bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

ASTRONOMICAL sums of public money are approved to fund Hong Kong's seven tertiary institutions. Yet there is little financial accountability to the funding bodies.

  After approving funds, Legco's Finance Committee receives no audit reports from the institutions or from the University Grants Committee (UGC).

  The institutions conduct external audits, but their scale is not commensurate with the level of funding. Their annual reports are public relations documents.

  Legco's Finance Committee approved a huge $27 billion on February 17 as recurrent expenditure for the 1995-98 triennium.

  The government-appointed UGC is responsible for the facilities, development plans and financial needs of the Hong Kong University, Chinese University, University of Science and Technology, Polytechnic University, City University, Baptist University and Lingnan College.

  Whenever Legco members raised questions of accountability and monitoring of the universities, the Government would defend its inaction by citing 'institutional autonomy'. The Government said the universities are accountable to their governing councils. Yet these august bodies seldom take the time to find out how resources are allocated and how academic or personnel decisions are made.

  Thus, the universities are not truly accountable to their ruling bodies. To overcome this, council members who don't pull their weight should be replaced by people who are prepared to work hard.

  In order to enhance financial accountability, the universities should commission internal audits of expenditure, efficiency and procedures. These should be performed by an independent agency which reports directly to the governing council or to the UGC.

  While many great universities in other countries are faculty-governed, those in Hong Kong are generally run in an authoritarian way. Decisions on personnel, finance and administration are made by the vice-chancellors who, more often than not, disregard dissenters.

  While some vice-chancellors may pay lip service to Western ideas such as collegiality, participative management and transparency, many faculty staff know that key decisions are made by the chief executives and their close sycophants. Democratisation of the universities' decision-making process is long overdue.

  Another area of concern is research, which directly affects the standing of a university. For the first time in its assessment of resources required by an institution, the UGC is introducing an element of funding specifically related to performance of the institutions in research.

  In the past, too much emphasis has been placed on the amount of research funds at an institution rather than how they are used, on the number of research degree students rather than their quality and potential employment, and on the number of publications rather than the quality of the outlets in which they appear.

  It is understood research funds are sometimes dispensed to faculty staff who never have to account for them. Research usually comprises useful additions to knowledge worthy of publication in reputable international journals, not in-house organs or proceedings of third-rate meetings.

  It is easy to get a fourth-rate paper accepted at a third-rate meeting, but difficult to get one accepted at a world-class one. The question is, how often are local academics invited to present papers at world-class academic forums? THE quality of the research says something about the quality of the faculty. Unless decent research is carried out, there is no way it will have market value at a decent university. A poor faculty can only attract third-rate graduate research students.

  A university's reputation depends heavily upon the quality of its additions to knowledge. Unfortunately, Hong Kong universities do not appear to have made significant breakthroughs in any field.

  This brings me to my well-rehearsed complaint - although our universities pay first-class salaries, they don't seem to be able to attract many first-class scholars and teachers. With few exceptions, the academic leadership is third-rate, unknown in even their countries of origin, parochial in outlook and reluctant to accept change.

  Thus it is not surprising that these people are reluctant to shake up their colleagues by attracting better people. Even if they could, they would not because they themselves would be threatened.



System of funding produces mediocrity