Bulletin Autumn‧Winter 1980

Twenty-Second Congregation Address by Mr. J. H. Bremridge Your Excellency, Mr. Vice -Chancellor, Distinguished Guests, Friends, I am conscious of the signal honour being afforded to me today. I am equally conscious of my own unremarkable academic career. In fact my M.A. came by post and cost £5, an austereOxford approach which I commend to you. Dr. Ma Lin has made my task difficu lt by asking me to speak on any subject that I would like to choose. It would have been easier to have received a heavenly mandate. As it is I have decided to say a few words on University and Polytechnic autonomy and independence in Hong Kong, the relationship between these three institutions and Government, and the role of the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee. It seems that this highly controversial subject can least dangerously be tackled by someone who is shortly retiring. I need hardly add that the views I express are my own, and have not resulted from discussion— far less agreement—with my colleagues on the U.P.G.C. of which I have been Chairman for four happy years; or with Government; or with those Hong Kong insti tutions, with which this commentary is clearly con cerned. Some historical background is helpful. When Hong Kong University was established in 1911, it was both autonomous and independent. Independence came from the fact that it was financed entirely from its own endowment funds. Unfortunately autonomy and financial independence do not necessarily keep in step. As has happened generally elsewhere in the free world Hong Kong University over a period o f years gradually came to depend more and more on Govern ment funding i.e. the taxpayer. This hasbeen the case for Chinese University ever since it was formed in 1963 ， and also for the Polytechnic formed in 1972. While the situation is not one to be chosen in vacuo, it exists and must be accepted. Institutional autonomy is a nebulous concept. You w ill recollect the story of the distinguished banker who on returning after many years asavisitor to Cambridge asked to see recent economics examina tion papers. After reading them he commented with surprise that the questions were exactly the same as those which he had himself been set some 40 years before. The rejoinder was that while the questions remained the same it was necessary continually to adjust the answers. At this juncture in fast changing Hong Kong the essential response to queries about institutional autonomy is that the three tertiary institutions are tree to manage their affairs within the restraints of the law of Hong Kong. The privilege of autonomy rests upon the argument 一 for which there is long historical experience andjustification elsewhere —that universities and similar institutions can best undertake the work expected of them by the citizens who support them only if they have freedom of choice and of action. This does not of course exempt them from public interest and comment. But like a free press a free university is always aguardian against despotism. The five main areas involved are: First: selection of staff. Whatever may be the rules and regulations, it must be right that autonomy should mean the right to select, promote, and dismiss. I suppose that the only obvious and sensible exception is the appointment of the head of the institution, where a degree of consultation with Government and community leaders is inevitable. Nevertheless the institutions' Councils take the final decision. Second : selection of students.Whatever the arguments for and against different examinations, whatever the policy with regard to student targets or numbers, the institutions have unfettered rights in the selection or rejection of those who seek admission. Third: control of curricula and academic standards. While there are some differences here between the two universities and the Polytechnic, and indeed there are various gray shadings connected with the clear needs of the community for provision of certain skills, and naturally for prudent stewardship, It is right that final decisions on curricula and standards should rest with the institutitons. Fourth : acceptance of research programmes. Subject again to a sensible balance of demands the institution can be the only judge whether its combined resources can or should be deployed in the research proposed. F ifth : budgeting. It is in Hong Kong now axiomatic that the three institutions are free to allocate the money made available by the legislature in the triennial block grants as they see fit, though there are some commonsense ground rules that are necessary, for example with regard to earmarked and special grants, while it is an unyielding fact that at least 75% of institutional funds are committed w illy nilly to staff costs, which cannot easily or quickly be reduced. Nevertheless neither the U.P.G.C. nor Government request nor receive budgets from the institutions. This is a noticeable mark of autonomy. And in the Hong Kong form it is fairly rare. 8