2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Indonesian
Contents
- Beginners
- Oral Examination
- Written Examination
- Continuers
- Oral Examination
- Written Examination
- Extension
- Oral Examination
- Written Examination
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 courses in Indonesian. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examinations, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with the relevant syllabuses, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examinations, the marking guidelines and other support documents that have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Indonesian.
General comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.
Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper) are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing in excess of the space allocated may reduce the time available for answering other questions.
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Beginners
Oral Examination
Candidates are reminded that the purpose of this examination is to assess their knowledge and skills in interacting in Indonesian and that it is therefore vital that they use the five minutes allocated to showcase their knowledge of a variety of vocabulary and language structures while responding to questions about their personal world. Slow communication or one word answers rather than elaborated responses restrict a candidate’s opportunity to score well in this section of the examination. Candidates are also reminded that answers should not contain information that identifies either directly or indirectly the student or the school.
Candidates are expected to support their responses to questions with relevant information, comment and/or opinion. Candidates are reminded again to avoid merely listing information, eg rooms in their house or subjects studied at school. It is preferable to provide more sophisticated structure to responses including conjunctions, tense markers, comparisons and a variety of vocabulary and verb forms.
Candidates used a variety of ways to express their opinions, including kata orang and menurut pendapat saya. Literal translation from English to Indonesian is best avoided as it generally leads to problems with syntax. Finally, if using more sophisticated expressions, candidates need to ensure that they are used appropriately.
Written Examination
Section I – Listening
General comments
Candidates should attempt to formulate a response in order to achieve some marks rather than leave questions unanswered. It is also advisable to read the questions in this section during the reading time so that candidates are familiar with the requirements of each question prior to the first reading of each item. Candidates can save time by answering the question directly, rather than rephrasing the question at the beginning of their response.
Candidates who highlighted the key words in the question, such as ‘why’, ‘justify’, and ‘account for’ tended to provide responses more directly related to the question. Similarly, candidates who made effective use of the Candidate’s Notes column generally were more successful at constructing concise and logical responses to the questions asked.
Specific comments
Question 3
Most responses identified both sides of the dispute between the husband and wife, but better responses realised they were arguing over the water bill and provided the comparison given between this year’s and last year’s bill.
Question 4
Many candidates did not realise nilai was the Indonesian word for ‘mark’ and thought that nilai dari may have been a person, leading to an incorrect response.
Question 5
In better responses, candidates identified the reasons for Budi’s frustration. Adikku menangis was not widely recognised.
Question 8
In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of the special nature of the gift being a present for the man’s wife as well as identifying reasons why he would like to buy the bag – it was his wife’s favourite colour, it was discounted and it came with a free gift.
Question 9
The three excuses which Rini gave prior to changing her mind are relevant to explaining that she only changed her mind after she found out that Anwar would be there.
Question 10
Most candidates identified some of Edi’s future plans. In better responses, candidates succinctly expressed Edi’s hesitation with continuing to study – his need for money, his interest in doing eco-tourism – but also summarised Maria’s advice before giving their opinion on Edi’s probable plans for the future. Weaker responses confused who was speaking and attributed much of Maria’s opinions to Edi. Some candidates interpreted saya belum pernah ke luar Indonesia as Edi having never been to Indonesia instead of never having left Indonesia.
Section II – Reading
General comments
In better responses, candidates answered the specific questions directly and supported the response with evidence from the text.
There was evidence of targeted and efficient use of dictionaries in the better responses.
Candidates are reminded to:- read the whole of the stimulus text, as the information required to answer the questions may be found in different parts of the stimulus passage. It is good practice to read the questions before reading the text, including the heading, as important information about the text can be acquired in this way
- read the questions carefully in order to avoid using the same information to answer different questions
- read through their responses to ensure that they make sense and are not contradictory.
Specific comments
Question 11
Some responses confused bintang with binatang. The concept of a prize hadiah was mistaken as a gift. Candidates are reminded to check all possible meanings of words when using a dictionary.
Question 12
In better responses, candidates used the information from both postcards to answer part (a). These responses contrasted Jennifer’s opinion of both locations of her holiday and provided examples from the text for both the positive and the negative aspects.
Question 13
Many candidates ascertained that the student was indeed diligent. However, many responses lacked the evidence from the text to support this opinion. An understanding of the student’s frustration at not being able to study at home without interruptions from the various members of his family and the supporting detail of the interruptions was essential to gaining full marks in this question.
Question 14
Most responses to part (a) provided a succinct summary of the aspects of the work experience not
enjoyed by Matthew. Better responses to part (b) included specific examples from the text to show his lack of people skills.
Question 15
Many responses to part (a) did not refer to the purpose of the letter, that is to enquire how his family was, and to send a birthday card to his younger sibling. In part (b), most candidates gave detailed responses about the positive aspects of his life as a university student. However, they did not refer to the fact that he still missed his family or the tranquility of rural life compared to the hustle and bustle of city life.
Section III – Writing in Indonesian
General comments
Better responses were well planned and logical texts that addressed the question and demonstrated use of a variety of vocabulary and structures. These also demonstrated a sound understanding of Indonesian structures and rarely replicated English syntax.
In weaker responses, there was little evidence of planning. Candidates are reminded of the importance of adhering to the word limit. A lengthy response can lead to an unstructured and repetitive answer, with a greater chance of unnecessary errors. It is better to spend time organising the response rather than rushing in to write a long and unplanned answer.
Poor dictionary use was evident, with many candidates who relied on the first word they found rather than selecting the most appropriate word for the context. Candidates are reminded to cross-reference words from the English–Indonesian dictionary with its complement in the Indonesian–English dictionary.
Candidates must not identify themselves, their school, their teacher or area in written texts even if the question asks you to thank your teacher.
The most common grammatical mistakes were problems with word order with possessives and adjectives, anglicisms, time phrases and spelling. Simple mistakes detracted from otherwise competent and entertaining scripts.
Specific comments
Question 16
Candidates are reminded of the required word length. Some otherwise excellent responses did not meet this requirement.
Most responses conveyed the idea of extending an invitation. Better responses added other information relevant to the context, purpose and audience of the question. These responses included a description of the proposed activity, information as to how or when and suggestions on what the invitee could bring with them. Common areas of difficulty included:
- expressing ‘please’, ‘Do you want to come?’ and ‘dropping someone off by car’
- direct translation of ideas using English syntax, eg ‘to have fun’
- commands eg Jemputlah saya!
- failure to use the tense marker akan to indicate the future
- consistent use of register.
Question 17
Better responses related a story about what may have happened on Friday rather than simply listing the classes that their friend missed. Responses which contained commentary or events which happened at school were well rewarded, eg a student’s phone ringing in class. Candidates are advised to take care with register. Generally, a note to a friend should be quite informal and even at times colloquial. Common areas of difficulty included problems expressing ‘I hope’, ‘get better soon’, to ‘have an English test’ and ‘to miss things’.
Question 18
Better responses used language appropriate to the given text type.
In better responses, to option (b), candidates used letter writing conventions to begin and end their letters. These candidates also used correct register to address their teacher in a culturally appropriate manner (eg Pak/Bu yang terhormat and if directly addressing the teacher in the letter, used Pak or Bu to mean ‘you’). Better responses also discussed events which were unusual or extraordinary in their holiday and includes an expression of thanks to their teacher.
Common areas of difficulty included:
- expressing thanks which should be Saya mengucapkan terima kasih atas bantuan Ibu/Bapak
- referring to my family and I which should be Saya sekeluarga
- using untuk rather than selama for periods of time on holiday
- using patah rather than rusak for a product which is broken
- cultural appropriateness, eg referring to trains and becaks in Bali where they do not exist.
Continuers
Oral Examination
General comments
In better responses, candidates answered the questions directly and naturally rather than by responding with prepared answers. They responded in some depth. They maintained consistently good intonation and pronunciation as well as replicating an authentic Indonesian accent. They also demonstrated knowledge of a range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures and maintained a high level of grammatical accuracy throughout their conversation.
Specific comments
Candidates are reminded that there are no ‘set’ questions and that the topic areas may be approached from a range of perspectives. Therefore, candidates are advised to listen carefully to determine the perspective of the question and whether it refers to themselves (Anda) or someone else (dia).
Candidates are reminded to listen carefully and respond to the specific question asked.
Candidates are reminded that the examination is a formal occasion and that the use of inappropriate English language during the recording of the conversation is not acceptable.
The following areas of difficulty were noted:
- misuse of minum (to drink) and minuman (a drink)/makan (to eat) and makanan (food)
- misuse of sehari-hari instead of setiap hari (every day)
- misuse of adalah. Adalah should not be followed by a verb or an adjective
- misuse of bosan (bored) instead of membosankan (boring)
- misuse of menarik (interesting) instead of tertarik akan/pada… (interested in…)
- misuse of ramai (busy/crowded of a place, traffic etc) instead of sibuk (busy/occupied of a person)
- misuse of diam (quiet of a person) instead of sepi (quiet of a place)
- misuse of menikmati (to enjoy; must be followed by a noun) instead of menyenangkan (enjoyable)
- misuse of kita (we; myself and others + listener) instead of kami (we; myself and others, but not the listener)
- misuse of barang/benda (thing/object) instead of hal (thing/fact)
- misuse of supaya (so that/in order to) instead of sehingga (so that/as a result)
- misuse of bekerja (to work) instead of mengerjakan (to do)
- unnecessary duplication after plural expressions like banyak, eg banyak teman-teman instead of banyak teman
- overuse and repetition of particular structures and conjuctions such as akibatnya, baik … maupun
- incorrect pronunciation and intonation of the words karena, kadang-kadang, bahwa, mengalami, mengunjungi
- not using Indonesian terms for countries, eg Selandia Baru (New Zealand)
- incorrect word order, eg favorit hobi saya instead of hobi favorit saya
- inaccuracies using the object-focus construction especially in the first and second person,
eg buku yang saya baca
Written Examination
Section I – Listening and Responding
General comments
In better responses, candidates identified relevant, specific, detailed information from the texts. Weaker responses included some relevant information but did not provide specific examples from the text or sufficient detail.
Specific comments
In better responses, candidates recognised the following items of vocabulary:
Question 3: setidak-tidaknya, pindah
Question 4: jarang
Question 5: asisten wartawan, mewawancarai, dipromosikan
Question 6: penggemar, ketegangan, mengecewakan, mudah ditebak, tokoh
Question 7: mengagumi, jago
Question 8: pendapatan, lenyap, diperkerjakan, cenderamata
In better responses, candidates drew conclusions, evaluated and synthesised information and explained or understood inference.
In Question 4, for example, better responses included succinct conclusions based on the survey results whereas weaker responses translated directly from the text.
In Question 5, better responses clearly indicated why the interviewer would be impressed, providing relevant details. Weaker responses included irrelevant information such as the applicant’s ability to take telephone calls and photocopy or did not adequately explain why the interviewer would be impressed.
In Question 6, better responses identified the purpose to dissuade listeners from buying the novel and referred to language techniques used such as the use of sarcasm to critique the novel ‘Kalau Anda tidak suka berpikir sambil membaca, novel ini cocok bagi Anda’. In weaker responses, candidates did not understand the purpose or the main ideas of the text.
For Question 7, better responses correctly evaluated that Agus would not make a good school captain, perceptively understanding his arrogance, hypocrisy and disrespect of others. Weaker responses stated that Agus would make a good school captain, taking his comments at face value and not recognising his emphasis on irrelevant, superficial qualities.
For Question 8, better responses recognised that Ali’s argument would be more convincing as a result of the statistical evidence he provided. Weaker responses identified some relevant information, but did not evaluate or explain.
Longer texts containing complex vocabulary caused some misunderstandings. In Question 5, the word wartawan was confused with wawancara or wisatawan. In Question 6, tokoh was confused with toko.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated an understanding of complex syntax. For example, object focus construction in Question 5 dipromosikan and Question 6, ditebak, dibaca and a series of pe–an nouns in Question 8, pendapatan Bali, pertanian lenyap, pembangunan hotel and pertunjukan tradisional.
Section II – Reading and Responding
Part A
Candidates are encouraged to read the questions prior to reading the texts as an aid to identifying the meaning of unfamiliar words and to formulate their understanding of texts. This will also help them to determine which information is required and to avoid overlapping information in their responses.
Information required to answer a question may be found in different parts of the text, so candidates are advised to read the whole text, including the heading, to gain a global understanding of it. Candidates are reminded to provide specific, relevant textual references to support their response.
Time should not be wasted quoting in Indonesian and English. If candidates include quotations in their responses, they must be in English to ensure they show an understanding of the text’s meaning.
Candidates are reminded to provide the meaning of phrases and sentences in the context of the text rather than giving a direct or word-for-word translation.
Better responses to 9 (b) and 10 (a) included relevant detail. For example, for Question 9 (b), the better responses provided an outline of Desy’s activities in both Medan and Jakarta, whereas the weaker responses omitted her activities in one of the cities. The better responses for 10 (a) provided full details of Chris’ first visit to Indonesia while weaker responses omitted a detail.
In Question 9, better responses demonstrated recognition of words and phrases such as membesarkan, cuma setengah, saksi hidup, ditunjuk, disambut meriah, dipertunjukkan, mendapat tanda tangan and bertepuk tangan. In the better responses to Question 10, candidates included sukarela, permerintahan, berpetualang, kebaikan hati, tersentuh, terkejut, terpukul hati, timbullah rasa, keterampilan, menyelamatkan, menerjemahkan, mengecek and kemampuan. In particular, the understanding of the word sukarela was crucial to a correct interpretation of the text.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a global understanding of texts and showed skills of summarising, analysing, evaluating and inferring. In addition, they provided accurate and detailed textual examples. In Question 9 (c), better responses extrapolated relevant evidence to indicate why Desy was loved by the Indonesian public whereas weaker responses identified some relevant information but did provide an overview. In Question 10 (c), better responses recognised and described the commonality between the three programs whereas weaker responses identified relevant information without outlining common elements.
Better responses provided a comprehensive and well-argued evaluation. For example, in Question 9 (d), better responses weighed up the appropriateness of Desy’s appointment in light of the scandal of 2008, drawing on a wide range of detail. In Question 10 (d), better responses weighed up the benefits of program 3 compared to the other two programs with comprehensive textual reference. Weaker responses in both of these questions did not evaluate or provide adequate textual references. Some weaker responses exemplified one point only.
In Question 10 (b) the better responses referred to specific language devices such as juxtaposing the initial enjoyment Chris felt about Indonesia’s beautiful beaches with the guilt he later felt about the misfortune of the people, the unusual use of subject-focused sentences to create a personal tone and the use of ter verbs and ke-an abstract nouns to convey emotions.
Part B
General comments
In better responses, candidates demonstrated an excellent global understanding, empathised with the writer and offered a range of suggestions and advice about how to make new friends.
Better responses demonstrated evidence of a thorough understanding of the text, an ability to use language authentically and to organise information to meet the requirements of the task, including suggested word limits. They also addressed all issues raised in Lestari’s email, including how Lina made friends when she moved from Singaraja to Denpasar.
Specific comments
The following areas of difficulty were noted:
- word-for-word translation from English, eg Membiarkan saya tahu
- misuse of the object-focus construction
- misspelling of bergaul, mengunjungi
- affixation, eg Saya harapan rather than Saya harap; bertemanan instead of berteman; Kamu diam instead of Kamu pendiam
- misuse of adalah, eg Email Anda adalah sangat menyedihkan instead of Email Anda sangat menyedihkan
- confusion between use of hanya and saja
- confusion between use of sama and bersama
- the use of sepi instead of diam
- the misuse of mempunyai to indicate past tense, eg Kita mempunyai belajar
- problems with use of the makin … makin structure.
Section III – Writing in Indonesian
General comments
Candidates are advised to cross-reference words when using a dictionary to ensure that the most appropriate word has been selected from the alternatives.
Specific comments
Question 12
In better responses, candidates demonstrated a good understanding of the language commonly used in a note, yet still chose the correct form of address for their teacher. They thanked their teacher and gave reasons as to why they thought their teacher was deserving of their thanks.
Candidates should pay attention to the text type required and observe the word limits.
The following areas of difficulty were noted:
- attempted literal translations from English, eg Saya mempunyai kesenangan instead of saya bersenang-senang
- errors in word order particularly with adjectives and nouns, eg besar perbedaan instead of perbedaan besar
- misuse of bilang or berkata instead of mengucapkan or menyatakan
- incorrect use of kapan where ketika was more appropriate
- incorrect translations for ‘like’, using suka instead of seperti
- misuse of prepositions di and ke
- misuse of bahwa and siapa instead of the relative pronoun yang
- confusion about when to use a me-kan adjective, eg takut/menakutkan, heran/mengherankan
- affixation errors, eg tolong/pertolongan, harap/harapan, belajar/pelajari/mengajar, bantu/bantuan, buat/buatan
- misuse of object focus construction, eg Saya dipelajari oleh… or Saya banyak dipelajari
- incorrect translations for ‘have’, using mempunyai to indicate past tense
- use of dua tahun yang lalu instead of dua tahun terakhir
- misspelling of terima kasih, sungguh, and bahasa Indonesian instead of bahasa Indonesia.
Question 13
In better responses for option (a), candidates gave several suggestions to help promote student health and fitness. These responses consistently used appropriate forms of address and register for a letter to their school principal.
In option (b), most candidates attempted to persuade their friend to stop associating with a certain group of new friends by mentioning the consequences of maintaining such a relationship. Better responses successfully maintained an appropriate register and were genuinely persuasive in their writing style.
The following areas of difficulty were noted:
- inappropriate use of dictionary, selecting the wrong word without cross-checking for meaning, eg using benda instead of hal to mean ‘thing’
- confusion about when to use tidak and bukan
- use of the word acara instead of program
- use of the word sebagai instead of seperti
- expression of ‘don’t’, eg using tidak instead of jangan
- misuse of teman tua to mean ‘old friend’ instead of teman lama
- misuse of begitu and jadi
- misuse of siapa instead of yang, eg Ada banyak murid siapa menjadi agak gemuk
- poor knowledge of affixation, eg sehat instead of kesehatan, bugar instead of kebugaran, makan instead of makanan, tolong instead of menolong
- omission of banyak when comparing, eg lebih makanan instead of lebih banyak makanan
- misspelling of minuman, bergizi, mengunjungi, and mengusahakan
- attempted literal translations of English expressions.
Extension
Oral Examination
General comments
In better responses, candidates developed and presented a logical and well-structured argument which they supported with relevant ideas and information. They were confident and fluent in their delivery and maintained consistently authentic intonation and pronunciation. Better candidates also manipulated an excellent range of sophisticated vocabulary and sentence structures and demonstrated a high level of grammatical accuracy throughout their monologue.
Specific comments
Candidates are advised to provide a brief introduction which immediately demonstrates their stance in relation to the issue, to develop their argument in the body of their presentation and then provide a conclusion which synthesises their ideas.
Candidates are reminded that this is an examination of their oral communication and is not intended to test their reading skills. Candidates can make notes on their preparation paper, but they should not read out a prepared speech. This is explicitly stated in the General Instructions on the front of the examination paper.
Candidates are advised that when they come across an unfamiliar term such as Generasi Y, they should decide on a pronunciation and use it consistently.
Written Examination
Section I – Response to Prescribed Text
Specific comments
Part A
Question 1
In better responses, candidates responded perceptively to the text and related the film to the prescribed issues using clear examples from the text. In these responses, candidates addressed the demands of the question specifically, without expanding their answers to include irrelevant material.
In part (a), candidates indentified that Yudha had left the origami bird for Rena when he arrived at the Rumah Matahari. Some candidates made reference to the last scene of the film in which Rena thanks Yudha for the origami bird.
In part (b), the better responses gave two different examples and explained how they demonstrated her leadership, eg she takes charge of the situation by asking the knife sharpeners for directions to Pak Sutan’s house.
In the best responses to part (c), candidates provided clear examples of three different film techniques and explained how these techniques were used by the director to build tension within the scene. Commonly used film techniques included that of lighting and music/sound.
In better responses in part (d), candidates not only translated the expression kok baik but also accounted for its use by explaining purpose and effect within the context of the scene as well as identifying that it was in reference to the knife sharpeners. The best responses translated the expression kok baik as ‘Gosh, they’re actually nice’ or ‘They’re nice, aren’t they’.
In the best responses to part (e), candidates explained the varied roles Pak Sutan plays in Rena’s life and included specific examples from the text to support their explanation. Candidates were generally able to identify Pak Sutan’s role as a father figure, mentor or spiritual guide.
Part B
Question 2
In better responses, candidates provided perceptive insights into the character of Bu Tia and her feelings, rather than simply recounting events. They raised other issues, based on the film and its characters, apart from the obvious one of Bu Tia being upset with the children’s behaviour. In better responses, candidates demonstrated a clear understanding of the conversation text type and sustained an informal, colloquial register consistent with that used between Bu Tia and Bi Asih in the film whilst at the same time giving insight into the relationship between these characters.
The following were noted as areas of difficulty:
- incorrect spelling of the word setuju with candidates mistakenly spelling it as setujuh
- incorrect use of prefix/suffix resulting in the noun form being used instead of the verb form or vice-versa, eg melakukan and kelakuan
- failure to cross-reference the meaning of words found in the dictionary, eg incorrect use of the word ‘that’ with candidates confusing the different Indonesian forms: yang, bahwa and itu. Another commonly misused word is ‘thing’ with its Indonesian forms: benda, barang and hal
- inconsistency in maintaining an informal register through mixing colloquial with formal language
- the character Bi Asih giving lots of advice and insight to Bu Tia which is not realistic considering their relationship.
Section II – Writing in Indonesian
General comments
In better responses, candidates structured their responses coherently, provided a clear line of argument and demonstrated evidence of wide reading and an awareness of current events as they apply to the prescribed issues. They also employed a wide variety of language, vocabulary and sentence structures. Candidates are reminded that it is possible to gain high marks within the prescribed word limit and that, very long responses often become repetitive or to include irrelevant detail.
Specific comments
Question 3
In better responses, candidates used an appropriate and engaging introduction and conclusion that acknowledged the audience. Better responses also included language devices such as rhetorical questions used appropriately and convincingly.
Better responses referred to specific examples of crises such as the Boxing Day Tsunami and explained how this disaster united nations such as Australia and Indonesia through their joint relief efforts and ongoing humanitarian projects. Weaker responses included repetitive examples and poorly developed argument. In better responses, candidates explored the relationship between the question and the related prescribed issues ‘overcoming adversity’ and ‘impact of socio-political events’.
Question 4
In better responses, candidates wrote appropriately for the text type of a debate, maintained a formal register and used a range of vocabulary and a variety of formal language structures. Better responses touched on such issues as human rights and Australia’s role as a global citizen. Many candidates discussed the contribution of immigrants to Australian culture through such aspects as their traditional food, art and language. Those candidates who argued against the topic commented on such issues as overpopulation and its resulting pressure on resources and infrastructure. In better responses, candidates presented a strong argument that was well structured, clear and concise with varied supporting evidence and examples while at the same time exploring the related prescribed issue of ‘acceptance and belonging’. Weaker responses did not include relevant examples and were poorly planned.
The following were noted as areas of difficulty:
- inconsistent use of register
- literal translations such as saya tidak berpikir incorrectly used to mean ‘I don’t think that’ or berhak ke pendidikan incorrectly used to mean ‘the right to an education’
- confusion with word forms/affixation, eg bekerja (to work)/pekerjaan (job, work); membantu (to help)/bantuan (assistance, help); menyatukan (to unite)/persatuan (unity)/penyatuan (unification)
- incorrect use of duplication after a plural, eg banyak negara-negara instead of banyak negara
- misuse of adalah with an adjective, eg Dia adalah pandai instead of Dia pandai
- misuse of the question word siapa instead of yang, eg seorang siapa pandai instead of seorang yang pandai
- misuse of bahwa instead of yang, eg hal bahwa paling penting instead of hal yang paling penting
- poor use of object focus especially in the first or second person.
20110127
NSW Government