Kengkij Kitirianglarp, a key member of the Network Against the Privatisation of Education and a doctoral student at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science, talks to Pravit Rojanaphruk about the ongoing battle.

Why do you oppose the government's plan?

I'm opposing the government's principle of passing on its responsibility as the provider of education welfare and making universities earn their own income. The negative impact will fall upon university students. This is neo-liberalism.

The government insists that as a result the quality of education provided by these universities will be better, the institutions will become autonomous, and lecturers are likely to receive better pay and conditions.

I think key education reform is not achieved through privatisation. In many parts of the world, governments have the responsibility of providing quality education as part of the state's welfare.

Are you surprised this junta-appointed government is continuing the process of the privatisation of education, which was an agenda of the Thaksin regime?

I recognised from the very moment that this regime seized power that they wanted to push for neo-liberalisation, be it in policies like free-trade agreements or foreign direct investment. It will push this agenda quicker than Thaksin as it doesn't care about opposition because it didn't get power through elections and it doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

Do those students and lecturers opposing the move constitute a majority of the community?

I think 80 per cent from all five universities are against it. Chula-longkorn University administrators recently did a survey, and 82 per cent of its lecturers were against it. Also, I haven't come across any student who supports the privatisation move.

How will you get the public on your side? What will you tell them, and what's at stake here?

Since this has now become a public issue, we're trying to give the public as much information about various aspects of the matter as they as they need to consider what's involved, but we must also put a temporary halt to the process. I would like to tell the public that we must consider what the primary responsibility of the state is today. If it is to provide the best welfare, then it must not privatise universities. This current administration is increa-sing the military budget while at the same time claiming it has no money for education. The state is not doing its job, and I think we must question a regime which claims to be removing Thaksin's political order and launching reform.

Do you see any parallel with the previous government's attempt to privatise electricity and water utilities?

I consider it one and the same issue. The state is trying to reduce public utilities, and now it is even discussing the prospect of privatising public hospitals and allowing the market to seek profits from that.

Have you considered the success or failure of such moves in other countries?

There are many examples. In Canada, after privatisation, one university which was known for its medical-research excellence is now dependent on a pharmaceutical company for research funding, but the university can only carry out research that suits the interests of the firm. This situation has occurred in many countries; that's why you see opposition in France and Germany.

Some have observed that university lecturers seem to be playing second fiddle in the protest. Why is that so?

One out of three of our lecturers is now employed on a contractual basis, and so they are afraid to come out in public for fear of not having their contracts renewed after three years. However, they're providing us with financial and other support, such as protest banners.