Yet another rant...
I do not understand the reason for this stupid thing we call Moral Education. Sure, a Muslim student will be forced to take Islamic Studies, but non-Muslims are too subjected this stupid subject we call Moral. I may not know exactly what is being taught in Islamic studies, but I am fairly certain that it is a subject that is not a popular subject either. Pick any who have been subjected to either of these 2 subjects and chances are students would have said that it is a waste of time and money. Yes, religion is important for some (not you agnostics and atheists :P ) but when such teachings are being made into a educational subject in itself subject to exams and grades, this whole religious affair becomes a bloody circus. I believe that that religion is not something to be forced upon people and having said that, what more being made into a subject that is compulsory? On the other hand, Moral Education, Moral Studies…whatever its denomination, it is still a shell of a subject being more of a policy decision than actually a substantive educational course. An essential ingredient all throughout the formative years in that national school system, this subject has received much flak and will continue to remain so, no matter the justification given by the should-have-known-better authorities. Again, it is simply a waste of resources. Wouldn’t it be better if optional vocational subjects be offered to the non-Muslim students whilst waiting for the Muslim students to finish their kelas agama? With all the lament that our local grads are not good enough, this should be a wonderful partial solution to this problem not to mention that the many people who will also laud this move including students themselves.
What exactly is Moral Studies? It is a hodge-podge subject of philosophy, jurisprudence and plain common sense. The Moral subject offered at “higher-learning” level is indeed a refreshing change but alas not really making any difference either. I appreciate the philosophy and its many school of thoughts in many different areas such as morality and judgment but what we are actually learning in this subject is a laughable. The subject attempts to be academic and intellectual but its substance remain at best half-baked. It is trying to sound deep but falls flat on its face. Throw in Socrates, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, add in a little deontoic and aretaic judgments and spice it up with a little “strategy of dissolution” and voila! you have Moral. Wonderful, innit? It is amazing what little-known words yet intellectually-sounding can do to justify the subject per se. I have read a little on philosophy and on jurisprudence myself but they are so much more fulfilling than the syllabus on this subject. I seriously question the competence of any Moral Studies teacher/lecturer in their ability to understand AND deliver the subject properly. In fact, I would venture one step further and assert that most (it is my theory and has yet to be proved except for the one currently teaching me but fails miserably) are at best teachers by rote memory and recitation of the syllabus itself without any proper understanding and penghayatan. Aristotle said this …bla bla…Principalistic ethics is this this… such is the sad state of our education system. It has its qualities but with no improvement, our education system will soon be the laughing stock of the world, if it has not already. But I digress….this is supposed to be about me reading the ways to resolve a conflict. Not to compare education systems will be another post for another day. Alright…I guess I’ll have to go back to reading the pseudo-intellectual text on my table. Not that it’ll do me any good apart from being a good coaster and earning me some shillings from the old-newspaper man.
What exactly is Moral Studies? It is a hodge-podge subject of philosophy, jurisprudence and plain common sense. The Moral subject offered at “higher-learning” level is indeed a refreshing change but alas not really making any difference either. I appreciate the philosophy and its many school of thoughts in many different areas such as morality and judgment but what we are actually learning in this subject is a laughable. The subject attempts to be academic and intellectual but its substance remain at best half-baked. It is trying to sound deep but falls flat on its face. Throw in Socrates, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, add in a little deontoic and aretaic judgments and spice it up with a little “strategy of dissolution” and voila! you have Moral. Wonderful, innit? It is amazing what little-known words yet intellectually-sounding can do to justify the subject per se. I have read a little on philosophy and on jurisprudence myself but they are so much more fulfilling than the syllabus on this subject. I seriously question the competence of any Moral Studies teacher/lecturer in their ability to understand AND deliver the subject properly. In fact, I would venture one step further and assert that most (it is my theory and has yet to be proved except for the one currently teaching me but fails miserably) are at best teachers by rote memory and recitation of the syllabus itself without any proper understanding and penghayatan. Aristotle said this …bla bla…Principalistic ethics is this this… such is the sad state of our education system. It has its qualities but with no improvement, our education system will soon be the laughing stock of the world, if it has not already. But I digress….this is supposed to be about me reading the ways to resolve a conflict. Not to compare education systems will be another post for another day. Alright…I guess I’ll have to go back to reading the pseudo-intellectual text on my table. Not that it’ll do me any good apart from being a good coaster and earning me some shillings from the old-newspaper man.
| Permalink
|
