Sam Rany, Ph.D.

Sunday 27 October 2013

UNITED KINGDOM Universities need to teach more, research less – Minister

Belfast Telegraph25 October 2013 Issue No:293

Universities should be spending more time on teaching, according to David Willetts. In a new report, the universities minister suggests that the system has become "lopsided", with institutions focusing more on research than on teaching students, reports the Belfast Telegraph.

He said that given the growth in the number of students it was "surprising" that the time devoted to teaching had fallen, and argued that the "pendulum has swung too far away". Willetts's report, for the Social Market Foundation think-tank, looks at the UK's higher education system in the 50 years since the Robbins Report was published. That report, led by Lord Lionel Robbins, was published in 1963 and its recommendations led to major reform, including the expansion of universities.

Willetts argues that over the years, universities have focused primarily on research "because that is where the funding and prestige came from". But in the past 20 years there have not been the same incentives on universities to focus on teaching as there has been on research.

Full report on the Belfast Telegraph site

In a new report, the Universities Minister suggests that the system has become "lopsided" with institutions focusing more on research than on teaching students.

He said that given the growth in the number of students it was "surprising" that the time devoted to teaching had fallen, and argued that the "pendulum has swung too far away".

Mr Willetts' report, for the Social Market Foundation (SMF) think tank, looks at the UK's higher education system in the 50 years since the Robbins Report was published.

That report, led by Lord Lionel Robbins, was published in 1963 and its recommendations led to major reform, including the expansion of universities.

Mr Willetts argues that over the years, universities have focused primarily on research "because that is where the funding and prestige came from."

But in the last 20 years there has not been the same incentives on universities to focus on teaching as there has been on research.

"The pendulum has swung too far away from teaching," the minister says.
In the universities open when the Robbins Report was published in 1963, there was a 55:45 split in favour of teaching.

Official data shows that across all the institutions open in 2011/12, the split was 69:31 in favour of teaching.

But Mr Willetts says that these figures mask big differences, and new analysis shows that for the universities that existed in 1963, the split is now 40:60, in favour of research.

"Our analysis suggests that despite decades of change, the pre-Robbins universities appear to be more focused on research now than at any other time," the report says.

"Given the growth in the number of students, even at these older institutions, it is surprising that the proportion of academic time devoted to teaching them appears to have fallen from 55% to 40%".
Mr Willetts later adds: "Looking back we will wonder how the higher education system was ever allowed to become so lopsided away from teaching."

He insisted that changes to funding - including the move to triple fees to a maximum of £9,000 with students paying it back after they graduate and are in work - are an opportunity to "push a real cultural change back towards teaching".

One of the main aims of the Government's higher education reforms is to "place students back at the heart of universities", Mr Willetts says.

He insists that changes such as allowing institutions to recruit as many students as they like with at least an A and two B grades at A-level and giving students more information about courses, job prospects and costs are incentives to improve teaching.

"Students aren't merely buying a degree, as they might a holiday," Mr Willetts says.

"They are engaging in something inherently worthwhile and also investing in their future. The paradox is that unleashing the forces of consumerism with more information for prospective students and funding following their choices is the best way of bringing back traditional academic focus on high-quality teaching."

SMF director Emran Mian said: "David Willetts provides a compelling case for expanding higher education.

"This is our best bet for equipping the UK economy with the skills it needs and improving social mobility."

Sonia Sodha, head of public services at Which?, said: "Today's students are working for fewer hours, are set less work and are receiving less detailed feedback. This raises questions about the quality of some university courses.

"We welcome the Government's proposal to provide more useful information on the academic experience but they must also make sure the Quality Assurance Agency is monitoring long-term trends.

"With soaring tuition fees, it is increasingly important that students are getting value for money from their course."

CHINA: Why do international students go to China?

Andrys Onsman 25 October 2013 Issue No:293

With the increased standing of Chinese universities in international rankings, there has been a corresponding increase in students moving to study in China. Nowadays, China hosts a little less than 10% of all international students and this figure is likely to rise.

As an example, the aim of the Institute of International Education is to have 100,000 American students studying courses in China by 2014.

President Barack Obama’s motivation for sponsoring the programme is to have more Chinese-speaking Americans who know China, apparently to match the large numbers of Chinese students studying in the United States, learning to speak English and to know America.

Top Chinese universities such as Zhejiang, Peking and Tsinghua accommodate more modest numbers – around 3,000 each annually – of overseas students, increasingly from non-Asian countries.

Although all three have significant programmes delivered in English, as do most of the aspirational universities, there has also been a substantial increase in the number of international students studying for degrees that use Chinese as the medium of instruction.

Joint venture providers

One subset of international students studying in China comprises those studying at joint venture higher education providers operating within Chinese borders.

Whereas there are thousands of 'jointly badged' courses available in China, there are only a handful of hybrid institutions operating on dedicated campuses – with the actual number depending on your definition of a joint venture higher education institution.

The least contentious are the University of Nottingham and Zhejiang Wanli University’s operation at Ningbo, the Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University collaboration at Suzhou and the University of Shanghai for Science and Technology's cooperative venture with a consortium of nine UK universities – generally referred to as the Sino-British College – in Shanghai.

Further, there is a postgraduate institution run jointly by Monash University and Southeast University also in Suzhou. Duke University and Wuhan University have received permission to develop a joint venture on a campus in Kunshan.

Tightly controlled

These new institutions are tightly controlled by national, provincial and local administrations and exist principally to advance higher education for Chinese students in China, most often to allow local students to graduate with internationally recognised degrees without having to leave the country.

As a measure of their success, the University of Nottingham Ningbo China, or UNNC, currently has more than 8,000 students.

However, joint venture institutes are also attracting increasing numbers of international students. They too can graduate with internationally recognised degrees – and often at substantially less cost.

Taking advantage of the current exchange rates, the cost of living differential and institutional fees, a British student studying for an engineering degree at the University of Nottingham can save herself thousands of pounds, as well as enjoying a protected international experience and acquiring an arguably better quality education, by relocating to the UNNC campus.

But not only British students are taking advantage of joint-venture providers. UNNC also attracts students from Russia, Kazakhstan and Indonesia, as well as a sprinkling from most European, South American and North American countries. The numbers coming from Africa and the Middle East are also slowly rising.

So, what makes a student decide to relocate to a relatively unknown Chinese city like Ningbo for their tertiary education?

A British degree

An analysis of data shows that international students refer to three common factors in their decision-making processes when considering whether to enrol in UNNC courses.

The most influential of these factors is the end product of a British degree. The second most influential consideration is the appeal of spending time in China for reasons separate or complementary to academic ambitions. Third is the quality of the courses on offer at UNNC.

The data suggests that this hierarchy is widespread among the international student cohort and that it is only slightly affected by either the course of study selected or the country where the student did secondary schooling.

These results both support and contradict previous studies that found international students in the United Kingdom ranked the quality of the education on offer as the most important criterion in their decision-making processes that led to them studying overseas.

This study tends to suggest the emphasis lies on the United Kingdom part rather than the quality part. However, previously the population was mainly Asian students – principally from China and India – whereas the current study has a population mainly drawn from English, Russian and Indonesian students.

Further studies that consider the decision-making patterns of Chinese students who enrol at UNNC may move the results closer to those found in other studies.

Any such study must be very circumspect in suggesting that its conclusions are more widely applicable than this particular instance.

As well as bearing in mind that the data was generated by responses to a survey that were post hoc recollections after varying time periods, each joint venture institution has an individual and distinct agreement with the government of the province in which it is located, and as such will have varying operational practices.

As an example, in this instance the University of Nottingham Ningbo China has particular relationships with its ‘home’ campus in the United Kingdom; with Zhejiang Wanli University, its Chinese partner institution; and with the Ningbo Education Board. Each places varying demands and expectations on UNNC, which in turn gives it a unique and distinct character.

Currently the numbers are small, but nonetheless such statistics, spin and puffery are the basis for the mutually beneficial relationship with the Ningbo Education Board – a relationship that itself is an area for further research and analysis.

* Andrys Onsman is an associate professor at the Centre for Studies in Higher Education-ABP at the University of Melbourne. He published a full article on his findings in the current edition of The Australian Universities’ Review, volume 55, number 2.

CHINA: Suicides raise concerns at universities

Mimi Leung23 October 2013 Issue No:293

China’s universities are becoming increasingly concerned about preventing student suicides as the job market for graduates tightens and students run out of hope for the future.

Shenzhen University in southern China pledged this week to introduce “the necessary measures” to prevent student suicides after a final-year finance student jumped to his death from the 15th floor of his student accommodation building on 21 October.

The university said the measures would include psychological counselling for students.

Just a day later, on 22 October, Guangzhou Daily reported on its microblog site that a female student had jumped off a Guangzhou University campus building.

China’s Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that suicide has become the top cause of death among young people aged 15 to 34 years. The medical profession has noted that the prime cause is education stress.

One of the leading factors, according to Chinese researchers – and acknowledged by the Ministry of Education – is the difficult job market for graduates.

This is coupled with the huge sacrifices made by families, particularly those from rural areas, to fund higher education for their children, which fuels deep shame when students feel they are not living up to expectations by securing high marks or a good graduate job.

Guangzhou medical researchers also reported that many Chinese students were overprotected by their parents, making it difficult for them to cope when leaving home to attend university.

With suicide still carrying a social stigma in China, it is difficult for students to seek help. But parents have also severely criticised universities.

The role and responses of universities was the focus of attention last month when it came to light that a university in Guangdong province – City College of Dongguan University of Technology – had asked new students to sign a suicide disclaimer.

More than 5,000 new students at the university signed the ‘contract’ stating that students bore “all responsibility” and “all consequences” if they committed suicide or injured themselves on campus while they were attending the university, according to local media reports.

University officials described it as a “dormitory code of conduct” and a “self-discipline agreement”. But the news report caused a storm on China’s microblogging site Sina Weibo, with parents slamming the university for abdicating in its duty to take care of students.

Psychologist Chen Xuefeng said: "I doubt it really works. In fact, I’m concerned this waiver could make the matter worse. When students come into the university they cannot feel the school cares for them and schools just shirk their responsibility."

Previously, when Jinan Times reported that some 20,000 students at Shandong Jianzhu University in Jinan had to sign an agreement clearing the university of any responsibility for self-inflicted injuries and suicide, it prompted public accusations of a lack of sensitivity.

The university’s officials later claimed it was not compulsory to sign the document, which was in part copied from Ministry of Education guidelines issued in 2002 after universities saw a rise in legal disputes with parents over campus accidents.

Xiong Bingqi, deputy director of the 21st Century Education Research Institute, said in China Daily last month that it was “a simple and rough management measure” to ask students to sign suicide disclaimers.

He said universities should pay more attention to improving the living and study environments for students to prevent such cases.

INDONESIA: No stampede of foreign universities despite new laws

Ria Nurdiani and Yojana Sharma25 October 2013 Issue No:293

No foreign university has applied to operate in Indonesia despite laws passed last year that were designed to make it easier for foreign institutions to set up on a non-profit basis in collaboration with local universities.

Higher Education Director General Djoko Santoso confirmed that to date no foreign university was operating in Indonesia.

Although several unnamed foreign universities had met with the department, “not even a single proposal” had been received by the ministry, he said, despite reports that at least two Australian institutions had shown interest.

The issue of foreign branch campuses was the subject of hot debate during the passage of the controversial Higher Education Bill in July 2012.

Article 90 states that foreign universities can open a branch if the university is accredited and-or recognised in its home country, and has permission from the Indonesian government. Foreign institutions must be non-profit and collaborate with an Indonesian university, and are required to hire Indonesian lecturers and staff.

According to Djoko, foreign universities’ reluctance may be due to the non-profit provision. “Usually a foreign university who wants to come to Indonesia is seeking [to do it] for money, but since it is compulsory to be non-profit, they are discouraged,” Djoko told University World News.

If a foreign university accepts the non-profit provision and their operations in Indonesia generate profits, the money should be used to develop the branch, he said.

Collaborative approach

Australia’s Monash University was tipped to be one of the first to set up a branch campus in Indonesia.

But Eugene Sebastian, director of global engagement in the vice-chancellor’s office at Monash, who was in Jakarta last week, told University World News: “No physical presence is planned for Indonesia.

“In a restrictive regulatory environment, more flexible, fluid, innovative and ‘win-win' partnership models are required,” he said. These included research partnerships and higher degree research training.

This model has been pursued by Monash University in India in the absence of laws on foreign branch campuses there. The Australian university has a collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, in the form of a joint doctoral training academy.

Sebastian said that rather than a branch campus, Monash’s focus in Indonesia would be on “strengthening existing institutional relationships” around specific themes of manufacturing innovation, education, primary health and sustainable development.

“These activities will now take place under the new Australian Centre for Indonesia Studies, which Monash will lead,” he said.

The new centre, based at Monash in Melbourne, will include the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University and Australia’s national scientific research organisation CSIRO, and has attracted substantial Australian government funding.

“A mirror centre is also planned for Indonesia. The centre will also draw the best Indonesian universities and connect both centres,” he said.

Uncertain environment

Such approaches are the result of an uncertain regulatory environment.

Despite the Indonesian bill’s passage last year, the government has still to determine the areas to allow foreign university participation, and the types of courses and disciplines they may offer.

Education Minister Mohammad Nuh was recently quoted in local media as saying that Indonesia would not follow the example set by Malaysia, which he claimed had allowed foreign universities to enter without preconditions.

“If we let foreign universities stand independently [in Indonesia], we will get stuck in an educational liberalisation. We will provide detailed rules through government regulation for any foreign institution that wants to enter our country,” he said.

In 2007 the ministry issued rules on foreign university operations in Indonesia under Ministerial Regulation No. 26, regarding cooperation between Indonesian and foreign universities. But it is more vague than the 2012 bill and has not been updated.

The 2007 regulation states that cooperation between an Indonesian and foreign university could be in the form of a management contract, or a new joint university could be established. However the regulation does not elaborate the terms of establishing a joint university. This condition was presented in the Higher Education Bill.

“If the Ministerial Regulation contradicts the Higher Education Bill, it cannot be used” as a basis for setting up a campus, said Djoko, adding that all regulations must refer to the bill.

But with no proposals received so far from foreign universities, Djoko sees no immediate need to align the ministerial regulation with the bill. “I don’t think it is urgent,” said Djoko, who is a former rector of Bandung Institute of Technology.

Friday 25 October 2013

Cambodian Spring:Can the opposition guide a popular protest movement?

Source: The Wall Street Journal (24/10/2013)

The Cambodia National Rescue Party faces a difficult decision. In the July 28 election, the opposition party won nearly half the seats in parliament in an election rampant with allegations of fraud. Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has ruled for nearly 30 years, offered a deal in which the CNRP ends a boycott of parliament in return for some positions of influence. In effect that would mean giving up demands for an independent investigation of the election and recognizing Hun Sen's legitimacy. Should the opposition lawmakers compromise or stay on the streets?

Their choice may depend on the turnout at a three-day demonstration underway in Phnom Penh. The election marked a sea change in Cambodian politics, as voters overcame their trepidation that the ruling Cambodian People's Party would take reprisals against dissenters. Once the culture of fear was broken, public demands for change and the removal of Hun Sen came into the open. They have grown stronger by the day.

There's one highly visible indicator of the transition: Before the election, few opposition supporters dared display CNRP materials. Now regime loyalists are nervously taking down their posters.

All this has some in Phnom Penh starting to think that the CPP might jettison strongman Hun Sen in order to save itself. The city administration initially refused permission for the opposition to march around the city to present petitions at various embassies, but then the Interior Ministry, led by the head of a rival CPP faction, allowed it to proceed.

Enlarge Image

Leader of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) Sam Rainsy (L) and a Buddhist monk (R) raise their hands during a demonstration at the Democracy Park in Phnom Penh on October 24.. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Meanwhile, the CNRP has little control over the tiger it is riding. Cambodia's population is so young that not only were most born after the Khmer Rouge, many don't remember CNRP leader Sam Rainsy's ineffectual opposition in the 2000s before he was forced into exile. That worked to the CNRP's benefit when Hun Sen allowed Mr. Rainsy to return days before the election. But it also means the opposition may not be able to strike a deal with the CPP because the protest movement would then turn against it.

That raises the specter of a repeat of post-Arab Spring chaos if a compromise can't be found. Unfortunately Mr. Rainsy hasn't shown the kind of statesmanship that would be required to forge a new consensus. For instance, he has consistently stoked populist resentments against Vietnamese living in Cambodia as a way to undermine the government.

The CNRP's appeals to the United Nations and foreign governments not to recognize the results of the election also suggest that Mr. Rainsy has yet to understand that Cambodia's future hinges on whether he or others can inspire domestic activism. In the past, Hun Sen's greatest strength has been his control over the country's resources, from the forests to the civil service, which he allocated to supporters as the spoils of office. Public revulsion has now turned that control into his greatest weakness, but Cambodians don't have a clear understanding of the alternative.

If the opposition can use its time on the streets to educate the public on the reforms needed to change Cambodia's system, it could take the helm of the protest movement. Otherwise the CNRP lawmakers might as well take what the CPP has offered and let the Facebook FB +1.05% generation cultivate its own leaders.

Historic Peace Agreement No Cure for Cambodia’s Current Woes

By Colin Meyn - October 24, 2013

Tens of thousands of opposition supporters marched through the streets of Phnom Penh on Wednesday with banners calling on the signatories of the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement to revisit the accords, which were supposed to usher in a liberal, pluralist democracy in Cambodia.

Since July’s disputed election, the CNRP has turned outward for support and called for intervention from the U.N. and signatory countries on the grounds that their work is not yet done, and Cambodia is far from being the democracy that was once hoped for.

–News Analysis

That strategy, however, is unlikely to rally the international community into action.

Cambodia’s place in geopolitics has shifted significantly since the signing of the agreement 22 years ago Wednesday, said John Ciorciari, a Cambodia expert at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy.

“The Agreement’s main relevance is that it reminds key signatories of the vision they held out for Cambodia in the 1990s—a vision that sits uncomfortably beside current political realities in the country,” Mr. Ciorciari said.

“The Paris Peace Agreement was largely a way to disentangle the major regional powers from the Cambodia conflict as the Cold War thawed in Southeast Asia. In that sense, the Agreement worked well,” he said. “Yet the rapid international pullback from Cambodia after the 1993 elections shows that to most signatories, the Agreement was more a way to get out of Cambodia than to stay deeply involved.”

Article 25 of the Paris Agreement states: “The Signatories shall, in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation, resolve through peaceful means any disputes with respect to the implementation of this Agreement.”

However, in the current post-election dispute between long-ruling Prime Minister Hun Sen and the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party, the international community has been largely silent and, apart from the U.S., Japan and a number of European countries, foreign embassies have mostly endorsed Mr. Hun Sen’s new government.

Surya Subedi, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for human rights in Cambodia, said that the international community is still compelled by the Agreement to ensure that its promises are fulfilled. Mr. Subedi’s own position, which is meant to inform the international community of the government’s progress in carrying out its human rights responsibilities, was among the Signatories lasting commitments to Cambodia, he said.

The Paris Peace Agreement “was meant to last until the state institutions created under the new constitution were able to operate in accordance with the principles of plural liberal democracy, including the doctrine of separation of powers, judicial independence, the rule of law (not necessarily rule by law) and the ability of parliament to hold the executive to account and the National Election Committee to hold free, fair and peaceful elections,” Mr. Subedi said in an email.

By any independent measure, few of those standards have been met in the 22 years since the agreement was signed.

Carlyle Thayer, a Southeast Asia expert at the Australia Defense Force Academy, said the present state of global politics, in which the U.N. Security Council cannot even come to a consensus over whether to intervene in Syria, means that calls for help in Cambodia are wildly unrealistic.

“The permanent 5 [members of the Council] would never cooperate on behalf of Sam Rainsy or others [in Cambodia], because one side or the other would veto,” he said, adding that the level of human rights abuses in Cambodia today also placed it fairly low down on the list of international priorities for the U.N.

“It’s not that [Cambodia] isn’t important. It’s that the issues of electoral fraud being talked about don’t seem important compared to chemical weapons in Syria or extremists gaining ground in Libya and onwards,” he said.

CNRP president Sam Rainsy admits that Cambodia’s problems are relatively insignificant compared to other countries, but the country should not accept less than what was promised 22 years ago by the international community when it signed on to help Cambodia achieve a liberal democracy that protected human rights.

“I have been told so everywhere I went to. I have been told there are many other priorities; that Cambodia is not on their radar,” Mr. Rainsy said.

“But I think this is a matter of principal. Because we are in Cambodia, we cannot say this is good enough for Cambodia,” he said.

“A universal standard should apply to all countries in all circumstances. If you say that we don’t have time—‘this is good enough for Cambodia’—you get involved in a process that is further and further from the principles [the Paris Peace Agreement signatories] were meant to advocate,” he said.

“This kind of election would never be accepted in France and the U.S., why should it be accepted in Cambodia?”

Yoshihiro Higuchi, deputy head of mission at the Japanese Embassy, said that the role of international signatories under the Paris Peace Agreement was unclear, and that the CNRP has yet to explain exactly how it thinks foreign countries can help resolve the present political dispute.

“The question remains open whether the Agreement is direct or not, to what extent there is an obligation to abide by it and what signatories would have the obligation to do or not. So we are trying to figure out what the CNRP are thinking about,” Mr. Higuchi said.

“The Peace Agreement laid down the framework with which the Cambodian people elect their own government by fair and open elections in 1993. So this is the main purpose. Of course, the international community should accompany efforts by Cambodians, but now Cambodians should take the driver’s seat and the international community, including Japan, is accompanying their efforts,” he said.

Tuesday 15 October 2013

As Next CPP President, Hun Sen’s Power to Increase

By Kuch Naren and Colin Meyn - October 15, 2013

For the fifth time in the past 20 years, Chea Sim addressed the Cambodian People’s Party Congress in March as the party’s president, a position he has held since the party changed its name to the CPP in 1991.

In his speech, 80-year-old Mr. Sim assured the some 2,000 CPP members at the congress that their long-ruling party would again win the July national election with a landslide vote, and extend their power to 2018.

–News Analysis

“During the past five years, the CPP has continued to expand and strengthen its achievements in politics, people’s minds and in control,” Mr. Sim told the congress.

It turned out that Mr. Sim’s confidence in his party’s unstinting popularity was misplaced. The CPP did officially win the election, but the party lost 22 seats in parliament to the fledgling opposition CNRP.

Despite calls for an investigation of the July vote, the CPP has pushed ahead with forming a government, which was voted in by only 68 CPP members of parliament in the National Assembly. The CNRP’s 55 lawmakers-elect boycotted the inaugural session of parliament, and are rallying support at home and abroad for their view that the new government is unconstitutional.

Though the elderly, and quite often ailing, Mr. Sim is the CPP’s supreme leader, one can hardly blame him for his party’s worst election result since 1998. The CPP’s election campaign was firmly in the hands of Prime Minister Hun Sen, whose cult of personality and personal power defines the very fabric of the party regardless of those with more senior titles.

Alongside the time-tested posters of the CPP’s leadership triumvirate—Mr. Hun Sen, Mr. Sim, and CPP National Assembly President Heng Samrin—thousands of new posters featuring a solo Hun Sen were rolled out across the country during the election campaign season.

The ruling party’s pre-election mantra also focused on the prime minister: “If you love Hun Sen, vote for the CPP.”

Now, despite the prime minister delivering a poor election result for the CPP, Mr. Hun Sen’s position within the ruling party is set to elevate when the thorny subject of a new president of the CPP becomes an issue.

“Samdech Hun Sen is the future for the CPP presidency position if Samdech Chea Sim resigns or stops from his position for any reason,” CPP lawmaker and spokesman Cheam Yeap said last week.

While, Mr. Sim is still strong enough to lead the party despite his occasional bouts of ill health, Mr. Yeap said Mr. Hun Sen is also ready to step in, and has received the support of the CPP’s 34-member standing committee, of which Mr. Yeap is a member.

“Samdech Hun Sen is already in the position as the deputy leader of the party, and no others in the party can compare with his capacity and experience in leading the party,” Mr. Yeap said.

Nguon Nhil, a CPP standing committee member and the first deputy president of the National Assembly, said that as long as Mr. Sim remained the party’s president, the official decision to name his successor would not be made.

“Samdech [Chea Sim] remains alive so it’s not proper to reveal who will be the next party’s president. But the party is already preparing who will be the next [president],” Mr. Nhil said.

Chheang Vun, a CPP lawmaker and spokesman for the National Assembly, as well as Phay Siphan, a CPP secretary of state and spokesman for the Council of Ministers, said they were not aware of future plans for the CPP presidency, and Yim Leang, deputy chief of Mr. Sim’s cabinet, declined to comment.

“I don’t know about this because it is the internal affairs of the party,” said Mr. Vun. “If Mr. Cheam Yeap has said so, he may know.”

Bou Thang, a CPP-appointed senator and member of the CPP’s standing committee, likewise said the successor to Mr. Sim was the internal affair of the party.

“Why do you want to know?” Mr. Thang said, before hanging up on a reporter.

While Mr. Hun Sen may be feeling the pressure after the surprise July election, his leadership credentials are still formidable. He oversaw, since his promotion to prime minister in 1985, the creation of a political machine that controls every state institution and maintains the loyalty of more than 95 percent of the country’s 1,633 commune chiefs.

“Hun Sen is, in terms of effectiveness and achievement for the party, much better than Chea Sim,” said independent political analyst Lao Mong Hay.

“And so far, I have seen no credible replacement,” Mr. Mong Hay said, adding that the prime minister has also succeeded in meeting the demands of a vast patronage network as he has consolidated his power.

“So far, the CPP has been able to accommodate all [of their patrons] when in power. It has been able to create public offices for them, and they have been contented, if not happy,” he said.

“The trend in the CPP is that the prime minister is very influential,” said Preap Kol, executive director of Transparency International Cambodia, adding that most of the standing committee members had won their posts by showing their loyalty to Mr. Hun Sen.

“Clearly the prime minister’s popularity has declined, but his power Still remains very solid within the party because of his alliance with the military and with the police forces. He has some family connections through marriage and all of that relationship building, so his power remains solid,” Mr. Kol added.

The CPP’s unity behind Mr. Hun Sen may give the party strength in the short-term, said Mr. Mong Hay, but concentrating power in one man carries inherent risks for the country. And while Mr. Hun Sen may retain the loyalty of powerbrokers within the party, this year’s election showed that many lower-level party “members” decided against casting their ballots for the CPP.

At the CPP congress in March, Finance Ministry Secretary of State Ouk Rabun boasted that the CPP had more than 5.9 million card-carrying party members in a population of about 9 million eligible voters.

Yet, the CPP received only about 3.2 million votes in July, meaning that self-professed ruling party members must have voted for the opposition.

“I think this 2013 vote proved that many members of CPP are not happy,” said Koul Panha, executive director of the Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia.

“If they don’t adopt a new version [of governance], the health of the party [will decline] and they will face a lot of risks,” Mr. Panha said.

“They should learn how to remain a healthy political party and create a new democratic structure—sharing of power, no fixed leadership—even communist parties in China and Vietnam do this,” he said.

“I think the CPP should look to modernize their party,” Mr. Panha said, adding, however, that in the immediate post-election period, the CPP government has “proceeded with classic or traditional behavior.”

While the CPP may have decided that Mr. Hun Sen remains their best chance to retain power, it is likely that he will have to change his leadership style in order to retain support from inside the party, said Carlyle Thayer, a Southeast Asia expert at the Australian Defense Force Academy.

“Party members will place a premium on preserving the CPP’s hold on power in the face of challenges by Sam Rainsy and the opposition. But, at the same time, party members will be giving Hun Sen close scrutiny,” he said.

“If Hun Sen in his new role as party chief [when he becomes president] disregards constructive criticism within the CPP, and concern mounts about the CPP’s future political future, we could see destabilizing in-fighting,” he added.

“But for the moment Hun Sen appears in an unassailable position in the near term.”

(Additional reporting by Hul Reaksmey)