Bulletin Autumn‧Winter 1980

Twenty-Second Congregation Apart from legal autonomy, however, a crucial issue remains the element of financial dependence. A ll three Hong Kong institutions depend to an over whelming degree on money from the taxpayer, which necessarily circumscribes some freedom of action. One example is tuition fees. These are set by the insti tutions themselves, but it is entirely appropriate for Government to advise the U.P.G.C. of the level of tuition fees i.e. institutional self help, which is to be assumed in formulating advice on block grants. This whole area is set about with minefields, but given the high level of mutual respect which presently exists I think that the prime issue is that neither the Government — n o r certainly the U.P.G.C.—have in normal circumstances powers which can force an institution into a course of action with which it seriously dis agrees. But freedom always and everywhere marches together with personal responsibility, and the three institutions are well aware of their responsibilities. It is anyway essential that a wise Government, aswe have here, should consider carefully the require ments of the community with regard to the output from tertiary education— that is to say must resort to the inexact science of manpower planning. Educa tion is however avery long process, and policy cannot proceed in a series of sudden tacks like a yacht. History and wise experience thus sometimes can con flic t with expediency. Nevertheless an effervescent, rapidly changing, and growing Hong Kong steeped in the marvellous Chinese cultural tradition presents extraordinary demands for higher education. Prima facie there can never be enough, but this is equally true about demands for other areas of expenditure on housing, roads, hospitals, social welfare, law and order, and many others. It is for Government to assess the various criteria, and then to allocate the necessary extremely d ifficult priorities—both of finance and other resources. Nor is manpower planning the only or even necessarily the major criterion. Higher educa tion must to some extent be an end in itself—an area in which autonomy is essential. I w ill turn now to the role o f the U.P.G.C. Their brief as a Committee appointed directly by Your Excellency and without any Government repre sentation is to keep under review the facilities in University and Polytechnic education; such plans for development of the Universities and Polytechnic as may be required from time to time; the financial needs of University and Polytechnic education;. .. and overall to advise Government on the application of funds approved by the legislature for University and Polytechnic education. While this is not always clearly understood even in senior circles, the role of the U.P.G.C. by and large is advisory only. Though its overseas members include men and women of con­ siderable academic distinction— for instance at present there are five ex-Vice-Chancellors or the equivalent on the main committee alone— there is no way in which the U.P.G.C. can do more than influence the Hong Kong institutions, whose auto nomous role they indeed both support and cherish. With this background I do not think that any fair-minded observer can accuse Government of a lack of generosity. In the 1978-81 triennium total Govern ment expenditure on the two Universities and the Polytechnic (including grants to students and the minimal cost of the U.P.G.C. itself) w ill be about 4.2% of total Government expenditure, and no less than 25% of expenditure on education. Growth has been extraordinarily rapid. Since the formation of this University in 1963 compound growth o f the two Universities and Polytechnic has been 15.6% per year from 3,229 students in 1963 to 38,000 now— including some 27,000 in all at the Polytechnic. At the same time the necessary high standards have been preserved. Of course we need yet more skilled men and women in every field, but there has to be balance and judgement in a fairly-timed approach. It is not for the U.P.G.C. to make such decisions, though Government requires it to give advice. And certainly it does so freely— though fortunately in private. Some believe that the U.P.G.C. could and should adopt a more positive role. I think that this would not only quite rightly be unacceptable to Govern ment, but would certainly endanger the Committee's credibility. I am proud to say that in the past four years no formal recommendation by the U.P.G.C. has failed to be accepted by Government. I do not believe that this would be the case if there existed a belief that the Committee was becoming involved with the business of Government. Nor also would the institu tions then trust it. In brief it is for Government to set policies after receiving and assessing advice. I amvery glad to give one example in higher education— Government has recently decided upon a highly important committee to review the requirements of Hong Kong in the next decade or so for all post- secondary and technical education. When their new policy is decided it w ill be declared to the institutions. The U.P.G.C. remains only abuffer mechanism set up by Government to maintain the greatest degree of institutional autonomy that is possible. I submit that the rapidly growing Universities and Polytechnic in Hong Kong enjoy greater freedom than most similar institutions in Asia, and that their autonomy and excellence merit the worldwide recog­ nition that they richly earn. I amproud to have played aminor role for a few years. 9