When the Letter Quotes a Regulation

Another sample on my profile comes from the mining services sector: an appointment letter for an Operational Person in Charge. It is one sentence, and almost every clause in it asks for a decision.

The heart of the source reads: sesuai dengan Peraturan Menteri Energy dan Sumber Daya Mineral No. 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Penyelengaraan Usaha Jasa Pertambangan Mineral dan Batu bara Pasal 25 ayat (1), bahwa Pelaku Usaha Jasa Pertambangan ... wajib mempunyai Penanggung Jawab Operasional (PJO) di lapangan.

Give the regulation its full name

I rendered the citation in full: "Regulation of the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Number 28 of 2009 on the Conduct of Mineral and Coal Mining Services Business, Article 25 paragraph (1)". It is long. It is also what a reader needs if they want to find the regulation, and in a compliance letter someone usually does.

Notice the small things. No. becomes "Number", Tahun becomes "of", tentang becomes "on", and ayat (1) keeps its brackets as "paragraph (1)". These are the conventions English versions of Indonesian regulations tend to use, and a reader who works with them will expect them.

The source is not perfect, and that is fine

The Indonesian writes "Energy" in English inside an Indonesian title, and spells Penyelenggaraan with one g. Source documents are written by busy people. The English does not need to carry those slips forward, and it does not need a note pointing them out either. The regulation has a correct title; I use it.

Bahwa, and what it introduces

In the source, bahwa introduces what the regulation says. A literal "that" would leave the English sentence hanging. So I wrote "which stipulates that" and put the regulation's words in quotation marks. Now the reader can see where the letter ends and the regulation begins.

Wajib means shall

Wajib mempunyai became "shall have". This is the obligation the whole letter exists to satisfy. Writing "must have" would not be wrong in everyday English. But this is a regulation speaking, and regulations speak with shall.

Keep the acronym the site uses

On site, nobody says Operational Person in Charge. They say PJO. So the English carries both: "an Operational Person in Charge (Penanggung Jawab Operasional/PJO)". The first time, the reader learns what it means. After that, the acronym can do the work, as it does on the ground.

One sentence, then, and six or seven decisions. That is normal for official documents. Most of the work is in choices nobody notices when they are right.