There’s a long running debate in Malaysia over the name of their language, whether to associate it with the people or country as, for example, Indonesia do, or with an ethnicity as do multiple other languages across Indonesia (Sundanese, Javanese, Balinese, Minangkabau, Batak, Malay, Dayak, etc).
In 1928 Indonesian youth organizations gathered at a conference and adopted an ethnic minority language, Malay, as the basis to form and develop the national language, and called the resulting language Indonesian as a way to unite the people and the nation and avoid favoring any single ethnicity.
The Indonesian language ends up as an adaptive lingua franca, absorbing words, customs, and rules from various other languages the people came across, including Portuguese, English, Arabic, and Dutch, in addition to domestic influence from local ethnic languages.
In contrast, Malaysia faces a linguistic dilemma. While the country’s national language remains strongly rooted in Malay, it has evolved by absorbing foreign influences — mainly from Chinese, Arabic, and English — but nowhere near as heavily as Indonesian did.
The question they’re debating over: Should it be called Bahasa Malaysia (Malaysian language) to emphasize its national identity, or Bahasa Melayu (Malay language) to acknowledge its ethnic origins?
This debate reflects deeper sociopolitical tensions between fostering a unified national identity and recognizing the cultural heritage of the Malay majority.
Proponents of Bahasa Malaysia argue that the term promotes inclusivity, making the language feels more representative of all Malaysians, including non-Malay communities such as the Chinese, Indian, and indigenous groups.
On the other hand, supporters of Bahasa Melayu contend that the language’s historical and ethnic roots should not be erased, as it is intrinsically tied to the Malay people and their traditions. They’re also saying the common language used in the U.K., Australia, the US, and other anglophone countries is called English, after the people.
To complicate matters, Malaysian governments over the years alternated between the two terms, reflecting shifting political priorities.
In the 1960s, the name Bahasa Malaysia was officially adopted to encourage national unity, but in 1986, the term Bahasa Melayu was reinstated. However, around 2007, the government reverted to Bahasa Malaysia to reinforce its role as a national, rather than purely ethnic, language.
This is why over the years I keep getting corrected when I refer to the language because I never kept tabs on what it was called.
While Indonesia settled this long before the nation was formed, Malaysia’s seeming indecision reflects the delicate balance they have to manage between ethnic identity and history and national cohesion. Before deciding on a definitive name, they must to decide what they want their language to represent.
Personally, I have a feeling non Malays wouldn’t have a real problem calling the language either way while the ethnic Malay majority will insist their language should be called Malay.
Category: Uncategorized
Komdigi Minister Meutya Hafid is Wrong About Esports
The Minister’s dismissal of esports as “not real sport” exposes an outdated understanding, trapped by language that excludes millions of digital competitors.
There’s a controversy brewing, and it’s centered on a simple, stubborn claim from Komdigi Minister Meutya Hafid: online games aren’t sport. Why? Because you don’t sweat, you don’t move your body, you don’t exercise. She said, “For me, sport still needs to involve physical activity too, not just online stuff. I’m not saying online is bad, but still, if you’re calling it sport, there needs to be a physical component to it.” It’s a statement that landed with a thud — but also one that perfectly exposes how trapped we are in a limited, almost archaic understanding of what “sport” means.
The Power of Language
In English, “sport” has a broad range of meanings, from recreation to competitive skill. In Indonesian, however, “olahraga” is literally “olah” (exercise, process) and “raga” (body), binding the word to the idea of physical exertion.This linguistic root shapes not only the word’s meaning but the public’s perception. If it’s not about sweating and moving, it’s not olahraga.
Yet the world of competition has never been that simple. Chess, bridge, and even shooting are globally recognized as sports, despite demanding far more mental toughness than muscle power. Motorsport, too, reveals the flaw in defining sport solely by physical activity. Drivers and riders may sweat during races, but it’s their precision, split-second decisions, and unwavering focus that elevate it to the level of true competition. These examples show that our traditional definition of sport — tied solely to physical movement — doesn’t capture the full spectrum of human excellence.
This is more than a semantic debate. It’s about who gets to play, who gets to compete, who gets to be taken seriously. and what kinds of human achievement we value. If we cling to the idea that only sweat and sore muscles can define sport, we shut out entire worlds of competition and excellence.
The roots of this mindset run deep. “Olahraga” is tied to physical movement, and even though Indonesia’s legal definition of sport has expanded to include online pursuits, public perception still lags behind. Words shape culture, and culture shapes opportunity. When we insist that esports aren’t “real olahraga,” we’re not just quibbling over definitions — we’re gatekeeping who gets to compete and be counted.
Sport Evolves, so Should Our Understanding
Sport has always evolved. What counted as sport a hundred years ago is different from what we celebrate today. Boxing was once considered too brutal to be a sport. Weightlifting was dismissed as circus spectacle. Now they’re both Olympic mainstays. Clinging to the idea that physical exertion is the only marker of legitimacy ignores the reality that skill, dedication, and competition take many forms — including digital.
Rejecting esports on the grounds of physicality isn’t just shortsighted; it’s a disservice to the millions who compete, train, and thrive in these spaces. Esports demand precision, strategy, and lightning-fast reflexes — the same qualities we celebrate in any athlete. The difference is the arena, not the intensity. It’s time to rethink what olahraga means, expand our definitions, and embrace a future where sport reflects the full range of human achievement. Or maybe even come up with a brand new term that’s more inclusive of the activities we humans consider sport in the modern era and even beyond – easier said than done, really, more practical to just detach the word olahraga from physical associations.
This isn’t just about a minister’s remark. It’s about how Indonesia defines itself in a world where competition no longer looks like it did fifty years ago. It’s about whether we’ll stay stuck in the past or embrace the future.
We need to evolve. Because sports aren’t just about calories burned or muscles flexed. It’s about pushing human limits, testing mental and physical endurance, and reaching the pinnacle of what we’re capable of, wherever that might be. On a track. In a pool. At a bar. Or yes, even on a screen. Even when it’s a Microsoft Excel competition.
What a scathing take on Netflix
Over the past decade, Netflix, which first emerged as a destroyer of video stores, has developed a powerful business model to conquer television, only to unleash its strange and destructive power on the cinema. In doing so, it has brought Hollywood to the brink of irrelevance. Because Netflix doesn’t just survive when no one is watching — it thrives.
Film studios have always released duds: movies that fail to gain traction and are shuttled to the studios’ archives, where they disappear into obscurity. Until recently, for most studios, a forgotten film was a sign of failure. But Netflix, uniquely, seemed to relish making its films vanish as soon as they were released, dumping them onto its platform and doing as little as possible to distinguish one from the next.
There’s also a searing criticism on the “Typical Netflix Movie” having a generic approach that one can spot fairly easily
The editors of these films seem to have just given up, too. The cutting between shots is frenetic. The lighting is terrible. The TNM looks both oversaturated and flat, with the blacks brightened and the highlights dulled, a result of Netflix’s insistence that its originals be shot with powerful digital cameras that compress poorly on viewers’ laptops and televisions. (Netflix might be the first studio in Hollywood history to consistently make daylight look bad.)
They also scorched the executives for the amount of garbage production they push out
But high output alone can’t account for Netflix’s garbage quality. In the 1920s and ’30s, studios like Paramount and Warner Bros. put out as many as seventy movies per year. Around its peak in the ’90s, Miramax tried releasing a new film almost every week. The difference between Netflix and its predecessors is that the older studios had a business model that rewarded cinematic expertise and craft. Netflix, on the other hand, is staffed by unsophisticated executives who have no plan for their movies and view them with contempt.
Closing this with questions from a Hollywood producer:
“What are these movies?” the Hollywood producer asked me. “Are they successful movies? Are they not? They have famous people in them. They get put out by major studios. And yet because we don’t have any reliable numbers from the streamers, we actually don’t know how many people have watched them. So what are they? If no one knows about them, if no one saw them, are they just something that people who are in them can talk about in meetings to get other jobs? Are we all just trying to keep the ball rolling so we’re just getting paid and having jobs, but no one’s really watching any of this stuff? When does the bubble burst? No one has any fucking clue.”
Lots more in the article.
The America I knew
The America I grew up with was not a perfect nation by any measure, and it’s certainly terrible in many parts, but it also allowed people of different origins, of different cultures, of different beliefs, to come together and belong to one another. It allowed people to thrive, to find mutual connection, and create something great.
These excerpts of Presidential speeches carry the promises of a nation, the values I believe in, the values that I hold close. Promises that I hope they can still deliver in the face of seemingly insurmountable adversary and great challenges.
Kennedy, Peace Speech, 1963
Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all cherish our children’s futures, and we are all mortal. Today we seek to move beyond the accomplishments of the past to establish the principle that all people are entitled to a decent way of life.
Clinton, Inauguration, 1993
Let us not forget that each child saved, each refugee housed, each disease prevented, each barrier to justice brought down, each sword turned into a plow share brings us closer to peace, closer to freedom, closer to dignity.
Obama, State of the Union, 2013
We also know that progress in the most impoverished parts of our world enriches us all. So the United States will join with our allies to eradicate such extreme poverty in the next two decades by connecting more people to the global economy, by empowering women, by giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve, and helping communities to feed, empower, and educate themselves, by saving the world’s children from preventable deaths.
That’s how we’ll confront the challenges of our time. This is how we will seize the promise of this moment in history.
Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome? We’ve seen what changes the human spirit can bring. That’s why we look to the future not with fear but with hope.
Pay-to-Play Media: A Crisis for PR, Journalism, and Credibility
I’m coming into this rather late as I only just now read the post by the founder of Maverick Indonesia PR agency, Ong Hock Chuan, on what’s happening in the media and public relations space as well as his follow up.
As a former media person who also spent time among public relations professionals, I find what’s apparently happening quite concerning and is symptomatic of an existential crisis rooted in an unsustainable business practice brought on by a drastic change in the industry landscape. Unfortunately the effect of this is a clash of two intertwined and interdependent industries that used to be in a much more congenial relationship.
As a result, the once clear distinction between earned and paid media is blurring, as media companies apparently increasingly demand payment for coverage. This phenomenon, driven by declining traditional advertising revenue, poses serious challenges for PR professionals, media outlets, and the public. What was once ethically questionable is becoming commonplace, forcing PR practitioners to navigate an environment where credibility and integrity are under constant threat.
From the perspective of PR professionals, this shift threatens the core of public relations: earned media. Earned media, by its very nature, has always been a hallmark of credibility because it reflects the independent judgment of the media outlet. However, when media companies start asking for payment in exchange for coverage, that credibility crumbles. PR professionals now face a difficult choice: play into this pay-to-play system and sacrifice ethical standards, or risk losing valuable visibility for clients.
This dilemma is exacerbated by media companies’s financial struggles. As digital platforms siphon away advertising dollars and consumer attention, traditional outlets scramble for new revenue streams. Asking brands for payment in return for coverage has unfortunately become one of those strategies, reflecting an existential crisis for the media industry.
The consequences are profound and far-reaching. When media companies accept payment for editorial content, their role as impartial gatekeepers of information is compromised. Audiences today are more savvy and skeptical than ever before. They can often detect paid content, and once trust is broken, it’s difficult to repair. For media outlets, short-term financial gains come at the cost of long-term credibility and relevance.
For PR practitioners, the erosion of earned media puts the entire profession at risk of losing its ethical foundation. The job has always been to present clients strategically without crossing into paid promotions. When media companies demand payment for coverage, PR professionals are backed into a corner: abandon ethical guidelines or stand firm on principles, potentially losing valuable placements.
This practice raises significant questions about journalistic integrity. If coverage is determined by who can pay, what does that mean for the future of news? Will underfunded yet important initiatives be left out of the media narrative? Will the media’s watchdog function be diluted if reporting can be bought?
At the core of this issue is a crisis of trust. Both PR and journalism are built on credibility, now undermined by financial desperation. PR practitioners must secure coverage without compromising ethical standards, while media companies must remain financially viable without sacrificing journalistic integrity. The question isn’t just about funding sources, but whether audiences will continue to trust either the media or the brands paying for placement.
This trend is dangerous for all involved. Media companies may find short-term relief in paid content but will lose audience trust. PR professionals may secure more coverage by paying, but risk their own credibility and that of their clients. Most importantly, the public loses when news becomes a commodity rather than a public service.
This crisis demands a reevaluation of priorities. Media companies must innovate to find sustainable revenue models that don’t compromise their core mission. Perhaps media companies need a complete overhaul in how they are structured and how they approach the business.
PR professionals must reaffirm their commitment to ethical practices, even in the face of pressure to secure coverage at any cost. Both industries must recognize that their value proposition lies not in short-term gains, but in maintaining the trust and respect of their audiences and clients.
Public relations and media companies are not adversaries and they should never be. The challenge is finding a mutually sustainable and beneficial business model in the face of an advertising revenue drain by global tech platforms. The same platforms that are increasingly abandoning their need of media companies as content producers because the audience have been conditioned to read only what’s published on the platforms.
Ultimately, demanding payment for media coverage is a symptom of deeper problems. Left unchecked, it will erode the foundations of both professions creating a world where all media coverage is suspect and public relations is synonymous with paid advertising.
Post Pandemic Layoffs
Business Insider published an article earlier this week about how difficult it’s been for so many people to find work after the massive layoffs that happened since 2022. It’s paywalled so you’ll need a subscription but I’ll post some excerpts.
One reason it’s become harder is that even though layoffs remain tepid and the unemployment rate is low, the number of job openings in the US has fallen back to levels not seen since early 2021.
“If you’re looking to find a job right now, it’s much tougher than it was two years ago,” Nick Bunker, the director of North American economic research at Indeed, told BI.
Sometimes companies post job vacancies but don’t really mean to hire people because they don’t have the budget or can’t allocate headcounts. So why the hell are they posting them?
“We’re in a market right now that’s very cautious and conservative,” he said. “That company may have a need, and they’re posting to see what they can get, but they maybe don’t have the budget or the final approval to actually hire that person until maybe next year.”
That’s Jason Henninger, managing director at Heller Search, a recruiting firm focused on the tech industry. Basically some companies are looking to see what talents are available and try to figure out what sort of hiring strategies they can come up with given their own constraints.
I posted the following on Mastodon a couple of days ago,
Getting a new job in this economy is tough. There are people who have been unemployed for more than a year, sometimes longer than two, who can’t make their way back to regular employment anymore regardless of the additional training or certifications that they took because of job cuts and redundancies.
During the pandemic companies overhired and created new divisions and goals that no longer exist anymore because, “hey, we’re back to normal now!” And so many companies refuse to take the lessons of the pandemic while workers were counting on them.
The disconnect is real and maybe the only remedy is industry swap. Go into a whole new different thing. That’s what I’m having to do. I can’t do journalism or professional blogging anymore.
The main point there is the disconnect between corporate behavior and workers’s expectations. The old corpo heads are pushing to a full return to pre-pandemic work environment but workers have had a taste of freedom of choice and being able to work according to their needs. Unfortunately while it seemed like it was a worker’s market during the pandemic because they were in high demand, it quickly reversed once the pandemic was ending and companies started shedding those hires.
What’s more nefarious is the way they let go of their workers. This infamous one from end of 2021 was especially cruel. Better.com CEO called a meeting with 900 employees over Zoom and everyone on that call got told they were fired effective immediately. Any sense of empathy that the CEO might have communicated was immediately extinguished with the way he told everyone in the call that they were suddenly unemployed.
“This isn’t news that you’re going to want to hear but ultimately it was my decision and I wanted you to hear it from me. It’s been a really, really challenging decision to make. This is the second time in my career that I’m doing this and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it I cried. This time I hope to be stronger. But we are laying off about 15% of the company for [a number of] reasons: the market, efficiency and performances and productivity.
“If you’re on this call you are part of the unlucky group that is being laid off. Your employment here is terminated. Effective immediately.”
Consciously or not he made it all about him and how difficult it was for him to do it but letting employees go is never about the leader or how they feel, nobody gives a shit about management and especially not about the CEO. It’s about the employees and how it affects them.
The only thing that might make retrenched employees feel better would be the severance package and how they’re treated post employment. Some companies let former employees keep their insurance for a period of time, sometimes office facilities and amenities are still available in some capacity to help give them a softer landing. How the layoff is conveyed is important but post employment rights are far more meaningful.
Exploited, Extorted, and Erased: Indonesia’s Struggle Against Dutch Historical Revision
I’ve never considered myself a nationalist, but there’s one thing that has been tugging at me for decades: the Dutch colonial legacy in Indonesia. It’s a complex history that continues to resonate and remains unresolved to this day.
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room – the price of Indonesian independence. In the 1950s, Indonesia had to pay billions of guilders to the Netherlands just to secure full sovereignty, about 4.5 billion. It’s a staggering sum that apparently had a far greater impact on the Dutch economy than the much-lauded Marshall Plan. Yet, when the Dutch discuss their post-war recovery, it’s all about that American aid. The audacity to erase the role of Indonesia in the post World War II reconstruction and redevelopment of the Netherlands.
As if you’re not aware, here’s a bitter pill to swallow: part of that independence payment went towards covering the cost of weapons the Dutch used against Indonesians during the struggle for freedom. A member of the Indonesian delegation at the Round Table Conference in 1949 escaped death in Jogjakarta by a Dutch bomb that went through a window he was standing by. It’s a cruel twist that still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
From the article linked above:
The Dutch delegation firmly started negotiations with the requirement that the entire Dutch Indian debt of 6.5 billion guilders should be transferred to Indonesia, including the cost of all recent military actions that had estimated to have killed a hundred thousand Indonesians. The original draft law states that the ‘measures taken to restore order and peace (…) were (were) in the interest of Indonesia’.
It must have been a strange sensation for the Indonesian delegation members. Mohammed Hatta was still imprisoned during the so-called ‘Second Police Action’ in 1948 and Dr. Leimena, one of the Republican delegation members, had seen a Dutch bomb arrive through the window during the same action in Yogyakarta and managed to jump into a space under the stairs just in time. Now they were presented with the bill of that Dutch bomb.
And let’s not forget the ongoing dispute over our Independence Day. The Dutch government stubbornly refuses to legally recognize August 17, 1945, insisting instead on December 1949 after the conclusion of the Round Table Conference at The Hague. It’s as if our declaration and struggle meant nothing until they decided to acknowledge it, a power that the colonists insists on maintaining because they can’t bear to witness their former slaves achieving full independence.
But here’s the crux of the matter: the Netherlands’ current prosperity is built on a foundation of colonial exploitation. For over three centuries, they extracted wealth from the Indonesian archipelago, shaping their nation’s trajectory at our expense. This historical debt remains largely unacknowledged and unaddressed.
Last year’s “acknowledgment” of the Independence Day by the Dutch government? It’s a step that carries no legal weight and falls short of true reconciliation. The Dutch government even stated that it has no legal relevance and it does not change the date for the United Nations. It’s high time for the Netherlands to face a reckoning with history.
Too many people aren’t aware of this situation between the Netherlands and Indonesia. I’m not satisfied until there is a full recognition, a genuine acknowledgment of the past and its lasting impacts and a full reparation paid by the Netherlands to Indonesia even if it means collapsing their economy because that’s what the Dutch deserve. They don’t deserve a single thing that they enjoy today because everything they have was built upon the exploitation of an entire archipelago wider than the width of the continental United States. Until that happens, this chapter of our shared history remains painfully unresolved.
Why is it important that the Netherlands, the United Nations, and any other country and organization recognize this date? The official recognition of 17 August 1945 is an important milestone as part of the decolonization process to acknowledge the loss of power and authority of the Netherlands over the former colony.
This refusal is the same as if the UK refuse to acknowledge July 4, 1776 as the American Independence Day because the revolutionary war was still happening until 1783, and will only recognize September 3, 1783 because that’s the date of the Treaty of Paris. Indonesia was still at war with the Netherlands until 1949 but we declared our independence in 1945. Tell me how that’s a different case.
It’s important that former colonists fully detach themselves of all their power and authority to disabuse the notion that they still have some level of control over the status of the independent nation.
So while I may not wave flags or lead protests, this is an issue that strikes a very deep chord. It’s not just about the past; it’s about respect, justice, and setting the historical record straight. And that is something worth speaking up for.
Further reading
Dutch government apologises to Indonesia for war abuses, but knowledge of atrocities is nothing new
Archipelago of Death: The Brutality of Japanese and Dutch Counterinsurgency Operations in Indonesia
Uproar about De Oost: ‘Westerling is a war criminal, that is my truth’
What Star Wars means as a space fantasy
One thing that always bothered me about Star Wars after reading the Dark Horse comics all those years ago was how technology seemed to develop in an incredibly glacial pace even after thousands of years.
It forced me to eventually reconcile that Star Wars is not science fiction and cannot be science fiction but a high tech fantasy or space opera story set in space where technology plays a significant part in society but the people are not too concerned with its advancement.
In the same spirit, a story that takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away where anti gravity machines are common, telekinetic powers are commonplace, floating sky cities exist, interstellar ships can travel great distances as if they’re regular buses or planes, and invisible elements of nature can be used to affect physical reality and corporeal objects should not be held to the same laws of physics that shape our reality.
Once you can accept that it’s a story about space wizards with flashlights that can cut metal, and let go of the notion that the story should follows rules that govern our reality, it’s a lot easier to be immersed and enjoy what’s being presented to us.
Doesn’t mean the story can be without flaws, though. It wouldn’t be Star Wars without cringe dialogs and bad story telling with plot holes that get patched on the fly that’s been a fixture since 1977.
Aphantasia
It never made sense to me when people ask to picture or imagine something in your mind and then describe it or talk about it like it’s something you see on a screen. I think it wasn’t until about a decade or so ago I learned about aphantasia and I literally can’t imagine how that’s like to have a visual representation of anything visible in your mind.
For me recollecting something is conceptual, it’s an idea, an abstract based on a memory or knowledge. It’s not at all visual. Visual is just what you see and nothing else. If you’re familiar with that image of five heads each with gradually deteriorating visuals of an apple from a very clear picture of an apple in the first head to nothing at all in the last one, I’m that last one.
This BBC article explains what aphantasia is and how it affects certain people.
Those who cannot visualise anything in their mind’s eye are probably among 1% of people with extreme aphantasia, according to a review of studies on the phenomenon.
They are also less likely to recognise faces, remember the sound of a piece of music or the feel of sandpaper, and more likely to work in science, maths or computing.
And up to 6% of people may experience some degree of aphantasia.
That description doesn’t really fly with me, though. I do recognize faces but forget their names often, much like Inspector Gadget who says he “never forgets a face”. I remember parts of songs like no one else around me can. I can often recognize that part of a song comes from another song and if I can’t recall what the song was that had the same rhythm or melody, it would drive me crazy and determined to find it. But I do work a lot with numbers and my career had been almost entirely in the tech scene.
Has it affected me personally or professionally? I honestly can’t say because I can’t compare my experience with what it’s like to have a visual mind but I’m pretty sure I would have experienced things very differently.
Live Action Avatar: The Last Airbender
Watched three episodes of Netflix’s live action Avatar series. As someone who only knows the original series from internet memes and still has yet to watch even a single episode of the animated series, I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It’s a perfectly fine fantasy series which seems to draw story inspiration from Star Wars.
I get that there may be differences but what do you expect when it’s an 8 episode series as opposed to 20 in the first season? On top of that, no adaptation is going to be a perfect 1:1.
I don’t know if character and story arc changes were necessarily abandoned to keep the story moving or if the team couldn’t get it to work but the original series is still there to watch and I plan to catch it finally once I’m done with the live action.
AuliaSays 