Queen speaks out | 25.04.05
And the Bangkok Post duly misquotes her.
The Post’s “quote”:
”We all have to condemn such actions as being totally devoid of humanity. We have to let these brutes know — without taking arms — what we feel.”
What Her Majesty actually said: (from Matichon’s transcript)
ข้าพเจ้าคิดว่าหน้าที่ของคนไทยทั้งแผ่นดินที่จะทำปกป้องทั้งแผ่นดิน โดยที่ไม่ได้เบียดเบียนเกะกะ ถืออาวุธ ไล่ฆ่าฟันกันอย่างนั้นเลย เพียงแต่รู้สึกห่วงใยประเทศชาติ และพร้อมใจกันส่งเสียงประณามการกระทำเหล่านี้ สามารถทำได้ ว่าการกระทำเหล่านี้ไร้มนุษยธรรมให้ผู้ที่มีจิตใจอำมหิตเหล่านั้นได้รู้ว่าพวกเราคนไทยยอมไม่ได้กับการเข่นฆ่าและการทำร้ายผู้บริสุทธิ์
I think [it is] the duty of Thais all over the [mother]land to do to protect the [mother]land, without [having to] violate, harass, take up arms, pursue, slaughter or any of that [in revenge]. Just care for the country and together voice condemnation of these acts — this [we can] do — that these acts are devoid of humanity and let those brutes know that we Thais cannot tolerate the slaying and harming of the innocent.
[translated by yours truly]
The Post’s “quote”:
”This showed that these brutes do not care about hurting the old, the women or children. Such people are without religion and have no humanity. They are not at all like ordinary people.”
What Her Majesty actually said:
เห็นได้ชัดว่า กลุ่มมนุษย์อำมหิตเจตนาสังหารผู้บริสุทธิ์โดยไม่แยแสแม้แต่สตรี คนแก่ หรือเด็กๆ นับได้ว่าเป็นการกระทำของคนไร้ศาสนา ไร้ศีลธรรม ไร้มนุษยธรรม รุนแรง โหดเหี้ยมเกินกว่าคนธรรมดาที่จะทำได้ คนเหล่านี้ไม่เคยมีความสงสารเห็นใจใคร
It is clear that [this] group of brutes intend to kill the innocent without regard for even women, the elderly, or children. [This] can be considered an act of the religion-less, the moral-less, and the humanity-less — too violent and vicious for ordinary people to do. These people never have sympathy or care for anyone.
This post isn’t meant to be a political argument since, unlike some people I often find myself arguing with, I consider an appeal to authority a poor way to state one’s case. It is simply to point out the glaring fact that the “quotations” that you see “translated” from Thai in the Bangkok Post and The Nation are actually paraphrases. While they may not deviate that much from the real thing in this case, they still don’t belong between quotation marks and there is no guarantee that other cases will be as benign.
If the vast and numerous linguistic differences between Thai and English mean that a faithfully translated quote is either awkward or limited to a couple of words, then so be it. To tolerate this current and widespread abuse of the quotation — a fundamental building block and principle of journalism — amounts to the ultimate license to spin.
« Prachai v. the Government | Main | Go ahead, make Her Majesty's day »
- 1
- killerbee 26.04.05
Some of the writers they hire come from international schools in Thailand. I know some of those Thai kids who go their and they have more american pride than most americans in USA. Thats freaky.
- 2
- Tom Vamvanij 26.04.05
I don’t get it, Killerbee. What does “American pride” have to do with the Bangkok Post’s unscrupulous quotation/translation?
- 3
- Post staffer 31.08.05
From Tom: …the glaring fact that the “quotations” that you see “translated” from Thai in the Bangkok Post and The Nation are actually paraphrases
True! As you can see from your more literal translation of what the Queen said, one language does not translate easily or smoothly into another. In the newspaper business we package news as a product, so it has to read smoothly. The quotes should also be brief, as they are there merely to illustrate or support a point.
Ideally readers would get their news from both sources: the Thai language media and English language media.