Choosing Your Oral Topic
The oral examination has a conversation section and a discussion section. For the discussion you must choose a topic related to Indonesian culture or society, present a viewpoint, and sustain about four minutes of exchange with the examiner. You have prepared notes on two possible topics. Topic A is "the impact of tourism on Bali", for which you have strong statistics and a clear argument but have never visited Bali. Topic B is "the role of motorbike taxis in Jakarta", which you know from your own two-week stay with relatives, including a cousin who drives one, but for which you have few figures. A friend advises you to choose Topic A because "statistics impress examiners". You must decide within a week.
1. Which topic should you choose, and what criteria should drive the decision?
Read the worked answer
Topic B is the stronger choice for most candidates, but the decision should be justified by criteria rather than by the friend's slogan. The criteria for a good discussion topic are: (1) can you sustain four minutes of genuine exchange, including follow-up questions you have not rehearsed? (2) can you give specific, concrete examples? (3) can you express a personal viewpoint and respond to a challenge? (4) is the topic clearly related to Indonesian culture or society? Topic B scores highly on (1), (2) and (3) because your cousin's experience gives you concrete detail - fares, hours, safety, income - and you can speak from observation. Topic A may score on (4) and on statistics, but statistics alone do not sustain a discussion; examiners probe, and an unprepared follow-up question exposes shallow knowledge. A candidate who has never been to Bali can still do well on Topic A, but only with deep reading. The honest test is: which topic can you defend when the examiner disagrees with you?
2. The examiner asks a question you have not prepared: "But aren't motorbike taxis dangerous?" How should you handle it?
Read the worked answer
Treat the challenge as an invitation to reason, not as an attack. A strong response acknowledges the point, gives evidence, and then offers a qualified position: Betul, ada risiko, terutama karena banyak pengemudi bekerja terlalu lama dan helm penumpang tidak selalu tersedia. Namun di Jakarta ojek daring juga memberi penghasilan yang lebih stabil daripada pekerjaan informal lain, dan aplikasi mencatat perjalanan sehingga ada pengawasan. (True, there are risks, especially because many drivers work very long hours and passenger helmets are not always available. But in Jakarta ride-hailing motorbike taxis also give more stable income than other informal work, and the apps record trips, so there is some oversight.) This shows balanced judgement rather than defensiveness. Useful strategies: buy a moment with Itu pertanyaan yang menarik (That is an interesting question), concede what is true, then add your own evidence. Avoid two failure modes: flat disagreement ("No, they are safe") and collapse ("Yes, you're right, they're dangerous"), which abandons your viewpoint.
3. How should you use Indonesian in the discussion, and what does "sustaining" the exchange actually require?
Read the worked answer
Use Indonesian throughout, but prioritise communication over showing off vocabulary. Sustaining the exchange means: answering the question asked, adding a reason or example without being prompted, and occasionally taking initiative - asking the examiner a rhetorical question or introducing a new angle (Menurut saya ada satu hal lagi yang perlu dipertimbangkan...). It does not mean producing long monologues; a four-minute exchange should feel like a conversation with turns. Repair strategies matter: if you do not know a word, paraphrase (alat transportasi umum yang kecil, seperti taksi motor), and if you lose the thread, use a filler and restate (Jadi, maksud saya...). Accuracy still counts, but a candidate who keeps the exchange moving with slightly imperfect grammar generally fares better than one who stalls in search of the perfect form. Practise with a partner who will interrupt and disagree.