Second-Order Change Without First-Order Change 79
we can do is to provide support and give universities a certain flexibility
in curriculum terms. For example, if a university has a curriculum that is
used in its Thai programmes and wants to change it to English, it can do
it right away without waiting for approval. More than that, we allow the
university council to approve it; the curriculum doesn’t need to accord with
the plan as long as the demands are clear; and when the university council
has approved it, that programme can be taught and the university can
inform the MUA later. (Interview, MUA administrator cited in Niphan 2005).On the other hand, the officer also asserts that the “success” of the policy
is due to the laissez-faire approach of the state.
However, the lack of a clear “product control” criteria and procedure
would carry a risk in qualitative terms as the MUA/OHEC has provided
universities with a loophole where they can simply rebadged their Thai
programmes as “international” programmes. Thus when state authority
is transferred to institutions, universities may use their institutional
autonomy to establish more “international” and “English” programmes.
The case of the dentistry programme provides an interesting insight to
the new configuration of power between state and academic oligarchs.
The academic group resisting against the bilingual programme shows the
possibility of quality control if and only if the academic group is strong
enough to push academic incentive over economic-driven rationale
There is also another debate regarding the international vis-à-vis Thai
lecturers. Because students in international programmes prefer foreign,
preferably European and American, lecturers, there is a shortage of
qualified foreign academics in Thailand. In part this is due to the low
salary given by Thai institutions, poor working conditions, and, above
all, the lack of academic incentive to build international programmes to
attract better-quality foreign academics in the first place. This situation has
led to a less than perfect scenario. Should the international programmes
in Thailand welcome foreign lecturers despite their lack of academic
qualification? Alternatively, should Thailand focus on recruiting qualified
Thai academics with international experiences to teach? The debate is
not as easy as one between “accent” vis-à-vis “content”. The use of Thai
academics in international programmes also has a negative repercussion
on the quality of existing education in Thai programmes. This debate is
succinctly captured by McBride (2012) whose interviews with Thai policy
elites highlighted the quality aspect of the international partnerships: “they
are talking in terms of quantity more than quality. Definitely to be, to grow