Literature remains remote to school students

By Sori Siregar

We are reprinting this article to rectify a technical error in the article published on Page 4 yesterday. We apologize for the error.

JAKARTA (JP): Literary study in Indonesian schools has been neglected for 47 years. This tremendously touching fact is also true for Indonesian language study.

How many Indonesians realize this situation and what should be done to find a solution to the problem?

Poet Taufiq Ismail has on many occasions expressed his concern over this matter. He seemed to be the only one who, in both his writing and speeches, never flagged in his efforts to remind others of this condition.

Unfortunately his cries received no appropriate response from the authorities responsible for educational decision-making. They seem to be obsessed with the development of science and technology and have made every effort to focus their attention there.

No one doubts that science and technology are absolutely necessary both at present and in the future. Challenges ahead must be faced with an arsenal of knowledge in order not to be left behind by the world community.

But science and technology alone are not sufficient for the establishment of a solid civilization. Language, literature and other humanity sciences are also extremely important elements to mold this. This is the message Taufiq Ismail has been enthusiastically lobbying everywhere.

How can Indonesians be friendly with literature if during their study at high school do not have the remotest idea of what books are worth reading to enrich themselves spiritually and intellectually.

They are not to be blamed because they have not been prepared for this by their schools. Perhaps, since its independence, Indonesia is the only country in the world where not even a single book has ever been discussed in a class.

It is understood why the mastery of literature and language by Indonesian students -- and teachers, lecturers, dignitaries and journalists -- is extremely poor. With an indifferent attitude towards literature and language, Indonesians have actually disregarded the essence of their own culture. In this condition they will enter the new world civilization, that is multicultural civilization.

Taufiq is remarkably pessimistic that Indonesia will be able to get along side by side with other nations if nothing is done now. In his letter to M. Amien Rais, chairman of the Muhammadiyah religious group, he wrote:

"Our collective indolence will be rammed into forcefully and without mercy by the rapid pace of the millennium civilization when geographical boundaries and other various regulation barriers are removed by others.

We, well known for our slowness, indolence, negligence and carelessness, will be purged, swept away, thrashed and then sprawled on the roadside of the world civilization".

Some may think that Taufiq is a little excessive in his statement. But anyone reading the results of Taufiq's research at high schools in 13 countries may find that Taufiq is not exaggerating and will understand his concern.

Based on a survey made by Taufiq on the number of books read and discussed at high schools in various countries, he found that students in Singapore read an average of six titles, in Malaysia six, in Thailand five, Brunei seven, in Japan 15, in Canada 13, in the United States 32, in Germany 22, in Switzerland 15, in Russia 12, in France 20 to 30, in the Netherlands 30 and in Indonesia zero.

One can ask if, even from the very beginning of the independence, Indonesians ever looked upon language and literature as being important.

But as Asrul Said wrote in his essay in 1951, six years after independence: "It is a fact that humanities in our educational system is considered unimportant. There is no doubt that this view can be detrimental to our education."

With this attitude, reading, discussing or analyzing books (except books of exact sciences) cannot be expected to be beneficial to their readers. Therefore, it will be a good idea if before anything else, this unsympathetic mental attitude should be changed.

Since this duty is not trivial, a considerable amount of work seems inevitable to formulate and plan the steps to be taken. The world civilization in the future may only accept people with the proper spiritual and intellectual development to join, and the price of both is exceedingly high.

The separation of language and literary subjects in class has long been appealed against by many, including a number of literary teachers. Based on past experience, language teachers also assume the additional responsibility of literary teachers.

This double capacity has become a heavy burden for the teachers, particularly those with a limited literary background.

Moreover, with inadequate time in class for both subjects, the teachers have no opportunity to make book reading compulsory for their students.

Even if they were forced to do so, the availability of books in the library is awfully poor. A severely restricted educational budget makes the problem worse.

Suppose the budget problem can be overcome, a longer time for language and literary class should be recommended because it will give the students the opportunity to deepen their understanding of the subjects, and to have ample time to discuss books they have read and to have long debates on differing views.

If this appeal is heard and then brought up for discussion by educational experts, the results may serve well in improving the present condition. But there is still a long way to go. It is therefore sensible to support and press ahead with Taufiq's campaign.

The writer is a novelist.