Thai Troops Enter Disputed Territory On Thai-cambodian Border

[Nampeung]

What rubbish, the issue between Thailand and Cambodia is REAL it is not down to the PAD although they might be using it right now...

The PAD want a better Thailand and I totally support that

With Khao Phra Viharn I support the Cambodians as that land was clearly theirs centuries ago and they built the temple

[HAL9000]

Somebody asked "What does it matter?" Well, it matters, just let your neighbor decide to move his fence or wall onto your property. Believe me, it starts to matter.

This certainly doesn't matter to me, but it sure seems to matter to Thai people and Cambodians.

Somewhat out of context. The point was to stick to the legal boundary. Everyone talks about the "map", but whose map? Stick to the internationally accepted legal borders and let go of past disputes about "this used to be ours before it was taken from us".

[Plus]

Pridiyathorn's series come in daily installments, here's a recap of the last two parts.

After walking out of a meeting in January Thailand refused to attend the next one in March. They thought it would have been the best course of action to derail the Cambodian bid, and it was most certainly true as at that time it was "Sacred site of Preah Vihear", maps included overlapping areas and Thailand approval was necessary. On the other hand, Pridiyathorn noted, they also missed a chance to include their formal objections in the listing file, which could have been crucial in the hindsight.

In early April Noppadon replaced Thai chief negotiator, next day they flew to Cambodia and held a joint press conference in support of Cambodian bid. For the first time the site was reduced to "Temple of Preah Vihear" and so excluded surrounding areas. From then on Thais were working on the acceptable map that doesn't undermine Thailand's sovereignty. There were more negotiations and finally joint communique was issued.

At that point Unesco had everything in order - the files, the approved map, Thai support and so on.They had no choice but vote for the listing. Thai Court injunction came too late to be considered.

As it stands now the surrounding territories are declared as having no connection to the temple itself and as having no value. Maybe if Thais registered their objection to this it would have mattered, it's just a conjecture now. Noppadon would have probably found a way to get around it anyway.

Implications for Thailand will probably be covered tomorrow.

I don't think "no territory was lost" covers all aspects of it. Cambodians are trying to take the case to the courts to rule on disputed areas, means they are pretty confident they are theirs, and Unseco listing is a good stepping stone for them, I guess.

[HAL9000]

Check out this Al Jazeera video of the civilians on the border - pretty scary

The local villagers are right -- the problem is not a problem to them. Let the outsiders go home and let the locals deal with their situation in their community.

[HAL9000]

The article below gives the background on the Victory Monument and how it is related to a war fought between Thailand and France over the border with Cambodia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Monument_(Bangkok)

So it appears the WWI memorial is different. The article says it is in Sanam Luang. Wikipedia has an article on the location including a photo, which looks like an isolated field, and mentions some royal functions performed at the location. Though the article does not mention the WWI memorial, the descriptions of the site and its usage are not inconsistent with a small memorial on site.

[HAL9000]

I posted the link to the article below a few pages back. You will find it useful to give you some history into the current conflict.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7507425.stm

One of the few well-researched articles I've seen in the current press, Western or Thai, on this topic.

I found it quite good also. I noticed that it also clarified the actress being misquoted in the previous feud.

[HAL9000]

Boonsrang said both sides had agreed troops would stay in their positions but that neither side would use force.

This is dangerously sitting on a powder keg. What needs to happen is for all troops to return to their permanent station barracks and let the diplomats sort it out.

[sabaijai]

The access point is one to remember, since the temple was designed, originally, pre Hindu 'consecration' to be a place for, primarily, Royal commune with the Gods, and the access was a rite of passage, not a quick saunter down the road. Even as the religion changed that premise remained.

Regards

Interesting notion. Do you have any examples, in the Angkor architectural sphere, to back that up? I haven't seen any Angkor-style temples or shrines where the access wasn't heavily facilitated by gradual ascent. I've visited all of the major Angkor sites in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, plus many minor ones. All feature lengthy stone pathways, balustrades and gopuras (separate gate shrines) beginning on flat land and gradually ascending (or flat all the way, when geography allowed). The site with the steepest access I know of is Wat Phu Champasak in Laos, and it's a cakewalk compared to trying to access KPV from the plains below the cliff.

In addition I don't believe there is any existing archaeological evidence at the site in question that supports the idea that KPV was ever regularly accessed (if at all) from the plains below on what is now the Cambodian side. In fact the orientation of all the existing structures including the main sanctuary is cleared faced in the other direction - away from the plains. It would have been odd anyway to orient that temple that way since the route from Angkor Wat to KPV would have had to detour considerably to reach KPV from behind.

[sabaijai]

There was an article in The Nation by Pridiyathorn where he talked in detail about the temple issuse, it was the first part in the series and covered the ground before the new government took over.

Some information has never been disclosed before.

He says that Cambodians argued that the temple was designed to enter via climbing the cliff and Thai entrance was a later addition, they argued that the temple was built according to Buddhist principles and is a part of "five temples on cliffs" design or something.

If they still maintain the same stand it's easy to see why the issue is never going to be resolved - their basic premise is completely opposite to that of Thais, and the rest of the world, apparently.

Previous government negotiating team opposed the unilitateral listing till the very end, btw, including a walkout from talks in the middle of January.

Let's wait and see what he has to say about Noppadon's change of strategy, but for now it looks like the current government has been caught bending over to Cambodians and is suffering the consequences.

There's nothing in it to gain, they are not creating this issue to divert public attention. They'd rather create some other issue to make it go away.

I agree. It's good to see that ASEAN is stepping into the fray, perhaps it will be able to arbitrate on the disputed territory before this escalates further.

[HAL9000]

Below is a link to a good article in this morning's BP by William Roth. Roth is an attorney from the US who teaches at Chula. He gives a good overview on the history of this conflict.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/220708_News/22Jul2008_news016.php

"Rather than continue arguing endlessly about which country owns the disputed area, a much better approach would be for both countries to immediately agree that it is something akin to an "international peace park," with neither side claiming "sovereignty". "

This is the sort of thing I had in mind. Plus his comments on how both countries would benefit from tourism revenue is something that is being sacrificed in choosing to make this a military matter. With tourism dropping due to fuel prices, Thailand cannot afford to pass up this opportunity for expansion of tourism revenues. TAT must very unhappy over what this is doing to tourism and Thailand's reputation. It had a hard enough time doing damage control from the street demonstrations, and now this. There is only so much the international public can accept before the reputation is damaged.

[Plus]

Cambodians opposed joint listing as a matter of principle.

It would have been most natural thing to do but they didn't want it. Now they've got unilateral listing that reportedly undermines the historical value of territories on the Thai side, I don't see how "international peace park" is possible anymore.

That's what Thais wanted from the start, and at worst they wanted the joint listing to have some sort of managerial control over the temple they lost fifty years ago.

Cambodians, on the other hand, sought unilateral listing to drive Thais out of the area and in the process succeded in completely isolating the temple. It's Cambodian nationalism that prevented the best solution for the site, not Thailand's.

[tijnebijn]

At last Sombat , someone with a different intellect, a different view angle , then those

standard news info the regulars give here , RELIEF .

And wish you alter ego was released , and you are truly missed .

[A_Traveller]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit. In addition, unlike many Khmer sites, this one shows clear evidence of long term occupation and development, theorised to be over some 3 centuries. Others, also note the royal connexion to the site, and there's references to the King's progress from Angkor to the site as well, at the height of the Khmer empire.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Edited July 23, 2008 by A_Traveller

[Los78]

Is anyone in any doubt that this is simply a wind-up by the PAD? Look at all the foaming PAD-supporters posting here. Does anyone else care about this place? Nope.

That's why the Cambodians are reacting so pro-actively (UN Sec Council etc). They're scared the real power in this country (behind the PAD) will make a move against them to get at Samak and TRT/PPP. Why else would Cambodia react as they have? They'd just stay quiet, right?

I have to agree. The majority of Thais I speak too believe the Temple is not theirs and accept it belongs to Cambodia. Its just PAD (People Against Democracy) and opposition using the issue to cause trouble and trying to keep the media on them nothing more.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Los78

[Plus]

This issue has nothing to do with PAD or Democrats, Thailand's long standing policy regarding the temple has been undermined. It has implications that go far beyond Bangkok power struggles.

Pravit has been writing in the Nation against PAD since forever, his opinion is nothing new. He usually distorts facts and paints doomsday scenarios that never materialise, and he is as predictable as Sunrise's one-liners.

[kat]

As to my assertion re access this is covered by a number of scholars in the field, for example, Vittorio Roveda, noting how the temple complex was a also a monastery the mountain being ascended because the ascent offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and upon reaching the summit provided the solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its summit.

Regards

/edit typo {not invisible editing unlike some}//

Yes, and I have also seen this written before about other temples, such as Borobodour, so the ascension concept is not so far-fetched or unusual.

[Plus]

There's an article in today's BP:

"In the past, Thailand had let Cambodia occupy the 4.6 sq km area for a long time leading Cambodia to believe it owned the land.

Now Thailand had lost 162 stairs at the temple entrance, she said."

"She" is a deputy chairman of the senate commitee.

That claim about 162 steps is interesting. One hand it recognises that stairs is part of the temple, on the other Cambodians now argue that they are not.

[baanthale]

The PAD want a better Thailand and I totally support that

I think you have been fooled. I would sugest reading this:

Time for PAD's moderates to speak out - if there are any

Pravit Rojanaphruk , The Nation

18 July 2008

Are there any moderates left in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Alliance for Democracy?

It may be wishful thinking to expect a few, or even one, given the daily bombardment of one-sided information and news the group prescribes itself. But if there are any left they should wake up, smell the coffee and recognise that the alliance is now doing too much damage to democracy. And they should do something to rectify it, instead of keeping silent and hoping that it's enough to simply be on the supposedly "virtuous" side.

Earlier this week, the PAD supremo threatened to surround the compound of the Army chief. This is part of the ongoing desperate move to agitate the Army into intervening in politics again, as if September 2006 didn't do enough damage. The PAD-mouthpiece radio has also been goading the military on a daily basis to do something about the current political stand-off.

This latest plan came less than two weeks after another PAD leader, Piphob Thongchai, claimed the alliance was against any coup.

Another new PAD move to agitate is to manipulate ultra-nationalist sentiment over the Preah Vihear temple issue between Thailand and Cambodia. The PAD yesterday began a march to the area, risking further the already damaged bilateral sentiment between the peoples of the two nations.

Then we have the PAD's recent proposal for "New Politics" wherein 70 per cent of future members of Parliament should be appointed instead of elected. Finally the real aspiration of the PAD has been revealed, this reflects the alliance's deep distrust of the vast majority of the Thai electorate, which is essentially the vast majority of the Thai people.

The PAD apparently prefers to have national-level decisions made by a handful of people on an unelected committee who will in turn select and appoint the majority of the lower House, not to mention the upper house which is already nearly half-appointed under the junta-sponsored Constitution.

These select few people, this self-appointed elite, will decide who is worthy of representing the people and running the nation's affairs.

Such an idea is the politics of exclusion, which is not just undemocratic but would most probably create a different set of problems, perhaps even worse than that of the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and the current administration of Samak Sundaravej, which is believed to be nothing but a proxy of Thaksin.

What's more, the majority of the people will have no say in the failure or success of future administrations - they are being reduced to mere subjects to be ruled by supposedly benign, just and selfless bureaucrats and unelected leaders.

While this new political philosophy claims to help solve the problem of ridding the Parliament of corrupt politicians, there's no guarantee that the supposedly morally astute selection committee would not end up becoming self-serving. And where would the checks and balances be found when the mandate is no longer with the people?

It's a dear mistake for the PAD and its supporters to see elections as a mere dispensable trapping of democracy and not as one indispensable part of a democratic order.

Elections surely are not the be-all and end-all of democratic order, but they are an indispensable part of a democracy, nonetheless.

Voters can and will likely make more mistakes in the future. They may become selfish or short-sighted in their electoral choices, but removing their electoral rights will only reverse the learning process of Thai society.

Without a belief and trust that people can eventually rise above themselves and learn to become better citizens through trial and error, there's no point in talking about democracy.

There's no denying the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and his cohorts is very disturbing to say the least, and that it must be dealt with. But the PAD have gone too far in their zero-sum fight against Thaksin that they're now resorting to undermining the very foundation of democratic principle and culture.

If there are any moderates left within the PAD, the time for them to speak out is now.

This issue has nothing to do with PAD or Democrats, Thailand's long standing policy regarding the temple has been undermined. It has implications that go far beyond Bangkok power struggles.

Pravit has been writing in the Nation against PAD since forever, his opinion is nothing new. He usually distorts facts and paints doomsday scenarios that never materialise, and he is as predictable as Sunrise's one-liners.

There's an article in today's BP:

"In the past, Thailand had let Cambodia occupy the 4.6 sq km area for a long time leading Cambodia to believe it owned the land.

Now Thailand had lost 162 stairs at the temple entrance, she said."

"She" is a deputy chairman of the senate commitee.

That claim about 162 steps is interesting. One hand it recognises that stairs is part of the temple, on the other Cambodians now argue that they are not.

What are your resons for this kind of postings, one article is good and the other is no good, because "the guy is famous for his opinions"(witch you don't like). Are you not at all interested to know and hear of other posters and forum readers views on the matters? When I joined here I thought this was a forum for free opinions, but it seems a few here wants to make it a PAD-ofile forum, without any other opinions, very sad

[hammered]

The PAD want a better Thailand and I totally support that

I think you have been fooled. I would sugest reading this:

Time for PAD's moderates to speak out - if there are any

Pravit Rojanaphruk , The Nation

18 July 2008

Are there any moderates left in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Alliance for Democracy?

It may be wishful thinking to expect a few, or even one, given the daily bombardment of one-sided information and news the group prescribes itself. But if there are any left they should wake up, smell the coffee and recognise that the alliance is now doing too much damage to democracy. And they should do something to rectify it, instead of keeping silent and hoping that it's enough to simply be on the supposedly "virtuous" side.

Earlier this week, the PAD supremo threatened to surround the compound of the Army chief. This is part of the ongoing desperate move to agitate the Army into intervening in politics again, as if September 2006 didn't do enough damage. The PAD-mouthpiece radio has also been goading the military on a daily basis to do something about the current political stand-off.

This latest plan came less than two weeks after another PAD leader, Piphob Thongchai, claimed the alliance was against any coup.

Another new PAD move to agitate is to manipulate ultra-nationalist sentiment over the Preah Vihear temple issue between Thailand and Cambodia. The PAD yesterday began a march to the area, risking further the already damaged bilateral sentiment between the peoples of the two nations.

Then we have the PAD's recent proposal for "New Politics" wherein 70 per cent of future members of Parliament should be appointed instead of elected. Finally the real aspiration of the PAD has been revealed, this reflects the alliance's deep distrust of the vast majority of the Thai electorate, which is essentially the vast majority of the Thai people.

The PAD apparently prefers to have national-level decisions made by a handful of people on an unelected committee who will in turn select and appoint the majority of the lower House, not to mention the upper house which is already nearly half-appointed under the junta-sponsored Constitution.

These select few people, this self-appointed elite, will decide who is worthy of representing the people and running the nation's affairs.

Such an idea is the politics of exclusion, which is not just undemocratic but would most probably create a different set of problems, perhaps even worse than that of the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and the current administration of Samak Sundaravej, which is believed to be nothing but a proxy of Thaksin.

What's more, the majority of the people will have no say in the failure or success of future administrations - they are being reduced to mere subjects to be ruled by supposedly benign, just and selfless bureaucrats and unelected leaders.

While this new political philosophy claims to help solve the problem of ridding the Parliament of corrupt politicians, there's no guarantee that the supposedly morally astute selection committee would not end up becoming self-serving. And where would the checks and balances be found when the mandate is no longer with the people?

It's a dear mistake for the PAD and its supporters to see elections as a mere dispensable trapping of democracy and not as one indispensable part of a democratic order.

Elections surely are not the be-all and end-all of democratic order, but they are an indispensable part of a democracy, nonetheless.

Voters can and will likely make more mistakes in the future. They may become selfish or short-sighted in their electoral choices, but removing their electoral rights will only reverse the learning process of Thai society.

Without a belief and trust that people can eventually rise above themselves and learn to become better citizens through trial and error, there's no point in talking about democracy.

There's no denying the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and his cohorts is very disturbing to say the least, and that it must be dealt with. But the PAD have gone too far in their zero-sum fight against Thaksin that they're now resorting to undermining the very foundation of democratic principle and culture.

If there are any moderates left within the PAD, the time for them to speak out is now.

The nature of those in the PAD and those backing it has fundmentally changed. After the election the bureacratic anti-thaksin forces who are very powerful seem to have looked at the politcal situation and decided to at least temporarily play ball with PM Samak who himself was only a front and quite powerless. The backing of the powerful bureaucracy gave Samak more power within his own party to be his own man to some extent. The middle classes who previosly openly backed the PAD are like many ordinary people bored with the situation and having seen the military geriatric government make a mess of things less tempted to get involved. Several NGOs have stayed away from the PAD as it has become a smaller oragnization which has meant it is really now comprised of the hardcore of an extreme set with the left, center and the bureacratic right all having pretty much split away leaving nationalists, royalists and a few union groups. That doesnt leave a lot of diversity anymore although we shouldnt label all the attendees of the rallies as being only nationalists. The PAD is still seen as the opposition to the TRT/PPP and as such it will always generate crowds with a far more diverse politcal spectrum than that of its core. It all also ironically leaves the PAD attacking the PM while the bureaucratic anti-T group try to work with and shore him up.

[hammered]

The PAD want a better Thailand and I totally support that

I think you have been fooled. I would sugest reading this:

Time for PAD's moderates to speak out - if there are any

Pravit Rojanaphruk , The Nation

18 July 2008

Are there any moderates left in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Alliance for Democracy?

It may be wishful thinking to expect a few, or even one, given the daily bombardment of one-sided information and news the group prescribes itself. But if there are any left they should wake up, smell the coffee and recognise that the alliance is now doing too much damage to democracy. And they should do something to rectify it, instead of keeping silent and hoping that it's enough to simply be on the supposedly "virtuous" side.

Earlier this week, the PAD supremo threatened to surround the compound of the Army chief. This is part of the ongoing desperate move to agitate the Army into intervening in politics again, as if September 2006 didn't do enough damage. The PAD-mouthpiece radio has also been goading the military on a daily basis to do something about the current political stand-off.

This latest plan came less than two weeks after another PAD leader, Piphob Thongchai, claimed the alliance was against any coup.

Another new PAD move to agitate is to manipulate ultra-nationalist sentiment over the Preah Vihear temple issue between Thailand and Cambodia. The PAD yesterday began a march to the area, risking further the already damaged bilateral sentiment between the peoples of the two nations.

Then we have the PAD's recent proposal for "New Politics" wherein 70 per cent of future members of Parliament should be appointed instead of elected. Finally the real aspiration of the PAD has been revealed, this reflects the alliance's deep distrust of the vast majority of the Thai electorate, which is essentially the vast majority of the Thai people.

The PAD apparently prefers to have national-level decisions made by a handful of people on an unelected committee who will in turn select and appoint the majority of the lower House, not to mention the upper house which is already nearly half-appointed under the junta-sponsored Constitution.

These select few people, this self-appointed elite, will decide who is worthy of representing the people and running the nation's affairs.

Such an idea is the politics of exclusion, which is not just undemocratic but would most probably create a different set of problems, perhaps even worse than that of the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and the current administration of Samak Sundaravej, which is believed to be nothing but a proxy of Thaksin.

What's more, the majority of the people will have no say in the failure or success of future administrations - they are being reduced to mere subjects to be ruled by supposedly benign, just and selfless bureaucrats and unelected leaders.

While this new political philosophy claims to help solve the problem of ridding the Parliament of corrupt politicians, there's no guarantee that the supposedly morally astute selection committee would not end up becoming self-serving. And where would the checks and balances be found when the mandate is no longer with the people?

It's a dear mistake for the PAD and its supporters to see elections as a mere dispensable trapping of democracy and not as one indispensable part of a democratic order.

Elections surely are not the be-all and end-all of democratic order, but they are an indispensable part of a democracy, nonetheless.

Voters can and will likely make more mistakes in the future. They may become selfish or short-sighted in their electoral choices, but removing their electoral rights will only reverse the learning process of Thai society.

Without a belief and trust that people can eventually rise above themselves and learn to become better citizens through trial and error, there's no point in talking about democracy.

There's no denying the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and his cohorts is very disturbing to say the least, and that it must be dealt with. But the PAD have gone too far in their zero-sum fight against Thaksin that they're now resorting to undermining the very foundation of democratic principle and culture.

If there are any moderates left within the PAD, the time for them to speak out is now.

This issue has nothing to do with PAD or Democrats, Thailand's long standing policy regarding the temple has been undermined. It has implications that go far beyond Bangkok power struggles.

Pravit has been writing in the Nation against PAD since forever, his opinion is nothing new. He usually distorts facts and paints doomsday scenarios that never materialise, and he is as predictable as Sunrise's one-liners.

There's an article in today's BP:

"In the past, Thailand had let Cambodia occupy the 4.6 sq km area for a long time leading Cambodia to believe it owned the land.

Now Thailand had lost 162 stairs at the temple entrance, she said."

"She" is a deputy chairman of the senate commitee.

That claim about 162 steps is interesting. One hand it recognises that stairs is part of the temple, on the other Cambodians now argue that they are not.

What are your resons for this kind of postings, one article is good and the other is no good, because "the guy is famous for his opinions"(witch you don't like). Are you not at all interested to know and hear of other posters and forum readers views on the matters? When I joined here I thought this was a forum for free opinions, but it seems a few here wants to make it a PAD-ofile forum, without any other opinions, very sad

In all fairness it is probably better to say this forum is increasingly populated by posters who (often uncritically) back one side or the other, which is not too disimilar to Thailand right now! There are certainly as many Thaksinistas as anti-Thaksins around on these message boards although soem days one sees more of one side than another. It doesnt really make for an intellectual or academic debate if that is what is wanted but then again it seems to be that most on both sides dont really want that which is cool I guess on a message board of a website called Thai Visa which does not claim to be an academic or highbrow politcal site.

Now what would be nice would be a politcal discussion forum where taking sides was not the be all and end all of the discussion. However, to find that one probably needs to set up their own site and with that go certain risks;)

[Plus]

What are your resons for this kind of postings, one article is good and the other is no good, because "the guy is famous for his opinions"(witch you don't like).

a) I have no idea why Pravit's article was posted in this thread in the first place.

Some people were under impression Pravit is a new phenomenon. He is not, he's a regular writer for the Nation.

c) Wasn't it you who wanted to clear Pridiyathorn's credentials first? Why not the same standard with Pravit?

d) Why are we talking about Pravit here, again?

Sombat, I've posted a few messages on "new politics" in other threads, why don't you respond there.

All in all - it wasn't a PAD issue until anti-Pad posters came here, it was about border dispute with Cambodia. Why can't you all talk about the temple instead of PAD?

[Old Man River]

The PAD want a better Thailand and I totally support that

I think you have been fooled. I would sugest reading this:

Time for PAD's moderates to speak out - if there are any

Pravit Rojanaphruk , The Nation

18 July 2008

Are there any moderates left in the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra People's Alliance for Democracy?

It may be wishful thinking to expect a few, or even one, given the daily bombardment of one-sided information and news the group prescribes itself. But if there are any left they should wake up, smell the coffee and recognise that the alliance is now doing too much damage to democracy. And they should do something to rectify it, instead of keeping silent and hoping that it's enough to simply be on the supposedly "virtuous" side.

Earlier this week, the PAD supremo threatened to surround the compound of the Army chief. This is part of the ongoing desperate move to agitate the Army into intervening in politics again, as if September 2006 didn't do enough damage. The PAD-mouthpiece radio has also been goading the military on a daily basis to do something about the current political stand-off.

This latest plan came less than two weeks after another PAD leader, Piphob Thongchai, claimed the alliance was against any coup.

Another new PAD move to agitate is to manipulate ultra-nationalist sentiment over the Preah Vihear temple issue between Thailand and Cambodia. The PAD yesterday began a march to the area, risking further the already damaged bilateral sentiment between the peoples of the two nations.

Then we have the PAD's recent proposal for "New Politics" wherein 70 per cent of future members of Parliament should be appointed instead of elected. Finally the real aspiration of the PAD has been revealed, this reflects the alliance's deep distrust of the vast majority of the Thai electorate, which is essentially the vast majority of the Thai people.

The PAD apparently prefers to have national-level decisions made by a handful of people on an unelected committee who will in turn select and appoint the majority of the lower House, not to mention the upper house which is already nearly half-appointed under the junta-sponsored Constitution.

These select few people, this self-appointed elite, will decide who is worthy of representing the people and running the nation's affairs.

Such an idea is the politics of exclusion, which is not just undemocratic but would most probably create a different set of problems, perhaps even worse than that of the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and the current administration of Samak Sundaravej, which is believed to be nothing but a proxy of Thaksin.

What's more, the majority of the people will have no say in the failure or success of future administrations - they are being reduced to mere subjects to be ruled by supposedly benign, just and selfless bureaucrats and unelected leaders.

While this new political philosophy claims to help solve the problem of ridding the Parliament of corrupt politicians, there's no guarantee that the supposedly morally astute selection committee would not end up becoming self-serving. And where would the checks and balances be found when the mandate is no longer with the people?

It's a dear mistake for the PAD and its supporters to see elections as a mere dispensable trapping of democracy and not as one indispensable part of a democratic order.

Elections surely are not the be-all and end-all of democratic order, but they are an indispensable part of a democracy, nonetheless.

Voters can and will likely make more mistakes in the future. They may become selfish or short-sighted in their electoral choices, but removing their electoral rights will only reverse the learning process of Thai society.

Without a belief and trust that people can eventually rise above themselves and learn to become better citizens through trial and error, there's no point in talking about democracy.

There's no denying the alleged corruption and abuse of power by Thaksin and his cohorts is very disturbing to say the least, and that it must be dealt with. But the PAD have gone too far in their zero-sum fight against Thaksin that they're now resorting to undermining the very foundation of democratic principle and culture.

If there are any moderates left within the PAD, the time for them to speak out is now.

This issue has nothing to do with PAD or Democrats, Thailand's long standing policy regarding the temple has been undermined. It has implications that go far beyond Bangkok power struggles.

Pravit has been writing in the Nation against PAD since forever, his opinion is nothing new. He usually distorts facts and paints doomsday scenarios that never materialise, and he is as predictable as Sunrise's one-liners.

There's an article in today's BP:

"In the past, Thailand had let Cambodia occupy the 4.6 sq km area for a long time leading Cambodia to believe it owned the land.

Now Thailand had lost 162 stairs at the temple entrance, she said."

"She" is a deputy chairman of the senate commitee.

That claim about 162 steps is interesting. One hand it recognises that stairs is part of the temple, on the other Cambodians now argue that they are not.

What are your resons for this kind of postings, one article is good and the other is no good, because "the guy is famous for his opinions"(witch you don't like). Are you not at all interested to know and hear of other posters and forum readers views on the matters? When I joined here I thought this was a forum for free opinions, but it seems a few here wants to make it a PAD-ofile forum, without any other opinions, very sad

Edited July 23, 2008 by Old Man River

[Old Man River]

I have not read the attached below yet, but the attached is off the ICJ's website. You can read their decision in 1962 in both English and French about their decision to use the French map and side with Cambodia over Thailand.

http://www.icj-cij.org/search/index.php?p1...p;op=&pg=11

[Plus]

Pravit's credentials are that he is a very reputable Nation staff writer. He is invited regularly to symposiums and podium discussions. Basically - his reputation as a critical and courageous journalist is impeccable.

Why are we talking about Pravit, again? Just because someone write something critical of PAD? It has got nothing to do with this therad.

As the PAD brought this issue from the rooms of diplomacy into the streets, a large part of the responsibility for the present escalation is on their shoulders. Their role in this very dirty game has to be discussed, and their motives as well.

That PAD brought the issue doesn't make it non-existent. Don't shoot the messenger.

It appears that some posters here want to skip the issue and drone about PAD and their motives instead.

You are just trying to derail the discussion.

[hammered]

Pravit's credentials are that he is a very reputable Nation staff writer. He is invited regularly to symposiums and podium discussions. Basically - his reputation as a critical and courageous journalist is impeccable.

Why are we talking about Pravit, again? Just because someone write something critical of PAD? It has got nothing to do with this therad.

As the PAD brought this issue from the rooms of diplomacy into the streets, a large part of the responsibility for the present escalation is on their shoulders. Their role in this very dirty game has to be discussed, and their motives as well.

That PAD brought the issue doesn't make it non-existent. Don't shoot the messenger.

It appears that some posters here want to skip the issue and drone about PAD and their motives instead.

You are just trying to derail the discussion.

We shouldnt forget that it was Noppadol who signed the agreement that led to this situation, and it seems with cabinet backing although it has never been expained why the UN said it had been signed on May 22 and not June 18 after a cabinet meeting as claimed by the Thai government.

Without the signing there would have been no protest, no border dispute escalation etc. It would have been easier for the government to just continue the long trend through many governments of calling for joint approach. Then again if one wanted to be cynical one could claim the busines interests of certain people necessitated a change in approach. Just saying like....

[Plus]

Hold your horses, Sombat, PAD were the last ones on the site. "Illegal crossings" and protests happened long before that.

If not for PAD (and Democrats) the issue would have been kept hidden from Thai people, parlament, and from courts, too.

[Meerkat]

We shouldnt forget that it was Noppadol who signed the agreement that led to this situation, and it seems with cabinet backing although it has never been expained why the UN said it had been signed on May 22 and not June 18 after a cabinet meeting as claimed by the Thai government.

It has been explained, and I posted as such with a link when you brought up the question before. In a nutshell, the May signing was marked "Subject to Cabinet Approval". The UNESCO chap (Saeffer?) referred to the incorrect document and has now said as such.

Without the signing there would have been no protest, no border dispute escalation etc. It would have been easier for the government to just continue the long trend through many governments of calling for joint approach. Then again if one wanted to be cynical one could claim the busines interests of certain people necessitated a change in approach. Just saying like....

This ignores two inescapable facts regarding the difference of this year's listing as compared to previous ones.

Firstly, the listing application was going to go ahead anyway, with or without Thailand's support. That the junta had publicly stated last year that Cambodia could go for a unilateral listing with Thai support only puts the application even more in Cambodia's favour (regardless of whether the junta were being sincere or not). That it happened on the PPP's watch is nothing more than bad timing - the application would have gone in regardless of who was in power.

Secondly, once Cambodia had refused a joint listing and changed the scope of the listing this year to only include territory within the 1962 ICJ ruling, rather than it's original broader one (that included disputed areas), Thailand didn't have a legal leg (territorially speaking) to stand on to oppose the deal. They could hardly object to a foreign nation applying to list its own (internationally accepted) soil could they? In fact given that the UNESCO charter specifically includes a clause to the effect that listing in no way undermines a nation's rights to sovereignty, one could argue that even if the listing had included disputed territory, it wouldn't have stopped the WHC approving the larger map anyway.

Given these two crucial differences in the application compared to previous ones (along with of course Cambodia's unceasing lobbying of WHC members over the years), it is hardly stretching the boundaries of credibility to suggest that they were going to get the listing approved this year come hel_l or high water (which of course they did, in spite of the last minute objections of Thailand).

So what was the (or indeed any) government to do? Continue to argue against listing even if futile, as Plus has suggested, or try and get an agreement which at least gives Thailand something out of a bad deal? The communique did that, although it was appallingly presented and as we now know unconstitutional, but now it's had to be withdrawn anyway Thailand has lost a lot more (both in reality and in "face") than it would have otherwise. There was always going to be a certain amount of unhappiness with any listing, but it was a combination of Noppadom's PR ineptitude, the MFA's obvious misunderstanding of the new constitution, and the rabid antics of the PAD and to an extent the Dems who have converted what should have been the win-win situation that the junta foresaw last year into the massive lose-lose situation that we have now.

Ironically the best thing for all involved now would be for the communique to go through parliament properly and be reinstated (which might require some tweaking). This would allow Thailand and Cambodia to co-manage the site and would rid the need of the other seven nations' involvement that the WHC has recommended (and which in theory may be seen as ceding sovereign rights). It's finally time for a bit of common-sense on the issue but I'm not holding my breath.

[Old Man River]

We shouldnt forget that it was Noppadol who signed the agreement that led to this situation, and it seems with cabinet backing although it has never been expained why the UN said it had been signed on May 22 and not June 18 after a cabinet meeting as claimed by the Thai government.

Maybe this has already been posted (I am too lazy to go back and read), but Pridyathorn in this morning's The Nation said Noppadol signed the joint communique on May 22nd and a statement dated June 18. Since Pridyathorn has access to all information on this, it would seem the UN was correct in saying it was signed on May 22nd. Maybe the Thai government was mistaken or....?

[A_Traveller]

As I've noted before, the actuality is as follows:-

2007 Cambodia endeavours to list, again. During the meeting Thailand says it has no issue in principle and is willing, as a good neighbour, to facilitate such a listing 'for the complex', thereby ensuring the continuation of the 'border demarcation discussions'. Now the contemporaneous press conferences and releases make it clear that the expectation is {and the UN's preferable option} for a joint application for the area. The discussions then move forward with several breaks with notably bellicose posturing on this side of the border. Ultimately, in Paris an agreement is reached on 22 May and it would appear that, as is normal, both 'Sherpas & ministers' return to seek approval prior to formal signature which on the basis of the scan I've seen took place on 18 June. This apparent process was in my view, part the rationale behind the constitutional judgement.

It is wrong to say that the present government had no option but to sign, nor to say that the former one had already declared its position. As many, including I, have noted it is sad that given the temple's fascinating history that a workable mutual management plan could not be put in place. It is also notable that no one in the political firmament wants to remind anyone about the various quid pro quo that the early 1900's agreement with the colonial power gave to Thailand, since that would be deemed even more embarrassing.

Regards

[Old Man River]

We shouldnt forget that it was Noppadol who signed the agreement that led to this situation, and it seems with cabinet backing although it has never been expained why the UN said it had been signed on May 22 and not June 18 after a cabinet meeting as claimed by the Thai government.

It has been explained, and I posted as such with a link when you brought up the question before. In a nutshell, the May signing was marked "Subject to Cabinet Approval". The UNESCO chap (Saeffer?) referred to the incorrect document and has now said as such.

Without the signing there would have been no protest, no border dispute escalation etc. It would have been easier for the government to just continue the long trend through many governments of calling for joint approach. Then again if one wanted to be cynical one could claim the busines interests of certain people necessitated a change in approach. Just saying like....

This ignores two inescapable facts regarding the difference of this year's listing as compared to previous ones.

Firstly, the listing application was going to go ahead anyway, with or without Thailand's support. That the junta had publicly stated last year that Cambodia could go for a unilateral listing with Thai support only puts the application even more in Cambodia's favour (regardless of whether the junta were being sincere or not). That it happened on the PPP's watch is nothing more than bad timing - the application would have gone in regardless of who was in power.

Secondly, once Cambodia had refused a joint listing and changed the scope of the listing this year to only include territory within the 1962 ICJ ruling, rather than it's original broader one (that included disputed areas), Thailand didn't have a legal leg (territorially speaking) to stand on to oppose the deal. They could hardly object to a foreign nation applying to list its own (internationally accepted) soil could they? In fact given that the UNESCO charter specifically includes a clause to the effect that listing in no way undermines a nation's rights to sovereignty, one could argue that even if the listing had included disputed territory, it wouldn't have stopped the WHC approving the larger map anyway.

Given these two crucial differences in the application compared to previous ones (along with of course Cambodia's unceasing lobbying of WHC members over the years), it is hardly stretching the boundaries of credibility to suggest that they were going to get the listing approved this year come hel_l or high water (which of course they did, in spite of the last minute objections of Thailand).

So what was the (or indeed any) government to do? Continue to argue against listing even if futile, as Plus has suggested, or try and get an agreement which at least gives Thailand something out of a bad deal? The communique did that, although it was appallingly presented and as we now know unconstitutional, but now it's had to be withdrawn anyway Thailand has lost a lot more (both in reality and in "face") than it would have otherwise. There was always going to be a certain amount of unhappiness with any listing, but it was a combination of Noppadom's PR ineptitude, the MFA's obvious misunderstanding of the new constitution, and the rabid antics of the PAD and to an extent the Dems who have converted what should have been the win-win situation that the junta foresaw last year into the massive lose-lose situation that we have now.

Ironically the best thing for all involved now would be for the communique to go through parliament properly and be reinstated (which might require some tweaking). This would allow Thailand and Cambodia to co-manage the site and would rid the need of the other seven nations' involvement that the WHC has recommended (and which in theory may be seen as ceding sovereign rights). It's finally time for a bit of common-sense on the issue but I'm not holding my breath.

Meerkat, did you post the link explaining the May 22nd signing of the joint communique on this thread? I have gone back through every page and can't find it. I would very much like to see it. Please either give me the # of your post or resend it. Thanks.