The International Agenda of Indonesia’s Higher Education

We are heralded as the golden generation, prepared to compete in the free market and trained to serve international companies. Without the necessary ideology, we are scattered into a forgetful multitude, plummeting into the collapse of the world. 

The sidewalks are bustling. Filled to the brim with a crowd that comes from the local area and the farthest edges of Europe to the remotest regions of Indonesia. In the heart of the city’s academics, they compete against time instead of uniting. Their goals are the same: being high-caliber individuals in an internationally renowned university. 

Foreign students are not the only ones who come hawking here. International-based classes, international exchange programs, foreign lecturers, international research collaborations, and even the minuscule problems of various global engagements are all presented here. However, who would have thought all this was a part of a regime’s pettiness? The jargon of internationalization does not stand alone, but with the help of its closest companion, neoliberalism. 

It all began when the World Trade Organization (WTO) was first built, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) successor. GATT was an international trade organization formed by 23 countries in October 1947 after World War II ended. It was formed to help expand international trade efforts by reducing or eliminating tariffs and non-tariffs among its member countries. In 1955, GATT evolved into the WTO. The goal remained the same, but the scope expanded to a broader reach. 

The formation of WTO also marked the liberalization of progressive trade agenda in the global commodity, encompassing  goods and services sector. While trading goods is ruled by GATT, trading services are ruled through the General Agreement on Trade in Service (GATS) which was introduced in 1995. GATS secured twelve areas of services, including education, telecommunications, health, and environment. 

With all this WTO hedging, the Indonesian government has become a WTO member since 1995 and has ratified the WTO agreement through Law no. 7/1994 on Legitimizing the Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization. Thereby committing to trade regulations covering goods, services, and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). As a result, GATS and its other derivatives are adopted and legitimized by Indonesia (Effendi 2005). 

GATS Commodification in Education

The education services commodity was officially listed as part of GATS’ trade agenda during the Doha Round in 2001. In this meeting, at least, there were four education services that were agreed to be a commodity; (1) primary education services, (2) secondary education services, (3) higher education services, and (4) adult education services and others. 

These educational services are capitalized through four capitalist-based motives. First, cross border supply. This motive covers long-distance learning or popularly known as e-learning and online courses that do not require physical mobility from the student and the service provider. Second, consumption abroad by obligating the student to move to the service provider’s country. This motive is seen in student exchange programs or scholarships abroad. Third is commercial presence where the education service provider builds a facility in other countries, like university branches and other supporting educational institutions. Fourth, the presence of natural persons. This motive covers the presence of an expert, including independent scholars and researchers that provide education services to other countries. These motives become the benchmark for trading higher education services (Altbach and Knight 2007).

Hereafter, the GATS commitment proposal in the higher education sector was submitted in 2001 by Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This aligns with their strategy to restructure the public sectors and expand into the Asian market (Ziguras 2003). 

As time went on, the educational service trade rapidly became a major industry, to the point where the countries’ leading proponents of educational commercialization intensified their global expansion, advocating for the privatization of public universities in target countries. For example, the United States of America. Education services there ranked as the sixth-largest export industry in 2018/2019, valued at $44.04 billion (BEA 2023). The same goes for England’s education exports reached  £21,4 billion in 2017, marking a 34,7% increase from 2010 (UK Department of Education 2019). 

A wide array of internationalization narratives and cultural diversity campaigns are used to promote these agendas. However, the intentions behind them are proven to be primarily economically driven (Altbach and Knight 2007). 

Therefore, it does not take long for Indonesia to adopt it. Indonesia formally committed to educational liberalization in April 2005 through the Schedule of Specific Service Commitment towards education service offered by GATS.  Various laws  and ministerial regulations quickly worked on fulfilling this commitment. One of which, Law number 9/2009 on Educational Legal Entities (UU BHP), opens the doors for commercialization and autonomy rights for higher education. Although later annulled by  the Constitutional Court, the fundamental element of educational commercialization persisted in Law number 12/2010 on Higher Education (Susilo 2021; Nalle 2011). 

Moreover, the publication of this law was also followed by Ministerial Regulation number 59/2012 on the National Accreditation Agency, signaling the stabilization of educational liberalization. Several universities were designated as the pilot project for this new liberal education policy. Those institutions that become the first generation of Indonesia’s State University of the Legal Agency (PTN-BH) are UGM, UI, IPB, and ITB (Susilo 2021).

UGM’s Strategy in the International Stage 

So what exactly is the correlation between the internationalization program and the current condition of universities? With Indonesia officially embracing GATS’ higher education services program, universities are expected to align with and expand the internationalization program. Starting from forming the institutional autonomy to privatization and curricular reorientation in order to achieve international accreditation (Susilo 2021; Nalle 2011). 

Currently, the international regime has successfully chained universities into mobilizing their education towards an international approach. At least, programs like international classes or institutional visions and missions in UGM are leaning towards the far-right international wing. 

UGM, for instance, actively pursued internationalization. The UGM’s 2022–2027 strategic plan states, 

“The Tridharma* regulations for the 2022-2027 period are directed towards establishing UGM as a world-class university that is excellent, innovative, inclusive, and socially accountable” (UGM Strategic Plan–Renstra–2022-2027, p. 14).”

Higher education revolves around the hegemony of internationalization. In fact, UGM’s strategic plan also mobilizes the Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi concept in actualizing a world-class university. This internationalization trick is bombarded throughout all aspects of higher education. 

The International Classes as Education Commodity

As per 2011 up until 2023, UGM has increased its total of International Undergraduate Program (IUP) classes gradually each year to 16 programs. The program is described as a prestigious track, mandated to gain international exposure whilst pursuing their studies. The program selections are conducted separately from the regular admissions, the national selection, and independent test. The tuition fees charged to IUP students for each semester are also different from the cross-subsidization method given to regular students. 

For example, the regular Management study program has a selectivity level of 1,5% through the national selection in 2022, while the IUP track has a selectivity level of 16,7%. Furthermore, the average cost for each international study program is also extravagant, specifically as much as IDR 30 million that is applied to each IUP student. 

The Regulations for UGM’s IUP classes reflect two things. First, UGM takes the concrete steps to widen potential  entry into higher education for those who can afford the tuition fees. Through this scheme, students are given the role to be consumers of a globally oriented education. Second, the requirement for international exposure within the IUP track signifies UGM’s step towards raising the global ranking. The number of faculties with international programs are one of the grading criterias listed from the global-based ranking system. Therefore, IUP students are commodified by UGM to increase the university’s status in the eyes of the international public, such as the QS World Rankings. 

From International Research 

UGM’s rector, Ova Emilia, has conveyed UGM’s commitment to boost downstream research that are protected with output for intellectual enrichment, like industrial patent and design. She emphasizes that industrial patents and design will have an impact on the country’s current economic condition. In a publication in October 2022, UGM reported that the trend for requesting and obtaining UGM patents increased. 

The commitment to patenize research products is useful for the academic and the industrial environment. Financial contributions from industries can shape the  agenda and prioritize research in accordance with the direction of their own self interest (Jasanoff 2004). This is why patenization can further commercialize and transform science to become a commodity that can be owned, sold, and monetized for profit. 

The efforts to privatize science can potentially create a huge conflict of interest among academic and industrial environments. When experts participate in the industrial level of decision making, then the usage of their patenization will submit to the dynamics and controversy of power by the capitalistic system (Jasanoff 2004). The friction between which is more urgent and which is more valuable for the public will always happen. Therefore, when economic growth is thought to be a priority in order to fulfill public welfare, industrial interests are most likely to win over the academic interests. 

From MBKM Programs to Foreign University Scholarships 

Since the beginning of 2020, the central government has published a program for all Indonesian students, which is called the Merdeka Belajar (Independent Study) program. At the higher education level, this program is more popularly called as Merdeka Belajar Kampus Merdeka (Independent Study Independent Campus). In order to enforce it, IDR 4,57 trillion was allocated for this program in 2023 alone. From nine Kampus Merdeka programs, there is one program that is specialized to mobilize international students. This program is called the Indonesian International Student Mobility Awards (IISMA) (PUSLAPDIK Kemendikbudristek 2023). 

Students welcomed this program with open arms. From hundreds that applied in 2022, 175 students from UGM were selected to participate in the IISMA program. The reason behind the IISMA program is to widen the reach of the internationalization program. However, IISMA does not have firsthand contribution to the people or to develop sciences. Because of course, the goal is developing an individual’s capability (LLDIKTI 2023). There is no obligation for the students that have departed for the program to return and share their knowledge according to the populist beliefs. 

The International Stage is not at Fault 

The great fanfare of internationalization is perceived as harmless, and it is even said to be useful. However, this practice actually only socially gravitates towards a certain class. The meaning of egalitarian in education is then extinguished because education is only considered the best if it is on an international-scale. Collective matters are then redacted (Collings 2007). The battle from getting into international classes to taking part in international exchange are done individually. 

There is actually an alternative from this dull international life. Take a look at the Carribean Islands for a moment, and observe a communist country that has been outcast by the world for years, but is able to maintain the quality of their education and health just fine. That country is Cuba (Hickling-Hudson, González, and Preston 2012). 

Cuba based their educational programs with a principle of solidarity. This principle is expressed through the three Cuban method pillars: mass programs, high quality programs, and inexpensive programs. This principle is also based on their experience with the Soviet Union that helped Cuba in developing their own education system. The Soviet Union at the time was nothing short but moved by the motivation to bring thousands of young Cubans to Eastern Europe in order to pursue their education during the early decades of the 1959 Cuban revolution (Hickling-Hudson, González, and Preston 2012). 

Through this principle, Cuba has successfully garnered high participation for education. Literacy issues have been resolved with 99% of its people being literate, for both men and women. Furthermore, in 2022, 53,4% of Cuba’s national parliament chairs are held by women. Not only that, but the Cuban government also makes sure schools are available for its people in urban or rural areas to avoid excessive migration to cities. Around 725,000 people from a total of 11,000,000 of its population living in mountainous areas have guaranteed access to education. All of this is possible because of Cuba’s huge spendings on education, around 10% of its GDP which is considerably large even compared to developed countries (Gasperini 2000; PEHRC 2023).

After successfully fixing its education quality on a national landscape, Cuba does not hesitate to create international education programs. The goal is to increase inclusive education whilst also tightening the multilateral relationship with the Global South. Cuba realizes that the economical and political threat from the Global North can be dealt with by maximizing the quality of their people. Therefore, the internationalization education project is directed to freeing themselves from the Global North (Hickling-Hudson, González, and Preston 2012). Indonesia should do the same. Instead of herding investments in droves to mobilize international students and concerns about global rankings, national education issues should be addressed first. 

Apart from the economical situation being messed up by the West for years on end, Cuba has given wide support and training to foreign universities. Cuba has accepted more than 55,000 international students from 148 different countries. Full scholarships are also granted to international students from 1961 to 2008 (Hickling-Hudson, González, and Preston 2012).

In 2009, it is estimated that about 50,000 international students graduated from Cuban universities. The students came from over 120 countries and studied with a full scholarship in Cuba. In fact, between 1973 and 1985, 22,000 Cuban teachers were sent to work in foreign countries (Hickling-Hudson, González, and Preston 2012). 

Even if the education system is said to be successful and excellent in accordance with UNESCO’s list of requirements, Cuba still makes the list. And of course, without needing to commercialize it. In the 2005 Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report, Cuba is proven to have balanced good quality education with other developed countries. From 11 countries that have shown their strong commitments towards the EFA: Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, South Korea, Senegal, South Africa, and Sri Lanka; only four of them have reached the standards for high quality education. The qualities include: (1) education participation; (2) excellent teachings; (3) curriculum; (4) infrastructure; (5) evaluation; (6) excellent education; (7) student and teacher welfare; (8) resource efficiency; (9) student study results. The four countries are Canada, Cuba, Finland, and South Korea. Cuba is the only country in the list that is categorized as a low-middle income country, whilst the other three are high income countries. 

At the end of the day, 

Through the principles of neoliberalization, the internationalization of higher education is reduced to being a sector to accumulate capital. Education services are being traded with liberal principles. The demand and supply becomes the main manipulation key. They (read: higher education) have the capital supply power, which of course would last longer than this controversy. 

In fact, students are sacrificed. It is not impossible for the price of education to continue to skyrocket, even though it is currently already too much. When it is already like this, education is just another extractive industry. It is indeed an overflow of advantages, but who are those advantages for? 

Author: Refina Anjani Puspita and Vigo Joshua
Editor: Albertus Arioseto
Illustrator: Parama Bisatya
Translator: Raissa Seravina

Translator notes:
*concept to guideline the duty and functions of Indonesia’s higher education institution

 

Bibliography

Altbach, Philip G., and Jane and Knight. 2007. “The Internationalization of Higher Education: Motivations and Realities.” Journal of Studies in International Education 11:290. doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303542.

BEA. 2023. “BEA Interactive Data Application.” BEA Interactive Data Application. https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/?reqid=62&step=9&isuri=1&product=4#eyJhcHBpZCI6NjIsInN0ZXBzIjpbMSw5LDZdLCJkYXRhIjpbWyJwcm9kdWN0IiwiNCJdLFsiVGFibGVMaXN0IiwiMjQ1Il1dfQ==.

Collins, Christopher. 2007. “A General Agreement on Higher Education: GATS, globalization, and imperialism.” Research in Comparative and International Education 2 (4). https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2007.2.4.283.

Effendi, Sofian. 2005. GATS dan Liberalisasi Pendidikan, BEM KM UGM Topic Discussion.

Gasperini, Lavinia. 2000. “The Cuban Education System: Lessons and Dilemmas.” Country Studies Education Reform and Management Publication Series 1, no. 5 (Juli).

Hickling-Hudson, A., J. González, and R. Preston, eds. 2012. The Capacity to Share: A Study of Cuba’s International Cooperation in Educational Development. Palgrave Macmillan US.

Intan, Kenia. 2023. “10 Jurusan UGM yang Paling Populer di Tahun 2022.” Mojok.co. https://mojok.co/kilas/pendidikan/10-jurusan-ugm-yang-paling-populer-di-tahun-2022/.

Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. N.p.: Taylor & Francis.

LLDIKTI. 2023. “Sosialisasi Program Indonesian International Student Mobility Awards (IISMA) – LLDIKTI Wilayah XIII.” LLDIKTI Wilayah XIII. https://lldikti13.kemdikbud.go.id/2023/01/24/sosialisasi-program-indonesian-international-student-mobility-awards-iisma/.

Nalle, Victor. 2011. “Mengembalikan Tanggung Jawab Negara Dalam Pendidikan: Kritik Terhadap Liberalisasi Pendidikan Dalam UU Sisdiknas dan UU BHP.” Jurnal Konstitusi 8, no. 4 (Agustus). https://www.neliti.com/id/publications/111798/mengembalikan-tanggung-jawab-negara-dalam-pendidikan-kritik-terhadap-liberalisas.

PEHRC. 2023. “Education in Cuba: Quality and Equity in a Teacher-Based System.” PEHRC. https://www.educationbeforeprofit.org/education-in-cuba-quality-and-equity-in-a-teacher-based-system/.

PUSLAPDIK Kemendikbudristek. 2023. “Anggaran Kemendikbudristek Tahun 2023 Mencapai Rp80,22 triliun – Pusat Layanan Pembiayaan Pendidikan.” Puslapdik. https://puslapdik.kemdikbud.go.id/anggaran-kemendikbudristek-tahun-2023-mencapai-rp8022-triliun/.

Right to Education. 2005. “EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005: Education for All – The Quality Imperative.” Right to Education Initiative. https://www.right-to-education.org/resource/efa-global-monitoring-report-2005-education-all-%E2%80%93-quality-imperative.

Susilo, Joko. 2021. Neoliberalisasi Pendidikan Tinggi Restrukturalisasi Institusi dan Perlawanan Gerakan Mahasiswa Studi Pasca PTNBH 2012-2020. N.p.: Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2019. “Workshop Internasionalisasi, Memperkuat Ranking Institusi – FK-KMK UGM.” FK-KMK UGM. https://fkkmk.ugm.ac.id/workshop-internasionalisasi-memperkuat-ranking-institusi/.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2022. “Uang Kuliah Tunggal (UKT).” UM UGM. https://um.ugm.ac.id/uang-kuliah-tunggal-ukt-iup/.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2022. “Tren Permohonan dan Perolehan Paten UGM Meningkat.” Universitas Gadjah Mada. https://www.ugm.ac.id/id/berita/23078-tren-permohonan-dan-perolehan-paten-ugm-meningkat.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2023. “Deskripsi Program Internasional.” UM UGM. https://um.ugm.ac.id/deskripsi-program-internasional/.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2023. “Program Studi Program IUP.” UM UGM. https://um.ugm.ac.id/program-studi-program-iup/.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2023. “Selektivitas IUP.” UM UGM. https://um.ugm.ac.id/selektivitas-iup/.

Universitas Gadjah Mada. 2023. “UGM Komitmen Tingkatkan Produk Hasil Hilirisasi Dengan Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual.” Universitas Gadjah Mada. https://ugm.ac.id/id/berita/23539-ugm-komitmen-tingkatkan-produk-hasil-hilirisasi-dengan-perlindungan-kekayaan-intelektual.

WTO. 1994. “GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES.” GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TRADE IN SERVICES. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/SCHD/GATS-SC/SC43.pdf&Open=True.

Ziguras, Christopher. 2003. “The impact of the GATS on transnational tertiary education: Comparing experiences of New Zealand, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.” The Australian Educational Researcher volume 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03216799.