Recently my Pendidikan Moral teacher was in class that day. He was reiterating the absolute importance of keeping to the prescribed format when answering a Moral paper. When I say that, I meant he was chewing and spitting out anyone unfortunate enough to have to reply his mock Moral paper questions. All because they did not keep to the format. And that's when it hit me. Pendidikan Moral is the worst ever piece of nonsense, worthless, redundant, ever so useless subject to have ever existed (I am trying to be polite here) in the course of education history, besides another nonsense, worthless, redundant, ever so useless subject, Pendidikan Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan. But that's another story.
First of all, what ever made the Ministry of Education think that we require Pendidikan Moral in the first place? One "obvious" reason may be that Malaysians are a moral-less lot, who are probably so precariously hanging on the abyss of sin and evil and we need Pendidikan Moral in order that good, clean "moral values" may be instilled within us to turn us around 360 degrees.
Okay then. So I turn open a book to see what goodness Moral has in store for me. What do I see? I see 36 "moral values", each of them having their own respective definitions. All these moral values are somewhat relevant . Responsibility. Concern for the environment. Human rights etc.
Here's where Pendidikan Moral begins to go down the drain. It is how we are expected to answer a Moral paper.
Example:
Rain forests are God's gift to humanity. However, humanity continues to pollute and desecrate it without thought nor care
Q1) What is the moral value that can be found in the statement above?
Usual answer that comes to a student's mind: Harmony between man and nature? Love and aprreciate the environment?
No. Your answer is absolutely wrong. Why teacher? Because the statement has the word "God" in it. Therefore, the only moral value that is accepted as the answer is Belief in God.
Which brings me to my next point. How we are expected to find the appropriate moral value that fits the context.
Now, one would expect that part of the learning outcome of Pendidikan Moral is that we will know how to apply the correct moral value for the correct situation. In essense, that it teaches one how to evaluate and analyse a situation. That is sadly not the case.
Instead, we are thought how to spot the keyword in the text and respond accordingly. If the text has the word/words "a responsible attitude that creates trust and faith in others", then the answer can only be Trustworthiness. Doesn't matter if the context, say about a treasurer keeping money properly, can be intepreted as Responsibility. So long as the words trust and faith are there, there is only one, true answer.
Again, this defeats the purpose of Pendidikan Moral. I am being thought how to be a dog that searches only for the marijuana and not the ecstasy. Or how to be a policeman that arrests only black people and not the whites. Is this truly what the Ministry of Education thinks will make us better people? Selective application of morality and principle?
The other matter is how stringent the marking scheme is. When one answers a paper, one must always mention the subject involved. Fail to mention that Ali or Ah Long or whoever needs to have some responsibility in him, and you automatically get zero for that. Another thing is how you "elaborate" on the moral value. Say you got the first part correct and you're writing the definition. Get a single word wrong out of the whole thing, and get another zero. Write "kepada" instead of "terhadap"? Salah. Kosong markah.
Look at countries around us. Our colonial masters the British, have something similar called Citizenship. It is compulsory to learn it, but there are no exams, few assessments and is not a compulsory subject in the GSCE (British version of SPM). Singapore has Social Studies, but is different from ours in the sense that it actually teaches what it's supposed to teach, and not bog the students down with nonsense. The Philippines doesn't even have anything similar, and the United States it is sinonimous with History.
Let us take a step back. Pendidikan Moral is a time consuming subject. Students have to do "social projects". Memorise 36 moral values along with their definition word for word. And then there's the matter that it is a core SPM subject. Now, replace Pendidikan Moral with something else, say, Accounting, or Geography. Now at least the students are learning something worth learning about, since most of my peers are going to secretly go for Accounting classes anyway. More importantly, they can safely put Pendidikan Moral behind and give their undivided attention to other more important subjects, or those that they are weak at.
Having to learn Pendidikan Moral in fact, makes me actually want to do the opposite of what it teaches, simply because I find it so offensive to our intellect and because I want to and I can. Moral values are not taught by forcing students to memorise crap and apply crap. It is by pragmatic practicality in everyday life, or at least taught pragmatically.
If they ever make Pendidikan Sivik an SPM subject, I may have to emancipate myself from Malaysia and move far, far away.
1 person likes this post.
Share on Facebook