In honor of 95 years of Finnish Independence

Finland is a great country in many respects. The Nordic country of 5.4 million people has graced the top spot in many international rankings. After 95 years of independence, Finland has a lot to show for its self-governance.

In 2010, Newsweek magazine ranked Finland the best country to live in - in terms of living conditions. The Global Gender Gap Report 2012 published by the World Economic Forum reveals that Finland is a leader in promoting gender equality. The Republic of Finland occupies second place in a ranking of 135 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index 2012. (See page 8 of the report). Finland ranked third, third, second, second, third, third on the index in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 respectively. In the field of education, Finland's education system is ranked best in the developed world, according to a 2012 report published by Pearson. In its 2012 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, Transparency International placed Finland at the top of the list of the world's least-corrupt countries.

Although at the moment smartphone giant Nokia is struggling to keep its head above water as its cash pile dwindles, it is worth highlighting that it is a Finnish invention.

Celebrations marking 95 years of Finnish independence are well-deserved. Finland has come a long way since independence from the Russian Grand Duchy of Finland.

The Finnish Declaration of Independence was adopted on 6 December 1917. [Source] The country has shown resilience - bouncing back from a gloomy colonial era under the Swedish Empire and the Russian Empire, and a bitter civil war that was fought from January to May 1918. [Source] Finland now stands tall as a force to reckon with in the region.

However, it is worthy to note that while the majority of native Finns enjoy freedom and opportunities that come with [real] independence, all is not well for all groups of people in Finland - especially immigrants and visible minorities. The threat of right-wing extremism, hostility towards Muslims and anti-immigration sentiments is real. Anti-immigration groups like Perussuomalaiset (PS), Suomen Sisu and others have hijacked public debate - spreading racism, prejudice, far-right ideologies and "blind nationalism".

Finland still has a lot of work to do in the field of diversity and equal opportunities for all without discrimination of any kind on grounds of race, color, ethnic or national origin and other grounds. Social and professional exclusion of certain groups of people because of what they look like or where they come from is obsolete.

Some people may wonder why I (a Cameroonian from West Africa) am concerned about the state of affairs in a country in northern Europe.

Well, it turns out I have two beautiful kids of Finnish nationality - by birth (Perustuslain 5 §). In the eyes of some people, they look different and they might be treated differently by a growing number of far-right ideologists. I therefore have a dog in the fight for equality in Finland. I will like to see my children judged for who they are not where their father comes from.

Lapsieni vuoksi toivon, että yhtenä päivänä kaikki Suomessa asuvat ihmiset nauttivat tasa-arvoa ja yhdenvertaisuutta, ilman syrjintää etnisen alkuperän, ihon värin, sukupuolisen tai muun henkilöön liittyvän syyn perusteella.

On the bright side, 6 November is a well-deserved Independence Day. Given its history, Finland has come a long way but the country should not lose sight of the fact that there is still a lot of work to be done to foster equality, diversity, mutual respect and acceptance. In the words of Maya Angelou: "It is time for parents to teach young people early on that in diversity there is beauty and there is strength."

Share

Tweet

Finland: Best education system doesn't guarantee foreign students employment

Education is the cornerstone of development and any country that wishes to compete in a globalized world invests in education. Finland, a relatively obscure developed country in northern Europe, seems to understand the importance of quality education and is doing a better job than its Nordic and other western counterparts to improve its educational quality and output. On 27 November 2012, I was glad to learn that Finland's education system is ranked best in the developed world, followed by South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. The UK comes in sixth (6) while the US occupies the seventeenth (17) position. I instinctively shared the good news on my Facebook page and included congratulatory words for Finland: "Onnea Suomi". But I am under no illusion that the best education system guarantees foreign students relevant employment or jobs that match their education upon graduation in the Nordic country.

According to a 2012 report written by the Economist Intelligence Unit and published by Pearson, entitled The Learning Curve: Lessons in Country Performance in Education, Finland has the best educational system. The Nordic country ranks highest on a comparative Global Index of Cognitive Skills and Educational Attainment with a score of 1.26, while Indonesia tails the list with a score of -2.03. Results on the Index are based on inculcation of cognitive skills (mathematics, science and reading) and educational attainment (literacy and graduation rates) in 39 countries and Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. 

Having the best schools in the world, as reported by Yle is certainly good news for Finland and thousands of people studying in Finnish schools. However, being a top dog in education is not enough. Graduates from the best schools and universities should be able to find relevant jobs after graduation. In Finland, all education and training leading to a degree is free of charge, although adult education institutions can charge a fee. Gender equality in higher education is relatively good - with more than half of all students entering universities and completing Mater's degrees being women. However, after completing degree programmes, the academic career of women in Finland becomes more difficult. According to a paper published by Centre for International Mobility (CIMO), titled Advanced and Unusual: Finland as seen by International Students and Trainees (see page 11) women are highly segregated in some job sectors. The same is true for international or foreign students - who are segregated in almost all sectors upon graduation.

Finland might have the best educational system in the world, but after graduating from universities some groups, including women and foreign students in international degree programmes, hit a virtual brick wall in the job market.

Numerous graduates from Finland's international degree programmes offered in English find themselves working as cleaners and dishwashers in Helsinki and other towns - long after graduation from some of Finland's most prestigious institutions of higher learning - due to difficulties finding jobs that match their academic skills. Some university graduates, for instance, end up working as contracted dishwashers in restaurants in some schools and universities. Others find themselves cleaning floors in child day care facilities, offices, cruise ships, construction sites and private houses. It is worth highlighting that foreign or international degree students are highly represented in this disadvantaged category of job seekers with degrees from Finnish universities and universities of Applied Sciences.

Some people argue that the plight of foreign graduates is largely due to language barrier. Many foreign students study in English and have little or no Finnish language skills, hence cannot compete with their Finnish counterparts in the labour market. This is a common argument put forward in an attempt to justify the low level of employment among university graduates with foreign backgrounds resident in Finland. However, those who blame towering unemployment on language seem to be unaware that even Finnish language proficiency does not guarantee foreigners employment - especially non-Europeans.

For many foreign students, limitations in the Finnish job market diminish the worth of Finland's top-notch education. A fancy degree issued by a highly rated Finnish university is not worth much in the labour market for many international graduates job-hunting in Finland. For many, leaving Finland upon graduation becomes the best option. It is mind-boggling why a country would invest so much in international Master's programmes and let its graduates languish in underemployment (working jobs that do not require high education) and forced to flee -  in search of better opportunities elsewhere.

The Pearson report puts Finland's educational system on the map and is bound to pique the interest of students around the world, and perhaps attract more international students seeking quality education. What the report does not reveal is that for foreign degree holders from Finnish universities, chances of finding relevant work in Finland after graduation are slim. It is very important for prospective international students to know this, especially those dreaming of finding relevant work after graduation. Helsingin Sanomat reported on 8 June 2009 that in spite of education, immigrants are not easily employed.

A survey in which 23 Finnish universities and universities of Applied Sciences participated revealed that 89 per cent of international students are "generally happy or very happy" with their Finnish institution and study in Finland. 83.9 per cent of the respondents would recommend their university or Finland as a destination for studies. According to the survey, students are concerned about finding a job after graduation. The survey shows that students seek not only a degree in Finland - many will like to find jobs after graduation.

According to Statistics Finland, 28,500 university degrees were obtained in Finland in 2011, 2 per cent less than in 2010. Of the degrees obtained in 2011, foreign students obtained 1,400 degrees and women accounted for 60 per cent of all degrees.

The unemployment rate among foreign residents in Finland hit 25.9 per cent in late 2009 - more than double that of the native-born population.

*Photo: United Education.

Share

Tweet

Inequality in the Junior Professional Officer (JPO) Programme

A government that funds a programme and restricts participation to its nationals is not different from an entrepreneur, investor or individual who creates jobs and makes it company policy to employ only his or her compatriots; or a man who creates jobs and implements a discriminatory policy designed to employ only men.

The Junior Professional Officer (JPO) Programme provides marvelous opportunities for young professionals under the age of 32 working in the field of development to gain hands-on experience in the field.[Source] It gives qualified young people the opportunity to work in organizations and United Nations (UN) agencies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), Joint United Nations Programmes on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) and others. Governments that fund the JPO Programme administered by the JPO Service Centre (JPOSC) restrict participation to their nationals - putting into question their commitment to guarantee equal opportunity for all people legally within their borders irrespective of national origin.

Through the JPO programme, young professionals working as JPOs gain significant experience of up to two years or more in the aforementioned UN agencies and developmental programmes around the world - working in countries like Ethiopia, Kenya, Russian Federation, Jordan and others. The JPO programme is a great. It accounts for 10-13% of the professional staff of participating organizations; it empowers young people and encourages them to participate in development work around the world. However, it has a surprising down side: it violates the principle of equal opportunity.

A closer look at the programme, especially the eligibility requirements for participation, reveals that it is discriminatory on grounds of nationality and national origin, and disproportionately empowers young people from donor countries - thereby breeding inequality between young people from developed countries and equally professionally qualified nationals of developing countries.

The JPO Programme is sponsored by a few "donor governments" and more often than not, only their nationals are eligible to apply for JPO positions. JPO vacancy announcements make no secret of this discriminatory recruitment policy. As of the time of this writing, donor countries whose nationals are eligible to apply include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, oil rich Kuwait, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, oil rich Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

It is fair to say that the aforementioned countries are doing a good job by creating marvelous opportunities for their young nationals to gain top-level international work experience. The countries are investing in the future by preparing their young professionals for leadership positions on the international stage. But by shutting out young professionals from less developed countries, the JPO programme breeds inequality. Some people would argue that donor countries should be free to decide how to spend their tax payers' money. This argument is invalid because discrimination based on nationality and national origin contravenes international human rights standards and, in many cases, violates national non-discrimination and equality laws. JPO Programme-participating governments have obligations under human rights covenants to guarantee equality within their borders.

No African country, as of the time of this writing, has sponsored the JPO Programme. This leaves young, qualified Africans in a disadvantaged position compared to their European counterparts. It is worth mentioning at this point that African governments are doing themselves a disservice by not investing in their young people. More often than not, state funds that could be used to sponsor programmes for young people, such as the JPO Programme, are embezzled and swindled into private coffers by corrupt officials.

On 20.11.2012, I received an email announcement of seven JPO vacant positions funded by the Foreign Ministry of Finland. I thought I was eligible to apply for one of the positions but two words (in Finnish) disqualified me: "...Suomen kansalaisuus" - meaning Finnish Nationality. The jobs are not sensitive diplomatic positions. It is unclear why the Foreign Ministry backs such as policy, despite the fact that Finland's  Equality and Non-Discrimination Act (Yhdenvertaisuuslaki) that came into force in 2004 expressly prohibits discrimination based on nationality, national origin and other grounds. Section 6 of the Act states: "Ketään ei saa syrjiä iän, etnisen tai kansallisen alkuperän, kansalaisuuden, kielen, uskonnon, vakaumuksen, mielipiteen, terveydentilaan, vammaisuuden, sukupuolisen suuntautumisen tai muun henkilöön liittyvän syyn perusteella."

A government that funds a programme and restricts participation to its nationals is not different from an entrepreneur, investor or individual who creates jobs and makes it company policy to employ only his or her compatriots; or a man who creates jobs and implements a discriminatory policy designed to employ only men.

Discrimination is what it is. Its definition should remain the same irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a government, international organization, or an individual. The JPO Programme is discriminatory on grounds of nationality and origin. It is a shame that the UN, an organization that promulgates "equal opportunity" and non-discrimination, allows such a policy in the recruitment of young professionals to staff its agencies and developmental programmes.

In "very limited circumstances", the JPO Programme recruits "very few" nationals of developing countries. As of 1 September 2012, there were 294 junior professional officers mostly working with UNDP. [Source] Only 25 (8%) of them were nationals of developing countries. [Source] Inequality in the JPO programme is staggering. Some effort has been made to recruit nationals from developing nations, but a lot more could be done. Recruiting "a small number" of  developing country nationals in "very limited circumstances" is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig. Nationality should be dropped as a recruitment requirement.

Share

Tweet