When Official Language Becomes a Public Puzzle
No matter how good a policy is, if it is delivered in confusing language, it will breed speculation rather than trust. In recent years, the Indonesian public has repeatedly been presented with official statements that invite multiple interpretations. Instead of providing clarity, the communication often sparks new debates. This phenomenon is not confined to a single institution or administration. There are officials who state a policy ‘may not necessarily be implemented’ while simultaneously asking the public to prepare. Others claim an issue is ‘just a discourse’ even as another agency is already drafting implementation steps. It is also not uncommon for different officials to make contradictory statements on the same issue, leaving the public wondering whom to believe.
This situation highlights that the problem with public communication is not just about speaking, but about building a shared understanding between the government and the people. In communication science, this state is known as ambiguity, the use of language that allows for multiple interpretations. Ambiguity is not always negative; in diplomacy or political negotiation, flexible language is sometimes deliberately used to preserve room for compromise. However, in public policy communication, ambiguity risks becoming a source of uncertainty. Eric Eisenberg’s theory of Strategic Ambiguity explains that leaders sometimes intentionally use non-specific messages to appeal to various groups simultaneously, a strategy useful for mitigating internal conflict or maintaining decision-making flexibility. Yet, when applied to public communication, this strategy often backfires, causing the public to lose certainty as each person interprets the message in their own way.
The problem intensifies in the age of social media. An incomplete sentence can be clipped into a short video, shared thousands of times, and assigned various interpretations before the government has a chance to clarify. Karl Weick’s theory of Sensemaking becomes relevant here, suggesting that when faced with unclear information, people construct their own meaning based on experience, belief, and available information. Consequently, if the government does not provide a complete explanation, the public will fill the information void with assumptions, guesses, and even rumours. A statement about a potential tariff increase or regulatory change can be immediately interpreted as a final decision, even while discussions are still ongoing. An evaluation of a programme might be perceived as its termination. A message intended to reassure the public can instead be read as a signal of a larger problem.
From a policy communication perspective, this reveals a gap between the communicator’s intent and the audience’s understanding. The success of communication depends not only on the speaker’s intention but also on how accurately the message is received. Another issue is the persistent culture of official-oriented, rather than public-oriented, communication. Many statements are crafted in lengthy bureaucratic language, filled with technical jargon or normative phrases that are difficult for the public to grasp, forcing people to guess the real meaning. The public does not demand that officials have all the answers; they value honesty when a policy is still under review. Statements like ‘the study is ongoing’ or ‘a decision has not been made’ are more reassuring than half-certain answers. Communication must be seen as a part of leadership, not just a media activity. Officials should prioritise clarity over speed, ensure consistency in messaging across all government representatives, provide full context for decisions, and build two-way communication by listening to public response. Ultimately, the public judges not only the substance of a policy but also how it is communicated. Ambiguous language might offer officials room to manoeuvre, but in the public eye, it often reads as doubt, inconsistency, or a lack of preparedness.