Deputy PM gets Hun Sen task

GMT +07:00

• E - Paper
• SMS
• Print Front Page
• Newswire
• Print subscription
• RSS

• news
• business
• opinion
• feature
• travel
• leisure
• entertainment
• auto
• life
• tech
• Job
• Forum
• Classifieds

News » Local News

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

• Khmer American

  Discussion 14 : 22/06/2009 at 06:40 PM14

  Abhisit was educated in Oxford, England. His parents BOUGHT his education. It doesn't mean he is smart. Probably as dumb as an OX!
  
  Does he really think the UNESCO or the Khmer people scare?
  
  He is destroying the Thais image in the world community, being sore losers and not shameful of their behavior.

• simon

  Discussion 13 : 22/06/2009 at 09:28 AM13

  I don't know why most of thai leader are high educated but what they act is just like an uneducated people. As far as i know abhisit was eduacated in a great university in England but he ...... oh poor abhisit

• News Man

  Discussion 12 : 22/06/2009 at 09:10 AM12

  Dear Please read,
  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 halving 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
  k,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 au~thorities.
  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.
  In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute
  was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah
  Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a
  promontory of the D#anangrekr ange of mountains which constituted
  the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The
  dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made
  in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting
  the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application
  of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular,
  involved. That 'lkeacy established the general character of the
  frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a
  Fmco-Siamese Mixed Commission.
  Continued on next page
  Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice
  Not an official document
  In the eastern sector of the Dmgrek range, iin which Preah
  Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed
  line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was
  agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the
  Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangek range
  carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey
  officer of the French section of the Comniission should
  survey the whole of the eastenn part of the range. It had not
  been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese
  sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they
  visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February
  1907, the President of the French section had ieported to his
  Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established.
  It therefore seemed cleix that a frontier had been surveyed
  and fixed, although theire was no record of my decision
  and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of
  the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906.
  Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met
  for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed
  towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Si.amese boundary
  treaty, the Treaty of 23 Maxh 1907.
  The final stage of the delimitation was the ]preparation of
  maps. The Siamese Governmc:nt, which did not dispose of
  adequate technical means, had requested that Frenclh officers
  should map the frontier region. These maps wlzre completed
  in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of
  whom had been members of the Mixed Conlmission, and
  they were communicated to the Siamese Government in
  1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing
  Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It wtls on that map
  (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally
  relied in support of her claim to sovereiignty over the
  Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the
  map, not being the work of the Mixed Commissio~ih, ad no
  binding character; that the frontier indicated on1 it was not the
  true watershed line and that tlnie true watersh~d line would
  place the Temple in Thailand; that the map had never been
  accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had
  accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief
  that the frontier indicated corn:sponded with the watershed
  line.
  The Annex I map was never formally approved by the
  Mixed Commission, which hd ceased to function some
  months before its production. While there could be no reasonable
  doubt that it was basecl on the work of the surveying
  officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded
  that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It
  was clear from the record, howc:ver, that the miips were communicated
  to the Siamese Govt:rnment as pqmrting to rep
  resent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there
  was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authiorities, either
  then or for many years, they must be held to haire acquiesced.
  The maps were moreover ccmunicated to. the Siamese
  members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing, to the
  Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who
  thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the
  Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah
  Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map
  without investigation, they could not now plead any error
  vitiating the reality of their consent.
  The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government
  had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations
  with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935
  a survey had established a divergence between the map line
  and the hue line of the watershed, and other rnaps had been
  produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand
  had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish
  maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover,
  in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937
  Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers,
  and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese
  Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for
  Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural
  inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah
  Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence
  with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that
  having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah
  Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had
  indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on
  the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the
  Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult
  to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude
  of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince
  Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received
  there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian
  province, Siam failed to react.
  From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had
  accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in
  this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting
  that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had
  relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed
  such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore,
  the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to
  enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time
  adopted m interpretation of that settlement which caused the
  map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as
  there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any
  special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as
  compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation
  of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the
  interpretation to be given now would be the same.
  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.

• Ashsnar

  Discussion 11 : 22/06/2009 at 12:15 AM11

  look siem thugs, unesco is not control by you guy, ok. so, don't try to violate the unesco law too like you people violated the international treaty and the icj verdict! talking with you guys are like talking to the a tree trunk; you people have no conscience to even think about what is right or what is wrong to do when it comes to dealing with cambodia with the preah vihear temple which by the way have always belonged to cambodia, not your thug-like state of thailand, ok! so, stop dreaming already! it's not going to happen although try all you can, we won't budge or yield to your illegal demand on our sovereign and temple. get lost already!

• Donald Waters

  Discussion 10 : 21/06/2009 at 10:51 PM10

  All Thai people who feel aggrieved by this issue... Please just GO to this temple. The reality of the situation is totally clear when you actually see it. The car park and the toilets are in Thai territory, The temple is in Cambodia. If Thailand disagrees, then take it to the next level... and invade sovereign territory. I actually think the car park and toilets might actually bring in more cash - which might be more attractive to the Thai politicians involved.

• Funky from Phnom Penh

  Discussion 9 : 21/06/2009 at 10:05 PM9

  Please don't put variable "Cambodia" into equation "Thai politics".
  
  We have known enough war, we want peace, nothing but peace.

• LetsLookatOurselves

  Discussion 8 : 21/06/2009 at 09:56 PM8

  It would make many Thais happier if the PM spends more energy into improving the economy(read the article on economist.com). Stop wasting resources to create a smoke screen!!!! Leave Cambodia alone.
  
  The UNESCO is not a body that can be intimidated. It will rule any future classification bases on merit.

• D

  Discussion 7 : 21/06/2009 at 09:01 PM7

  Wow, Abhisit. Haha, everyone else said what I wanna say already, but I still have questions to ask you.
  
  If you were that strong, why didn't you raise that up in front of Hun Sen? What were you afraid of? Why do you always have to be a back-stabber?

• Ashsnar

  Discussion 6 : 21/06/2009 at 07:54 PM6

  It is interesting the joung un-experience Thai displomats. They say they will not need to talk with Cambodia but then the Guy named Suthep, who accepted was grew in Battmbang would like to come and talk again. Stupid Thai PM and Deputy PM. They said they will not need to talk with Cambodia while they wnat to raise the issue of Preah Vihear of Cambodia to UNESCO. They are real stupid thieves.

• Observer

  Discussion 5 : 21/06/2009 at 05:58 PM5

  What an idiot to say that the issue i between Thailand and Unesco´s committee but not Cambodia. I think Thailand is so crazy to say that coz the temple is Cambodias´and it has nothing to do wiith thailand at all.
  
  Abhisit....you want the place to be a peaceful place? Ok, it is easy...just withdraw thai soliders that you sent to invade Cambodia, then there will be no more war.

 1  2  Next Last