Standardization is a myth.
Okay, that's just an attention-getting device. First of all, this SLF/attorney lacks meaningful knowledge about the subject air carrier other than facts one would have to assume are valid about more-or-less any unspecified airline in a given size class and the flag carrier of a country similarly in a given category or class.
But the realization that selling airplanes to air carriers 'round the world has long entailed embracing, and more so, utilizing, flaws or weakness in the airline or national regulatory scheme relative to fidelity to safety matters - that adds another layer of cynicism and mistrust to the legacy of the 737 MAX and the company. Maybe that isn't really the biggest jolt.
So much of the international commercial aviation sector professes to operate under standardization, established and looked after by that U.N. affiliate with the wings and globe in its insignia. (For a current instance, on another thread the existence of an ICAO program seeking to address upgrades - or redoing entirely - of the Notam system was asserted as a reason explaining Congressional inaction on the same subject.) But if an air carrier, the country flagship no less, and the national government deviate significantly from both the letter of the standards and the results intended to be produced by the total set of standards (and RPs) - maybe it's time for the largest and most significant countries in the sector (int'l commercial aviation) to drop the pretense about standardization. I realize that economic issues were cut out of the proceedings in Chicago in 1944; maybe that decision has borne a bitter - and tragic - legacy.
Of course, the U.S. won't do this under current policy leadership and administration in Washington, and even if it wanted to, it could not be done without a Permanent Rep to ICAO and Council with Amb. rank (as capable as the current head-of-mission obviously is).