Differences from a cabinet system

A number of key theoretical differences exist between a presidential and a cabinet system:

• In a presidential system, the central principle is that the legislative and executive branches of government should be separate. This leads to the separate election of president, who is elected to office for a fixed term, and only removable for gross misdemeanor by impeachment and dismissal. In addition he or she does not need to choose cabinet members commanding the support of the legislature. By contrast, in parliamentarism, the executive branch is led by a council of ministers, headed by a Prime Minister, who are directly accountable to the legislature and often have their background in the legislature (regardless of whether it is called a "parliament", a "diet", or a "chamber").
• As with the president's set term of office, the legislature also exists for a set term of office and cannot be dissolved ahead of schedule. By contrast, in parliamentary systems, the legislature can typically be dissolved at any stage during its life by the head of state, usually on the advice of either Prime Minister alone, by the Prime Minister and cabinet, or by the cabinet.
• In a presidential system, the president usually has special privileges in the enactment of legislation, namely the possession of a power of veto over legislation of bills, in some cases subject to the power of the legislature by weighed majority to override the veto. However, it is extremely rare for the president to have the power to directly propose laws, or cast a vote on legislation. The legislature and the president are thus expected to serve as checks and balances on each other's powers.
• Presidential system presidents may also be given a great deal of constitutional authority in the exercise of the office of Commander in Chief, a constitutional title given to most presidents. In addition, the presidential power to receive ambassadors as head of state is usually interpreted as giving the president broad powers to conduct foreign policy. Though semi-presidential systems may reduce a president's power over day to day government affairs, semi-presidential systems commonly give the president power over foreign policy.

Presidential systems also have fewer ideological parties than parliamentary systems. Sometimes in the United States, the policies preferred by the two parties have been very similar (but see also polarization). In the 1950s, during the leadership of Lyndon Johnson, the Senate Democrats included the right-most members of the chamber—Harry Byrd and Strom Thurmond, and the left-most members—Paul Douglas and Herbert Lehman. This pattern prevails in Latin American presidential democracies and the Philippines as well.

Overlapping elements

In practice, elements of both systems overlap. Though a president in a presidential system does not have to choose a government answerable to the legislature, the legislature may have the right to scrutinize his or her appointments to high governmental office, with the right, on some occasions, to block an appointment. In the United States, many appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. By contrast, though answerable to parliament, a parliamentary system's cabinet may be able to make use of the parliamentary 'whip' (an obligation on party members in parliament to vote with their party) to control and dominate parliament, reducing parliament's ability to control the government.

Some countries, such as France have similarly evolved to such a degree that they can no longer be accurately described as either presidential or parliamentary-style governments, and are instead grouped under the category of semi-presidential system.

Criticism

Critics generally claim three basic disadvantages for presidential systems:

• Tendency towards authoritarianism — some political scientists say that presidentialism is not constitutionally stable. According to some political scientists, such as Fred Riggs, presidentialism has fallen into authoritarianism in nearly every country it has been attempted. Critics such as Dana D. Nelson in her 2008 book Bad for Democracy^[2] see the office of the presidency in the United States as essentially undemocratic^[3] and she sees presidentialism as worship of the presidency by citizens which tends to undermine civic participation.^[3]
• Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Critics argue that this creates undesirable gridlock, and that it reduces accountability by allowing the president and the legislature to shift blame to each other.
• Impediments to leadership change — it is claimed that the difficulty in removing an unsuitable president from office before his or her term has expired represents a significant problem.

Tendency towards authoritarianism

Winning the presidency is a winner-take-all, zero-sum prize. A prime minister who does not enjoy a majority in the legislature will have to either form a coalition or, if he is able to lead a minority government, govern in a manner acceptable to at least some of the opposition parties. Even if the prime minister leads a majority government, he must still govern within (perhaps unwritten) constraints as determined by the members of his party—a premier in this situation is often at greater risk of losing his party leadership than his party is at risk of losing the next election. On the other hand, once elected a president can not only marginalize the influence of other parties, but can exclude rival factions in his own party as well, or even leave the party whose ticket he was elected under. The president can thus rule without any allies for the duration of one or possibly multiple terms, a worrisome situation for many interest groups. Juan Linz argues that:

The danger that zero-sum presidential elections pose is compounded by the rigidity of the president's fixed term in office. Winners and losers are sharply defined for the entire period of the presidential mandate... losers must wait four or five years without any access to executive power and patronage. The zero-sum game in presidential regimes raises the stakes of presidential elections and inevitably exacerbates their attendant tension and polarization.

Constitutions that only require plurality support are said to be especially undesirable, as significant power can be vested in a person who does not enjoy support from a majority of the population.

Some political scientists go further, and argue that presidential systems have difficulty sustaining democratic practices, noting that presidentialism has slipped into authoritarianism in many of the countries in which it has been implemented. Seymour Martin Lipset and others are careful to point out that this has taken place in political cultures not conducive to democracy, and that militaries have tended to play a prominent role in most of these countries. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the presidential system may have played a role in some situations.

In a presidential system, the legislature and the president have equally valid mandates from the public. There is often no way to reconcile conflict between the branches of government. When president and legislature are in disagreement and government is not working effectively, there is a powerful incentive to employ extra-constitutional maneuvres to break the deadlock.

Ecuador is sometimes presented as a case study of democratic failures over the past quarter-century. Presidents have ignored the legislature or bypassed it altogether. One president had the National Assembly teargassed, while another was kidnapped by paratroopers until he agreed to certain congressional demands. From 1979 through 1988, Ecuador staggered through a succession of executive-legislative confrontations that created a near permanent crisis atmosphere in the policy. In 1984, President León Febres Cordero tried to physically bar new Congressionally-appointed supreme court appointees from taking their seats. In Brazil, presidents have accomplished their objectives by creating executive agencies over which Congress had no say.

Separation of powers

Presidential systems are said by critics not to offer voters the kind of accountability seen in parliamentary systems. It is easy for either the president or Congress to escape blame by blaming the other. Describing the United States, former Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon said "the president blames Congress, the Congress blames the president, and the public remains confused and disgusted with government in Washington".

In Congressional Government, Woodrow Wilson asked,

...how is the schoolmaster, the nation, to know which boy needs the whipping? ... Power and strict accountability for its use are the essential constituents of good government. ... It is, therefore, manifestly a radical defect in our federal system that it parcels out power and confuses responsibility as it does. The main purpose of the Convention of 1787 seems to have been to accomplish this grievous mistake. The 'literary theory' of checks and balances is simply a consistent account of what our constitution makers tried to do; and those checks and balances have proved mischievous just to the extent which they have succeeded in establishing themselves ... [the Framers] would be the first to admit that the only fruit of dividing power had been to make it irresponsible.

Consider the example of the increase in the federal debt of the United States that occurred during the presidency of Republican Ronald Reagan. Arguably, the deficits were the product of a bargain between President Reagan and the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill - O'Neill agreed not to oppose tax cuts favored by Reagan, and in exchange Reagan agreed to sign budgets that failed to adequately restrain spending. In such a scenario, each side can claim to be displeased with the debt, plausibly blame the other side for the deficit, and still tout its own success.

Impediments to leadership change

Another alleged problem of presidentialism is that it is often difficult to remove a president from office early. Even if a president is "proved to be inefficient, even if he becomes unpopular, even if his policy is unacceptable to the majority of his countrymen, he and his methods must be endured until the moment comes for a new election." (Balfour, intro to the English Constitution). Consider John Tyler, who only became president because William Henry Harrison had died after thirty days. Tyler refused to sign Whig legislation, was loathed by his nominal party, but remained firmly in control of the executive branch. Since most presidential systems provide no legal means to remove a president simply for being unpopular, many presidential countries have experienced military coups to remove a leader who is said to have lost his mandate.

In parliamentary systems, unpopular leaders can be quickly removed by a vote of no confidence, a procedure which is reckoned to be a "pressure release valve" for political tension. Votes of no confidence are easier to achieve in minority government situations, but even if the unpopular leader heads a majority government, nonetheless he is often in a far less secure position than a president. Removing a president through impeachment is a procedure mandated by most constitutions, but impeachment proceedings usually cannot be initiated except in cases where the president has violated the constitution and/or broken the law. Impeachment is usually made into a very difficult process, by comparison the process of removing a party leader is governed by the (often much less formal) rules of the party in question. Nearly all parties (including governing parties) have a relatively simple and straightforward process for removing their leaders. If a premier sustains a serious enough blow to his/her popularity and refuses to resign on his/her own prior to the next election, then members of his/her party face the prospect of losing their seats. So other prominent party members have a very strong incentive to initiate a leadership challenge in hopes of mitigating damage to the party. More often than not, a premier facing a serious challenge will resolve to save face by resigning before he/she is formally removed—Margaret Thatcher's relinquishing of her premiership being a prominent, recent example.

In The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot criticized presidentialism because it does not allow a transfer in power in the event of an emergency.

Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency the people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion. The great qualities, the imperious will, the rapid energy, the eager nature fit for a great crisis are not required—are impediments—in common times. A Lord Liverpool is better in everyday politics than a Chatham—a Louis Philippe far better than a Napoleon. By the structure of the world we want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman—to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm.

But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind. The American government calls itself a government of the supreme people; but at a quick crisis, the time when a sovereign power is most needed, you cannot find the supreme people. You have got a congress elected for one fixed period, going out perhaps by fixed installments, which cannot be accelerated or retarded—you have a president chosen for a fixed period, and immovable during that period: ..there is no elastic element... you have bespoken your government in advance, and whether it is what you want or not, by law you must keep it ... (The English Constitution, the Cabinet.)

Years later, Bagehot's observation came to life during World War II, when Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill.

Finally, many have criticized presidential systems for their alleged slowness in responding to their citizens' needs. Often, the checks and balances make action extremely difficult. Walter Bagehot said of the American system "the executive is crippled by not getting the law it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name, since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of others [and not itself] will suffer the effects". (ibid.)

Defenders of Presidential systems, on the other hand, hold that this can serve to ensure that minority wishes and rights are not trampled upon, thus preventing a "Tyranny of the majority" and vice versa protect the wishes and rights of the majority from abuse by legislature and/or executive that holds a contrary view point, especially when there are frequent, scheduled elections. It should be noted however, that despite the veto of President Wilson, Congress and the Senate still passed the National Prohibition Act which effectively outlawed the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol.

British-Irish philosopher and MP Edmund Burke stated that officials should be elected based on "his [or her] unbiased opinion, his [or her] mature judgment, [and] his [or her] enlightened conscience", and therefore should reflect on the arguments for and against certain policies before taking positions and then act out on what an official would believe to be best in the long run for one's constituents and country as a whole even if it means short term backlash. Thus Defenders of Presidential systems hold that sometimes what is wisest may not always be the most popular decision and vice versa.

Advantages of presidential systems

Supporters generally claim four basic advantages for presidential systems:

• Direct mandate — in a presidential system, the president is often elected directly by the people. To some, this makes the president's power more legitimate than that of a leader appointed indirectly. However, in the United States, the president is elected neither directly nor through the legislature, but by an electoral college.
• Separation of powers — a presidential system establishes the presidency and the legislature as two parallel structures. Supporters say that this arrangement allows each structure to supervise the other, preventing abuses.
• Speed and decisiveness — some argue that a president with strong powers can usually enact changes quickly. However, others argue that the separation of powers slows the system down.
• Stability — a president, by virtue of a fixed term, may provide more stability than a prime minister who can be dismissed at any time.

Direct mandate

A prime minister is usually chosen by a majority of the people's representatives, while a president is usually chosen directly by the people. According to supporters of the presidential system, a popularly elected leadership is inherently more democratic than a leadership chosen by a legislative body, even if the legislative body was itself elected, to rule.

Through making more than one electoral choice, voters in a presidential system can more accurately indicate their policy preferences. For example, in the United States of America, some political scientists interpret the late Cold War tendency to elect a Democratic Congress and a Republican president as the choice for a Republican foreign policy and a Democratic domestic policy.

It is also stated that the direct mandate of a president makes him or her more accountable. The reasoning behind this argument is that a prime minister is "shielded" from public opinion by the apparatus of state, being several steps removed. Critics of this view note, however, that presidents cannot typically be removed from power when their policies no longer reflect the wishes of the citizenry. (In the United States, presidents can only be removed by an impeachment trial for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," whereas prime ministers can typically be removed if they fail a motion of confidence in their government.)

Separation of powers

The fact that a presidential system separates the executive from the legislature is sometimes held up as an advantage, in that each branch may scrutinize the actions of the other. In a parliamentary system, the executive is drawn from the legislature, making criticism of one by the other considerably less likely. A formal condemnation of the executive by the legislature is often regarded to be a vote of no confidence. According to supporters of the presidential system, the lack of checks and balances means that misconduct by a prime minister may never be discovered. Writing about Watergate, Woodrow Wyatt, a former MP in the UK, said "don't think a Watergate couldn't happen here, you just wouldn't hear about it." (ibid)

Critics respond that if a presidential system's legislature is controlled by the president's party, the same situation exists. Proponents note that even in such a situation a legislator from the president's party is in a better position to criticize the president or his policies should he deem it necessary, since a president is immune to the effects of a motion of no confidence. In parliamentary systems, party discipline is much more strictly enforced. If a parliamentary backbencher publicly criticizes the executive or its policies to any significant extent then he/she faces a much higher prospect of losing his/her party's nomination, or even outright expulsion from the party.

Despite the existence of the no confidence vote, in practice, it is extremely difficult to stop a prime minister or cabinet that has made its decision. In a parliamentary system, if important legislation proposed by the incumbent prime minister and his cabinet is "voted down" by a majority of the members of parliament then it is considered to be a vote of no confidence. The incumbent government must then either resign or call elections to be held, a consequence few backbenchers are willing to endure. Hence, a no confidence vote in some parliamentary countries, like Britain, only occurs a few times in a century. In 1931, David Lloyd George told a select committee: "Parliament has really no control over the executive; it is a pure fiction." (Schlesinger 1982)

Speed and decisiveness

Some supporters of presidential systems claim that presidential systems can respond more rapidly to emerging situations than parliamentary ones. A prime minister, when taking action, needs to retain the support of the legislature, but a president is often less constrained. In Why England Slept, John F. Kennedy said that Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain were constrained by the need to maintain the confidence of the Commons.

Other supporters of presidential systems sometimes argue in the exact opposite direction, however, saying that presidential systems can slow decision-making to beneficial ends. Divided government, where the presidency and the legislature are controlled by different parties, is said to restrain the excesses of both parties, and guarantee bipartisan input into legislation. In the United States, Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel wrote in 1995:

There are some of us who think gridlock is the best thing since indoor plumbing. Gridlock is the natural gift the Framers of the Constitution gave us so that the country would not be subjected to policy swings resulting from the whimsy of the public. And the competition—whether multi-branch, multi-level, or multi-house—is important to those checks and balances and to our ongoing kind of centrist government. Thank heaven we do not have a government that nationalizes one year and privatizes next year, and so on ad infinitum. (Checks and Balances, 8)

Stability

Although most parliamentary governments go long periods of time without a no confidence vote, Italy, Israel, and the French Fourth Republic have all experienced difficulties maintaining stability. When parliamentary systems have multiple parties and governments are forced to rely on coalitions, as they do in nations that use a system of proportional representation, extremist parties can theoretically use the threat of leaving a coalition to further their agendas.

Many people consider presidential systems to be more able to survive emergencies. A country under enormous stress may, supporters argue, be better off being led by a president with a fixed term than rotating premierships. France during the Algerian controversy switched to a semi-presidential system as did Sri Lanka during its civil war, while Israel experimented with a directly elected prime minister in 1992. In France and Sri Lanka, the results are widely considered to have been positive. However, in the case of Israel, an unprecedented proliferation of smaller parties occurred, leading to the restoration of the previous system of selecting a prime minister.

The fact that elections are fixed in a presidential system is considered to be a welcome "check" on the powers of the executive, contrasting parliamentary systems, which often allow the prime minister to call elections whenever he sees fit, or orchestrate his own vote of no confidence to trigger an election when he cannot get a legislative item passed. The presidential model is said to discourage this sort of opportunism, and instead force the executive to operate within the confines of a term he cannot alter to suit his own needs. Theoretically, if a president's positions and actions have had a positive impact on their respective country, then it is likely that their party's candidate (possibly they) will be elected for another term in office.

Characteristics of presidents

Some national presidents are "figurehead" heads of state, like constitutional monarchs, and not active executive heads of government. (although some Constitutional Monarchs maintain Reserve Powers) In contrast, in a full-fledged presidential system, a president is chosen by the people to be the head of the executive branch.

Presidential governments make no distinction between the positions of head of state and head of government, both of which are held by the president. Many parliamentary governments have a symbolic head of state in the form of a president or monarch (Again, some Monarchs maintain active Reserve Powers). That person is responsible for the formalities of state functions, or in the case of Monarchs with Reserve Powers, the "hands off" ensuing of a functional Parliament, while the constitutional prerogatives of head of government are generally exercised by the prime minister. Such figurehead presidents tend to be elected in a much less direct manner than active presidential-system presidents, for example, by a vote of the legislature. A few nations, such as Ireland, do have a popularly elected ceremonial president.

A few countries (e.g., South Africa) have powerful presidents who are elected by the legislature. These presidents are chosen in the same way as a prime minister, yet are heads of both state and government. These executives are titled "president", but are in practice similar to prime ministers. Other countries with the same system include Botswana, the Marshall Islands, and Nauru. Incidentally, the method of legislative vote for president was a part of Madison's Virginia Plan and was seriously considered by the framers of the American Constitution.

Presidents in presidential systems are always active participants in the political process, though the extent of their relative power may be influenced by the political makeup of the legislature and whether their supporters or opponents have the dominant position therein. In some presidential systems such as Weimar Germany, South Korea or the Republic of China (on Taiwan), there is an office of prime minister or premier but, unlike in semi-presidential or parliamentary systems, the premier is responsible to the president rather than to the legislature.

Republican presidential systems

The defining characteristic of a republican presidential system is how the executive is elected, but nearly all presidential systems share the following

• The president does not propose bills. However, the president has the power to veto acts of the legislature and, in turn, a supermajority of legislators may act to override the veto. This practice is derived from the British tradition of royal assent in which an act of parliament cannot come into effect without the assent of the monarch.
• The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at scheduled times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other such parliamentary procedures. In some countries, there is an exception to this rule, which provides for the removal of a president in the event that they are found to have broken a law.
• The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. However, presidential systems frequently require legislative approval of presidential nominations to the cabinet as well as various governmental posts such as judges. A president generally has power to direct members of the cabinet, military or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but generally has no power to dismiss or give orders to judges.
• The power to pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals is often in the hands of the heads of state in governments that separate their legislative and executive branches of government.

Countries that feature a presidential system of government are not the exclusive users of the title of President or the republican form of government. For example, a dictator, who may or may not have been popularly or legitimately elected may be and often is called a president. Likewise, many parliamentary democracies are republics and have presidents, but this position is largely ceremonial; notable examples include Germany, India, Ireland and Israel (see Parliamentary republic).

Presidential system

A presidential system is a system of government where an executive branch exists and presides (hence the name) separately from the legislature, to which it is not accountable and which cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it.^[1]

The concept of separate spheres of influence of the executive and legislature is specified in the Constitution of the United States, with the creation of the office of President of the United States elected separately from Congress.

Although not exclusive to republics, and applied in the case of semi-constitutional monarchies where a monarch exercises power (both as head of state and chief of the executive branch of government) alongside a legislature, the term is often associated with republican systems in the Americas.

Idioms and Proverbs

Ada gula, Ada semut.

Lit. "Where there's sugar, there are ants". Equivalent to the modern English idiom "Where there's a will there's a relative". Where there is a good thing (sugar) there will be people taking advantage of it (ants).

Writing system

Indonesian is written using the Latin alphabet. It is more phonetically consistent than many languages—the correspondence between sounds and their written forms is generally regular.

Consonants are represented in a way similar to Italian, although ‹c› is always /tʃ/ (like English ‹ch›), ‹g› is always /ɡ/ ("hard") and ‹j› represents /dʒ/ as it does in English. In addition, ‹ny› represents the palatal nasal /ɲ/, ‹ng› is used for the velar nasal /ŋ/ (which can occur word-initially), ‹sy› for /ʃ/ (English ‹sh›) and ‹kh› for the voiceless velar fricative /x/. Both /e/ and /ə/ are represented with an ‹e›.

One common source of confusion for foreign readers, particularly when reading place names, is the spelling changes in the language that have occurred since Indonesian independence. Commonly-used changes include:

Old spelling	New spelling
oe	u
tj	c
dj	j
j	y
nj	ny
sj	sy
ch	kh

The first of these changes (‹oe› to ‹u›) occurred around the time of independence in 1947; all of the others were a part of an officially-mandated spelling reform in 1972. Some of the old spellings (which were derived from Dutch orthography) do survive in proper names; for example, the name of a former president of the Indonesia is still sometimes written Soeharto, and the central Java city of Yogyakarta is sometimes written Jogjakarta.

Spoken & informal Indonesian

In very informal spoken Indonesian, various words are replaced with those of a less formal nature (e.g. tidak (no) is often replaced with the Javanese nggak whilst seperti (like, similar to) is often replaced with kayak (pronounced kai-yah)). As for pronunciation, the diphthongs ai and au on the end of base words are typically pronounced as /e/ and /o/. In informal writing the spelling of words is modified to reflect the actual pronunciation in a way that can be produced with less effort. E.g.: capai becomes cape or capek, pakai become pake, kalau becomes kalo.

In verbs, the prefix me- is often dropped, although an initial nasal consonant is usually retained. E.g.: mengangkat becomes ngangkat (the basic word is angkat). The suffixes -kan and -i are often replaced by -in. E.g.: mencarikan becomes nyariin, menuruti becomes nurutin. The latter grammatical aspect is one often closely related to Indonesian found in Jakarta and surrounding areas.

Vocabulary

Indonesian as a modern dialect of Malay has borrowed heavily from many languages, including: Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese and many other languages, including other Austronesian languages. It is estimated that there are some 750 Sanskrit loanwords in modern Indonesian, 1,000 Arabic loans, some of Persian and Hebrew origin, some 125 words of Portuguese (also Spanish and Italian) origin and a staggering number of some 10,000 loanwords from Dutch.^[9] The latter also comprises many words from other European languages, which came via Dutch, the so-called "International Vocabulary". The vast majority of Indonesian words, however, come from the root lexical stock of its Austronesian (incl. Old Malay) heritage.

Although Hinduism and Buddhism are no longer the major religions of Indonesia, Sanskrit which was the language vehicle for these religions, is still held in high esteem and is comparable with the status of Latin in English and other Western European languages. Residents of Bali and Java tend to be particularly proud of the Hindu-Buddhist heritage. Sanskrit is also the main source for neologisms. These are usually formed from Sanskrit roots. The loanwords from Sanskrit cover many aspects of religion, art and everyday life. The Sanskrit influence came from contacts with India long ago before the time of Christ. The words are either directly borrowed from India or with the intermediary of the Old Javanese language. In the classical language of Java, Old Javanese, the number of Sanskrit loanwords is far greater. The Old Javanese — English dictionary by prof. P.J. Zoetmulder, S.J. (1982) contains no fewer than 25,500 entries. Almost half are Sanskrit loanwords. Sanskrit loanwords, unlike those from other languages, have entered the basic vocabulary of Indonesian to such an extent that, for many, they are no longer perceived to be foreign.

The loanwords from Arabic are mainly concerned with religion, in particular with Islam, as can be expected. Allah is the word for God even in Christian Bible translations. Many early Bible translators, when they came across some unusual Hebrew words or proper names, used the Arabic cognates. In the newer translations this practice is discontinued. They now turn to Greek names or use the original Hebrew Word. For example, the name Jesus was initially translated as 'Isa, but is now spelt as Yesus. Psalms used to be translated as Zabur, the Arabic name, but now it is called Mazmur which corresponds more with Hebrew.

Loanwords from Portuguese are common words, which were mainly connected with articles the early European traders and explorers brought to Southeast Asia. The Portuguese were among the first westerners to sail east to the "Spice Islands".

The Chinese loanwords are usually concerned with cuisine, trade or often just exclusively things Chinese. There is a considerable Chinese presence in the whole of Southeast Asia. According to the 2000 census, the relative number of people of Chinese descent in Indonesia is almost 1%, although this may likely be an underestimate.

The former colonial power, the Netherlands, left an impressive vocabulary. These Dutch loanwords, and also from other non Italo-Iberian, European languages loanwords which came via Dutch, cover all aspects of life. Some Dutch loanwords, having clusters of several consonants, pose difficulties to speakers of Indonesian. This problem is usually solved by insertion of the schwa. For example Dutch schroef [ˈsxruf] → sekrup [səˈkrup].

As modern Indonesian draws many of its words from foreign sources, there are many synonyms. For example, Indonesian has three words for "book", i.e. pustaka (from Sanskrit), kitab (from Arabic) and buku (from Dutch). These words have, unsurprisingly, slightly different meanings. A pustaka is often connected with ancient wisdom or sometimes with esoteric knowledge. A derived form, perpustakaan means a library. A kitab is usually a religious scripture or a book containing moral guidances. The Indonesian words for the Bible are Alkitab and Injil, both directly derived from Arabic. The book containing the penal code is also called the kitab. Buku is the most common word for books.

In addition to those above (and the borrowed words listed under the sub-heading History towards the top of this article), there are also direct borrowings from various other languages of the world, such as "karaoke" from Japanese, and "modem" from English.

Grammar

Word order

Adjectives, demonstrative pronouns and possessive pronouns follow the noun they modify.

The basic word order of Indonesian is Subject Verb Object (SVO). However many Indonesians will speak in a passive/objective voice, making use of the Object Verb Subject word order. This OVS word order in Indonesian will often permit the omission of the subject and/or object (i.e. ellipses of noun/pronoun) and can benefit the speaker/writer in two ways:

1) Adding a sense of politeness and respect to a statement or question

For example, a polite shop assistant in a store may avoid the use of pronouns altogether and ask:

Ellipses of pronoun (Subject & Object)	Literal English	Idiomatic English
Bisa dibantu?	Can + to be helped?	Can (I) help (you)?

2) Convenience when the subject is unknown, not important or implied by context

For example, a friend may enquire as to when you bought your property, to which you may respond:

Ellipses of pronoun (Implied Subject)	Literal English	Idiomatic English
Rumah ini dibeli lima tahun yang lalu	House this + to be purchased five year(s) ago	The house was purchased five years ago

Ultimately, the choice between active and passive voice (and therefore word order) is a choice between actor and patient and depends quite heavily on the language style and context.

Word Formation

Indonesian is an agglutinative language and new words are generally formed via three methods. New words can be created through affixation (the attaching of affixes onto root words), formation of a compound word (a composition of two or more separate words), or reduplication (repetition of words or portions of words).

Adjectives

Unlike in English, adjectives in the Indonesian language follow nouns:

Indonesian	Literal English word order	Normal English translation
Mobil merah	Car red	Red car
Dia orang yang terkenal sekali	He/she person which well-known very	He/she is a very famous/well-known person
(Sebuah) cerita panjang	(A) story long	A long story

Affixation

The Indonesian language utilises a complex system of affixes (i.e. prefix, infix, suffix and confix (circumfix)). Affixes are applied with certain rules which depend on the initial letter of a base word (BW = base word, eg. a habitual verb, adjective, etc in its simplest form), and/or the sound combination of the second syllable. For example:

• The affix Ber + ajar (teach) = BeLajar (Note the deletion of 'R' and the addition of 'L')

= to study

• The affixes Me + ajar + -kan = meNGajarkan (Note the addition of 'NG')

= to teach (transitive)

By comparison

• The affix Ber + judi (gamble) = Berjudi (Note that Ber- remains unchanged)

= to gamble

• The affixes Me + judi + -kan = meNjudikan (Note the addition of 'N')

= to gamble away (money, one's life, etc)

Also, depending on the affix used, a word can have different grammatical meanings (e.g. me + makan (memakan) means to eat something (in the sense of digesting it), while di + makan (dimakan) means to be eaten (passive voice), ter + makan (termakan) means to be accidentally eaten. Often two different affixes are used to change the meaning of a word. For example, duduk means to sit down, whereas men + duduk + kan (mendudukkan) means to sit someone/ something down. Men + duduk + i (menduduki) means to sit on something, di + duduk + kan (didudukkan) means to be sat down, diduduki (diduduki) means to be sat on, etc).

As with any language, Indonesian grammar can often present an array of inconsistencies and exceptions. Some base words when combined with two affixes (eg. me + BW + kan) can produce an adjective rather than a verb, or even both. For example, bosan when combined with the affixes me- and -kan produces the word membosankan, meaning boring (adjective) or to bore (someone) (active verb). However, not all base words can be combined with affixes, nor are they always consistent in their subsequent usage and meaning. A prime example is the word tinggal which, when combined with affixes, can change quite dramatically in both meaning and grammatical use:

• Tinggal (base word (BW) form) = to reside, live (in a place)
• Meninggal (MeN+BW) = to die, pass away (short form of 'Meningal dunia' below)
• Meninggal dunia (MeN+BW + world) = to pass away, to die (lit. pass on from the world)
• Meninggalkan (MeN+BW+kan) = to leave (a place); to leave behind/abandon (someone/ something)
• Ketinggalan (Ke+BW+an) = to miss (a bus, train, etc); to be left behind
• Tertinggal (Ter+BW) = to be (accidentally) left behind
• Ditinggalkan (Di+BW+kan) = to be left behind; to be abandoned
• Selamat tinggal (word + BW) = goodbye (said to the person staying)

Noun affixes are affixes that form nouns upon addition to base words. The following are examples of noun affixes:

Type of noun affixes	Affix	Example of root word	Example of derived word
Prefix	pe(N)-	duduk (sit)	penduduk (resident)
	ke-	hendak (want)	kehendak (desire)
	juru-	acara (event)	juru-acara (event host)
Infix	-el-	tunjuk (point)	telunjuk (index finger, command)
	-em-	kelut (dishevelled)	kemelut (chaos, crisis)
	-er-	gigi (teeth)	gerigi (toothed blade, serration)
Suffix	-an	bangun (wake up, raise)	bangunan (building)
Confix	ke-...-an	raja (king)	kerajaan (kingdom)
	pe-...-an	kerja (work)	pekerjaan (occupation)

(N) and (R) indicate that if a word begins with certain letters (most often vowels or consonants k, p, s, t), the letter will either be omitted or other letters will replace it, most commonly with the letters in the bracket or m, ng, ny and l.

Similarly, verb affixes are attached to root words to form verbs. In Indonesian, there are:

Type of verb affixes	Affix	Example of root word	Example of derived word
Prefix	be(L)-	ajar (teach)	belajar (to study) - Intransitive
	me(N)-	tolong (help)	menolong (to help) - Active transitive
	me(NG)-	gambar (picture)	menggambar (to draw) - Active transitive
	di-	ambil (take)	diambil (is being taken) - Passive transitive
	memper-	dalam (depth)	memperdalam (to deepen)
	dipe(R)-	dalam (deep)	diperdalam (is being further deepen)
	te(R)-	makan (eat)	termakan (to have accidentally eaten)
Suffix	-kan	letak (place, keep)	letakkan (keep) - Imperative transitive
	-i	jauh (far)	jauhi (avoid) - Imperative transitive
Confix	be(R)-...-an	pasang (pair)	berpasangan (to be paired)
	be(R)-...-kan	dasar (base)	berdasarkan (based upon)
	me(M)-...-kan	pasti (certain)	memastikan (to ensure)
	me(N)-...-i	teman (companion)	menemani (to accompany)
	mempe(R)-...-kan	guna (use)	mempergunakan (to misuse, to utilise)
	mempe(L)-...-i	ajar (teach)	mempelajari (to study)
	ke-...-an	hilang (disappear)	kehilangan (to lose)
	di-...-i	sakit (pain)	disakiti (is being hurt)
	di-...-kan	benar (right)	dibenarkan (is allowed to)
	dipe(R)-...-kan	kenal (know, recognise)	diperkenalkan (is being introduced)

Adjective affixes are attached to base words to form adjectives:

Type of adjective affixes	Affix	Example of root word	Example of derived word
Prefix	te(R)-	kenal (know)	terkenal (famous)
	se-	rupa (appearance)	serupa (similar (to))
Infix	-em-	cerlang (radiant bright)	cemerlang (bright, excellent)
	-er-	sabut (husk)	serabut (dishevelled)
Confix	ke-...-an	barat (west)	kebaratan (westernized)

In addition to these affixes, Indonesia language also has a lot of borrowed affixes from other languages such as Sanskrit, Arabic and English. For example maha-, pasca-, eka-, bi-, anti-, pro-, pra-, etc.

Compound words

In Indonesian, new words can be formed by conjoining two or more base words. Compound words, when they exist freely in a sentence, are often written separately. Compound words are only attached to each other when they are bound by a confix or when they are already considered as stable words.

For example, the word rumah which means house and makan which means eat, are compounded to form a new word rumah makan (restaurant). Similarly, ambil alih (take over) is formed using the root words ambil (take) and alih (shift), but will link together when a circumfix is attached to it, i.e. pengambilalihan (takeover). Certain stable words, such as kakitangan (personnel), and kerjasama (co-oporation; corporation), are spelled as one word even though the words they consist of can also exist freely in sentences.

Initial Consonant Morphing

Indonesian makes use of initial consonant morphing when using the prefixes me- and pe-. This means that according to the initial sound of the base word, the sounds used in the prefix will differ; this is based on the place of articulation.

The sound following the me- or pe- suffix is usually a nasal(m, n, ny, ng) or liquid(l, r) sound. Which sound is used depends on the point of articulation. E.g. the initial sound of beli, /b/, is a bi-labial sound (pronounced using both the lips), so the nasal bi-labial sound, /m/ is placed before the base word, creating membeli.

The initial consonant is dropped if it is unvoiced(/p/, /t/, /s/, /k/), e.g. menulis/tulis, memilih/pilih.

Grammatical gender

Generally Indonesian does not make use of grammatical gender, and there are only select words that use natural gender. For instance, the same word is used for he and she (dia/ia) or for his and her (dia/ia/-nya). No real distinction is made between "girlfriend" and "boyfriend" (except in the more colloquial terms cewek (girl, girlfriend) and cowok (guy, boyfriend). A majority of Indonesian words that refer to people generally have a form that does not distinguish between the sexes. However, unlike English, distinction is made between older or younger (a characteristic quite common to many Asian languages). For example, adik refers to a younger sibling of either gender and kakak refers to an older sibling, again, either male or female. In order to specify the natural gender of a noun, an adjective must be added. Thus, adik laki-laki corresponds to "younger brother" but really means "younger male sibling".

There are some words that are gendered, for instance putri means "daughter", and putra means "son" and also pramugara means "air steward" (male flight attendant) and pramugari meaning "air stewardess" (female flight attendant). Another example would be olahragawan, which equates to "sportsman", and olahragawati, meaning sportswoman. Often, words like these (or certain suffixes such as "-a" and "-i" or "-wan" and "wati") are absorbed from other languages (in these cases, from Sanskrit through the Old Javanese language). In some regions of Indonesia such as Sumatera and Jakarta, abang (a gender-specific term meaning "older brother") is commonly used as a form of address for older siblings/ males, whilst kakak (a non-gender specific term (meaning "older sibling") is often used to mean "older sister". Similarly, more direct influences from dialects such as Javanese and Chinese languages have also seen further use of other gendered words in Indonesian. For example: Mas (Jav. = older brother), M'bak (Jav. = older sister), Koko (older brother) and Cici (older sister).

Measure words

Another distinguishing feature of Indonesian language is its use of measure words. In this way, it is similar to many other languages of Asia, including Thai, Lao, Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, and Bengali.

Examples of these measure words are: ekor (used for animals), buah (generally used for non-living things), orang (used for people), lembar (used for paper), helai (used for long, thin and generally flat things), biji (used for tiny, round things), batang (used for long, stick-like objects), etc. However, these measure words may not always be used in informal conversation.

Indonesian	Literal English translation	Normal English translation
Tiga ekor sapi	Three tails (of) cow	Three cows
Sepuluh orang tentara	Ten people soldiers	Ten soldiers
Lima lembar/ helai/ carik kertas	Five sheets/pieces of paper	Five sheets/pieces of paper
Sebelas buah apel	Eleven fruits (of) apple	Eleven apples

• Importantly, when a measure word is being used in conjunction with only one object, the numeral prefix se- is used in front of the measure word, not satu. Therefore a banana would be translated as (se + MW + object) = sebuah pisang.

Negation

There are three major forms of negation used in the Indonesian language, namely tidak, bukan and belum.

• Tidak (sometimes shortened to tak) is used for the negation of a verb and adjective.

For example: "saya tidak tahu" = I do not know OR "Ibu saya tidak senang" = My mother is not happy

• Bukan is used in the negation of a noun.

For example: "Itu bukan anjing saya" = That is not my dog

• Belum is primarily used to negate a sentence or phrase with the sense that something has not yet been accomplished or experienced. In this sense, belum can also be used as a negative response to a question.

For example: "Anda sudah pernah ke Indonesia (belum)? "Belum, saya masih belum pernah pergi ke Indonesia" = Have you ever been to Indonesia before, (or not)? No, I have not yet been to Indonesia OR "Orang itu belum terbiasa tinggal di Indonesia" = That person is not (yet) used to living in Indonesia.

NB: Another kind of negation involves the word jangan, which equates to the English equivalent of "don't" or "do not". Jangan is used for negating imperatives or advising against certain actions. For example, "Jangan tinggalkan saya di sini!" = 'Don't leave me here!'

Pluralisation

Plurals are expressed by means of reduplication, but only when the plural is not implied in the context. Thus "person" is orang, and "people" is orang-orang, but "a thousand people" is seribu orang, as the use of a numeral (i.e. seribu) renders it unnecessary to mark the plural form.

For foreigners learning Indonesian, the concept of grammatical reduplication is not as easy to grasp as it may seem. Besides expressing plurals, reduplication can also be used to create new words that differ in meaning. For instance, hati means "heart" or "liver" (depending on context) whereas hati-hati means "to be careful" and is often used as a verb. As stated above, orang means "person" while orang-orang means "people", but orang-orangan means "scarecrow". Also, not all reduplicated words indicate plural forms of a word with many words naturally expressed in reduplicated form. Examples of these include, biri-biri (sheep), kupu-kupu (butterfly) which can imply both a singular or plural meaning, depending on the context or numeral used.

By contrast, there are also some types of plural words that are expressed by reduplication of a similar sounding (but essentially different) word. In these cases the general sound of a word/phrase is repeated, but the initial letter of the repeated word is changed. A common example of this is sayur-mayur (not sayur-sayur) meaning "vegetables" (plural). Another type of reduplication can be formed through the use of certain affixes (e.g. pe- + -an). For instance, pepohonan ([various kinds of] trees, from the word pohon [tree]), perumahan (houses/ housing, from the word rumah [house]) or pegunungan (mountains, mountain range, from the word gunung [mountain]), and so on.

Another useful word to remember when pluralizing in Indonesian is beberapa, which means "some." For example one may use beberapa pegunungan to describe a series of mountain ranges, and beberapa kupu-kupu to describe (plural) butterflies.

Pronouns

There are two forms of "we", kami or kita, depending on whether the speaker includes the person being talked to. Kami (exclusive) is used when the person or people being spoken to are not included, while kita (inclusive) includes the opposite party. Their usage is increasingly confused in colloquial Indonesian. There are two major forms of "I", which are saya and aku. Despite having the same meaning, saya is definitely the more formal form, whereas Aku is used often used with family, friends and between lovers. There are three common forms of "you", which are kamu, Anda and kalian. Anda is the more polite form of "you" and is used in conversations with someone you barely know, advertising, business situations or with someone whom you wish to respect. Kalian is the common plural form of "you" and is often said to be slightly informal.

NB: Because of the overall structure of Indonesian society and influences from regional dialects, many more different pronouns exist in Indonesian. Some of these 'additional pronouns' may show utmost politeness and respect (eg. saudara/saudari = you (male/female) or Anda sekalian = you (polite, plural form)), may be used only in the most informal of situations (eg. gua/ lu = me/ you - see Indonesian slang), or may even possess somewhat romantic or poetic nuances(eg. daku/dikau = me/you).

Common Indonesian Pronouns

Type	Indonesian	English
First Person	Saya (standard, polite), Aku (informal, familiar), Gua (informal, slang)	I, me
	Kami (excl.), Kita (incl.)	We, us
Second Person	Anda (polite, formal), Saudara/Saudari (polite, formal)	You
	Kamu (familiar, informal), (Eng)kau (familiar, informal), Lu (informal, slang)	You
	Kalian (plural, informal), Anda sekalian (plural, formal), Saudara(i)-saudara(i) (polite)	You
Third Person	Ia, Dia	He, she, it
	Beliau (high respect)	He, She
	Mereka	They

Possessive pronouns

Type of possessive pronouns		Possessive pronouns	Example of root word	Example of derived word(s)
First person	Saya, Aku (I)	-ku	meja (table)	mejaku (my table)
	Kami (we, referring to 1st and 3rd person), kita (we, referring to 1st and 2nd person)	... (milik) kami/kita	kursi (chair)	kursi (milik) kami, kursi (milik) kita (our chair)
Second person	Kamu (you)	-mu	meja (table)	mejamu (your table)
	Anda, Saudara (you(polite))	... (milik) Anda/Saudara	kursi (chair)	kursi (milik) Anda/Saudara (your chair)
	Kalian (you(plural))	... (milik) kalian	kursi (chair)	kursi (milik) kalian (your chair)
Third person	Dia, Ia (he, she, it)	-nya	meja (table)	mejanya (his, her, its table)
	Beliau (he, she, it (polite))	... (milik) Beliau	meja (table)	meja (milik) Beliau (his, her, its table)
	Mereka (they)	... (milik) mereka	kursi (chair)	kursi (milik) mereka (their chair)

Demonstrative pronouns

There are two kinds of demonstrative pronouns in the Indonesian language. Ini (this, these) is used for a noun which is generally near to the speaker. Itu (that, those) is used for a noun which is generally far from the speaker. There is no difference between singular form and the plural form. However, plural can be indicated through duplication of a noun followed by a demonstrative pronoun. Also, the word yang is often placed before demonstrative pronouns to give emphasis and a sense of certainty, particularly when making references or enquiries about something/ someone.

Various Uses

Demonst. Pronoun	Simple Use	English Meaning
Ini	Buku ini	This book
Itu	Kucing itu	That cat

Demonst. Pronoun	Plural Form (via Noun duplication)	English Meaning
Ini	Buku-buku ini	These books
Itu	Kucing-kucing itu	Those cats

Demonst. Pronoun + yang	Example Sentence	English Meaning
Yang ini	Q: Anda mau membeli buku yang mana? A: Saya mau beli yang ini	Q: Which book do you wish to purchase? A: I would like this one (this book)
Yang itu	Q: Kucing mana yang makan tikusmu? A: Yang itu!	Q: Which cat ate your mouse? A: That one (that cat)!

Verbs

Verbs are not inflected for person or number, and they are not marked for tense; tense is instead denoted by time adverbs (such as "yesterday") or by other tense indicators (sometimes referred to as aspect particles), such as belum (not yet) or sudah (already). On the other hand, there is a complex system of verb affixes to render nuances of meaning and denote active-passive voices. Such affixes include prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and their combinations; all of which are often ignored in informal conversations.

Emphasis

Although the basic word order of Indonesian is Subject Verb Object (SVO), as mentioned above, it is possible to make frequent use of passive voice or to scramble word order, thus adding emphasis on a certain sentence particle. The particle being emphasised is usually placed at the beginning of the sentence. In spoken Indonesian, the aspect of the sentence being emphasised is usually followed by a short pause before continuing on with the remainder of the sentence.

Some examples include:

• Saya pergi ke pasar kemarin "I went to the market yesterday" — neutral, or with emphasis on the subject.
• Kemarin saya pergi ke pasar "Yesterday I went to the market" — emphasis on yesterday.
• Ke pasar saya pergi, kemarin "To the market I went yesterday" — emphasis on where I went yesterday.
• Pergi ke pasar, saya, kemarin "To the market went I yesterday" — emphasis on the process of going to the market.

NB: Some of the above examples (namely the latter two) are more likely to be encountered in spoken Indonesian rather than written forms of the language.

Sounds

Phonology

The following are phonemes of modern Indonesian.

Vowels

	Front	Central	Back
Close	iː		uː
Close-mid	e	ə	o
Open-mid	(ɛ)		(ɔ)
Open	a

Indonesian also has the diphthongs /ai/, /au/, and /oi/. In closed syllables, such as air (water), however, the two vowels are not pronounced as a diphthong.

Consonants

	Labial	Apical	Postalveolar	Palatal	Velar	Glottal
Nasal	m	n		ɲ	ŋ
Plosive	p b	t d			k ɡ	ʔ
Affricate			ʧ ʤ
Fricative	(f)	s (z)	(ʃ)		(x)	h
Liquid		l r
Approximant	w			j

Note: The vowels between parentheses are allophones while the consonants in parentheses are loan phonemes and as such only occur in loanwords.

[edit] Learning pronunciation

Here are a few useful tips for the English speaking learner:

• /k/, /p/, and /t/ are unaspirated, i.e. they are not followed by a noticeable puff of air as they often are in English words.
• /t/ and /d/ are dental, rather than alveolar as in English.
• When /k/ is at the end of a syllable it becomes a glottal stop, which sounds like it is cut off sharply e.g. baik, bapak. This is similar to a number of English dialects where final /t/ is glottalized ("got", "what"). Only a few Indonesian words have this sound in the middle, e.g. bakso (meatballs), and it may be represented by an apostrophe in Arabic derived words such as Al Qur'an.
• The letter 'c' in a word is never pronounced as a 'k' or 's' e.g. kucing (meaning cat) is pronounced [ˈkuːtʃiːŋ].
• Stress is placed on the penultimate (second-to-last) syllable of each base word. But if this syllable contains a schwa then the accent moves to the last syllable.

For more, and to listen to examples, see SEASite Guide to Pronunciation of Indonesian

Classification

The Indonesian language is part of the Western Malayo-Polynesian subgroup of the Malayo-Polynesian branch of the Austronesian languages. According to the Ethnologue, Indonesian is modelled after Riau Malay, a form of Old Malay originally spoken in Northeast Sumatra.^[7]

Geographic distribution

This is a map of where Indonesian is predominantly spoken. Dark green represents where Indonesian is spoken as a major language. Light green represents where it is a minority language.

The language is spoken throughout Indonesia (and East Timor), although it is used most extensively as a first language in urban areas and usually as a second or third language in more rural parts of Indonesia. It is also spoken by an additional 1.5+ million people worldwide, particularly in the Netherlands, the Philippines and Malaysia. Also spoken as daily language in some parts of Australia (mostly in Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands), Brunei, Singapore, some parts of Thailand ( Southern Thailand ), East Timor, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, New Caledonia, and the United States.^[8]

Official status

Indonesian is the official language of Indonesia.