AIT alumni are loyal stakeholders

The letter by Mr Borje Wallberg highlighted the current dilemma in an erroneous perspective. As the president of the Thailand Chapter of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Alumni Association (AITAA Thailand), representing more than 5,000 alumni, I feel obliged to offer factual information about the current legal status of the AIT and the role of its alumni – by sheer numbers and impact its major group of loyal stakeholders 

As a matter of fact, the AIT is not a Thai university but an international not-for-profit graduate-level educational organisation with its headquarters in Thailand, and with Thailand as the biggest supporter/beneficiary. The AIT has been granted international status since its inception as the SEATO Graduate School of Engineering in 1959. This has been corroborated through the charter with its bye-laws, and the Enabling Act BE 2510 (1967) by the Thai government accorded to the Asian Institute of Technology, as it was renamed then. AIT’s clients, donors, partners and supporters totalled 389 by the 1990s. Through all that time, Thailand has remained the single biggest supporter of the AIT. Sweden has been one of AIT’s generous and reliable donors, and Mr Wallberg was one of the significant coordinators whom we appreciate, although he has been recently misinformed. 

To date, more than 18,000 alumni are residing and working in more than 80 countries; most of them are members of 27 AITAA national chapters forming the Governing Board of AITAA Mother Chapter, which closely links the worldwide alumni.

As the leader of the association representing more than 5,000 Thai alumni of the AIT, many of whom hold top positions in Thailand’s public services, business enterprises and academic circles, I have remained strongly committed to rallying support for the AIT. Over time, among all national chapters, the Thai alumni and AITAA (Thailand) have made the biggest contribution to AIT, in cash and in kind. 

Shortly after floods inundated the AIT campus in October 2011, when approached by an AIT administrator seeking my help, I and some Thai alumni were instrumental in facilitating the AIT administrative functions quickly back into operation at a Bangkok CBD location, without charging office space rental. During the flood and after the floodwater had receded, in my entrepreneurial capacity I coordinated mobilisation of equipment and a sizeable team of workers to help in cleaning the AIT campus, at our company’s own cost, with more being done now. In that emergency situation, I, along with fellow alumni, held deliberations with the then AIT president and his staff on how to map out measures to get academic activities resumed soonest. 

A little later, however, I was told of the AIT president’s plan to temporarily relocate AIT academic activities to a remote campus of a university belonging to an American company operating educational business for profit. It seemed as if that step was taken, envisaged through previous negotiations, with a view to a complex, fundamental change of the status of the AIT. As is evident by now, such change would breach AIT’s legal status granted by the host country. 

As of now, the purported new AIT, with the status of an “inter-governmental organisation (IGO), has been declared to operate based on a different charter, which is flawed in that it was made effective without waiting for Thailand to accede and assume membership under the new charter. It stands to reason to allow for a transition period during which the AIT might be operated under its original charter of 1967, which is still valid and not superseded by the new charter. This solution has been proposed by some members of the AIT Board of Trustees under its original charter, and some members of the council under the new charter as well.

This matter was clarified by Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on May 2 and again on September 13 by two letters addressed to the incumbent AIT administration. In the latter, it is underlined that “the new AIT and the current AIT under the 1967 charter are not the same juristic persons. It is clear that the founders and parties to the AIT under the 2012 charter are different from those under the 1967 charter”. It is concluded that “the new AIT as an international organisation does not fall within the ambit of the said Enabling Act and cannot use the said Act as a legal basis to legally function in Thailand”.

This MFA verdict is authoritative. It is entirely non-related to any constructive actions taken by the AITAA (Thailand) to preserve the AIT as an international, autonomous, not-for-profit organisation. It should be highlighted that the MFA also emphasises in the latter letter that the current predicament of the AIT “can be resolved by convening the Board of Trustees” (under its original royal charter of 1967).

In this spirit, the AITAA (Thailand) has upheld and adhered to the principles embodied in the AIT charter of 1967, which rules out any untoward interventions, usurping power, or obstructing operations. On many occasions, its members have offered useful advice to the incumbent AIT administration on how to steer clear of any potentially precarious situations whenever alerted through informal channels in the AIT’s host country. As the issue is too complicated to explain in detail here, reference is made to the website tha.aitaa.asia/en.

In conclusion, the AITAA (Thailand) never objected to the granting of funds for AIT, nor will its members ever attempt to block any financial assistance to the AIT. To the contrary, all AITAA (Thailand) efforts are geared to secure a stable future for the AIT.

Thanin Bumrungsap

President, AIT Alumni Association (Thailand), Bangkok