Indonesia: Does RI really need a language law?

[Harold F. Schiffman]

Does RI really need language law?
Opinion News - Saturday, February 10, 2007

Setiono Sugiharto, Jakarta

The discussion on the language bill held at the Language Center and Atma
Jaya University in December suggested the need to maintain the Indonesian
language as the official national language and at the same time to
safeguard it against the excessive permeation of foreign terms. Comprising
nine chapters and 32 articles, the bill stated the Indonesian language
would be given preference over foreign languages in such domains as
politics, government institutions, education, business and journalism.

The effort to promote the Indonesian language through legal action also
reflects the Language Center's frustration over its failed language policy
in influencing people's language behavior. The officials apparently
believe legal action is the last step to be taken because it can force
people to use the language. In this respect, language users have no choice
but to comply. To be recalcitrant is subject to sanctions, harsh penalties
and even imprisonment. In retrospect, although the center strongly urged
-- via the policy it established -- the use of Indonesian in the
aforementioned domains, it has been evident that foreign terminologies
continue to enter the Indonesian language. Banning the use of foreign
terms in advertising and the mass media has not received a positive
response from language users. On the contrary, they remain recalcitrant.

In response to the language bill, one might pose critical questions such
as: What are the motives for proposing the bill? Is it purely academic or
politically motivated? Is it realistic? Is pushing forward the bill
urgent? What are the implications for society? Whatever the reasons, it
should be explicitly stated from the outset that the mechanism created for
monitoring and controlling one's language preference via legislation often
results in deteriorating effects rather than beneficial ones.

The static nature of the law could in fact destroy the very essence of
language, which is dynamic, creative, personal, and fluid, evolving over
time as a result of language contact and interaction among people and
groups in relation to politics, history and economics. The implications
are crystal clear. The language one prefers and uses in fulfilling their
diverse needs cannot be controlled, nor even restricted by the language
law, which is inherently static, fixed and legally binding.

Imposing a law on how people should express their thoughts and feelings in
the form of both oral and written languages is ostensibly against the very
nature of language at best. Sociolinguistically speaking, the urge to use
language is strongly motivated by the domains (or contexts) that compel
language users to favor one language over another. Different domains have
specific language requirements. It thus stands to reason that imposing a
language law, which controls people's language use, is unrealistic,
irrelevant and unnecessary.

Languages belong to everyone, suggesting that language in its social
setting is a social phenomenon. People should therefore feel free to
represent their individual ideology, identity and ethnicity without being
subjugated by a legal document. Thus language use cannot be prescribed and
dictated in the form of law, which often represents a certain group's
ideology at the expense of others' ideologies. Also the language law might
become a breeding ground for language manipulation, coercion, propaganda
and even language colonialization by those in authority who are seeking to
fulfill their personal needs and interests.

The public at large certainly has the right to use any language form they
wish, given the very basic nature of language as a medium of
self-expression. They also have the right to resist any language
manipulation or oppression. More importantly, they need to remain
recalcitrant if they perceive the language bill to be a mechanism for
restricting their freedom of expression via language. This recalcitrance
can be proved successful with the support and involvement of language
constituents such as language teachers, linguists, legal experts,
journalists and any other parties who are concerned with language
democratization.

The writer is a lecturer at the Department of English of Atma Jaya
Catholic University, Jakarta. He can be reached at

setiono.sugiharto at atmajaya.ac.id.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20070210.E03&irec=2

***********************************************************************************

N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal.

***********************************************************************************