No need for new ministry
The cabinet this week seemed to know where the problems with Thailand’s higher education institutes lie. But they have not pressed the right button in approving a proposal to set up a new ministry of higher education, innovation, research and science. The plan is to upgrade the Office of Higher Education Commission (Ohec), currently under the Ministry of Education, and merge it with the Science Ministry and state research arms as the new ministry by February next year if legislation sails through.
The government wants the ministry to become an instrument to drive research and innovation in academic institutes aiming to create human resources for the government’s socalled Thailand 4.0 initiative to embrace the digital era.
It is true that state spending in research, development and innovation has been underfunded. At the same time, universities and other higher education institutes have produced graduates, many of whom do not acquire technical, analytical and behavioural skills responsive to labour markets.
But the government can boost improvement in these areas by promoting stronger links among all universities, industries, research institutions and early levels of education. It does not need to set up a new ministry.
It is questionable how the new ministry would be able to better address shortcomings in the country’s higher education when it is more likely that, apart from a new minister, it would be run by the same groups of bureaucrats from Ohec, the Science Ministry and research agencies.
The first question is why do we have to move Ohec, which oversees more than 170 higher education institutions, out of the Education Ministry? Before the birth of Ohec in 2003, we had the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA).
The conversion of the MUA to Ohec was to ensure maximum effectiveness and efficiency in the entire education system, given that all levels of learning should be guided by the same system and the same direction of the Education Ministry. Ohec, however, has not brought about improved results because it is still run by the same people who operate in the same fashion.
On a positive side, in the past decade, more than 20 leading public universities have also gained autonomous status with freedom to decide their curricula while still receiving state funding. Meanwhile, Ohec still regulates private and Rajabhat universities.
Another question is why does the government exclude early levels of learning, who will still have to follow the direction of the Education Ministry, from its push to develop a new workforce for the digital era?
The government needs to understand that improvement in the quality of our university graduates also has something to do with their improved learning in primary and secondary schools.
Until now, the government has not provided any clear plans about how this ministry will achieve its goals, apart from the setting up of a “superboard” to oversee the ministry’s policies and the injection of more money into academic institutes.
Oddly, the new ministry will have a fund to promote academic excellence among just a dozen leading universities to help them climb the world rankings.
Meanwhile, Rajabhat universities will receive a different fund to help them “improve” performance. Another fund will be set up to promote start-ups.
The government seems to acknowledge disparities among different education institutes. But it should provide equal resources, attention and opportunities to all of them to promote overall improvement in the system, rather than setting an exclusive goal for a bunch of them to climb the global rankings.
Integration and collaboration among government agencies and ministries can help push for better quality in our higher education system.
But this can be made possible by both the government’s directives and the introduction of new rules and regulations without the need to set up an exclusive ministry.