• 
• 

Published on December 8, 2007

At most public universities, the debate as to whether to abandon cumbersome civil-service style administrations and embrace greater autonomy has already been settled. It has become clear to the majority of university administrators, faculty members, administrative staff members and students that the benefits of new freedoms and self-determination far outweigh the possible drawbacks.

Why would any institute of higher learning want to languish in the red tape of the corruption-prone state bureaucracy when it stands a better chance under the new system of increasing its efficiency and improving its responsiveness to society?

Chulalongkorn University, the country's oldest and arguably most prestigious university, has been conspicuous in the confrontational manner with which it has conducted the debate on this question.

In a way, the debate at Chulalongkorn University is not much different from that which has taken place elsewhere. There are two opposing camps comprising university administrators seeking greater autonomy and those who want to maintain the status quo.

Students are told by those in the latter camp that once they are granted autonomy, state universities would be left to their own devices and denied  subsidies. Therefore, they would have to charge high tuition fees in order to stay afloat. Which may not be too far from the truth. The surest way to inflame passions on this debate is to portray university administrators as greedy individuals bent on transforming public universities - created and maintained by taxpayers' money - into money-making machines catering to the elite.

It matters little that the government has actually promised to maintain its budgetary allocation to universities that opt out of the state bureaucracy system - at least for the foreseeable future. Over the long term, however, the size of state subsidies may gradually be reduced as newly independent universities strike out on their own and achieve a certain level of financial self-sufficiency.

University administrators are doing their best to reassure students that those who cannot afford the eventual rise in tuition fees will be eligible for financial assistance. Nevertheless, students and parents still insist that quality education must also come cheap, even if that means general taxpayers must pay for that privilege on their behalf.

The debate at Chulalongkorn University covers all of these topics, and more.

Chulalongkorn is the most generously endowed of all universities thanks to a gift in the form of vast expanses of land given to it by King Rama VI in the Pathumwan area almost 100 years ago. The land is now prime revenue-generating property, valued at hundreds of billions of baht.  So it came as little surprise that members of the anti-autonomy camp at Chulalongkorn, which includes faculty members, administrative staff and students, chose to question the way administrators have been handling the university's high-value assets. They suggested that administrators have a vested interest in pushing for greater autonomy. They also try to arouse public suspicions by suggesting that once the bill seeking autonomy for Chulalongkorn University, which is being scrutinised by the National Legislative Assembly, is passed into law, administrators will have the power to manage assets as they see fit. From this, it is a small jump to conclude that corruption - which they already suspect - would escalate if Chulalongkorn University gained autonomy.

Do they have a point? Maybe, or maybe not - it all depends on how willingly, or how clearly, Chulalongkorn University's current administration, led by rector Khunying Suchada Kiranandana, explains the controversial issues surrounding the plan for greater autonomy.

Corruption in any state organisation is a crime that must be consistently suppressed and it is inaccurate to say that the university autonomy plan, which requires greater - not less - public accountability, would lead to more corruption. However, Chulalongkorn administrators must clarify controversial issues, particularly the management of the university's assets and how the revenue generated by these assets goes into better facilities, improved working conditions for faculty members and additional funds for research. Clear-cut safeguards to prevent abuse are required. But there is nothing wrong with the idea of greater autonomy for public universities.

The Nation