78 Pad Lavankura and Rattana Lao
language. Therefore, they do not see the need to request state approval
again.
FUTURE DIRECTION AND POLICY DILEMMA
There are several issues facing the internationalization of Thai higher
education, especially with regards to question of the quality of higher
education itself. Firstly, there is the issue of economic vis-à-vis academic
rationales driving the internationalization of Thai higher education.
Overtly, it is admitted that the Thai internationalization agenda is driven
by market rationale both at the national and institutional levels. At the
national level, the Thai state has a strong aspiration to “catch up” with
the global economy. Therefore, the rhetoric and rationale to push for
internationalization of higher education is to equip Thai students to
be ready to join the global workforce and/or to create a qualified Thai
workforce that is competitive at the global markets. At the institutional
level, interviews with administrators and academics confirm that the
lucrative tuition fee generated by international programmes is the most
important incentive driving the expansion of international programmes
in Thailand. This economic incentive has driven the establishment and
expansion of international programmes in Thailand, which has resulted
in all the “new” and looking good for all Thais. This illustrates that
second-order change has occurred and by-passed the first-order change
on effectiveness and efficiency.
Secondly, the issue of state authority vis-à-vis institutional autonomy
presents another challenge for the internationalization of Thai higher
education. The MUA/OHEC official stance is that, given the current
circumstances, the best way to support the international programmes is to
grant the universities flexibility in accordance with the 1992 deregulation
process. An MUA/OHEC officer claimed that the elusiveness of international
programmes is a direct result from the state’s laissez-faire approach to
policymaking. Since the state has delegated most of the responsibility to
approve curriculums to the university council, it empowered institutions
greater autonomy to decide and design their curriculum:
The success of both internationalization and the international programmes
that we can see now is a result of the MUA’s “laissez-faire” policy. It’s true
that we don’t treat them seriously, and don’t take strategic action, but what