This post is specially written to all my fellow Malaysians who had the privilege of learning Sejarah throughout our five years of Secondary School. Take this as something to ponder about rather than a piece that (might) offend your sensibilities.
Pertaining to the topic at hand, do you remember the reasons you had to study Sejarah for your PMR and SPM examinations? Well, most of us would simply reply "So that we can score an A in them." Yes, if I were asked with that question four or six years ago, my answer would be something of that nature. After finishing my uniform-wearing, perhimpunan-going part of my life I realized that I, and probably most of you, overlooked a small yet immensely important tool used in this subject: bias.
Does that ring a bell to you?
That sub-topic was covered in the first chapter of Sejarah Tingkatan 1 that detailed "his-story" as events that involved certain parties in a certain period of time and bias is the interpretation of the story based on which side you're on e.g. Western Orientalists would label Tok Janggut, who fought against them in the state of Kelantan, as an influential rebel leader while Malaysian historians would depict him as a freedom fighter against the opressive tyranny of the British Empire. Ingat tak?
Although it was passed off as a meaningless and minute part of our Sejarah education (there was no necessity in memorizing it since it won't come out in the exam; remember the spotting culture too?), I realized that it gave a huge bearing on me to be more of an opinionated person rather than just accepting the facts as absolute truths. Thus, my bias on that example given above would be:
As for you, start by using this small piece of knowledge to critique our own history rather than just regurgitating all the facts printed in the text book like what we used to do because you will get a clearer sense of the whole picture when you begin examining it from different angles. It's not wrong being neutral but it's right to have your own personal conviction.
Pertaining to the topic at hand, do you remember the reasons you had to study Sejarah for your PMR and SPM examinations? Well, most of us would simply reply "So that we can score an A in them." Yes, if I were asked with that question four or six years ago, my answer would be something of that nature. After finishing my uniform-wearing, perhimpunan-going part of my life I realized that I, and probably most of you, overlooked a small yet immensely important tool used in this subject: bias.
Does that ring a bell to you?
That sub-topic was covered in the first chapter of Sejarah Tingkatan 1 that detailed "his-story" as events that involved certain parties in a certain period of time and bias is the interpretation of the story based on which side you're on e.g. Western Orientalists would label Tok Janggut, who fought against them in the state of Kelantan, as an influential rebel leader while Malaysian historians would depict him as a freedom fighter against the opressive tyranny of the British Empire. Ingat tak?
Although it was passed off as a meaningless and minute part of our Sejarah education (there was no necessity in memorizing it since it won't come out in the exam; remember the spotting culture too?), I realized that it gave a huge bearing on me to be more of an opinionated person rather than just accepting the facts as absolute truths. Thus, my bias on that example given above would be:
"Tok Janggut and his contemporaries actually did it to protect their self-interest. When they were under the Sultanate, they were appointed as statesmen (pembesar) who collected taxes from the people for the Sultan but their powers were usurped when the British came and colonized Malaya. Losing their income and status, the only option was to fight the invaders since they did not get a strong backing from the royalty."So, who's theory is correct: the westerners', the locals' or mine? Well, that's the beauty of bias; no one opinion should be taken as something total because it allows us the freedom to form our own interpretation of history. Therefore, this has led me to form my own stand on other topics in Malaysian history e.g. the concept of derhaka (treason) against the Sultan made it available for unjust rulers to abuse their power for personal gains thus blind loyalty to the ruler should not be glorified, not to mention countless other issues and controversies the world has to offer.
As for you, start by using this small piece of knowledge to critique our own history rather than just regurgitating all the facts printed in the text book like what we used to do because you will get a clearer sense of the whole picture when you begin examining it from different angles. It's not wrong being neutral but it's right to have your own personal conviction.
No comments:
Post a Comment