse backgrounds of racial politics, state authorities have unequal latitudes to accommodate the educational institutions of subordinated racial groups. It also reveals that state education policies in small and dependent settings, unlike those in big and sovereign nations, are more susceptible to pressures from external powers and influences from the metropolis. These findings urge scholars to pay more attention to the factor of race and use comparative methods when employing the theories of state and hegemony to investigate education and power.
[Copyright of British Journal of Sociology of Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000294174]