同源殊途-馬來西亞與新加坡中學歷史教科書的國族認同形塑之比較分析

A Comparative Analysis of the Shaping of National Identity in Malaysia and Singapore History Textbooks

陳心怡(Tan Sing Yee)

指導教授 ： 卯靜儒

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/課程與教學研究所/碩士(2019年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU201901152

摘要

在眾多學科中，歷史教科書可說是與國族認同息息相關，其編寫不僅僅是一個技術性的作業，而是與政治及權力有關。在許多國家分裂或是政權轉移的國家例子當中，國家之間就算是經歷同一段歷史，歷史教科書所呈現的敘述內容卻會顯示出不同國家想建構出不同的「歷史敘述」，形成不同的國族認同。馬來西亞和新加坡這兩個國家與1965年完全分開，在建國經歷中經歷過分分合合的過程，這也意味著兩國雖然如今雖已經分道揚鑣，但過去有共同經歷的歷史，而且是有很深的淵源。本研究以比較的方式對兩國教科書的國族認同進行分析，以九個面向逐步檢視，發現兩個國家雖然曾經有共同的歷史，但是歷史敘述卻形塑出不一樣的國族認同。得到的結論是
1） 從多元文化的角度而言，馬來西亞國族認同是巨石式的多元文化模式，而新加坡則是沙拉碗式的多元文化模式。
2） 時間性而言，馬來西亞國族認同強調過去王國的輝煌文明，而新加坡國族認同看重獨立前後的建設發展，
3） 從歷史敘述的角度而言，馬來西亞國族認同傾向於在地馬來人角度，而新加坡國族認同則是傾向於外來移民角度
總結而言，馬來西亞教科書所形塑的國族認同由「馬來」、「君王」以及「伊斯蘭教」三者交匯而成，而新加坡教科書所形塑的國族認同以悲情方式建構出其小國的起始點，運用國家發展建設建構出其國族認同。

關鍵字

歷史教科書 ； 國族認同 ； 新加坡 ； 馬來西亞 ； 教科書分析

並列摘要

One of the common subjects at school that is closely linked to national identity is the history subject. Countries that experience split and separation before could carry a different national narrative and probably shapes into two distinctive national identity. In this study, the countries that are under examination is Malaysia and Singapore. Separated in 1965, they shared a common history in the past. This study analyzes Malaysia and Singapore history textbooks under a comparative lens. The finding shows that even though both countries have a long-standing common history, they chose to narrate their history differently. The findings are,
1. In terms of the multicultural model, Malaysia chose to shape its national identity as a gigantic rock model, which uses a single culture, with Malay-ness and Islamic elements to portray its national identity. Singapore chose to shape its national identity as a salad bowl model, integrating different culture into its national identity.
2. Malaysia chose to focus on the glorious Malay kingdom while Singapore chose to focus on the development after the independence of the country
3. From the perspective of writing, Malaysia textbook is written from the perspective of the local Malay, while the Singapore textbook is written from the perspective of the immigrant.
In short, comparing two sets of history textbooks, Malaysia choose to use Malay-ness and Kingship element, together with Islamic values to shape into its national identity. On the other hand, Singapore chose to focus on its survival state, narrating the state which experience a difficult state at first while progress and developed in the first ten years, portraying the national identity as a small yet developed nation.

並列關鍵字

history textbook ； national identity ； Singapore ； Malaysia ； textbook analysis

參考文獻

一、英文文獻

Anderson， Benedict (1991).Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, UK: Verso

Aziz， R. A. (2012). New Economic Policy and the Malaysian multiethnic middle class. Asian Ethnicity， 13(1)， 29-46.

Boon， G. C.， & Gopinathan， S. (2013). History education and the construction of national identity in Singapore， 1945–2000. In History education and national identity in East Asia (pp. 213-236). London and New York, UK and NY: Routledge.

Carabine， J. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830-1990-A genealogical analysis. In M. Wetherall (Ed.)， Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 267-310). London, UK: SAGE.