- Tuesday, 11 December 2012
- វង្ស សុខេង
- ភ្នំពេញៈ ថ្លែងក្នុងនាមជាប្រធានអាស៊ានលោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្រ្តី ហ៊ុន សែន កាលពីម្សិលមិញ បានអំពាវនាវ ទៅកូរ៉េខាងជើង សូមឲ្យផ្អាកជាអចិន្រៃ្តយ៍នៃគម្រោងបាញ់បង្ហោះមីស៊ីល ដែលទទួលរងការរិះគន់យ៉ាងខ្លាំង និងអំពាវនាវឲ្យប្រទេសឯកោមួយនេះ ត្រឡប់មករកការជជែក៦ភាគីវិញ។
- លោក ហ៊ុន សែន
បានថ្លែងនៅក្នុងពិធីសម្ពោធបើកការដ្ឋានសាងសង់ផ្សារទំនើបរបស់
ក្រុមហ៊ុនជប៉ុន ក្នុងរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ ថា៖«វាជារឿងល្អ
ដែលគម្រោងបាញ់បង្ហោះមីស៊ីល ដោយកូរ៉េខាងជើង
ត្រូវបានផ្អាកកាលពីបីថ្ងៃមុន ហើយស្តីពីបញ្ហានេះ
ខ្ញុំសូមអំពាវនាវទៅសាធារណរដ្ឋប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ
ប្រជាមានិតកូរ៉េធ្វើការផ្អាកវាជារៀងរហូត»។
លោកបានថ្លែងយ៉ាងដូច្នេះ
ដោយសំដៅទៅដល់ការប្រកាសមួយកាលពីថ្ងៃអាទិត្យ ដែលថា កូរ៉េខាងជើង
កំពុងពន្យារពេលការបាញ់បង្ហោះមីស៊ីលចម្ងាយឆ្ងាយដោយមិន
បង្ហាញហេតុផល។
លោក បន្តថា៖ «ខ្ញុំសង្ឃឹមថា កូរ៉េខាងជើង នឹងពិចារណា ដោយយកចិត្តទុកដាក់ បើមិនដូច្នោះទេ ក្តីបារម្ភមិនមែនគ្រាន់តែជប៉ុន កូរ៉េខាងត្បូង និងអាមេរិកទេ ប៉ុន្តែគឺតំបន់ទាំងមូល»។ លោកហ៊ុន សែន បានធ្វើការអំពាវនាវបែបនេះ បន្ទាប់ពីរដ្ឋមន្រ្តីការបរទេសលោក ហោ ណាំហុង បានស្នើឡើងនូវសេចក្តីថ្លែងការណ៍ព្រាងមួយស្តីពីការបាញ់ បង្ហោះនោះ ប៉ុន្តែបរាជ័យ មិនទទួលបានការព្រមព្រៀងរួមគ្នាក្នុងចំណោមប្លុកអាស៊ាន។
លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បានថ្លែងថា៖ «ថ្លែងដោយត្រង់ៗទៅគឺថា បន្ទាប់ពីកិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងជិតមួយសប្តាហ៍ រដ្ឋមន្រ្តីការបរទេសទាំងឡាយមិនអាចឈានដល់កិច្ចព្រមព្រៀងគ្នា ទេ»។ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បន្តថា៖ «ហេតុដូច្នេះ តាងនាមជាប្រធាន អាស៊ាន ដែលនឹងផុតអាណត្តិនៅខែនេះ ខ្ញុំសូមអំពាវនាវទៅកូរ៉េខាងជើងឲ្យធ្វើការអត់ធ្មត់ ហើយសូមកុំបង្កើនស្ថានភាពតានតឹងដែលអាចប្រឆាំងនឹងសេចក្តី សម្រេចរបស់ក្រុមប្រឹក្សាសន្តិសុខអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ ហើយសូមត្រឡប់មករកការជជែក៦ភាគីជាថ្មី»។
លោកហ៊ុន សែន ក៏ធ្វើការជំរុញផងដែរ ដល់ប្រធានាធិបតីស៊ីរី លោក Bashar Al-Assad ចៀសវាងការប្រើអាវុធគីមីនៅក្នុងសមរភូមិរបស់ខ្លួន ប្រឆាំងទៅនឹងក្រុមឧទ្ទាម ដែលបាននិងកំពុងខិតជិតដល់បន្ទាយរបស់មេដឹកនាំផ្តាច់ការនេះ៕ PS
I am proud of being a Khmer. Sharing knowledge is a significant way to develop our country toward the rule of law and peace.
Tuesday 11 December 2012
កម្ពុជាអំពាវនាវឲ្យកូរ៉េខាងជើងបញ្ឈប់ការបាញ់បង្ហោះមីស៊ីល
អ្នកជំនាញថាបារាំងមិនដែលកាត់កោះត្រល់ឲ្យវៀតណាម
ដោយ តាំង សារ៉ាដា
2012-12-10
សកម្មជនព្រំដែនសច្ចាថា នឹងនៅតែបន្តទាមទារយកកោះត្រល់ របស់ខ្មែរ ដែលកំពុងគ្រប់គ្រងដោយរដ្ឋាភិបាលវៀតណាម សព្វថ្ងៃនោះ មកជាសម្បត្តិរបស់ខ្មែរវិញឱ្យបាន ទោះក្នុងកាលៈទេសៈ ឬត្រូវប្រើរយៈពេលយូរប៉ុណ្ណាក៏ដោយ។
RFA/Uon Chhin
ពួកគេចោទប្រកាន់រដ្ឋាភិបាលទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញ បច្ចុប្បន្ន ថាបានធ្វើឲ្យបាត់កោះដ៏ធំរបស់ខ្មែរមួយនេះ។ ប៉ុន្តែមេដឹកនាំខ្មែរតែងអះអាងថា អាជ្ញាធរបារាំង បានកាត់កោះនោះទៅឲ្យវៀតណាម ហើយបញ្ហាទាំងនេះបានចប់សព្វគ្រប់រួចទៅហើយ។
ក្រុមអ្នកជំនាញខាងកិច្ចការព្រំដែនខ្មែរនៅឯនាយសមុទ្រប្រកាសថា បញ្ហាកោះត្រល់នៅតែជាបញ្ហាដែលមិនទាន់ចប់សព្វគ្រប់នោះទេ សូម្បីអតីតព្រះមហាក្សត្រ ព្រះបាទ នរោត្ត សុរាម្រិត និងលោកទេសាភិបាលបារាំង ប្រេវីយេ (Previer) ក៏មិនដែលកាត់សេចក្ដីថា កោះខ្មែរដ៏មានតម្លៃមិនអាចកាត់ថ្លៃបានមួយនេះ ជាកម្មសិទ្ធិដាច់មុខរបស់វៀតណាម នោះដែរ។
ប្រធានគណៈកម្មាធិការព្រំដែនកម្ពុជា ដែលមានមូលដ្ឋានក្នុងប្រទេសបារាំង លោក ស៊ាន ប៉េងសែ អះអាងថា បញ្ហាកោះត្រល់ គឺជាបញ្ហាជាតិទាំងមូល ហើយកោះមួយនេះក៏មិនដែលត្រូវបានសម្រេចតាមផ្លូវច្បាប់ម្ដងណាឲ្យ ទៅវៀតណាម នោះទេ។
ទាក់ទងនឹងបញ្ហាកោះត្រល់នេះ លោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន នៅថ្ងៃទី៩ ខែសីហា ឆ្នាំ២០១២ បានប្រកាសក្នុងរដ្ឋសភាពីមូលហេតុនាំឲ្យកោះត្រល់លែងជាកម្មសិទ្ធិ របស់ខ្មែរថា ដោយសារតែឯកសារព្រះបាទ សម្ដេចព្រះ នរោត្ដម សីហនុ ដាក់តម្កល់នៅក្នុងអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិនៅឆ្នាំ ១៩៦៤ បានទទួលស្គាល់ខ្សែបន្ទាត់ ប្រេវីយេ ដែលបានកាត់កោះត្រល់ទៅឱ្យប្រទេសវៀតណាម។
លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បញ្ជាក់ថា ខ្មែរបានបាត់កោះត្រល់របស់ខ្លួន នៅឆ្នាំ១៩៣៩ ក្រោយពីអគ្គទេសាភិបាលឥណ្ឌូចិន របស់បារាំង លោក ប្រេវីយេ បានដាក់កោះ ត្រល់ឲ្យស្ថិតនៅក្រោមការគ្រប់គ្រងក្នុងដែនដីកម្ពុជាក្រោម ឬ កូសាំងស៊ីន ហើយឆ្នាំ១៩៤៩ បារាំងបាន ប្រគល់ដែនដីកូសាំងស៊ីន ដែលជាទឹកដីកម្ពុជាក្រោម ទៅឲ្យព្រះចៅបៅដាយ នៃប្រទេសវៀតណាម។
ទោះជាយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ កាសែតរស្មីកម្ពុជា កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៥ ខែវិច្ឆិកា ឆ្នាំ២០០៥ បានដកស្រង់បន្ទូលរបស់អតីតព្រះមហាក្សត្រ ព្រះបាទសម្ដេចព្រះ នរោត្តម សីហនុ ចុះផ្សាយថា ព្រះអង្គមិនដែលទទួលស្គាល់កោះត្រល់ ជារបស់វៀតណាម ម្ដងណានោះឡើយ។
រីឯក្នុងរជ្ជកាលព្រះរាជបិតារបស់ព្រះអង្គ គឺព្រះបាទ នរោត្តម សុរាម្រិត អតីតព្រះមហាក្សត្រខ្មែរអង្គនេះ ក៏បានចេញព្រះរាជក្រឹត្យមួយចុះថ្ងៃទី៣០ ខែធ្នូ ឆ្នាំ១៩៥៧ ត្រាស់បង្គាប់ថា កោះត្រល់ គឺជាកោះដែលប្រទេសខ្មែរដាក់លក្ខខណ្ឌថា ត្រូវរក្សាទុកនូវសិទ្ធិប្រវត្តិសាស្រ្ត។
ជាមួយគ្នានេះផងដែរ នៅឆ្នាំ១៩៣៩ ទេសាភិបាលបារាំង លោក ប្រេវីយេ បានសរសេរជាលាយលក្ខណ៍អក្សរកត់ត្រាថា បារាំងបានកំណត់ចម្ងាយប្រវែង ៣គីឡូម៉ែត្រពីខាងជើងកោះត្រល់ ត្រូវគ្រប់គ្រងដោយប្រទេសខ្មែរ ហើយកោះត្រល់ត្រូវស្ថិតក្រោមការគ្រប់គ្រង ដោយកូសាំងស៊ីន ឬ បារាំង។ ក៏ប៉ុន្តែការគ្រប់គ្រងនេះ គ្រាន់តែជាការគ្រប់គ្រងផ្នែករដ្ឋបាល និងតម្រួតប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ចំណែកឯបញ្ហាទាក់ទងរឿងភ្ជាប់កោះត្រល់ទាំងនេះទៅប្រទេសខ្មែរ ឬ កូសាំងស៊ីននោះ ត្រូវទុកមួយអន្លើសិនជាដាច់ខាត។
លោក ស៊ាន ប៉េងសែ បានចោទលោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន ថា មិនចេះស្រឡាញ់ជាតិ និងទឹកដីរបស់ខ្លួន។ លោកអំពាវនាវឲ្យកូនខ្មែរគ្រប់រូបបន្តការទាមទារយកទឹកដីរបស់ ខ្លួនមកវិញ ទោះស្ថិតក្នុងកាលៈទេសៈណាក៏ដោយ។
កោះត្រល់មានផ្ទៃដីសរុប ទំហំ ៥៤០គីឡូម៉ែត្រក្រឡា គឺធំជិតប៉ុនផ្ទៃដីប្រទេសសិង្ហបុរី (Singapore)។ កោះនេះស្ថិតនៅចម្ងាយ ៥គីឡូម៉ែត្រ ពីកោះក្រចកសេះ ហើយចម្ងាយ ១៥គីឡូម៉ែត្រ ពីឆ្នេរសមុទ្រខ្មែរភាគខាងត្បូង និង ៤៥គីឡូម៉ែត្រ ពីខេត្តហាទៀន ប្រទេសវៀតណាម។
អតីតប្រធានចលនានិស្សិតដើម្បីលទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ លោក អ៊ុំ សំអាន ដែលតែងដឹកនាំបាតុកម្មតវ៉ាអំពីបញ្ហាបូរណភាពទឹកដីថ្លែងថា ទោះបីបារាំង បានដាក់នឹមអាណានិគមលើប្រទេសខ្មែរពិតមែន តែបារាំង មិនដែលបានកាត់ដែនដីកោះមួយនេះឲ្យទៅប្រទេសវៀតណាម នោះឡើយ។ លោកបានជំរុញឲ្យមេដឹកនាំខ្មែរគួរទាមទារកោះត្រល់មកវិញ តាមរយៈការប្ដឹងទៅតុលាការយុត្តិធម៌អន្តរជាតិ។
លោក អ៊ុំ សំអាន បញ្ជាក់ថា ដោយសារតែកិច្ចព្រមព្រៀងឆ្នាំ១៩៨២ រវាងលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ជាមួយលោក ង្វៀង កូថាច់ រដ្ឋមន្ត្រីការបរទេសវៀតណាម និងសន្ធិសញ្ញាបំពេញបន្ថែមឆ្នាំ២០០៥ បាននាំឲ្យកម្ពុជា បាត់បង់ក្រោះត្រល់ ដែលមានតម្លៃកាត់ថ្លៃពុំបាននេះ។ លោកបានពន្យល់ថា សន្ធិសញ្ញាទាំងនេះធ្វើឡើងផ្ទុយពីរដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ និងកិច្ចព្រមព្រៀងសន្តិភាពទីក្រុងប៉ារីស។
ចំណែកសកម្មជនព្រំដែនដែលមានមូលដ្ឋានក្នុងប្រទេសន័រវ៉េ (Norway) លោក អៀរ ចាន់ណា ព្រមានថា លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ត្រូវតែយកកោះត្រល់នេះមកឲ្យខ្មែរវិញជាដាច់ខាត បើពុំនោះសោតទេ រដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន ត្រូវទទួលខុសត្រូវចំពោះមុខប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រអំពីការបាត់បង់កោះត្រល់ ចេញពីផែនទីប្រទេសកម្ពុជា។
រដ្ឋាភិបាលក្រុងហាណូយ កំពុងបង្កើនល្បឿនអភិវឌ្ឍន៍យ៉ាងពេញទំហឹង ដើម្បីធ្វើឲ្យកោះត្រល់ ដែលភាសាវៀតណាម ហៅថា «ភូកុក» ក្លាយជាតំបន់ទេសចរណ៍ និងពាណិជ្ជកម្មលំដាប់ពិភពលោក។ ក្រុមហ៊ុនទេសចរណ៍ខ្លះ បានហៅឆ្នេរសមុទ្ទនៅកោះត្រល់ ថាជា «ឆ្នេរសួគ៌ា»។
សព្វថ្ងៃកោះត្រល់ មានជនជាតិវៀតណាម រស់នៅចំនួនជិត ១០ម៉ឺននាក់ ក្នុងនោះមានផ្លូវថ្នល់ខ្វាត់ខ្វែង អគាររដ្ឋាភិបាល សាលារៀន មន្ទីរពេទ្យ សណ្ឋាគារ ភូមិគ្រឹះ អាគារលក់ទំនិញ និងផ្សារទំនើបៗ ព្រមទាំងអាកាសយានដ្ឋានខ្នាតអន្តរជាតិ ១កន្លែង និងកំពង់ផែអន្តរជាតិ ៣កន្លែង ដែលជាមធ្យោបាយយ៉ាងសំខាន់ក្នុងការពង្រីកវិស័យពាណិជ្ជកម្ម និងទេសចរណ៍។
ប្រជាជននៅទីនោះឲ្យដឹងថា រដ្ឋាភិបាលក្រុងហាណូយ បានចំណាយប្រាក់ជាង ១ពាន់លានដុល្លារសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក សម្រាប់អភិវឌ្ឍកោះត្រល់នេះ៕
កម្ពុជាបន្តបដិសេធមិនផ្ដល់កាដូជូនសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក
RFA/Vohar Cheath
ដោយ យន់ សាមៀន
2012-12-10
រដ្ឋាភិបាលទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញ បានបដិសេធមិនផ្ដល់កាដូពិសេសជូនប្រធានាធិបតីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក លោក បារ៉ាក់ អូបាម៉ា (Barack Obama) ដែលបានទទូចអង្វរសុំលោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន ឲ្យដោះលែងអ្នកទោសនយោបាយ លើកស្ទួយសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស និងរៀបចំការបោះឆ្នោតប្រកបដោយស្តង់ដារអន្តរជាតិ។ការប្រកាសមិនផ្ដល់កាដូជូនសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកនេះ ធ្វើឡើងស្របពេលដែលកម្ពុជា បានទទូចសុំកាដូពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ដើម្បីកាត់បំណុលចាស់របស់កម្ពុជា។ អ្នកវិភាគបានព្រមានថា កម្ពុជាមិនត្រឹមតែមិនបានទទួលកាដូពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកនោះទេ ប៉ុន្តែថែមទាំងមានផលវិបាកផ្នែកការទូត និងវិនិយោគទុនរវាងប្រទេសទាំងពីរទៀតផង ដោយសារតែកម្ពុជា បានព្រងើយកន្តើយ និងផ្គើន នឹងសំណើរបស់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក។
មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា បានបញ្ជក់ជាថ្មីថា រដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា គ្មានកាដូអ្វីផ្ដល់ជូនប្រធានាធិបតីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក លោក ប៉ារាក់ អូបាម៉ា ទេ បើទោះបីលោកប្រធានាធិបតីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក បានស្នើសុំឲ្យនាយករដ្ឋមន្រ្តី ហ៊ុន សែន រៀបចំការបោះឆ្នោតមួយដោយសេរី និងយុត្តិធម៌ ដោះលែងអ្នកទោសនយោបាយ និងធ្វើឲ្យស្ថានភាពសិទ្ធិមនុស្សប្រសើរឡើងវិញក៏ដោយ។
អ្នកនាំពាក្យទីស្តីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្រ្តី លោក ផៃ ស៊ីផាន មានប្រសាសន៍ថា លោក ប៉ារាក់ អូបាម៉ា មិនបានសំណូមពរឲ្យកម្ពុជា ធ្វើតាមឡើយ ដោយលោកគ្រាន់តែសំដែងក្តីបារម្ភតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ។
ការអះអាងនេះ ផ្ទុយទៅនឹងព័ត៌មានរបស់មន្ត្រីសេតវិមាន ដែលបានប្រាប់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មានថា ក្នុងជំនួបតានតឹងមួយរវាងលោក ហ៊ុន សែន និងលោក ប៉ារាក់ អូបាម៉ា កាលពីថ្ងៃទី១៩ វិច្ឆិកា លោកប្រធានាធិបតីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក បាននិយាយនឹងលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ដោយទឹកមុខមាំ មិនញញឹមថា បញ្ហាការរំលោភសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស នឹងក្លាយជាឧបសគ្គរារាំងទំនាក់ទំនងរវាងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក និងកម្ពុជា មិនឲ្យស៊ីជម្រៅបាន។ ប៉ុន្តែរយៈពេលជាងពីរសប្ដាហ៍កន្លងផុតទៅហើយ រដ្ឋាភិបាលលោក ហ៊ុន សែន នៅមិនទាន់បានឆ្លើយតបជាវិជ្ជមាននៅឡើយ។
រដ្ឋាភិបាលលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ហាក់បីកំពុងលែងល្បែងនឹងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកក្នុងការដោះដូរកាដូទៅវិញ ទៅមក។ ក្នុងជំនួបតឹងសរសៃកនោះដែរ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បានសុំឲ្យសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក លុបបំណុលចាស់ចោល និងពង្រឹងទំនាក់ទំនងល្អនឹងកម្ពុជា នៅពេលដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលកំពុងចាប់អ្នកប្រឆាំង និងអ្នកសារព័ត៌មានដាក់ពន្ធនាគារ និងបានបដិសេធមិនឆ្លើយតបជាវិជ្ជមាននឹងសំណើរបស់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក។
ក្នុងសន្និសីទសារព័ត៌មានមួយក្រោយពីជំនួបលោក បារ៉ាក់ អូបាម៉ា និងលោក ហ៊ុន សែន រដ្ឋលេខាធិការទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រី លោក ប្រាក់ សុខុន បានប្រាប់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មានថា លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បានសុំកាដូពិសេសពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក។ លោកបន្តថា លោក ហ៊ុន សែន បានសុំលោក បារ៉ាក់ អូបាម៉ា បង្វែរបំណុលចាស់ចំនួនជាង ៤០០លានដុល្លារទៅជួយសង្គម និងវិស័យអប់រំ និងនៅសេសសល់ប៉ុន្មានទៀត កម្ពុជានឹងសង ប៉ុន្តែត្រូវគិតការប្រាក់ក្នុងកម្រិតទាប។ លោក ប្រាក់ សុខុន បន្តថា លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ក៏បង្ហាញបំណងចង់រឹតចំណងកិច្ចសហការនឹងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកផងដែរ។
អ្នកវិភាគឯករាជ្យបានឲ្យដឹងថា កម្ពុជាត្រូវការកាដូ និងការគាំទ្រច្រើនពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ប៉ុន្តែហាក់មិនចង់ផ្ដល់កាដូឲ្យសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកវិញ។ ទង្វើនេះ ប្រហែលជាបណ្ដាលឲ្យកម្ពុជា ខាតបង់ច្រើន។
លោកបណ្ឌិត ឡៅ ម៉ុងហៃ បានព្រមានថា ការមិនព្រមធ្វើតាមសំណូមពររបស់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក នឹងផ្ដល់ផលវិបាកសម្រាប់កម្ពុជា ក្នុងទំនាក់ទំនងការទូតរវាងប្រទេសទាំងពីរ។ លោកបន្តថា បច្ចុប្បន្នមិនមែនតែសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកទេ ដែលបានសំដែងក្តីកង្វល់ពីការរំលោភសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស និងការរៀបចំការបោះឆ្នោតនៅកម្ពុជា ប្រទេសអូស្ត្រាលី ហ្វីលីពីន និងសហភាពអឺរ៉ុប ក៏បានសំដែងក្តីកង្វល់ផងដែរ។
លោកថា ប្រសិនបើគ្មានការរៀបចំការបោះឆ្នោតដោយសេរី និងយុត្តិធម៌ ដោយមានការចូលរួមរបស់ប្រធានគណបក្សសង្គ្រោះជាតិ លោក សម រង្ស៊ី នោះទេ ប្រទេសទាំងនោះប្រហែលជាមិនទទួលស្គាល់លទ្ធផលនៃការបោះឆ្នោតឡើយ។ ផលលំបាកផ្សេងទៀត គឺអាចកើតឡើងក្នុងវិស័យវិនិយោគទុនរបស់កម្ពុជា ដោយសារកម្ពុជា ត្រូវការទីផ្សារនៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក និងអឺរ៉ុប សម្រាប់វិស័យកាត់ដេរ និងផលិតកម្មកសិកម្មមួយចំនួនទៀត។
ចំណែកសភាសហភាពអឺរ៉ុប និងព្រឹទ្ធសភាអូស្ត្រាលី និងហ្វីលីពីន ក៏បានសំណូមពរឲ្យរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា អនុវត្តនូវគោលការណ៍នីតិរដ្ឋឲ្យបានត្រឹមត្រូវផងដែរ។ ប្រទេសទាំងនោះចង់ឃើញលោក សម រង្ស៊ី ប្រធានគណបក្សសង្គ្រោះជាតិ អាចចូលរួមការបោះឆ្នោតសកលនៅឆ្នាំ២០១៣ ខាងមុខ ដើម្បីមានការបោះឆ្នោតមួយប្រព្រឹត្តឡើងដោយសេរី យុត្តិធម៌ និងសហគមន៍អន្តរជាតិអាចទទួលយកបាន។
នាយករងទទួលបន្ទុកកិច្ចការតំបន់អាស៊ីនៃអង្គការឃ្លាំមើលសិទ្ធិ មនុស្សអន្តរជាតិ (Human Rights watch) លោក ហ្វៀល រ៉ូបឺតសុន (Phil Robertson) កាលពីសប្ដាហ៍មុនបានទទូចឲ្យរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា ឆ្លើយតបដោយវិជ្ជមានទៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ប៉ុន្តែក៏បានស្នើសុំសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក បន្តជំរុញឲ្យកម្ពុជា អនុវត្តនីតិរដ្ឋ។ លោកបន្តថា ការចាប់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មាន លោក ម៉ម សូណង់ដូ និងពលរដ្ឋដាក់គុក ជាទង្វើមិនអាចទទួលយកបាន ហើយការដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលត្រួតត្រាបណ្ដាញព័ត៌មាន និងការរៀបចំការបោះឆ្នោត គឺកាន់តែមិនអាចទទួលយកបាន។
លោក ហ្វៀល រ៉ូបឺតសុន បន្តថា សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកត្រូវតែតាមដានបន្តទៀតចំពោះសំណើរបស់ខ្លួន៖ «គ្មាន នរណាម្នាក់រំពឹងថា លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ធ្វើតាមសំណើរបស់លោក អូបាម៉ា នោះទេ។ បញ្ហានេះទាមទារឲ្យមានកិច្ចខំប្រឹងប្រែងបន្ថែមទៀត។ វាទាមទារឲ្យលោក អូបាម៉ា និងរដ្ឋាភិបាលសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ជំរុញឲ្យខ្លាំងក្លាបន្ថែមទៀត។ វាជារឿងធម្មតាណាស់សម្រាប់កម្ពុជា ក្នុងការឆ្លើយតប គឺកម្ពុជាត្រូវដោះលែងលោក ម៉ម សូណង់ដូ និងអនុញ្ញាតឲ្យលោក សម រង្ស៊ី វិលមកកម្ពុជាវិញ»។
លោក ហ្វៀល រ៉ូបឺតសុន បន្ថែមទៀតថា ថ្វីដ្បិតតែសំណើសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកងាយស្រួលឆ្លើយតប ប៉ុន្តែរដ្ឋាភិបាលទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញ មិនបានបង្ហាញឆន្ទៈនយោបាយពិតប្រាកដណាមួយ ដោះស្រាយបញ្ហានេះឡើយ។ ទស្សនកិច្ចរបស់លោក បារ៉ាក់ អូបាម៉ា ជាទស្សនកិច្ចប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្ររបស់ប្រធានាធិបតីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកលើកដំបូង មកកម្ពុជា។
លោក បារ៉ាក់ អូបាម៉ា ជាប្រធានាធិបតីជាប់ឆ្នោតពីរអាណត្តិ ប៉ុន្តែលោក ហ៊ុន សែន បានកាន់អំណាចចាប់តាំងពីឆ្នាំ១៩៨៥ ហើយប្រកាសបន្តកាន់កាប់តំណែងរបស់លោកដល់អាយុ ៩០ឆ្នាំ។ អ្នកប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រចាត់ទុក លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ថា ជាមនុស្សឆ្លាត ជាអ្នកប្រយុទ្ធប្រកបដោយល្បិចកល។ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ត្រូវបានផ្ដល់ងារជា “បុរសខ្លាំងនៅកម្ពុជា”។
ក្នុងរយៈពេលប៉ុន្មានឆ្នាំចុងក្រោយនេះ ទំនាក់ទំនងការទូតរវាងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក និងកម្ពុជា ហាក់ពុំមានភាពប្រសើរឡើយ។ កាលពីដើមឆ្នាំ២០០៦ សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកបានអន្តរាគមន៍លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ឲ្យដោះលែងអ្នករិះគន់រដ្ឋាភិបាលចំនួន ៤នាក់ រួមមានអតីតប្រធានមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលសិទ្ធិមនុស្សកម្ពុជា លោក កឹម សុខា លោក ម៉ម សូណង់ដូ នាយកវិទ្យុសំបុកឃ្មុំ លោក រ៉ុង ឈុន ប្រធានសមាគមគ្រូបង្រៀនកម្ពុជាឯករាជ្យ និងប្រធានវិទ្យុសំឡេងប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ លោក ប៉ា ងួនទៀង។
ក្រោយពីជំនួបមិនបើកចំហមួយរវាងឧបការីក្រសួងការបរទេសសហរដ្ឋ អាមេរិក លោក គ្រីស្តូហ្វឺ ហ៊ីល (Christopher Hill) និងលោក ហ៊ុន សែន រដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា បានសម្រេចដោះលែងអ្នករិះគន់ទាំង ៤នាក់នោះ ឱ្យនៅក្រៅឃុំជាបណ្ដោះអាសន្ន។ សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកក៏ធ្លាប់បានផ្អាកជំនួយយោធាដល់កម្ពុជា ក្រោយពេលដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលសម្រេចចាប់បញ្ជូនជនភៀសខ្លួនអ៊ុយហ្គឺរ៍ ចំនួន ២០នាក់ទៅឲ្យរដ្ឋាភិបាលចិន កាលពីឆ្នាំ២០០៩។
អ្នកវិភាគ និងមន្ត្រីអង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សនៅតែសំណូមពរឲ្យកម្ពុជា ផ្ដល់កាដូដល់សហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ប្រសិនបើរដ្ឋាភិបាលត្រូវការកាដូពីសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកវិញនោះ៕
Monday 10 December 2012
Obama Visits China-Tilting Cambodia
Obama Visits China-Tilting Cambodia
PHNOM PENH: If body language is any predictor, President Barack Obama did not enjoy his short trip to Cambodia to attend the recent East Asia Summit. The unsmiling president joined routines with other participating heads of governments his visit aimed at winning friends and influencing others against a rising China. Still, long-term US involvement in the country’s economy and security may yet produce results.
Before the summit, Obama met privately with summit host, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, 60, and chided him on human rights issues, including recent land seizures, jailed political dissenters and the need for next year’s national elections to be free and fair. The meeting was described as “tense.” According to an aide who briefed reporters, Obama contrasted Cambodia’s authoritarian creep with Burma’s moves towards reform, warning that human rights abuses could be an impediment to a “deeper relationship with the United States.”
Obama’s visit to Cambodia, the first by a sitting US president, was preceded by calls for him to publicly address human rights. A Human Rights Watch report released before the trip recounted the unsolved killings of around 300 labor leaders, journalists, and opposition leaders during Hun Sen’s 27-year rule. Local activists also highlighted the self-exile of opposition leader Sam Rainsy on what many say are trumped-up charges and a recent crackdown on government critics and residents protesting forced evictions.
Observing Obama’s chilly visit, Don Jameson, a former diplomat who served at the US Embassy in Phnom Penh in the early 1970s, said Obama seemed to stake out a middle way on human rights, discussing them behind closed doors but maintaining a public silence, possibly an effort to assuage activists who criticized him for making the stop in Cambodia at all. Jameson observed that the remarks’ impact was limited to the international press. Domestically, Hun Sen basked in the legitimacy conferred by Obama’s visit; human rights issues received little coverage in the government-aligned press. “As long as he has China on his side,” Jameson said, “Hun Sen seems confident that he can weather any storm and does not need to be concerned about what the US thinks.”
Not far from the Peace Palace, protesters released balloons and signs with the international distress signal, SOS, and small photos of Obama.
Lao Mong Hay, a Phnom Penh–based rights activist, welcomed the president’s comments to Hun Sen, expressing hope that they might lead to new emphasis on human rights. “Cambodia cannot afford to have strained relations with the United States,” he said, adding that the country relies on the US as an export market for its garments, giving the US “strategic leverage.” In 2011, according to the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia, the country exported $2.06 billion worth of garments and textiles to the US, more than half of its total; the industry employs an estimated 350,000 workers. Cambodia’s garment exports to the US also make up a massive proportion over its overall exports, which totaled $4.87 billion last year. This stands in contrast to the wide trade deficit with China. In 2011, the $2.5 billion in two-way trade between Cambodia and China consisted overwhelmingly of imports of Chinese machinery, electronics, food, cars and medicines.
Whether the US chooses to use its leverage remains an open question. Obama’s landmark trip to Asia was a key step in Washington’s much-vaunted pivot toward Asia, an effort to bolster military, economic and political relationships as a counterweight to China’s rising influence in the region. Over the past decade, China has poured billions of dollars of “no-strings attached” loans and investments into Cambodia, transforming its physical infrastructure and reducing its dependence on Western development assistance tied to democratic and good governance reforms
In return, Cambodia does China’s bidding on a range of issues. It has deported to China Uighur asylum seekers, given vocal support to the One-China Policy and backed China’s position on negotiations over the South China Sea dispute. Two large green banners welcomed visiting dignitaries to Phnom Penh’s Peace Palace for the summit meetings, listing one leader and one country: “Welcome Prime Minister Wen Jiabao!” proclaimed one banner. “Long Live the People’s Republic of China!” read the other.
Hun Sen has played this game for years. US-Cambodia relations have steadily improved since July 1997, when he overthrew co–prime minister, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, in a violent coup de force. But as Hun Sen consolidated power in the early 2000s, Washington began to reengage. In August 2005, restrictions on US military assistance to Cambodia were lifted; in 2007, the US resumed direct foreign assistance, making Cambodia the third largest recipient of US aid in East Asia after Indonesia and the Philippines. This renewed commitment was symbolized by the December 2005 inauguration of a new $47 million US Embassy complex in Phnom Penh.
Then came the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. In 2009, Cambodia and the US exchanged defense attachés, and Defense Minister Tea Banh visited Washington for talks about building up ties between the US military and the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF). Angkor Sentinel, an annual joint US-Cambodian military exercise, was inaugurated in 2010, and three days before Obama’s arrival last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Tea Banh in Siem Reap and reaffirmed US military commitment to Cambodia.
Carl Thayer, a professor at the Australia Defense Forces Academy in Canberra, said that despite the lack of any real terrorist threat in Cambodia today, counterterrorism and defense cooperation allows the US to preserve a measure of influence as the country moves further into China’s orbit. “The US has an ‘in’ on the security and defense side that China really does not have,” he said. “Since [counterterrorism] is an already existing program it would have normative approval in the United States as a place to go, to keep some avenues of American influence open.”
Casting its eye to the longer term, the US also moves to establish strong relationships with Hun Sen’s eldest son and heir apparent. Hun Manet was given a place at West Point military academy, graduating in 1999. The 35-year-old is a RCAF major-general and commands the National Counter-Terrorism Special Force established with US assistance in 2008.
In August, at the close of Vector Balance Canoe, another joint military exercise, US Ambassador William E. Todd singled out Manet for his “outstanding job as the commanding officer of such a fine unit,” and reiterated that “America has been committed to Cambodia, is committed to Cambodia now, and will be committed to Cambodia long into the future.” Describing Manet as “a rising future star,” Thayer notes, “America’s very carefully building up relationships with people who are considered to have influence now, and are likely to have even greater influence in future.”
The chilly visit may strain relations, but in the long-run, the two countries will likely see benefits of closer ties. For the US, there is the need to offset a rising China, forcing the former to take a patient approach on human rights issues. For Cambodia, as always, there is the weight of history as a small nation vulnerable to powerful outside forces. It may be that as China’s influence grows Hun Sen will recall an adage often cited by Prince Norodom Sihanouk as he struggled to maintain Cambodia’s neutrality during the Cold War: “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” In the end, the economic and military weight of the US may persuade Hun Sen and his successors to slide towards a more balanced position.
Authoritarian Hun Sen plays the US off China, but the US takes long-term view
Sebastian Strangio
YaleGlobal, 7 December 2012
Cambodia in the middle: President Barack Obama extends a limp hand to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen (top); happier relations with China’s Premier Wen Jiabao |
Before the summit, Obama met privately with summit host, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, 60, and chided him on human rights issues, including recent land seizures, jailed political dissenters and the need for next year’s national elections to be free and fair. The meeting was described as “tense.” According to an aide who briefed reporters, Obama contrasted Cambodia’s authoritarian creep with Burma’s moves towards reform, warning that human rights abuses could be an impediment to a “deeper relationship with the United States.”
Obama’s visit to Cambodia, the first by a sitting US president, was preceded by calls for him to publicly address human rights. A Human Rights Watch report released before the trip recounted the unsolved killings of around 300 labor leaders, journalists, and opposition leaders during Hun Sen’s 27-year rule. Local activists also highlighted the self-exile of opposition leader Sam Rainsy on what many say are trumped-up charges and a recent crackdown on government critics and residents protesting forced evictions.
Obama seemed to stake out a middle way on human rights, discussing them behind closed doors but maintaining public silence. |
Not far from the Peace Palace, protesters released balloons and signs with the international distress signal, SOS, and small photos of Obama.
Lao Mong Hay, a Phnom Penh–based rights activist, welcomed the president’s comments to Hun Sen, expressing hope that they might lead to new emphasis on human rights. “Cambodia cannot afford to have strained relations with the United States,” he said, adding that the country relies on the US as an export market for its garments, giving the US “strategic leverage.” In 2011, according to the Garment Manufacturers Association in Cambodia, the country exported $2.06 billion worth of garments and textiles to the US, more than half of its total; the industry employs an estimated 350,000 workers. Cambodia’s garment exports to the US also make up a massive proportion over its overall exports, which totaled $4.87 billion last year. This stands in contrast to the wide trade deficit with China. In 2011, the $2.5 billion in two-way trade between Cambodia and China consisted overwhelmingly of imports of Chinese machinery, electronics, food, cars and medicines.
Cambodia relies on the US as an export market for garments, more than half that industry’s total, giving the US “strategic leverage.” |
In return, Cambodia does China’s bidding on a range of issues. It has deported to China Uighur asylum seekers, given vocal support to the One-China Policy and backed China’s position on negotiations over the South China Sea dispute. Two large green banners welcomed visiting dignitaries to Phnom Penh’s Peace Palace for the summit meetings, listing one leader and one country: “Welcome Prime Minister Wen Jiabao!” proclaimed one banner. “Long Live the People’s Republic of China!” read the other.
Hun Sen has played this game for years. US-Cambodia relations have steadily improved since July 1997, when he overthrew co–prime minister, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, in a violent coup de force. But as Hun Sen consolidated power in the early 2000s, Washington began to reengage. In August 2005, restrictions on US military assistance to Cambodia were lifted; in 2007, the US resumed direct foreign assistance, making Cambodia the third largest recipient of US aid in East Asia after Indonesia and the Philippines. This renewed commitment was symbolized by the December 2005 inauguration of a new $47 million US Embassy complex in Phnom Penh.
Then came the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. In 2009, Cambodia and the US exchanged defense attachés, and Defense Minister Tea Banh visited Washington for talks about building up ties between the US military and the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF). Angkor Sentinel, an annual joint US-Cambodian military exercise, was inaugurated in 2010, and three days before Obama’s arrival last week, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Tea Banh in Siem Reap and reaffirmed US military commitment to Cambodia.
According to Carl Thayer, the US is building relationships with those considered to have influence now and in the future. |
Casting its eye to the longer term, the US also moves to establish strong relationships with Hun Sen’s eldest son and heir apparent. Hun Manet was given a place at West Point military academy, graduating in 1999. The 35-year-old is a RCAF major-general and commands the National Counter-Terrorism Special Force established with US assistance in 2008.
In August, at the close of Vector Balance Canoe, another joint military exercise, US Ambassador William E. Todd singled out Manet for his “outstanding job as the commanding officer of such a fine unit,” and reiterated that “America has been committed to Cambodia, is committed to Cambodia now, and will be committed to Cambodia long into the future.” Describing Manet as “a rising future star,” Thayer notes, “America’s very carefully building up relationships with people who are considered to have influence now, and are likely to have even greater influence in future.”
The chilly visit may strain relations, but in the long-run, the two countries will likely see benefits of closer ties. For the US, there is the need to offset a rising China, forcing the former to take a patient approach on human rights issues. For Cambodia, as always, there is the weight of history as a small nation vulnerable to powerful outside forces. It may be that as China’s influence grows Hun Sen will recall an adage often cited by Prince Norodom Sihanouk as he struggled to maintain Cambodia’s neutrality during the Cold War: “When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” In the end, the economic and military weight of the US may persuade Hun Sen and his successors to slide towards a more balanced position.
Sebastian Strangio is a journalist based in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, covering Asia.
Sunday 9 December 2012
UNITED STATES: Need to prepare for the next wave of foreign students
Rahul Choudaha09 December 2012 Issue No:251
A recent commentary in University World News
highlighted issues facing US higher education in sustaining
international student growth rates. Although some of the concerns raised
are relevant, they mask the latent strength in the scale, diversity and
capacity of the American higher education system to become a more
attractive player in the international student mobility arena.
The concept of international student recruitment in the US is a relatively new development. It gained traction in response to post-recession budget cuts, primarily in public higher education institutions.
The external environment prompted institutions to start recruiting international students, but the internal capacities and resources of many were ill prepared for this sudden shift towards a more proactive recruitment model.
Against a backdrop of higher expectations for international enrolment and declining budget support, this lack of internal capacity triggered the adoption of quick turnaround recruitment approaches. For example, several institutions started experimenting with commission-based recruitment agents, anticipating lower upfront costs.
These quick-fix practices, however, have created gaps in institutions’ ability to manage the qualitative risks associated with the use of agents and provide adequate support services to meet international student needs.
Research universities
Agent-using institutions are not necessarily the institutions that drive most of the international student enrolment growth. In fact, less than 3% of American institutions classified as "Research Universities (very high research activity-RU/VH)" by the Carnegie Classification are primarily responsible for overall expansion.
These 108 research universities increased their share of total international student enrolment in the US from 37.7% to 42.5% between 2010-11 and 2011-12, according to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors survey. International student enrolment at these universities rose by 38%, compared to 23% for all institutions.
Until recently, most research universities did not actively ‘recruit’ as they could rely on strong word-of-mouth and institutional reputation. But with two-thirds of them being public institutions, they too could not shield themselves from the effects of the recent financial crisis.
This provoked several public institutions to begin recruiting international students, and this is evident from the much higher enrolment growth at some of the large public universities. For instance, Purdue University and the University of Washington each enrolled almost 3,000 more international students in the autumn of 2012 than the autumn of 2008.
When we look closely at the details of that expansion, we can see that research universities have witnessed a larger expansion in the enrolment of undergraduates than graduates. For example, at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), new international undergraduate student enrolment grew seven-fold – from 142 to 1,012 – between 2008 and 2012.
This is one example of many that show how research universities are attracting more and more undergraduate-level international students – a new phenomenon for these institutions known for their research excellence, an excellence that traditionally drew graduate students.
This trend towards an increasing undergraduate focus is driven by a fall in the funding available at graduate level and a higher revenue potential for self-funded undergraduate students. This pattern prevails across all institution types as international student growth is driven by undergraduate students.
In 2011-12, 24,793 more undergraduate international students than in the previous year were enrolled in US higher education institutions as compared to 3,856 at graduate level. Undergraduate-level students now make up 78% of total international student enrolment.
Thus, it is undeniable that recent growth in international student enrolment in the US is driven by an overarching trend: large public research universities reaching out to increasing numbers of undergraduate-level students.
Next phase of growth
In order to capitalise on the potential for the next phase of enrolment growth, US institutions must continue to build their internal capacity to actively recruit international students. This growth may be risky if institutions rely on quick-fix recruitment practices rather than long-term capacity building models.
In addition to insufficient institutional preparedness for the changing environment of international student recruitment, lack of a coherent national policy has also hindered the US from attracting more international students.
However, recent proactive measures taken by US government agencies, such as providing information through Study in the States, will nationally brand American higher education for international students. In addition, recent policy initiatives like offering green cards to STEM graduates will make the US even more attractive to international talent.
The US is a recent entrant in the world of international student recruitment and will remain highly attractive to international students from all parts of the world. The central challenge for the US is not its unsustainability, but rather building the capacity and competencies required to recruit international students while maintaining high standards.
* Dr Rahul Choudaha is director of research and advisory services at World Education Services in New York. He is an international higher education specialist with a focus on student mobility, transnational education and enrolment management. He earned his PhD in higher education administration from the University of Denver and blogs and tweets (@DrEducationBlog) on higher education trends. Email: rchoudah@wes.org.
The concept of international student recruitment in the US is a relatively new development. It gained traction in response to post-recession budget cuts, primarily in public higher education institutions.
The external environment prompted institutions to start recruiting international students, but the internal capacities and resources of many were ill prepared for this sudden shift towards a more proactive recruitment model.
Against a backdrop of higher expectations for international enrolment and declining budget support, this lack of internal capacity triggered the adoption of quick turnaround recruitment approaches. For example, several institutions started experimenting with commission-based recruitment agents, anticipating lower upfront costs.
These quick-fix practices, however, have created gaps in institutions’ ability to manage the qualitative risks associated with the use of agents and provide adequate support services to meet international student needs.
Research universities
Agent-using institutions are not necessarily the institutions that drive most of the international student enrolment growth. In fact, less than 3% of American institutions classified as "Research Universities (very high research activity-RU/VH)" by the Carnegie Classification are primarily responsible for overall expansion.
These 108 research universities increased their share of total international student enrolment in the US from 37.7% to 42.5% between 2010-11 and 2011-12, according to the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors survey. International student enrolment at these universities rose by 38%, compared to 23% for all institutions.
Until recently, most research universities did not actively ‘recruit’ as they could rely on strong word-of-mouth and institutional reputation. But with two-thirds of them being public institutions, they too could not shield themselves from the effects of the recent financial crisis.
This provoked several public institutions to begin recruiting international students, and this is evident from the much higher enrolment growth at some of the large public universities. For instance, Purdue University and the University of Washington each enrolled almost 3,000 more international students in the autumn of 2012 than the autumn of 2008.
When we look closely at the details of that expansion, we can see that research universities have witnessed a larger expansion in the enrolment of undergraduates than graduates. For example, at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), new international undergraduate student enrolment grew seven-fold – from 142 to 1,012 – between 2008 and 2012.
This is one example of many that show how research universities are attracting more and more undergraduate-level international students – a new phenomenon for these institutions known for their research excellence, an excellence that traditionally drew graduate students.
This trend towards an increasing undergraduate focus is driven by a fall in the funding available at graduate level and a higher revenue potential for self-funded undergraduate students. This pattern prevails across all institution types as international student growth is driven by undergraduate students.
In 2011-12, 24,793 more undergraduate international students than in the previous year were enrolled in US higher education institutions as compared to 3,856 at graduate level. Undergraduate-level students now make up 78% of total international student enrolment.
Thus, it is undeniable that recent growth in international student enrolment in the US is driven by an overarching trend: large public research universities reaching out to increasing numbers of undergraduate-level students.
Next phase of growth
In order to capitalise on the potential for the next phase of enrolment growth, US institutions must continue to build their internal capacity to actively recruit international students. This growth may be risky if institutions rely on quick-fix recruitment practices rather than long-term capacity building models.
In addition to insufficient institutional preparedness for the changing environment of international student recruitment, lack of a coherent national policy has also hindered the US from attracting more international students.
However, recent proactive measures taken by US government agencies, such as providing information through Study in the States, will nationally brand American higher education for international students. In addition, recent policy initiatives like offering green cards to STEM graduates will make the US even more attractive to international talent.
The US is a recent entrant in the world of international student recruitment and will remain highly attractive to international students from all parts of the world. The central challenge for the US is not its unsustainability, but rather building the capacity and competencies required to recruit international students while maintaining high standards.
* Dr Rahul Choudaha is director of research and advisory services at World Education Services in New York. He is an international higher education specialist with a focus on student mobility, transnational education and enrolment management. He earned his PhD in higher education administration from the University of Denver and blogs and tweets (@DrEducationBlog) on higher education trends. Email: rchoudah@wes.org.
CHINA: Chinese attracted to branded British universities
China Daily09 December 2012 Issue No:251
What we perceive to be the best of British products for cars and clothes
are the shiny labels – those that scream: "I am the best". Yet,
carrying a Cambridge University certificate into a Fortune 500 company
interview in Beijing screams that out loud, too, for Chinese nationals,
writes Elizabeth Gasson for China Daily.
Chinese account for 22.6% of the total non-EU international population in Britain, according to statistics provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for 2010-11. Therefore, it is an imperative market to uphold for the Brits, who rely heavily on international funding to bolster their universities.
"They [Chinese] like brand names. The more unobtainable it is, the better," says Jazreel Goh,marketing director of the British Council. "They want to be seen."
Emma Leech, marketing director of Nottingham University, winner of the 2011 International Brand Master award, says: "I think we are one of the strongest brands in China because predominantly we've been established for a while and we are fairly well networked in China."
Chinese account for 22.6% of the total non-EU international population in Britain, according to statistics provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for 2010-11. Therefore, it is an imperative market to uphold for the Brits, who rely heavily on international funding to bolster their universities.
"They [Chinese] like brand names. The more unobtainable it is, the better," says Jazreel Goh,marketing director of the British Council. "They want to be seen."
Emma Leech, marketing director of Nottingham University, winner of the 2011 International Brand Master award, says: "I think we are one of the strongest brands in China because predominantly we've been established for a while and we are fairly well networked in China."
PHILIPPINES: Institutions use courts to save ‘sub-standard’ programmes
Philippine Daily Inquirer09 December 2012 Issue No:251
The Commission on Higher Education, or CHEd, has decried the “enrolment
by injunction” tactic of institutions that were ordered last year to
close down programmes that did not meet government quality standards,
writes Dona Z Pazzibugan for Philippine Daily Inquirer.
CHEd Legal Services Director Carmelita Yadao-Sison said these institutions had been defying CHEd and accepting students for banned programmes by getting injunctions from the trial courts. Sison said a trial court’s injunction order would defeat CHEd’s efforts to weed out college programmes that have not been offering quality education while making money from students.
In October 2011, CHEd ordered the closure of all courses of the International Academy of Management and Economics (IAME); two maritime courses of PMI Colleges in its Manila and Quezon City campuses; as well as five baccalaureate programmes and a masters programme at Harvardian College in San Fernando City. Sison said IAME still accepted foreign students and had managed to operate even after the Supreme Court and the Office of the President dismissed an appeal by IAME President Emmanuel Santos.
CHEd Legal Services Director Carmelita Yadao-Sison said these institutions had been defying CHEd and accepting students for banned programmes by getting injunctions from the trial courts. Sison said a trial court’s injunction order would defeat CHEd’s efforts to weed out college programmes that have not been offering quality education while making money from students.
In October 2011, CHEd ordered the closure of all courses of the International Academy of Management and Economics (IAME); two maritime courses of PMI Colleges in its Manila and Quezon City campuses; as well as five baccalaureate programmes and a masters programme at Harvardian College in San Fernando City. Sison said IAME still accepted foreign students and had managed to operate even after the Supreme Court and the Office of the President dismissed an appeal by IAME President Emmanuel Santos.
UNITED KINGDOM: Foreign exchange costs eased for international students
David Jobbins09 December 2012 Issue No:251
Universities’ increasingly important revenues from international
students are being seriously depleted by foreign exchange charges on
fees and other transactions.
In the UK alone universities spend £34 million (US$54 million) a year in foreign exchange charges, given that approximately 35% of international students make up to three payments a year by international bank transfer at a charge of £6 a transaction, with the remainder using credit cards, which carry a 1.6% surcharge each time.
But using a new system established by a UK-based company, Uni-Pay, the costs are reduced to nothing. International students pay their fees in local currencies in their home countries and the university receives payments in domestic currency (Pounds Sterling in the case of the UK).
So far six universities in the UK have signed up to the scheme and others in Colombia and Russia are in the pipeline.
But the system offers other advantages, according to Uni-pay Managing Director Simon Read.
One is the ability to demonstrate that payments have been made as part of the UK visa application process.
Students need a Certificate of Acceptance to Study (CAS) from their university, which is not normally issued until receipt of an initial deposit is confirmed.
“Most universities that receive a high volume of payments by international bank transfer will tell you that it is not easy to reconcile all of the international payments received in their bank account to individual students,” Read says.
“The correct reference is often not included on the bank statement and the amount is less than it should be due to banks creaming off their own charges.
“The net result is stressed out admissions or finance staff trying desperately to reconcile payments at peak periods, and a poor experience for the student at one of their first points of contact with their prospective university.”
Under the Uni-pay system all payments are fully reconciled for the university and the student as soon as funds are cleared, and the university can issue the CAS sooner and the student can apply for their visa earlier.
Two of the UK universities using the service are Durham and Manchester Metropolitan (MMU).
Clare Butcher, deputy director of finance at Durham, says: “It’s all been very smooth, easy and straightforward. I want to get more students using it. We will definitely be promoting this payment service further to overseas students in the coming year.”
And Paul Sheil, finance manager at MMU, added: “Our overseas students often find it difficult, costly and time consuming to transfer funds that are tied up in their home country, and this can lead to unnecessary dispute whilst we await payment.
“Increased choice in payment options is an important part of our student offering and we have seen positive interest in Uni-Pay, which is really encouraging.”
In the UK alone universities spend £34 million (US$54 million) a year in foreign exchange charges, given that approximately 35% of international students make up to three payments a year by international bank transfer at a charge of £6 a transaction, with the remainder using credit cards, which carry a 1.6% surcharge each time.
But using a new system established by a UK-based company, Uni-Pay, the costs are reduced to nothing. International students pay their fees in local currencies in their home countries and the university receives payments in domestic currency (Pounds Sterling in the case of the UK).
So far six universities in the UK have signed up to the scheme and others in Colombia and Russia are in the pipeline.
But the system offers other advantages, according to Uni-pay Managing Director Simon Read.
One is the ability to demonstrate that payments have been made as part of the UK visa application process.
Students need a Certificate of Acceptance to Study (CAS) from their university, which is not normally issued until receipt of an initial deposit is confirmed.
“Most universities that receive a high volume of payments by international bank transfer will tell you that it is not easy to reconcile all of the international payments received in their bank account to individual students,” Read says.
“The correct reference is often not included on the bank statement and the amount is less than it should be due to banks creaming off their own charges.
“The net result is stressed out admissions or finance staff trying desperately to reconcile payments at peak periods, and a poor experience for the student at one of their first points of contact with their prospective university.”
Under the Uni-pay system all payments are fully reconciled for the university and the student as soon as funds are cleared, and the university can issue the CAS sooner and the student can apply for their visa earlier.
Two of the UK universities using the service are Durham and Manchester Metropolitan (MMU).
Clare Butcher, deputy director of finance at Durham, says: “It’s all been very smooth, easy and straightforward. I want to get more students using it. We will definitely be promoting this payment service further to overseas students in the coming year.”
And Paul Sheil, finance manager at MMU, added: “Our overseas students often find it difficult, costly and time consuming to transfer funds that are tied up in their home country, and this can lead to unnecessary dispute whilst we await payment.
“Increased choice in payment options is an important part of our student offering and we have seen positive interest in Uni-Pay, which is really encouraging.”
SINGAPORE: Opposition, US professors weigh into Yale-NUS freedom debate
Adele Yung and Yojana Sharma07 December 2012 Issue No:251
The debate about academic freedom at the new Yale-National University of
Singapore (NUS) liberal arts college has continued unabated, with
Singaporean opposition politicians and American university professors
adding their voices to the barrage of criticism of the venture.
The Association of American University Professors (AAUP), which has some 47,000 members, this week expressed “growing concern about the character and impact” of the new Yale-NUS College on academic and personal freedoms.
In an open letter posted on Tuesday and addressed to the ‘Yale community’, AAUP called for all documents and agreements relating to the establishment of the Yale-NUS College to be released by the Singaporean authorities.
Some Yale faculty have complained of a lack of transparency and discussion by Yale management on the setting up of the college, which will open in August 2013. Some 40 faculty members have already been appointed.
Yale has not made the specifics of its arrangement with the Singaporean government public and Singapore’s Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said in a response in September to a parliamentary question that the ministry was unable to divulge collaboration fees and other confidential details between Singapore’s universities and overseas partnering universities.
The US concern came as Singapore’s opposition Democratic Party Secretary General Chee Soon Juan and Reform Party of Singapore Secretary General Kenneth Jeyaretnam said that Yale’s motives for creating the college needed to be “reevaluated”.
They questioned Yale’s reasons for setting up the college and suggested that the US university was disregarding its established academic goals in order to “simply line [its] own pockets”.
Panel discussion
Speaking at a panel discussion on 30 November, sponsored by the Yale International Relations Association and the Council on Southeast Asia Studies at Yale, Chee urged the “US and its institutions like Yale not to be complicit in helping the ruling People's Action Party to oppress and exploit Singaporeans”.
Chee, a former National University of Singapore (NUS) neuropsychology lecturer who was dismissed from the post when he joined the opposition party in 1993, pointed out that students at the new college would not be allowed to form organisations affiliated to political parties.
“We had hoped that given Yale’s proud history, it would not allow Singapore’s government, or any other government, to dictate the kind of experience it provides for its students,” Chee said.
“But my worst fears were confirmed when it was declared that Yale-NUS would not allow certain political activities”, such as organising political parties and related events.
Chee and Jeyaretnam said political pressure in Singapore could come in the form of visits by the police. Students could be asked by the government to monitor “exactly what professors are teaching”.
Jeyaretnam added that in Singapore, opposition party politicians, national media and bloggers who try to circumvent state control were routinely threatened with defamation suits by the government, which he said had created a “climate of fear” about criticising the ruling party.
AAUP letter
Independently of the politicians’ remarks, but responding to growing concerns, the AAUP called on Yale to guarantee “provisions to ensure academic freedom and tenure and collegial governance”, including “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination provisions and rights to procedural fairness”.
Yale also needed to establish “genuinely open forums” in which the academic and political implications of the new campus could be reviewed, discussed and modified as necessary, the AAUP letter said.
Among the risks to students and faculty it listed were campus speeches, internet postings, email messages and broadcast lectures that may be critical of the Singapore government, laws and officials.
It questioned whether independent internet access, not subject to Singapore’s firewalls or to its monitoring systems, could be guaranteed at Yale-NUS.
Referring to the country’s censorship rules, it raised the issue of whether Yale-NUS faculty, staff and students – including Singaporean nationals – and the institution’s libraries would be exempt from restrictions on importation of publications or periodicals, and whether the right to invite speakers to campus would be compromised by restrictions on visitors to Singapore.
The AAUP also highlighted the issue of the working conditions for non-US staff and workers on the Singapore campus, including those working on its construction, maintenance and services.
This has become a hot topic and has been raised by human rights organisations and others after the Singapore government last week revoked the work permits of more than two dozen bus drivers from China and deported them for striking over discriminatory pay compared to other migrant workers.
In the Yale Daily News on Wednesday, Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis said the new college had shown strong commitment to academic freedom.
“The AAUP doesn’t seem to have looked at the documents Yale-NUS has circulated already, such as the principles on academic freedom and non-discrimination,” Lewis said. “It has made assumptions without really investigating the matter.”
Lewis has previously said that "any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates", and that academic freedom would be a "bedrock principle" of the college.
Yale University, in a response to the AAUP, said policies provided for a committee of Yale and NUS faculty to review complaints on discrimination or infringement of academic freedom. It said it did not receive any payment for its participation in Yale-NUS, although expenses incurred were reimbursed.
The Association of American University Professors (AAUP), which has some 47,000 members, this week expressed “growing concern about the character and impact” of the new Yale-NUS College on academic and personal freedoms.
In an open letter posted on Tuesday and addressed to the ‘Yale community’, AAUP called for all documents and agreements relating to the establishment of the Yale-NUS College to be released by the Singaporean authorities.
Some Yale faculty have complained of a lack of transparency and discussion by Yale management on the setting up of the college, which will open in August 2013. Some 40 faculty members have already been appointed.
Yale has not made the specifics of its arrangement with the Singaporean government public and Singapore’s Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said in a response in September to a parliamentary question that the ministry was unable to divulge collaboration fees and other confidential details between Singapore’s universities and overseas partnering universities.
The US concern came as Singapore’s opposition Democratic Party Secretary General Chee Soon Juan and Reform Party of Singapore Secretary General Kenneth Jeyaretnam said that Yale’s motives for creating the college needed to be “reevaluated”.
They questioned Yale’s reasons for setting up the college and suggested that the US university was disregarding its established academic goals in order to “simply line [its] own pockets”.
Panel discussion
Speaking at a panel discussion on 30 November, sponsored by the Yale International Relations Association and the Council on Southeast Asia Studies at Yale, Chee urged the “US and its institutions like Yale not to be complicit in helping the ruling People's Action Party to oppress and exploit Singaporeans”.
Chee, a former National University of Singapore (NUS) neuropsychology lecturer who was dismissed from the post when he joined the opposition party in 1993, pointed out that students at the new college would not be allowed to form organisations affiliated to political parties.
“We had hoped that given Yale’s proud history, it would not allow Singapore’s government, or any other government, to dictate the kind of experience it provides for its students,” Chee said.
“But my worst fears were confirmed when it was declared that Yale-NUS would not allow certain political activities”, such as organising political parties and related events.
Chee and Jeyaretnam said political pressure in Singapore could come in the form of visits by the police. Students could be asked by the government to monitor “exactly what professors are teaching”.
Jeyaretnam added that in Singapore, opposition party politicians, national media and bloggers who try to circumvent state control were routinely threatened with defamation suits by the government, which he said had created a “climate of fear” about criticising the ruling party.
AAUP letter
Independently of the politicians’ remarks, but responding to growing concerns, the AAUP called on Yale to guarantee “provisions to ensure academic freedom and tenure and collegial governance”, including “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination provisions and rights to procedural fairness”.
Yale also needed to establish “genuinely open forums” in which the academic and political implications of the new campus could be reviewed, discussed and modified as necessary, the AAUP letter said.
Among the risks to students and faculty it listed were campus speeches, internet postings, email messages and broadcast lectures that may be critical of the Singapore government, laws and officials.
It questioned whether independent internet access, not subject to Singapore’s firewalls or to its monitoring systems, could be guaranteed at Yale-NUS.
Referring to the country’s censorship rules, it raised the issue of whether Yale-NUS faculty, staff and students – including Singaporean nationals – and the institution’s libraries would be exempt from restrictions on importation of publications or periodicals, and whether the right to invite speakers to campus would be compromised by restrictions on visitors to Singapore.
The AAUP also highlighted the issue of the working conditions for non-US staff and workers on the Singapore campus, including those working on its construction, maintenance and services.
This has become a hot topic and has been raised by human rights organisations and others after the Singapore government last week revoked the work permits of more than two dozen bus drivers from China and deported them for striking over discriminatory pay compared to other migrant workers.
In the Yale Daily News on Wednesday, Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis said the new college had shown strong commitment to academic freedom.
“The AAUP doesn’t seem to have looked at the documents Yale-NUS has circulated already, such as the principles on academic freedom and non-discrimination,” Lewis said. “It has made assumptions without really investigating the matter.”
Lewis has previously said that "any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates", and that academic freedom would be a "bedrock principle" of the college.
Yale University, in a response to the AAUP, said policies provided for a committee of Yale and NUS faculty to review complaints on discrimination or infringement of academic freedom. It said it did not receive any payment for its participation in Yale-NUS, although expenses incurred were reimbursed.
CHINA: 1,000 university leaders to receive ‘upgrade’ training abroad
Yojana Sharma09 December 2012 Issue No:251
China is stepping up its overseas training programme for presidents and
vice presidents of public universities as it looks to upgrade higher
education to compete with world-class systems and top universities
internationally.
Some 1,000 university presidents and vice presidents will be sent to the United States, Britain, Australia and Germany for leadership training courses beginning this month, under a new 80 million yuan (US$12.8 million) programme over five years, the Ministry of Education has announced.
China’s Vice-minister of Education Hao Ping said in mid-November, in remarks carried by the official Xinhua news agency, that the training would help university presidents to understand how higher education in developed countries has evolved and to learn about university management reforms.
In addition, overseas exposure for university leaders would help boost exchanges with institutions abroad, Hao has said.
The leadership scheme will be funded by the philanthropic Lee Shau Kee Foundation, created by the Hong Kong billionaire businessman of the same name, and the Pei Hua Foundation set up by a large number of wealthy Hong Kong businesspeople, including Lee Shau Kee, to train Chinese personnel.
Oxford training
A group of 23 university leaders and administrators will arrive at Oxford University from 9 December for three weeks of training under the ministry scheme, at Oxford’s Leadership and Public Policy programme at a cost of up to £5,000 (US$8,000) per person including accommodation.
Chinese university leaders will not only look at Oxford’s unique system. “We want to show similarities and differences, what’s common to the system and what’s the historical trajectory of each university,” said Alan Hudson, director of Leadership Programmes for China at Oxford.
“We also do international comparisons and try to relate it to the experience in China – looking at what Chinese people want from the university system, and how to move from a model that is effectively politically controlled to one which is academically determined – but still within the constraints of the Chinese system – both at an administrative level and at a strategic level.”
Some 4,000 Chinese officials, around a third of them higher education officials, have already passed through the Oxford leadership programme, which has been training Chinese officials for almost nine years.
Hudson told University World News: “Each programme is bespoke,” depending on the interests and seniority of the participants, and includes visits to other universities. However evaluation of curriculum and assessment of students is a major component.
According to one previous participant, who declined to be named, university leaders had asked to sit in on university senate meetings to understand how they operate, even though such open debate was unlikely to be replicated in China, he admitted.
US training
The University of Michigan (UM) at Ann Arbor in the United States has also been training higher education leaders from China.
“Primarily, we [show them] what it takes to run a major research university. For example, they are interested in the way we work in concert with our public officials,” said Constance Cook, associate vice provost for academic affairs at UM at Ann Arbor and director of the 2012 Michigan China-University Forum, which welcomed almost two dozen university leaders and administrators from China.
China has an interest in UM because it receives more research funding than any other public university in the US and is seen as a well-managed university, according to Cook, a professor of higher education. “Many of our faculty have gone on to lead other universities.”
“Michigan is a public university just as the elite Chinese universities are,” Cook explained. “We help China’s university presidents understand university management and bring in more international learning styles.”
Michigan has been running such leadership courses, mainly for university leaders and administrators from China’s western provinces, for around six years.
Central and western provinces falling behind
“China has been sending university leaders abroad on short courses for many years, in groups as large as 25 to 30. They usually send from fairly major universities, but recently the emphasis has shifted to [universities in] inland and western regions,” said Yang Rui, associate professor of education at Hong Kong University.
China’s education ministry has also said that leadership training will focus on universities in central and western provinces. According to China Education Daily newspaper, this emphasis ties in with a regional plan to revitalise universities in underdeveloped regions.
Western and central provinces have fallen behind the fast-growing eastern and coastal cities, particularly in the proportion of school-leavers able to secure a university place, according to a number of studies.
Academics have also noted that institutions in the centre and west of the country do not have the exposure to overseas universities achieved by prestigious universities in Beijing and China’s wealthier eastern and coastal provinces, which have strong exchange programmes with overseas institutions.
The most prestigious Chinese universities have also been able to attract academics and university leaders with many years of experience at top universities in the West. A large number have been lured by special packages under the government’s talent return programmes in the past 10-15 years, designed to strengthen the country’s human capital and compete with advanced economies.
According to some reports, in Shanghai – the first city to encourage returnee academics and researchers – 80% of presidents, deans, department chairs and leaders in specific academic fields in the city’s 40 higher education institutions are returnees.
While the emphasis for China’s most prestigious universities has been on building up research to internationally competitive levels, rising graduate unemployment has led to an interest in how to better prepare students for the labour market.
“Right now in China there is a lot of emphasis on better faculty and curricular development and better teaching skills. The [education] ministry is trying to make all institutions better at teaching,” Cook told University World News.
Differences between East and West
But some question whether Western higher education systems, with their greater university autonomy and academic freedom, can be imported wholesale into China, with its very different academic and political culture.
Although some top-tier universities are being given more autonomy, this still does not compare with the autonomy of universities in the West. “I don’t think you will see that kind of thing in China in the near future,” said Yang Rui.
Yang pointed to a “catch-up mentality” that obsesses some officials, who want China to be as good as the West. “Although this is understandable they should not focus too much on this. Western [university] autonomy and democracy cannot be easily borrowed in China.”
Creating more globally significant universities in China “would need a change in the political environment. Control from government [over universities] has become worse rather than less in recent years,” said Yang, although he added that broader perspectives and understanding of how universities are run in other countries would benefit the people who go on the courses.
“The mindset is predominantly instrumental – go to America, Australia and Britain, report back, assemble all the information and make better informed decisions,” said Hudson.
Cook noted: “The Chinese never simply adopt what they see; instead, they search for good ideas and then adapt them to their own environment.”
She added: “The Chinese Ministry of Education is very enlightened in its approach to university improvements; it is trying to reduce centralisation and increase institutional decision-making in order to foster greater quality.”
Some 1,000 university presidents and vice presidents will be sent to the United States, Britain, Australia and Germany for leadership training courses beginning this month, under a new 80 million yuan (US$12.8 million) programme over five years, the Ministry of Education has announced.
China’s Vice-minister of Education Hao Ping said in mid-November, in remarks carried by the official Xinhua news agency, that the training would help university presidents to understand how higher education in developed countries has evolved and to learn about university management reforms.
In addition, overseas exposure for university leaders would help boost exchanges with institutions abroad, Hao has said.
The leadership scheme will be funded by the philanthropic Lee Shau Kee Foundation, created by the Hong Kong billionaire businessman of the same name, and the Pei Hua Foundation set up by a large number of wealthy Hong Kong businesspeople, including Lee Shau Kee, to train Chinese personnel.
Oxford training
A group of 23 university leaders and administrators will arrive at Oxford University from 9 December for three weeks of training under the ministry scheme, at Oxford’s Leadership and Public Policy programme at a cost of up to £5,000 (US$8,000) per person including accommodation.
Chinese university leaders will not only look at Oxford’s unique system. “We want to show similarities and differences, what’s common to the system and what’s the historical trajectory of each university,” said Alan Hudson, director of Leadership Programmes for China at Oxford.
“We also do international comparisons and try to relate it to the experience in China – looking at what Chinese people want from the university system, and how to move from a model that is effectively politically controlled to one which is academically determined – but still within the constraints of the Chinese system – both at an administrative level and at a strategic level.”
Some 4,000 Chinese officials, around a third of them higher education officials, have already passed through the Oxford leadership programme, which has been training Chinese officials for almost nine years.
Hudson told University World News: “Each programme is bespoke,” depending on the interests and seniority of the participants, and includes visits to other universities. However evaluation of curriculum and assessment of students is a major component.
According to one previous participant, who declined to be named, university leaders had asked to sit in on university senate meetings to understand how they operate, even though such open debate was unlikely to be replicated in China, he admitted.
US training
The University of Michigan (UM) at Ann Arbor in the United States has also been training higher education leaders from China.
“Primarily, we [show them] what it takes to run a major research university. For example, they are interested in the way we work in concert with our public officials,” said Constance Cook, associate vice provost for academic affairs at UM at Ann Arbor and director of the 2012 Michigan China-University Forum, which welcomed almost two dozen university leaders and administrators from China.
China has an interest in UM because it receives more research funding than any other public university in the US and is seen as a well-managed university, according to Cook, a professor of higher education. “Many of our faculty have gone on to lead other universities.”
“Michigan is a public university just as the elite Chinese universities are,” Cook explained. “We help China’s university presidents understand university management and bring in more international learning styles.”
Michigan has been running such leadership courses, mainly for university leaders and administrators from China’s western provinces, for around six years.
Central and western provinces falling behind
“China has been sending university leaders abroad on short courses for many years, in groups as large as 25 to 30. They usually send from fairly major universities, but recently the emphasis has shifted to [universities in] inland and western regions,” said Yang Rui, associate professor of education at Hong Kong University.
China’s education ministry has also said that leadership training will focus on universities in central and western provinces. According to China Education Daily newspaper, this emphasis ties in with a regional plan to revitalise universities in underdeveloped regions.
Western and central provinces have fallen behind the fast-growing eastern and coastal cities, particularly in the proportion of school-leavers able to secure a university place, according to a number of studies.
Academics have also noted that institutions in the centre and west of the country do not have the exposure to overseas universities achieved by prestigious universities in Beijing and China’s wealthier eastern and coastal provinces, which have strong exchange programmes with overseas institutions.
The most prestigious Chinese universities have also been able to attract academics and university leaders with many years of experience at top universities in the West. A large number have been lured by special packages under the government’s talent return programmes in the past 10-15 years, designed to strengthen the country’s human capital and compete with advanced economies.
According to some reports, in Shanghai – the first city to encourage returnee academics and researchers – 80% of presidents, deans, department chairs and leaders in specific academic fields in the city’s 40 higher education institutions are returnees.
While the emphasis for China’s most prestigious universities has been on building up research to internationally competitive levels, rising graduate unemployment has led to an interest in how to better prepare students for the labour market.
“Right now in China there is a lot of emphasis on better faculty and curricular development and better teaching skills. The [education] ministry is trying to make all institutions better at teaching,” Cook told University World News.
Differences between East and West
But some question whether Western higher education systems, with their greater university autonomy and academic freedom, can be imported wholesale into China, with its very different academic and political culture.
Although some top-tier universities are being given more autonomy, this still does not compare with the autonomy of universities in the West. “I don’t think you will see that kind of thing in China in the near future,” said Yang Rui.
Yang pointed to a “catch-up mentality” that obsesses some officials, who want China to be as good as the West. “Although this is understandable they should not focus too much on this. Western [university] autonomy and democracy cannot be easily borrowed in China.”
Creating more globally significant universities in China “would need a change in the political environment. Control from government [over universities] has become worse rather than less in recent years,” said Yang, although he added that broader perspectives and understanding of how universities are run in other countries would benefit the people who go on the courses.
“The mindset is predominantly instrumental – go to America, Australia and Britain, report back, assemble all the information and make better informed decisions,” said Hudson.
Cook noted: “The Chinese never simply adopt what they see; instead, they search for good ideas and then adapt them to their own environment.”
She added: “The Chinese Ministry of Education is very enlightened in its approach to university improvements; it is trying to reduce centralisation and increase institutional decision-making in order to foster greater quality.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The 2024 Workshops for Foreign Confucius Institute Directors on June 13-21, 2024 at Sichuan Province, China
My sincere thanks and gratitude go to my respectful Rector, H.E. Sok Khorn , and the Chinese Confucius Institute Director, Prof. Yi Yongzhon...
-
Wachira Kigotho 09 May 2014 Issue No:319 Unequal access to university education is likely to persist in most countries globally ...
-
លោកនិពន្ធនាយកជាទីគោរពរាប់អាន! តាម ការពិនិត្យសង្កេតរបស់ខ្ញុំ មានប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយជាតិ និងអន្តរជាតិជាច្រើន បានច...
-
ការពិនិត្យមើលផលអាក្រក់កើតចេញពីវប្បធម៌ប៉ែងជើង ឬក្ដិចត្រួយគ្នា ដោយ កែវពេជ្រ មេត្តា 2011-11-03 ទម្លាប់នៃការប...
-
Chambers and Partners - Home 1 Bun & Associates THE FIRM Sources single out this firm as a market leader, highlighting its inc...
-
Combat Journalism: CQR Is reporting on global conflict worth the risk? By Frank Greve Introduction Chr...
-
ព្រះករុណាព្រះបាទសម្តេចព្រះនរោត្តម សីហនុ « ព្រះបរមរតនកោដ្ឋ » បានស្ថាបនាសាកលវិទ្យាល័យភូមិន្ទបាត់ដំបងតាមរយៈ ព្រះរាជក្រឹត្យលេខ ៣៤/៦៨.ប.រ ចុះថ្...
-
By Sam Rany 1. There is a jump in higher education in Cambodia, what do you see from this development? Actually, I o...
-
https://www.box.com/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255#/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255 International Journal of Higher Education ISSN 1927-...
-
Academic Adjustment Issues in a Malaysian Research University: The Case of Cambodian, Laotian, Burmese, and Vietnamese Postgraduat...
-
https://www.box.com/profile#/profile/183918435/page/1/1/2876421805 International Journal of Learning & Development ISSN 216...