DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 276 272 FL 016 238 AUTHOR Lowenberg, Peter TITLE in , , and : Three Faces of a National . PUB DATE 17 Jul 85 NOTE 48p.; In: What Are National Good For? Florian Coulmas, Ed.; see FL 016 231. PUB TYPE Historical Materials (060) -- Speeches/Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS ; Comparative Analysis; Developing Nations; Diachronic Linguistics; Ethnicity; Foreign Countries; *Geographic Distribution; *Indonesian; *Language Role; *Malay; Nationalism; *Official Languages; Political Influences; Public Policy; Sociolinguistics; Uncommonly Taught Languages IDENTIFIERS Indonesia; Malaysia; Singapore ABSTRACT Malay's long use as the dominant linga franca throughout modern Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore is partly responsible for its current status as the of all three countries. However, political and economic developments during and since the colonial era have created sociolinguistic contexts, motives, and results of the language's status that are very different for each country. In Indonesia, the policies of the Indonesian nationalists, Dutch, and Japanese converged to promote Bahasa Indonesia successfully as an ethnically neutral symbol of identity and integration. In Malaysia, the selection and promotion of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language was motivated partly by ethnic communalism rather than national unity, but it was also enhanced by British and Japanese policy. In Singapore, Malay serves to express international integration and unity with her two closest neighbors and is a factor in the balance of ethnic sentiments. The status and domains of Malay in the three countries are constantly changing and evolving, reflecting the complexities of the national language question in this area. A five-page reference list concludes the document. (MSE)

*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Nalay in Indonesia. Malaysia.and Singapore: Three Faces of a NationalLanguage

Peter Lowenberg

short title: Nalav asa National Language

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MATE AL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Office of Educational Research and improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) XThis document has been reproduced as acz received from the person or organfization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Points ol view or opinionsstated in thisctocu- .9 INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." meet do not necessarily represent official 0 OERI position or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE MALAY IN INDCOESIA, MALAYSIA,AND SINGAPORE: THREE FACES OF A NATIONAL LANGUAMS

Introduction

Contemporary Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore provide

excellent examples of the diverserationales for the adoptioel at a nationallanguage and for theconsequences and implications eC selecting a particular languagefor this role. For unlike after contexts in which national languagepolicies have been compared, these countries ifforda rareopportunity to analyze several sociolinguistic variables operating on a common national language, Malay, in acontiguous geographicarea that has been influenced since prehistory by similar linguistic and nonlinguistic developments.

For the half millenium priortothecolonialera, this region shared Malayasa linguafranca for basically identical

functions associated with maritimetrade. Howevere.significant differences inthecolonial and post-colonialexperiences of these countrieshave caused substantialdivergencein their respective motives for and the sociolinguisticimpact of their

selection of Malay asa national language. In this survey of the

national language questionin these countries, I willreview the historical role of the Malaylanguage in thearea, discuss the diversereasons why Malay wasselectedas the sole national language in these countries, and examinetheresultsof this solution to the national language question in all threenations.

Pre-colonial Era The region comprising present-day Indonesia, Malaysia,and

3 2 Singapore has always been unifiedin terms of its indigenous

languages, most of which sharephonological, morphosyntactic,and lexical features marking them as members of the Western Indonesian sub-branch ofthe Malayo-Polynesian languagefamily (Dyen 1971; Voegelin and Voegelin1964).

These linguistic bondsare further consolidated by theuse of one of these languages,Malay, since prehistoryas the primary

of the region.As Alisjahbana observes(1976:32),

because the extensivearea of Indonesia and Malaysia is fragmented into hundreds of geographical:cultural, and most important, linguistic units,there has been from time immemorial a needfor a single common language which could be understoodnot only by the natives of the archipelago but alsoby the constaht wavesof foreigners attracted by celebratedriches.

Malay's assumption of thisrole has resulted from itslong use as

a mother tongue on both theSumatran and Malay sides ofthe straits of , which havecontinually been the keystoneto

maritime commerce in SoutheastAsia. The Malay inhabitantsof thisarea have always been activetraders and navigators,

spreading their language withthem at all their ports ofcall (Gonda 1973). Concurrently,"traders, migrants, andeven pirates

who plied up and down the Straitsof Malacca could notescape contact with Malay-speaking people"(hsmah 1982 :202-203), whose language they subsequentlylearnedand than used in their interethnic contacts withone another.

The first institutionalized spreadof Malay occurred during the Empire (seventh throughfourteenth centuries A.D.), which adopted Malayas its . From its capitalat

4 3 contemporary in southernSumatra and a secondary base at on the ,Srivijaya eventually conquered all of , West and CentralJava, and the Malay Peninsula,

establishing colonies along allseacoasts and major rivers within

its domain. It maintained diplomatic relationswith both /ndia

and and effectivelycontrolled both the Straits ofMalacca and the Straits of Sunda (betweenSumatra and ) for over five centuries (Cady 1964; Harrison1967; Williams 1976). The

extensive area over whichMalay had official status duringthe Srivijaya era is reflectedby the widespread locationsof stone monuments with Malay inscriptionsin Devanagari scriptlater found on Sumatra, Java,and the Malay Peninsula (Alisjahbana 1976; Asmah 1982). In addition to itsuse within the actual

political domains of Srivi4arl,Gonda (1973:87) surmises thatthe emplav "in all Probability,likewise furthered thespread of Malay over adjacent countrieswhich felt its influence."

The decline frompower of Srivijaya by no means lessenedthe role of Malay. For with the subsequent expansionof the Islamic kingdom of Malacca duringthe fifteenth century, tha Malayspoken by sailors from the smallerislands in and around the Straitsof Malacca - -a variety slightly differentfrom that used in Srivijaya -- continued the traditionof Malay as a lingua franca in the Ardhipelago(ims 1978; Williams 1976). Furthermore, Malay became thelanguage of proselytization by

MUslim missionaries who followedthe trade routes and broughtthe language into greater contact withpresent-day Indonesia (Gonda 1973).

5 5

By the timethe first Europeans arrived, Malaywas well-established as the only linguafranca in the Archipelago (Teeuw 1967). Pigafetta, whoaccompanied Magellanon his first

circumnavigation of the world, compiled the first Portuguese-Malay glossary in 1521 whileharbored at Tidom one of the far eastern Indonesianislands, which is indicative of

just how far Malay hadspread. Soon afterward, St. FrancisXavier is quoted as having referredto Malay as "the languagethat

everyone understands! and in 1614, JanHuygen van Linschoten,a Dutch navigator, observedthat "Haley was not merelyknown but was also considered the most prestigiousof the languages of the Orient he who did not understand itwas in somewhat the same position as Dutchmen of the poriodwho did not understand French" (Alisjahbana 1976:33-34).

ColonAal Indonesi,

With the advent of the colonialera, differences between the

objectives and policies of theBritish in Malaya and those ofthe Dutch in the East Indiesbecame reflected in greatly divergent statuJ and functionsof Malay in theme col .es. The

Dutch colonization of present-dayIndonesia (1600-1942) was extremely conducive to the expandeduse of Malay. Unlike the British, discussed below,the Dutch strove for monopolistic control inIndonesiaand carefully guardedagainstforeign intrusions on their largely plantationeconomy. In particular,

6 6 they severely restricted immigrationof other Asians, resulting

in a population whichwas almost entirely indigenous tothe islands and which had longshared Malay as a link language. Although Dutch was initiallythe only official colonial

language, the Dutch themselvesfound Malay extremely usefulas an auxiliary language for localadministration and for communication with the linguistically diverse peoples they sought togovern. Therefore, in 1865, Maleywas adopted as the second official language by the Dutch colonialgovernment, who used itas an auxiliarylanguage for local administration, commerce, and communication (Hoffman 1973).

Alisjahbana (1974) posits thatease of communication vas not the only motivation of theDutch for elevating Malay to official status, as demonstrated by theiruse of Malay as the primary metlium of instruction fornon-Europeans in the colonial school

system. The Dutch did provide limitedDutch-language primary, secondary, and ultimately universityinstruction for the children of the Eurasian and Indonesianlites, but their general policy

was to restrict the number of Indonesianswho were proficient in Dutch, since whocompleted their secondary and higher

education in Dutch oftencompeted with the Europeans forhigher positions in government andcommerce and for other privileges. Therefore, the Dutch establishedonly 250 "Dutch Native" primary and secondary schools, withDutch as the , for the Indonesian elites anda small group of intellectually promising non-elites (Alisjahbana1976:114). The vast majority

7 7

of Indonesianscould attend only "Tweede Klasse" (SicondClass) schools, in which the language ofinstruction was Malay (Kababan 1979:282; Central Bureau of Statistics 1940).

Actually, in pursuingthis languagepolicy, the Dutch contributed greatly to the modernizationandstandardization of Malay in Indonesia. Dutch administrators and scholars developed

new registers for Malay in the many domains in whichit was used;

created astandardized -alphabet spellingsystem for Malay,

along with an extensive wordlistimplementing thissystem;

established aMalay-language publWang house to providereading

material on popular topics forIndonesians who hadlearned to read Malay in theschools; andsupported a native journalistic

pressin Malay from the beginningofthecurrent century (Alisjahbana1976; Central Eureau of Statistics 1940;Nababan 1979).

However, thestatusof Malay was most greatlyenhanced during the Dutch periodthrough itsrole asa language of nationalirm opposed to thecolonial regime. Ironically, it was

the Dutchlanguage which equipped Malay forthis function.

Anderson (1966) observes thatamong thelimited numbersof non- Europeans who received a Dutch-mediumeducation, there developed

a small group ofintellectuals "withouta realfunction within

the structuresof thecolonial system," for whomproficiency in Dutch "opened the way toa critical conceptionof society as a whole, and a possible vision ofa society after the disappearance of the colonial regime." Dutch "provided thenecessary means of communication between theanti-imperialistand anti-colonial critiques of West European and, later, Russian Marxismand the potential revolutionary elite in Indonssia." From Dutch political tracts, "asocialist-communist vocabularybecame the common property of the entire nationalist elite of thoseyears" (Anderson 1966:101-102).

In seeking a single languagethrough which to mobilizethe Indonesian masses bymeans of these revolutionaryideas, the nationalists found Dutchunsatisfactory sinceso few people understood it. They likewise rejectedJavanese, the most highly developed indigenous language, since it was associated.withthe largest and most powerfulethnic group andits use could therefore lead to dissension and mistrust from thenon-Javanese. Moreover, as a reflection of the highlYstratified Javanese social structure, moststatementsin the Javaneselanguage require choices from a complicated hierarchy ofmorphosyntactic and lexical constructions, depending on the relativestatus of the interlocutors (Geertz1960); Javanese vas thusnot at all 'suited for the expressionof notions of equalityand democracy central to revolutionaryrhetoric.

In contrast to Dutch andJavanese, the nationalists found in

Malay an indigenous languagealready widely used throughoutthe archipelago andethnically neutral, in not being the of any prominent ethnicgroup. Moreover, Anderson (1966:104) has observed thatas the primary trade language of the East Indies,

9 9

it was a languagesimple and flexible enoughto be rapidly developed intoa modern political language... This was all themore possible because Malayas an 'inter-ethnielanguage, or lingua franca,had ipso facto an almost statuslesscharacter, like Esperanto, and was tied to no particular regional social structure. It had thus a free,almost 'democratic' character from thc outset

Thus, in the earlydecades of this century,the nationalists began actively promoting Malay as the bestcandidate foran ,culminating in its adoptionin October, 1928, at the second All-IndonesiaYouth Congress in Surakarta, , as Dahasa Indonesia,"the IndonesianLanguage" (Alisjahbana 1976:39). In the 1930's, igenre of anti-colonial

nationalist writing inMalay began to develop,spearhaided by a group of young Dutch-educated writers from Central andNorthern Sumatra. Their variety of Malay,which was very similarto varieties of Malayspoken on the west coastof the Malay Peninsula, became'thestandard literary languagefor Indonesia and is still considered the standard model foreducation and formal occasions (Stevens1973). The Japanese occupation of Indonesia(1942-1945) further augmented the domains, functions, and status of Bahasa Indonesia. The JapaneseabolishedDutch astheprincipal language of power of the Indies,hoping eventually to replaceit with Japanese, whichwas taught as a compulsory subjectin all the schools. However, the urgent wartimeneed to communicate quickly and clearly withtheIndonesian peopleforced the Japanese to give Bahasa Indonesiaofficial status in 1942 (Reid

10 10 1980) and to use it as the primary language of theislands. In their efforts to mobilize the Indonesians for thewar effort, the Japanese went out to the most remote villiages, introducing Bahasa Indonesia in regions where it had never been usedbefore (Alisjahbana 1976).

Furthermore, from early intheir occupation,the Japanese entertained the possibility of granting independencewithin their Greater East Co-Prosperity Sphere toan Indonesian nation administered from Java. Later, as Japanesedefeats began to augment, an independent Indonesia figuredinto their strategy of an insular defense perimeter around (Elsbree 1953). In pursuit of'these objectives of immediatecommunication and preparation ofafuture ally,the Japanese contributed greatly to the further cultivation and elaboration ofBahasa Indonesia. They supported increases in the number and circulation of newspapers in Bahasa Indonesia,and provided public radio stands at parks, schools, andlarger street intersections for Indonesians to hear lectures andspeeches delivered in Bahasa Indonesia in supportof the Japaneiewar effort (Elsbree 1953). In addition, theJapanese established Bahasa Indonesia as the primary language ofgovernment and law; science,technology, and industry;and of elementarythrough university education(Alisjahbana 1976). Thisincreased use andimportanceofBahasaIndonesia required that it be standardized throughout the archipelagoand that its lexicon be enlarged to function innew domains. To

11 11

coordinate this linguistic retooling, the Japanese, beginningin 1942, established a series of commissionswith both Japanese and Indonesian members, whose taskwas to write a normative grammar,to standardize the existing vocabulary of daily usage, and to developnew terminology. By the *end of the Japanese occupation, 7,000 new terms had been adoptedinto the Indonesian language (Alisjahbana 1976; Reid 1980). Concurrently,a small class of urban Indonesians-- who during the Dutch colonialera had been treated as a privileged

indigenousaristocracy, been educated intheDutch-language schools, and subsequently used Dutchas their first language--

were suddenly forbidden by the Japanese from speaking Dutchand, thereforehad to adopt Bahasa Indonesia as theirprimary

language. This class, though notactivelyinvolved in the nationaliat movement, had traditionalstatus among the Indonesian population; their use of Bahasa Indonesiafurther expanded the domains of its USG and added significantlyto its prestige (Stevens 1973).

As aresult of these myriadfactors during the 'Dutch colonial period and the Japanese occupation,by the time the Japanese withdrew in defeat from Indonesia inAugust, 1945, the

Malay language had undergone dramatic modernization and

standardization, with sufficiently developed registers for government, law, education, science, and technology to function as the national language for a new nation. With virtually no opposition and no serious competition fromany other language,

12 sew SO amegOismeiv, earsiillassis ow mamaas Me aft Miss. Wee. IIMP MOW W tabaaate 01111111111111.1 WIC

eilliganajOisla OOP ilierrow,anal imam wiligh ~sela MG. Sam Solimissomaim SW MUM allaft onsets& 111 ell WWI Si ad las stepres Oft ale ainimas allmassamesse paw weese et 41111.14111110 elimmullb MS S OM Oarmissal Oarlag mo Via ilmilipme at iiir IMilmisir* assilard soisms. inflismisi 1111.01.011111 ears Ilidensia.sloe MOMS ismoor aresamml Osamerfsemeal arnaimmemo e issme arn iseal esiare $1110fts 110014 NW MS Mb, glime mist soismare Sam Ilmilmmis ftgloss SIM 0111111.1 INS 411111161101 liamessa as ossowase Oil Wale 410111111111111. also awns ass Isve awn ellis MOP faillemihm swam Mem amst OIMINNIF 4111910010111110 sompasm ase illessisat MOD Milliaila Saw bilimese..appal *Mrs Os 41.111111111 OWN& 11116 ammedMs wihres are spolleiet We MINIM lidammegra, asioural Mae NI ON ems or aimwpm. st alp insidera OM' OS alma. N pmelles armlass Is all

13 13 etteramees distinctions inrank and status (Tanner1967: Abas 19781 earrisea 19701'Mahan 1900; Diah1982).

Ceneerrent with thisgertral acceptance,proficiency in Massa taignesia isbecoming increasinglywidespread among the tadomesiaa pepulatioa. MoliSble statisticsare unavailable as to the Members elindonosians who couldspeak Bahasa Indonesia during the Ostch andJapanese oolonialeras or even at the time 01 Wonosiale independence. 'however, recent census data tailgates that general proficiencyinBahasaIndonesia is spreading very galokly. inthe 1971 census, 40,250,000 andemesiane, or 80.70 of Indonesia's population,reported that they mad speak Bahasa Indonesia. By 1980, this totalhad mashed 04er 00,000.000, or Olt of the population(Nababan 1982; 10811). the institution mootoftencreditedtor thisrapidly ingrellaing proficiency in the national language is tha OftentiaMal antes,particularly the compulsorysix years of slememtary easel whorethe majority of Indonesiansfirst learn sad them see Bahasa Indonesia (Dish 19821 Douglas1970; Tanner 1047). hostipmlated in thenational language policy,9hasa Weasels Le the tedium etinstruction in all types ofschools and at all levels of educationthroughout the country, with the omeeptioe that regionallanguages say be usedas the medium of Lastrestion dosing the firstthree years of primary school while Bahasa Indonesia Ls learnedas a . moreover,

Oshaea Indonesia Ls also the majorsubject of instruction in the

14 40. 14 primary schools, being taughtsix to eight hours weeklyfor all six years, and isthereafter taught as a subjectfkre hours per

week during the threeyears of junior high school and atleast three hours per week forthe three years of senior highschool (hanenson 1979; Nababan 1982).

Besides providingaccess to proficiency in Bahasa Indonesia,

the schools are also mandatedby Indonesia's language policyto use the national language "asa means to strengthen and maintain

the feeling of nationalismand unity". For example, the language arts curriculum in thesecondary schools includesas writing models the nationalist literaturein Bahasa Indonesia fromthe 19301s, mentioned earlier (Diah1982:29).

In addition to the schools, Indonesia'seducation system is also increasing nationalproficiency in Bahasa Indonesiathrough an extensive non-formal educationliteracy program, Despite the fact that by 1980, eighty-fiveper cent of all elementary school age children were enrolled in schools,due largely to financial considerations (Beeby 1979), onlyfifty per cent of the pupils who entered the first gradewere reaching the fourth grade, and only thirty-five per centwere completing all six years (Diah 1982). For these Indonesians who do notattend school long enough to acquire literacyor proficiency in Bahasa Indonesia, the national Department of Educationand Culture has since 1951 provided a series of "functionalliteracy" programs as part of its largersystemof "non-formal education"-- "organized learning opportunities outside theregular classroom" (Soedijarto

15 15 et al. 1980:50). A primary goal in theseprograms has been proficiency and literacy inBahasa Indonesia in orderto write letters and to readnewspapers, magazines, and other publications on a variety of practical topics(Lowenberg 1984; )apitupulu 1980).

A second majorreason for the increasinguse of Bahasa Indonesia has been urbanization.Since independence, increasing

population pressure in ruralregions has led to the triplingand quadrupling of the populationsof Indonesia's cities, bringing together millions of Indonesians from different language backgrounds in new neighborhoods,at work, and in the marketplace (Peacock 1973). Attitudinally, the fact that Bahasa Indonesiais not the ofanyone prominentethnicgroup has encouraged its acceptance forinterethnic communicationby urban

Indonesians regardless of theirfirst languages (Tanner1967). An study of fluencyin Bahasa Indonesia in thelate 1970's found that while fluencywas still 30.8% in the , ithad reached 60.8% in the urbanareas (Harrison 1979). In addition, children of interethnicmarriages, particularly in the 'urban centers, often acquire Bahasa Indonesiaas their first language. Nababan (1985:3)reports that whereas at the timeof Malay's adoption as Bahasa Indonesia,at most 500,000 Indonesians spoke it as a mother tongue, the1980 census revealedover seventeen million Indonesians"who can legitimately be called'native speakers',of Bahasa Indonesia."

The use of Bahasa Indonesia is alsoincreasing in the domain

1 6

*?. 16 of intraethniccommunication among people sharing the same as theirmother tongue. Most of the regional , likeJavanese mentioned above, require for any speech act careful considerationof the relative status of the participants andobservers (See, for example, Glicken 1982, for a description of theSundanese language of ). In urban life, new social rolesare created which may differ

radically from traditional statusrelationships in the villages. As a result, participants in an urban speech act may stand ina superior-subordinaterelationshipin terms of atraditional hierarchy of ascribed status,such as , but be social

equals in terms of a newer hierarchyof achieved status., suchas

education and employment.Tanner (1967:24) notes that "insuch

ambiguous situations individuals can avoid the difficultiesand embarrassment involved in eitherproclaiming their equalityor acknowledging their superiorityor inferiority by communicating with one another in Indonesian"(ie. Bahasa Indonesia).

A third factor responsible forincreasing proficiency in and useof Bahasa Indonesia has been thebroadcast media. In accordance with the nationallanguage policy,all radio and television programming exceptthat specifically promoting local

culture is transmitted in Bahasa Indonesia from regional governmentstationstoalmost 20,000 .radiosand2,000,000 television receivers throughout thecountry (Douglas 1970; Europa Yearhoo)ç, 2982; Vteeland et al.1975).

As the foregoing discussion hasdemonstrated, Indonesia's

1 7 17 often citedsuccessin theselection, spread, and popular acceptance of her national languagehas resulted from a complex series of sociocultural,political, economic,and linguistic developments spanning more thana millenium. In Indonesia, Malay has evolvedfroma pre-colonial linguafranca, 'exhibiting considerable regional variationand functioning in a relatively restricted set of trade-relatad domains,into the primary shared code of over 150 million people, withwidespread status and prestige, a high degree of elaborationand cultivation adequate for use in virtually all linguisticdomains of the modern world, a well-developed body of literature,and sufficient neutrality with regard to ethnicityand stylistic features to serVeas one of the most popular nationallanguages in the modern world.

Colonial Era: Malaya

Thedevelopment andstatus of Malayin Malaysia and Singapore has been considerablydifferent from that in Indonesia, due in large part to the policies ofthe British durinutheir colonization of the Malay Peninsula and western (present-day , , and )from the late eighteenth until the mid-twentieth centuries. Permanent British presence in the region effectively began with theestablishment on the Malay

Peninsula ofthe "StraitsSettlements" of (1796), Singapore (1819), and Malacca(1824) in order to support the

British East Company's tea tradewith China. This initial

18 ,011. 18 period of British influence, in contrast to thehighly restrictive immigration policyof the Dutch, noted above,was

marked by large-scale immigrationof -speaking Chineseto the ,where they soon became the majority

populations of Penang and Singapore(Platt, Weber, and Ho 1983). As will be seen, this concentrationof Chinese in the coastal

cities profoundly affectedthe future political, economic,and sociolinguistic development ofthe region.

In the 1870,s, the British beganto expand their influence more vigorously in the region until,by the end of the early twentieth century,they administered with varyingdegrees of direct control all of theMalay Peninsula and thecrown colonies of Sarawak, Sabah, and Bruneion western Borneo (Vreeland et al.

1977a). Concurrent with this increasing Britishinfluence came further large-scale immigrationto the region of Chinese and

South Asians, the former to workin tin mines being opened inthe interior of the Malay Peninsula,and the latter to develop rubber and coffee plantations and toconstruct a railroad (Hua 1983). Thus, by the time of its firstcensus in 1911, the colony of

Malaya had an extremely pluralisticsociety, including1.5

millionMalays, over 900,000 Chinese, and 267,000 Indians (Vreeland et 'al. 1977a). The predominant languages spoken by this diverse population included Malay; Hokkien, Teochew, , Bakke, and Hainanes.as the primary Chinese languages; and Tamil as the most widely used SouthAsian language,in addition to ,Telugu,and Punjabi(Platt and Weber

1 9 19 1980).

Another major difference betweenthe British and the Dutch colonial policies was in the Britishprovision of training in the principal colonial language ofpower, English, for large numbers of .the non-European population. Actually the initial British policy with regard toaccess to the principal European language

of power was very similar tothat of the Dutdh. Training in English and English-medium educationwas provided only to heirs

of the royal and aristocraticMalay families to prepare themfor employment as minor officials in thecolonial civil service and the state governments(Vreeland et al. 2977a).Knowledge of English was not made availableto the masses since, as *explained by one of the British residents (inPlatt and Weber 1980:6),

I do not think it is advisableto attempt to give the children of an agricultural populationan indifferent knowledge of a language that toall but the very few would only unfit them for the dutiesof life and make them discontent with anything likemanual labour.

Furthermore, in accordance witha policy of "divide and rule," the British encouraged communaldivision of the non-Europeans

along ethnic lines and did not wishto supply them withcommon proficiency, and thus potentialpower in colonial affairs, in English (Hassan 1975). Instead, the British used Malay, already well establishedas a lingua franca in the region,for some official purposes, requiring colonialofficers to be proficient

in Malay and, when necessary, cuploying interpreters, particularly Indians, who spoke both English and Malay

20 20 (Alisjahbana 1976; Vreelandet al. 1977a).

However, as the volume of theirmercantile trade expanded, in contrast to the more stable plantation economy ofthe Dutch, the British began to need a cadre of English-educatednon- Europeans as an infrastructure of officials, businessagents, and clerks.Bence,as early as the beginningof the nineteenth century,the colonial governmentestablished in the Straits Settlements and in otY,: r urban centers English-mediumschools, where Englishwas taught and than usedas the medium of instruction and forother school activities.The students in these sehoolscame from the moreprosperous and prestigious families from all ethnic groups,especially the Chineseand Indians, whose parents wantedthem prepared forentry into government service, positionsin trade andcommerce, and the professions (Platt, Weber,and Ho 1983). Malay-medium schools were also established; however, due to insufficientresources and trained personnel,instruction w*s greatly inferiorto that in the English-medium sehor,?.s(hlisjahbana 1976). Most Secondary sChools were conducted inEnglish, as was instructionat Raffles College and at the SingaporeMedical College (Plattand Weber 1980; Vreeland it al. 1977a).

Largely as a result of theseEnglish-medium schools, theuse of English continuallyincreased during the colonialera, almost totally replacing Malayat all levels and in most domainsof government, includingadministrationandthe legal system, domestic and internationalcommerce, and transportation and

21 21 communication (Platt and Weber 1980).

Moresignificantfor thestatus of Malay in contemporary

Malaysia and Singapore, English also becamethe language of power and pre4tige among the urbannon-European elites throughout the

colony, particular%y asthe primary code forintetethnic communication amongtheChinese, Indian, and Malay elites who

attended the English-medium schoolsandthencontinuedto use English in a wide variety of domainsas adults (Platt and Weber

1980; Vteeland et al. 1977a). By the end of thecolonial era, English had become "a lingua franca among themore educated sections of the community" (Le Page1962:133). A final factor leading to thelesser statusof Malay in colonial Malaya thanin colonialIndonesia was the Japanese

occupation. As in Indonesia, the Japanese initiallyattempted to promote the Japanese languageamong the occupied population, only to discover that thepopulation could notlearn the Japanese

languagequickly enough to sustainthe war effort.However, whereas Malay had been sufficientlydeveloped under the Dutch to be adopted by the Japaneseas an official language in Indonesia, theemphasison Englishin hadleft Malay

linguistically unequipped foruse in modern domains. Hencethe Japanese were forced to reinstatelimited use ofEnglish, which they had originally prohibited,orelse"the administrative

structure of Malaya, which they hadso hastilysetup, would simplycollapselikea deckof cards" (Chin 1946:156; Cheah 1983).

In addition, while the Japanesesupported the development of

22 , 22 Bahasa /ndonesia asa step toward /ndonesian independence,they never seriously consleared independence for Malaya, most ofwhich they conridered economically and politically backward. Instead, the Japanese intended to rule the Straits Settlementsdirectly, with the remainder ofMalaya administered from Singaporeas a protectorate (kkashi 1980; Elsbree1953). Thus perceiving no possibility of using Malay for- communicationiorneed to develop itas the official language for a future independent ally- - their motives for supporting Bahasa

/ndonesia -- the Japaneseput little effort into thepromotion of Malay in Malaya. By the nd of the Japaneseoccupation, in contril,b to the numerous fun.:itional domains for whiChBahasa /ndonesia had been modernizedand standardized, the functionsof Malay in the former British territories were stillextremely restricted. post-colonial Malaya

Nevertheless, in 1957, at the timeof its independence from the British (Who had regainedcolonial control after WorldWar /I), the yederation ofMalan, consisting of the MalayPeninsula xcept for Singapore, adoptednot English but Malayas its sole national language. Ostensibly, this selectionresulted from two considerations: (1) a desireto have an endoglossic langtwe,for which Malay was themost widely used candidate,as a symbol of and vehicle for national identityand integration; and (2) the fact that when the British withdrew,only the ten per cent of the

23 23

population who had comprisedthe non-European elites duringthe colonial era could speakEnglish (Hassan 1975; LePage 1962). However, an equally important and explicitly formulatedgoal was to accord favored status to the , the largestand

therefore potentially themost politically powerful etilnicgroup, in their economic competition with the descendants ofthe Chinese and Indian immigrants. These non-Malays-- especially the Chinese by virtue of their concentrations in the urbancoastal centers, where they had longbeen using English-- had during the colonial period gained a significant economic advantageover the Malays (Le Page 1962; Vreelandet al. 1977a).

Nonethelesse the formulatorsof this language policyalso recognized the continuedimportance of Englishas the only language in post-World War II Malaya thatwas linguistically equipped for the myriad functions of a modern nation. Hence, a policy was devised forboth Malay and Englishto have official status until 1967, a ten-year transition periodduring which Malay was to f.le taughtintensively and modernizedso that it could serve asthesoleofficial languageandmediuM of instruction in the schools(Platt and Weber 1980;Vteeland et al. 1977a). Two government agencieswere established to help adhieve this goal -- a Language Institute, to traineducators from all ethnic groups to teach inMalay, and the Dewan Bahasadan Pustaka (the "Language and LiteratureAgency") to prepare Malay-language textbooks and teaching materials,produce a standardized Malay dictionary, coilz and adopt new words for the lexical

24 24

modernization ofMalay, and promote theuse of Malay among the general population (Le Page1962).

However, beyond establisingtheseagencies, the government took fewfirm steps to implementthis goal, relying insteadon "persuasion" to have Malay replace Englishover theallotted ten years (Hassan 1975:3). As a result, there occurreda "linguistic drift toward English," which provided "the mainavenues to higher education and economic advancement" (LePage1962:142). Prestigious scholarshipsto universities andtraining institutes in the British Commonwealth andin the UnitedStates were available exclusivelyto candidates witha high proficiency in English. Similarly, only those who couldfunctionally use English were eligible for the bestemployment, both withinand outside Government service(Le Page 1964).

Not surprisingly, themajority of Malayanstudents continued to be enrolled in English-medium schools. In fact, the percentage ofthe totalenrollmentfrom all ethnicgroups in government subsidized secondary schools who choseEnglish as the medium of instruction increased from61.0% in 1956 to 84.4% in 1964 (Platt and Weber 1980). Even amongthe ethnic Malays,Le Page observed in theearly 1960's (1962:141),

fairly keen competition,among those Malay parents are ambitious for who theirchildren, togetthem into English-medium schools, and indeed the Malayelite are still educated atschoolssuch as Malay College where the teaching is whollyin English.

25 25

Contemporary Malaysia -

What ultimately catalyzedmore vigorous implementationof the language policywas a dramaticrisein ethnic communalism that developed in theregion during the 1960's. A major source of tension, discussed indetail below,was Singapore's political unification with the , Sabah, andSarawak in an expanded nation of Malaysia, followed only twoyears later by Singapore's secession fromthenew polity. In addition, developments on the MalayPeninsula -- including an economy greatly weakened by declining rubber prices and discontentamong the Malay elites at theslow pace with whichtheir economic condition was improving relative tothat of theChinese -- further threatenedthestability ofthe ethnic concord essential to Malaysia's survival,culminating in serious Malay-Chinese riots in the late 1960's (Hua 1983;Vreeland et al. 1977b).

In an effortto appeasethe Malay pluralityinthe population and to diffuse ethnic tensions bypromoting Malaysian identity, the Malaysian governmentin the second halfof the 1960's began to take more determined stepstostrengthen the positionof Malay, which it renameda more ethnically neutral Bahasa Malaysia (literally, the "MalaysianLanguage"). In 1967, a revised-National Language Act specifiedBahasa Malaysiaas the only language formost official documentsand publications, and as the primary language for use in Parliamentand the courts; furthermore, it required passing a proficiencytestin Bahasa Malaysiaforpromotion in governmentservice. In 1969, the

26 5 27 meth*, Sore thanan attempt on the part of itsnative to assert their superiorityand heighten Ilevatramdoeppetition by placingthe other groups in the esustry at a disadvantage.

Per esampie, Sabah and Sarawak, the provinces ofLast Malaysia on the island et armee, whit* joined Malaysia with Singaporein 19413, have both been hesitantto switch totally fromEnglish to Bahasa Malaysia, a reluctanceat least partially dueto a fear of Maley animation ever their largely non-Milaypopulations (Le Pogo iStSt Ileselami etal. 1977a).

2n addition, there is evidencethat this language policymay met eves be beneficial to the majority of the ethnicMalays. The emerging standard varietyof Bahasa Malaysia,used in the national 'overseen!, the mass media,and textbooks inthe seheele, is basically thatof the ethnic Malay elitesliving in the capital, Seals Lumpur,and the other populationcenter of southern Malaysia, ZahoreNehru (Le Page 1985). In contrast, elese to mimety per centof the Malays live in ruralareas and speak suck regional varietiesof Malay as Raab Malay,Relantan Malay, and ,many of whica differ radically in'their linguistic !eaterss from thestandard (Rogers 1982).

!hese differences are augmentedby considerable transfer of features at all linguistic levels,from morphology and syntax to disseuree and style, Wilds haveentered standard Bahasa Malaysia through contact with Chinese, Tamil, BahasaIndonesia, and sepaolally Ingliab via theusage of the urban Malay elites (Asmah

19SS, Le Pegs MS). A combination of interferencefrom non-

28 28 standard varieties of Malay, inadequately trainedteachers, and a dearth of teaching materials in the rural schoolshas resulted in rural Malay students generally experiencingmore difficulty in watering standard BahasaMalaysia than do theurban non-Malay native speakers of other languages "whostudy Bahasa Malaysiaas an in the classroom" (Le Page 1985:35). In addition, contrary to the non-formal education programs,discussed earlier, which are bringing both literacy andproficiency in Bahasa Indonesia tothe ruralpopulation ofIndonesia, deTerra (1983:536) claims thatno such literacy campaignsare being pursued in Malaysia, and that "Bahasa Malaysia isnot available to all."

This situation hascaused some observersto question the basicintent of Malaysia'snationallanguage policy. For example, de Terre (1983:531) concludes that the selectionand cultivation of Bahasa Malaysia as the sole nationaland official language has resultedlargely from the pursuitof class interests by the urban Malay elitesrather than ameans to achieve ethnic equality and promotenational unity and integration:

the language chosen toerase the identification of ethnic one group (the Chinese) with economic and/or academic advantage isthe language of anotherethnic group (the Malays). Within that other ethnic is group, it the language ofoneclass that makesuseof ethnicity to further itsown class interests. (my parentheses]

The test of this conclusion regarding the role ofBahasa Malaysia as.a national language will be thedegree and speed with which

29 29 the rural Malays and otherethnic minorities can gainaccess to literacy and proficiencyin the prestige varietyof Bahasa Malaysia variety andthereby begin to share inthe economic benefits of Malaysia'sdevelopment.

Singapore

Theselection andretention of Malayasthe national languageof Singapore has beenlesscontroversialthanin

Malaysia and less consequentialthan in either Malaysiaor Indonesia. Whereas the status of Malay inMalaysia and Indonesia has resulted from a number of intranational factors,Singapore's selection of Malaywas originally and still is motivatedby largely international socioeconomicand political concerns. Singapore was first granteda degree of self-government in

1959; hoWever, out ofconcern for their economic andpolitical securityfollowing the eventualcomplete withdrawalof the British, Singapore'd leadershad begun proposing unificationwith the Federation of Malayaas early as 1957, the year in whichthe Federation became independent. Malaya was initiallyreluctant to merge with Singapore due to the latter'sChinese population at the time of 1.1 million,a legacy of the previously discussed

immigration patterns of theChinese during the colonialera.

These Singaporean Chinese,if added to Malaya's 2.3million Chinese, would causea new, combined state to havea larger Chinese than Malay population (Vreelandet al. 1977b).

30 30 In order to convince. Malaya that unificationwould not

present a threat to the Federation's already fragileinterethnic stability, Singapore in 1959 adoptedMalay as its single national language and the primary medium of instructionin its schools. That this policy was motivated by the desirefor unification with Malaya is indicated by an official languagepolicy statement at the time which argued that granting thisstatus to Malay "will help us to croas the Straits of;chore iseparating Malaya and Singapore] into the Federation" (citedin Gopinathan 1974:34). This policy was by nomeans empty rhetoric. For the next five years, Singapore didmore than Malaya to promote the status

of Malay, including (Gopinathan 1974)

the provision of a subsidy to the AdultEducation Board to conduct classes,the making of the studyof the national languagecompulsory inthe schools, (and) the requirement that confirmation in posts of the Civil Servicewas dependent on civil servants passing the government's nationallanguage examination (p.40) Special courses were run to meet the demand this madeon teachers, and in order to encourage the development of the language itself the government established the National Language and Culture Institute (p. 34)

A year earlier, an official "special policy"had already been adopted toward the Malays, "motivated bothby a desire to alleviate backwardness and to improve bya pro-Malay policy the chances of merger of Singapore with Malaya" (Gopinathan1974:40). This policy was made explicit ina 1958 "Constitution-Order in Council" that it would be "the deliberateand conscious policy of government to recognize the special position ofthe Malays, who

31 - 31 are the indigenous people of the island and most inneed of assistance"(cited in Buss 1958:54). Toward this end, Malay students were offered free primary,secondary, and university education; additional scholarships andother financial support; free textbooks; and special transportationallowances (Gopinathan 1974).

These policies regarding the Malay languageand its native

speakers appiarto have enhancedMalaya's confidencethat political merger with Singapore couldsucceed. In addition,

concern over a strong left-wing political movement inSingapore that had been steadily growing since themid-1960's further motivated the Malayans to unite with Singaporein order to avoid ultimately having a Communist Chinesecity-state as a neighbor. Therefore,in September, 1963,as noted above,the expanded nation of Malaysia was formed bya merger of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, and thecrown colonies of Sabah and Sarawak, the latter being included in part for theirlargely non-Chinese populations, which ensured that the majorityof the Malaysian population would still be peoples indigenousto the region (Vreeland et al. 2977a).

However, Singapore's participation in this unionwas short- lived for a number of politicalreasons. One major ideological difference between the former Federation and Singapore stemmed from the latter's refusal to formulate a plan to make Malay its sole official language, which, as discussed earlier, the Federation had already done at its inception. A critical domain

32 32 ofthis policy divisionwasthe educational system, inwhich Singapore declared no intention of convertingto asystem of all Malay-medium schoolsfrom itsfour "streams" of schools, each

with a different primary language ofinstruction --English as the coloniallegacy, and Malay, , and Tamil as options

for the major ethnic groups (Gopinathan1974). Another source of conflict was dissatisfactionamong a large sector of Singapore's

population concerning their deliberateunder-representation in the lower house ofthe Malaysian Parliament,a condition which

the Federation of Malaya haddemanded in orderto maintain the delicate balanceofpower. between Malays and Chinese. These differences quickly exacerbatedtensionsthroughoutthe Malay Peninsula, leading to ethnicriots in Singapore in 1964, and culminating in Singapore'swithdrawalfrom Malaysia asan independent nation in August, 1965(Gopinathan 1974; Vreeland et al. 1977b).

Despite these interethnicconflicts, atthetimeof its secession from Malaysia, Singapore's leaders electedto retain Malay as the sole nationallanguage. In so doing, their motives, as intheir original adoptionofMalay,were again largely international, particularly topromote cooperation and good will with Singapore's Malay-speaking neighbors, Indonesia and Malaysia. Had intranational concerns beenof primary importance, other languages would havebeen more logical candidates. Given an over seventy-five per cent Chinesepopulation speakinga large range of Chinese languages, Mandarinas a neutral, pan-Chinese

33 a. 33 tongue would have been one possiblechoice. However,the continued presence of highlyvocal left-wing political parties was already a matter of considerableconcern among the vehemently anti-communist governments of Indonesiaand Malaysia, a distrust

which might have been aggravatedby giving national stittus to the dominant language of the People'sRepublic of China. Another possibilityforthenational language was Englishasthe predominant interethnic linklanguage of Singapore's colonial period. However, selection of English couldlikewise have been construed by Singapore's neighborsas reflecting identity of interests with foreignpowers. Thus, largely as an expressionof solidarity with Indonesia and Malaysia- - with whom Singipore has

subsequently entered theAssociation of Southeast Nations (ASEAN), as well as joinedforces in several bi- and trilateral project's-- Singapore has maintained MalayaP its sole national language (fto 1977).

Nevertheless, since independence, thestatus that Singapore has accordedtoMalayhas never approximatedeither its association with the ethnic Malaysor its functional significance prior to Singapore's joining and seceding from Malaysia. National policies have consistently 'NMIformulated without particular attention to theinterests of the ethnic Malays

(Gopinathan 1974: Vteeland et al. 1977b). Similarly, the domains reserved solely for Malayas the national language have been greatly diminished to largely ceremonialfunctions: the national coatof arms, the NationalAnthem,militarycommands, and

34 34 protocol rituals at official functions (Xuo 1977;Laamzon 197e). In all other domains controlled in any way by thegovernment, including theeducation system,. Malay sharesstatusasan official language with Mandarin, Tamil, and English. The intent of this multilingualpolicy, as it alreadywas in the school system before independence, has been to promotethe three non- European languages in orderto maintain ethnicidentity and culturaldiversity, while using Englishin the domains of administration and law,in interethniccommunication, and in

international commerce inthe worldls fourth busiestseaport (Vreeland et al. 1977b). Since the promulgation of this policy, themost noteworthy development in languagestatus in Singapore hasbeen not this diminished importance of Malay, but a largelyunforeseen increase in the use of English. Initially intended tofunction in a largely auxiliary capacity, English is rapidly becomingthe most widely used language in several linguisticdomains. In the domain of employment, much intra -governmentalcommunication and correspondence is conducted in English (Platt andWeber 1980); English is the only language used in interviewsfor government positions and is crucial for advancements inemployment with the Singapore civil service (Tay 1982). In the private sector,both large and small businesses are increasingly using Englishas one or the only language of intra-officecommunication, particularly at management levels (Plattand Weber 1980). With the exception of some Chinese firms, jobinterviews are conductedin English,

35 35 a. and once hired, employees'competence in English isan important criterion in their promotion(Tay 1982). In addition, English- educated employees consistentlyearn higher monthly incomes than

do employees of thesame age and level of education who havebeen educated in other languages ofinstruction (Xuo 1977).-

In the Singapore school system,Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, and

English continue to shareequal status as officiallanguages of instruction, in that parentscan choose to send their childrento Chinese-, Malay-, Tamil-,or English-medium primary andsecondary schools. However, awing to the importanceof Englirb in the

domain of employment, thepercentage of primary andsecondary students,from all ethnic groups, enrolledin English-medium

schools increased consistentlyfrom 31.6 per cent in 1947 to71.3 per cent in 1976(Platt and Weber 1980). This trend has accelerated since developmentsin 1975 made universityeducation in Singapore availableonly in English; by 1980,84.5 per cent of

elementary school pupilswere being taught in English (LePage 1984).

This increasing enrollmentin English-medium schoolshas occurred despite frequent pleashy government leaders for parents to enroll their childrenin other language mediumschools, appeals motivated by aconcern that Singapore's rich linguistic and cultural heritagemay be erased by the dominance of English.

Howw:ar, as Singapore's bilingualeducation policy allows all children to use the mothertongue of their ethnic backgroundas a second medium ofinstructionfor selectedsubjects, Kuo

36 36

(1977:22) observesthat the option of sending their-childrento English-medium schools "becomes easierforthe parents because they can now send their childrento English schools for economic

advancement without any guilty feelingofbetraying their ethnic tradition." A related consequence ofthis increasing use of Englishin the schools and on the job hasbeen a rise in theuse of English in informal conversation. During the colonialera, as discussed above, English had already become an importantcodefor

interethnic communication,especially among the educatedsector of the population. Amoredramatic development sinceSingapore's

independence has been the widespread useof Englishfor

intraethnic conversationamong allethnic groups. In these cases, English is often mixed andswitched with other languages

when speakers wish to signaltheir status, education,or a change in register (cf. Lowenberg 1985; Plattand Weber 1980; Richards 1982).

The increasing use of Englishin Singapore is also reflected in other domains, including rising circulationsin English- language newspapersand magazinesandgrowing percentages of

English-language programming and advertising onradioand

television (Platt and Weber1980). These trends, together with the patterns of English usejustdescribed, haveled some observers, such as Llamzon (1978:92), to argue thatEnglish is rapidly becoming not onlythe most widely used ofSingapore's

37 37 official languages, but also thereplacement of Malayas Singapore's national language.

Nevertheless, agreat many Singaporeanscontinueto be

proficient in and use Malay.Kuo (1980) reports statisticsthat among all who were fifteenyears or older in 1978, Malay wasthe major Singaporelanguagein which the largest

percentage (6/.3) claimed to be competent, followed by English (61.7 per cent) and Mandarin (63.9percent). This higher

competence in Malay than in the otherofficial languages was found to occur among Malays, SouthAsians, and Chinese.

Of the individual ethnicgroups, 99.8 per cent of the Malays claimed competencein Malay -- the highest mother-tongue retention ratein Singapore (Kuo 1978a). Subsequent data from the 1980 census indicated that97.7 per centof all Malays five years of age or older used Malayas the principal language of the home (Tay 1965a). These high rates of retentionand use of Malay by the Malays have beenattributed to their beingSingapore's most homogeneous group, bothlinguistically and ethnically(Tay 1985a), and totheirindigeneous status in theregion, making them the "host culture" and less likely toassimilate with the groups whose ancestors immigrated duringthecolonial era (Kuo 1978a:87).

Malay is also frequentlyused by many South Asians,of whom 97.4 per cent claimed competence inMalay in1978 (Kuo 1980).

Within this group, the 1980 censusindicated that9.3 per cent use Malay as the primary language of the home (Anderson 1985),a

38 38 percentage which may be considerably higheramong the 36 per cent of the South Asians whose mother tongue is not Tamil.

With regard tothe future, recentstudies predict the continued useof Malay in Singapore. Data from the 1980 census indicate retention of Malay by theMalaysand by those South

Asiansfor whom itisthe principal languageof.the home. Anderson (1985:93) finds "avery strong pattern of maintenance" acrossthecurrentthreegenerationslivingin most Malay families. In fact, Tay (1985a) reports much higheruseof Malay as the primary language of the household amongyounger (ages 5 to 24 years) than older (over 24 years)Singaporeans, and a tendency

(81.9 percent) to listen to Malay-language radioprograms among

Singaporeans for whom Malay is theprimary home language. She concludes (Tay 1985a:16) that

of allthe languagesand in Singapore, Malay appears to be the one language that will continueto be used astheprincipal homelanguage by those who (currently) use it... Itis unlikelyto be superseded by another language, suchas English (parentheses mine)

Another factor that Tay. (1985b) suggestsmay contribute to the continued acquisition and use of Malayby Singaporeans iS the increasing employment, as Singapore'sstandard ofliving improves, of Malay and Indonesianwomen as caretakersin child- care centersand as live-in "amahs" (baby-sitters) or maids in Singapore households of all ethnicgroups. Tay posits (1985b:8) that the caretaker language spoken bythese women "will influence

39 39 a person's use of language in childhood muchmore than the traditionally defined mother tongue."

Beyond the domain of the home, a study by Lim (1980:26) revealed thatin Singapore'sbilingual education policy,in which, as noted earlier, students select their secondlanguage of instruction, "Malayis the most popular secondlanguage in that

there were Chinese, Indians,and otherraces learningit rather than their own nativelanguage in school."

Evidently, the language situationin Singapore is stillvery much in flux. Although theover-all dominanceof English in

employment and educationappearslikely to continue in the

foreseeable future, thereare several indicationsthat Malay is far from dying, and will likewise continue to retainconsiderable status in a number of domains.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, Malay's longuse as the dominant lingua franca throughout present-dayIndonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore is at least partly responsible for its currentstatus asthe national language of allthree of these countries. But equally significant have been political and economic developmentsduring and subsequent to the colonialera, developmentsthat have created sociolinguistic contexts in which the motivesfor and the results of Malay's obtaining thisstatushave diverged considerably.

40 40 IP Mir Sae asoupless apeso se *Ow itaiinestsas 011 friktinta. assedages1 W awilismiitlaralfer asl boesgratiaa Sol Om Is SISSioltill le le Ills am et nattlitipal essiles MIMS Ow IlasiqpES, Isesver,Mow ast aft Us Oslo alt Uslallusifts astansillelsOs tint 9114111014 .11.30. Mao 110 akeOs largarge 'Wakeel Us OM MI ammoirk selevals 1.1111111181 assour etmaim avalsompoll Illssii et IMIss Soilausle asaribs sullipesp IS Isawe as as Welloialaaarsp la awn Olt ND 1111111101SUM& 11111114MS, missillse aid poossallaset Sam 111apda GO Sallsse Isagerp loss astevellsat lasso Os pan MN* Sumailles Urns eallissi mash stOustisa INA gssollp usgerri as Ur asibmalSaarsags."at 11111141111e delillegslis lausiss be sterlimsat isms 0011641, Olio Us Iftligmbead fresupi petioleset 1.0 Oritis ON US 81111211m,INNSIOS1011, eissas, ISM Meeloft 11116.11. OS So NM,widaisms alma Os am alasOld NNW* IMMOso ISOM Whim Ike appeadas. a Woe 11111.pm, Mgas magma Lapses iggsus Om MUD ammessisseft halmatisal idloseltre SIS Wait mon aims OlImpemebesireseimal Ilmempois loft NM Mir Owassist argOisms, iii eilsosar esiallopra 1114140.4etesurneas e Oneemlis isliallihs witIbellish, auss ausiaa levy pastliS6 sweskeir lb, Illioses Us salsaial

41 41 policies. Concurrently, the comfortabledemographic superiority that the Chinese enjoy, which likewiseresultsfrom British immigration policies, protects Malay from beingperceived as the vested interest et an ethnic rival, with theresult that Malay egotism' to flourish ininterpersonal domains.

Meanwhile, the statusof and domains servedby the languages of these three multilingual countriesarefar from static. In 2ndemesia. Maley was originally selected inpart to offset the traditional dominance of the Javanese. However, since independenos, as positions of power have tendedto be occupied by the Javanese,Bahasa Indonesia hasbeen altered by substantial transfer from Javanese at all linguistic levels,occasionally misvalue comersamong other ethnicgroupsthat the neutrality et the national languageis being eroded (Abas1978; Stevens 1973). Concurrently, Malaysia hasfound that its longdependence es !English, both domestically andinternationally, cannot be eradinated as easily as had been hoped in the late1960's, and a essnerted push to upgradeawash in recentyears (Le Page 1984;

apfeell Ma) may dilute thelinguistiu hegemonythat Bahasa Malgras has adored forthe past decade. In Singapore, the geverosent for several years has been attemptingto promote the use of Mandarin among the Chinese,partly in an effortto balance the dominance of Mynah(Le Page 1984). To the degree that this sampaign is effective, officialinterest in Malaymay revive as well. Mao (1978b) reports thatthe Singaporegovernment has been eolosidaring participation inon-going jointMalaysian-Indonesian

42 42 languageplanning activities towardthestandardization and modernization of Bahasa Indonesiaand Bahasa Malaysia.

In sum, as elsewhere in theworld, thecontexts of language usein the Malay Archipelagoareconstantly evolvingand changing. As they do, thestatusand functionsof Malay in the region will likewise continue to shift withother linguiitic and non-linguistic developmentsand thereby shed further lighton the many complexities of the nationallanguage question.

-4 3 REFERENCES

Aanenson, . R. 1979. Indonesia. Washington, DC: American Association of College Registrars andAdmissions Officers.

Abas, Hunan. 1978. Bahasa Indonesia asa unifying language of wider communication: a historical and sociolinguisticperspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Ateneo de Manila University-Philippine Normal CollegeConsortium, Manila. Akashi, Yoji. 1980. The Japanese occupationof Malaya: interruption or transformation?In McCoy (ed.), pp. 65-89.

Alisjahbana, S. Takdir. 1976. Language planning and modernization: the case of Indonesian and Malaysian. The Hague: Mouton. Anderson, Benedict R. 1966. The languages of Indonesian Indonesia 1(1):89-106. politics. Asmah, Haji Omar. 1982. Language spread and recessionin Malaysia .and the . In L. Cooper (ed.), Spread: Language studies in diffusion andsocial change. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.pp. 198-213. Beeby, C. E. 1979. Assessment of Indonesianeducation: planning. a guide in Wellington, : Oxford University Press. 'Buss, Claude. 1958. and the worldtoday. Princeton: Princeton: D. Van Nostrand.

Cady, John P. 1964. Southeast Asia: its historical development. York: McGraw Hill. New

Central Bureau of Statistics,Department of Economic Affairs. Pocket edition of the 1940. statistical abstract of theNetherlands Indies, 1940. Batavia: Netherlands InformationBureau. Cheah Boon !Chang. 1983.Red star over Malaya: resistance and social conflict during and after the Japanese occupation ofMalaya, 1941-46. Singapore: University of SingaporePress. Chin Kee Onn. 1946. Malaya*upside down. Singapore: Jitts and Company. de Terra, Diane. 1983. The linguagenesis ofsociety: of the national language the implementation plan in West Malaysia. In Bruce Bain (ed.), The sociogenesis oflanguage and humancontact.New York: Press. pp. 527-540. Plenum Diah, M. 1982. National language policyand the writing curriculum Indonesia: in a case study. Urbana: Curriculum Laboratory, University of Illinois.

44 Douglas, Stephen A. 1970. Political socialization and student activism in Indonesia. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Dyen, Isadore. 1971.The and Proto-Austronesian. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.),Current trends in linguistics. V01. 8, Part 1.The Hague: Mouton. pp. 5-54. Elsbree, Willard H. 1953.Japan's role in Southeast Asian nationalist movements, 1940 to 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Europa yearbook, 1982.Vol. 2. London: Europa Publications, Ltd. Geertz, Clifford. 1960. The religion of Java. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Glicken, Jessica. 1982. Sundanese and the value of hormat: control, obedience, and social location inWest Java. Paper presented at Indonesian Summer Studies InstituteConference, 12-15 August, 1982, Athens, Ohio.

Gonda, . 1973. in Indonesia. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.

Gopinathan, Saravanan. 1974. Towards a national system of , 1945-1973. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Harriion, Brian. 1967. South-east Asia: a short history (third o edition). New York: St. Martin's Press. Harrison, Selig S. 1979. Why they won't speak our language in Asia. Asia 1(6):3-7.

Hassan, Abdullah. 1975. The standardization and promotion ofBahasa Malaysia. Paper given at Regional English LanguageCentre Conference, January, 1975, , .

Hoffman, J. E. 1973. The Malay Language as a force for unityin the Indonesian Archipelago, 1815-1900., No. 4, pp. 19-36. Hua Wu Yin. 1983._ Class and communalism in Malaysia. . . London: Marram Books.

Kuo, Eddie C. Y. 1977. The status of English in Singapore: a sociolinguistic analysis. In William Crewe (ed.),The in Singapore.Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. pp. 10-33.

Kuo, Eddie C. Y. 1978b. Language planning in Singapore. Language Planning Newsletter 6(2):1-5.

Le Page, Robert B. '1962. in Malaya. In Symposium on multilingualism [second meeting of theInter-African Committee on Linguistics, 16-21 July, 1962, Brazzaville]. London: Committee for Technical Cooperation in Africa. Le Page, Robert B. 1984. Retrospect and prognosis inMalaysia and Singapore. International Journal ofthe Sociology of Language 45:213-126.

Le Page, Robert B. 1985. The language standardisationproblems of Malaysia set in context.Southeast Asian Journal of 13(1):29-39. Social Science

Llamzon, Teodoro A. 1978.English and the nationallanguages in Malaysia, Singapore andthe : a sociolinguistic comparison. Cross Currents 5(1):87-104. Lowenberg, Peter H. 1984. Literacy in Indonesia. In Robert. B. Kaplan (ed.), Annual Review ofApplied Linguistics, 1983. pp. 124-140. Rowley, MA: Newbury Rouse.

Lowenberg, Peter H.1985. Nativization andfunction in ESL: A TESL Studies 6:88-107. case study. McCoy, Alfred W. (ed.). 1980. Southeast Asia under Japaneseoccupation. New Haven: Yale University SoutheastAsia Studies. Series no. 223 [Monograph

Nababan, P. W. J. 1979. Languages of Indonesia. (ed.), Papers on Southeast In Teodoro A. Llamzon Asian languages. Singapore: SEAMS° Regional LanguageCentre. ,pp. 259-291. Nababan, P. W. J. 1980. Proficiency profiles: a study in bilingualism and bilinguality inIndonesia. In Lim Kiat Boey (ed.), education. Singapore: Bilingual SEAMED Regional LanguageCentre. pp. 209-221.

Nababan, P. . J. 1982. Indonesia. In Noss (ed.), pp. 1-47. Nababan, P. W. J. 1985. Bilingualism in Indonesia: maintenance and the swead ethnic language of the national language. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science13(1):1-18. Napitupulu, W. P. 1980. Illiteracy eradicationprogramme in Indonesia (The Learning PackageA Kejar Programme). workshop on Planning Paper presented at and Administration ofNational Literacy Programmes, Arusha, Tanzania,27 November- 2 December. Noss, RI.chard B. (ed.) 1982. Language teaching issues environments in Southeast in multilingual Asia. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. [RELC Anthology Seriesno. 10] Peacock, James L. 1973. Indonesia: Pacific Palisades, an anthropological perspective. CA: Goodyear PublishingCompany. Platt, John and HeidiWeber. 1980. English in Singaporeand Malaysia. New York: Oxford University Press.

46 Platt, John, Heidi Weber, and MianLien Ho. 1983. Malaysia. Singapore and Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Vol. 4 in (. series Varieties of Englisharound the World] Reid, Anthony. 1980. Indonesia: from briefcaseto samurai sword. McCoy (ed.). Pp. 17-32. In

Richards, Jack C. 1982. : rhetorical and communicative styles. In Bras B. Kachru (ed.),The other tongue. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. pp. 154-167.

Rogers, Anthony J. 1982. Malaysia. In Noss (ed.), pp. 48-77. Soedijarto, et al. 1980. Indonesia. In T. N. Postlethwaite and R. M. Thomas (eds.), Schooling in the ASEAN region. Oxford: Pergamon Press. .pp. 48-96.

Stevens, Alan M. 1973. Bihasa Indonesia: modernization and nationalization. Asia (1973), pp. 70-84.

Tanner, Nancy. 1967. Speech and societyamong the Indonesian elite, case study of a multilingual community. a 9(3):15-40. Anthropological Linguistics

Tay, Mary W. J. 1982. The uses, users, and features Singapore. of English in In John Pride (ed.), NewEnglishes. Rowley, MA: House. pp.51-70. Newbury ()Tay,Mary W. J. 1985a.Ttends in language, literacyand education in Singapore. Singapore: Department of Statistics. no. 2] [Census Monograph Teeuw, A. 1967.Modern . The Hague: Nijhoff. Martinus

Voegelin, C. F. and F.M. Voegelin. 1964. Languages of the world: Indo-Pacific fascicle four. 7(2):2-297. Anthropological Linguistics

Vteeland, Nena, et. al. 1975. Area handbook for Indonesia(third edition). Washington, DC: The American University. Vreeland, Nona, et. al. 1977a. Area handbook for Malaysia(third edition). Washington, DC: The American University.

Vteeland, Nena, et. al. 1977b. Area handbook for Singapore. Washington, EC: The American University.

Williams, Lea E. 1976. Southeast Asia: a history. University Press. New York: Oxford

47 Additional References

Anderson, Edmund A. 1985. Sociolinguistic surveys inSingapore. International Journal of theSociology of Language 55:89-114.

Kuo, Eddie C. Y. 1978a. Population ratio, intermarriageand mother tongue retention. Anthropological Linguistics 20(2):85-93. Km, Eddie C. Y. 1980. The sociolinguistic situationin Singapore: unity in diversity. In E. A. Afendras and EddieC. Y. Kuo (eds.) Language and society in Singapore. Singapore: University of Singapore Press. pp. 39-62. Tay, Mary W. J. 1985b. Patterns of bilingualism inSingapore: language, function, anduse. Manuscript.Department of English, University of Singapore.