NPU and SKM Impediments

Written by Kristan Gile — Beyond the Norms

The academic year ended with impediments both from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) Manila university administration and Sentral na Konseho ng mga Mag-aaral (SKM). 

Both administrations seem to parallel lapses. Both should explore outside the usual dogma they follow. In simple terms, to recalibrate and see beyond the norms as the university welcomes the new academic year.

NPU Went Disarray 

The university administration failed to achieve one of its long-standing goals—the passage of the National Polytechnic University Bill, generally known as NPU Bill. The bill promises autonomy, especially on the fiscal aspect, as well as priority in budget allocation. PUP will be entitled to the ‘national university’ treatment along with the ranks of University of the Philippines (UP), Mindanao State University (MSU), etc. However, like how the former president Rodrigo Duterte rejected the idea of a national polytechnic university, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. vetoed the NPU Bill citing lack of confidence with the current standing of the university despite the accolades, recognitions, and evaluations it has received. He made a popular yet tactical veto of the bill.

Did the university administration fail to realize that the bill was not widely accepted by the progressive student organs in the campus? Students heavily protest against the commercialization and privatization of the university assets which is seen as a juxtaposition with the culture of progressivism and mass movement in the university. In my past column regarding NPU, I discussed the commercialization and privatization as the root cause of the progressive’s lack of confidence with the bill. Moreso, the university’s failure to consult with the students and the community. I also noted the possible aftereffects of big businesses and corporations getting exclusive access to the campus’ economy. There is a disconnect with the narrative of the university administration. They claimed it was all for the students and community but they have failed to go out in the comfort of their offices to consult and talk with the student organs. They terribly failed considering the overwhelming student opposition they have faced.

The university administration tried to please the Marcos Jr. administration. They succeeded in convincing the Congress, both the House of Representatives and Senate. They even snubbed the commemoration of EDSA People Power just to court the son-of-a-dictator president. With their impeccable presentation of accomplishments made possible by the persistence of PUPians, lawmakers followed the popular route of supporting the bill to show that they take higher education seriously. They thought that it was entirely good for all of the stakeholders. Now with the veto, perhaps, they should even pretend to attempt to override it if they truly hold the NPU Bill significant.

However, PUP failed to use the mass movement in favor of the passage of the said bill. They should have been strategic and genuine within their community by continuously coordinating with the students, considering their inputs and opinions on the said charter change. Afterall, who will be greatly affected by the change? In our history, we can never fully trust our elected officials and politicians with their long history of political turncoatism. Even with the empirical lobbying of the bill made possible by university officials, it still failed. Even with the presentation of accomplishments and accolades, it did not pass. It faltered because it lacked the emotional and rallying support of the community. There is a gap between the aspirations of the university administration and the dreams of the PUPians. The students, especially those who are progressive who could have been passionately supporting and rallying for the passage of a ‘genuine’ NPU Bill, did not feel the very purpose of the charter change. For them it was all for profit, commercialization, and privatization which is a plausible consequence. The university lost its vital stalwart ally—the students.

After the veto, the university held their flag raising ceremony along with the rallying cry against the decision of the palace. It was excruciating to watch how the cheerful and passionate PUP in pushing for agendas was reduced to a voice that cannot even be heard. The rally attended by some university officials, some faculty members, and some students does not hold any power because it lacks the spirit of camaraderie that PUPians could have established, if and only if the NPU Bill was genuine. Genuine in a sense that it was consulted, communicated well among stakeholders to which could have secured support internally before externally. This might have prevented the current polarization between the university administration and student organs. As a matter of fact, both of them believe in the same mantra: PUP needs more budget, more support. It was just divided and unconsolidated.

Still and all, our university needs to be recognized as a top performing state university. Despite the budget cuts and lack of conducive facilities, PUP has proved to be perseverant and resilient. PUPians never failed to deliver results in board exams and employment rates. The country has reaped its capital from PUP graduates who are paying it forward by serving the nation and economy. With that, the university truly deserves a national university status and treatment where students are learning comfortably and not in the constant exposure to immense heat. It deserves  more than the below bare minimum that the government is providing; but with PUP divided in narrative and action, this will neither facilitate the passage of a “genuine” NPU Bill nor the prevention of budget cuts.

Time, energy, and effort will be wasted if the blaming game continues. What needs to be changed is the narrative that created the NPU Bill. It should not be in the namesake of development in exchange of privatization and commercialization. It should be in the namesake of development fueled by trust, communication, camaraderie, and the aim for a higher purpose. PUPians are feisty when it comes to principles; and the right bill, in the right time, in the right coordination will send PUP in a “genuine” national university status or at least secure a higher budget.

SKM Parallels Lapses

There might be what we can consider a “silent majority” that heavily criticizes the governance of SKM. As of this writing, I have encountered online entries in the PUP Sta. Mesa Freedom Wall critical of the current student administration. These anonymous messages underline the incapacity and inconsistencies of the central council in holding university’s events, addressing student concerns and matters, and serving their mandate as elected student officers. These lapses suggest that the progressive-led central council have been falling short to reflect their progressive promises in praxis. 

The reason why these critical remarks are delivered anonymously via the popular freedom wall points to the overwhelming political capital of SKM. Nonetheless, the platform given to the officers of the central council is more than prestige, positions, and political power. Accountability and responsibility are sine qua non to their representations. Complacency under the banner of progressivism should not be an excuse to these shortcomings, and if possible must be avoided.

In a public statement, incumbent SKM President Tiffany Faith Brillante addressed these fiascos such as the central council’s page blocking the PUP Sta. Mesa Freedom Wall—the platform where critical remarks on the central council were sent. She clarified that the freedom wall was indeed blocked but cleared that none of the sitting officials were behind this. She also discussed the setbacks on the recent PUP Rainbow Fest such as the cancellation of some performances and reduction of time allowed for setlists. This led to the resignation of one of their councilors, Noriko Alsisto, who cited inconsistencies, micromanagement, and issues concerning other of their colleagues. Later on, the resignation was retracted mainly to seek justice for the shortcomings and to continue serving the student body. On the other hand, Brillante assured that these issues are under investigation.

In spite of the assurance, criticisms on the current performance of the central council still persist. Public statements can only do so much. Motherhood remarks might not be enough to appease the “silent majority” disenchanted with their governance. While it signifies accountability and introspection of lapses, the student body duly represented by student officers will ultimately look for tangible results. Resolutions that can be felt by the studentry are more than any public statements made or lengthy press releases.

However, to be fair, the progressive-led central council has always been in the forefront, fighting for the rights of the students. They were able to call the university administration in times where students need immediate attention such as class suspensions, reprieves on strict rules and regulations, and maintaining the campus inclusive and free. Credit is given when it is due and, at the same time, criticism when it is necessary. The central council needs to be an institution dependable for checks and balances; and that will only be achieved if there is a working check and balances mechanism within them.

In a working democracy, an alternative party aside from the ruling party in the campus must be initiated; and its principles, ideals, and aspirations must be tantamount to the principles, ideals, aspirations of the studentry or its competition. The majority always tends to be disillusioned of its own principles, ideals, and aspirations. This disillusionment breeds toleration even in the face of underserving the mandate entrusted by the student body. If there is truly a “silent majority” as I see it, then compete with principles, ideals, aspirations. They can provide an alternative that hopefully will not parallel lapses but, instead, create standards that the studentry can emulate. Then, the student body—in their liberty and discretion—shall choose who is deserving to represent them. The next university-wide student council elections will serve as a referendum to the incumbents, leaving the pressing question: Does the studentry still has confidence in their leadership? 

Call to Recalibrate Ways

If the refiling of the NPU Bill is deemed necessary by the university administration, they must revisit the factors that led to the distrust of the students, especially the progressive student organs. Aside from the accomplishments and accolades that they can present to the Congress, they should form a grounded support from the community to push for the real agenda: more budget and more support for the university. 

This is for the betterment of the current Iskolars ng Bayan and the incoming ones piling up at the enrollment stalls. In the same manner that the central council should revisit their policies, management, and leadership. Let it not be put in the comfort of complacency laced with the lack of awareness of the diverse studentry with differing views, needs, and woes. Transformative and progressive leadership shall be nurtured, both by the university administration and the central council, the representation of the students. Both under one objective: a prosperous student for a prosperous nation.