The call for reform of the stipend system comes at a time when higher education frameworks worldwide are under scrutiny. In Malta, as abroad, we have recently seen participation in the sector of higher education increase at an unprecedented rate. Figures in our country show a tenfold increase over a ten-year period - an astonishing rate considering that world figures demonstrate a six-fold increase since 1965 (over a 33-year period). Malta therefore may be said to be on par with current worldwide trends of rapid expansion.

The unparalleled demand for higher education has been equated to a number of reasons, first and foremost, among which lies the fact that it has become a necessary tool of empowerment on the eve of the twenty-first century. Declarations by the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organisation (UNESCO) point to the fact that today’s society is dependent on knowledge more than ever, and that the keys to that knowledge are ‘higher’ and ‘lifelong’ education.

Higher Education has been embraced within the grundnorm definition of a basic right to education and the right of access to higher education (and a number of corollary rights such right embraces) has been enshrined in international declarations. The necessity of higher education to the social, economic and cultural furtherance of society and the right to access thereto constitutes the basis for any developments in this field, within local, regional, national and international jurisdictions.

These basic tenets on the state of higher education must be seen within a framework of changes that the structure of higher education must undertake in order to meet the challenges of the future. By this we mean that while higher education is recognised as a right of the individual and a necessity to society, the challenges with which higher education is faced must be met. Such challenges are due to various socio-economic factors which have arisen due to the unprecedented demands being made on higher education as well as due to the efforts to ensure that the potential which higher education nurtures is brought about to the utmost.

Higher education has been allocated the task to ‘strengthen and target more effectively its contribution to sustainable and mutually supportive human development - in particular through sustained efforts to promote the sharing of knowledge, to the reduction of inequalities at the international and the national levels, to combating exclusion and unemployment, and to the eradication of poverty and the various forms of exploitation and discrimination’. The growing importance of knowledge in the world today and the ever greater numbers of people being trained at the higher level has increased higher education’s responsibility to and its influence within society. In order to assume this responsibility and this role, higher education needs to change as is clearly shown by the conclusion of regional conferences worldwide. To that end, it needs the assistance and increased support of the whole of society, and of the State in particular.

Not the least of the contradictions and paradoxes that are a feature of the present era are those concerning higher education. Never has the expansion of education in general and higher education in particular been so necessary to society for its normal functioning, its development and its economic, social, cultural, moral and political well-being as it is at present. Yet society seems reluctant to give education, especially higher education, the resources that would enable it to fulfil its mission satisfactorily in the service of that society. If this contradiction is not overcome, its negative consequences will, in the twenty-first century, seriously affect the different sectors and diverse aspects of social life.

This turmoil which has been related has been attributed to "the application to education of tenets of a free market philosophy based on choice and competition". The laws of the market and the logic of competition cannot be applied to education, including higher education. There is every justification for expecting education to use the resources made available to it as rationally as possible in the light of its purpose and tasks, and for higher education to be more accountable to society. The financing of education, or of higher education, cannot however be subject to the criteria of the market and competition, whether between educational institutions or between such institutions and economic or other entities.

Neither education nor the educational process is a branch of the economy. The results or ‘production’ of education are not comparable with those of the economy. Education is in itself a vital function, an essential sector of society and a condition of society’s existence. Without it there is no society. It has at one and the same time cultural, social, economic, civic and ethical functions. It concerns the whole of the society and its various sectors, which all need it. It ensures the continuity of society, and passes on the knowledge and skills, the norms developed and the experience accumulated by humanity in the course of its history. It trains the capacities which enable society to move ahead, to progress, to innovate and to change, including the economic sphere. In his introductory speech to the Second National Conference on Higher Education Min. Galea echoed the fact that the Maltese Government is conscious of the vital role which Higher Education plays within the economic sector of society and he identified some areas where areas of specialisation are needed, and where our University should achieve levels of excellency to attract, amongst others, financial investment from overseas. Such areas include marine sciences, European integration, Mediterranean studies, gerontology and IT.

Specialisation in our human resources is one of the few areas where Malta can invest without being at a disadvantage in respect of bigger and more resourceful states. Considering the good name some of our co-nationals have established in their respective fields of specialisation on the international sphere one can even conclude that we enjoy an advantage in this respect.

This argument becomes even more forceful when one considers subsequent governments’ plans to transform Malta into a hub providing specialised services. The concept of hub necessarily implies a well-prepared professional workforce, which will be able to provide all the services that this concept entails. The role of University in this context is more than obvious. University, as part of the education system, is one of the institutions which has a major role in preparing a competent professional workforce that can bring into effect and maintain Malta’s ambitions of being a hub for the provision of specialised services.

Moreover, as outlined by the Minister, the educational system in general and University in particular, are intrinsically linked with the productive sectors and the community services sectors. Even in this respect education, and university, are investments since these sectors require experts in order to be able to produce the high quality output that a developed society deserves. This output is only possible if the experts make the necessary research on how our society and the services that it requires can be modernised and devise ways in which this modernisation can be achieved.

Society cannot risk jeopardising its normal functioning and progress, society cannot reduce its support for education by cutbacks. It should be doing the opposite, in view of the increasing importance to society of education in general and higher education in particular and the steady increase of the number of participants in the educational process.

The current world-wide trend towards a reduction in the role of the State in the economic field cannot be automatically extended to the field of education and cannot justify direct or indirect pressure for cuts in public expenditure on higher education and the transfer of a large part of the financial burden to families, which would only accentuate the inequality of access to higher education. Attempts at relating educational figures to economic growth and other calculations such as the yield of returns by various sectors of education must be stopped for the above-mentioned reasons. In this connection it is worth recalling the observation of one of the most eminent post-war economists, Sir William Arthur Lewis (Nobel Prize for Economic Science) - ‘From the economist’s point of view, it is not difficult to define what one seeks in a school system - the right combinations of general and specialised education, of numbers at different age levels, and of different proportions of competence. (…) Neither is there conceptual difficulty in defining what is right by comparing costs with the market values of different combinations (…) The biggest obstacle is that even the economist does not believe that market prices are the appropriate values to use. We cannot therefore avoid handling the problem over to those philosophers who deal in more fundamental values’.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, higher education is in a state of crisis in practically all the countries in the world. Although enrolments are increasing, the capacity for public support is declining. The three main trends which highlight the elements of this crisis are: quantitative expansion, which is nevertheless accompanied by continuing inter-country and inter-regional inequalities in access, diversification of institutional structures, programmes and forms of studies, and financial constraints.

In the ambience of change and development within which it operates, higher education is bracing itself for the challenges of such a changing world. The standing and functioning of higher education will in the future be determined by three watchwords: relevance, quality and internationalisation.

The relevance of higher education is considered primarily in terms of its role and place in society, its functions with regard to teaching, research and the resulting services, as well as in terms of its links with the world of work in a broad sense, relations with the State and public funding, and interactions with other forms of education. The need for relevance has acquired new urgency due to the newly discovered emphasis on lifelong learning.

Relevance also implies good relations with the State and society as a whole. These relations should be based on the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy which are essential for the preservation of any institution of higher education as a community of free inquiry, able to perform its creative, reflective and critical functions of society. While the State may and should assume catalytic and regulatory roles, institutional self-governance in higher education should prevail. At the same time, the entire socio-economic environment compels higher education institutions to build up ties and linkages with the State and other sectors of society, and to accept that they are accountable to society in general. Hon. Minister for Education Dr. Louis Galea agreed with this concept by saying that although the government does not interfere in the research or scientific methods adopted by University, it has the right and duty to indicate those areas which are important to the country and towards which our country’s investment must be directed. The Minister pointed out that this is the reason why the Government together with the social institutions, such as industry and trade unions, have a strong representation in the University council.

Limited public funding is, as we have seen a main constraint on the process of change and development in higher education. It is also a source of its current crisis and of the state of relations between the State and the academic community. Higher education institutions need to improve their management and to make more efficient use of the human and material resources available, thus accepting their accountability towards society. Public support for higher education remains essential, but higher education institutions need to engage in an earnest search for alternative funding sources. Moreover all stakeholders - students, parents, the public and private sectors, local and national communities and authorities - must join in this search. Nevertheless, it would be erroneous to expect that alternative funding can bring higher education out of the current crisis and stop the process of deterioration now affecting many institutions.

The introduction of tuition fees is a sensitive issue in higher education because it touches many aspects of social justice and mobility, educational equity and the educational, social and fiscal policies of the State in general. KSU reiterates its commitment towards open and equal access to education and reluctance to consider tuition fees as any form of solution to a problem of financing.

There is a risk that a policy of detachment of the State from higher education in matters of financing may result in excessive pressure for cost recovery, alternative funding and a narrow interpretation of the need for self-reliance. If higher education is to make a significant contribution to the advancement of society, the State and society at large should perceive it less as a burden on the public budget and more as a long-term national investment for enhancing economic competitiveness, cultural development and social cohesion. This is also the framework within which the problem of cost sharing in higher education needs to be addressed.

Both teaching and learning at the level of higher education must be renewed. Programmes which develop the intellectual capacity of students, for improving the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary content of studies, and for the use of methods of delivery which increase the effectiveness of the higher learning experience, particularly in view of the rapid advances in information and communication technologies. Research is also one of the major functions of higher education and is also a precondition of education’s social relevance and academic quality.

Quality has become a major concern in higher education. This because meeting society’s needs and expectations towards higher education depends ultimately on the quality of its staff, programmes and students, as well as its infrastructure and academic environment. The search for ‘quality’ has many facets and the principal objective of quality enhancement measures in higher education should be institutional as well as system-wide self-improvement.

The assessment and enhancement of quality should start with and actively involve the teaching and research staff, given their central role in the activities of higher education institutions. Human resource development policies should be based on clear principles and well defined objectives. They should stress the need for the initial and in service training of academic staff and for more rigorous mechanisms in the selection and training of staff for administrative and management functions in higher education.

The quality of students represents an immense problem, especially in view of mass enrolment, diversification of study programmes and current levels of higher education funding. There is general consensus that the quality of students in higher education depends largely on the aptitude and motivation of those leaving secondary education - hence the need to re-examine such issues as the interface between higher and secondary education and student counselling and orientation, as well as the need to foster the notion of responsibility towards society among students due to the fact that these benefit from public support. KSU firmly believes that unless the interface between higher and secondary and student counselling is properly looked into, and unless present incongruences and fault in the system be tackled, our University will continue to suffer from the effects of wrongful orientation and the incapacity to prepare itself for the new inputs from secondary education. This will be due mainly to the incapacity of the university to foresee the needs and choices of future inputs as well as its lack of monitoring of choices being made at secondary level.

The quality of the physical and academic infrastructure of higher education is important for its teaching, research and service functions, as well as for institutional culture. Capital investment in infrastructure - from campus access, research laboratories and libraries to information highways - should be seen as public works forming an integral part of the overall efforts towards the modernisation of the economy-linked infrastructure. KSU also believes that the quality of parts of the infrastructure is inextricably linked with the amount of aid students require as part of their basic and faculty-specific needs. In fact it is in this light that students must budget for personal computers, books, transport costs, high costs of food etc when the relative services within (or to) the university are limited either in quality or quantity.

The internationalisation is first of all a reflection of the universal character of learning and research. It is reinforced by the current process of economic and political integration as well as by the growing need for the intercultural understanding. International co-operation should be based above all on partnership and collective search for quality and relevance in higher education. The deteriorating conditions in which higher education institutions function, require international solidarity. In this respect it is important to promote these programmes and exchanges that can contribute to reducing existing imbalances and facilitating access to and transfer of knowledge.

When confronting the paradoxical challenges which face it, it is important to transcend contradictions - not to reason in terms of "either/or" but in terms of "both the one and the other, depending on the context", since both vision and action need to be situated. Vision and action should be inspired by a universal vision of the organising of a fairer and more equitable society centred on the following principles:

The management of institutions of higher education can no longer be reduced to bookkeeping operations based solely on economic criteria; the criteria of equity and social relevance in the activities of teaching and research and the provision of expert and consultant services must take precedence over the other criteria, at the same time ensuring balanced management.

Action to be taken in this regard must also take into consideration that the funding of higher education runs up against the huge challenges of mass admissions and the increase in the services required of it.

Action therefore must mean:

In this light KSU stresses:

The challenges of higher education also require a diversified approach towards multiple forms of co-operation involving all the institutions whose mission it is to work towards sustainable human development and a culture of peace. The new policies of co-operation must respond to the phenomena of regionalisation and globalisation and also to the fact that society is increasingly knowledge-based. Such mechanisms must however constantly bear in mind the dangers of polarisation, marginalisation and fragmentation.

The involvement of students in discussions and consultations regarding any reform has been long awaited by KSU. It is only by including student representatives at all stages of discussion, reform and monitoring that real results can be achieved. Real both in a democratic as well as in a practical sense. In this light KSU views the appointment of the Commission for Stipend Reform as a positive step in this direction. The Commissions independent result will serve as a sound basis for discussions between the Government and KSU as to the system to be implemented.

Our stressing that stipends must be seen within a much larger framework of higher education reform achieves more importance when examining the question of student autonomy. KSU has always supported the importance that any system of higher education, and more importantly the system of funding related thereto, respects the autonomous nature of the individual. Within the light of the missions (vision and action of higher education) as listed above, the autonomy of the individual is also important in the light of the sustainable human development of which higher education is deemed to be a promoter.

When listing the qualities, or attributes, of a ‘universal’ higher education - an exercise which has also been carried out within this document - one immediately views that such qualities are not only conscious of the autonomous nature of the individual acceding to such levels, but they also strive to guarantee and enhance such qualities in such a way as to produce that all-round development which is expected of higher education.

Thus, universal access and the right thereto is based on individual preconditions, independent of the merits or demerits of the family/social group in which any individual resides. Rather, the individual’s merit is based on his or her own ability, motivation and suitable preparation. Again, a universal higher education has been deemed to presuppose the employment of various forms of intervention to meet the educational needs for all and at all stages of life, this without any reference to any other form of dependence to which the individual might still be attached.

The training function of higher education as well as the duty to cultivate a culture of peace demonstrate the leaning towards a sustainable human development centred on the unit around which, and (to a certain extent) for which the whole system operates. It is only in fulfilling its function of the all-round sustainable development of the autonomous persons within its structure that the university develops other duties and tasks. It is in performing its basic role of preparation that it must bear in mind its civic/social duties. The increased importance of awareness of the social role which universities have due to the importance of higher education is a spin-off both of its basic function put within an immediate perspective as well as of the increased levels of expectancy from a state/public which is anxious to see returns from the levels of investment placed therein.

An approach to academic quality improvement, increasing relevance and restructuring of funding must bear in mind the reasons for respecting the autonomous nature of the student (the basic unit of higher education). A system of funding must give "enough support to ensure a good quality of life for student. This means that the system should cover all living costs, including accommodation, transport and equipment". The same ESIB declaration stressed that "Students should be guaranteed a system of support to cover the whole year, including lecture free times. Students should be treated independently of their parents and partners. Means-testing is not acceptable for students in Higher Education." KSU fully subscribes to the said principles.

An autonomous approach must be concurrently reflected in the potential of personal academic and non-academic development. This implies a system where "students are given a free choice when it comes to what and where to study. Students’ choices should be guided by information and orientation systems, not the study financing system." As regards the latter part, while KSU agrees in principle with the ESIB position on financial incentives for certain studies, KSU would be prepared to consider a system of financial incentives which operates over and above any other system of support and which creates no disincentive in the process.

A study-finance system has to offer the ability for students to take time out from their studies and allow them to change their study subject. In other words, any system of study-finance must bear in mind that it is linked to matters which are academic and must be structured to the effect that they bear in mind choices and consequences which an academic life necessarily involves. Study-financing must not be allowed to become an obstacle to personal academic development.

Another important principle to bear in mind is that a system of study-financing must be based on democratic principles and be responsible to student needs. It must be monitored on a regular basis by student evaluation and this includes student representation at all levels of decision-making and administration. It should also include an independent appeal to the system.

Recognising the autonomy of the student also implies recognising factors such as students with special needs. In this regard, disadvantaged groups and their needs should be specifically targeted. Specific provisions must be made to include the needs of students with children and students with disabilities. Students who become ill should have the right to leave the system and get their living costs covered by the social service system.

To ensure that everyone really understands the study finance system, it has to be user-friendly, transparent and simple. Adequate information has to be readily available for prospective students.

The individual centred approach has already been described as the basis for the recognition of student autonomy. In this sense, means of enhancing student autonomy, developed in parallel to means of enhancing human development of the same student must be put within the same perspective. It is at this meeting point that the dilemma for today’s society is at its most critical. In fact, if we view the local scenario, we might even describe the local dilemma on the stipend issue as an indicator of the readiness or otherwise of society to under-write the basic needs and rights of the individual who is opting for a higher education so as to ensure that such individual undergoes the proper sustainable development. Such developments being necessary so as to provide society with the necessary tools for the future.

We have already had occasion to underline the fact that the necessary tools are not solely academic in nature but rather an all round-development of the motors of tomorrow’s society. A clear idea of such a vision of the results of investment may be seen from the global perspective. New approaches to the validity of higher education are being outlined in UN documents such as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992); UN Agenda for Peace (1992); World Conference on Human Rights (1993) ; the International Conference on Population and Development (1994) all betray a common denominator as being a recommendation for concerted action by all those concerned - States and governments; inter-governmental organisations; business and professional communities; non-governmental organisations; the media and the public at large - in order to shape the policies, attitudes and modes of the action of the community towards a sustainable human development.

There is unanimous agreement, fully endorsed at numerous international fora and in major policy-setting documents, that the sine qua non condition for humankind to cope with the challenges it is facing at present resides in human resource development, understood not in its narrow managerial meaning, but in a broader sense in which education and training play a major role. Access to higher education and to the broad range of services it can render to society as part and parcel of any sustainable human development programme in which high-level human expertise and professional skills are required.

Local and national development strategies will in the future necessitate more and more resources to cope with the new demands and challenges. What would seem to be futuristic speech hanging in the air is confirmed by recent trends in global and regional development that can no longer be ignored or denied. In order to meet these challenges, Malta needs prepared individuals - individuals who are of the required academic standard as well as independent thinkers, idea banks that are ready to react to these main challenges. Without even considering any other reasons which have been put forward for the need of investment, in order to be able to meet these challenges two definite points must be guaranteed - access and autonomy. The former to guarantee that as much of our resources are prepared and trained, and the latter to ensure that the mentality of dependence is eradicated.

One of the critical economic challenges facing many countries, including the most industrialised, is how to enhance their ability to adapt to changes in the economy, technology and international trade. The pace and depth of those changes are unprecedented and affect many domains of human activity. They create new opportunities but also pose numerous problems, particularly with regard to the world of work. Developments in this domain go beyond the usual ups and downs of economic fluctuations. It is also increasingly understood that the impact of economic and technological change is such that if not dealt with in time and in an adequate manner, it can unravel a whole set of social and political problems with inevitable local, national, regional and international consequences. Much is expected of education and training in order to cope with these shifting imperatives.

In a country like ours constantly involved in new challenges such as that of becoming a hub of financial services or of telecommunications, the importance of education and training can never be sufficiently outlined. Furthermore, other regional challenges that Malta must inevitably face will create an ever-increasing demand on the capacity of higher education to churn out the necessary trained individuals. Thus, while the partisan indecision as to the best form of co-operation/union with the European Mainland may tend to fluctuate over a system of five-year the challenges remain there whatever the choice and the demand for qualified human resources to tackle the specific requirements will continue to increase as interaction with the Union is inevitable.

The same may be said for the Mediterranean basin in which our nation is so solidly and firmly implanted. Talks of bridging the gap and reducing the divide will bring with them opportunities for Euro-Med collaboration. It is at this point that we will recognise that though geographical positioning is undoubtedly an advantage, and although historical experience is certainly an asset, the necessary qualified human resources to make the most of these assets and advantages will be required.

All that has been said leads us to further appreciate the crucial role that Higher Education has within the national framework. The much-vaunted phrase "Investiment fil-gejjieni" assumes a more definite perspective. Other considerations may be made however to further substantiate this argument and this time in a more tangible sense. By tangible we signify a reality which may be closer to the Maltese citizen who is still attempting to recognise the realities of global movements and regional integration, mainly due to the unclear barriers and descriptions imposed and depicted by partisan propaganda.

The majority of the Maltese population opted for "Gid, Fiducja u Direzzjoni" last election. They opted for a party who selected the theme of social conscience as one of the main battlegrounds for the electoral campaign. KSU firmly believes that the election does not bring out any victors and vanquished but rather it consists of an affirmation of the policies that the Maltese nation chooses to sustain and encourage. It is the duty of all concerned to recognise this choice and improve / reform the nation accordingly.

In this light, if prosperity, confidence and direction are elements which must be at the basis of the country’s new programmes and if a social conscience must be retained so as to avoid the vote-winning politics or the pragmatic economisation of social realities, KSU believes that these must be the measure to be used in all sectors of society. The pre-election political speak may now be transformed into real social action.

To repeat the countless arguments mentioned above as to the importance of Higher Education to modern society would be an exercise in futility. Rather, it is important now to place this importance within the local perspective and consequently ensure that local visions and actions (both long- and short-term) are consonant in applying and recognising such importance. It is our duty to do so, so as to fulfil our duties towards the students we represent. It is our duty to do so, so as to ensure that we bring this vital sector within the general framework which is to be put into effect so as to implement the promised electoral direction.

Over and above all this, it is our duty to do so, because we are here dealing with basic needs and rights, because we are here dealing with what it is practically reasonable to propose that our country puts into effect, and finally, because whatever we propose will have an effect on our future, the future of future generations and our country’s future.

The vision of prosperity and of inspiring confidence falls clearly within the global agenda outlined above. Prosperity cannot result without some form of action. KSU has clearly outlined the fact that necessary action must perforce consider the sector of higher education. Investment in education and training helps form the ‘human capital’ - the skills and abilities - that is a vital element in assuring economic growth and individual advancement and reducing inequality. It is an important element in combating unemployment and social exclusion. Some of the returns of this investment can be measured; others cannot; though they are no less important.

The social and economic benefits and advantages of higher education cannot but fit in squarely in a vision of prosperity. If what is being envisaged is a regeneration of the vision and direction for the Maltese nation, any such regeneration would be futile (verging on the ridiculous) should it ignore the real importance of higher education.

Confidence. KSU views this term as the key term to be discussed within this document insofar as the political agenda is concerned. An agenda for prosperity and direction is founded on confidence of all participants. KSU subscribes to this idea fully and fully understands the implications of such a term. No matter how much investment is put in and how much effort is made, unless the frameworks created inspire confidence at every step, one cannot expect tangible progress. Confidence means guarantees and assurance. Confidence means implementing measures with the necessary methods of consultation, dialogue and more importantly consensus wherever possible. Confidence means involving all parties concerned and respecting and considering their opinions. Confidence means proving the intent of support and investment. Confidence means making every citizen a party of the vision of action and development towards prosperity.

In our sphere confidence means encouragement and support. Support by sustaining and confirming the nation’s belief in higher education as a right. Backing by ensuring the student autonomy that is necessary for all round development. Encouragement by subscribing once and for all to the concept of viewing education as a valid investment for the countries future, and by removing any remaining possibilities that ‘downsizing’ or similar economic exercises are even considered when discussing education.

Social Conscience. Having recognised the importance of Higher Education and having subscribed to the notions of access and autonomy of the students, any government cannot but view the implementation of proper reforms of structures within the ambit of it’s social conscience. Criticisms levelled recently at policies of governance as being anti-social and without conscience may be seen as arising out of the basic distinction between a Gemeinschaft (community) ideology and a Gesellschaft (society) ideology. In fact, the dilemmas of today’s society (among which one finds the aforementioned dilemma of the explosion of higher education) are a reflection of the swing from the Gemeinschaft approach to the large-scale and impersonal Gesellschaft.

KSU supports a return to the root considerations of higher education based on a clear vision for the future. In this light, a social conscience can only be maintained by ensuring that policies of access and autonomy are put into full effect. The solutions to combating problems such as slow economic growth, unemployment, social inequality and intolerance must be seen in long-term investment and planning. Education must be seen both as an area where social conscience must be reflected and also as a promoter of the principle of social conscience and social ideas within the limits of social development.

This brings us to the point of direzzjoni. The reform of the stipend system comes at a point in time where the state is calling for renewed growth through incentivisation for prosperity. Such a state cannot but recognise the importance of investment into higher education and its side issues.

The spin-offs of the present form of investment in higher education are manifold. One can mention but a few such as the prevention of ‘hidden’ unemployment levels by keeping a large number of individuals out of a labour market thus keeping unemployment levels low. Another benefit is bettering the services that the state can provide should part of the investment be properly absorbed within the state service once the ‘product’ is ready. The state-run areas which can benefit therefrom have not as yet been fully recognised and we are still limited to discussing the health sector without seeing other sectors such as Environmental Planning, Financial Management of Government Departments, HR Planning, Engineering and Design, Education, the Law Courts and AG’s Office and many other hidden improvements in areas of specialisation.

In this respect the recent document Higher Education for a New Society: A student vision outlined the principal developments in various professions and major strategies to meet them:

The response to increased pressure on institutions of higher and advanced learning must not only come from universally acknowledged areas of advanced development such as the spheres of science and technology. It must also be achieved in sectors such as the service industries and the multiple sectors of public administrations. It is therefore evident that all spheres of advanced learning, from the science and subjects to the laws, social sciences and the humanities have become crucial to the needs of countries. New and better trained personnel are needed not only for the production of goods, but also for organising, counselling, catering, advising and, not least, education and training purposes. The increased demand for improved education and training has also led to an overall process of democratisation of society – a challenge to the outmoded concepts of the gifted few in education and related traditional organisational patterns of advanced professional training.

The investment which government opts to make in higher education translates into an investment aimed at improving standards of quality. The investment is therefore the best guarantee towards a situation of improving prosperity, a guarantee towards ensuring constant confidence within all participants of society (both the receivers of higher education and the receivers of their service) and finally an investment which aims at ensuring that the direction being chosen is one which is sustained by a real and sustainable framework. The state and society must recognise that you can’t shrink to greatness. It is futile to aspire for prosperity and direction and then cut back on the motor that is most likely to help achieve such aims.

Within the ambit of restructuring and investment, we must also begin to recognise more clearly how the approach to such reforms must be internationalised. Apart from the arguments of internationalisation of education that have already been put forward, one must place local aspirations within an international perspective. Any review of systems must view long-term impacts of national policies and cannot ignore the European realities which are to be faced.

The European Union should figure centrally in all considerations whether or not we aspire to become members of the community. While KSU still firmly believes that the best advantages for students and graduates are to be had with full membership, we also believe that this is not the only reason for making considerations such as compatibility and applicability within a Union perspective. These considerations must be made not to be like the Union but rather to keep all horizons open for our future students in line with the notion of improved opportunities and maximisation of the receipts of the investment.

In making such considerations, we must consider the possibilities of EU funding and the important role of integration into international networks. Programmes of international exchange and study as well as the various University Networks created under the auspices, or with the help, of such programmes must not be ignored and the new frameworks to be created must be such as to be capable of absorbing as much as possible from such programmes. It would not be exaggerated to say that such planning could also be made in such a way as to lessen the burden on the public funds.

Such considerations must also bear in mind the challenges that such openings imply. In fact ‘brain drain’ is a phenomenon which is already being complained of internationally, with the products of investment suddenly moving to more fertile grounds. In this respect also, planning is necessary and must be implemented not only in the area of higher education but also in those sectors which are to absorb the final product as we shall see further on in the document.

Within this discussion, KSU deems it necessary to point out the rights linked to higher education within the Community and we believe that policies in the sphere of Higher Education must bear in mind such rights:

It is also important to recognise recent debates being held within the Higher Education sphere in Europe, particularly within the sphere of harmonisation of such Higher Education between member countries. At present the debate has produced two sides: (i) those who favour mutual recognition of the degrees etc. and (ii) those who favour a harmonisation of the systems which bring about the degrees.

"Education costs money, but then so does ignorance." – Sir Claus Moser. It is important at this point to establish the importance of other elements within the vital function of ‘investment in higher education’. We have overcome the basis premises of the necessity of investment as well as the extent and scope of such investment. It is now necessary to point out other elements which must necessarily be addressed so as to ensure that such investment is not lost.

We have mentioned the fact that comparison to economic matters when discussing investment in higher education is odious. Here we put forward an analogy that by no means is intended to suddenly reflect a u-turn in our principle. Should we compare the investment to investment in a company, we would also see that such investment must be cultured, monitored and continuously reviewed so as to ensure that the just benefits are reaped. We have established that the investment is necessary due to the fact that the product is crucial to the functioning of a nation. We are now pointing out that such investment must never be lost.

Having established its basic function, and having seen the difficulty with which such an investment is being made (to such an extent as to create doubts as to whether or not it should continue to be made), it is now obvious that any wastage of such an investment would have a doubly negative impact on the country. The first negative impact would be due to the fact that it has not performed its basic function and secondly because the badly invested resources could (at present) have been utilised elsewhere. Furthermore, with a bad investment, the effects which are expected to be had with an improvement in the resources will never materialise.

Most of this document until now has concentrated on the importance of ensuring that the investment remains a constant as that the duty to invest is not reneged. Investment in higher education must be placed on par with other systems such as health and pensions in this respect. The management of the investment is what this document will now dwell upon.

Earlier on we have already put forward the main indicators of good investment in education. The resources and produce of higher education must be such as to attain the relevant standards of quality, relevance and internationalisation.

It is in this ambit therefore that KSU proposes that the guidelines in the Framework for Priority Action for Change and Development of Higher Education be adopted:

The state should:

(a) establish, where appropriate, the legislative, political and financial framework for the reform and further development of higher education, in keeping with the terms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that higher education shall be ‘accessible to all on the basis of merit’. No discrimination can be accepted, no one can be excluded from higher education or its study fields, degree levels and types of institutions on grounds of race, gender, language, religion, or age or because of any economic or social distinctions or physical disabilities;

(b) reinforce the links between higher education and research;

(c) consider and use higher education as a catalyst for the entire education system;

(d) develop higher education institutions to include lifelong learning approaches, giving learners an optimal range of choice and a flexibility of entry and exit points within the system, and redefine its role accordingly, which implies the development of open and continuous access to higher learning and the need for bridging programmes and prior learning assessment and recognition;

(e) make efforts, when necessary, to establish close links between higher education and research institutions, taking into account the fact that education and research are two closely related elements in the establishment of knowledge;

(f) develop innovative schemes of collaboration between institutions of higher education and different sectors of society to ensure that higher education and research programmes effectively contribute to local, regional and national development;

(g) fulfil its commitments to higher education and be accountable for the pledges adopted with their concurrence, at several forums, particularly over the past decade, with regard to human, material and financial resources, human development and education in general, and to higher education in particular;

(h) have a policy framework to ensure new partnerships and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in all aspects of higher education: the evaluation process, including curriculum and pedagogical renewal, and guidance and counselling services; and, in the framework of existing institutional arrangements, policy-making and institutional governance;

(i) define and implement policies to eliminate all gender stereotyping in higher education and to consolidate women’s participation at all levels and in all disciplines in which they are under-represented at present and, in particular, to enhance their active involvement in decision-making;

(j) establish clear policies concerning higher education teachers, as set out in the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel approved by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 1997;

(k) recognise students as the centre of attention of higher education, and one of its stakeholders. They should be involved, by means of adequate institutional structures, in the renewal of their level of education (including curriculum and pedagogical reform), and policy decision, in the framework of existing institutional arrangements;

(l) recognise that students have the right to organise themselves autonomously;

(m) promote and facilitate national and international mobility of teaching staff and students as an essential part of the quality and relevance of higher education;

(n) provide and ensure those conditions necessary for the exercise of academic freedom and institutional autonomy so as to allow institutions of higher education, as well as those individuals engaged in higher education and research, to fulfil their obligations to society.

2. Seeing that notwithstanding that enrolment in higher education has increased it is low by internationally accepted comparative standards , the state should strive to ensure a level of higher education adequate for relevant needs in the public and private sectors of society and to establish plans for diversifying and expanding access, particularly benefiting all minorities and disadvantaged groups.

3. The interface with general, technical and professional secondary education should be reviewed in depth, in the context of lifelong learning. Access to higher education in whatever form must remain open to those successfully completing secondary education or its equivalent or meeting entry qualifications at any age, while creating gateways to higher education, especially for older students without any formal secondary education certificates, by attaching more importance to their professional experience. However, preparation for higher education should not be the sole or primary purpose of secondary education, which should also prepare for the world of work, with complementary training whenever required, in order to provide knowledge, capacities and skills for a wide range of jobs. The concept of bridging programmes should be promoted to allow those entering the job market to return to studies at a later date.

So that the University may assume – and carry out – the responsibilities which Society lays upon it, the University as an institution of scholarship and its academic staff need to be granted certain conditions of work held necessary for such responsibilities to be optimally fulfilled. These terms are contained in the two concepts of University Autonomy and Academic Freedom. The former relates to institutional self-government. The latter relates to the individual members of academic staff. And, in respect of the freedom to choose what they will study, extends also to students.

Nevertheless, the generic feature, which distinguishes the University from training, from compulsory schooling and post-compulsory institutes of education, is the freedom to learn for students (Lernfreiheit) and the freedom to teach for the academic staff (Lehrfreiheit). By extension, the freedom to teach is held to encompass the obligation upon academic staff to contribute through inquiry and research to the advance of fundamental knowledge which shapes the particular area of study to which they are individually committed (Wissenshaftsfreiheit). Since the time of the Humboldtian reforms of the university and its derivatives, this basic mission has been part of the university’s corporate responsibility, often described as the "search after Truth".

University autonomy may signify that greater latitude is afforded to the institution so that the individuals bearing responsibility for their good husbandry, may exercise initiative in meeting the often-changing demands society places on higher education. From this point of view, university autonomy, has to contend and find a balance, with other principles which determine its relationship with society, namely, accountability, social responsibility and transparency. It is incumbent on the university to develop techniques of management, administration and self-verification, which balance university autonomy with the obligation to be accountable to society, to demonstrate efficiency in fulfilling its mission and transparency in its manner of achieving it.

Academic freedom and university autonomy naturally imply the obligations to excellence, innovation and to the advancement of knowledge, the former by individual academics and the latter by the institution. Academic freedom and university autonomy have tended to be regarded as a protection vis-à-vis arbitrary interference and are underwritten by formal legislative enactment or by the State’s recognising the customary practices of the academic community. Though the responsibility of the State is not less central today, current developments whether expressed in terms of economic or administrative rationality (deregulation, privatisation, decentralisation of decision-making) imply a more complex relationship with the civil society. Today academic freedom and university autonomy are increasingly tempered by notions of accountability and ‘responsiveness to external interests’, As this new social contract between university and society takes shape, so the notion of university autonomy – but not necessarily academic freedom – is subject to increasing conditions.

All this being said, a closer look at our University will demonstrate that the notions of academic freedom and university autonomy are being taken to unthinkable extremes. The former may be said to have assumed a haphazard, irrational and chaotic development. The latter seems to serve solely to further isolate university from social realities. KSU has attempted to identify an academic mission within the university structure but what can be seen is simply a structure which is exam oriented, monotonous and deprived of stimulation of ideas. Furthermore the practical area of study are almost non-existent, while it is difficult to identify a basic guideline structure on which the whole institution is set.

Standards of academic quality expected of students are volatile and tend to vary according circumstances. There is an endemic inability to plan for the future and foresee the necessary changes that should be made to sustain the developments and challenges of higher education. Targeting at lower levels of education stops short at the setting of MATSEC exams. Inevitably, it is also such exams that are constantly in a state of chaos and uncertainty.

KSU has pressed for reform of the university academic structure based on the two-fold principles of certainty and legitimate expectation. Such a reform would range from the improvement of academic content, criteria of access and criteria of assessment. Such reforms must be performed within the guidelines of reform worldwide, bearing in mind the mission of the university today. As the factory into which all investment is churned, one cannot speak about the investment without considering the area one is investing in.

As the situation stands at present, it is inconceivable to justify alternative forms of investment within university. One cannot imagine a system of tuition fees for example, as this would have grave consequences since the paying student would demand levels of quality, which justify the investment. Cost sharing, as a concept cannot even be conceived at this point in time due mainly to such considerations. At present, most students graduate in spite of, and not thanks to, the university system. Year in year out, the alarm has been sounded and graduating students about to leave university have left warning messages as to the deficiencies of the present system.

KSU acknowledges that a number of elements have begun to react to this negative state of affairs. The bureaucratic structure of the university is such however that old traditions die hard, and members who rely on such a system where academic improvement is put aside in favour of a mechanical process, have used bureaucracy to their advantage to prevaricate, procrastinate and create obstacles to change.

This situation is not beneficial to anyone except such parasites. The consequences of such activity are negative on all other parties involved. They are negative on our university for its levels of academic quality, excellence and development. They are negative on the main receivers of university education – the students. They are consequently negative on the society that is meant to absorb and benefit from such students and from the academic research and innovation. The lernfreiheit, lehrfreiheit and Wissenshaftsfreiheit so crucial to universities are thus neglected. The main loser in this may be said to be the university. However, by extension, the real loser in this situation is all of our society.

Considering the premises on which we have begun – the essential nature of higher education to society and its development, to the bettering of sustainable human development, as a motor of societal development – it is immediately obvious that apart from considering investment in higher education, another issue which needs to be immediately addressed is the issue of the content and quality of higher education in itself. The whole exercise of reform cannot be conducted seriously without taking this important perspective into consideration. It is in this light therefore, that KSU seriously urges the Commission for Stipend Reform to insist that matters of University academic and management reform be placed on a high agenda by all parties involved. KSU views the improvement such areas almost as a precondition to any other discussion of investment in this vital area.

While the level of investment being discussed and which will be implemented must be one that encourages access and autonomy as outlined above, and while such investment is absolutely necessary to ensure that our country remains competitive in all spheres, all such investment would become futile should the question of the management of the areas being invested in not be addressed.

As already mentioned, there are a number of genuine attempts at the moment to standardise our University. Reaching these standards is necessary in the purely academic context as well as in the context of social relevance. The sporadic attempts at dialogue between our University and stakeholders in our country’s development may be appreciated, however the lack of forward planning is defeating many of these efforts.

The stakeholders mentioned above are likely to include employers and employers organisations, arts organisations, media, lower tiers in the education system including schools and colleges, recent graduates, present and prospective students and the Central Government. In the context of national and international influences each of these groups has distinct goals and missions, means of delivering these, financial drivers and constraints and customer/client relations. The University is bound to collaborate with all these stakeholders in order to combat the changing challenges that have so often been outlined. It must also do this in the light of its ongoing duty of bearing a social context away from the notion of the ‘Ivory Tower’.

The University must help support local competitiveness within the global market by paying attention to the 3C’s – concepts, competence and connections. "Word class places can help grow these assets by offering innovative capabilities, production capabilities, quality skill, learning, networking and collaboration." University is a powerful facilitator of these processes – concepts links to research; competence links to teaching and connections links to the transfer to and from a region of people and networks grown out of universities.

In order to realise such policy shifts, local policy needs to be innovative and entrepreneurial itself, typically through drawing on a wider network of resources, negotiating and building alliances between local and other tiers of government, universities, private sector interests and non-profit organisations. This successful entrepreneurial plan shifts the beneficiaries from being an arm of the national welfare state to a catalyst for local co-operation and policy innovation.

A university that is geared in such a manner to serve its purpose and react would never allow cause for a second justification of national investment in higher education. The value of any kind of investment in higher education would be self-evident and the long-term results could be a decreased dependence on the party that has, until now, borne the bulk of the burden.

The university must also gear its students to be capable within the four ‘knows’ necessary for facing the outside world: (1) know what, that is facts and information, must be provided; (2) know why, that is principles and laws necessary to reduce trial and error; (3) know how, the skills and capability to do something, skills that are traditionally acquired within the workplace; and finally (4) know who, that is information about who knows how to do what and the social capability to establish relationships to special groups in order to draw on their expertise.

The first two ‘knows’ are included in formal learning in schools at University. Know how, depends on practical experience through tacit learning, (for example through apprenticeships) but also increasingly through network relationships with industrial and commercial partners. Finally, know who is learned from social interaction via the professional associations, day to day dealing with customers, sub-contractors and a wide range of other actors and agencies.

The University must also contribute socially by aiding the country effectiveness in the global economy by "continuous improvement, new ideas, knowledge creation and organisational learning." The country must adopt the principles of knowledge creation and continuous learning. The key to such learning is the human infrastructure and the institutional mechanisms that foster interactive learning, and a central part of this infrastructure, in terms of the reproduction and adaptation of human resources, are universities.

Furthermore, in so far as universities are by tradition classically ‘civic’ institutions, they can play a key role in the development of the cultural and political determinants of socio-economic success. A key challenge is to enhance the role which universities, and their staff and students, play in the development of such networks of civic engagement, and hence in the wider political and cultural leadership of their localities. Ways of increasing this wider leadership could be the formal and informal engagement of the university in the local political process, through university staff serving as elected politicians and providing a source of advice for local government, contributions to the media etc.

The scale of the challenge could not be underestimated. Adjusting the curriculum to rapidly changing needs is one major part of it. Whilst the university has been good at the know what and know why aspects of education. Much improvement is needed on the know how aspects through incorporation of the tacit learning acquired via work placements into teaching programmes. Furthermore, the know who dimension is even more problematic. Progress on this front implies a deep relationship between research and teaching based on the sharing of the network knowledge of the research endeavour with students at all levels.

When considering their relationship with industry, Universities need to consider themselves as being located at the head of a supply chain that is devoted to the provision of knowledge. The distribution channels for this knowledge through students (projects and placements), graduates and post-graduates, as well as through published and contract research and consultancy that leads to new and improved technologies and management processes.

Universities within this structure must be capable to market their products in the form of graduates or to respond to signals about what the market wants. The ‘market place’, is of course, extremely complex because it is composed of the totality of organisations that currently, or in the future, employ graduates. At one end of the spectrum are tightly regulated vocational markets like, medicine, architecture, law and engineering. At the other end of the spectrum are the largely unarticulated demands of SMEs. If the universities are to play a more active role in economic and social development of the country, it is vital that they understand the market, segment it and use this information to guide their teaching activities. This means not simply responding to currently expressed wants but actively researching the dynamics underlying changing employer needs and treating students as clients and employers as the end customer.

"In some countries the fact that this approach [outlined above] is far from universal can be partly attributed to the student funding regime which currently rewards ‘production’ but not ‘sale’. In consequence the marketing function is often poorly developed. If universities were in part rewarded for their delivery of graduates into employment, including local employment, they would clearly have an incentive to put more effort into marketing and economic development."

But becoming a market sensitive organisation requires a major change in the university culture. It implies a strong sense of institutional purpose. In short, improved integration of the university with national development will not readily be achieved by top-down planning mechanisms at either the institutional or regional level but by ensuring that the various stakeholders in the development process – the education and training providers, employers and employers organisations, trade unions, economic development and labour market agencies and individual teachers and learners – have an understanding of each others role and the factors encouraging or inhibiting greater national engagement.

Redefining management should not signify simply reviewing the way university interacts with the economic market. Rather, this should be complementary to the other roles of the university which are more ‘traditional’ so to speak. First and foremost, KSU expects that academic development is continued through intellectual stimulation and the ‘reading’ at university should really be put into effect.

Secondly, an awareness must be created of the dying social role of university. Campus life is close to shambles, interest in organisations’ activities is minimal, both from the student point of view as well as from the academic staff. Examples here are crucial to underline the dearth of real tangible activity today. One can pin-point organisations which have become part of University history such as Ghaqda tal-Malti (founded in 1931 by the poet Ruzar Briffa) and the University Film Club (formerly Royal University Film Club, founded in 1969) which are finding it extremely difficult to find new members and the life and soul of the organisation is in peril.

These red lights have been on for ages and numerous organisations have already suffered the consequences. Student’s House is a perfect example of the lack of attention to student activity. Unlike any other university, the building administered by students is shared with the University, and the canteen is contracted to a private entity for another 16 years without the students ever being consulted. The canteen operators fail to demonstrate any visible awareness that they operate in a student environment and contribute towards the killing off of life on campus.

University funds and programmes that should be channelled to promoting such organisations and their activities are the first to suffer from budget cuts and reprogramming.

The aims of this report do not allow us to go into detail on this point. It is however essential as a part of the overall awareness which must be created as regards the importance of investing in all parts of higher education.

The underlying import of all these statements is that within the need for the reform of the investment, there must also be a commitment to the reform of the area invested in so as to ensure that the social, cultural, economic and academic ‘returns’ which higher education should be producing are in effect those which prompt the investment in the first place.

HG Wells once said that "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." Wells can definitely not be criticised as having lacked vision. KSU strongly urges the members of the Commission to consider all the implications of this report. We understand that the contents may not be all that is expected, and guarantee that we are available to continue adding on arguments and discussing them in the true spirit of dialogue by which this whole process is inspired. We trust that all parties involved in this process remain firmly committed to the objective cause of ensuring that higher education remains firmly implanted as an area of necessary investment for our nation.

We believe that an agreement on the following principles and aims is necessary to the continuing of this process of dialogue:

KSU strongly believes that a well-structured reform could pave the way to constructing a better system of education and avoiding catastrophe.