About a week ago Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, announced at the UMNO General Assembly that History would be made a must-pass SPM subject in 2013 and that it would also be a core subject in primary school starting 2014.
It is clear that such a move is primarily aimed at the younger generations of this country.
In fact, more than four years back, when opening the “Prime Struggles Towards Independence Exhibition” at the Tun Razak Memorial in Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, then the Deputy Prime Minister, while ticking off the young post-independence generation who were not really appreciative of the country’s history, reiterated the long held wisdom that through history, good things could be made examples and emulated and past mistakes could be avoided from recurring.
Will Durant once remarked in an almost similar vein, “The present is the past rolled up for action, and the past is the present unrolled for understanding.”
No doubt, history is about right human memory and recollection—a collective one in the case of a nation or a country—and as memory and recollection is necessary for progress in reflection and thinking (which I had explained in this column on 24 August), undermining or ignoring history will adversely affect our way forward.
Yet, we cannot avoid wondering whether such a lamentable state of not really being appreciative of our country’s history is limited only to our youth. Is it not found among their parents and elders as well?
We may even question whether such a deplorable state concerns only our country’s history. What about “HISTORY ITSELF”?
I for one am of the opinion that it does involve the latter.
In fact, I am not being presumptuous in saying that, insofar as history is concerned, the people of today are now approaching a state of neglecting history and, in many instances, of even abhorring it.
We cannot easily deny the fact that this is partly caused by the way history has been depicted, understood and taught in this country.
Indeed, too often has history been considered pedantic, as a mere enumeration of the sequence of past dates and events, that one is almost always at a loss to see any meaningful relation and pattern; in other words, being unable to see the wood for the trees.
The most important thing we should ask ourselves if ever we are serious in addressing the problem of historical negligence ourselves, is the question: what actually brought this on and how did this happen in the first place?
I think, the clue, if not the real answer, lies in what is now rampant in our society, in what we may loosely regard as the mental orientation and collective consciousness of our people at large.
It has been commonplace to find that in general, not only do our people want to be current and contemporary, they also want to be seen as being current and contemporary.
For the most part, one’s being current and contemporary is viewed by some as being synonymous with one’s being able to live right “here” and “now.”
This drive to be current and contemporary, in turn, is generally due to the survival reason; for one to stay relevant lest one run the risk of being outmoded and dying as a dinosaur.
This overriding emphasis on the present is also closely associated with the stiff competition in the job markets and businesses.
But the problem is, not only does this drive and emphasis render what is neither “here” nor “now” in the sense of “history” irrelevant, it also makes what is neither “here” nor “now” in the sense of “the future” secondary, if not just as irrelevant.
In other words, we find it difficult to convince many of our youth that not only is history not obsolete, but also that they must be prudent with respect to their future and, as such, to not jeopardize their whole life simply for momentary pleasure that they seek in the guise of the “right here-and-now.”
In fact, it is as difficult today to convince our youth about such truths as it is to persuade our very selves of exactly the same truths, both conceptually and practically.
Have we allowed this to happen systematically through our educational system and other media, such that the minds of our youth—in fact even of ourselves—are becoming solely focused on the “here-and-now”?
Have we not realized of late that the institutions of higher learning in this country have been frequently urged to continually review their roles and curricula by taking into account the changing environment in which the government and businesses have to operate?
In this very process of rendering ourselves up-to-date, we usually find that not only does history, as a discipline of study of reflexive nature, find it really hard, if not entirely impossible, to establish itself as a department in many higher learning institutions in this country—particularly the new ones—and then to continue surviving therein, but also many subjects that are historically oriented which are supposed to be sub-branches of many other disciplines of study, such as “The History of Science” and “The History of Economic Thought,” always find themselves being dogged for continual justification for their raison d’etre.
To be realistic, we cannot avoid living in the “here-and-now.”
What is most problematic, and in fact destructive, however, is our obsession with the “here-and-now” and the attendant neglect of the “there-and-before” as well as the “there-and-after.”
In fact, it is this obsession and single-minded preoccupation with the “here-and-now” which accounts for what Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas has aptly termed “secularization” and “secularism” in his now classic Islam and Secularism.
As Muslims, it is not the “here-and-now” that is the problem—on the contrary, it is a matter-of-fact—but it is our mental state and life obsession with it which is the hard nut to crack.
Unless significant, serious and systematic steps are taken to overcome such obsession both at the individual and the societal levels, our hope to see real appreciation of our history by our youth will remain a fancy!