of history and ignorance

I know that some people might have grown accustomed to their pretty laidback life here in Malaysia that they dread having to fly back to London; they have developed a strong sense of attachment to the luxuries and conveniences their daily routine here have provided.

But for others, such notion of attachment are virtually unheard of; whether they are here in Malaysia or back in London, life goes on as it usually does for them - without the excessive display of emotional and cultural inertia when the time comes to leave.

I think we should do well to remember that the absence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist; the lack of any feeling of regret and apprehension of leaving Malaysia does not make one any less grateful for having the chance of spending one's summer holidays back at home.

My point is that it is a little unreasonable to allow our sense attachment and complacency to unnecessarily distract our attention to the new exciting adventures we can look forward to in London.

To a certain extent, I find that it is a bit misguided to attach ourselves to a physical political entity i.e. our country whilst neglecting the social and cultural connections i.e. its people and heritage.

Indeed, I believe that the notion of Malaysia is not so much defined by its geo-political boundaries as much as by the characters and ideals of its people.

This is one of the reasons that I find the recent argument over the origins of the name 'Malaysia' rather misses the point, although I must fairly admit that the sudden albeit short-lived interest in Malaysian history shown by the public was heartening.

And the debate over the origins of the country's name seemed rather superficial when compared to other aspects about our country's history i.e. social, economic, political which seemed to have more substance, at least from a practical point of view.

It is certainly correct to argue about the symbolic importance of finding out the origins of our country's name in terms of its role in the development of the country's identity; but I felt that there are other more substantial issues about our country's history which are equally important to our country's identity which are worth debating about.

For instance, the histories of the early kerajaans in Penisular Malaysia, the early influence of Hinduism and Buddhism which bring about the process of Indigenization, the impact and relevance of the British socio-economic and political policies to the current political structure, the study of pre-Independence literature and press in Malaya or - like brought up by Ronnie Liu recently - the true fighters for Independence.

Personally, I felt that the notion he was trying to put forward was that they are other people, groups and parties whose efforts and dedications contribute to the gaining of independence for Malaya and its success should not be attributed only to the members of one political party.

But naturally in Malaysia, such delicate and fragile notion are stripped down and distorted for the benefit of a select few who wish to use it to gain instant political points. The fact that most of the Malaysian public are content with reading about it in the news, not bothering to find out more about its real context doesn't help either.

Not that I totally find myself in agreement with the statement made by Ronnie Liu either but we must always remember that one could draw several different, sometimes conflicting interpretations from a single historical fact.

Historical facts are certainly static and unchanging but historical interpretations can always be subjected to revisions depending on prevailing circumstances.

Besides, I believe that it is far more important to allow for open discussions and debates amongst these conflicting interpretations rather than hastily trying to decide which interpretation is the right one.

So far, most of our politicians, scholars and the public are more consumed in trying to outwit each other and proving the validity of their own interpretation in this issue whilst failing to even acknowledge - either due to sheer ignorance or an insurmountable ego - the plausibility of other interpretations.

Some of them can't barely see past beyond the bow of their own argument fearing that acknowledging other interpretations will lessen the credibility and validity of their own. They need to know that in this day and age, one sure way to strengthen one's views is to subject them to intense scrutiny by others and not by silencing the critics.

It is precisely because the issue is such a delicate one that it must be adressed immediately in an open, rational and objective manner. True, history is always written by the winning side but is it not that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it?

Especially if we choose to blatantly ignore the other side of the story, the past may come to haunt us.

In addition, when we begin to place more importance arguing over the exact origins of our country's name rather than debating about the lessons we could learn from our country's economic, social and political histories, we risk falling into the intellectual trap of putting form ahead of function.

And to tell the truth, Malaysians have been ensnared many time by such traps - but we don't seemed to learn from our mistakes.

Compounded by our revisionist attitude towards history, we risk turning our rich varied history into mindless propaganda by effectively closing the doors for further historical discourses.

It is inevitable that the interpretation of our history will be skewed to serve our nationalistic purposes, but it should not be pursued with such fervert zeal to the point that it stiffles any other point of views, thus giving the impression that the whole subject of history is dull, dry and stagnant.

Indeed, the study of history can be as vibrant and exciting as any other science subjects if one approaches it with an open mind and healthful amounts of curiosity; but then, the subject itself must be tailored in such a way that it encourages such modes of thinking.

The way I see it now, the study of history in our country seemed to induce nothing but sheer ignorance about it amongst our students - training them to accept only one version of history whilst happily ignoring the others - when it actual sense history is supposed to make one think outwards rather than inwards.

Ignorance are spread not by teaching ignorance per se but by forcefully suppresing any competing point of views and promoting their own version of history.

But then again, ignorant people act as ignorant people do, finding their audience among equally ignorant people.