Mr Joseph W P Wong, JP
Secretary for Education and Manpower
Government Secretariat
9/F., West Wing
Central Government Offices
Central
Hong Kong

Dear Secretary, Consultation Document on the Review of the Education-related Executive and Advisory Bodies

1. I refer to the Consultation Document on the Review of the Education-related Executive and Advisory Bodies published by your Bureau on 6 May 1998, together with an invitation to educational bodies to forward suggestions and comments on the recommendations set out in the Consultation Document to your Bureau. Given the short time allowed for consultation, we have only been able to seek the initial views of UGC and RGC members. Based on these, I am writing to offer the following comments/suggestions on the recommendations relating to the UGC and the RGC.

2. General Views

   We welcome the recommendation in the Consultation Document that there should be no fundamental change in the role and function of the UGC (paragraph 3.1).

3. While we agree that advisory bodies and the Administration should work in tandem with one another, we consider that it is for the Government (not just the Administration) to consider the advice tendered by the advisory bodies, including the UGC, and take decisions (paragraph 3.2).

4. We agree that the UGC and other major advisory bodies should produce periodic reports to the Government (paragraph 3.7). Since UGC members are appointed by the Chief Executive with specific terms of reference to advise the Government on matters relating to the development of higher education in Hong Kong, it is only fitting that the UGC should make its major reports direct to the Chief Executive (copied, of course, to you). We have no objection to copies of our reports being given to the Education Commission (EC) for its information. We assume that this will be arranged by the Administration as appropriate. We should be grateful for your confirmation of our understanding of the line of reporting and the distribution of our reports to the EC.

5. As regards the frequency of reporting, we doubt the need for such reports to be produced annually by the UGC. (As you know, the RGC is required by its terms of reference to report at least annually to the Government through the UGC.) The nature of the UGC's business, based mainly on the triennial planning cycle, is such that annual reports would appear to be unnecessarily frequent. We would of course continue to require the publication of other UGC reports e.g. on the TLQPRs, and Management Reviews of institutions, reasonably soon after they are produced. We would therefore urge that some flexibility be allowed in the periodicity of the reports from different advisory bodies. We would, for example, have no objection in principle to providing general reports on the UGC's work perhaps twice per triennium. Incidentally, we are unclear as to what is meant by the setting out of views "on the present quality of education relating to (the body's) terms of reference" in these reports (paragraph 3.8). We should be grateful for some clarification in this regard.

6. We find other general recommendations acceptable. Indeed they are all in line with existing UGC practice. As regards the comment in paragraph 3.13 that "an 'indicative financial envelope' could undermine ...... flexibility", we would like to point out that the present UGC triennial funding planning cycle is an example of just such an indicative financial envelope, and it has worked successfully for the tertiary sector.

7. UGC (and RGC)

   We have no objection to consideration being given as to whether UGC's role could be enhanced by turning it into a statutory body (paragraph 3.22). However, as you are aware, the idea of giving the UGC statutory status has been considered on several occasions in the past, but has been rejected on each occasion on the ground that no additional practical or political benefits could be gained by incorporation. If the idea is to be revisited, we will need to be convinced that benefits are forthcoming in making the UGC a statutory body before any changes can be contemplated.

8. We find the suggestions in paragraph 3.23 at once both interesting and perplexing. Specifically, we find the suggestion in paragraph 3.23(a) that the UGC should further review its role and terms of reference "having regard to the increasing need to ensure that public funds for tertiary education are being spent in the most cost-effective manner" to be unnecessary and unjustified. The UGC has all along been concerned with ensuring that public funds are spent in a cost-effective manner through the adoption of a series of monitoring and quality control measures. The UGC considers, however, that a macro- rather than micro-management approach is preferable when dealing with its funded institutions. The Committee therefore looks to you for continued support in adopting this approach.

9. As regards paragraph 3.23(b), we agree that there is a need to review the relationship between the UGC and the HKCAA. However, initially, there would appear to be practical problems associated with the suggestion (in paragraph 60 of Appendix C) that the activities of a statutory body (HKCAA) might be taken over or coordinated by the UGC which is a non statutory advisory body.

10. As regards paragraph 3.23(c), as you are aware, the RGC is currently undertaking an internal review of its role and mission, including its relationship with the UGC. While the RGC will continue with its review in its coming June meetings, the Council has already noted that it is the only publicly-funded body which provides grants on a competitive basis for basic academic research, and that there is a need for this position to be maintained. In this connection, the RGC, arising from recent discussions at a local members' meeting, has resolved that its views on its role and its relationship with the UGC and other research funding bodies should be presented to you in the first instance in the form of the statement at the Annex.

11. As you know, the RGC at present operates under the aegis of the UGC (not "separate and distinct from the UGC" as suggested in paragraph 61 of Appendix C). While the UGC and RGC will indeed consider further the suggestion in paragraph 3.23(c), you may wish to be aware both from the Annex, and from recent studies undertaken by the UGC in respect of research postgraduate education and the future development of Areas of Excellence in UGC-funded institutions that both bodies believe that recent developments point to a need for a closer, rather than a more independent, relationship between the UGC and RGC. Indeed, the present dual research funding provided by the UGC and RGC to the UGC-funded institutions provides us with the unique opportunity to find the right balance between teaching and research, and between conventional research and other types of scholarly activities in the UGC-funded institutions which would be lost if institutions and staff have to compete for attention and funding from different agencies.

12. While we have no fundamental objections to the suggestions made in paragraph 3.24, we would like to point out that of the current 21 UGC members, one is already a secondary school principal. Furthermore, apart from membership on the UGC, the views of the private sector (i.e. the business sector) are also brought into the academic planning process by the institutions (through their councils, faculty advisory boards and the various professional bodies which are consulted). The UGC can consider further soliciting the views of the business sector by setting up an informal local business advisory panel/group which can meet two to three times a year to tender advice. This may also form a pool for the selection of future lay members.

13. As regards the term of appointment of members on the UGC, although this has not been mentioned in the main report, we note from paragraph 18 of Appendix C that it has been suggested that no individual should serve for more than two terms of three years (i.e. a total of six years). We would like to point out that this is not appropriate for the UGC and RGC, particularly as regards the appointments of overseas academic members. We have explained, and you have accepted, that in view of the difficulties in finding suitable overseas members who have the right expertise and are interested in the development of higher education in Hong Kong, the normal Government guidelines regarding length of appointment (and age) need not be rigidly followed. In addition, for overseas members, it takes a significant portion of the six years to become familiar with higher education in Hong Kong. Limiting overseas members' terms to six years would cause some overseas members to depart soon after they have become fully productive. It is therefore not clear what benefits would accrue from a rigid application of this policy. I hope therefore that our understanding with regard to the appointment of overseas members is still current.

14. Finally, we note that the UGC has had the opportunity to meet the Chief Executive (and formerly the Governor) annually to brief him on current issues in the development of higher education in Hong Kong, and for an exchange of ideas. We believe that such meetings reinforce the importance the Government attaches to higher education in Hong Kong. We have found such meetings to be extremely useful and would value their continuation. In this connection, we would be grateful for your continual support of this practice.

15. We hope that you will take into account the above comments in finalizing your recommendations in the Consultation Document relating to the UGC and RGC, in particular our comments on RGC's role and the relationship between the UGC and RGC. We also look forward to your confirmation/clarification in respect of our specific observations made in paragraphs 4, 5, 13 and 14 above. Yours sincerely, ( Edgar W K Cheng ) Chairman University Grants Committee

c.c. Chairman, RGC
26 May 1998
Encl.