Linguistic Power Play: Authority, Fidelity, Morale in Thai Arb Interpreting

The Linguistic Power Play: Authority, Fidelity, and Morale in Thai Arbitration Interpretation

In the intricate world of arbitration, where words serve as the foundation of justice, the role of interpreters is both indispensable and precarious. Interpreters bridge linguistic divides, ensuring that testimonies and arguments are accurately conveyed across cultures and legal systems. Yet, in Thai arbitration proceedings, this role is fraught with challenges that extend beyond mere translation. The interplay of authority, exercised through language by the “lawyer’s interpreter” and the “opposing Thai arbitrator,” often undermines the fidelity of interpretation and erodes the morale of interpreters. This article explores how such dynamics manifest, drawing from a specific case where a witness’s casual remark, “แล้วก็เซ็นต์ในสัญญา” (“and then signed the contract”), was transformed into the legally charged “as I see it is executed,” and how an opposing arbitrator’s finger-pointing inquiry—”Did you translate?”—exemplifies a broader cultural tension. Through a linguistic and cultural lens, we examine the ramifications of these practices and propose pathways toward a more equitable arbitration environment.

The Authority of Language in Arbitration

Language in legal settings is rarely neutral; it is a tool of power, wielded to shape perceptions and influence outcomes. In the scenario under scrutiny, two key figures—the “lawyer’s interpreter” and the “opposing Thai arbitrator”—employ language in ways that assert dominance over the interpretive process, often to the detriment of the interpreter’s autonomy and well-being.

The “lawyer’s interpreter” occupies a dual role: a linguistic conduit and, at times, an unwitting pawn in legal strategy. When a witness casually states “แล้วก็เซ็นต์ในสัญญา,” a phrase rooted in everyday Thai vernacular meaning to sign a document, the interpreter’s rendition as “as I see it is executed” introduces a significant shift. In English legal parlance, “executed” transcends mere signing; it implies a completed act with binding force—a nuance absent from the witness’s original intent. This transformation is not a mere linguistic slip but a deliberate reframing, likely driven by the instructing lawyer’s agenda to present the witness’s testimony as legally conclusive. Such manipulation highlights a troubling exercise of authority, where the interpreter’s fidelity to the source is sacrificed for strategic gain.

Conversely, the “opposing Thai arbitrator” exerts authority through direct confrontation. By pointing a finger and demanding, “Did you translate?” in a commanding tone, the arbitrator disrupts the interpreter’s workflow and asserts dominance. This behavior stands in stark contrast to international norms, where arbitrators address interpreters with courtesy—e.g., “Madam Interpreter, could you speak louder please?”—acknowledging their critical role. In Thailand, however, this interaction reflects a cultural tendency to prioritize hierarchy over collaboration, placing the interpreter in a subservient position and amplifying their vulnerability.

Fidelity Under Fire: The Ethics of Interpretation

At the heart of interpretation lies a fundamental ethical mandate: to preserve the speaker’s meaning with unwavering fidelity. The distortion of “เซ็นต์ในสัญญา” into “executed” breaches this principle. Linguistically, the Thai phrase is neutral and informal, devoid of the legal weight that “executed” imposes. This discrepancy matters profoundly in arbitration, where precise wording can sway a tribunal’s interpretation of intent and liability. By injecting a legalistic gloss, the lawyer’s interpreter not only misrepresents the witness but also undermines the integrity of the proceedings.

This infidelity is not solely the interpreter’s burden to bear. Pressure from lawyers, eager to mold testimony into a favorable narrative, often compels interpreters to stray from neutrality. In this case, the lawyer’s intent to render every utterance in legal terms—transforming casual speech into a form easily digestible by adjudicators—shifts the interpreter’s role from translator to co-strategist. Such dynamics violate the interpreter’s code of impartiality, creating an ethical quandary: adhere to professional standards or bend to the will of the hiring party?

The Toll on Morale: A Cultural Collision

The cumulative effect of these linguistic power plays is a profound erosion of the interpreter’s morale. For the interpreter, witnessing their craft distorted by a colleague—such as the lawyer’s interpreter—strikes at the core of professional pride. The internal conflict between duty and coercion breeds frustration, as theinterpreter grapples with a compromised rendition of truth. This is compounded by the opposing arbitrator’s aggression, which devalues the interpreter’s contribution and heightens workplace stress. The pointed finger and raised voice are not mere annoyances; they are symbolic assaults on dignity, signaling that the interpreter’s role is subordinate rather than essential.

This dynamic is deeply rooted in Thai cultural norms, where deference to authority often trumps mutual respect. Should the interpreter protest, they risk being branded disrespectful—a serious accusation in a hierarchical society. This cultural bind leaves interpreters trapped: endure silently or jeopardize their standing. In contrast, international arbitration settings prioritize professionalism and equity, treating interpreters as partners in the process. The Thai approach, by contrast, fosters an environment where morale suffers, and with it, the quality of interpretation.

Toward a Balanced Future: Recommendations

Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that bridges cultural practices with global standards:

1. Upholding Interpretive Standards: Interpreters must be empowered to resist external pressures, adhering strictly to the principle of fidelity. Legal teams should bear the burden of arguing interpretive nuances, rather than expecting interpreters to reshape testimony. Clear guidelines, reinforced by professional bodies, can bolster this autonomy.
2. Cultural Training for Arbitrators: Thai arbitrators would benefit from training in international etiquette, emphasizing respectful engagement with all participants, including interpreters. Replacing commands with requests—e.g., “Could you clarify the translation?”—can foster a collaborative atmosphere.
3. Support Systems for Interpreters: Professional associations should offer interpreters psychological and legal support, providing a safe space to address grievances and assert their rights. This safety net can mitigate the toll of workplace pressures.

Conclusion

In Thai arbitration, the interplay of linguistic authority and cultural norms reveals a troubling imbalance. The “lawyer’s interpreter,” swayed by legal agendas, distorts casual speech into binding terms, while the “opposing Thai arbitrator” reinforces dominance through confrontational language. Together, these forces compromise fidelity and batter the interpreter’s morale, exposing a rift between Thai practices and international ideals. By realigning these dynamics—through ethical rigor, cultural sensitivity, and robust support—arbitration in Thailand can evolve into a space where interpreters thrive, not merely survive, ensuring that justice is not lost in translation.

SEAProTI’s certified translators, translation certification providers, and certified interpreters:

The Southeast Asian Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (SEAProTI) has officially announced the criteria and qualifications for individuals to register as “Certified Translators,” “Translation Certification Providers,” and “Certified Interpreters” under the association’s regulations. These guidelines are detailed in Sections 9 and 10 of the Royal Thai Government Gazette, issued by the Secretariat of the Cabinet under the Office of the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand, dated July 25, 2024, Volume 141, Part 66 Ng, Page 100.

To read the full publication, visit: the Royal Thai Government Gazette