Reforming our speech

Reforming our speech

Language and culture may or may not be among President B.J.
Habibie's strong points. Those of us who happen to remember his
tirade against rap music some years ago may have their doubts.
But few of us would disagree with the aptness of his recent call
for officials to stop sugarcoating unpleasant realities with
euphemisms and to start speaking bluntly. The call was ironically
made during the opening of the seventh congress of the Indonesian
language at the State Palace.

"A group of people suffering from starvation is manipulatively
described as facing only 'food shortages'. The price hike in a
commodity or service is explained as a 'price adjustment'," the
President mentioned as examples. Many more could be cited. A
person arrested, for example, is said to have been "put in
safety". Crops never fail, they are merely "not very successful".
Insurgent groups are invariably described as "security disturbing
bands", regardless of their aspirations and political leanings.

From the problem solving point of view, one of the most
damaging euphemisms is the word oknum, or bad apple, a term used
to describe an unscrupulous individual acting in his or her own
capacity. By using this word, government and military
institutions effectively seek to absolve themselves from any
wrongdoing committed by their personnel. Thus, although it is
common knowledge that many policemen extort money from road users
-- often by fabricating violations -- the police force cannot be
held responsible for failing to clean up its ranks because only
individual oknum are involved, not the institution itself.

The bureaucratic custom of concealing undesirable facts and
realities behind a growing lexicon of euphemisms always benefits
those in power, and never helps the powerless. Many contend that
this manipulative use of the language is designed to preserve the
power of those at the helm of the state and the bureaucracy. To
state an unpleasant reality bluntly might reflect badly on those
who should be responsible for preventing, or at least correcting
the failing which lead to it.

In his speech earlier this week, Habibie correctly remarked
that the behavior of those using the language in this way needs
to be reformed. In part, the prolific use of euphemisms in the
language of politics and government upholds the status quo. On
the other hand, Indonesians' strong preference for euphemisms is
a peculiar cultural idiosyncrasy -- the heritage of a feudal past
which has led to excessive fear and respect for those in power.

Regardless of what encouraged the practice, the tradition of
dressing unpleasant facts up in euphemistic phrases is not to the
benefit of modernization and democratization, with their pressing
demands for transparency. Changes are necessary if the Indonesian
language is to become an effective tool of communication,
learning and governance in the next century.

This will involve changing our outlook to bring it in to step
with democratic changes that are taking place all around us. This
may take time, since old habits die hard. In the meantime,
educators, the government and especially the media can all do
their bit to promote a more straightforward and transparent use
of the Indonesian language.

Judging by past progress toward this goal, all of this may be
easier said than done. But by scything through the layers of
jargon and euphemism that shroud our official's statements, the
media could make a valuable contribution to the movement toward
democracy. It is a job well worth attempting.