The name Amitav Acharya needs little introduction to those who are involved with the study of contemporary international relations in Asia. His work on Asian regionalism and particularly that which engages with Southeast Asia and ASEAN brought him initial fame, while his research on international institutions and security arrangements has seen him become even better-known. His long-time penchant for the study of non-Western modes of international relations has, however, always assumed a high prominence in his work, and this has, in recent years, been manifested in various studies including a book of the Bandung Conference and its significance for illuminating international relations in Cold War Asia. While engaging with Aaron Friedberg's thesis which held that Asia is “ripe for rivalry,” he has also been questioning why there is an absence of non-Western international relations theory. Debates with scholars such as David Kang on the nature of Asian international relation through time, have seen Acharya, among others, exploring how we might portray the interstate and inter-cultural relations of Asia, past and present. These and other conversations led to a 2011 conference at the University of Southern California, to investigate “Was there an historical East Asian international system? Impact, meaning, and conceptualization.” This brought together historians and international relations specialists to interrogate possible Asian sources for alternate international relations theory, and to examine whether indeed premodern forms of inter-state relations were different in Asia.

The volume before you is, in some ways, a continuance of the ideas explored in these earlier works by Amitav. Its title “Civilizations in Embrace” conveys the overall theme of the volume — that Asian cultures and civilisations engage with each other in ways which are communicative rather than combatative. Amitav aims through this volume to “advance the case for considering alternative models of diffusion of ideas and culture in world politics,” through “one of the most extensive examples of the spread of ideas in the history of civilization; the diffusion of Indian religious and political ideas to Southeast Asia before the advent of Islam and European colonialism.”

When civilizations encounter each other, they trigger one of the most powerful currents of social and political change known to humankind. Yet, these changes do not amount to a “clash of civilizations”. As Peter Katzenstein notes, “Civilizations exist in the plural. They coexist with each other …” (Katzenstein 2010: 2). In this essay, I have challenged the strategic view of the encounter among civilizations, a view initially offered by Samuel Huntington but which found a wide international audience in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the global war on terror led by the United States. The insights from the flow of ideas between india and Southeast Asia show that the interaction among civilizations should be understood not just in material terms, but also in ideational ones. Analyzing such interactions through the lens of local initiative, localization and convergence demonstrates that the process of such inter-civilizational encounters can be pacific, and their outcome productive. Not only those who bring in the new ideas, but also those who borrow them, are often motivated by a desire for self-legitimation and universalization. The history of civilizations may thus be told not in terms of blood, treasure and conflict, but ideas, identity and mutual benefit.

If Majumdar and van Leur represent the two ends of the debate over “Indianization,” a newer perspective accords significant local autonomy and agency to Southeast Asians without dismissing the impact of Indian ideas. It accepts the view that Indian ideas did inspire political change and development in Southeast Asia, but this was neither a case of “wholesale transplantation” nor did it acquire the character of a “thin, flaking glaze” (van Leur 1995: 95).

O.W. Wolters, in a major reinterpretation of Southeast Asian regional political history, provides further evidence and argumentation to illuminate the political motivations behind the Southeast Asian rulers' borrowing of Indian ideas. Wolters argues that the transmission of Indian ideas is best described as a process of “local construction” by Southeast Asian rulers in search of greater authority and legitimacy. Wolters believed that pre-Indic kingship in Southeast Asia was “cognatic” in nature, marked by a relative indifference towards lineage descent (as well as recognition of descent through either male or female offspring). In this situation, there existed numerous small territorial units which could only be occasionally centralized through the personal efforts of a “man of prowess” — a “big man” who was thought to possess a lot of “soul stuff ” (a concentration of spiritual power) (Wolters 1982: 4–5). But the rule by such “men of prowess” was limited in scope and would not usually survive his death. In this context, the arrival of Hindu devotional ideas filled an important gap in a ruler's search for authority and legitimacy. A Southeast Asian ruler could now identify himself with Indian divine figures to augment his innate “soul stuff” and develop a more enduring basis of power. As Wolters puts it, such “construction of Hindu devotionalism … led to heightened self-perceptions among the chieftain class and prepared the ground for overlords' claims to universal sovereignty, based on Siva's divine authority” (Wolters 1982: 52). Wolters provides evidence of this process in cambodia, whose kings developed the Devaraja (god-king) cult beginning with Jayavarman II's inauguration in ad 802.

This study revisits one of the most extensive examples of the spread of ideas in the history of civilization: the diffusion of Indian religious and political ideas to Southeast Asia before the advent of Islam and European colonialism. Hindu and Buddhist concepts and symbols of kingship and statecraft helped to legitimize Southeast Asian rulers, and transform the political institutions and authority of Southeast Asia. But the process of this diffusion was not accompanied by imperialism, political hegemony, or “colonization” as conventionally understood. This book investigates different explanations of the spread of Indian ideas offered by scholars, including why and how it occurred and what were its key political and institutional outcomes. My purpose is not to offer an exhaustive account of Indian cultural impact on Southeast Asia, but to draw specific insights from this diffusion to challenge the view that strategic competition is a recurring phenomenon when civilizations encounter each other. It is also to advance the case for considering alternative models of diffusion of ideas and culture in world politics. In essence, I highlight a powerful historical precedent for inter-civilizational convergence that upholds the agency of the local actors and debunks the notion that the diffusion of ideas can only occur through the mechanisms of power politics.

INTRODUCTION

Ideas and practices of internationalizing higher education, although not really new in terms of the history of higher education in Malaysia, may be new to, and understood differently by, different people and institutions today. While there may be some commonalities in the understanding of certain aspects of the idea of internationalization among different institutions and people, the variations in the idea and views can be quite remarkable. Naturally, the variations would necessarily lead to different emphasis being given to the practice of internationalization in their respective institutions. Similarly, the challenges of internationalization perceived and faced by the institutions tend to vary between public and private higher institutions of learning, and also between academics, administrators and students. While the survey of the various institutions, as shown in Chapter 5, shows both similarities and diversities in the responses, the differences perceived at the micro level, through interviews with the relevant informants, namely the administrators, academics and students in these various institutions appear to be far greater than the differences at the macro level.

This chapter will discuss the ideas and practices as well as the challenges in internationalizing higher education in Malaysia, based on the findings from focus group discussions and interviews with administrators, lecturers and students (local and international) from selected institutions that participated in the research base of this book. In all, more than sixty informants consisting of a number of administrators, lecturers and students from nine higher education institutions — five public universities and four private universities and colleges — were engaged either in focus group discussions or in in-depth interviews to obtain the qualitative data (see list of institutions at the end of the chapter). It will first examine the ideas and practices of internationalization in these institutions, followed by discussion on the challenges in internationalization. The chapter will show, wherever possible, the similarities and differences between public and private higher institutions of learning, and also will give particular attention to the research universities.

INTRODUCTION

Since Independence, Malaysia has established twenty public institutions of higher learning that are entrusted with the major task of nation building. Initially they had a monopoly in student enrolment and the conferment of degrees but this monopoly was challenged in the latter half of 1996, when the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 was enacted allowing private higher education institutions to confer degrees. This chapter seeks to explain the development of public universities in Malaysia and their role and contributions towards the internationalization of higher education. It will focus on the following themes: the development of public universities; efforts to internationalize by these institutions and their rationales; as well as plans of action, strategies and measures that were adopted to realize the objectives of internationalization. It will only highlight the case of two of the twenty public institutions, namely Universiti Malaya (UM) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Both universities, which were established under different historical and socio-political environments, are among the five universities in the country collectively categorized as research universities since 2006. UM, the oldest public institution of higher learning in the country, is an offshoot of two British colonial tertiary institutions. UKM was established as a national university in the post-independence era and the first university in Malaysia to use the national language, Bahasa Melayu, as the medium of instruction. Both UM and UKM are aggressively pursuing internationalization as leading research institutions of higher learning. These institutions are chosen as case studies for practical reasons. Access to data in the two institutions is relatively easy as the writer was previously employed in UM and she is currently employed in UKM. Data for the paper are based on both secondary and primary sources. The former includes documents such as the Annual Reports of the two institutions, reports from the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) and previous related studies. The latter relies on data collected through focus group discussions with faculty members, and interviews with the relevant officials engaged in the governance and administration of these institutions.

INTRODUCTION

Higher education (HE hereafter) in Malaysia from the 1990s onwards has been restructured to meet the changing demands arising from globalization and its attendant “knowledge economy”. The restructuring of the HE sector came in the form of privatization, corporatization and internationalization. Higher or tertiary education comprises universities, university colleges, polytechnics, community colleges and colleges. During the 1990s, the HE landscape changed visibly with the proliferation of education institutions, both public and private, to cope with the increasing demand for a diploma or degree as a passport to job prospects in an increasingly borderless work environment or for upward social mobility. In the 1970s, there were only three public or government-sponsored universities in the country. By 2011, there are 20 public universities and 452 private universities and colleges (see Chapters 3 and 4).

As for private universities, in the 1980s there was no private university in existence. By 2011, there are forty-four private education institutions with university status (see Chapter 4). The main reason for this proliferation of higher education institutions (HEIs) was due to a policy shift to deregulate HE and encourage more participation by the private sector due to the inability of public universities to cope with the increasing demand (Morshidi 2006). The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act of 1996 allows the establishment of private universities and university colleges and for these institutions to confer their own degrees. In addition, these institutions offer a wide range of programmes from pre-university to postgraduate levels. A distinguishing feature of these private institutions compared to their public counterparts is the nature of their transnational programmes which include twinning with foreign universities, credit transfers, external degrees and distance learning programmes.

The policy on corporatization of public universities inevitably affects the governance structure, the diversification of revenue and the institutionalization of corporate managerial practices (Lee 2004, p. 36).

DIVERSITIES AND SIMILARITIES

Before summarizing the main findings in this book, some caveats are in order. In general it is quite difficult to conduct surveys and collect primary data in Malaysia as respondents are by and large, wary of the motivations behind such surveys. We have followed up each of the survey respondent for focus groups (FG) discussions but given the general reluctance, these discussions are in the end based on individual respondent's willingness to respond. Overall, the small sample size of our survey has limited us from conducting more statistical testing. Further, while the findings reveal certain interesting aspects of internationalization, it may not have captured all aspects, given the very complex nature of the phenomenon as shown in Chapter 2.

Bearing these caveats in mind, the main findings show that while the top management of each institution, as represented by those who responded to the survey instrument, appear to have a more comprehensive understanding of internationalization, focus group discussions display a rich diversity of understanding. This diversity is not dichotomous in nature. Instead, it lies in a continuum from a strictly instrumentalist view to a broader and more comprehensive view of internationalization. In the case of the former, internationalization is seen as a means for generating more revenue while the latter view envisages internationalization as a means for enhancing the academic standing of a university as a centre of learning and knowledge creation.

In terms of practices, there is a strong association of internationalization with various types of mobility such as students, programmes and faculty mobility. This may be expressed in terms of curriculum design such as having an international/intercultural dimension in the curriculum as well as crossinstitutional agreements and the recruitment of international students. Staff mobility is viewed in terms of two way exchanges of faculty members and the establishment of professorial chairs to draw in world renowned scholars for collaborative research, exposure, and learning purposes.

INTRODUCTION

At the time of Independence, opportunities for higher education in Malaysia were limited as there were no public universities in the country. Private higher education institutions (PrHEIs), however, were already present as tutorial centres for transnational programmes that were geared towards selected skills and professional qualifications. After Independence, PrHEIs continued to grow over time, in response to market forces from within and without the country. In particular, the shift from a government-led to a private sector-led strategy for development in the country in the mid-1980s led to domestic liberalization in manufacturing and services, including the educational sector. Consequently, government permission was given for the setting up of twinning arrangements between local private and public educational establishments with foreign universities (Sivalingam undated, p. 14).

Economic recovery and the subsequent buoyant economic growth in the second half of the 1980s intensified corporate presence in the education sector. Malaysian companies, be it individually, or as a consortium of companies or public listed companies or government corporations viewed private higher education as an alternative source of revenue as well as a means to enhance the property values of corporations that are involved in the development of new townships (Tan 2002, p. 120).

Later, the development of this sector was boosted with the enactment of the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 which further liberalized the sector. In turn, the dynamic growth of this sector served to reduce international exchange losses by providing an alternative pathway to an overseas education for domestic students. The government also envisioned the emergence of a regional education hub in the country by furthering the development of this sector. It is hoped that this will allow Malaysia to shift from being a net importer to a net exporter of higher education. At the same time, its development will also complement public provision towards meeting Malaysia's human resource needs for development.

INTRODUCTION

The internationalization of higher education in Malaysia as manifested by the movement of students has changed tremendously in the last two decades as Malaysia has shifted from a sending to a receiving country. This has impacted the world market for international students as noted in the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) 2007 report on the patterns and trends of international student mobility (Verbik and Lasanowski 2007). In that report, the world market for higher education was divided into four categories of players. The major players consisted of the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, whereby each had a respective market share of 22 per cent, 12 per cent and 11 per cent. Germany and France with a respective market share of 10 per cent each were designated as middlepower players. In the third category, Japan, Canada and New Zealand were considered to be evolving destinations where each had a market share of 5 per cent, 5 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. Three East Asian economies, namely China, Malaysia and Singapore with a respective market share of 7 per cent, 2 per cent and 2 per cent were listed in the last category as emerging contenders.

Subsequent analysis in 2009 on the same issue revealed that Singapore and Malaysia have retained their respective market shares at 2 per cent each while South Korea has joined the group of emerging contenders with a market share of 1.5 per cent (Lasanowski 2009). Malaysia, as in the case of the other emerging contenders, has taken aggressive measures to recruit international students, including substantial government support to build “world class” institutions, in order to complement its relative cost advantage over traditional exporting countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

As a phenomenon, internationalization of higher education is not new, especially when viewed in terms of movement of scholars. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, scholars embarked on academic pilgrimages as there were not many universities, and therefore the pursuit of knowledge and learning required these itinerant scholars to leave home and travel to distant centres of learning (de Wit 2002, p. 5).