TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
In a land of euphemism, speaking plain language is a heroic act
In a land when everyone is speaking in a low whisper, using your normal register certainly feels like a shout.
Change Size
An activist of Jaringan Solidaritas Korban untuk Keadilan (Solidarity Network for Victims of Justice) holds a protest near an armored vehicle with a #ReformasiDikorupsi (reform corrupted) signing in front of the Presidential Palace complex in Jakarta on Oct. 24, 2019. (JP/Dhoni Setiawan)
I
ndonesians surely are familiar with the term “bahasa menunjukkan bangsa”, which roughly translates into “language represents a nation”.
Indonesian, derived from a regional language used in some parts of Sumatra was chosen by the country’s founding fathers as the national language, not only due to its simplicity but also for its egalitarian tendency.
The late Indonesianist Ben Anderson called Indonesian a language of revolution, as it was the revolution that imbued it with the “emotionally resonant words which give any language its cultural identity and aura, and which seem to express its speakers' most intimate experience”.
Words like “rakyat” (people), “merdeka” (free), “perjuangan” (struggle) and “semangat” (spirit) came straight out of the revolutionary fervor that drove the country’s independence and then became the battle cry of the country’s slightly leftist political tendency at that moment.
But just like any revolution, there was bound to be a backlash.
When the New Order regime arrived on scene, it did not take long for Indonesian to lose its edge. And anytime an authoritarian regime comes to power, the first casualty will be truth and the language through which the truth is expressed.
A dyed-in-the-wool Javanese, then-president Soeharto opted to use symbolism and euphemism when speaking Indonesian and treated the language as what ethnographer James Siegel described as a “formal language which lacks substance or intent”.
