Here I am in front of my laptop, enjoying my Ghirardelli chocolate squares compliments from my cousin from San Francisco while recollecting my history lessons from primary to secondary school days. I cannot help but reminisce after reading two articles about the biased emphasis in our local history syllabus.
The article in The Malaysian Insider said:
Secondary school history textbooks are too Islamic and Malay-centric and have downplayed the contribution of non-Malays and other religions in the country’s history, a historian said today.
Historian Dr Ranjit Malhi Singh also believed that “scant attention” has been given to the efforts of the Chinese and Indians in the development of the nation.
The author of history textbooks up until 1996 also charged that there were too many “half-truths and factual errors” in the current syllabus, and that it was laden with “value judgments.”
“There should be no value judgment in our textbooks. It is the greatest sin in any history book."
Hazlan Zakaria of Malaysiakini wrote:
Good history text books, he said, must be;
* Factually accurate,
* Generally objective,
* Well balanced, and,
* Devoid of value judgements.
However ,he argued that he can prove that history text books nowadays are totally the opposite of such values.
Ranjit listed four faults of our current history textbooks after poring over them word by word. In his expert opinion, the current crop exhibit;
* Islamic-Malay centric bias,
* Some half truths,
* Numerous factual errors and contradictions, and,
* Politically motivated orientation.
'Historical death'
One 'crime' observed the veteran writer, is the intentional 'killing off' of certain important non-Malay historical figures from the pages of official history.
"I call it historical death, you won't find it in books, because it is a term I invented,"he explained in relation to non-Malays and their contributions to Malaysian history he claimed were edited out.
He listed several key figures, crucial to Malaysian history who have NONEbeen left out of in the modern official re-telling;
* Yap Ah Loy responsible for building early Kuala Lumpur, well acknowledge by world historians, have been reduced to one sentence in Malaysian historical text books,
* Gurchan Singh, the 'Lion of Malaya' who published and distributed an underground newspaper during the Japanese occupation, and,
* Sybil Karthigesu, the nurse who helped treat MPAJA soldiers and did not desist even after the Japanese tortured her.
As for factual errors and half-truths, Ranjit pointed out a few of the more glaring ones, including the omission of the fact that Parameswara was Hindu and died a Hindu and the glossing over and belittling of the contribution of non-Malay troops in the defence, of then Malaya, against the Japanese onslaught.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE.
Of all the classes I attended in school, I enjoyed history lessons the most. I still remember how in Standard 3, I studied about Stone Age, Bronze Age, Egyptian history and how pleased I was that I could spell the names of the Pharaohs, and even 'hieroglyphics'. I skipped Std 4 and when in Std 5, I remember how my class produced a compilation of Greek myths and Chinese Legends and sold cyclostyled copies for 20 cents.
The history syllabus for LCE (PMR now) Form 1 was about early civilizations including Chin, Tang, Sung, Han dynasties, Indian history including Gupta and Mogul dynasties. Form 2 was about Greek, Roman and Russian history and Form 3 was about modern South-east Asian history. Despite being in the science stream, I still took history and we studied South-East Asian history in great detail.
When my older boy was in secondary school (2001 to 2006), I was appalled at the change in syllabus and how it centred so much on what Dr. Ranjit Malhi Singh has identified.
It is tragic that this change has occurred and more tragic that students not only memorize and regurgitate information to pass exams but that they leave school with a completely distorted view of history. Indeed, far too many sins have been committed and have they been brought to task? And why not?
Why do we study history? It is to shape our future after knowing and understanding our past! Of course, there are many more reasons/benefits that one can enjoy in the pursuit of historical knowledge but more importantly is the fact that the education system is in a deplorable state - almost beyond repair!
I am glad I went through the old history syllabus in the good old days. It was no joke trying to see and understand the differences between the different Chinese/Indian dynasties, the name of kings, the dates of famous battles, the names of the tsars but more importantly, I grew up with a very broad understanding of the world systems/governments and how despite our differences, we are essentially similar in our pursuit of good governance.
Most disappointingly, what do Malaysian students today learn from their history lessons? More importantly, do they learn at all?
I remember how my older boy used to scream and rant about the history syllabus and how I tried to make him love history. Unbelievably, he still managed to get A2 even though he hated the subject so much.
It is very alarming that certain authorities do not realize that a well-balanced and informed knowledge of history can guide us to solve inherent problems in our society, thereby making us better citizens.
With the right syllabus, historical knowledge can satiate human craving to know our past which we must understand to know what makes us who we are today. History will also help us to learn from past mistakes and put us in good stead for self-improvement. For example, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have taught us the dangers of nuclear power and till today, many activists refer to those incidents and also the Chernobyl disaster.
Studying a broad-based syllabus in history can inspire us to become better every day. I remember how in Standard 6, I studied about the various inventors and how the inventions came into place. Such incidents imbue us to think of something that has never happened before and inspire many to be innovative and creative to make our lives better.
Besides the sheer enjoyment of learning about dramatic events and stories, studying history certainly trains students' minds and teaches them how to process information sensibly.
I believe it is vital for the education system to teach proper and balanced history which can challenge pupils to ask and answer important questions, find evidence, assess its relevance and reach conclusions. By learning history, young people can be trained so that when faced with any kind of evidence, they will want to know why/who it created it and the intended message for their target audience. Then they can learn to sniff out bias and propaganda and be well prepared for the harsh and cruel world we live in.
I strongly feel that it is vital for our Education Ministry to revamp our history syllabus so that our children can develop the skills in the modern world to look beyond the headlines, to ask questions properly and to have the confidence to express their own opinion. Little by little, history can teach them the origins of modern political and social problems. In the long run, with the right teaching, right syllabus, these students can leave school with the ability to appreciate that people in the past were not just 'good' or 'bad', but motivated in complicated and inconsistent ways, just like us. Then they would be ready to face the real world.
Now, does the current history syllabus do that?
As some of you know, I went back to lecture in January this year. The first assignment I gave my students in the A-level program was "Discuss the benefits of studying history." I even gave them eight topic sentences and asked them to shape their arguments with the right supporting evidence which must be elaborated. One student emailed me and asked "Miss, what do you mean by elaborate the points?"
And the same student scored a string of distinctions in the recent SPM exam.
What is wrong with our education system?
Plenty!!!
Historically, education was made compulsory in the UK in 1870's because the government wanted an intelligent electorate and not a generation of voters that could not tell the good from the bad.
Until and unless the authorities concerned are serious about raising education standards, revamping the syllabus of many subjects, etc etc I fear there may come a time when the young voters are unable to make rational decisions about which government they want.
And is that what they want?
When students are made to study distorted facts/lies and taught to believe that these are truths, when they grow up, will they be able to discern truth from lies? Chances are, many will have a distorted view of our nation's history or even reality!
If fiction can be spun to be perceived as facts that must be accepted, learned and regurgitated at the right time, what will happen to these young people when they grow up? Will they be able to tell fact from fiction?
And someone had the audacity to suggest that it is compulsory to pass history!
It is alarming that this generation of young people will be seriously myopic in their understanding of world history and be able to look only at a tiny iota of history as defined by a select group who have selected for their purposes what IS history. :-( There is absolutely no element of global history at all in the PRM, SPM and STPM syllabus.
I did a study of some historical incidents on my own recently and was quite horrified at the findings. For a start, why don't you check out the real reasons why the Ghee Hins and Hai Sans were at war? There are some facts which would certainly stun you and make you realize that things are not what they seem.
Nonetheless, I am truly thankful that there ARE still educators/historians such as Dr Ranjit Malhi Singh who have a steady, firm and balanced view of history and upholds objectivity and accuracy in history syllabus. May there be more educators who will make a firm stand on excellence in education. Let's stand behind Dr Ranjit and press for change in the history syllabus. It is time our kids study REAL HISTORY!!!
