Meerkat

I believe that is in error, since certainly the Thais lobbied at the UNESCO meeting in '07 in New Zealand for joint listing or nothing, and the Cambodian listing attempt failed. Indeed after the '07 meeting UNESCO implied that they preferred to see a joint application. The only extant agreement prior to the communiqué was the MoU of 2000 which in brief said neither side should change anything. By the by, as late as January '08, the MFA spokesman Tharit Charungvat referred back to the MoU as, to paraphrase him, the status quo.

Regards

It's not just the UNESCO document itself that implies that the Surayud government was (begrudgingly) OK with a sole-listing. From TNA at the time:

Gen. Surayud said he had once told his Cambodian counterpart Somdej Hun Sen that a solution to the dispute must lead to a win-win situation for both sides.

The Thai prime minister said his government would not insist that Preah Vihear is partly owned by Thailand, but should the mountain be declared a UNESCO world heritage site, the move must benefit both countries.

and from The Nation:

"We have no objection to Preah Vihear shrine being a World Heritage Site. We support in principle Phnom Penh's request. We hope that the unsettled issues can be solved and the request be put forward for approval again next year," Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said yesterday.

I think the junta realised that Cambodia's lobbying over the years would lead to a sole listing this year, and was resigned to the fact that Thailand's best option was to try and get at least some concessions from the matter. The largest "unsettled issue" to the listing was of course the disputed area (in fact by the UNESCO convention that shouldn't be an obstacle anyway), but by limiting the map this time to boundaries within the 1962 ruling it put sovereignty beyond question. With that important change it was - as we have now seen - almost a certainty that Cambodia would get its sole listing.

I wonder what came first - parents desire to stop PAD or Thaksin's lawyers looking for "victims" to file a suit.

School concerns about noise and everything would have been kosher if not for Thaksin's presonal laywers representing them in the court of their choice.

That's the first I've heard about Thaksin's lawyers representing the parents and teachers even after re-reading all I can find on the subject. Where did you hear this?

They also demanded that Sondhi stopped mentioning Thaksin's name in public, I don't know what they outcome is, but these courts are a fair game if they allow themselves to be used as a tool to suppress legitimate demonstrations or basic freedom of speech.

Still, I think judge impeachment won't go anywhere, it's a non-starter.

The PAD dropped its impeachment idea according to yesterday's Post (near the end of the article).

I believe PAD is losing credibility with the vast majority of people even in Bangkok by simply looking for confrontation when it is not needed.

Helps Sondhi sell more newspapers/TV ad-space though...

The agreement signed by Noppadon, did not in any way shape or form Change the Territorial or Jurisdiction of the state, and no Acts were needed for it's implimentation.

The reason that it was ruled un-constitutional was because it was judged to have extensive impacts on national

economic or social security. Something that was added into the new Article (190), but certainly didn't exist in the 1997 Constitution, or any other of the previous constitutions for that matter.

The irony being of course that most of the social unrest was only whipped up after the agreement was signed, by the disinformation (or misinformation if one wishes to be charitable) of the PAD and the Dems. Noppadom's poor explanation of the agreement to the public also deserves criticism.

He deserves to go; as I said on another thread, if there is credible evidence that - as he stated in parliament - it was his senior bureaucrats in the MFA who advised him that no parliamentary approvement was necessary, then they should go too.

it is not disrupting the lives.

It is a minor disturbance.

Well that's pretty subjective really. Were my daughter's lessons disrupted by protests to the extent that her education was suffering, I wouldn't think it a minor disturbance. Likewise if my commute doubled because of protesters blocking my way.

The right to protest is important in any kind of democracy but it shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the rights of those unconnected with the protests. Some common-sense is needed to balance everyone's rights vis-a-vis everyone else's; that's what the court has tried to do.

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Sondhi would have to divest himself of his media empire for starters. It's also a lot easier protesting from outside parliament rather than from inside, where there are greater standards of oversight (as the PPP are now discovering for example).

It's a holy war now? So having already used the Monarchy and nationalism to whip up support, they're now turning to religion?

Oh God [sic].

A few critiques of this nonsense in Prachatai here, here and here, along with one from the Nation/Thai Rath.

Limiting elected politicians and giving the military legitimate grounds to intervene in government. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. You gotta wonder if half those in PAD rallies are actually aware of what they're protesting for.

Who says they tried to recant on the agreement?

"I'm going to make a lot of huff and puff about this the coming week but the deal is done and the verdict will be in your favor."

It's a fair point, but with the amount of support Cambodia had already garnered over the last couple of years, and the impossibly short time the injunction gave the Thai WHC party to do a "hatchet-job", the decision was almost a cert for Cambodia anyway.

I think that's one point many of the people who automatically try to tie the issue to Thaksin et al seem to forget. Cambodia has been lobbying for years on this (since 1991), and once it had changed the map to the undisputed area covered by the 1962 ruling, there was really nothing Thailand could do to stop it (Cambodia having already rejected a joint-listing). It became simply a matter of trying to get as much benefit from a bad bargaining position as they could and with only a few months haggling time (again, Cambodia having decided last year to nominate the site this month - talk of a "rush job" is just plain wrong IMO). In that respect, Thailand's hands were tied and they've now ended up with even less than the concessions they had managed to wrangle.

Given that Cambodia managed to get the site listed on its own anyway, I still think they'd have done it whatever party in Thailand had won the election - it's just a bit of a "som nam na" episode that it occured on the PPP's watch. Noppadom should resign and let due process then determine his future. During the censure debate when asked why he didn't take the proposal to parliament, he claimed that MFA bureaucrats had told him that it wasn't necessary. If there's evidence to support the claim, the people that gave him the bad information should fall on their swords too.

That location has been defaced on Google Earth. You get a million of "Cambodians stole our temple" type of messages.

Well I guess that's the price one pays for stirring up nationalist sentiment (Sondhi and the Dems), and for a poorly executed public explanation of the realities of the Temple's ownership (Noppadom in particular, and arguably every preceding government who were too scared of publicly addressing the ICJ ruling).

Anyway the CC judgement is a Pyrrhic victory for Sondhi and the Dems in my opinion. They get to end Noppadom's brief reign as FM (and in theory get him tried for treason I believe), but when it comes down to it the WHC's decision to let Cambodia list the Temple without Thai support results in a worse deal for Thailand than had the joint-hosting been allowed to have proceeded as planned. That's not a criticism of any of the courts by the way - they were doing, and continue to do, their job properly.

Potential upside that the WHC recommends that Thailand sets up its own site for approval, but as that will probably include disputed territory, it'll mean going cap-in-hand to Cambodia from a weakened position.

Some Thai vineyards are now making some really quite drinkable stuff. The Granmonte Winery in Khao Yai was voted 6th most promising vineyard globally a few years back in one of the trade mags. Not a bad achievement for a fledgling sector here. There are a couple of Shiraz vintages they've done that would surprise you. The whites I've tried (Chenin Blanc) have been less successful IMO.

Value for money they are not though, largely because of the high taxes already mentioned, but also because of small production runs. Many vineyards in the Khao Yai area have teamed up to bottle their own wines via a cooperative bottler to help bring costs down, but that in itself can cause some quality control issues.

Anyway, well worth a visit to the region (2 hours north of BKK). Lot's of tasting to be done for free at all the vineyards, if the owners are around they are happy to chat, and a couple of them have good restaurants too.

Real shame about the taxes - HK has just cut its wine tax to a big fat zero.

The only major change that should be made to the eligibility for standing for office is the scrapping of the ridiculous rule that MPs must have a degree.

Only members of the cabinet need a degree. The requirement that all MP's need to be graduates was never included in the 2007 Constitution

Ah - didn't (obviously) know that - thanks for the heads-up. It's a vital step in the right direction.

Does that go for the Senate as well (indeed was that requirement ever there for Senators pre '07)?

The only major change that should be made to the eligibility for standing for office is the scrapping of the ridiculous rule that MPs must have a degree. Only around a third of uni-age Thais go to university, and the numbers are skewed heavily in favour of wealthy families. Don't look to articifial measures like the functional constituencies that are found in those bastions of democracy such as HK and Macau to give a better representation of the people, just one simple rule change would give the bulk of the population at least the aspiration to power. If the PAD truly stood for "democracy" of the "people", that's what they'd have been campaigning for, not a government largely selected by the few. Regarding the claims that "New Politics" is based on a Scandinavian model, I've been struggling to find one Scandinavian system where 100% of MPs are not elected.

I also don't agree with the notion of only allowing MPs to hold posts for which they have matching qualifications either. It doesn't seem to have hampered British politics much - Thatcher being a chemist, and Major not even going to university being just two recent examples.

Regarding Noppadom in the Temple issue, I can't agree that he was ridden over by the Cambodians, as much as I think he's far too smarmy for his own good and that IMO he only wanted to get involved in it personally for the glory (that played out well for him didn't it).

They were going to go for nomination this year with or without Thailand's support (and according to today's Post it looks like they'll succeed without). Thailand had the opportunity to get involved at a peripheral level; good for tourism, good for diplomatic relations between two perennially suspicious parties. Thanks to the PAD and the Dems who seemed to have used their talking-points on the issue, Thailand as a whole now looks foolish and will have lost out if Cambodia's bid succeeds. If the bid fails because of the recent nationalistic intervention, then diplomatic relations between the two states will suffer. So the Dems and the PAD have seemingly managed to turn a win-win situation into a lose-lose one. Nice work guys - what do you fancy screwing up next?

Yes it will affect the FM's status at home, and possibly cost him his job, but the real culprits for stuffing up the matter will still be protesting on the streets and censuring in parliament, stirring up nationalistic/monarchist fervour on false premises as and when it suits them best. Sondhi & co I can understand, but I'm immensely disappointed with Abhisit, someone who I had thought was above the general standard of Thai politicians until now.

Yeah I agree they shouldn't set the station up again, although I can understand the frustration that they must feel with the likes of ASTV's biased coverage. I'm also concerned that it might contravene rules of politicians running a media outlet (in spirit if not in letter). That's also the main reason IMO that Sondhi would rather battle politics via the PAD rather than through becoming an MP himself.

So according to today's Bangkok Post, the PAD is now claiming on the one hand that it is not "pro-coup", but Sondhi has said on the other hand that their "New Politics" would invite military intervention in four circumstances, the second of which would be, "if the government did nothing, just like the Samak Sundaravej administration".

Well which is it guys?

An amusing sketch based upon the PAD's interesting new take on "democracy" in Prachatai.

I believe that an International Driving Permit is valid for 1 year. (At least mine was.) You can get one in the USA at any AAA office. It generally takes about 10 minutes and if I recall it cost me about $10 3 or 4 years ago.

An IDP is valid for 1 year as you say, but strictly speaking you can only use it in Thailand for 3 months from date of entry. If you leave the country then come back, that 3 months resets from scratch (as long as the IDP itself is still valid). In practice though I doubt it really matters much.

In the interests of balance (and in no way meant to gloss over the awful tragedy in the South, nor excuse the government's somewhat lacklustre policy there), according to Thursday's Bangkok Post attacks are down 50% in the first six months of the year compared to the same period last year, and deaths down by around 25%. 301 deaths is of course still 301 too many, but contrary to some of the posts here those numbers would seem to indicate an "improvement". It's still not enough though and I think the figures for June/July are/will be pretty grim.

Deep South Watch collates instances of violence in the South and publishes its data here (can't find an English version).

My computer gives me a malware warning when trying to go to the EC English site..

Fraud warning?

Chuckle.

Doing a Google for the site gets me to this page from Google Safe Browsing warning that 16 pages contain some kind of malware.

It's good that these cases are being handled properly, even if the wheels of justice are turning with their usual lead-footedness.

Does anyone know of somewhere online I can find the rest of the pending cases? This week cases were apparently dismissed by the EC against another 5 PPP members, 4 Dems and 1 Chart Thai, but I can't find anything about this in the English Language press. My computer gives me a malware warning when trying to go to the EC English site so I'm not overly keen about looking there! Thanks.

Wasnt sure where to put this littel unnoticed gem, so here I guess

The Administrative Court's injunction against Thailand's support of the listing of Preah Vihear might not overrule the joint communique signed by Thailand and Cambodia on May 22 in Paris, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

seems innocuous reporting until you read the following:

The government said the joint communique was signed on June 18 between Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An in Bangkok one day after receiving cabinet endorsement.

So according to the UN the accord was signed in Paris on May 22 just under a month before the cabinet endorsement. Seems someone has been telling lies and has been caught. But who, the UN?

Rest of the story from the Post at: http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=128680

Looks like that one's been put to rest:

"I would like to clarify on the matter of fact I wrote to the Chairman of the Senate's Foreign Affair Committee based on the information I have from Paris. The information of the date of the approval in the document was not quite accurate.

"I'm told and the final agreement was signed in both Phnom Penh and Bangkok on June 18. So an original agreement that I referred was a informal document but clearly pending cabinet approval in June."

From The Nation.

Regarding the PAD's ideas of "democracy" that I raised earlier, The Nation has now picked up on it, just in case anybody still doubts its veracity.

2Bangkok.com also translates an op-ed piece (scroll down to the 30th June) from Matichon stating, "PAD leader Sonthi Limthongkul recently made a very interesting comment. He said that the PAD not only wanted to oust the government, but also wished to assume its powers." I'd love to find something elsewhere to verify/dismiss this comment; I'll take it with a pinch of salt for now.

Regarding the road SRJ points out, it might be an idea to put it into perspective. Cambodia receives aid from many of its trading partners for infrastructure projects

Merely coincidence that this particular infrastructure project from this particular trading partner benefitted a particular person.... at Thai taxpayer expense (as per this particular person's norm).

I've got no idea. All I do know with a bit of googling, is that the route upgrade wasn't just a bi-partisan initiative to be decided over a round of golf, but part of ASEAN's ASEAN Highway project, which is itself part of the greater Asian Highway network planned by the UN in 1959. I don't know why Thailand was funding this particular stretch of road. Actually I'd be surprised if funding for each part of the network wasn't decided at a centralised level (ASEAN/UN), but that's just a guess.

I'd assume that if there's evidence to support any wrongdoing,the NCCC will rightfully pursue the case. Personally I'd just let them get on with rooting it out rather than make insinuations here.

Where did you see that?

In the same Post article:

"The committee, chaired by newly-appointed chairman Pongpol Adireksarn, also agreed that the listing of the ancient Hindu temple should not cover only the temple, but also the area around the temple, which is on Thai soil."

This obvioulsy goes beyond Noppadon's "let Cambodians do what they want, we won't get in their way" deal. Thais want their own slice of pie - co-management of the site.

No, the area he refers to is already mentioned in the communique as the buffer-zone, N3, which is due to go before the WHC in 2010 after the boundaries have been finalised. That area has always been designated for joint Thai/Cambodian management for preservation purposes. So as I originally stated, the head of the Thai WHC is planning on going ahead as planned with a co-hosting of Cambodia's sole listing, and not a joint UNESCO listing as you imply. What happens now that the PAD have (at least temporarily) put the stoppers on the idea is anyone's guess, although I doubt it'll do Thai-Cambodian relations much good.

Again, the problem is not the deal itself, which is the size of a comb indeed, it's the Thai FM working for the other side. Actually for Thaksin's investment in Koh Kong but we can't prove that at the moment, can we? Still, does anyone here really believe two deals are unconnected? I don't think so.

I've already said that there may well be a link between the two issues, and if it ever turns out to be true, Thaksin and his ilk be damned.

Regarding the road SRJ points out, it might be an idea to put it into perspective. Cambodia receives aid from many of its trading partners for infrastructure projects (the aid from Thailand in this instance was in the form of a 300m grant, and an 870m soft-loan). It was the then Thai Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan's idea in 1989 that a concerted effort be made between all the Indochinese nations to improve transport links for trade. Cambodia has already received infrastructure grants and soft-loans from amongst others Japan, Vietnam, South Korea and Australia, as well as the usual supranationals - link is here. It's also received aid from Thailand for other infrastructure projects.

No doubt there'll be a whole string of Japanese, Vietnamese et al casinos opening up all over Cambodia soon too...

I agree that Thailand's brand of politics is hardly the shining light that aspirers to democracy turn to, but I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would actually prefer the 70/30 system advocated by Suriyasai Katasila, one of the PAD's leaders. The most important question being of course, who does the selecting? Link is here btw, but it's only giving me a SQL error at the moment (his article was in Thai Rath).

Regarding Senator Rosana's PTT plans, I don't know whether it would be a good idea or not (although in general I'm opposed to state-run industry). I was just posting it seeing as the previous poster brought up Chavez - the current (re)nationalization poster-child.

Democracy and the free-market economy in Thailand are indeed MIA. I wonder if a Thai "Hugo Chavez" is planning to take over the gov't. Seems like the mood is right for such a thing.

Indeed. If you think it's bad already, one of the PAD leaders is now advocating a system of parliament with 70% of members selected rather than elected (what does the 'D' in 'PAD' stand for again?), and Senator for Bangkok Rosana Tositrakul wants the renationalisation of PTT. Decidedly Chavez-like...