Translation Question About Immigration Rule

[Maestro]

From the rules for extension of stay for a father to live with his Thai child:

The question is about the first two lines:

กรณีบิดาหรือมารดา บิดาหรือมารดา

นั้นต้องมีรายได้เฉลี่ยทั้งปีไม่น้อยกว่าเดือนละ

๔๐,๐๐๐ บาท

One unofficial translation (by Issan Lawyers) gives this translation:

In the case of a parent, one of parents must have an average annual income of not less than 40,000 baht per month

Another translation (by Tilleke & Gibbins) goes like this:

In the case of parents, the father or mother must maintain an average annual income of no less than Baht 40,000 per month throughout the year

In a discussion of this on the visa forum someone said it should be "in the case of a parent, that parent..." but I can't find that post any more. It is also the way that the immigration offices are implementing it, from what has been reported so far.

Would somebody fluent in Thai be so kind as to have a look at it and say what the correct translation should be? Can either of the two parents give evidence of income or can it only be "that" parent, ie the parent making the application for extension?

The entire text of that particular clause in the rules is this:

--

Maestro

[Rikker]

My reading is that it can be either parent. Both the Issan Lawyers and Tilleke & Gibbins versions are correct overall (though "throughout the year" in T&G is superfluous, as "annual" already captures the correct meaning from the Thai).

In the phrase บิดาหรือมารดานั้น (bidaa rue maandaa nan), นั้น (nan) modifies the whole phrase "father or mother", and can be either one. In fact, นั้น (nan) acts like English "the" in this case, which is how T&G has translated it: "the father or mother..."

(But "one of the parents" captures the same meaning. What is not clear here is whether a combined income of 40,000/month is allowed. If we read this strictly, then it is not.)

[DavidHouston]

Seems to me that there is more ambiguity in the second portion of the sentence than in the first:

"กรณีบิดาหรือมารดา บิดาหรือมารดา นั้นต้องมีรายได้เฉลี่ยทั้งปีไม่น้อยกว่าเดือนละ ๔๐,๐๐๐ บาท "

There are at least two interpretations:

1. Average monthly income may not be lower than 40,000 baht during the year; or

2. The family's income for each and every month may not fall below 40,000 baht for any month during the year.

Support for the second proposition is the fact that the requirement is stated on a monthly basis. Had the rule meant that during some months income might fall below the 40,000 threshold as long as the average exceeded 40,000, then the could have simply written the family "must have an income of not less than 480,000 baht per year" without reference to a monthly income.

On the other hand, perhaps the monthly requirement is to be applied in a situation where the subject year is less than 12 months. If the target period, for example, were nine months, then the "annual" ("ทั้งปี") requirement would be 360,000 baht for such short period.

Despite the apparent ambiguity, I suspect that the authorities do indeed intend interpretation 1.

[aanon]

In the case of a mother or father, that parent must have a monthly income of no less than 40,000 Baht per month averaged over the whole year.

Both the translations seem ok to me. The key word is 'or'. Logically it cannot mean 'and/or'.

David, I'd say that the average monthly income is used because that's what Thai's are used to using as a reference. It's rare to hear anyone talk about their annual income in Thailand, whereas it's quite common here in Australia.

[Rikker]

Hmm, aanon, maybe you're right. After reading and re-reading it, I'm leaning towards that. The lack of a classifier คน at first made me doubt that it's used as a determiner, like English "that", which is why I read its use more like the English definite article. But maybe that doesn't matter.

If we compare it to the earlier clause the phrasing is similar: บุตร บุตรบุญธรรม หรือบุตรของคู่สมรสนั้นต้องยังไม่ได้สมรส... "the child, adopted child, or spouse's child must not be married..." -- in which case either "the" or "that" makes sense equally. So the same logic probably applies.

I think that there is a particular way of reading and writing Thai legal language, and this would be unambiguous to those familiar with it. Perhaps you are. Me, not so much.

[Maestro]

I wonder if the Thai sentence without the addition of นั้น to the second mention of “father or mother” would also be a correct and complete sentence and if so, what difference the addition of นั้น makes or is intended to make. Could it be a back reference to the first mention of “father or mother”, intending that the same parent who applies for the extension of stay must meet the financial requirement? Because that’s how immigration appears to be implementing it: if a father applies, the father must meet the requirement; if a mother applies, she must meet the requirement.

--

Maestro

[yoot]

I wonder if the Thai sentence without the addition of นั้น to the second mention of “father or mother” would also be a correct and complete sentence and if so, what difference the addition of นั้น makes or is intended to make. Could it be a back reference to the first mention of “father or mother”, intending that the same parent who applies for the extension of stay must meet the financial requirement? Because that’s how immigration appears to be implementing it: if a father applies, the father must meet the requirement; if a mother applies, she must meet the requirement.

--

Maestro

Could it be a back reference to the first mention of “father or mother”, intending that the same parent who applies for the extension of stay must meet the financial requirement?

- Yes, that is the word นั้น do in this context--if a father applies, the father must meet the requirement; if a mother applies, she must meet the requirement.

So, you can't cut the word นั้น off this context, it would make the sentence unclear.