Language, and what ‘Air Selangor’ means to us

 

The Malay language is the national language per Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. Despite this, there can be no doubt that the constitution also recognises and allows the use of other languages in Malaysia.

Article 152(1) reads: “The national language shall be the Malay language and shall be in such script as Parliament may by law provide: Provided that— (a) no person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (otherwise than for official purposes), or from teaching or learning, any other language; and (b) nothing in this clause shall prejudice the right of the federal government or of any state government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the federation.”

For that reason, it came as quite a surprise to me when I was posted to serve as a judicial commissioner in Sabah and Sarawak that the language of the courts in those states was English. All the lawyers there spoke fluent English in court, as did all members of the legal industry, including the court staff.

In marked contrast, I cannot say the same for those practicing in the courts in Peninsular Malaysia. These days, lawyers struggle to submit either in Bahasa Malaysia or English, and can no longer properly articulate legal principles which originate from English law.

However, in the interests of justice, the courts have been very flexible when it comes to the use of language in court.

Except for court documents, which must be prepared in Malay, judges will listen to oral arguments and read written submissions either in the national language or in English, for which leave of court is necessary.

Those who submit in Bahasa Malaysia will be heard with extreme patience if they are less articulate, but my own observation is that many lawyers who unfortunately appear to be inarticulate in both languages risk their messages not getting through to the presiding judge, which may have an adverse impact on their clients’ cases.

Indeed, in my view, our education model has done a great injustice to lawyers and has taken away their self-esteem by depriving them the knowledge and opportunity to be as articulate in English as their contemporaries in Sabah and Sarawak are.

Indeed, a great number among the senior lawyers in practice now secured their prowess in English thanks to the many missionary schools that dotted the peninsula. I was among those who benefited greatly from this, for which I record here my humble thanks to St Joseph’s School, Johor Bahru.

During my time in East Malaysia, I also found that all Sabahans and Sarawakians also spoke our national language fluently.

I picked up the language upon entering the country at the tender age of five.

In school, I was taught a simple, user-friendly version of the Malay language, with no aristocratic words borrowed from Indonesia.

Crucially, I was also taught English alongside the national language. Being able to master both over the years has made me relevant not only in Malaysia but also elsewhere.

Bilingual Malaysians know when to use which language instinctively. For instance, all Malaysians will instantly associate “Air Selangor” with the state water authority rather than an airline. Our generous nature means we would easily forgive foreigners unfamiliar with the local language the error and happily correct them.

In my view, the Malay language envisaged in the Federal Constitution is the user-friendly version I studied in my primary school days, not the aristocratic Malay language.

A debate on this issue will not be productive, but I did learn an important lesson from the judgments and writing of one of England’s most respected judges. The great Lord Denning always shunned aristocratic language and advocated a simple one which the public can understand and appreciate easily.

Given my experience using both the national language and English interchangeably throughout my childhood and right through my career as lawyer and judge, I must confess that I was shocked to read the seemingly strict position the government has adopted recently.

Last week the prime minister announced that all official communications with the government must be in the Malay language, failing which they will be returned to sender.

To my mind, such a stance is not justified either by the constitution or social justice jurisprudence. Neither does such a position reflect the inclusive Muhibbah culture which Malaysians have fostered since independence. On top of that, it will likely also affect communications between the country and non-Malaysians, both those who are resident here and overseas.

A blanket prohibition of communications in languages other than Malay is in my view a regressive step by the unity government in nation building.

It is even more galling that such a step was taken by a government in which no one party or coalition has a parliamentary majority to govern in accordance with the country’s constitutional framework.

It is ironic that our politicians, many of whom have sent their children abroad to study in countries where English is the medium of instruction, would insist on propagating the exclusive use of the national language here. Such a move is undeniably aimed purely at winning the rural vote.

Regrettably, that is being done without also making sure that our students and graduates are equally proficient in English to ensure a sustainable economy.

Today, the legal industry in the peninsula is not sufficiently schooled in either English or the Malay language to appreciate the true purport of Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution and its implications on the rule of law.

In contrast, India, the country of my birth, has used English as the stepping stone to scientific and economic development, while the tiny island of Singapore, which we discarded in 1965, has a currency now valued three and a half times more than ours.

Meanwhile, Malaysia continues to wallow in racial politics.

Perhaps that is why my highly acclaimed proposal for the introduction of a “university cum court annexed arbitration”, designed to make both the legal industry and academia more robust, has still not met with a response from the Madani government. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.