Pad Rally To Demand Govt Rid Disputed Territory Near Temple Of Cambodians

[wilsongbrown]

Geriatrickid,

1. Being born somewhere doesn't give you the right to settle on any piece of land regardless of borders and ownership. Cambodian villagers in the disputed area are squatters.

2. People in this country are free to organize rallies anywhere they want, it's not illegal and they don't need to apply for "protest permits" and PAD wasn't trespassing on anything.

3. There was no "unlawful assembly" of any kind that needed to be stopped by force.

4. PAD does represent people, even if not all of them. The government should answer to people's concerns. If it doesn't want to talk to the public openly, it can explain the situation to PAD leaders first.

Your views on the right to assembly and govt relations with the people smack of totalitarianism and dictatorship.

Well it does here! Where do you expect those that were born on this little piece of land to go? Back to their ancestor's pile?! <deleted>!

And for the record, I was one of those who wholeheartedly supported the PAD when they were attempting to, and succeeded in blocking the return of the odious Toxin. But now they should just Shut the Fck Up.

[Plus]

Geriatrickid,

1. Being born somewhere doesn't give you the right to settle on any piece of land regardless of borders and ownership. Cambodian villagers in the disputed area are squatters.

Well it does here! Where do you expect those that were born on this little piece of land to go? Back to their ancestor's pile?! <deleted>!

And for the record, I was one of those who wholeheartedly supported the PAD when they were attempting to, and succeeded in blocking the return of the odious Toxin. But now they should just Shut the Fck Up.

<deleted>??? Shut the FCK Up!?! Angry???

You have no idea how ignorant you are of this issue, do you?

No Cambodians were born there, they moved in around 2004, after Thailand and Cambodia officially agreed to resolve the issue through diplomatic channels.

Now PAD claims they are building an access road to the temple through this disputed territory, because coming from the Cambodia proper is such a bitch. When they won the temple back in 1962 it took one hour for their Prince to climb up the cliff.

[jayboy]

As a possibly welcome change from the protagonists on this thread ranting at each other, more sober and balanced opinion will be interested in the Economist's comment.The reality is that this issue is simply not very important and those who believe otherwise are either completely lacking in perspective or seeking to whip up nationalist frenzy for their political ends.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...ory_id=14506572

[webfact]

//general advise//

Please keep this discussion civil. Otherwise warnings will be given.

Thank you for your cooperation

[Plus]

As a possibly welcome change from the protagonists on this thread ranting at each other, more sober and balanced opinion will be interested in the Economist's comment.The reality is that this issue is simply not very important and those who believe otherwise are either completely lacking in perspective or seeking to whip up nationalist frenzy for their political ends.

What exactly has attracted you in that article?

It's a news pill for people with no background knowledge or interest in the issue, complete with labels like "thugs" and "mobs" and reminders that Thaksin was ousted in a coup. It was clearly written for "newbies" and there's nothing sober or balanced about it.

What exactly make Kasit "nationalist PAD ideologue" as far as the latest clash is concerned, for example? The "sober and balanced" Economist completely ignored the fact that PAD and Kasit are at odds over the temple issue, or that none of the PAD leaders was involved in that march to the border.

[Scott]

Thanks for the link jayboy. It's a good article and worth reading.

[jayboy]

As a possibly welcome change from the protagonists on this thread ranting at each other, more sober and balanced opinion will be interested in the Economist's comment.The reality is that this issue is simply not very important and those who believe otherwise are either completely lacking in perspective or seeking to whip up nationalist frenzy for their political ends.

What exactly has attracted you in that article?

It's a news pill for people with no background knowledge or interest in the issue, complete with labels like "thugs" and "mobs" and reminders that Thaksin was ousted in a coup. It was clearly written for "newbies" and there's nothing sober or balanced about it.

What exactly make Kasit "nationalist PAD ideologue" as far as the latest clash is concerned, for example? The "sober and balanced" Economist completely ignored the fact that PAD and Kasit are at odds over the temple issue, or that none of the PAD leaders was involved in that march to the border.

In a sense the Economist article is for "newbies", as you call them, because whether you believe it or not the wider world is mainly interested in the broader significance of events rather than the intricate detail which some of us -particularly hardcore PAD aplogists such as yourself - get tied up in.The more relevant question is whether the article is based on fact and I believe it is.Actually I think you have completely misinterpreted the article's point on Kasit, although it is always worth reminding ourselves this fellow is completely unsuitable for the FM post given his past history.Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident:they are constantly backing away from ideology which proves to be unpopular, eg their crazy electoral reform proposals.Anyway the PAD has served their attack dog purpose already and if necessary the elite will marginalise them even further.

As to the use of the terms "thugs" and "mob", no serious observer of these events would dispute the terms particularly in view of PAD's violent and criminal history.

[Plus]

Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident

I agree that the average Joe flipping through Economist pages on Asia doesn't care. To the people who are familiar with the situation, the article has nothing to offer other than the few platitudes about yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally. Apparently history must be applied to yellows only, reds are exempted.

Balanced my ass.

[jayboy]

Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident

I agree that the average Joe flipping through Economist pages on Asia doesn't care. To the people who are familiar with the situation, the article has nothing to offer other than the few platitudes about yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally. Apparently history must be applied to yellows only, reds are exempted.

Balanced my ass.

My comment on the PAD leadership dithering was not related to the Economist article, but to the perception here in Thailand.

If you are upset about the PAD's disastrous public relations (the thuggery on the border contrasted with the peaceful red rally in Bangkok) I can understand your position, but to most interested people the Economist article was very fair and pertinent.Readers are not just average Joes but also key regional and international leaders.

[mca]

Of course there are most probably a load of Si Saket villagers and Cambodian squatters who've been getting along just fine wondering what the fuss is all about.

[Xangsamhua]

Who cares if some of the PAD leadership distanced themselves from this incident

I agree that the average Joe flipping through Economist pages on Asia doesn't care. To the people who are familiar with the situation, the article has nothing to offer other than the few platitudes about yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally. Apparently history must be applied to yellows only, reds are exempted.

Balanced my ass.

My comment on the PAD leadership dithering was not related to the Economist article, but to the perception here in Thailand.

If you are upset about the PAD's disastrous public relations (the thuggery on the border contrasted with the peaceful red rally in Bangkok) I can understand your position, but to most interested people the Economist article was very fair and pertinent.Readers are not just average Joes but also key regional and international leaders.

Well I'm an "interested person" and I think the PAD's expedition to Sisaket was stupid, but I'd hardly rate the Economist article as "fair and pertinent". Emotive and loutish are the terms that come to mind - more yellow press than serious journalism. The article makes no attempt to be fair and balanced.

[jayboy]

Well I'm an "interested person" and I think the PAD's expedition to Sisaket was stupid, but I'd hardly rate the Economist article as "fair and pertinent". Emotive and loutish are the terms that come to mind - more yellow press than serious journalism. The article makes no attempt to be fair and balanced.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "loutish"? If you do perhaps you would identify the offending part of the Economist article.While you're at it perhaps you would also identify any part that is not "fair".

[Plus]

Why are you so defensive of that article? Did you write it or what?

It fails to provide sufficient details to really explain the latest clash, and it relies on their long held beliefs that PAD are nationalistic thugs and Kasit is a terrorist.

So, what exactly is so fascinating in that article? What exactly does it add to the discussion?

[jayboy]

Why are you so defensive of that article? Did you write it or what?

It fails to provide sufficient details to really explain the latest clash, and it relies on their long held beliefs that PAD are nationalistic thugs and Kasit is a terrorist.

So, what exactly is so fascinating in that article? What exactly does it add to the discussion?

Defensive? I simply posted it as a good article.

It's an opinion piece for an educated world wide audience, most of whom don't have an anally retentive fixation with the issue.If there's anything in it which is unfair or in the inexplicable word of your fellow traveller "loutish", let's discuss it.

[Xangsamhua]

Lout = "ill-mannered boor

Lout-ish = "to treat with contempt; scorn".

(dictionary.com)

Examples of emotive language:

"rowdy royalists"

"brawled" with police

"yellow-shirted PAD thugs"

"determined to upstage" (the man's a mind-reader as well)

"demagogues such as the PAD"

You may well agree with all these epithets, but they're hardly dispassionate and unemotive.

I wouldn't class the piece as great journalism.

[grandpops]

Why are you so defensive of that article? Did you write it or what?

It fails to provide sufficient details to really explain the latest clash, and it relies on their long held beliefs that PAD are nationalistic thugs and Kasit is a terrorist.

So, what exactly is so fascinating in that article? What exactly does it add to the discussion?

Defensive? I simply posted it as a good article.

It's an opinion piece for an educated world wide audience, most of whom don't have an anally retentive fixation with the issue.If there's anything in it which is unfair or in the inexplicable word of your fellow traveller "loutish", let's discuss it.

I accept that but, unfortunately, biased, blinkered PAD apologists also managed to read it and took umbridge.

Thanks for you posting it and sorry you had to suffer the PAD slating you did.

Mind you, you did well here as Plus actually typed about "yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally" which must have really hurt.

There is little appetite for this Government outside its own cosy ranks and a few deluded oldies on here.

[wilsongbrown]

Why are you so defensive of that article? Did you write it or what?

It fails to provide sufficient details to really explain the latest clash, and it relies on their long held beliefs that PAD are nationalistic thugs and Kasit is a terrorist.

So, what exactly is so fascinating in that article? What exactly does it add to the discussion?

Defensive? I simply posted it as a good article.

It's an opinion piece for an educated world wide audience, most of whom don't have an anally retentive fixation with the issue.If there's anything in it which is unfair or in the inexplicable word of your fellow traveller "loutish", let's discuss it.

I accept that but, unfortunately, biased, blinkered PAD apologists also managed to read it and took umbridge.

Thanks for you posting it and sorry you had to suffer the PAD slating you did.

Mind you, you did well here as Plus actually typed about "yellow thugs and mobs, and a peaceful red rally" which must have really hurt.

There is little appetite for this Government outside its own cosy ranks and a few deluded oldies on here.

What are you talking about 'there is little appetite for this Government etc ...'!? Perhaps you believe there may have been a larger 'appetite' for yet another self-serving Taksin installed proxy?!

My post regarding the current hooha nationalistic xenophobic non event instigated by the PAD was to draw attention to the fact that there are undeniably far more imporant things such as anti corrupution measures (yes,yes, I know they 'all-do-it') to enable road/transport/school/hospital etc building, not to mention human trafficking, violations of laws protecting the environment pertaining to deforestation, decimation of wildlife habitats (where it be on land or in the ocean) to be able to be carried out in a country which actually (yes,yes) holds those in breach of implemented laws to be held to account. The PAD via ASTV is continuing their much more important anti-corruption campaign via ASTV, but this is a diversion and extremely bad PR for their movement.

And the poster who said that the villagers, non of which most Thais or farang on this board will ever meet, were quite possibly living in harmony before all this nationalism was whipped up by some (for whatever reasons - perhaps they're more thick than I first took them for) that make up the PAD movement.

Shame on them.

[animatic]

Why anyone thinks PAD is just some Monotheistic whole is beyond me.

Just as Reds are not ONE group with one monotheism PAD is several groupings grafted together.

Possibly the one over arching theme for PAD was ending Thaksin's hegemony over the

uber-corruption and lawsuit happy control of open conversation in Thailand.

Otherwise PAD is many differing little groups all kicking and scratching for a big pie.

Just as the Reds are, except the reds also favor a return to the openly corrupt pasts of their favored puyais.

[Yoshitaka]

Why are PAD making noise that the Cambodian government recently award the mining rights of the the overlapping area to a Japanese company?

Why didn't PAD, at the same time also inform the public that Thailand had also awarded mining rights of the overlapping areas to Foreign companies (Idemitsu, Chevron, British Gas and Mitsui Oil) as far back as 1968. Even before the Cambodian did.

http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/oi...s_rights_in.php

[justanothercybertosser]

In terms of Preah Vihear there is no overlapping border other than in the minds of ultra-nationalistic Thais.

The '62 judgement is very specific - it says that the border line follows the annex 1 map, and did not just place the temple itself into Cambodia. The base of this judgment was that not just failed to protest at time of the map drawing but also Prince Damrong has accepted this map, which is proven by correspondence, photos and the official use of this map by Thailand. The "overlapping" land is nothing but an invention of Sarit playing up to the ridiculous ideologies of the "lost land".

People should read the original judgement, and not just opinions.

The disregard of this judgement, and the actions of the PAD might damage thailand massively as it could bring Thailand into a much weaker position in negotiations over the disputed sea areas. But of course, it is an easy strategy by ultra-nationalists to rouse the rabble, no matter the lively hood of locals or the long term benefit of the country.

[sabaijai]

In terms of Preah Vihear there is no overlapping border other than in the minds of ultra-nationalistic Thais.

The '62 judgement is very specific - it says that the border line follows the annex 1 map, and did not just place the temple itself into Cambodia.

Actually the ruling applied to the temple only, using the Annex 1 map as evidence. It was not a ruling on the Annex 1 map itself.

Here is the 1962 ruling:

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

(MERITS)Judgment of 15 June 1962

Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.

In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.

Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.

...

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?su...p;k=46&p3=5

[Plus]

In terms of Preah Vihear there is no overlapping border other than in the minds of ultra-nationalistic Thais.

Any encyclopedia would tell you there ARE disputed territories with overlapping border claims.

[justanothercybertosser]

The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line.

For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?su...p;k=46&p3=5

...to pronounce in favour of frontier indicated on the annex I map...

I am not a native English speaker, but to me this sounds that the annex 1 map, which does place the territory disputed by Thailand into Cambodia, has been ruled as the frontier line. And it says that for these reasons (that means because of the frontier line indicated in the Annex I map) Thailand has no claim over Preah Vihear.

The protests of Thailand are based on nothing but flimsy semantics for the sake of ultra-nationalism.

Edited September 28, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[justanothercybertosser]

deleted, need further study of the judgement

Edited September 28, 2009 by justanothercybertosser

[Yoshitaka]

I agree that Thailand have no claims.

What a pity. When the Japanese were here (WWII), Thailand have Laos, half of Cambodia (including Angkor Wat), North Malaysia, and nearly the whole of Burma.

Good old time, eh?

Edited September 28, 2009 by Yoshitaka

[hammered]

This is a little skirmish before the real Thailand-Cambodia struggle over the sea rights that cover gas reserves. Still not unique to Thailand and Cambodia there are lots of these issues about and often end up in confrontation.

[justanothercybertosser]

Actually the ruling applied to the temple only, using the Annex 1 map as evidence. It was not a ruling on the Annex 1 map itself.

Actually, you are somewhat right.

The ruling on the validity of the border as outlined in the Annex I map was following:

Referring finally to the Submissions presented at the end of the

oral proceedings, the Court, for the reasons indicated at the beginning

of the present Judgment, finds that Cambodia's first and

second Submissions, calling for pronouncements on the legal status

of the Annex 1 map and on the frontier line in the disputed region,

can be entertained only to the extent that they give expression to

grounds, and not as claims to be dealt with in the operative provisions

of the Judgment.

That means to me that Thailand and Cambodia should solve this conflict at one or the other international court, which Thailand consistently seem to refuse to. Given that already the International Court found that Cambodia's claims give expression to grounds there may be a reason why Thailand prefers bickering over a tiny amount of land at the border that is worth nothing to have the issue solved once and for all.

Without the PAD last year provoking a war over internal political trench warfare Thailand had already the best possible situation that it could have had in this situation.

After the ruling over Preah Vihaer in 1962, the so called "disputed territory" was, and still is, nothing but pure nationalism - a worthless piece of land that became a symbol of the insane "lost territory" ideology.

[hammered]

Thailand's best situation over this was when everything was still bogged down as was Cambodia's. The Noppadol signing was always going to result in a rabid nationalist backlash which unless he really is an idiot Noppadol would have known. Now the chance of any further movement forward on border disputes is totally zero with both countries ramping up the nationalistic rhetoric and no government of any persuasion on any side will be able to resolve the outstanding issues. More exchanges of gunfire and more landmines are almost inevitable.

With rather inportant offshore demarcation to come I guess we can expect gunboat diplomacy ala the Spratleys. It will soon be time for Thailand and Cambodia to purchase a few more corvettes.

[justanothercybertosser]

The Noppadol signing was always going to result in a rabid nationalist backlash which unless he really is an idiot Noppadol would have known.

This actually comes back to a policy of the Surayudh government, which PPP has continued.

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/...d-politics.html

[hammered]

The Noppadol signing was always going to result in a rabid nationalist backlash which unless he really is an idiot Noppadol would have known.

This actually comes back to a policy of the Surayudh government, which PPP has continued.

http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/07/...d-politics.html

Im not looking at it in terms of red or yellow or green or blue just that whoever signed it would have had to be stupid to not know the reaction or to have not cared about the reaction. The Surayud government were completely useless too.

The chances of Thailand and Cambodia agreeing on anything much now are basically zero. That isnt so good for Cambodia considering Vietnam also holds her in low esteem.