. Cambodians celebrate but many Thais are unhappy with the World Heritage Committee's decision on the Preah Vihear temple. The controversial struggle to list Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site ended on Monday, with Unesco announcing that the Hindu temple's application had been accepted. The decision, by the World Heritage Committee (WHC), received a mixed reaction from Cambodians and Thais. But over the border, dissatisfaction among Thais is growing. Impromptu celebrations coursed through Cambodia as people learned the news. The WHC chairwoman had proposed the draft resolution and asked the committee members to approve it without opening the floor to any debates, the source said. According to a Thai source who attended the meeting, Cambodia's proposal sailed through the consideration of the committee members. Cambodia had underlined three key points in its bid to get Preah Vihear listed, but in the event the temple won over the committee with its first criterion-the representation of a masterpiece of human creative genius. Thailand is now also further challenging the integrity of the site, as well as the unsettled border line. This prompted Thailand to express its opposition to the "unilateral inscription of Preah Vihear on only one criterion". "Without the proper buffer zones, and without the necessity cultural and natural landscapes on all sides, the temple has been denied the dignity and the integrity it deserves in being listed as a World Heritage site. "We are very disappointed that our appeal for the joint nomination has been repeatedly denied, and now an exception has been made to list Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site on the basis of just one criterion," said a draft statement by the Thai World Heritage Committee. ." Standing on top of the high cliff on the Dangrek Range separating Thailand's lower Northeast and Cambodia, the temple has long been valued as an exceptional piece of work from the ancient world. This clearly reflects the Khmer aptitude for domesticating vast territories and adapting to the landscape, and it is these qualities which convinced the committee to accept the application under the first criterion. This clearly reflects the Khmer aptitude for domesticating vast territories and adapting to the landscape, and it is these qualities which convinced the committee to accept the application under the first criterion. Arguments about which country has sovereignty over the temple and its surroundings have continued ever since between Cambodia and Thailand." The temple complex, however, was separated politically from its surrounding land in 1962, when the International Court of Justice ruled that the temple - but not all of its immediate surroundings - was situated on Cambodian soil. Cambodia's original proposal included the overlapping area stretching beyond the stairways towards Thai soil, but Thailand protested. Cambodia has sought World Heritage status for Preah Vihear since the early 1990s, but until this year's joint communique controversy, Thailand has never been involved in the development of the application. Historian Srisakra Vallibhotama said listing Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site betrays a lack of understanding of the site's universal value. Cambodia eventually removed the overlapping area from its proposal and won the WHC's approval. "It is important to understand the site's universal value," said Mr Srisakra. Instead of securing the site as a treasure for enthusiasts of ancient civilisations, he said this listing could lead to confrontations. Turning the area into a World Heritage site does not preserve the culture, it only preserves the physical structure in order to attract tourists. "And we should understand the boundary is not a geographical one, but rather a cultural one. It says that under Article 11. It says that under Article 11.3 of the Convention, the inscription of Preah Vihear has no implications for any ongoing negotiations concerning the boundary between the two countries, and this does not prejudice the rights of both governments to reach an amicable settlement. The organisation has asked Cambodia to further define the perimeter of the buffer zone, complete the management plan for the property and its buffer zone, and convene an international coordinating committee for the safeguarding of the property, inviting Thailand and other "appropriate partners" as members, according to the office of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in Bangkok. "The WHC's decision encourages Cambodia and Thailand to work together for the safekeeping of the property," the agency said.

. Do people really want to be prisoners of the past? Whipping up this issue could easily result in chaos if not handled carefully and properly. By Piyaporn Wongruang Even though Preah Vihear has joined the ranks of places listed as World Heritage sites, former Cambodian soldier Wan, 60, may not play his fiddle in exchange for money from tourists at the temple. No tourists are allowed until further notice. Due to fears of a Thai-mobilised rally against Cambodia's inscription of the temple on the World Heritage List, the border around the temple has been closed. He only has one leg, his musical talents and Preah Vihear to rely on after the war in Cambodia some 30 years ago. It is not difficult to imagine how tough the life of the ex-soldier could become. Many more are likely to follow his path as resentment among people in both countries has heightened to the point that some academics believe no side can afford to be seen as losing, now that the 11th-century Hindu temple has been listed as a new World Heritage site. Uncle Wan is but one among the potential losers from this conflict at the moment. Amid the increasingly politicised dispute, a boundary line which has never been clearly seen on the site has emerged as the crux of the problem caused by the past, unsettled border demarcation. Since the Cambodian government first lodged its application for World Heritage status in 1991, people of the two countries have been drawn into a conflict they did not directly cause. Considering the landscape, the promontory of Dangrek Range where Preah Vihear is located, clearly separates the Cambodian plain from the Korat plateau stretching down towards the Thai side. . The ancient concept of organic boundary started shifting toward one that is more fixed - a line on a map - when Western imperialists arrived in the region and took over some parts of it, according to Surachart Bamrungsuk. Historical evidence suggests that the area had long been used as a sacred site before Preah Vihear was built on top of it around the early 11th century. "What happened was that those imperial countries tended to have more power over other states in the region. The political scientist and military expert at Chulalongkorn University added that the concept of a modern state and clear demarcation lines was a crucial tool for the Western powers to differentiate between states that came under their protection. The Preah Vihear case reflects the larger demarcation problem left over from the past. The imbalance led to a forced acceptance of some disadvantages in demarcation, and Thailand, or Siam back then, was no different," said Dr Surachart. Even though some people keep referring to the fact that Thailand had reserved the right to revive the case regarding ownership of Preah Vihear temple (which it lost to Cambodia in 1962) should new evidence emerge, Dr Surachart cautioned that it is virtually impossible to try to claim lost territory back. It is a common problem in several areas around the world, Dr Surachart said. It is bound by international legal and diplomatic mores which it has to respect, or face the consequences. The country functions as a modern state at present. A war between neighbouring countries could be very painful as the conflict and suffering will be passed on from one generation to another. These "consequences" can take the shape of sanctions, or even war. The academic views the court case concerning Preah Vihear as being over, especially after Thailand itself drew another boundary line in compliance with the watershed line which excludes the temple, following the 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice. The academic views the court case concerning Preah Vihear as being over, especially after Thailand itself drew another boundary line in compliance with the watershed line which excludes the temple, following the 1962 ruling of the International Court of Justice. Instead of letting emotions run high and clouding the issue, Dr Surachart called on both Thai and Cambodian people to exercise reason and find the wisdom required to get out of the conflict. Whipping up this issue could easily result in chaos if not handled carefully and properly. He reminded society that there are established diplomatic channels for countries with overlapping boundaries to explore to settle their disputes. The process can result in a re-drawing of the boundary line. In cases where a dispute cannot be settled, options are available for different ways of joint management. One of the concepts can be applied to the case of Preah Vihear, the surrounding area of which remains disputed as it is claimed by both Thailand and Cambodia. "I have to emphasise here that the listing of the Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site will not affect any country's boundary as the World Heritage Convention clearly sets such a condition to prevent conflicts between concerned countries," said Dr Surachart. In fact, the two countries have 15 more overlapping locations which need to be settled, and they need to move on with the work, he said. "The question we have to ask ourselves really hard is whether we really want a war, and whether a war would really bring us back territory perceived as being lost," said Dr Surachart. "Do we still want to be 'a prisoner of the past'? Or do we want to help one another break the 'barrier' imposed by the past?"

. The government suffered its third justice-administered setback in 24 hours on Wednesday as the Constitution Court kicked Public Health Minister Chaiya Sasomsab out of office. Judges even back-dated Mr Chaiya's dismissal to March 6, for failure to declare his wife's holding in a company. Mr Chaiya said he didn't know he had to report the fact that Mrs Churai holds 50 per cent of a private company - 25,000 shares worth 2. Any such holdings by a spouse or children above 5 per cent of the total value of a company must be reported to the National Counter Corruption Commission within 30 days of assuming office.5 million baht. The dismissal from the cabinet of Mr Chaiya is not just a further political blow. Since Mr Chaiya was sworn in and missed the March 7 deadline for reporting, the judges ordered his dismissal from the government as effective on that date. As minister, Mr Chaiya was a lightning rod of controversy as he took action that effectively halted and tried to reverse so-called "compulsory licensing" of drugs - the fancy term for busting patents so that the government does not have to pay intellectual property charges. In addition, he faced a fightback from several civil servants he transferred away from the compulsory licensing issue. Several civil groups had banded together to try to impeach the minister. Mr Chaiya, a provincial powerhouse in Nakhon Pathom, east of Bangkok, is what political organisers call a major financier of the ruling People Power party (PPP) and also a personal favourite of ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra, who still wields major behind-the-scenes influence. But his dismissal is more than another indirect victory for anti-government NGOs. That leaves Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej in a tight spot when he begins what appears to be an inevitable cabinet reshuffle in coming days. Mr Chaiya said from the beginning that if he were ordered dismissed from the cabinet, he would insist his elder brother, Padermchai, be appointed to succeed him. He is under strong pressure from both within the PPP and the opposition to get rid of under-performing and controversial ministers, and to appoint competent replacements, to try to regain authority lost in the past several months of political chaos. . Before the results of Mr Chaiya's trial were announced, he said he was unworried by court decisions against his government on Wednesday - to red-card ex-House speaker Yongyuth Tiyapairat and ban him from politics for five years, and to rule that Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and the cabinet had acted against the constitution in supporting the Cambodian bid to list the Preah Vihear temple as a Unesco-sponsored World Heritage Site. Mr Samak gave no hint of his preference on Wednesday. He got strongly conflicting advice from all sides on Wednesday about whether to call a snap election. The premier said he would make no direct comment on his next actions until Sunday, when he speaks to the nation on his weekly morning TV show. Only Mr Samak has the power to dissolve the House. Even within the PPP, opinion was divided.

.Wiriyapong The People Power party (PPP) is preparing to set up a new political entity if ex-deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyapairat is disqualified by the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the conclusion to the vote-buying case from last year's general election. The ruling by the Supreme Court's election cases division could affect the future of the PPP because Mr Yongyuth was an executive member when the alleged poll fraud took place. Banjongsak Wongrattanawan would be the leader and Olarn Kitlertpairoj, Mr Songkram's step-brother, would be the secretary-general, the source said. A PPP source said yesterday Songkram Kitlertpairoj, a Samut Prakan MP, had been assigned to register a new political party called Puea Thai. Those MPs who move to the new party are required to form a government. The new party would take in MPs from the PPP if the PPP is ordered to be dissolved, the source added. Mr Yongyuth could not be reached for comment yesterday. But if they fail, Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej would be asked to exercise his authority to dissolve the House and call a general election, the source said. Business leaders played down the potential economic impact of the case as the country's investment atmosphere is already weak regardless of today's court ruling. But Sakorn Sirichai, his lawyer, quoted him as saying that the former House speaker will respect the court's ruling whichever way it goes. "In the worst-case scenario, where the [Yongyuth] ruling leads to the PPP's dissolution and we have to have an election, this would not have a significant impact on investor confidence," said Board of Trade deputy secretary-general Pornsil Patcharintanakul. Representatives of the Board of Trade and the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) said investor sentiment, which was already unfavourable, was unlikely to deteriorate much further. I don't think investors will commit to new ventures in Thailand at the moment. "At present, the business sector has very little confidence in politics. "We can accept changes in the democratic system," said Mr Adisak." FTI vice-chairman Adisak Rohitasune agreed, saying businesses were more worried about rising oil prices and the anti-government protests led by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). This is our main concern. "But the deadlock brought on by the anti-government protests should end peacefully. "Last year, the political situation was very bad but the Thai economy still grew by more than 4%." The secretary-general of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce in Bangkok, Tsuyoshi Inoue, said Japanese investors are not worried by recent political problems so long as the situation does not end up hurting the economy. But Japanese companies which have not yet set up in Thailand may adopt a wait-and-see stance before investing here, added Mr Inoue. Japanese firms, therefore, have not lost any confidence in Thailand," he said. The Election Commission accused Mr Yongyuth, then a PPP deputy leader, of offering money to a group of kamnans [tambon heads] in Chiang Rai's Mae Chan district in return for helping his sister, La-ong Tiyapairat, win the election. For today's case, the court completed its witness hearings on May 20. In his testimony on May 8, Mr Chaiwat said each of the kamnans in Mae Chan district was paid 20,000 baht. In his testimony on May 8, Mr Chaiwat said each of the kamnans in Mae Chan district was paid 20,000 baht. He said that in October last year he was contacted by Mr Yongyuth's aide, who asked him to travel to Bangkok to meet the Chiang Rai politician with fellow kamnans from the same district and Banjong Yangyuen, municipal mayor of tambon Janjawa. His group agreed to travel to Bangkok on Oct 28, 2007. They met Mr Yongyuth at a hotel. Mr Yongyuth asked them to help canvass for his sister, a constituency MP candidate for the PPP, and other PPP candidates, Mr Chaiwat told the court. After his group agreed to support Ms La-ong and the other PPP candidates who were Mae Chan natives, Mr Yongyuth left the hotel room where they had met, Mr Chaiwat said. . Sakorn Sirichai, Mr Yongyuth's lawyer, said the case is a civil one and Mr Yongyuth and Ms La-ong will not necessarily turn up in court to hear the verdict.

.The rationale for wanting to dismantle Thailand's electoral system is evident: pro-Thaksin forces keep winning elections. So in the view of the PAD, there is a need to bring about a revolution in political representation. He is the author of Democracy and National Identity in Thailand (2007). Michael Connors teaches politics at La Trobe University. No longer content with the old slogan of Thaksin Tid Khook, Samak Awk Pai (Thaksin in gaol, Samak get out), Sondhi Limthongkul, the core leader of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), has called for "New Politics". This article first appeared in Asia Sentinel. It was the 41st day of the PAD's new round of street protests. I heard Mr Sondhi's New Politics speech delivered from the stage on July 4, close to Government House in Bangkok. Mr Sonthi says the proportion is not fixed, it's up for debate. New Politics turns out to be a startlingly reactionary proposal to move Thailand's parliamentary system towards a form of appointed corporatism, or what might be called a selectoral democracy: 30% of MPs would come from elections, perhaps one per province, and the rest of the MPs would derive from various occupations and associations. And as Mr Thaksin is said to represent everything bad about Thai politics, he cannot be allowed to wield power directly or indirectly. The rationale for wanting to dismantle Thailand's electoral system is evident: pro-Thaksin forces keep winning elections. The idea of examining alternatives to electoral democracy is not without some merit, for it is common knowledge that massive amounts of money are required to win parliamentary seats, making parliament a millionaire's playground and a source of further monopolisation and corruption. Thus, for Mr Sondhi - and it would seem the PAD leadership as a whole - there is now a need to bring about a revolution in political representation. In the 1970s, socialist politicians in Thailand could get elected on the basis of their ideology and popular support, but the emergence of dirty politics in the 1980s crushed any such possibility in the present. It wasn't always so, Mr Sondhi told the rally. The PAD leadership has clearly been speaking to military figures (this is now well-documented in the Thai-language press) who tried to stifle the emergence of parliament in the 1980s. New Politics has interesting antecedents. The council, to which General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh was said to have an association, held that elections merely led to parliamentary dictatorship and proposed a form of corporate representation to realise the "general will" of the people. Indeed, selectoral democracy nicely fits with corporatist visions of the old "Revolutionary Council". Mr Prasert became a leading intellectual among military circles calling for non-elective forms of democracy. A former communist, Prasert Sapsunthon, was the inspiration for this Thai appropriation of Rousseau, the French theorist of the social contract. It then faded into obscurity, but its ideas have never quite gone away, finding support among small rightist groups and even in some labour circles. When the Revolutionary Council effectively declared itself a provisional government during the political crisis of 1988, the elected Chatichai government took it to court for treason. Mr Sondhi has spoken of four conditions for military intervention: when charges of lese majeste are not acted on; when a government is incompetent; when corruption is rife; when a government betrays national sovereignty. Mr Sondhi has spoken of four conditions for military intervention: when charges of lese majeste are not acted on; when a government is incompetent; when corruption is rife; when a government betrays national sovereignty. It is not clear if permissible military intervention according to the PAD's envisaged system of selectocracy is to be in the form of a coup d'etat or the exercise of some new administrative power to compel government agencies to rectify a wrong. But what is clear is that the PAD has explicitly sanctioned ongoing military intervention in politics. Of course, anyone examining at the Thai military will know that it is a conflicted organisation, with pro- and anti-government factions and both corporate and individual commercial interests. How such an organisation might work to protect the "general will" of the people is not at all clear, notwithstanding the fact that politicised militaries the world over become deeply corrupt and self-serving. In part, the answer for the PAD lies in who controls the military. An important feature of Mr Sondhi's speech that went unreported in the press was the proposal to take the Ministry of Defence out of government control and place it under the Crown. At a time when Thailand is urgently facing the need to institutionalise its politics around public rules, the PAD is proposing to formally enhance the power of the monarchy. For many observers, the PAD's latest thinking comes as no surprise. They say that from the start the PAD was associated with opportunist use of nationalist and royalist discourse in its call for a royally-appointed government to replace the Thai Rak Thai caretaker government in March 2006. That the PAD should now become an agent of political regression, willing to hand power to the military and bureaucracy, flows from the logic of its initial strategy to beat Mr Thaksin with the royalist and nationalist stick. On the contrary, I would argue that whatever one may make of the early anti-Thaksin movement, its politics were, in part, a form of royal liberalism; it was legitimately concerned with the authoritarian slide during the Thaksin era. . Most dangerously, the PAD's new turn has the potential to lend a significant social base to a conservative and reactionary form of corporatism. In the 1980s, the semi-fascist corporatist politics of the Revolutionary Council were marginalised as Thai politics democratised. The council became a laughing stock and the organisation was dubbed the "Joke Council". Somehow, the PAD seems to have reversed Marx's dictum that history repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce. The PAD's metamorphosis comes at an odd moment when it seems to be making ground. It played an opportunistic role in capturing the ministerial scalp of Jakrapob Penkair. It gave support to the legitimacy of the Assets Scrutiny Committee (ASC), whose constitutional standing was questioned by pro-Thaksin forces. The Constitutional Court affirmed its standing. And if the Office of the Attorney-General appears unconvinced of the readiness of many of the cases presented by the ASC, the National Counter Corruption Commission seems ready to take on some of the cases. Just as its demands are being met, the PAD has now put itself at the extreme margins of Thai politics. Many people have already deserted the PAD as a result of its hyper-nationalism and attacks on progressive activists who express views different than its own. Some people have, it seems, been forced to leave. There are reports that speakers from the stage have called on Democrat party members to leave the rally. How far the PAD has travelled is perhaps illustrated by reference to a rally I observed in the middle of last week. A well-known rock star called on the spirit of the 1950s dictator Sarit Thanarat to deal decisively with corruption. The best that can be said of that episode is that people were applauding on cue - after four weeks of clapping, it's almost a reflex.But the PAD leadership has no such excuse; it has embraced a politics so contrary to its starting point that it now looks as bad as that which it sought to slay. "New Politics" may well be the dying breath of the PAD, as those who thought they were fighting for a form of liberal democracy desert its ranks. A protester I was sitting close to was visibly angry with Mr Sondhi, shouting out: "Who are you to abolish parliament?" Actually, that's an appropriate question for the last generation of Thai politics.