Not running normally

Your article advises that the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) is now operating as normal. This is worrying because, for the past 15 years, this has been characterised by mismanagement, very poor governance and massive academic decline.

From the mid-1980s onward AIT failed to recognise and respond to changes taking place in the international higher-education environment. By the late 1990s, when AIT’s finances remained in relatively good shape, the window of opportunity to chart a new course for AIT to make essential changes and generate necessary income was running out. For well over a decade AIT has been mismanaged. It has had no credible academic or business plan, and recent administrations have managed to keep AIT solvent only by reducing costs. In this process AIT has been seriously weakened, especially because quality staff left or were forced to leave. In the late 1990s there was some consolidation of financial accounts, which created a false sense of wellbeing. Ultimately AIT’s critical academic capital and management capability was lost, so that today AIT is a shadow of its former self: research of an international standard is negligible, AIT is ranked very low in academic league tables, and there has been brand erosion to the point where student recruitment is very difficult without further lowering entry standards. Student enrolment has declined. Many of these trends were brought to AIT’s attention in the mid-1990s. 

Against this background of decline, AIT has chosen to focus on its past with celebratory events, halls of fame, new charters, signing memoranda of agreement with low-ranked, inconsequential and even dubious organisations (including in areas of no relevance to AIT, such as Swedish fashion), pointless and excessive travel, and the entertaining of an endless round of visits from potential “collaborators”, VIPs and diplomats. This sad activity has been combined with the maintenance of a culture where new ideas that question the status quo are not encouraged. Few of the increasingly Thai staff members remaining at AIT today are the type that will challenge these unfortunate and debilitating circumstances.

The current situation is that AIT’s attempt to become an intergovernmental organisation has floundered, its president has been suspended and a fact-finding committee with unclear terms of reference has been instituted, largely consisting of Thai and other diplomats rather than educators, to try and find a future for AIT. A cover-up and a lacklustre report are expected as AIT gets “back to normal”. What benefit is this to Thailand or Asia?

John Belcher

Tokyo