When Hong Kong was returned to the sovereignty of China by the British in July 1997, the new Hong Kong SAR (Special Administrative Region) Government announced the 'Biliterate and Trilingual' policy for all schools. Hong Kong students of this generation are expected to be proficient in both written English and Chinese, and speak fluent English (the international language), Cantonese (the vernacular language) as well as Putonghua (the national language of the PRC). To find out the attitudes of secondary school students towards these three languages, a questionnaire study was conducted with 134 senior secondary students. Given also the important relationship between social class, achievement and language attitudes (Schumann, 1976; Gibbons, 1984; Gardner, 1985; Siu, 1988; Lee, 1998), this paper compares the language attitudes of two main groups of Hong Kong students, namely the middle-class elite and the working-class low-achievers. The findings showed that the former group was more inclined to use English while the latter group the vernacular Cantonese. Despite this difference, both groups of students held generally positive attitudes towards the three languages.
[Copyright of Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434630108666428]

The debate in Hong Kong over which language (Cantonese, Mandarin or English) should be used as the teaching medium in publicly funded educational institutions predates the city's transition from colony to Special Administrative Region in 1997. In the past nine years it has been presented as the cornerstone of the ongoing educational reform process. This paper argues that the issue has become increasingly ideologically motivated since the end of the colonial period, and identifies two factors contributing to the decisionmaking process in Hong Kong: the role of outside vested interests in educational policymaking and the shortfall in specific language teaching expertise. Against the complex background of Hong Kong's official language policy of 'trilingualism and biliteracy', the paper shows how educational policymakers are constrained by these factors and prevented from engaging in substantive educational language planning as a starting point for root-and-branch reforms, and how this may have led them to commission research to support pre-existing executive decisions. The study analyses official statements and policy documents on the medium of instruction issue, in combination with observations of the current situation in publicly funded secondary schools, in an attempt to indicate future directions for Hong Kong.
[Copyright of Language and Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/le633.0]

The literature on postcolonialism covers a diverse set of geographic areas, cultures, timeframes, and economic and political circumstances. Within the context of this literature, this article focuses on two territories which underwent colonial transition right at the end of the twentieth century, and moved not to sovereignty but to reintegration with their motherland. Language in education systems has long been recognized not only as a very significant indicator of power relations in societies but also as a very important instrument for continuity and/or change. Hong Kong's education sector is a complex arena for language, in which English, Cantonese and Putonghua each play different and changing roles. Macao's education sector has all of these factors plus additional complexities arising from the place of Portuguese. The article notes various paradoxes in the ways that patterns developed in Hong Kong and Macao in the initial postcolonial period. It identifies lessons not only from comparison between Hong Kong and Macao, but also from comparison of experiences in the territories as a pair with experiences in other parts of the world.
[Copyright of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305006042000231365]