Xiao Chua, Ph.D. on the Reframed General Education Curriculum
Taking Philippine History out of college
WALKING HISTORY
By Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, Ph.D.
The Manila Times, May 5, 2026
THERE were times during exam week in my college days (2001-2005) that I wished I did not have to take the required Math and Natural Sciences general education courses because although I love math and science, math and science don’t love me back. Kidding aside, my reasoning is that I wished I would just take courses that were relevant to my field which is history. That would have made life easier. I know many science, math and engineering students also feel the same way about the required Philippine History (Kas 1), Asian History (Kas 2) and Rizal course (Philippine Institutions 100) during our time.
Of course, in hindsight, even if I barely survived the subjects I did not like, I am still thankful I took them. How ignorant I would be of how the world works if not for them. I may not have been an expert, but at least I can appreciate how recessive traits are passed or how viruses are transmitted or getting strong, or how the lack of study of the weight of vehicles that are passing through a bridge may lead to engineers building substandard bridges that could collapse and harm people as some of our contractors and leaders compute and laugh their way to the bank.
How does general education make a man? I would like to quote how the martyr and student leader Lean Alejandro described what an activist should be to his future wife, Lidy: “The socialist man must know how to compute the distance of the stars, how to differentiate a fish from a shark, a mammal from a reptile. He must know how to distill wine into liquor and how to arrive at e=mc^2…. He must know how to follow orders, give orders and he must know when to disobey them. He must be able at debate, at lobbying, at open struggle. He must know how to analyze difficult political situations, how to get out of one and how to convince others that they must do the same. He must know how to sail a ship, dig a latrine, construct a pigsty, wash clothes, wash dishes, plan an offensive, plan a retreat, mix martinis, drink martinis, differentiate brandy from whisky, keep quiet, participate, take care of babies, manage a state bureaucracy, soothe pain, comfort the sorrowful, maintain his composure in hot water, when to watch, when to participate, repair appliances, maintain a car, purge revisionists, ride a horse, run from a bull, swim, play tennis, drown gracefully, sink with his ship with honor along with the mice, discuss Mao, debunk Zinoviev, ridicule Stalin, appreciate a beehive, raise chickens, cook chickens, play Boggle (respectably), correctly read Mabini, recruit members into the movement, motivate members to struggle, host a party, play at least one musical instrument, be critical, self-critical, honest…. The socialist man is the total man. Specialization is for ants.”Marcos and the US want Sara out. Will God nod?
In the university, this general education program was called “Tatak UP.” The curriculum that made us different because it aimed to make a well-rounded human being despite specialization. A man who is both skillful and is also humane, nakikipagkapwa-tao. And that is the role of the social sciences and humanities subjects, like history, in general education, a liberal education that makes one think freely and critically. “Libera” comes from the Italian word for “free.” And this is what makes a university a university and not just some school.
Last Saturday, I received news from Philippine Historical Association secretary Jonathan Balsamo about the proposed mandated general education subjects that would remain. One of the five would be “Rizal and Philippine Studies” which complies supposedly with Republic Act 1425 which mandates that the life, works and writings of Rizal must be taught, but it will also add, aside from Rizal’s, analysis on issues based on other studies on the Philippines. Readings in Philippine History will be dropped all together! I suppose the Philippine Studies added to the Rizal course is to justify that Philippine History is still integrated nonetheless.
So, after our victory in bringing back Philippine History to the senior high school through the subject “Pag-aaral ng Kasaysayan at Lipunang People” (which is only partly a history subject), why are they really bent on hitting Philippine History as a subject, in the middle of a crisis in history education in the face of culture wars and historical distortion?
Apparently, it is part of what was being planned all along. As early as August 2022, former UP president and Trade secretary Alfredo Pascual was saying, “The trend now in higher education is to shorten the numbers you need to get a college degree…. There should be no more general education courses in college. General education courses will be taken care of in the K-12 curriculum. College should focus on the major subjects.” For many, perhaps this is actually a very attractive proposition. But this neo-liberal turn in education will have a huge impact on us, summed up by my colleague Naomi Co: “Nang sa gayon ay dumami pa ang mga masusunuring manggagawa at passive consumers — mga mamamayang walang kapasidad na kuwestiyunin ang sistemang nambubusabos sa kanila.”
We should stop this.
My proposal for the consultation this afternoon: retain Readings in Philippine History as a GE, but instead of focusing on the readings which sometimes lead to mere trivialization, make the readings support a better understanding of the history. It will still teach critical thinking, analyze evidence and help identify biases and perspectives. Include the implication and use of AI in truth-telling. …Also, our struggles for freedom will inform us to continue being aware that oppression exists and we should side with the plight of those who have less in life.
The obliteration of cultural academics
WALKING HISTORY
By Michael Charleston “Xiao” B. Chua, Ph.D.
The Manila Times, May 12, 2026
ALTHOUGH I try my best to be calm most of the time, there was recently a viral video of me getting a little bit, in Filipino, “nag-aalat,” on the issue of the proposed reframing of the General Education (GE) curriculum, particularly the merging of the subject of Philippine History with the Republic Act 1425-mandated Rizal course, into a single subject called Rizal and Philippine Studies. General Education are subjects in college taken by everyone, regardless of the chosen course of study, to make a person a whole human being rather than a robot or a specialized ant, so he can understand his society better and deepen his humanity and identity as a person with other people.
I do hope our friends in the Commission on Higher Education do not take this against me. This video was taken last Tuesday, May 5, after I listened online to their public hearing about the proposed GE. They were cutting down on GEs so college can be taken in three and a half years, which is a very, very attractive proposition to most people. They even said some of these GE subjects had already been brought down to senior high school (SHS), including Philippine History, which is the crux of my reaction.
You see, since 2022, it was already being proposed that college be cut down to three years, focusing on major subjects. Apparently, the Congressional Commission on Education (Edcom) had recommended it too. Probably because it was claimed to be just a proposal, we were shocked to learn that it will soon be piloted without the wide consultation they claim to have done. Looking at the list, it seems Philippine History is being dropped, the Rizal course remains; but at times they say, Philippine History is not being dropped, it is to be integrated into “Rizal and Philippine Studies.” In all the other GEs, streamlining was what they did, becoming inter-disciplinary subjects. But then I also heard that Philippine History is really not there because it was brought down to SHS — wait a minute!
I was a consultant of the Department of Education for the drafting of the Araling Panlipunan (AP-Social Studies) curriculum. When I was consulted for this SHS subject, “Pag-aaral ng Kasaysayan at Lipunang Pilipino” (PKLP), we did not have an idea, or at least I did not have the slightest idea, that this was already the process of transferring Philippine History from college to SHS. If we had known, we would have crafted it a different way, not as a supplement to the Philippine History subjects for AP Grade 5 and AP Grade 6. So, I said in that Pandesal Forum of Wilson Lee Flores at Kamuning Bakery organized by Carl Balita, “Why did I not know about it, am I stupid? Pinagmukha niyo akong tanga doon?”
If there was wide consultation, why didn’t any of the four historical organizations — Philippine Historical Association (PHA), Philippine National Historical Society (PNHS), Adhika ng Pilipinas, and Bahay Saliksikan ng Kasaysayan-Bagong Kasaysayan Inc. (Bakas) — know about this? I mean, we have acquaintances in the GE committee! Everyone was shookt.
Do not take my reaction against me, please. I guess I was only expressing what many educators felt that day.
Other points: Although some major universities merge the Philippine History and Rizal course, this I believe is not compatible with Republic Act 1425, which only mandates the teaching of the life, works and writings of our national hero, José Rizal. These are two different animals and should not be mixed. Readings in Philippine History should not be taken out, but in its present form must be recalibrated to remove the document-focused way it is taught which makes it a bit trivial, to more of documents-analysis that leads to understanding the whole narrative of Philippine history, and should also include the implications of AI and the digital world for the writing of it.
In wanting to mix all these subjects together, or in wanting to be interdisciplinary, by skipping a step, we end up being anti-disciplinary. We end up diluting the disciplines altogether. You cannot be multidisciplinary without solid disciplinary grounding. “Lahat lalabnaw.”
We heard the terms cost-cutting and employability a number of times during the consultation. This is a neo-liberal approach which makes education really just about getting jobs and not learning to be a well-rounded person. It also gives a hint that we do not want to spend more on education as a state. GE subjects are designed to deepen the thinking and humanity of people. To impose the burden of learning skillsets in GE for employability is not right because that should be the focus of major subjects and the whole K-12, not that we do not teach skills, but just saying. In Philippine History, I was reminded by my ninang, Dr. Ma. Florina Orillos-Juan, that we can learn not just critical thinking but cognitive skills as well needed for everyday analysis. Provided of course that the course is taught well.
As I said, a three-and-a-half-year time in college is attractive, as done in places like Singapore. But they already have a solid basic education and we are just starting with our reforms. We also have a “nationhood” problem and still reeling from colonial mentality. We’ve had so many gains in history research only to lose a platform to teach it. Also, although this is only secondary, what will happen to history, social science and humanities academics who will lose their bread-and-butter job of servicing GE subjects. If they will lose their jobs or slide down to SHS with so much more workload, expect the decrease of academic production in culture.
This is an existential crisis for us, the cultural academics. We will be obliterated.
IT'S XIAOTIME! 