Internationalisation and the Language of Instruction: From HKU’s Anglophone Founding in 1911 to the Non-Local Intake Quota Expansion

# 1. In a Nutshell: HKU’s ‘English DNA’ and Its Tensions

# 2. Origins: An English-Language Founding in 1911

• According to the official university history, ‘The Early Years’^※ and the original text of the 1911 University Ordinance^※, HKU was the earliest university in Hong Kong, and for a long time the only one, to use English as its primary medium of instruction; the ordinance stipulated that “there shall be no distinction of race, nationality or creed in respect of admission or participation,” and English as the teaching medium matched its recruitment orientation towards the British Empire and South China.
• The academy has a critical reading of this ‘English DNA’: a study published in Applied Linguistics Review^※ argues that in post-colonial multilingual societies like Hong Kong, the continuation of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is both a legacy of the colonial order and sustained by contemporary ‘neoliberal’ competitiveness imperatives (the paper uses the term “neoliberal coloniality”).

This file includes this academic perspective as one side of the argument (attributed to that research) and does not represent the archive’s judgment; the ‘international competitiveness / financial centre’ arguments advanced by EMI proponents are juxtaposed in Section 4 below.

# 3. 2012: The Four-Year Curriculum Reform and the Internationalist Turn

According to the HKU Teaching and Learning website’s ‘4-Year Undergraduate Curriculum’ page^※ and the ‘Common Core’ page^※:

• In 2012, Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions, in line with the government’s “3+3+4” academic structure reform, extended undergraduate programmes from three years to four;
• HKU established a Common Core Curriculum, divided into four Areas of Inquiry (Scientific and Technological Literacy, Humanities, ‘China: Culture, State and Society’, and Global Issues);
• The four-year framework was officially positioned as strengthening “diverse learning experiences” — encompassing overseas exchanges, internships, real-world projects, and other experiential and international learning.

This reform expanded HKU’s ‘internationalisation’ from ‘English-medium instruction’ to a curricular design that encourages students to venture out while bringing the world to campus. The proportion of non-local and exchange students thereby became a quantifiable metric of internationalisation, seeding the background for the subsequent quota expansion debate.

# 4. From 2024: The ‘Doubling’ of the Non-Local Intake Cap and Its Discontents

# The Policy Facts

The above refers to a territory-wide policy cap (applicable to all UGC-funded universities); for HKU’s own year-on-year non-local intake percentages, refer to the university’s official admissions statistics in ../02-admissions/. This file covers only the policy cap and the attendant debate, and does not cite year-on-year intake figures that lack official confirmation.

# Positions from Various Sides (Juxtaposed, Not Adjudicated)

According to a report by Times Higher Education^※, the ‘doubling’ aims to strengthen Hong Kong’s position as an international higher education hub and address a downward demographic trend; the report notes that the move “is widely seen in the academy as a positive step for the city’s most prestigious university.”

According to a report in the SCMP^※, the policy “is controversial among some Hong Kongers” — there are concerns that the move could disadvantage local students.

An academic critical perspective: research in Applied Linguistics Review^※ from a language politics angle questions the “neoliberal-colonial” logic underpinning the EMI and internationalisation narratives.

There remains no settled conclusion: supporters emphasise Hong Kong’s international hub status and demographic shifts; concerned voices worry about local student opportunities and social acceptance; academic critics question the underlying language politics. The archive does not adjudicate, leaving the various statements and primary policy documents for readers to evaluate.

# 5. Gaps / To Be Verified

• Actual annual non-local intake percentage at HKU: Unofficial and media figures vary (with claims such as “the cap of 40% has already been reached this academic year”), but no official year-on-year HKU data has been found to directly support these figures; this file therefore does not state specific intake percentages, covering only the policy cap. For exact figures, the route is to the official statistics in ../02-admissions/.
• Whether HKU has issued a formal institutional position on the cap expansion: This search did not retrieve an original, dedicated statement from HKU on the 40%/50% cap; the related debate positions in this file are attributed to policy bodies (UGC / Policy Address) and secondary media/academic sources, and this file does not speak for HKU.
• Specific faculty-level variations in EMI within HKU: Claims that over half of courses are taught in English appear in secondary overviews, but no original, faculty-by-faculty language policy documents from HKU have been cited; this file states only the overarching fact, supported by official university history, that “English has been the primary medium of instruction since the university’s founding.”