Several issues were raised during the event— from income generation to the “changing” character of UP. This intellectual discussion brought awareness to me as a student and as part of the UP system, which I often forget.
TO LEASE OR NOT TO LEASE?
It is no longer just a question
of whether to allow private sectors to participate inside the UP community,
which in itself is controversial. Apparently,
there is no transparency on the actual figures of how much UP is
earning from leasing its lands to the Ayala Company, as suggested by the
statement of USC Chairperson Alex Castro. This supposed earning generation
tactic seems bogus to me, especially
when Professor Judy Taguiwalo told us that students
who loaned their tuition fee are
supposed to return the money with
interest! If UP is actually earning from Ayala, why couldn’t they spare
my fellow students this interest, in fact, I didn’t believe this up until I
visited the site of the Office of Scholarship and Student Services (OSSS) [1].
From my economics class, I am aware that there is a cost for lending money; but
asking more from people who have less – I simply cannot accept this. This issue
does not only concern the administration but all the more the students – the
poor but deserving students.
The
Role of “UP” Technohub and “UP” Town Center
In the figure below [2],
it can be seen that the commercial development was “replaced” with “science and
technology parks” that are intended to further the “knowledge economy” by
connecting UP to business. Such is the UP
Technohub that houses a call center, large technology/business
companies and restaurants?
A more recent development was
the UP Town Center, which is
occupied by several “high-end” restaurants and a clothing company. I checked
out the place to eat but everything is expensive— definitely not for students—
students with financial status that’s similar to mine. Indeed, this establishment
is part of the “resource generation
zone” though I highly doubt that students also benefit from the supposed “income” that UP is
getting.
Figure1: UP Land Use Plan [2]
THE CONFUSION AND
THE ALLEGED CHANGING CHARACTER OF UP
These arguments create confusion
to people wondering whether or not UP
has enough funds. Actually, Prof. Taguiwalo even quoted Senator
Franklin Drilon as saying that UP has a lot of money— or at least he thought
that was the case. However, the confusion is not limited to the money matters
since it also brought about questions on the character of the university as an
educational entity— the validity of the act of making UP an income-generating or self-sufficient establishment. The
institution, being portrayed as self-sufficient and able to generate its own income,
seemed to mislead some solons into thinking that SUC budget cuts are
justifiable.
PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION IN UP
Prof.
Ruperto Alonzo claimed that Private Sector Participation (PSP) is nothing new
to UP. In fact he named several developments in the food service (i.e. before,
there is monopoly of university food service but now, there are private
concessionaires), other service for students such as photocopying and printing
and other projects outside Diliman (UP Basilan land grant, Laguna-Quezon land grant
and Laurel-Langley properties such as Pandacan Shell depot).
Also, he justified PSP by
arguing that this allows UP to “focus on
its core mission, viz., pursuit of academic objectives and academic excellence.”
He also pointed out “examples of inefficiencies
in UP-run activities” such as in the food service, printing office and
security.
REVISITING THE CONSTITUTION AND OTHER
STUDIES
Although it seemed practical to lease idle lands of UP to generate income, the
very intention of turning the academe into becoming
self-sufficient (that might
lead to “cost-sharing” or increase in tuition fee) lead people back to
the new University Charter Sections 22 and 23 that “the state should support UP…
through land grants and donations and use of other real properties …” and that “…
the preservation of the value of the assets of the national university shall be
of primordial consideration …”, respectively. This suggests that in any case, the state should not neglect the
university.
In conclusion, Professor
Taguiwalo quoted from the Hebdon report that “… We found privatization to be, at best, a disruptive, socially
destabilizing, and ultimately harmful method of cost saving. At its worst,
privatization can actually increase costs, lower the quality of services,
reduce public accountability, and marginalize citizen involvement in the
democratic process …”[4]
This forum only proved that the
issues on privatization and the idea of UP as a self-sufficient and
income-generating institution are yet to be solved and validated. Everyone,
especially the students, is encouraged to participate and know more about what
actually happens— both inside and outside of the university.
References
[1] Office of Scholarship and Student Services website
Accessed online: http://osss.up.edu.ph/content/loan/
[2] UP Economics Towards Consciousness Infographic Teaser
Accessed
online: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6I7uPrrtZk
[3] “UP plea for P19-M tax exemption thrown out” by Jomar
Canlas
[4] “White Paper on Privatization” by Ellen J. Dannin,
Professor of Law
Accessed
online: http://www.corporations.org/privatization.html