The last half century has witnessed an explosive shift in language diversity not unlike the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, but involving now a rapid spread of global languages and an associated threat to small languages. The diffusion of global languages, the stampede towards English, the counter-pressures in the form of ethnic efforts to reverse or slow the process, the continued determination of nation-states to assert national identity through language, and, in an opposite direction, the greater tolerance shown to multilingualism and the increasing concern for language rights, all these are working to make the study of the nature and possibilities of language policy and planning a field of swift growth.The series will publish empirical studies of general language policy or of language education policy, or monographs dealing with the theory and general nature of the field.We welcome detailed accounts of language policy-makingwho is involved, what is done, how it develops, why it is attempted. We will publish research dealing with the development of policy under different conditions and the effect of implementation. We will be interested in accounts of policy development by governments and governmental agencies, by large international companies, foundations, and organizations, as well as the efforts of groups attempting to resist or modify governmental policies. We will also consider empirical studies that are relevant to policy of a general nature, e.g. the local effects of the developing European policy of starting language teaching earlier, the numbers of hours of instruction needed to achieve competence, selection and training of language teachers, the language effects of the Internet. Other possible topics include the legal basis for language policy, the role of social identity in policy development, the influence of political ideology on language policy, the role of economic factors, policy as a reflection of social change.The series is intended for scholars in the field of language policy and others interested in the topic, including sociolinguists, educational and applied linguists, language planners, language educators, sociologists, political scientists, and comparative educationalists.

This paper locates the Eurasian community's reconciliatory politics in an age marked by a proclivity for primordial purity within complex political, social and economic sub-systems. The word "Eurasian" has both old and new connotations; "old" because of primordial accents of physically "observable" biological mixture, and "difference"; and "new" because of cultural origins in the early to mid-sixteenth century. This paper concentrates on Eurasians in Singapore after 1945. Eurasians are the architects, objects, and subjects of a hybrid culture, a momentary reminder of a formerly powerful colonial presence in Southeast Asia. Since the early sixteenth century Eurasians have been transformed by the impact of at least three different phases of Western colonialism, and since 1955, two ongoing phases of internal colonialism by a predominantly Malay state in Malay[si]a, and a migrant, Chinese-dominated State in Singapore. Eurasians in Malaysia and Singapore survive as a fringe community: a politically, and demographically marginal community that has existed and continues to exist on the fringe of the modern Malay world, subjected through the years to the state policies of the Portuguese, Dutch, British, Malay, and Singapore governments, yet managing to preserve their culture of "Eurasianess" through a strategy of reconciliatory politics in late modernity.

No abstract

IntroductionThis article clarifies the relationship between political theory and its value for administrative science. This is done with reference to Herbert Werlin's article, 'Revisiting Corruption: With a New Definition ' (1994: 547-58). The basis of Werlin's position is derived from his perception of political theory in Sheldon S. Wolin's articulation of the western tradition. I argue that 'good' political theory cannot be singularly representative in any scholar or school of thought as Werlin suggests. Political theory is about the thoughtful explanation of human needs, wants and desires; Aristotelian political theory has sought and continues to seek thoughtful explanations of human structures, and the values and ethics that inhabit and support those structures. Administrative scientists, as professionally trained scholars seeking (social) scientific approaches to modern administrative systems, are innately involved in the political theories that support the domain of administrative science. In his 1994 article, Werlin summarizes several earlier positions on corruption, and endeavors to show the difficulty faced by the Academy in achieving a unified, commonly shared definition of 'corruption' identified by such authors as Gould and Amaro-Reyes (1983: 2) and Atkinson and Mancuso (1985: 463). Ironically, Werlin himself adds to the confusion of definitional commonality by the nature of the tasks he sets out for himself(1) to be realistic as well as moralistic about corruption; (2) to understand why corruption has a more devastating effect on less developed countries (LDCs) than more developed countries (MDCs); and (3) to explain why corruption even when it is 'standard operating procedure' must be considered an extremely serious cause for concern.Such a definition could have been avoided had Werlin carefully interpreted political theory in terms of method and value, over political time and space.

No abstract