LANGUAGE IN INDIA

Levels of Politeness in Malaysian Parliamentary Discourse

Maya Khemlani David, Ph.D.
Subramaniam Govindasamy
Mohana Nambiar

Keywords: message, implicature, politeness theory, impoliteness, face threatening acts, parliamentary discourse, political discourse.

Introduction

In any setting and situation where communication takes place, it is important that interlocutors maintain decorum and politeness to avoid unpleasantness and confrontation. This is particularly significant in Asian settings where politeness and indirectness is deemed important to save "face". However does the same practice apply to language use in formal domains like the august house of Parliament, the highest legislative branch of the government? This paper addresses the politeness strategies utilized in parliamentary debates in Malaysia.

The issue here is not merely the identification of politeness or impoliteness but ascertaining whether or not the permeating cultural features associated with politeness is more telling of the strategies used by Malaysian Parliamentarians than the bipartisan nature of the political divides in the country. The discourse between two groups, the opposition, in this case the Democratic Action Party (hereafter DAP) and the ruling government, comprising members of the Barisan Nasional (BN) or National Front, and the use of politeness or lack of politeness between these parties is the focus of this study. Prior to that, some background on the Malaysian Parliament is necessary.

The Malaysian Parliament

The Malaysian Parliament consists of the King, the Senate (Dewan Negara) and the House of Representatives (HOR or otherwise known as the Dewan Rakyat). The HOR is chaired by the Speaker, who has authority over HOR members. Members of the HOR are elected every five years or earlier if the King dissolves Parliament before the end of the 5-year period. Proposed legislative acts must pass through the HOR before proceeding to the upper house of the Senate thereafter, passing the bill and having it approved by the King (Wikipedia, 2006). To be a member of the HOR, individuals must compete in open state elections during the general elections. They must be at least 21 years of age and must not be:

• cognitively impaired;
• bankrupt;
• guilty of crime in any Federal court and imprisoned not more than 1 year or fined not more than RM2,000 and had not received pardon;
• one who has failed to submit statement of expenditure for Parliament in a given time (33 days) after taking part in the elections; and
• one who has received foreign nationality voluntarily or made a pledge to a foreign country. (Abas, 1984: 32-33)

The Standing Orders - Parliament Procedures

The HOR developed their own procedures through Standing Orders (otherwise known as Peraturan Mesyuarat) which use the United Kingdom Parliament's (the Westminster system) procedures as reference (Abdullah, 1969). Regarding norms of etiquette in debate sessions, the Standing Orders (1986) mention some of the protocols that have to be adhered to during debates (Appendix 1).

Linguistically, these Standing Orders serve to function as face savers (Goffman, 1967; Brown and Levinson, 1987) and in the case of "Time and Manner of Speaking" and "interruptions" (Appendix 1), the Standing Order serves to manage discourse between floor-competing interlocutors, as well as maintain respect and integrity of the Parliament and its members. Should these Standing Orders be violated, 'guilty' members of HOR can face repercussions, as stated in the Standing Orders (Appendix 2).

The Speaker has the prerogative to punish a member who violates the Standing Orders. According to the practices of Parliamentary debates, if the Speaker were to name a member (rather than use his/her Honorary title), it indicates that the member is stripped of his/her membership in the House (Abdullah, 1969: 69). Abdullah (1969) writes:

If a member who is speaking insists on straying from the subject matter under discussion or continually repeating what has already been said by him or other members in the course of the debate, the Speaker, after giving him due warning, can order him to discontinue his speech. If a member misbehaves and his conduct appears to the Speaker to be "grossly disorderly", he will be ordered to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day's sitting and the Sergeant-at-Arms is always there to ensure that the member concerned withdraws accordingly (p. 68).

More severely, the Speaker may impose restrictions on a 'misbehaving' named member from attending the sittings of the House for the rest of the current meeting. However, if the member puts up resistance, he/she is suspended from the services of the House for the remainder of the session (for more information, see Abdullah, 1967).

The Purpose of This Article

This is only the beginning part of the article. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE IN PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION.

Levels of Politeness in Malaysian Parliamentary Discourse | Grammatical Influence of Telugu on Hyderabad Tamil | Separated by a Common Language - Asian Students Writing in English | Modality, Mood and Modal Auxiliaries: A Critique | The Impact of Translation Method On Word Meaning And Fill-In-the-Blank Tests Procedures on Short-Term and Long-Term Retention of Vocabulary Items | Proverbs in Tamil and Telugu | Chandra Lekha in He who Rides a Tiger by Bhabani Bhattacharya | A Literary Study of the Parables in the Gospels of the Bible | Can Hurdles be Overcome by Learners of ESL in Learning to Speak English? | A Strategy-based Scheme for Promoting Vocabulary Retention among Language Learners | The Effect of Text Authenticity on the Performance of Iranian EFL Students in a C-Test | On Interrogating Language and Cognition | Towards Education Reforms - Decolonizing English Studies in India | Girish Karnad's Yayati - A Tale of Malcontent All Around | HOME PAGE of September 2009 Issue | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR