“Standard Translation” in Thai Bureaucracy: Conceptual, Practical Issues

“Standard Translation” in the Thai Bureaucratic System: Conceptual Problems, Practical Impacts, and Divergence from International Standards

27 December 2025, Bangkok — Many Thai government agencies claim to rely on “standard translations” as a criterion for reviewing and certifying translated documents from foreign languages. In practice, however, repeated revisions of terminology without clear principles are frequently observed, creating significant burdens for both the public and professional translators. This article aims to analyze the conceptual problems surrounding the notion of “standard translation” within the Thai bureaucratic system, examine its real-world practical impacts, and compare these practices with principles of legal translation and international standards. It argues that the core problem does not lie in the existence of standards themselves but in the invocation of “standards” without clear definitions or verifiable frameworks of reference.
Keywords: standard translation, official document translation, legal translation, documentary review authority, translation standards

In the process of submitting foreign documents to Thai government agencies particularly documents relating to personal status, legal matters, or administrative structures the term “standard translation” is often cited as justification for requiring revisions to translated texts. What repeatedly occurs, however, is the inconsistent back-and-forth alteration of terminology without coherence, such as alternating between “American citizen” and “American national” or revising “sub-district” to “sub-area” and later reverting to the original term.

Such situations reflect structural problems within the document review system rather than deficiencies in translation quality per se. This article therefore raises an academic question: does “standard translation” in the context of Thai government agencies genuinely function as a linguistic standard, or is it merely an authority-based justification for controlling the certification process?

The Concept of “Standards” in Translation
From a theoretical perspective, translation standards should possess at least three essential characteristics: clear definition, verifiable references, and consistent application. Scholars of legal translation emphasize that terminological choices must be grounded in the legal meanings of both the source and target legal systems, rather than in the familiarity or personal intuition of document reviewers (Šarčević, 1997). Consequently, standards cannot arise from individual discretion but must rely on shared reference frameworks, such as officially established glossaries or style guides.

Practical Problems in the Thai Bureaucratic Context
In the Thai context, most government agencies do not publish official lists of standard translations, do not specify legal or linguistic reference sources, and lack clear criteria for determining when one term should be preferred over another. As a result, the same translation may be accepted or rejected depending on the individual official reviewing the document.

This practice does not enhance legal accuracy; instead, it generates delays and increases hidden costs for both citizens and professional translators, without delivering corresponding improvements in documentary quality.

Divergence from International Standards
In many cases, terms claimed to be “standard translations” by Thai authorities do not align with usage in the legal systems of the source countries, nor with terminology used in international instruments such as treaties or official state documents. From the perspective of legal translation theory, altering terminology without regard to its legal implications may lead to distortions of personal status or legal rights (Cao, 2007).

Invoking “Standards” as a Mechanism of Authority
From a forensic linguistics perspective, invoking “standard translation” without clear definition may be understood as an exercise of institutional power aimed at maintaining procedural control rather than safeguarding linguistic or legal accuracy (Gibbons, 2003). The burden of repeated revisions is thus shifted onto translators and citizens, even though the root cause lies in the absence of a coherent standardization system within the institutions themselves.

Policy and Professional Recommendations
This article argues that if Thai government agencies genuinely intend to apply “standard translations,” they should undertake at least three concrete measures:
(1) establish and publish an official centralized glossary;
(2) clearly specify legal and linguistic reference sources; and
(3) incorporate participation from professional translators and academic experts.

Standards themselves are not the problem. The systemic problem lies in invoking standards without transparency, accountability, or verifiability—an issue that demands urgent institutional reform.

• Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Multilingual Matters.
• Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell Publishing.
• Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International.

“คำแปลมาตรฐาน” ในระบบราชการไทย: ปัญหาเชิงแนวคิด ผลกระทบเชิงปฏิบัติ และความคลาดเคลื่อนจากมาตรฐานสากล

27 ธันวาคม 2568, กรุงเทพมหานคร – หน่วยงานราชการไทยจำนวนมากอ้างการใช้ “คำแปลมาตรฐาน” เป็นเกณฑ์ในการตรวจรับรองเอกสารแปลจากภาษาต่างประเทศ อย่างไรก็ตาม ในทางปฏิบัติกลับพบการแก้ไขคำศัพท์ไปมาโดยไม่มีหลักเกณฑ์ที่ชัดเจน สร้างภาระต่อประชาชนและผู้ประกอบวิชาชีพการแปล บทความนี้มีวัตถุประสงค์เพื่อวิเคราะห์ปัญหาเชิงแนวคิดของคำว่า “คำแปลมาตรฐาน” ในระบบราชการไทย สำรวจผลกระทบเชิงปฏิบัติที่เกิดขึ้นจริง และเปรียบเทียบแนวปฏิบัติดังกล่าวกับหลักการด้านการแปลเชิงกฎหมายและมาตรฐานสากล โดยเสนอว่าปัญหาหลักมิได้อยู่ที่การมีมาตรฐาน หากแต่อยู่ที่การอ้างมาตรฐานโดยปราศจากการนิยามและกรอบอ้างอิงที่ตรวจสอบได้
คำสำคัญ: คำแปลมาตรฐาน, การแปลเอกสารราชการ, การแปลเชิงกฎหมาย, อำนาจการตรวจเอกสาร, มาตรฐานการแปล

• Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Multilingual Matters.
• Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell Publishing.
• Šarčević, S. (1997). New approach to legal translation. Kluwer Law International.