By Anthony Woodburn, ContributorJAMAICA'S STATE of vulnerability and confusion with respect to the continuing debate on the removal of subsidy from tertiary education is perched precipitously on the brink of guesstimate, disinformation and uncertainty.
The recently-concluded conference on tertiary education and higher education policy in Jamaica, held at the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona campus, provided a stage for political actors, academics, special interest groups and public managers, almost all defended their turfs. Ironically, the students who will be affected most by the decisions taken were never invited to present on the topic. Interesting!
The views expressed by both Ministers Maxine Henry-Wilson and Dr. Omar Davies coincided with privately expressed views that the Government lacks the resources to continue subsidising tertiary education. Unfortunately, neither Ministers attempted to explain the reasons for the lack of resources, even though Audley Shaw, the Jamaica Labour Party's spokesman on Finance, rejected the suggestions.
There is a school of thought that the continuing anaemic economic growth and development in the Jamaican economy over the past decade is insufficient to continue or maintain social benefits.
Consequently, health services, education, national security, pension benefits and unemployment benefits will have to undergo surgical reforms. Some of these services will be contracted out, divested, privatised or liberalised. These methods of reforms present lucrative opportunities for both local and international entrepreneurs, hence the consistency of views coming from the powerful entrepreneu-rial and dictatorial class which seek to crowd-out those who are passionately pro-subsidised tertiary education.
FLAWED REASONING
A presenter spoke on the theme 'Towards Personal Gain or Public Good'. Indeed, personal gain in tertiary education is definitely for the good of the society, there is no other way. Dr. Vanus James' calculations show that there will be an 81 per cent earnings increase for a typical 22-year-old for a three-year UWI degree. I am puzzlingly unable to understand why Dr. James specifically excluded the University of Technology (UTech) and Northern Caribbean University, with the full knowledge that they are also offering tertiary education. Notwithstanding, Dr. James' calculations have proven uninspiring in at least two areas. Firstly, a typical 22-year-old graduate would not have been earning when he/she entered UWI, he/she would have just completed sixth form.
Secondly, if Dr. James is assuming that a graduate had been previously employed then he should point out to UWI graduates especially which private or public sector companies in Jamaica is offering an 81 per cent salary increase.
Before there can be any meaningful contribution to the continuing debate on tertiary education each of us should be honest in our deliberations. The recent acts that were carried out on stage on the Mona campus are devoid of the fundamental issues surrounding the removal of subsidies from tertiary education. I propose a reasonable start to a more constructive debate.
LIBERALISATION
I have asked before and I will continue to ask: when will the Minister of Education, Youth and Culture explain to us the extent to which educational services have been liberalised? Has it been partially or fully liberalised? Will the Minister of Education, Youth and Culture explain to UWI students the risks associated with the signing of the Schedule of Commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services?
For purposes of a renewed discussion I will give an outline of the infamous four-column table which clearly indicates the intention of a government to liberalise a service sector or sub-sector. The intended area of liberalisation is carefully outlined along with any qualification and it is given in its original form to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). However, the WTO warns that no electronic copies must be accepted for scrutiny, only the original document must be accepted, as it is the only document that will be accepted in the event of a trade dispute.
We are asking the Minister of Education, Youth and Culture, Maxine Henry-Wilson, to present this four-column table to UWI students for our scrutiny and this gesture will form the basis of any meaningful dialogue on the removal of subsidies from tertiary education.
SCHEDULE OF COMMITMENTS
The Minister should know also that we will not accept the argument that tertiary level institutions are to be blamed for arbitrary increases in costs to students; we have long passed that parochial view. The issue is with the 'Schedule of Commitments' given to the WTO and not the administration of tertiary level institutions. To acquiesce to this notion is to be consumed by the maxim, "divide and rule".
The general format of the 'Schedule of Commitments' given to the WTO by member countries is recorded in a four column table. In essence, all commitments are bound by law so if a member wishes to remain free in a given sector or mode of supply, the entry reads Unbounded.
Where there are no limitations on market access or national treatment in a given sector and mode of supply, the entry reads, None. However, it should be noted that when the term None is used it means that there are no limitations specific to that sub-sector.
It is important to build and maintain the confidence and trust of tertiary level students as their experiences will inspire others to educate for national development.
The fundamental issues surrounding the removal of subsidies from tertiary education must be highlighted in an environment of mutual trust and not just an experience of mutual incomprehension and pain. One of the themes of the conference was 'Towards Personal Gain or Public Good'; I therefore suggest the same theme be applied within the context of the liberalisation of tertiary education.
Anthony Woodburn is a student at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus and the president of the Young Economists Association (YEA)
