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.