BM is a ‘living language’, but let’s not force it into absurdity

From Said Bani Che Mat Din

When Malaysia’s education minister recently declared that the public needs to accept new Malay words because Bahasa Malaysia is a “living language”, one cannot help but wonder if this statement was made with due consideration for linguistic reality.

While no one denies that languages evolve, the approach to such evolution matters significantly, especially when the so-called “new” words already have widely accepted equivalents or, worse, when they border on absurdity.

A living language thrives on organic growth. It adapts to societal needs, borrowing words or coining new ones when there is a genuine linguistic gap.

However, introducing words like “ketimbang” to replace the perfectly functional “daripada”, or “peluncuran” instead of “pelancaran” defies this principle.

Such changes do not stem from societal demand or linguistic necessity, but from an imposed top-down decree. Linguists like Noam Chomsky argue that language is shaped by its users, not by arbitrary mandates.

In this case, the minister’s claim that the public is “beginning to accept” these words feels like an exaggerated claim, given that no evidence suggests any real grassroots acceptance.

If anything, these terms are being shoved down the throats of officials and the public alike, creating confusion and perhaps resistance.

Such words are not being “embraced” because they fill a void – they are being forced into public discourse during official events and government documents.

Under pressure to adhere to the new terminology, officials scramble to use these words correctly, often resulting in embarrassing missteps and unnecessary confusion.

Take for instance the introduction of “mahsul” for “harvest”, or “intiha” for “ending”. The Malay language already has perfectly functional and familiar words for these concepts, such as “hasil” and “penamat”. Why complicate matters?

Similarly, “tatakelola” (effective administration) and “kebinekaan” (diversity) are either redundant or already understood within their original context. Adding layers of unnecessary complexity undermine the very accessibility of the language, alienating the very people it seeks to serve.

Linguistic experts often emphasise that language evolution must be driven by usage and practicality.

Teo Kok Seong, a respected linguist, had previously pointed out that introducing unfamiliar terms risks alienating speakers and causing them to abandon the language altogether.

If Malaysians already struggle to maintain fluency in the Malay language in an increasingly English-dominated global environment, why add to the confusion with terms that feel forced and out of place?

Instead of fostering pride in our national language, this approach risks making the Malay language a subject of ridicule.

Imagine saying: “Walhasil, tiwikrama kebinekaan negara kita memerlukan tatakelola yang baik” during a speech. While the statement may be linguistically correct, it is also unnecessarily convoluted, obscuring the intended message. Language is meant to communicate, not to confuse.

The minister’s claim also reflects a troubling trend – the use of narratives that are not grounded in reality.

Malaysians are not asking for new terms like “purbasangka” (prejudice) when “prasangka” is already understood. Nor are they eager to adopt “taakul” (reasoning) when “pemikiran” serves the same purpose. Worse, words like “intiha” and “walhasil” feel archaic, as if they belong in an 18th-century Malay manuscript rather than contemporary communication.

Forcing such terms into public use under the guise of progress is counterproductive.

It alienates the very audience it seeks to engage – Malaysians from all walks of life who simply want a language they can understand and use effortlessly.

Introducing unnecessary complications only widens the gap between the language and its users.

At its core, my concern is about ensuring the Malay language remains relevant, accessible and functional for all Malaysians.

The introduction of new words should serve a purpose – filling linguistic gaps or adapting to modern realities – not complicating communication.

If the goal is to preserve and elevate Bahasa Malaysia, the focus should be on improving proficiency, encouraging its use in meaningful ways and ensuring that it remains a unifying force in a diverse nation.

Furthermore, language policy should consider the opinions of experts and the people who use the language daily. Linguists globally agree that language evolution should enhance communication, not hinder it.

At its best, the minister’s statement is right in that Bahasa Malaysia (and all languages) is indeed a living language.

However, that does not justify unnecessary or forced changes that complicate its use and alienate its speakers. Instead of celebrating the uniqueness of our national language, imposing such words risks making our language the subject of mockery and frustration.

The education minister must open her eyes to the real challenges faced by Malaysians in embracing Bahasa Malaysia.

Do not add to these challenges with linguistic experiments that confuse rather than clarify. The focus should be on strengthening the language’s relevance and accessibility, preserving its beauty and functionality, and ensuring that all Malaysians, not just a select few, can use and appreciate it.

Let our language evolve naturally, driven by the needs of its people, not by artificial impositions. Otherwise, we risk turning this “living language” into a relic of bureaucratic misadventure.

While I may not be a language expert, I am a well-read person and an experienced communicator.

In communications, the ultimate rule is to ensure people understand and embrace your message.

Confusing the public with unnecessary changes to language for the sake of novelty, or to fulfil a “feel-good” agenda, serves no one and risks eroding the very foundation of our linguistic heritage.

Public Relations and Communications Association of Malaysia president Said Bani Che Mat Din is a communications specialist and passionate advocate for the national language and heritage.

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