Politicians Antics With Semantics Drive Malaysian Politics

---

 
AT the Indian Unity Festival held in Shah Alam recently, Perikatan Nasional (PN) chairman Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin spoke about his coalition’s commitment to all Malaysians.
At the event, the former premier downplayed his previous stance of prioritising Malay identity, saying it is no longer relevant in the current context, saying that he is now a leader who cares for all Malaysians.
With this declaration, there was a ripple of reflection amongst the attendees, prompting them to ponder how politicians sometimes play with words to suit their needs.
You see, Malaysian politicians, like many others around the world, have a knack for using ambiguity and emotionally charged phrases to influence public opinion.
It’s a bit like a magician waving a wand, making certain realities disappear while drawing attention to a shiny object. For instance, saying “technical error” instead of “mistake” can make one feel a tad better about the blunder, even if the end result is the same.
In our political landscape, this playful juggling of language is quite common. Politicians adopt these tactics to navigate their way through criticism and to appease various groups without ever truly committing to anything concrete.
For example, they might promise “support” for a policy without clarifying whether it’s full-fledged backing or merely lip service.
Given Malaysia’s diverse mix of ethnicities and political factions, leaders often find themselves needing to balance conflicting interests.
Thus, they resort to these verbal acrobatics, asserting they “prioritise all communities” while perhaps leaning toward one group when making decisions, rather like a tightrope walker trying to maintain equilibrium.
When allegations of misconduct arise, politicians may concoct clever definitions to dodge accountability. A rather famous instance was when a controversial payment was hallmarked as a “donation” rather than a “bribe”, allowing them to sidestep scandal.
The delicate balance of Malaysia’s racial and religious tapestry—a combination of Malays, Chinese, Indians, and the prominence of Islam as the official religion—calls for a particularly careful approach to language.
Using phrases like “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay supremacy) while claiming to champion “unity” is one such delicate dance.
Then, of course, there’s the art of narrative control. Politicians can manipulate how issues are perceived through selective wording, turning a protest into a “small group of troublemakers” instead of acknowledging it as a wider public outcry.
Sometimes, policies are purposefully worded ambiguously to grant those in power a bit of wiggle room, allowing them to exploit legal loopholes. We’ve seen laws against “fake news” that are so broadly written they can be wielded against critics with a simple twist of the terminology.
You might wonder why this all works so effectively. The truth is, many voters find political jargon a labyrinth to navigate, and when media outlets lean toward either the government or the opposition, it can create a polarised environment where clarity takes a backseat.
Malaysians, with their culturally ingrained politeness, often shy away from confrontation, allowing many politicians to evade straightforward language and accountability.
(Image: Reuters)Looking at past instances, one can see how wordplay has shaped the political landscape. Datuk Seri Najib Razak, for example, claimed that the RM2.6 bil in his private account was a “donation” from Saudi Arabia, not a bribe.
Calling it a donation provided a cloak of respectability, allowing him to evade the harsh lights of accountability for quite some time despite subsequent investigations revealing the funds were indeed tainted.
And then there’s the infamous Sheraton Move, where Muhyiddin formed a new government by poaching MPs, terming it a “Malay Unity Government.”
Opponents quipped that it was merely a “backdoor government”, cleverly highlighting the supposed lack of legitimacy in forming a coalition through defections rather than through the electorate’s will.
When politicians face criticism about their salaries, they sometimes prefer the term “allowances”, turning the conversation away from the gold-plated “salary” that can be seen as excessive.
Ministers might parade their hefty “official allowances” while maintaining they lead modest lives, all the while the average person raises an eyebrow in disbelief.
And who could forget the “Keluarga Malaysia” campaign? It was introduced to promote unity following political upheaval. While its intent may have been commendable, many critics pointed out the incongruity between the slogan and policies that seemed to favor certain ethnic groups over others.
Even during the challenges of Covid-19, when the government reversed decisions on lockdowns, they labelled these changes as “policy improvements” instead of simply admitting to confusion or misplanning.
Why do such tactics succeed? It’s a convoluted ecosystem where pro-government media often echo these terms uncritically, while the general public may not analyse the weight behind the words that are flung about.
However, the solution could be found in concerted efforts toward fact-checking, holding politicians accountable, and pushing for clarity over vague rhetoric.
The Malaysian public must become more discerning, demanding precise answers instead of meandering statements.
It’s time to nurture leaders who communicate transparently because it’s evident that as long as voters tolerate these semantic games, we’ll continue to see the same old routines play out.
Perhaps with greater public scrutiny and independent media, we might navigate away from politicians’ sleight of hand.
After all, while they may craft their language to bewilder, an informed public possesses the power to pierce through the fog and see the reality beneath.
KT Maran is a Focus Malaysia viewer.
The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.
- Focus Malaysia.

---