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.　

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.