This paper examines the links between linguistic capital, cultural capital, linguistic imperialism and the use of English as the medium of instruction (MOI) in Hong Kong. It suggests that the notion of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong, whilst useful for analysing practices in the early days of the colonial period, is superseded by the notion of linguistic capital, though neither presents a complete analysis of the MOI issue in Hong Kong. The paper suggests that a new version of linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong may be evidenced in examining the rise of Chinese-medium education and the spread of Putonghua in Hong Kong schools.
[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/10.1080/01434630008666418]

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]

What international framework, if any, is higher education subject to in terms of its work, not in the sense of validating its programmes or safeguarding its academic freedom, but in terms of its funding, its operating environment and its stakeholders? Is it viewed as a business in some sense? Is it subject to trade rules and negotiations? All of these questions have, to some extent, been raised in the World Trade Organisation's 'Doha Round' of negotiations. Has agreement been reached or has the overall operating context of economies submerged higher education, in particular agriculture? This article analyses the brief history of the Doha Round and the possible categorization of higher education within a commercial framework. Conclusions are reached at the end.
[Copyright of Education and the Law is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09539960601036235]

The Education Department of Hong Kong issued the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools in October 1997. The policy stipulates that the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in all but English language and literature subjects in secondary schools will be enforced with effect from September 1998. This signals a change in language policy in post-1997 Hong Kong, from bilingual to monolingual education. Traditionally English medium instruction has been more popular than Chinese medium instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools. Despite the Hong Kong government's recent efforts to promote Chinese medium education, the number of Chinese-medium schools was small before the handover. This is a documentary study investigating changes in Hong Kong government's medium of instruction policy amid political, economic and sociolinguistic changes in the last three decades. The study also explores some possible impact of the Chinese medium instruction policy proposed in the wake of change of sovereignty on English language learning. I will critique this new policy and make recommendations pertaining to the direction of Hong Kong's language education. The theoretical underpinning of the study is bilingualism and bilingual education. The model I propose will provide new insights for language teachers, language planners and policy makers.
[Copyright of International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670059908667684]

The paper compares the educational policy changes during the postcolonial transition in Singapore (in the 1960s) and Hong Kong (1990s). The comparison includes different areas such as the language of instruction and curriculum variations.

This paper points out that political transition of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty has significant influence on the intended curriculum. The three case studies of variations in civic education, social studies, and liberal studies as reported in the paper show the influence of political changes.

This paper reports details of a study that investigates the impact of economic, social, and political changes in Hong Kong on its educational practice and policy. It discusses with four case studies about the educational policymaking process in different phases of Hong Kong's postwar development. It also pays attention to the impact of the sovereignty change in Hong Kong.

This paper reviews the return of Hong Kong to China and considers the implications for Hong Kong civic education. It also describes the negligible attention given to civic education previously and discusses some of the reasons for this.