|
JAKARTA POST, 04 Mei 2013
Law No. 9/2009 on Education Legal
Entity reinstates the autonomy of seven state universities (less than one in 10
nationally) which had earlier been awarded the status of state-owned legal
entities.
This status, which is different from the purely government administered status of other state universities, provided for the legal authority to act autonomously in terms of both academic and non-academic matters.
Under the new law, this autonomy is seen as a road to progress through the encouragement it provides for these universities to expand their study programs, to create a better “academic” atmosphere for conducting research and to establish international collaboration in research and publication.
Student activities will also benefit both in academia and in developing social awareness and responsibility and, in addition, autonomy will also pave the way for improving governance practices including greater transparency, accountability and efficiency.
But all these potential advantages designed to help give Indonesian higher education a firmer footing on the world stage are currently in jeopardy as the underlying law is being challenged.
The first attack on higher education autonomy came when a group of people representing private educational institutions requested a judicial review of the education legal entity law that, beyond the aforementioned seven state universities, required most educational institutions to be legal entities — from playgroups to universities and including all private as well as some public institutions.
The reason for the challenge was that private schools are currently owned and managed by foundations and some, including many religiously affiliated foundations, operate numerous schools at all levels and even across the country.
The judicial review was approved by the Constitutional Court in March 2010, which declared the whole law unconstitutional, even though the judicial review request was limited to the legal-entity requirement.
In fact, some of these private institutions have had a long history, having been established at a time when laws underlying the establishment of educational institutions were very different. A person or a group of people could start an educational institution simply by making the necessary investments.
Over time these laws required these organizations to become foundations and to be recognized legal entities. But the 2009 law muddied these waters by creating a rift between the owners/foundations and the administration of these educational institutions.
This can be exemplified by the private Trisakti University in Jakarta where the assets are being fought over by the foundation and administration.
However, it is this same law which extended autonomy to the seven state universities. And thus, when the Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional, these same universities also lost the legal basis for their existence.
This was the first setback to autonomy and effectively created a vacuum for the autonomous universities, which now had no legal status. As a result the government had to take swift action, leading to Law No. 12/2012, known as the Higher Education Institutions Law (UU PT) according to which the seven state universities could select one of three financial statuses — autonomous, as a work unit of the Ministry of Education, or as a public-service state institution similar, for example, to public hospitals.
The second attack came when a group of students from Andalas University in Padang, West Sumatra, submitted a motion for judicial review of the higher education law in October 2012.
They opposed the option of autonomy because they believed that this would lead to a “corporate mentality” with rising tuition fees and reduced opportunities for poorer students to gain access to these institutions.
Unfortunately this also overlooked the fact that increased tuition fees have been a fact of life at all public universities and that some collect higher fees than those charged by the seven universities opting for autonomy.
Moreover, what the students refuse to acknowledge is that autonomous universities may actually be in a better position to assist the poor through cross-subsidization.
They claim that the amount parents are willing to pay is the only determining factor for admission, but fail to provide proof.
And while it is true that state universities have raised tuition fees and demand relatively higher fees from better-off students, the additional funds can also be used to cross-subsidize well-earned admissions among the less fortunate.
The attacks have come in waves — even before the Constitutional Court has made a decision on whether to grant the petition of these applicants to declare a number of paragraphs unconstitutional, already another group of students has filed for a judicial review of the same law.
Anxiously awaiting the outcome, the proponents of autonomy are still waiting for the Constitutional Court to make their decision and the question remains: are the seven currently autonomous universities to lose this status? ●
This status, which is different from the purely government administered status of other state universities, provided for the legal authority to act autonomously in terms of both academic and non-academic matters.
Under the new law, this autonomy is seen as a road to progress through the encouragement it provides for these universities to expand their study programs, to create a better “academic” atmosphere for conducting research and to establish international collaboration in research and publication.
Student activities will also benefit both in academia and in developing social awareness and responsibility and, in addition, autonomy will also pave the way for improving governance practices including greater transparency, accountability and efficiency.
But all these potential advantages designed to help give Indonesian higher education a firmer footing on the world stage are currently in jeopardy as the underlying law is being challenged.
The first attack on higher education autonomy came when a group of people representing private educational institutions requested a judicial review of the education legal entity law that, beyond the aforementioned seven state universities, required most educational institutions to be legal entities — from playgroups to universities and including all private as well as some public institutions.
The reason for the challenge was that private schools are currently owned and managed by foundations and some, including many religiously affiliated foundations, operate numerous schools at all levels and even across the country.
The judicial review was approved by the Constitutional Court in March 2010, which declared the whole law unconstitutional, even though the judicial review request was limited to the legal-entity requirement.
In fact, some of these private institutions have had a long history, having been established at a time when laws underlying the establishment of educational institutions were very different. A person or a group of people could start an educational institution simply by making the necessary investments.
Over time these laws required these organizations to become foundations and to be recognized legal entities. But the 2009 law muddied these waters by creating a rift between the owners/foundations and the administration of these educational institutions.
This can be exemplified by the private Trisakti University in Jakarta where the assets are being fought over by the foundation and administration.
However, it is this same law which extended autonomy to the seven state universities. And thus, when the Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional, these same universities also lost the legal basis for their existence.
This was the first setback to autonomy and effectively created a vacuum for the autonomous universities, which now had no legal status. As a result the government had to take swift action, leading to Law No. 12/2012, known as the Higher Education Institutions Law (UU PT) according to which the seven state universities could select one of three financial statuses — autonomous, as a work unit of the Ministry of Education, or as a public-service state institution similar, for example, to public hospitals.
The second attack came when a group of students from Andalas University in Padang, West Sumatra, submitted a motion for judicial review of the higher education law in October 2012.
They opposed the option of autonomy because they believed that this would lead to a “corporate mentality” with rising tuition fees and reduced opportunities for poorer students to gain access to these institutions.
Unfortunately this also overlooked the fact that increased tuition fees have been a fact of life at all public universities and that some collect higher fees than those charged by the seven universities opting for autonomy.
Moreover, what the students refuse to acknowledge is that autonomous universities may actually be in a better position to assist the poor through cross-subsidization.
They claim that the amount parents are willing to pay is the only determining factor for admission, but fail to provide proof.
And while it is true that state universities have raised tuition fees and demand relatively higher fees from better-off students, the additional funds can also be used to cross-subsidize well-earned admissions among the less fortunate.
The attacks have come in waves — even before the Constitutional Court has made a decision on whether to grant the petition of these applicants to declare a number of paragraphs unconstitutional, already another group of students has filed for a judicial review of the same law.
Anxiously awaiting the outcome, the proponents of autonomy are still waiting for the Constitutional Court to make their decision and the question remains: are the seven currently autonomous universities to lose this status? ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar