It gives me great pleasure to present to you the 2010-11
Annual Report of the University Grants Committee (UGC). The year under review was a momentous and fruitful
one. In particular, we saw the conclusion of an extensive higher education review and the release of its report
“Aspirations for the Higher Education System in Hong Kong” which put forward an array of
recommendations on appropriate strategies for the future development of
the sector. Equally important were the new initiatives and funding available to enhance student exchange as part of
internationalization efforts and the establishment of the UGC Teaching Award in support of quality teaching. Our
collaborative efforts with the eight UGC-funded institutions in preparation for the imminent implementation of the new
“3+3+4” academic structure progressed well. All these were accomplished with students’ interests firmly in mind
and with a good measure of success as we move forward in a new quest for
excellence in higher education, in Hong Kong and at an international level.
Seldom has the role of higher education been more crucial
than now. With continuing socio-economic integration around a globalised world, higher education in advanced
economies is playing a much more prominent role than in the past. In Hong Kong, higher education is instrumental in bolstering the city’s vigour and confidence, economic
prosperity and quality of life. This is especially important when we aspire to be an internationally competitive hub
of talents in many areas of high value-added services. Given such significance, our higher education system
must move with the times and persistently aspire for and pursue excellence.
Since its inception in 1965, the UGC has been
collaborating closely as a staunch partner and facilitator with the Government, the UGC-funded institutions and
other stakeholders, to strategise the development of Hong Kong’s higher education sector in our constant strive for
international excellence. Our goal is clear: we aspire to foster a differentiated yet interlocking system which allows
each institution to excel with its distinctive mission and role. The achievements of our institutions in general, and
individual fields of strength in particular, are now globally recognised. That said, we see no room for complacency.
“Aspirations for the Higher Education System
in Hong Kong”
I am delighted that the report has been generally well
received. The Chief Executive announced in his 2010 Policy Address a doubling of the number of publiclyfunded
senior year places, to improve significantly the articulation opportunities for sub-degree graduates –
which is one of the key themes of the report. The report sought to discern current world trends, and the global,
regional and local issues facing the higher education system - not only the UGC sector, but the entire
post-secondary
education sector of which the UGC sector forms a part. It explored various ways to further step up
internationlisation over a wide range of activities, aiming to cement our position as a key player in the global arena,
without undermining our local traditional values. It revisited UGC’s policies concerning role differentiation, competition,
self-financing operations, etc. and renewed our focus on teaching and learning.
The findings and recommendations of the report set out a suggested direction for our future development.
It recommended more coherence and an holistic perspective on the regulatory and oversight structure
in higher education, while enabling multiple student progression pathways. The UGC is taking forward the
recommendations falling under its ambit. As the rest concerns policy issues requiring the Government’s
deliberation and decision, we look forward to a speedy Government response to the direction and
recommendations of our report. More details can be found in the “Release of
Higher Education Review Report” section.
Competition and Collaboration
One of the philosophies underpinning the report essentially
is to enhance the competitiveness of the UGC sector while promoting efficiency through greater
collaboration within it. Frankly this is a difficult and delicate balance to
strike – and there is still much room for improvement. I have always stressed that competition and collaboration
are not mutually exclusive. The former achieves efficiency by bringing about the most impact out of every unit of
resources. The latter does so by building up synergies and minimizing unnecessary duplication.
The UGC continued to motivate and incentivise a greater measure of competition,
starting from adopting more
competitive ways to allocate resources in the academic planning exercise for the 2012/13 to 2014/15 triennium.
We also plan to adjust the balance between various sources of academic research funding such
that more
will be channeled to the institutions based on success in the project-based competitive research grants under the Research Grants Council
(RGC). We shall also allocate
research postgraduate places on a more competitive basis having regard to a spectrum of attributes including the
UGC/RGC awards of competitive research projects, and output of institutions’
research postgraduate programmes.
These initiatives will help increase the portion of our scarce research funding to the areas of greatest potential
and success, thereby enhancing the role and areas of strengths of our institutions and
advancing their
international competitiveness. More on this is discussed in the “Driving
Excellence through enhancing Competitiveness” section.
In addition, the UGC hopes to see our institutions
coordinate their (administrative) service provision to minimise duplications of functions, and encourages
collaboration by, inter alia, facilitating best practice sharing among institutions. For instance, the UGC
sponsored institutions to co-organise a large-scale Knowledge Transfer Conference in November 2010 to
discuss common policy and practical issues, as well as to jointly market their research expertise at business
matching sessions. While on the issue of good practices, in 2010 the UGC looked into overseas and local prevailing practices, and drew up a set of “best practice guidelines”
on staff grievance/complaints handling procedures for reference by our funded institutions to ensure equity, due
process and transparency.