Wednesday, July 26, 2006

History in nation building

Categories:

The recent furore over the use of a textbook on ethnic relations by Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) have created a debate on the role of history in nation building.

In a move to promote racial harmony, public universities are required by the government to teach Ethnic Relations. Although guidelines have been issued by the government, each university is allowed to publish their own textbook. However, instead of promoting racial harmony, it caused a controversy to the extend that the de facto Law Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz called it "seditious" even as Datuk Mustapa Mohamed, the Higher Education minister defended the book.

History is a record of past events. What has happened cannot be changed. Why the need for history then? History can explain how the current environment comes about, what previous leaders had done and gone through. However, the way it is reported can be coloured by one's bias, beliefs and political leanings. Hence, the interpretation of events may not be objective or unbiased. Therefore, when presenting the history of a country, it is important that the interpretation is accurate and generally acceptable to the academia. Otherwise, history is no different from a fictional work based on a true incident.

This fact is very important in nation building especially in Malaysia. Malaysia's politics and religions are unfortunately tied to racial group. Any wrong or inaccurate interpretation of history especially those based on race is a sure way to ignite an already simmering racial unease. Hence, in nation building, the interpretation of history should be as accurate as is possible without the need to find scapegoat. What is important is to learn from past mistakes so that true nation building can be achieved.

It is good that even the academia in Malaysia opposed the 'history' as interpreted by the two UPM lectures. Some felt that if the intention of history is to understand and to promote the creation of a true Malaysian, then "Any review must therefore be collective, consultative and knowledge-based, not based on emotion."

The accurate interpretation of Malaysian history as a way to create a true Malaysian identity cannot run away from the fact that Malays, Chinese and Indians had come together and agreed upon a social contract that brought about the creation of Malaya. If the three major racial group could not agree on a social contract, the British would not have granted Malaya its independence. Hence the understanding and acceptance of the sacrifices and goodwill of the leaders that brought about our independence - Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Sambanthan - is important for the creation of the Malaysian race. If their goodwill is hijacked by any racial zealots, then the social contract would be broken and chaos will ensue.

I hope that Ethnic Relations should emphasise more on how the social contract drawn up by the pioneers are achieved. Emphasis should also be given to the contribution of each racial groups in Malaysia towards nation building, no matter how big or small. Divisive events should be relegated to the experts where facts can be discussed, not to find scapegoats but with the intention to teach. By emphasising on the importance of each community towards nation building and the goodwill and sacrifices of our leaders to achieve independence, hopefully this will remind us of the importance of each and every individual regardless of race or religion and put us back on the right track towards nation building.

Related
Making sense of the Ethnic Relations course
We still have room to find solutions
Reinforcing the positives
Historic lies in university textbook - stop "brainwashing"

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

wormie, I agree with your view that it is important to take a more objective stance in teaching about ethnic relations. However, I think it's very hard, even for academics, to be truly unbiased.

Each side's point of view would be just part of the whole picture (and possibly, the students are ALREADY aligned with one of these biased views). A 'neutral' third party's point of view may not be accurate either. Perhaps the students can explore sources from all the different points of view?

But in the end, the tutor/lecturer still has to be skilful enough to balance all the viewpoints. If that is at all possible...

Wormie said...

That is why the intention of having the history taught is important. Past events are open to interpretations. However if one really wants to address a problem, then one have to be honest, and not trying to pinpoint a scapegoat. It takes 2 hands to clap.

If you watched the Stanford Raffles story, you will find that he has exploited the rift of the Johor royal family. He has to shoulder some blame, so does the prince who signed the treaty with him - because he was thought he will be made the 'Sultan' of Singapore. So to be entirely objective, both parties are to blame for the 'secession' of Singapore from Johor - not that of the British alone.

More modern times, if Singapore do not have Malay leaders who are willing to work with Mr Lee KY, would he have succeeded the way he did? Although credit should definitely goes to him for what Singapore is today, you cannot deny that part of nation building in Singapore is achieved with the help of the Malays.

But I agree with you that historians are after all only human with its biases and prejudiced. However if they remain mindful, then history will be as objective as is realistically possible.