An intriguing article appeared in my Inbox this morning, about the teaching of history in schools. In the article, which was published in The Straits Times, the author lamented how our education system has failed in the teaching of history. As evidence, the author cited a case where 15 year olds at a school band leadership camp named their team 'Hitler' because they admired the dictator's leadership qualities, and another where young Singaporeans have no idea who S. Rajaratnam (a founding father of our country), is.

I wonder if the author realises (maybe she does but she is writing in a state-owned paper after all) that history is dangerous. While history can be a tool for "nation-building" (more correctly known as propaganda), the study of history is actually a training of the mind - to read between the lines of contemporaneous documents, the self-serving statements of persons with legacies to protect, and the words of the man-in-the-street, whose views and recollections are necessarily influenced by her circumstances, both at the time a "historical" event has occurred and how she has fared since then.  A historian is not a person with a memory for dry facts and figures, but a person who is trained to look underneath the underneath. She does not only have to aware of the biases and the worldviews of the persons she is interviewing or who had written the records she is studying, she has also, to the extent possible, be self-aware of her own biases and her own worldview. It requires a person to be analytical, to be clear-minded and ruthlessly self-questioning and to ask hard questions. It is my two years studying history at A Levels that taught me the merits of doing intense research, of tracking down that one reference in a thousand page book to an obscure research paper that leads you to another aspect of the issue which you had never considered, of reading widely and finding odd correlations and relationships that you never realise exist, and then to put together the various nuggets of seemingly unrelated or distantly related information to form a coherent picture that may be different from what you had believed to be correct. 

Teach students history well (goodness that is a load of unwritten and unspoken assumptions here) - and you are teaching them to ask many probing and possibly uncomfortable questions about our accepted view of the past, the carefully crafted story known to every single Singaporean child who ever studied in our education system about how Singapore came to be - the story of hardworking immigrants who through sheer hard work and with no intention of ever settling down permanently here created this modern city state that we call home. The story of how we are an accidential nation, thrown out of Malaysia as we did not believe in special rights of any one race, who nobody ever thought will survive for long as an independent nation state. The story of how, under the leadership of our wise and capable and incorruptible leaders, we have became what we are today. Still a little red dot, but a little red dot that all of us are proud of.

Do we want to put the tools for tearing down this cherished and almost-sacred worldview in the hands of our young? To allow them to become truly independent, tireless, curious questioners? To allow them the means to pull our almost-mytical leaders off their dais? 

During my training to become a museum guide at the Asian Civilisations Museum, I learnt that Shiva is the god of death and destruction and is hence feared. However, he is also admired, because the Hindus understand that without death, there can be no new life, without destruction, there can be no new creation.
 

1. the courts do not call you to inform you that you are suspected of money-laundering;
2. the staff at the courts do not speak Mandarin upon picking up the phone, neither does the CAD officer; and
3. they do not call every lawyer's (and her secretary's) DID one by one to say the same thing.