Ardimas Sasdi, Jakarta – The plan of the government to "privatize", an euphemism for running higher state institutions under a private model, reminds the writer of a touching short message service (SMS) from a nephew studying at Bandung's Padjadjaran University (UNPAD).

"Mak Uo, thank you very much for the transfer. May God bless you and may your fortune accumulate...," read the message to my wife.

At a glance there was nothing unusual about the SMS. Indeed, there is something noteworthy if we go deeper into the message. The real, underlying value in the content of the pragmatic message is not that it is full of gratitude, but the significance of the small amount of money that we send monthly to the recipient to support his studies. For us, with the risk of sounding vain and haughty, the Rp 300,000 (US$33) is insignificant as it is just enough to pay for a family lunch or dinner at a restaurant.

The nephew, who is quite smart as evidence by his ability to keep up with his studies in the popular department of international relations, is just one of thousands if not tens of thousands of university students in the country who urgently need financial support because their parents are not well-off. And state universities are the one hope for students from low income families to study due to the relatively low tuition fees.

But under the draft law on educational institutions soon to be submitted by the government to the House of Representatives for deliberation, there is only a small chance for students from poor families to continue their studies. Why? The principle of autonomy and self-reliance in the law will force administrators of state universities to raise tuition fees.

"This is an agenda of neo liberalists, the government seems to want to shirk its responsibility of financing education," said education expert H.A.R. Tilaar as quoted by Tempo Interaktif.

Media Indonesia, in a piercing editorial, viewed the draft education law – proposed several years after the implementation of the government policy on the change of status of four national higher institutions, namely the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), the University of Indonesia (UI), Gadjah Mada University (UGM) and the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB), from state colleges into state-owned legal entities – as a death knell for higher education, especially for universities in the provinces, which rely heavily on government aid.

Now the four universities have greater freedom to manage their own affairs, including in designing their curricula, but on the other hand they pay a high cost for the autonomy – they scramble to find new financial resources to support their operations due to the substantial drop in government aid since the implementation of the policy. Presently, the government practically pays only the salaries of permanent lecturers and administrative staff.

In generating much needed revenue, the four state universities initially adopted a uniform policy of accepting students from wealthy families who passed a specially designed entrance test, the standards of which, naturally, were lower than the normal rigorous entrance test held nationally. But these "special students" were required to pay an exorbitant entrance fee of between Rp 25 million ($2,700) and Rp 125 million – an amount far beyond the means of many Indonesians whose income per capita is a mere $840. This pro-rich student policy proved controversial, not only because it was burdensome but also because it unfairly alienated bright students from poor families whose chances of studying at a state university of their choice got slimmer because universities had to allocate seats for the wealthy, less smart students.

In apparent respond to the public outcry, the University of Indonesia announced a policy change on the "special lane" for the rich or development fee in 2005. Under the new scheme, a student enrolled at the university must pay Rp 25 million regardless of whether he or she passes the rigorous SPMB entrance exam.

Fully aware of the sensitivity of the issue, the head of the Research and Development Center of the Ministry of National Education, Mansyur Ramly, reiterated last week that the draft law on educational institutions was simply meant to make the management of state universities more transparent and accountable to their stakeholders, and had nothing to do with government aid.

But close examination of the policy of UI, ITB, IPB and UGM after their "privatization" shows that the approach of the universities are now more pro rich people, who are willing and able to pay more for their studies. One unforeseen result of this will be a wider gap between the rich and the poor, with the treatment of education as a commodity like any other commercial goods.

Indeed, the government has long shifted its responsibility to tax payers. In many areas of the country members of the public whose children study at primary and secondary state schools, for example, have to pay various kinds of payments even though this is a blatant violation of the spirit of the nine-year compulsory education scheme. The schools argued that they have no option but to collect fees to finance their operations as the government only pays salaries of permanent teachers and administrative staff. At some public schools, parents of students contribute more than 90 percent of the school's operational budget.

In order to minimize the impacts of the plan to run state universities and institutes as private entities, there are some aspects that should be duly considered by the government and the House in the deliberation of the law.

First, are low and middle income groups – who account for more than 85 percent of Indonesia's 225 million population – able to pay more for education if the universities, which will be run like private entities, raise tuition fees?

And second, does the government have a working and effective control mechanism to supervise the policies of state universities and institutes? If not, they may be forced to copy the policies of primary and secondary schools who seemingly "harass" or "extort" money from students' parents, school alumni and donors to finance ambitious programs like development and renovation of school buildings, to purchase teaching aids, furniture and even operational vehicles for the school.

The most important issue is the need to clarify our policy on higher education. Is studying at university a privilege or a right? If it is a privilege, what will the state do to help students from low and middle income groups, who mostly go to state universities and institutes?

Another issue that should be studied carefully is whether universities in provinces, whose circumstances are much different from UI, ITB, UGM and IPB who have big names, have a large number of alumni in high positions in government and the private sector and reputable research institutes are able to generate income? Not less important is the involvement of a large spectrum of the public in the deliberation of the new bill.

The new bill is indeed a test case on the government's commitment to education. Thus the government, as suggested by a reader in a recent newspaper column, must think smartly and never ever evade responsibility.