Literature, literally

What's the latest talk about Singapore education? Literature. Pure literature. When one mentions the word "pure" in front of literature, one is not trying to imply that the subject is high-class, swanky or elitist. In fact, the "word" pure here means independent and self-supporting.

It was reported that more and more students are abstaining from studying pure literature during their upper secondary years. With the introduction of combined humanities, where students take social studies with either literature, history or geography, pure literature has become less popular these days.

There has been quite a bit of action about the tissue in the Straits Times forum this week. Most of those letter hint at the writer's disappointment at the decreasing amount of pure literature students. Some state that literature should continue to be enjoyed but is learning the subject really worth the effort when one sits for its exam at the O Levels?

During my secondary school days, the school made it mandatory for all of us to study literature. Because of that rule, I am now a former literature student who had undergone the rigours of the pure literature paper during the O Levels examinations. My score? A humble but respectable C5 in my opinion.

During those uniformed days and even up till now where I am wearing a different uniform, my perception of answering a literature question is to write as much as you can, regardless of what you know and what you don't. A question may consist of 15 words but because it is worth 20 marks, I would pen an answer that occupies an entire page of foolscap paper.

But even then, a full page flooded with words, may not guarantee you a pass. There seems to be certain "standard answers" which candidates must state in order to score better at the exams. Sometimes you may have an alternative opinion to what the book states but as that thought of yours is not printed in the book, you will be taking a risk if you were to write that as your answer.

The "template answer" concept of literature may be the reason why an increasing number of students choose not to pick it. Literature should be full of debate, where students and the teacher share their views and engage in meaningful discussions. If the teachers were to provide students with straightforward points to ace in tests, then what is the point of testing them?

Another theory as to why pure literature is losing its popularity is that the subject is viewed as atas by many. Students who come from non-English speaking families may already struggle with English, hence their mentality is that they cannot afford to spend time on another "language" subject.

Some, like those from neighbourhood schools, believe that literature is a burden. Its sole purpose is to expose us to more stories by famous authors. But then, because most of these stories are written by an eloquent hand, it may be difficult for the average student to comprehend.

Many think that literature is like studying English but the only difference is that you have comprehension. The comprehension can be prose or poetry and the questions are there to make you list out everything which was taught in the classroom. The killer is always poetry as it short yet deep in meaning. Two hours in the exam hall may be insufficient for students to digest the underlying meaning.

In order to make literature hip and attract more students, the Ministry of Education should promote the subject in a light and casual way. Teachers should not "teach", they should have DADA, discussions, arguments, debates and analysis, in the classroom. Only then will the study of literature be useful and worthwhile.