Bulletin Autumn‧Winter 1981

experience. Lord Fulton, the Chairman, had a background of the humanities and the experience of working in two multi-college universities (Oxford and Wales) and of planning a new university (Sussex). Professor Sir Frank Young was a biochemist from Cambridge wit h experience also in London, both multi-college universities, and he had served in the politically sensitive arena of Central Africa. Dr. Choh- Ming Li, then a Professor of Business Administration, was one of two members of Chinese origin; he contributed a knowledge of American higher education and the federal system in California as well as a vital appreciation of Chinese attitudes. The other Chinese participant was Professor Thong Saw Pak, Professor of Physics in the University of Malaya, who was acquainted with the problems of applying a federal pattern there and of adapting the British pattern of university education to local conditions. The final member was Dr. John Loach, doyen of British University Registrars. It was an extraordinarily happy team with everybody making his own contribution. Lord Fulton had, of course, already reconnoitred the scene but it was an inspiration to us to watch his incisive identification of the central issues and to be introduced to his vision of the future. Dr. Choh-Ming Li was quietly invaluable in interpreting Chinese wishes and, I am sure, did a great deal behind the scenes to steer and smooth our path. It was an altogether enjoyable experience in which the kindness and hospitality we met everywhere still stand out in the memory. But that, after all, is Hong Kong. Our task did not, however, end in the sunshine and warmth of Hong Kong — we needed three two-day sessions in London during the winter to finalize our recommendations and in particular the details of the constitution. If one vivid memory is our arrival in Hong Kong and another the exhibition of Fine Art in New Asia College, yet another is sitting round a table in an unheated IUC office in London in mid-winter in overcoats studying drafts by candlelight because of a protracted power cut. Though our task was lengthy it was considerably helped by the excellent preparatory work done in Hong Kong before our arrival on many aspects of the proposed university's development - on overall site allocation and schedules of accommodation, for example, by the Kwan Committee, though some of this work was negated by the fact that the eventual site turned out to be different from, and scenically much more dramatic than, the site originally selected, which lay at the southern end of Shatin Valley. Had the creation of the Ma Liu Shui site been envisaged then, it would greatly have eased the Commission's deliberations as we were concerned throughout our discussions by the apparently inevitable geographical separation of Chung Chi College from its two partners. The preparatory work meant that the documentation which confronted us at our temporary office in the Wellington Barracks was formidable in both mass and variety. I looked it out from IUC files recently and it weighed well over 10 lbs. And in addition there were letters from members of the public who took the trouble to respond to our invitation to let us know their wishes and opinions. Against that mass of evidence, what was the really critical issue? It soon became clear that it was the nature of the federal structure, for the Commission soon satisfied itself that university status was justified in respect of all three grant-receiving post- secondary colleges — each college clearly revealed the intellectual character and potential which befit a member of the international family of universities, though there were, not surprisingly, acknowledged individual weaknesses in some disciplines, in academic facilities, in staffing and in technical support. Already there were within the colleges apprehensions that the planning so far undertaken portended a departure from the promised federal nature. It is not surprising therefore that the Commission devoted a considerable part of its report to the nature of the university and the internal allocation of responsibilities. Such matters as the review of the Colleges' achievements and standing, the timing of university status and estimates of finance, though important and specifically "required by the Commission's terms of reference, occupy a relatively small part of the complete report. In the context of the major issue which was identified it is interesting to look back now at the Commission's general reflections, drawn from their own varied experience of federal universities, on the balance between college and central university functions and the key factors likely to mak e for success. "The lesson of successful federal universities is simple. There must be a strong individual life pulsing through each of the colleges; there must be powers of regulation, co-ordination and control exercised by the university. But two essentials are present where federal constitutions have been stable and happy in their results. Somehow the colleges must be made to feel 'We are the university' and therefore to accept responsibility for the whole, to look outwards as well as inwards. . . . Secondly, the most successful federations are those where the colleges assume teaching responsibilities for students in other colleges and in the university at large.... The colleges in any federal university must carry out individual tasks in teaching and in research; but unless they come 12