• 
• 

It is better late than never, but the US government is coming around to its senses with its introduction of a new set of guidelines for its officials and diplomats - specifically, about what to say or not to say - in the global war on terrorism.

Thailand, amid its struggle to cope with an ongoing insurgency in the Malay-speaking South, could learn a thing or two from this approach that gives more importance to our choice of words.

According to a recent document obtained by The Associated Press, the US government is telling its people not to describe Islamic extremists as "jihadists" or "mujahedeen". Language like "Islamo-fascism" is also out.

One wondered why nobody has thought of this before but the reason is pretty simple. These politically incorrect words may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility, or by causing offence to moderates.

Take the overused word, "jihad", for example; general understanding of the word is "holy war". For Muslims, it is a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good.

Walking a dog across the street to ensure it doesn't get hit by a fast-moving car is a jihad, one Islamic cleric told The Nation.

Similarly, "mujahedeen", which means those engaged in jihad, must be understood in its broader context, the report argued. US officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims," says a Homeland Security report. It's entitled, "Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims".

"Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorises terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world," the report says.

In Southern Thailand, meanwhile, our authorities never hesitate to refer to the insurgents as "missionary bandits" - they are "missionary" because of the traditional white outfit worn by religious students and others, and they are "bandits" because they are fighting the government. These words are empty in nature and say nothing about Islam or the Malay-speaking community in ethical terms. And if we want to win the hearts and minds of the Malays in the deep South, we are going to have to come up with a choice of words, not to mention the need to think outside the box. Like any conflict and sensitive issue, language is very important and deserves thorough consideration. In this day and age, where information warfare has become an essential part of the government's campaign to fight insurgency and win hearts and minds, choosing the right words to make their case has to be done carefully.

"It's not what you say but what they hear," the obtained memo says in bold italic lettering.

While one can argue that the new set of lexicon was done out of political consideration, Thai political leaders, on the other hand, have been taking a more selfish approach to this. It seems that every time a Thai official opens his or her mouth, it pushes the Malays in the southernmost provinces further away. Strangely, these are the very people the government is trying to win over.

It reflects the lack of sensitivity on Thai society's part when dealing with people of different ethnicity and identity.