Cambodian student walk down the Preah Vihear temple on July 13. Thailand has boosted its military forces on disputed land at the Cambodian border, after two days of simmering tensions over an ancient Hindu temple. (AFP/File/Sreng Meng Srun)IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin
January 1994
Cambodia dominated large parts of Thailand from the ninth to the twelfth centuries. Four hundred years is little more than a moment in the life of a region with a recorded history of several millennia. But the remnants of Khmer rule still dot the Cambodia-Thailand borderland, especially in Esarn, as Northeast Thailand is known. In fact, apart from Angkor Wat and its neighbouring temples, the most spectacular remaining Khmer sanctuaries are found in the border region between Cambodia and Thailand (St John, 1993: 4-14).
Preah Vihear, known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thailand, is one of the great achievements of Khmer architecture and certainly one of the most impressive temples in Southeast Asia. It crowns a triangular promontory in the Dangrek Mountains some six hundred meters above sea level on the modern-day border between Cambodia and Thailand. While most Khmer sanctuaries face east, Preah Vihear faces north toward the highlands which form a part of modern Thailand. At the top of the sanctuary, a sheer precipice drops off to the plains of Cambodia which stretch south to the distant horizon (Spinks, 1959: 2-4). The background and location of Preah Vihear make it an integral part of any discussion of the contemporary borderland in this troubled area of the world.
Even though Siamese forces repeatedly invaded Cambodia after the fifteenth century, the present border dispute actually dates from the period of the French protectorate (Giteau, 1957: 126-127 and 148-155). In the Franco-Thai treaties of 1887 and 1893, the government of Siam renounced all territorial claims on the left bank of the Mekong River, including the islands located in the river. Through a later series of treaties concluded in 1902-1907, Siam also ceded to France the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap (see map). As for Preah Vihear, the 1904 convention described the frontier in the Dangrek Mountains as the watershed between the basins of the Nam Sen and the Mekong, on the one hand, and the Nam Moun, on the other, and provided for a mixed commission to mark the border (Briggs, 1946: 439-454).
Thailand, as Siam was by then called, took advantage of World War II to regain some of the territory it had earlier lost. The Thai army invaded northwestern Cambodia in 1941, and after fierce fighting, took control of Battambang and Siem Reap provinces with the exception of the French garrisons at Angkor Wat and Siem Reap town. The Thai takeover was legitimised with Japanese backing in a peace treaty signed in Tokyo in March 1941. Through this agreement, France agreed to return to Thailand most of the territory, including Preah Vihear, earlier ceded by the latter in the pacts of 1904 and 1907. In supplementary letters exchanged at the time, representatives of France and Thailand assured the Japanese government that neither would join a combination hostile to Japan. In turn, the Japanese government agreed to guarantee the new frontier (Landon, 1941: 25-42). With the termination of hostilities in 1945, the Tokyo convention was subsequently overturned; and in the 1946 Treaty of Washington, Thailand returned the border provinces it had seized five years earlier.
In 1953, the government of Thailand, under the pretext of strengthening its border defences, established a police post in the Dangrek Mountains just north of Preah Vihear and hoisted the Thai flag over the sanctuary. When protracted negotiations from 1954 to 1958 failed to produce a positive result, the Cambodian government in October 1959 instituted legal proceedings against Thailand before the International Court of Justice (Thailand, 1959: 1-14). In October 1961, the dispute led to a suspension of diplomatic relations and the closing of the Thai-Cambodian border. Preah Vihear remained under Thai occupation until the early 1960's when the International Court of Justice upheld Cambodian sovereignty (Leifer, 1961-62: 364-366).
Click on the map to zoom in
Source: Lee Yong Leng (1982) Southeast Asia: Essays in Political Geography, Singapore University Press.
Before the Court, Cambodian representatives argued that Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear was clear from three separate but related viewpoints. Citing the convention of 1904 and the treaty of 1907, the spokesmen for Cambodia first argued that the applicable international agreements delimiting the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand clearly placed the temple of Preah Vihear in the chain of the Dangrek Mountains belonging to Cambodia. In addition, they emphasised that Cambodia had never abandoned its sovereignty over the territory in question and, on the contrary, had always continued, by virtue of the title established by the treaties, to exercise effectively therein its territorial powers. Finally, they pointed out that Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty in the disputed territory which might be considered to displace the sovereignty of Cambodia as established by the cited treaties and thereafter effectively exercised (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 4-15).
Taking a completely different tact, the government of Thailand concentrated its preliminary arguments on the issue of whether or not the International Court of Justice had jurisdiction in the case. Arguing that an earlier Siamese declaration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice had lapsed with the dissolution of that body in 1946, Thailand concluded that the International Court of Justice was without jurisdiction in the case because Thailand had never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Thai representatives argued further that the jurisdiction of the Court in the case, if it existed, could only rest upon the consent of the government of Thailand and such consent could not be derived or inferred from the application of the government of Cambodia. In consequence, the preliminary arguments of the Thai government asked the Court to declare that it had no jurisdiction over the issue of the sovereignty of Preah Vihear which the Cambodian government had brought before the Court (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 133-152).
The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice, 1962a:153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
In Thailand, the judgement of the Court provoked violent protests and a virulent press campaign. Students throughout the country, acting with government approval, rejected the verdict of the Court; and in Bangkok, thousands of young people staged a colourful march in which they proclaimed their intent to protect Khao Phra Viharn (Preah Vihear). Students at Thammasart University in Bangkok demanded that the name of Cambodian Prince Sihanouk be removed from the rolls of the University and insisted that an honorary degree conferred on him be withdrawn. Prince Sihanouk later complied with this request returning the degree through the Indonesian embassy. Tempers eventually cooled, and in late June 1962, the prime minister of Thailand announced that his government would honour its obligations under the United Nations Charter. While Thailand surrendered its sovereignty over Preah Vihear some three weeks later, it was noteworthy that the Thai flag and flagpole were removed from the temple in a standing position and later placed in a Thai museum. This refusal to lower the Thai flag was viewed by contemporary observers as an indication that Thailand remained determined to return its standard to Preah Vihear at a later date (Singh, 1962: 23-26).
After Cambodia had won its independence in the early 1950's, disputes over unsettled boundaries, cross-border operations, and shelling across the border had frequently disturbed Thai-Cambodian relations. The years that followed the Court's decision on Preah Vihear showed no sign of peace either in media circles or along the border between the two countries. Charges and counter-charges of border violations, shellings, bombings, and looting were the order of the day. Both states produced white papers to sway public opinion. The borderland problem was also complicated by dissident groups in both countries. Khmer communists operated against the Phnom Penh government from inside Thai territory while Thai communists sought sanctuary in Cambodia. These problems persisted during the Democratic Kampuchean period, 1975-1978. And they only intensified after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in late 1978 concentrated a volatile melange of refugees and resistance forces along the Thai border (Theeravit, 1982: 567-568).
After an extended period of occupation by Khmer Rouge forces, Preah Vihear was finally reopened to tourists from the Thai side of the border in early 1992 (BangkokPost, March 15, 1992). In a unique arrangement for a sanctuary located in Cambodia, tourists wanting to visit the ruins had to apply for entry permits from Thai provincial authorities who were also responsible for providing security as well as the necessary facilities for tourists. In addition, a regular train service was organized from Bangkok for those wanting to visit the sanctuary, and Thai authorities expressed interest in renovating the ruins (Bangkok Post, December 5, 1991). The combination of these acts was reminiscent of the legal case for sovereignty earlier developed by Thailand in its counter-memorial before the Court where it argued that it had been exercising effective jurisdiction up to that time.
Click on the map to zoom in
This impression was only heightened by the occasional publication of contemporary maps in Thailand which clearly show Preah Vihear, marked Khao Phra Viharn on such maps, to be situated on the Thai side of the border. For example, the route map in a recent Bangkok Airways inflight magazine depicted, of the dozens of ancient Khmer temples on the Cambodia - Thailand borderland, only the sanctuary of Khao Phra Viharn. And the map clearly located it on the Thai side of the border (see map above). If the question of the sovereignty of Preah Vihear would again be raised in the future, Thailand would appear to be less vulnerable than in the past to the charge that it had accepted and even published maps showing Preah Vihear as part of Cambodia.
The Cambodia-Thailand borderland remains a contentious area, and the sanctuary at Preah Vihear continues to be central to broader issues. The recent arrangement covering visits to Preah Vihear endured for a little more than a year at which time the Khmer Rouge in July 1993 reoccupied the sanctuary and temporarily halted tourist visits (FBIS-EAS-93-128, 7 July 1993:47 and FBIS-EAS-93-129, 8 July 1993: 34). Given its isolated location, the sanctuary at Preah Vihear will likely remain vulnerable to such acts for some time to come (Phnom Penh Post, September 24 - October 7, 1993).
In the end, Preah Vihear is probably the most successful of all Khmer monuments in creating a sense of religious awe, the real objective of these sanctuaries. The design and location of the shrine combine to create an air of sensuality unequalled in any other Khmer sanctuary. This is particularly true at the beginning of the day when the unrestored ruins of Preah Vihear rise above the early morning mists in all their majesty. It may be for these reasons, as much as any other, that Preah Vihear remains at the heart of the wider borderland issue which divides Cambodia and Thailand.
------
References
Preah Vihear, known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thailand, is one of the great achievements of Khmer architecture and certainly one of the most impressive temples in Southeast Asia. It crowns a triangular promontory in the Dangrek Mountains some six hundred meters above sea level on the modern-day border between Cambodia and Thailand. While most Khmer sanctuaries face east, Preah Vihear faces north toward the highlands which form a part of modern Thailand. At the top of the sanctuary, a sheer precipice drops off to the plains of Cambodia which stretch south to the distant horizon (Spinks, 1959: 2-4). The background and location of Preah Vihear make it an integral part of any discussion of the contemporary borderland in this troubled area of the world.
Even though Siamese forces repeatedly invaded Cambodia after the fifteenth century, the present border dispute actually dates from the period of the French protectorate (Giteau, 1957: 126-127 and 148-155). In the Franco-Thai treaties of 1887 and 1893, the government of Siam renounced all territorial claims on the left bank of the Mekong River, including the islands located in the river. Through a later series of treaties concluded in 1902-1907, Siam also ceded to France the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap (see map). As for Preah Vihear, the 1904 convention described the frontier in the Dangrek Mountains as the watershed between the basins of the Nam Sen and the Mekong, on the one hand, and the Nam Moun, on the other, and provided for a mixed commission to mark the border (Briggs, 1946: 439-454).
Thailand, as Siam was by then called, took advantage of World War II to regain some of the territory it had earlier lost. The Thai army invaded northwestern Cambodia in 1941, and after fierce fighting, took control of Battambang and Siem Reap provinces with the exception of the French garrisons at Angkor Wat and Siem Reap town. The Thai takeover was legitimised with Japanese backing in a peace treaty signed in Tokyo in March 1941. Through this agreement, France agreed to return to Thailand most of the territory, including Preah Vihear, earlier ceded by the latter in the pacts of 1904 and 1907. In supplementary letters exchanged at the time, representatives of France and Thailand assured the Japanese government that neither would join a combination hostile to Japan. In turn, the Japanese government agreed to guarantee the new frontier (Landon, 1941: 25-42). With the termination of hostilities in 1945, the Tokyo convention was subsequently overturned; and in the 1946 Treaty of Washington, Thailand returned the border provinces it had seized five years earlier.
In 1953, the government of Thailand, under the pretext of strengthening its border defences, established a police post in the Dangrek Mountains just north of Preah Vihear and hoisted the Thai flag over the sanctuary. When protracted negotiations from 1954 to 1958 failed to produce a positive result, the Cambodian government in October 1959 instituted legal proceedings against Thailand before the International Court of Justice (Thailand, 1959: 1-14). In October 1961, the dispute led to a suspension of diplomatic relations and the closing of the Thai-Cambodian border. Preah Vihear remained under Thai occupation until the early 1960's when the International Court of Justice upheld Cambodian sovereignty (Leifer, 1961-62: 364-366).
Click on the map to zoom inSource: Lee Yong Leng (1982) Southeast Asia: Essays in Political Geography, Singapore University Press.
Before the Court, Cambodian representatives argued that Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear was clear from three separate but related viewpoints. Citing the convention of 1904 and the treaty of 1907, the spokesmen for Cambodia first argued that the applicable international agreements delimiting the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand clearly placed the temple of Preah Vihear in the chain of the Dangrek Mountains belonging to Cambodia. In addition, they emphasised that Cambodia had never abandoned its sovereignty over the territory in question and, on the contrary, had always continued, by virtue of the title established by the treaties, to exercise effectively therein its territorial powers. Finally, they pointed out that Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty in the disputed territory which might be considered to displace the sovereignty of Cambodia as established by the cited treaties and thereafter effectively exercised (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 4-15).
Taking a completely different tact, the government of Thailand concentrated its preliminary arguments on the issue of whether or not the International Court of Justice had jurisdiction in the case. Arguing that an earlier Siamese declaration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice had lapsed with the dissolution of that body in 1946, Thailand concluded that the International Court of Justice was without jurisdiction in the case because Thailand had never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Thai representatives argued further that the jurisdiction of the Court in the case, if it existed, could only rest upon the consent of the government of Thailand and such consent could not be derived or inferred from the application of the government of Cambodia. In consequence, the preliminary arguments of the Thai government asked the Court to declare that it had no jurisdiction over the issue of the sovereignty of Preah Vihear which the Cambodian government had brought before the Court (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 133-152).
The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice, 1962a:153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
In Thailand, the judgement of the Court provoked violent protests and a virulent press campaign. Students throughout the country, acting with government approval, rejected the verdict of the Court; and in Bangkok, thousands of young people staged a colourful march in which they proclaimed their intent to protect Khao Phra Viharn (Preah Vihear). Students at Thammasart University in Bangkok demanded that the name of Cambodian Prince Sihanouk be removed from the rolls of the University and insisted that an honorary degree conferred on him be withdrawn. Prince Sihanouk later complied with this request returning the degree through the Indonesian embassy. Tempers eventually cooled, and in late June 1962, the prime minister of Thailand announced that his government would honour its obligations under the United Nations Charter. While Thailand surrendered its sovereignty over Preah Vihear some three weeks later, it was noteworthy that the Thai flag and flagpole were removed from the temple in a standing position and later placed in a Thai museum. This refusal to lower the Thai flag was viewed by contemporary observers as an indication that Thailand remained determined to return its standard to Preah Vihear at a later date (Singh, 1962: 23-26).
After Cambodia had won its independence in the early 1950's, disputes over unsettled boundaries, cross-border operations, and shelling across the border had frequently disturbed Thai-Cambodian relations. The years that followed the Court's decision on Preah Vihear showed no sign of peace either in media circles or along the border between the two countries. Charges and counter-charges of border violations, shellings, bombings, and looting were the order of the day. Both states produced white papers to sway public opinion. The borderland problem was also complicated by dissident groups in both countries. Khmer communists operated against the Phnom Penh government from inside Thai territory while Thai communists sought sanctuary in Cambodia. These problems persisted during the Democratic Kampuchean period, 1975-1978. And they only intensified after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in late 1978 concentrated a volatile melange of refugees and resistance forces along the Thai border (Theeravit, 1982: 567-568).
After an extended period of occupation by Khmer Rouge forces, Preah Vihear was finally reopened to tourists from the Thai side of the border in early 1992 (BangkokPost, March 15, 1992). In a unique arrangement for a sanctuary located in Cambodia, tourists wanting to visit the ruins had to apply for entry permits from Thai provincial authorities who were also responsible for providing security as well as the necessary facilities for tourists. In addition, a regular train service was organized from Bangkok for those wanting to visit the sanctuary, and Thai authorities expressed interest in renovating the ruins (Bangkok Post, December 5, 1991). The combination of these acts was reminiscent of the legal case for sovereignty earlier developed by Thailand in its counter-memorial before the Court where it argued that it had been exercising effective jurisdiction up to that time.
Click on the map to zoom inThe Cambodia-Thailand borderland remains a contentious area, and the sanctuary at Preah Vihear continues to be central to broader issues. The recent arrangement covering visits to Preah Vihear endured for a little more than a year at which time the Khmer Rouge in July 1993 reoccupied the sanctuary and temporarily halted tourist visits (FBIS-EAS-93-128, 7 July 1993:47 and FBIS-EAS-93-129, 8 July 1993: 34). Given its isolated location, the sanctuary at Preah Vihear will likely remain vulnerable to such acts for some time to come (Phnom Penh Post, September 24 - October 7, 1993).
In the end, Preah Vihear is probably the most successful of all Khmer monuments in creating a sense of religious awe, the real objective of these sanctuaries. The design and location of the shrine combine to create an air of sensuality unequalled in any other Khmer sanctuary. This is particularly true at the beginning of the day when the unrestored ruins of Preah Vihear rise above the early morning mists in all their majesty. It may be for these reasons, as much as any other, that Preah Vihear remains at the heart of the wider borderland issue which divides Cambodia and Thailand.
------
References
- Bhirasri, S. (1959) A Visit to Khao Phra Viharn, Bangkok, The Fine Arts Department.
- Briggs, L. P. (1946) "The Treaty of March 23, 1907
- between France and Siam and the Return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia", The Far Eastern Quarterly V, 4 (August): 439-454.
- Chhak, S. (1966) Les frontieres du Cambodge, Paris: Librairie Dalloz.
- Giteau, M. (1957) Histoire du Cambodge, Paris: Librairie Marcel Didier.
- International Court of Justice (1962a) "Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents", 2 vols., vol. I: Application-Pleadings.
- International Court of Justice (1962b) World Court's
- Judgement on the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn.
- Jha, G. (1979) Foreign Policy of Thailand, New Delhi: Radiant Publishers.
- Jumsai, M. L. (1987) History of Thailand & Cambodia
- (From the days of Angkor to the present), Bangkok:
- Chalermvit Press.
- Landon, K. P. (1941) "Thailand's Quarrel with
- France in Perspective", The Far Eastern
- Quarterly I, 1 (November): 25-42. Leifer, M. (1961-62) "Cambodia and Her
- Neighbours", Pacific Affairs, XXXIV, 4
- (Winter): 361-374. Pradhan, P. C. (1985) Foreign Policy of Kampuchea,
- New Delhi: Radiant Publishers. Robequain, C. (1944) The Economic Development of
- French Indo-China, London: Oxford University
- Press.
- St John, R. B. (1993) "A Khmer Moment in Thailand",
- Sawaddi, 39, 2 (Second Quarter): 4-14.
- Singh, L. P. (1962) "The Thai-Cambodian Temple
- Dispute", Asian Survey, II, 8 (October): 23-26.
- Smith, R. M. (1965) Cambodia's Foreign Policy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Spinks, C. N. (1959) The Khmer Temple of Prah Vihar,
- Canberra: The Australian National University.
- Thailand, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1959) Relations between Thailand and Cambodia, Bangkok: Prachandra Press.
- Theeravit, K. (1982) "Thai-Kampuchean Relations:
- Problems and Prospects" Asian Survey, XXII, 6 (June): 561-576.
- Thomson, R. S. (1945) "Siam and France 1863-1870" The Far Eastern Quarterly, V, 1
- (November): 28-46. United States of America, Department of Commerce, Foreign Broadcast Information Service (1990¬1993) Daily Report - East Asia (FBIS-EAS).
37 comments:
very interesting and colorful recent history of the area, however, the 1907 treaty and the icj verdict still rules supreme. it is hopeless for siam to want to disagree with the treaty and the icj for that matter. so, thailand must respect the international law. plus don't ignore historic facts as the whole world is very much aware that the khmer empire was way bigger than cambodia of today. without the international laws, cambodia has all the rights in the world to keep all the old provinces of the khmer empire. but again, we're not talking about that now. now, we are just upholding the treaty of 1907 and the icj verdict, case closed already. get use to it, thailand! god bless cambodia.
There is no such thing as Cambodia border on top of a cliff in Issan Province before the French Infidel arrives in the early 1900's, and there will not be any Cambodia border on top of the cliff in Issan province after the French Infidel left the region.
Yes definitely Cambodia border not at the top of the cliff it was hundred miles deeper to Thailand now a day but Thai stole and grabbed the land with no shame and told the world that is Thai.6:54am if your brain not damage,your eyes are not blind you must be stupid and idiot,please remember one thing I have to remind you,<< Your for father ancestors were
homeless,and came down to the part that you live on were empty handed ,the country that Thai has are belong to Khomkarmen which us we are Cambodian now,so please shut the fuck up and get out ! leave us alone before we are claiming Ban Kok and fourteen provinces that your Thai people stole from Cambodia GOT IT idiot?
hun sen did not even afraid of united nation nor united states....why should he be scare of thai....keep bosting ....
The temple belongs to Khmer People in Issan and must be return to them.
The Siam was questioning the competence of the ICJ???
That's is why they lost the case.
Contempt to the court!!!
What were the Siam have been thinking that the whole world will kneels in from of them!!!
Wake up clowns!!!
Khmer Issan were the slave of Khmer in Cambodia and now they become the slave of Thai and Chinese
I think HUN SEN is baiting the stupid SIAM into our lands full of mines without having to waste our men. You know what? HUN SEN is the master of chess player.
HUN SEN will crush the Thai within a blink.
Go HUN SEN GO!!
I personally proud of Hun Sen. he is a strong man in South East Asian countries. In his political career, he khnow what his opponents weakness. Sam Rainsy is also strong but men around him is bad and easy cheating, money and threat. Ranarith is weak of money and girls. Kem Sokha has a few corruption case in Hun Sen hand. He prepare to declare the eclection is faire and he will be partner of Hun Sen in next government. How about Thailand? i think because of money and chance investment in Cambodia, Thaksin will speak to Hun Sen about the secret things of Bangkok government weaknese as well as Thai royal palace. He know what he has in his hand is now the Cambodia's right according to international law and deplomatic. The world know what the stand of Samak's governemt (flip-flop). How can international comunities as well investers regard Rhai governemnt.
Because of power, PAD blindly flare up the situation and the face of Thai will down in SE and the world.
Preah Vihear belongs to Khmer People in Issan Province, not those monkeys who climbed the 600 meters cliff to steal it.
9:16AM: AGREE: therefore , Thailand must give beck their whole country to Cambodia. Thailand soil belong to khmer people. Just bankrupt your country and give back the land that thai stole from Myanmar, Malay and Cambodia.
Thai people must back to the mountains in south China where they come from.PERIOD
No it belong to Khmer Urdo from Ussan province.
You Khmer Urdo you stole our temple, it belongs to us Khmer Esso from the Mobile Exxon province.
You Khmer Esso from Mobile Exxon province stole our temple from us. It belongs our Khmer Muslim from Muslim Provinces in the South.
Khmer Issan were the slave of Khmer in Cambodia and now they become the slave of Thai and Chinese
What is this Khmer Issan shit, they are just Siem fighting their identity crisis.
"Temple could draw millions of tourists" available at http://chanroeun.wordpress.com
SIAMES , BACK OFF , I AM PURE KHMER , I JUST GOT LICENCE PLATE ON MY BRAND NEW SUV WITH MY BELOVE PRASAT PREAH VIHEA ON IT , IF YOU TOUCH MY PRASAT PREAH VIHEA you SIAMES will be in big trouble , i will MAKE all your SIAM men become LADY BOY ... GOT THE MESSAGE and I am serouse a bout that.
from Khmer servivor from 1979/84 now living in CANADA.
With my knees on the earth, tears dropping from my sun-like eyes and hands praying, I ignorantly and humbly beg the people who may concern to answer the follow questions:
1. Why can’t the government solve the problems of teachers consciously demanding money from students by all sorts of methods, which forces students to drop out of school? And why have quality exams been RARELY CONDUCTED? (Bribery, Students CHEATING etc)
2. Why can police traffic only punish and fine only low-class people rather than blood suckers of their own people who drive luxurious-too expensive cars on the streets? (Bribery for their police superior, ineffectiveness of law reinforcement etc)
3. Why when scandals related to briberies or crimes skeptically committed by high-ranking officers never investigated or results of interrogations never released or no one ever received state penalty for the crimes that benefit only a bunch or string of their family? (Instead THEY are promoted or just transfered to another post-so TRANSPAREN and such GOOD GOVERNANCE!BRAVO!)
4. Why corruption laws been drafted for so long and have never been passed as laws? (SORRY MR. I’M RUNNING BUSSINESS TO MAKE PROFIT NOT FOR GOVERNMENT OR BULLSHIT MY POOR PEOPLE!)
5. Why can’t the government wipe out the SO-WELL-KNOWN AND WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION OR BRIBERY FROM ITS SYSTEM?
IS IT WORKING TO SUPPORT-TO MAINTAIN THE COUNTRY SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OR JUST ITS BUNCH OR STRING OF FAMILY TO COME?
6. HAS THE GOVERNMENT EVER THOUGHT OF DEFENDING OR MAINTAINING THIS LONG-TIME-TORN APART COUNTRY TO LAST PROSPEROUSLY AFTER THEIR GENERATION? OR LEAVE A HEALTHY, WELL-DISCIPLINED AND READY-TO-COMPETE NATION AFTER THEIR REIGN?
I honestly and humbly beg you to answer not only for me but also for this POOR NATION!
GODD BLESSES CAMBODIA!
From SOM BAN TE ...
6:54,
Tell that to the ICJ and UNESCO! Oh, don't forget to bring your master Thai with you! lol
8:06,
It has return to them, as of 6/15/42 and again 7/8/08. You didn't forget these dates already.... did you? Remember it, write it down and mark your calendar. I am soooo happy that I'm literally in tears.
Won't you cry with me? Here's a toss!!! Asshole!
There is no such dispute areas between the two countries border... Thais have tried variety of ways just to steal the temple and khmer land and this is not surprising as they have done before and some were successful. I am a bit disappointed with Khmer government. We claimed thais amy have crossed to our side, but there is no effective reaction as we are the land owner but rather to seek for explanation from or negotiation with thais... I think by doing this, it is just shows that we are not sure whether the land is in grey areas or indeed ours. My first reaction would be to detained those have crossed before negotiation process take place, this clearly indicates we are the really land owner, and we do have all legal and necessary rights to protect our land from any threats... But sometimes hard to understand the government policies...
9:16,
quit your crying you little bitch!
Take it like a man..... unless you"re a TransvesThais!
Welcome to the temple of the Apes!! lol
NO WORRIES GUYS!!!!!!! according to Statistics Thai will be all born gays, lesbianss and lady boysss and those cant do anything but fucking with dogsssss! ahhhaha laday boyssssss!!!!!
10:28,
I only have one answer for you....... Saddam Hun Sen.
watch this video see how dirty and wicked u mother fucker thai shit killed cambodian students,,, what goes around comes around you thai one day the south islamic country will burn ur coutry to ashes and you will be dead in hell double death!!!!! THAI GO FUCK DOGS and elephant so ur next generation will all become animal!!!!!!!!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VsD2ww163iI&feature=related
Why are you and your Government don't understand the fact?,This holy ancient temple been in the forest and lonely for along time,we are Khmer need to restore and asking the powerful Country and U.N for support this matter.We don't want to declare war,If Thailand want to declare war with the Kingdom of Cambodia.Thailand need to face U.N and powerful Country and also people in the whole world.
I known whole lot of land of Thailand is belong to the Kingdom of Cambodia from the past.You and Your Government need to realize the fact.The more you are aggressive the more you lose.
Please think about it.
There are secret dealing between Hun Sen and the Thai government for this. 1. to help Hun Sen for the election time, 2. Hun Sen will give land to Thailand in exchange to redo the new boarder. If Hun Sen smart why not take this caseto ICJ again. For sure this Cambodia will win. Why Hun Sen is hiding this because he is detroying Cambodia and selling it out for his own plitical career.
Dear Khmer compatriots
Don't worry about Thai incursion of Khmer teritory!
Hun Sen will send his many thousand bodyguards flying tigers, many thousand Star generals or Phkay Chor, accompanied by many thousands parasite advisors.
Yeah, right, and then who's going to guard PM Hun Sen from Ah Khmer-Yuon criminals?
Good information!
Correction for Ronald St. John:
Most Khmer monuments faces west not east. Sunset to the west referring to death. While Preah Vihear faces north which according to Chinese tradition meaning success.
1st off.
Hun Sen is scared or dumb.
second off.
he'll keep on giving land to other countries.
and third of.
Kambo's piss me off..alway's being scared of Thailand & Vietnam..if you go to Australia and meet all the kambo ppl there..they r not scared of the thai and viet and even the laos community there...
Khmer pplz in Australia are way tougher than fucken Khmer's in Cambodia to be honest...
no offense to any Khmer's.
I'm Khmer my self, living in Australia.
i'll live 4 my country...
one love
I am a Khmer living in Issan region and a Thai citizen. I do agree with those Khmers living Preah Vihear Province. I think Preah Vihear Temple belongs to people living in Preah Vihear province. No body else who does not live in Preah Vihear province has a rights on deciding the ownership of the temple. Keep in mind the Preah Vihear Province do exist. It is in northern region of Cambodia. But, Issan do not exist. Only the region does. But, mostly Loas people live there. We khmers are small numbers compare to others in the region. I hope this is clear to my brother who claims to be Khmer Issan in Issan province. You don't represent all the Khmers living here. So, stop using the name Issan.
"The temple belongs to Khmer People in Issan and must be return to them. 8:06 AM"
Listen, ah pler. The temple of Preah Vihear belong to only Indpedent Free Khmer people. In fact, it belongs to all the Mon-Khmer people that includes the Vietnamese. Hhaha. However, the temple does not ever belong to the slavish lowly "Issan" people who claim to be "Khmer". The temple belongs to the Khmer and the Mon and the Youns, but never to a lowly people in Issan region. Du ma cong cak. Hhahah. If Ah Nan Chao Siems and its accomplices of "Khmer" Issans want to act crazy, the Mon and the Vietnamese will come to cut off all of your heads and use them as play balls. Hahha. So back off, ah pler, and stop saying that you are "Khmer" anymore, you stupid jerk. Hahhah. The term Khmer only belong to the Khmer of Indepedent spirit and mind. hahha,.
"This impression was only heightened by the occasional publication of contemporary maps in Thailand which clearly show Preah Vihear, marked Khao Phra Viharn on such maps, to be situated on the Thai side of the border."
---------
Be fair to Thai Airway. The Thai word "Khao Phra Viharn" is Pra viharn Mountain which is located in Khao Pra Viharn National Park, Sisaket. not Prasat (temple) Pra Viharn which in Cambodia.
Post a Comment