48

May I Have a Word?

‘Abiding Times’, theSun, 8 January 2010

AS a writer in the English language, I generally loathe the government regulation of words. English, unlike French or Malay, has no government body that dictates official definitions or usage of words. The great dictionaries of English or books like Lynne Truss’ Eats, Shoots and Leaves merely observe and describe the evolut ion of English, whereas bodies like the Académie française or the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka are the publishers of official dictionaries in their respective countries.

In the UK or the USA it is inconceivable that words would be altogether banned by the government, let alone banned only for certain classes of citizens. Some words are regarded as taboo, like certain expletives or racially sensitive terms, but public awareness and discretion is enough to guide usage of these words.

Here, there seems to have been a revival in traditional Malay spellings. The kopitiam in Bangsar is called Chawan, a book published by the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development is called Chantek and some Malay bloggers, free from editorial constraints, consistently use the old spellings. MPs were more eloquent when they said things like ‘menguchapkan terima kaseh’ and watched P. Ramlee movies like Chinta. In Singapore, they eat kachang puteh and shop at Chomel. There must be a reason for this revival, and I reckon it’s because certain spellings can evoke memories of a better (real or imagined) era unachievable through the new spellings.

“Certain spellings can evoke memories of a better (real or imagined) era unachievable through the new spellings.”

A far more damaging consequence of government regulation of language can be seen in our schools, where decisions about the languages Malaysian children are taught in have been largely taken away from parents and instead lie in Putrajaya, forcing many to seek refuge in the lucrative private tuition sector.

The most recent consequence of government regulation of words is the impassioned furore over the use of the word ‘Allah’. The etymological evidence alone is sound enough: ‘Allah’ has been used as an Arabic word for ‘God’ for centuries and continues to be used by Arab Christians.

But there are a host of other arguments being employed by those who support the exclusive use of ‘Allah’ by Muslims. One is that ‘Allah’ is not just a word: as the name of God it deserves special treatment and should not be used by non-Muslims. I’m no theologian but there seem to be numerous Muslim scholars who argue that it’s perfectly valid for People of the Book to refer to ‘Allah’, and produce Qur’anic verses (such as Al Imran 3:64) to support their case.

Another objection is that the Arab example doesn’t apply in Malaysia. The argument goes that the historical usage by Christian Arabs is well known in the Middle East, so confusion amongst Muslims doesn’t arise there. But in Malaysia, they say, Muslims could potentially get confused. Needless to say, this view is odiously condescending, but I like the way Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir put it: on her blog she refers to the ‘idiots ‘mourning’ over the loss of the word ‘Allah’’, and goes on to list why confident Muslims will not get confused simply because of the common use of the word. Surely, whether or not the use of ‘Allah’ and His 99 names is proper is better judged by Him Himself, instead of earthly government.

Anyway, the fact is that there has been historical usage of ‘Allah’ by Christians here too—particularly in Sabah and Sarawak and amongst Orang Asli in the peninsula since before Merdeka. No confusion has thus far resulted, nor as a result of the word being present in numerous state anthems.

Still further are those who, while not being exclusivists themselves, support regulation of the word in order to maintain good ‘race relations’. This is unhelpful for many reasons, chief amongst which is that it does nothing to end the principle of discriminatory policies for Malaysians defined as different by government.

There is mounting speculation that this entire debate is a concoction of certain parties who want to politicise what has been a non-issue for decades for the sake of inciting some good old ‘religious and racial’ tension among Malaysians. I say these chaps need to merealisasikan globalisasi, but at the same time we have gone too far down the path of government regulation of language, and the ramifications on the courts, the political parties, the administration of Islam and the concept of 1Malaysia (as yet undefined by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka) may be quite undesirable unless we resist them.