What’s the point of teaching languages?

I was invited to attend the first Conference of Fretilin since Independence in May 2000 and the issue which attracted the most debate was, what languages would East Timor use now.

Bearing in mind that a whole generation had grown up being forced to speak Bahasa, all the schools were using Bahasa and some students were part of the way through their courses in secondary and tertiary institutions.

There was strong argument to continue the use of Bahasa but there was strong sentiment to reject Indonesian Bahasa as it was the language of their oppressors for the last 24 years.

After much vigorous debate, the consensus was to use Portuguese as the “official” language with Tetum becoming the “national” language, which would be further developed as a language. Bahasa would continue to be used as a transitional language and English would also be used in higher education.

Arguments to retain Portuguese, which after all was the language of a coloniser, included existing official documents relating to land tenure and historical material that was all in Portuguese. Also, Fretilin was concerned to retain close fraternal relations with other ex-Portuguese colonies, and Portugal itself, because of the support they had received in their struggle for Independence.

The position now, eight years after independence, is that interpreters are required in parliament to translate for those members who do not speak Portuguese so they can follow the debate.

I needed an interpreter to follow the debate in conference and to translate my address to the Conference into Tetum. So I can imagine that anyone seeking to do business in East Timor must either learn the national language or seek to employ a translator.

Timorese are already learning English to conduct business in the street as a universal language however there is no doubt that those foreigners who take the time to learn Tetum are able to develop a much more satisfactory relationship with the Timorese people.

I had a similar experience in the Philippines when my wife and family spent our long service leave holiday there. When asked to interpret a reasonably lengthy response to my question, my spouse would give me an abridged précis answer, either “yes” or “no”, which I found extremely frustrating.

I’ve lived in Darwin for the past 52 years where the demographics include Indigenous Aboriginal people from various language groups, Greek, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese and Italian in reasonable numbers and lesser numbers of other foreign languages but the working language is English.

The Education system offers language options in primary and secondary schools which include Mandarin (although the local Chinese are mostly Cantonese), Indonesian Bahasa and Greek.

Although there might not have been commercial value in teaching an Aboriginal language, I sought to have my children learn Gubabuingu, a widely spoken language in the top end with no success. I considered that learning the local Aboriginal language a courtesy to the original inhabitants, so obtained a language course in Gubabuingu from the Curriculum Development Centre in Canberra, and with the enthusiastic assistance of some of my adopted kinship family am able to communicate more effectively with them in their language.

As a result I have noticed a rewarding development in our relationship.

I believe a first practical step to advance reconciliation in Australia would be to introduce a local Aboriginal language into all primary and middle schools. And there are plenty people out there whose status can immediately be raised by employing then as language teachers.

Indeed there should also be a post graduate requirement for the police and the legal profession - including magistrates and judges - to do such language courses to avoid a possible misunderstanding or miscarriage of justice.

Early in 1966, I had occasion to attend a Monday morning call-over in a Darwin Magistrates Court where the weekend’s haul of arrests were to face their preliminary hearings. Most cases involved drunk charges, however, there were a couple more serious charges. The Court Orderly would come outside the court-room and call the name of each defendant who would all respond “fine guilty”: their expression to plead for a fine.

On one occasion, the orderly called out “Jack, Jack” whereupon an Aboriginal man stepped forwards and when the charge for assault with a weapon was read out, he responded “fine guilty” there upon being remanded in custody for trial.

A few cases later, another call was made for “Jack, Jack” and another Aboriginal man stepped forwards. He too pleaded “fine guilty” when the charge for drunk was read out whereupon he was fined $10.

As he was about to leave, a police constable arrived to give evidence in the assault with a weapon charge to find that the wrong “Jack” had pleaded guilty to the assault charge.

The court was able to sort out the mistake luckily, but one wonders how many Indigenous people are languishing in jail through a misunderstanding of charges and/or evidence produced.

In 1975 I was called up on a panel for selection of a jury in a murder trial. The court attendant read out the charge in the language of the court for example: “[name of defendant], you are hereby charged that on [such and such date] you did feloniously and maliciously murder [name of victim] at [address]. How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?”

The poor devil just stood there speechless until the judge, in order to facilitate the matter said to the defendant, “Are you guilty or not guilty? Still no response so the judge said, “Did you do it?”

I rose to my feet and objected. As I had sought an exemption in an earlier case, the judge, thinking I was again seeking an exemption asked me if I still needed to be excused. I said “No, I am objecting to the way this defendant is being dealt with”. His response was to tell me to sit down. Of course, when the time came for the selection of the jury, the prosecution stood me down.

I raised the matter with the local paper and before long, interpreters were made available.

I firmly believe there is a strong argument for existing Aboriginal languages to be taught to the broad community.