What if simultaneous interpretation had been available during the Coupang hearing?

Herold Rogers, right, CEO of Coupang Korea, listens as his interpreter translates questions into English during the National Assembly's hearing on Coupang's data theft scandal on Wednesday. Yonhap

A rare and controversial judgment call was made Wednesday during a National Assembly hearing into Coupang’s customer data theft scandal. Lawmakers urged two interpreters attending the session to rely on their own judgment — summarizing what witnesses said and presenting key takeaways instead of fully translating their remarks.

The unusual request stemmed from a clash between parliamentary ground rules and professional interpretation standards.

Under National Assembly rules, each lawmaker is allowed seven minutes to speak during a hearing. Within that time, they may question witnesses or comment on their answers. Once the seven minutes expire, the microphone is cut off. As a result, lawmakers often rush through questions or focus on so-called “killer questions” that can generate headlines.

This time constraint becomes more acute when foreign witnesses are involved, as lawmakers feel their speaking time is effectively reduced as the interpreter translates questions and responses.

However, interpreters are trained not to omit, edit or alter a speaker’s remarks. Their professional duty is to translate statements fully and accurately into the target language.

The tension between these two sets of rules came to a head on Wednesday. Frustrated by the time limit, some lawmakers grew impatient — and at times rude — towards the interpreters. A few even attempted to impose improvised rules, pressuring interpreters to deviate from established codes of conduct.

Several lawmakers urged Korean interpreters not to fully translate statements made by Coupang's Chief Information Security Officer Brad Mattis and newly-appointed CEO Herold Rogers. Instead, they directed interpreters to summarize the executives’ answers and present only what lawmakers deemed key points.

Rep. Lee Jun-seok questioned Rogers about why Coupang Founder and Chairman Bom Kim failed to appear at the hearing.

Rogers avoided a direct answer, stating that he is the CEO of Coupang Korea and was present to respond to lawmakers’ questions. “I am responsible for managing the company through this incident and responding to all your questions, and I am happy to be here to do so,” he said.

As the interpreter began translating Rogers’ remarks, Lee interrupted her and asked that she “summarize” his response, omitting what he called “unnecessary parts.”

Rep. Choi Min-hee of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), chairwoman of the National Assembly’s Science, ICT, Future Planning, Broadcasting and Communications Committee, sided with Lee. She argued that lawmakers understood basic expressions such as Rogers saying he was glad to be present, and that they could be skipped to save time.

Choi cited the seven-minute speaking limit as justification for her request.

Rep. Han Min-soo of the DPK openly expressed extreme discomfort as the Korean interpreter continued to fully translate what her American client said, including minor details.

“Please, stop. Summarize what he said. You don’t need to translate everything because most of it is meaningless,” Han told the interpreter. When she resumed translating without summarizing, Han raised his voice to say, “Miss translator, stop. Once again, we don’t need to hear all of it.”

While such remarks were undeniably rude and undiplomatic, the lawmakers’ impatience is to some extent understandable. Operating under the seven-minute rule, they were under constant time pressure. Their desire to prioritize key issues and use their limited time efficiently can even be seen as a reflection of their sense of duty.

That said, there is a clear line that should not be crossed. Politicians are not entitled to rewrite professional codes of conduct for interpreters or force them to comply with improvised rules.

The two interpreters performed their duties properly and professionally. They should not be criticized for doing exactly what they were trained to do.

If lawmakers truly wanted to save time, the committee should have installed simultaneous interpretation booths, allowing members to hear real-time translations of testimony from Coupang’s American executives. Foreign witnesses have appeared before the National Assembly before, so this was hardly an unprecedented situation. The committee simply failed to plan for a foreseeable problem. That failure lies with the National Assembly, not the interpreters.

The seven-minute rule and full interpretation are not inherently incompatible. With adequate preparation, both could have functioned smoothly and efficiently during a hearing of such importance.

Instead, the National Assembly’s hearing on Coupang’s data theft scandal was deeply frustrating.

Lawmakers appeared rude, uninformed and digitally illiterate. Worse, many seemed unclear about what questions they should be asking executives of a major e-commerce company. They wasted valuable time repeating the same questions like, "Where is Bom Kim?" and, "Why was he too busy to attend the hearing?"

These were not the questions Coupang customers wanted answered. What the public wants to know is how such a breach occurred and whether the company is prepared to prevent a similar incident in the future. Lawmakers largely failed to address these critical issues.