Abhisit Outmanoeuvred By Hun Sen On Disputed Temple

[RedNIvar]

Well so much for the "outsmarting" as reported..... the Cambodia proposal was deferred today.

Now if they can only get it deferred for another 49 more years.....

[yesdavy]

Starts off as a news piece, then turns into a silly opinion piece in the end.

Only the first part of that statement is a little surprising. The Nation is just a silly, silly newspaper. Can't take anything seriously that's written in there. In fact, I wonder whom The Nation is for? Foreigners surely don't read it except by accident. Thais are not going to read it either, there's plenty of Thai papers around. So what is it? I can only conclude that it's a propaganda instrument of some sort, and used to seed articles with a certain viewpoint to get picked up by other news agencies around the world.

Or what do you guys think? Anyone actually reading The Nation?

I had their media kit once and in it they position themselves as having a very large readership outside of Thailand. Their web site demographics show 47% of site traffic are hits from within Thailand, and the next largest percentage is 13% from the USA.

[Briggsy]

What exactly is a "silent protest"?

[Foggy Bottom]

Seriously, who else is more hated? Some people might say Thaksin, but if you view elections as a popularity contest, he's got to be the most popular man, winning his last election by an outright popular majority.

Thaksin won HIS last election because the Democrats and their allies all boycotted the election and Thaksin's party therefore had no opposition.

That election was then annulled by the Election Commission for being a "snap" election, called without enough time for opposition parties to campaign, and during the following period with Thaksin as caretaker PM, the coup occurred.

Or don't historical facts matter to you?

[rametindallas]

The temple is clearly in Thailand and the 1962 ruling was a gross mistake. The boder demarcation line is the cliff watershed line which puts the temple clearly in Thailand. The temple is not even accessible from Cambodia and if a war were fought over the temple even if Thai had inferior military they would still win as the Cambodian side is at the bottom of a cliff and the temple is on top of a cliff which gradually slopes down into Thailand.

The ruling was stupid because they did not take into consideration the practicality of the border line but made their judgment based on emotion that the temple was of Khmere origin and therefore should belong to Cambhodia. I feel sympathetic to Cambodia but this is totally stupid to put the border so that the temple is in Cambodia but cannot be accessed from Cambodia.

Thailand should declare war on Cambodia and take the temple and all adjacent land around the temple and F***K UNESCO

The only other option is to create an international site where Cambodia and Thai share everything together which is the better option.

This temple is supposed to be very spectacular almost as great as Angkor Wat!

Well stated. I agree 100%. France has been a troublemaker for Thailand since before they coerced Thailand to cede Laos to France in the 1893 Franco-Siamese War..

[rametindallas]

Webfact :- This is not a troll !!!!! "Q" Isn't the entrance to the Temple on the Thai side of boarder ? if so are World Heritage aware of that ?

Highways leading into the US start in Mexico. I think that makes the US belong to Mexico.

Brilliant !

Got to agree..............!!!

I would agree IF: the US were land-locked and Mexico was the ONLY access and the US was only a few square kilometers in size and NOT a sovereign nation in and of itself.

[rametindallas]

What exactly is a "silent protest"?

It's like when your wife is angry with you and sulks and is passive-aggressive.

[mazeltov]

If [PAD] push the government too far, eventually, Abhisit will let the law deal with them.

I wouldn't count on it. The PAD leaders are military and privy council. If Abhisit tries anything against the PAD, they'll disolve his party and get rid of him, not the other way around. Sadly.

The Dems are in the government, not the PAD. And these Dems don't need to be pushed by the PAD to stand in somewhat ugly nationalistic corner, that is exactly where the Dems coming from, including Abhisit. Don't draw wrong assumption because Abhisit was in Oxford.

[sabaijai]

The temple and its grounds belong to Cambodia. Full stop.

That is not in dispute.

Unesco has postponed a decision on Preah Vihear's potential Word Heritage listing for next year's meeting in Bahrain because the application was incomplete (graphic illustration rather than a map was submitted, which may have suggested intent to conceal), other relevant documents had not been submitted on time and there was evidence that Cambodia had kept heavy weapons in the temple. More importantly a memorandum of understanding between Thailand and Cambodia over the disputed territory in the area has not been settled. World Heritage listing is specifically denied in cases of border-area sites where the two countries do not have a firm and undisputed bilateral agreement on adjacent areas.

Whether under Abhisit's direction or not, the Thai delegation were prepared enough to supply a map showing the construction of a road by Cambodia in the disputed overlapping 4.6 sq km zone. Under a 2002 MOU between Thailand and Cambodia, both sides agreed not to carry out any work in the disputed zone pending an official, bilateral border survey. The Thai delegation also submitted photos of heavy artillery and troops in the temple grounds.

So it seems the editorial was a bit premature, and the Thai delegation have indeed outmaneuvered the Cambodians thus far.

The Thais may have learned their lesson after letting a illegal map pass without question after the French had ignored the Franco-Siamese Treaty specifying bilateral mapping in the early 20th century.

The disputed area will most likely be settled using watershed mapping standards, as the temple grounds themselves would have been subject to in the first place if the mapping had been bilateral.

[Scott]

One post deleted. Politicians and former politicians have proper names, please use them if you want your post to remain.

[IvanDobsky]

Seriously, who else is more hated? Some people might say Thaksin, but if you view elections as a popularity contest, he's got to be the most popular man, winning his last election by an outright popular majority.

Thaksin won HIS last election because the Democrats and their allies all boycotted the election and Thaksin's party therefore had no opposition.

That election was then annulled by the Election Commission for being a "snap" election, called without enough time for opposition parties to campaign, and during the following period with Thaksin as caretaker PM, the coup occurred.

Or don't historical facts matter to you?

He called the election to avoid a parliamentary debate about the sale of Shin to Singapore didn't he?

Edited July 31, 2010 by IvanDobsky

[IvanDobsky]

It not just about the temple it's about all the natural gas. At least that what I have head. Anyone have any more information on this?

not really.

Quiz time : was former PM Thaksin happy for his lawyer (then foreign minister) to confirm the temple belonged to Cambodia in exchange for a) a golf range a casino c) a chicken farm d) a Grammy singer.. ?

[OctavianCaesar]

The temple is clearly in Thailand and the 1962 ruling was a gross mistake. The boder demarcation line is the cliff watershed line which puts the temple clearly in Thailand. The temple is not even accessible from Cambodia and if a war were fought over the temple even if Thai had inferior military they would still win as the Cambodian side is at the bottom of a cliff and the temple is on top of a cliff which gradually slopes down into Thailand.

The ruling was stupid because they did not take into consideration the practicality of the border line but made their judgment based on emotion that the temple was of Khmere origin and therefore should belong to Cambhodia. I feel sympathetic to Cambodia but this is totally stupid to put the border so that the temple is in Cambodia but cannot be accessed from Cambodia.

Thailand should declare war on Cambodia and take the temple and all adjacent land around the temple and F***K UNESCO

The only other option is to create an international site where Cambodia and Thai share everything together which is the better option.

This temple is supposed to be very spectacular almost as great as Angkor Wat!

The line I highlighted in bold explains clearly why your other points are invalid.

[chantorn]

The temple and its grounds belong to Cambodia. Full stop.

That is not in dispute.

Unesco has postponed a decision on Preah Vihear's potential Word Heritage listing for next year's meeting in Bahrain because the application was incomplete (graphic illustration rather than a map was submitted, which may have suggested intent to conceal), other relevant documents had not been submitted on time and there was evidence that Cambodia had kept heavy weapons in the temple. More importantly a memorandum of understanding between Thailand and Cambodia over the disputed territory in the area has not been settled. World Heritage listing is specifically denied in cases of border-area sites where the two countries do not have a firm and undisputed bilateral agreement on adjacent areas.

Whether under Abhisit's direction or not, the Thai delegation were prepared enough to supply a map showing the construction of a road by Cambodia in the disputed overlapping 4.6 sq km zone. Under a 2002 MOU between Thailand and Cambodia, both sides agreed not to carry out any work in the disputed zone pending an official, bilateral border survey. The Thai delegation also submitted photos of heavy artillery and troops in the temple grounds.

So it seems the editorial was a bit premature, and the Thai delegation have indeed outmaneuvered the Cambodians thus far.

The Thais may have learned their lesson after letting a illegal map pass without question after the French had ignored the Franco-Siamese Treaty specifying bilateral mapping in the early 20th century.

The disputed area will most likely be settled using watershed mapping standards, as the temple grounds themselves would have been subject to in the first place if the mapping had been bilateral.

I heard that the ground that the Cambodian temple sit belong to Thailand. But I am not 100% sure. Since ICJ ruling, Thailand never claims that the temple is our, just the land it is sitting on. Thailand will be very happy if Cambodia could move the temple a few km East, into the land of Cambodia. Temple / building move is nothing unusual. I head that London bridge had also been moved to the USA.

Maybe this will solve the problem, and stop a potential conflict. Make love, not war.

Edited July 31, 2010 by chantorn

[OctavianCaesar]

Hun Sen survived everything from idiots like Sam Rainsy to the Khmer Rouge. He will certainly outlive people like Suthep and Abhisit. People with blood on their hands because they need to please criminals like Chamlong and Anupong. The decision is postponed. But other than the Thai government, the Cambodians have maps from france dating back centuries. Those documents make more sense in international courts than American military maps drawn up under plitical pressure during the lost Vietnam war.

Hmm.... Hun Sen - a survivor no doubt but is also a criminal of the highest order and no different to the majority of the crooks in Thailand running and opposing the countries stability. The border disputes were not originations by the French - Thailand borders in fact were in past times, across to Angkor Wat and beyond - well before the French got involved! They owned the temple and all land belonging to it until the Western 'system' got involved and the problems being experienced now was propagated by those same Western do-gooders. Thailand has not given up on it - rest assured.

LOL

Do you have the names of any Asian government MPs, PMs or officials who're not corrupt?

Character assassination on the basis will not get you far in Asia, as others are slowly discovering. They need to look in the mirror.

[Sabre]

This prove that Abhisit is such a clever man. He managed to control the situation, especially control PAD ,UNESCO Thaksin and Hun Sen to stop a war.

Oh please, let's not get carried away ... he has narrowly avoided a political firestorm that he helped to create for himself and even then he has only managed to postpone it.

[OctavianCaesar]

"And, what is more, the current province of Si Sa Ket belonged to the Khmer Empire and still a lot of people there are Khmer speaking Khmer." said DickFarang. In Northern Malaysia, many people speak Thai as well.

Interesting for a Democrat supporter to admit. There are actually over 50 different ethnic groups in Thailand, all of different race, religion and language.

Not that I'm siding with you, but the point would be that the borders in this reason have chopped and changed so many times and the people migrated and mixed through trade and marriage that the ethnic diversity of the entire region is vastly mixed, making this arguement in valid.

[OctavianCaesar]

OctavianCaesar joined today, and he is already an expert with dozens of post. Who is he? Rucharee?

I'm Thaksin, naturally.

You know, sweet heart, this is not the only site where you can learn from. Your statement posses much less wisdom than you intended to imply, I'm afraid.

Edited July 31, 2010 by OctavianCaesar

[OctavianCaesar]

Thaksin won HIS last election because the Democrats and their allies all boycotted the election and Thaksin's party therefore had no opposition.

That election was then annulled by the Election Commission for being a "snap" election, called without enough time for opposition parties to campaign, and during the following period with Thaksin as caretaker PM, the coup occurred.

Or don't historical facts matter to you?

Thaksin was under pressure to prove he had the right to be in office, so he called a snap election knowing he'd win because he was confident. His party had as equally insufficient time to prepare a campagin. I can think of no better way for a PM to validate his position in office other than elections, it's a shame you do not agree.

The Democrats boycotted it because they knew they could not win. Given Thaksin had won the previous election by the biggest landslide in Thai history also setting a record for the first PM to be elected twice, and the Democrat party actually lost a further 20% of its seats in that election, there is no reason to assume the results would have been anything other than what they were, regardless of participation.

Let's not forget, Thaksin didn't even have to have this election, it was a courtesey and it was abused.

I'm guessing the main reason behind the actual decision not to participate for the Democrats was they'd already sided with the PAD and military and decided they were going to take power by force, as they were unable to do it through elections.

[chantorn]

"There are principles for everything. You cannot try to be co-owners of properties you don't have rights over them." Cambodia Defence Minister Tea Ban (quoted from Nation)

I don't think he realise that the land under the Cambodian temple is actually Thailand.

[OctavianCaesar]

The Dems are in the government, not the PAD. And these Dems don't need to be pushed by the PAD to stand in somewhat ugly nationalistic corner, that is exactly where the Dems coming from, including Abhisit. Don't draw wrong assumption because Abhisit was in Oxford.

I don't care where the schoolboy learned his strategies from.

It's a little hard to understand what you're actually saying here... I'm guessing your first language is not English?

The Democrat governmemt is a coalition. It is not united, it is weak. The Democrat party in itself holds less seats in parliment than the Puea Thai party does. It's power only exists thanks to the backing of 5 other parties; Rum Chart Pattana Party, Bhumjaithai Party, Chartthaipattana Party, Matubhum Party, Puea Pandin Party. What this means is to pass any policy in government, they have to negotiate with other groups, unlike the Thaksin government who was the first sovereign party in Thailand, capable of passing policies by itself. This weak style of coalition government is what the military, PAD and big business/wealthy elite/privy council thrive on. With so many corrupt politicians available to pull strings and negotiate with, it's almost impossible for the Democrats to do anything without the backing of the PAD and the likes, many of which have members in the Democrat party.

This is the assumed reason for the behavior of the PAD and military in the destruction of the Thaksin government and Samak and Somchai; to restore the country to weak coalition governments where these groups have more sway in politics and control over the direction of the country. Not very democratic.

[Insight]

Thaksin won HIS last election because the Democrats and their allies all boycotted the election and Thaksin's party therefore had no opposition.

That election was then annulled by the Election Commission for being a "snap" election, called without enough time for opposition parties to campaign, and during the following period with Thaksin as caretaker PM, the coup occurred.

Or don't historical facts matter to you?

Thaksin was under pressure to prove he had the right to be in office, so he called a snap election knowing he'd win because he was confident. His party had as equally insufficient time to prepare a campagin. I can think of no better way for a PM to validate his position in office other than elections, it's a shame you do not agree.

The Democrats boycotted it because they knew they could not win. Given Thaksin had won the previous election by the biggest landslide in Thai history also setting a record for the first PM to be elected twice, and the Democrat party actually lost a further 20% of its seats in that election, there is no reason to assume the results would have been anything other than what they were, regardless of participation.

Let's not forget, Thaksin didn't even have to have this election, it was a courtesey and it was abused.

I'm guessing the main reason behind the actual decision not to participate for the Democrats was they'd already sided with the PAD and military and decided they were going to take power by force, as they were unable to do it through elections.

If he was really so confident in winning why not give his opponents more time to prepare? He already had a political advantage being the ruling party at the time.

Some "courtesey"...

[OctavianCaesar]

I don't think he realise that the land under the Cambodian temple is actually Thailand.

Yes, well, not everyone actually agrees with that. This is why independant bodies like UNESCO should be respected to solve these sorts of disputes in a peaceful manner.

[OctavianCaesar]

If he was really so confident in winning why not give his opponents more time to prepare? He already had a political advantage being the ruling party at the time.

Some "courtesey"...

A valid arguement. But what's your point? It was an uneccessary election. He'd already won twice in a row setting national records.

Do you have any idea how you sound, given the standard of the current government, argueing that an election was a bad thing?

[IvanDobsky]

The Dems are in the government, not the PAD. And these Dems don't need to be pushed by the PAD to stand in somewhat ugly nationalistic corner, that is exactly where the Dems coming from, including Abhisit. Don't draw wrong assumption because Abhisit was in Oxford.

I don't care where the schoolboy learned his strategies from.

It's a little hard to understand what you're actually saying here... I'm guessing your first language is not English?

The Democrat governmemt is a coalition. It is not united, it is weak. The Democrat party in itself holds less seats in parliment than the Puea Thai party does. It's power only exists thanks to the backing of 5 other parties; Rum Chart Pattana Party, Bhumjaithai Party, Chartthaipattana Party, Matubhum Party, Puea Pandin Party. What this means is to pass any policy in government, they have to negotiate with other groups, unlike the Thaksin government who was the first sovereign party in Thailand, capable of passing policies by itself. This weak style of coalition government is what the military, PAD and big business/wealthy elite/privy council thrive on. With so many corrupt politicians available to pull strings and negotiate with, it's almost impossible for the Democrats to do anything without the backing of the PAD and the likes, many of which have members in the Democrat party.

This is the assumed reason for the behavior of the PAD and military in the destruction of the Thaksin government and Samak and Somchai; to restore the country to weak coalition governments where these groups have more sway in politics and control over the direction of the country. Not very democratic.

is democracy all that it's cooked up to be? your country could be led into an illegal war even if the majority of the people are against it.

Democracy is probably the least worst we have but can you imagine it in (never tried it before) Thailand? Mr Thaksin in power not going to sue the press, not declaring war on his own people, not shutting down anti-corruption committees?

[OctavianCaesar]

is democracy all that it's cooked up to be? your country could be led into an illegal war even if the majority of the people are against it.

Democracy is probably the least worst we have but can you imagine it in (never tried it before) Thailand? Mr Thaksin in power not going to sue the press, not declaring war on his own people, not shutting down anti-corruption committees?

Do not make this out to be something it's not. All we want is elections.

Thaksin was not perfect, he was corrupt, but so is Abhisit and all the individuals of parliment. So is Cambodia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, Burma. They're all packed with corrupt officials. The difference with Thaksin was he was actually elected. People in Thailand deserve the right to choose who the individuals who lead their country are.

Declaring war on his own people? I'm guessing you're talking either about the southern province Muslims or the war on drugs. In both cases, he took it to questionable extremes, yes, but in both cases he was campaigning against actual criminals.

[Insight]

If he was really so confident in winning why not give his opponents more time to prepare? He already had a political advantage being the ruling party at the time.

Some "courtesey"...

A valid arguement. But what's your point? It was an uneccessary election. He'd already won twice in a row setting national records.

Do you have any idea how you sound, given the standard of the current government, argueing that an election was a bad thing?

You've just confirmed that the timing of the elections was heavily slanted in favour of the ruling party at the time and you're concerned how I sound?

Unlike the previous two elections these were held after his deeply unpopular sale of AIS which brought hundreds of thousands repearedly onto the streets, so suppose he needed all the help he could get...

[Hawk]

The temple and its grounds belong to Cambodia. Full stop.

Exactly right.

The Thais are just acting like spoiled little brats. Greedy as always.

[OctavianCaesar]

You've just confirmed that the timing of the elections was heavily slanted in favour of the ruling party at the time and you're concerned how I sound?

Unlike the previous two elections these were held after his deeply unpopular sale of AIS which brought hundreds of thousands repearedly onto the streets, so suppose he needed all the help he could get...

How did I confirm that? I did not. His leadership was in question by an unpopular minority, so he offered them a chance to challenge it; this is not a bad thing and he never had to do it. That he was not obliged in any way whatsoever to hold an election invalidates anything you could say against it.

Hundreds of thousands? A bit of an exaggeration. Those who did come came because they were told to, not because they wanted to.

His sale was "unpopular" because he sold it to foreigners. It wasn't that the actual sale was immensly unpopular, it's the slant his opposition could put on it, the nationalist followers would eat up any story of Thaksin selling Thailand away to foreigners. Actually, his policy on open and free trade were what made him so popular, contrary to your statement. Through free trade, he exposed Thai business for the first time to real competition, which may have made the wealthy elite angry because their companies ultimetly would lose, but the PM is not there to serve these individuals. Free trade benefited the poor people of Thailand, his voter base, raising the value of the products they produced and raising their income. This might have been attacked in every way possible by greedy elites, but at the end of the day, the average Thais apporved of Thaksins leadership and his free trade policy by awarding him landlside election results.

[way2muchcoffee]

self deleted - off topic

Edited July 31, 2010 by way2muchcoffee