The announcement by Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin that the new history syllabus being drawn up would promote a high level of patriotism must have raised a chuckle on the part of some pundits.
These can see a Pakatan Rakyat government in the near future tinkering with the curriculum to achieve some purpose they consider would be an antidote to the legacy of those they replaced as governors, particularly if they can show that that legacy was pernicious.
Quite apart from the dubious notion that the study or practice of a subject or activity - music, sport, art, etc - can engender virtues, such as patriotism, there is also the problem of whether politicians are the ones equipped to determine the content of curricula they consider suitable for fostering a moral good.
Muhyiddin (left) did not say that politicians like him would ultimately decide the syllabus for history, which would be made a compulsory subject for secondary school students from 2013 and part of the mandatory curriculum of primary school pupils from 2014.
He said that a panel of history experts his ministry had commissioned was in the process of formulating the syllabus, presumably with the minister as final arbiter.
The thing about a panel of experts is a bow to the satisfyingly simple notion that the educated share a single set of facts and ideas.
It gratifies our need to perceive educated society as unified and consensual in the face of ample evidence to the contrary.
These can see a Pakatan Rakyat government in the near future tinkering with the curriculum to achieve some purpose they consider would be an antidote to the legacy of those they replaced as governors, particularly if they can show that that legacy was pernicious.
Quite apart from the dubious notion that the study or practice of a subject or activity - music, sport, art, etc - can engender virtues, such as patriotism, there is also the problem of whether politicians are the ones equipped to determine the content of curricula they consider suitable for fostering a moral good.
Muhyiddin (left) did not say that politicians like him would ultimately decide the syllabus for history, which would be made a compulsory subject for secondary school students from 2013 and part of the mandatory curriculum of primary school pupils from 2014.He said that a panel of history experts his ministry had commissioned was in the process of formulating the syllabus, presumably with the minister as final arbiter.
The thing about a panel of experts is a bow to the satisfyingly simple notion that the educated share a single set of facts and ideas.
It gratifies our need to perceive educated society as unified and consensual in the face of ample evidence to the contrary.
Statutory rape controversy
For proof of the latter reality, consider the controversy that ensued after two recent judicial verdicts handed down seemingly lenient sentences to individuals found guilty of statutory rape.
Rape is widely regarded as a heinous crime, considered the more reprehensible when the victim is a minor.
Could it be, then, that the ideational substratum behind the seemingly lenient decisions in the rape cases is attributable to the thinking in some religious traditions that the attainment of puberty is sufficient ‘entrée' to a sexually mature state?
One of victims was 12 years old and the other 13 at the time the incidents of rape occurred.
The age - 16 - below which one is considered a ‘minor' in common law is not viewed comparably in other jurisdictions.
In the latter, one is considered sexually mature with the attainment of puberty, which can occur as early as 11 years.
All this is prologue to the point that the notion that there could be experts in a multi-racial and multi-religious society who share a common moral and intellectual framework is delusional.
Inherently unattainable
Hence the idea that a panel of historical experts can draw up a syllabus for the teaching of history in a multi-racial and multi-religious society that could foster virtues, such as patriotism, is to tilt at windmills - it is inherently unattainable.
Why so?
Take the perception that music can be good or bad, that art can be sublime or grotesque, that sport can be hatchery of virtue or an incubator of vice, and that a liberal education can engender a humane spirit or it can spawn nihilism - all these derive from the idea that human beings have a fallen nature and nothing they touch is exempt from corruption.
This idea is not shared by all the religious traditions that prevail in our diverse society but it is the reason, albeit contestable by the light of other prevalent traditions, behind the notion that there is no inherent goodness in most spheres of human endeavour.
Thus the attempt to draw up a virtue-engendering syllabus for history, or, for that matter, the attempt to formulate a core curriculum for the education of our culturally and religiously diverse society is prompted by hubris: It cannot be done without slighting or disrespecting one or the other traditions prevalent in our society.
Either you educate all on the differences between the various cultural, moral and intellectual traditions and allow them to decide on what's good and true, thus liberating within them the sense of curiosity without which there can be no real learning, or you amble along haphazardly, as has been the case with our education system.
Better the latter than the hubris of the stance that you can draw up a curriculum for a subject like history, and that too, one that can foster the virtues, like patriotism; you are the more likely to produce miscreants.
Rape is widely regarded as a heinous crime, considered the more reprehensible when the victim is a minor.Could it be, then, that the ideational substratum behind the seemingly lenient decisions in the rape cases is attributable to the thinking in some religious traditions that the attainment of puberty is sufficient ‘entrée' to a sexually mature state?
One of victims was 12 years old and the other 13 at the time the incidents of rape occurred.
The age - 16 - below which one is considered a ‘minor' in common law is not viewed comparably in other jurisdictions.
In the latter, one is considered sexually mature with the attainment of puberty, which can occur as early as 11 years.
All this is prologue to the point that the notion that there could be experts in a multi-racial and multi-religious society who share a common moral and intellectual framework is delusional.
Inherently unattainable
Hence the idea that a panel of historical experts can draw up a syllabus for the teaching of history in a multi-racial and multi-religious society that could foster virtues, such as patriotism, is to tilt at windmills - it is inherently unattainable.
Why so?
Take the perception that music can be good or bad, that art can be sublime or grotesque, that sport can be hatchery of virtue or an incubator of vice, and that a liberal education can engender a humane spirit or it can spawn nihilism - all these derive from the idea that human beings have a fallen nature and nothing they touch is exempt from corruption.
This idea is not shared by all the religious traditions that prevail in our diverse society but it is the reason, albeit contestable by the light of other prevalent traditions, behind the notion that there is no inherent goodness in most spheres of human endeavour.Thus the attempt to draw up a virtue-engendering syllabus for history, or, for that matter, the attempt to formulate a core curriculum for the education of our culturally and religiously diverse society is prompted by hubris: It cannot be done without slighting or disrespecting one or the other traditions prevalent in our society.
Either you educate all on the differences between the various cultural, moral and intellectual traditions and allow them to decide on what's good and true, thus liberating within them the sense of curiosity without which there can be no real learning, or you amble along haphazardly, as has been the case with our education system.
Better the latter than the hubris of the stance that you can draw up a curriculum for a subject like history, and that too, one that can foster the virtues, like patriotism; you are the more likely to produce miscreants.
TERENCE NETTO has been a journalist for close on four decades. He likes the occupation because it puts him in contact with the eminent without being under the necessity to admire them. It is the ideal occupation for a temperament that finds power fascinating and its exercise abhorrent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.