International: What Confusion?
An old Indian movie portrayed the hero who is the son of a local estate owner in a remote country-side as going to the west for his studies. When he came back, he spoke in a western slang and his habits were western. He was walking around his house in socks and shoes while everybody else walked barefooted. He addressed his father by his first name.
When relatives and friends asked about the peculiarities of his son, the father replied, “my son is not peculiar, he is following International standards which you and I in the village must try to understand and adjust.”
Internationality to this loving and ignorant Asian father meant that he had accepted what the easterners would consider as bad habits and manners. The spoiled son, who lived from birth until the age of twenty-five in the village with all its customs and habits, preferred to practice his foreign habits that he picked-up in his three years of study even if it insults his father and his community.
It was beneath his international image to show cultural maturity. Does being International permit the insulting of another culture?
What is International?
I come from a family that I would consider as a little United Nations. We have Chinese, Malays, Indians, Australian, British, Babas, Sabahans, and Sarawakians. I live in the nation of Malaysia which multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious. Inter-marriages are common and I would consider Malaysia as representing an International image. As a person who did his graduate studies in Assumption University, Thailand with almost 71 nationalities in its student population, I understand internationality well.
I use to sit in classes which if all my classmates spoke at the same time in their native languages, it would be Babel.
But today, I still have not lost my cultural inheritance while understanding the true meaning of being international. I am proud of my family, my nation and my culture. But I am also proud to know that I am a part of an International family in terms of all mankind. I believe that being international does not necessitate the loss of one’s identity, culture, language, habits and dignity. It does not require one to put on an artificial western accent or be ashamed of one’s skin-tone. Because internationality is not just western or Caucasian. It is an acceptance of all nationalities, all cultures, all languages and all religions. It is a mindset of acceptance of global perspectives and values. It is about tolerance and the practice of giving and taking for mutual benefit. A proper understanding of what is International would help in understanding International Standards of Education.
International Standards of Education
One area in which international standards have been totally confused is in education. To most ignorant or prejudiced persons, an International standard of education is only found in the west. Another myth of world-class proportion!
If you tell me that western standard of education is found only in the west, I will agree with you partially. But only ignorant fools will continue to believe and propagate the doctrine that International Standards of Education is found only in the west. No wonder, the western universities are able to continue to pay fat salaries to theirs professors. The average Asian middle-class family has to struggle to make-ends-meet to pay for tuition in high foreign currencies, so that their children can get an International standard of education which is really a western education. And employers in Asia think that they are getting a work-force of international standards when they hire someone from a western college or university. So the myth travels in a vicious cycle and in the process creates financial burdens for parents, nationality discriminations in work places (especially international educational institutions), a higher cost in terms of wages for the employers etc. It also continues to reinforce long standing deceptive myth which should have disappeared with the medieval era.
Why studying in western educational institutions cannot be equated with International standard of education. The two plain reasons are:
1. Western educational institutions alone are not representative of International standards. As I have already mentioned, internationality requires a global representation and perspective. It is illogical and foolish to equate Caucasians and Western Nations to Internationality. It is like saying the United Nations should be only be made up of Caucasian and Western Nations.
2. In 1494, Portugal and Spain signed the treaty of Tordesilla to divide all the lands outside of Europe within a certain demarcations between themselves. It led to untold miseries for many nations because of the colonization activities of these two nations. Yet at that time, there were no nation among the nations they colonized who could politically or militarily stand-up to these greedy nations.
Unlike the time in 1494, Asian countries are no more “the uncivilized nations” as these former colonial masters once considered the people outside their sphere of habitation. Asians are no more the weak people whom they can conquer intellectually or educationally without resistance.
Asians have the resources, infrastructure, trained personnel, the content and the will to establish and maintain world-class International colleges and universities which is now a reality. In Malaysia, we have many International Standard Colleges and Universities with foreign students from all over world attending them. The same goes to Thailand and other Asian countries. International standard of education cannot be equated only with the western education or Caucasian colleges and universities.
International Professional Associations
One of the deceptive intellectual and educational colonization strategies that are being employed by certain western professional associations is to push for their standards to be used as International standards. These are done through paid membership, procedures for set-up and operations in return for so called “international standards certification.” When one Asian entity does it, many join the band-wagon just to be recognized as “International.” What the Asian entities don’t realize is that just like education, International Standards can be established by any Asian entity if they want to without having to be a professional slave to a western standard which is being sold as an International standard. Just like education, an International Standard is not necessarily a western standard.
Currently, the push for the western standards to dominate the International standards especially in Asia is so aggressive that it has led to much confusion. The following is an exemplary scenario of how the confusion takes place.
Take the subject of Psychology as an example. Historically speaking, the origin of Psychology dates back to the Ancient Greeks. However, Psychology as a science developed in Germany in 1879. The contributors to the field of Psychology have been from many nationalities that includes Greeks, Arabs, Germans, British, and French. If we were to include the present day research contributors, it would include almost the entire known nationalities of this world.
The other important matter to note about Psychology is that many of the past contributors to Psychology were Philosophers. Also, Psychology has drawn its content from materials that belong to Philosophy, Sociology, Law, Ethics, Physiology, Neuroscience and Politics. If that is so, how is a local Psychological association of a country going to develop local and International standards for Psychology. This is where the confusion begins.
Take the scenario of two students studying psychology, Mr. “A” studies in a local university called “LU” while Ms. “B” studies in a foreign university called “FU.” When both graduate, Mr. “A” is given an automatic approval for membership by the local Psychological Association called “LPA” because he studied in “LU.”
Ms. “B’s” application for membership required her to prove the credibility of her university, curriculum, program, internship and qualification as being acceptable to “LPA.” The reason given is that “LPA” is fully informed about the credibility of “LU” as it is approved by the higher educational ministry of the State.
Ms. “B’s” university is approved, accredited and registered with the higher education ministry of the foreign State. Interestingly, both the local and the foreign States have bi-lateral ties. So if “LPA” rejects Ms. “B’s” qualification earned in “FU” that is recognized by the higher education ministry of that foreign state, what would be reaction of the government of the foreign state. Let’s say that in retaliation, the foreign state decides to disapprove the universities of Mr. “A’s” State, how are these two States going to develop international standards and cooperation when they cannot even accept and recognize each others’ bilateral educational standards.
In order for the higher education ministry of each respective country to accept any local educational institutions within their state; it would require careful and rigorous appraisals according to state-set educational standards before they are registered as an accredited educational body. So for a foreign association like “LPA” to reject another State recognized university like “FU”, is a direct insult to the educational system especially in their bi-lateral State relationship. It is like saying, let’s be partners but I don’t recognize your educational system as credible and equal to mine. If both don’t recognize each other’s educational systems, the bi-lateral State relationship have a defect. All the businesses, entities and individuals in both countries that have inter-educational dealings are going to suffer.
Now, this is a classic scenario of the problems that can arise from educational protectionist policies and practices. It can even impede educational bi-lateral relationship between two states. Any wise statesman wouldn’t allow educational protectionist policies and practices to impede their healthy bi-lateral political relationship. All abbreviations used below are fictional and is not meant to represent any existing entity.
Let’s take the above scenario further. Mr. A decides to further his post-graduate studies in another foreign state in a university called “PGS.” The university informs him that “LPA” and its standards do not meet the standards of “IPA” which is the professional Psychological Association whose standards is upheld by “PGS”.
So Mr. A tries to enroll in another University “AFU” of a different country where the jurisdiction “IPA” does not apply. “AFU” has its own International Psychological Association called “IPAAFU” He finishes his post-graduate studies in “AFU” and returns to his country.
When he tries to take membership on a Doctoral level in “LPA”, he gets a shock when “LPA” rejects his international post-graduate qualifications. According to “LPA,” they follow “IPA” standards for post-graduate studies. But when Mr. A points out that “IPA” had rejected “LPA” in his application to “PGS” university, “LPA” says that they in the process of meeting the requirements of “IPA” and therefore still only recognize “IPA” as the international standard for post-graduate studies membership. Further, the local universities also follow the “IPA” standards and not the “IPAAFU” standards.
Ms. B decides to continue her post-graduate studies in “PGS” university which readily accepts her enrollment as her graduate studies in “FU” university follows the International standards set by “IPA.” So when she finishes her studies, she decides not to return to home to work because “LPA” do not recognizes her post-graduate studies, as they did not recognize her graduate studies even though “LPA” recognizes “IPA” International standards.
This scenario demonstrates the kind of confusion that is created by protectionist standards that are not properly designed, thought-through and regulated with a global perspective in mind.
The confusion arises when States favor International Educational Associations according to political links and relationships. It becomes worst when private professional associations do not work together with State authorities to streamline their so-called “International Standards.” It really becomes a mess when so called “International Associations” of different nations compete with each other to push their individual brand of International Standards.
What confusion?