During the last two decades of colonial rule, a wide gulf existed between policy and practice in Hong Kong's English-medium secondary schools: while English was the medium of textbooks, assignments and examinations, Cantonese and Cantonese-English mixed code were the dominant media of classroom communication. Although mixed-mode instruction was defended in some quarters, during the 1990s it was regarded in government circles as the main cause of unsatisfactory English standards. To eliminate mixed-mode instruction, and thereby ensure the consistent use of English or Chinese as teaching media, the postcolonial government introduced a controversial language policy in 1998 which permitted only 112 schools to remain English-medium, while most schools were forced to switch their medium of instruction from English to Chinese. This paper presents the findings of an investigation which aimed to gauge the extent to which the new policy has been translated into classroom practice in the 'reformed' English-medium stream. The findings indicate that teachers and students make greater use of English in the classroom than their counterparts during the era of 'mass' English-medium education, although, as might be expected, the language-learning experience provided in the 'reformed' English-medium stream generally falls short of the full immersion programme envisaged by policy makers.
[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/10.1080/01434630802147940]

This paper views seeking the optimal balance between state strengths and the scope of state functions for 'good governance' as the formation of a homogenization-heterogenization matrix of policy initiatives in different social settings. Homogenization refers to a global tendency for institutional changes and governance framework to change state capacity, while heterogenization refers to the local adaptation of these global transformations. The paper attempts to take educational decentralization as an example of policy initiatives to assess and analyse the significance of the two opposite poses in four East Asian newly industrialized economies (NIEs) (Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, and Taiwan). The paper's position is that it may be useful to see these four NIEs as making up two clusters. It sees political democratic transitions in Korea and Taiwan as important local factors affecting the developments of educational decentralization in the two societies, while reforms in Hong Kong and Singapore seem to be more consequences of managerial and market values. However, the NIEs face the question of how to maintain sufficient 'stateness' in the decentralization process. To conclude, the paper considers that achieving the balance of 'stateness' is the key to success in state-building.
[Copyright of Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057920903156888]

Hong Kong's official language policy of 'biliteracy' (Chinese and English) and 'trilingualism' (Cantonese, Putonghua, English), announced after the reversion to China in 1997, claims to address actualities of language use in the territory, remove inequities between English and Chinese, and consolidate the linguistic platform to launch Hong Kong as 'Asia's World City'. Public discussion of and controversy over this policy immediately followed, and have continued in the past decade. But they have tended to focus on the implementation of the policy in education, specifically the medium of instruction in schools, to the exclusion of most other areas of language use. Drawing on recent examples of translingual practice in literary writing, this essay argues first that such actually existing practices are far more verbally nuanced, self-knowing and self-reflexive than the official policy would allow, and second, that they instantiate Hong Kong's identity as 'Asian', which challenges both the official and public focus on Chinese and English. The 'world' and 'world city' that emerge from such writing are historically located in the transition before and after 1997, when the writers acquired their languages in schools. They are also provisional, generated by a poeisis of experimentation that attends to cultural change as language change in - and as - everyday life.
[Copyright of Interventions: The International Journal of Postcolonial Studies is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2010.516100]