September 23, 2009 Swasdee Krub K. Ronayos, As promised, I am attaching 2 files containing the decision of the World Court (WC) on the disputed Prasart Pra Viharn. One is the summary “Merit” of judgment and another are details of the ruling. (For details, please visit http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ct&case=45&k=46)
Merit of Judgment
Details of Judgment As you can see from these 2 sets of documents, and as I informed you before, the WC ruled that not only the temple but also the land where the temple situated belongs to Cambodia. The judges then might be bias towards France & its protectoral state of Cambodia but they did a very thorough analysis based on all evidence presented from both parties in conflict. It was too bad that the judges did not buy our side’s arguments & did not look beyond its decision for potential problems or ramifications in the years or hundreds of year ahead of their time. The main objective from their decision was to settle the dispute & avoid the future conflict between the 2 countries. But they were wrong; their goal has not been attained since. The site has remained to be a hot spot and a flash point. Armed conflicts have continued while the threat of all out war is real & can possibly happen at any moment. Perhaps, this along and the fact that enormous amount of land-mines that litter the area surrounding Prasart Pra Viharn can be used to further attract international attention & help stop the UNESCO World Heritage & Cambodia’s actions to further implement & finalize their plan on the temple. Again, as I mentioned before, we must form a committee or taskforce pooling all experts, intellectuals & scholars (from in & outside the Kingdom) to work together exclusively on Prasart Pra Viharn issue to counter the Cambodian’s efforts. We must support the work of M.L. Valvipa and Khun Vira Somkuamkid or any patriotic Thai who is willing to make sacrifice to righteously reclaim the temple back to our country. We also must secretly work with the patriotic military leaders for the purpose. Because the WC did not clearly address or decide the ownership of the land beyond where the temple situated, we must firmly protect that area & strongly view that it’s Thailand territory. The Thai armed force must have this view & swiftly take actions to defend the land & stand. Additionally, we should pay more attention & explore deeper in details about the history & civilization of SE Asia. We must come up with short term, mid range & long term strategies to justify future actions reclaiming Prasart Pra Viharn so that international leaders & communities would agree & side with us. But more importantly, what we, every patriotic Thai every where, must do now is to stop believing that it was the Khmer who built Prasart Pra Viharn & other ancient Hindu sites in Thailand & throughout the SE Asia region! We must immediately change our attitude & misperception. We must not allow ourselves to be misled by the French & other westerners any longer! After all, the Chinese did not call westerners as “the Foreign Devils’ for nothing; there’re plenty of good reasons behind it! I’ve shared with a few individuals so far on what I learnt from reading materials through Internet on the history of SE Asia, its inhabitants & particularly the ancient Hindu ruins in this part of the world. Originally, I was going to find someone who can help me with Thai typing writing up the whole thing in one time. But P’ Payom (a wise & elder compatriot as well as a respected Muslim Thai leader in the US) suggested that I should write it in series or parts. This is so sensible & practical that I have to heed his advice.
If you don’t mind & are willing to put up with my broken English as well as amateur & non-scientific analysis , I’d like to share with you on what I found & the reasons why we (Thai & non-Thai) should rethink again on who actually constructed these invaluable Hindu monuments all over SE Asia. However lame or logical they will be, I would like to invite you to evaluate them. If we cry that Prasart Pra Viharn belongs to us, Thai people & Thailand, we must firmly believe so, and say so loudly with good (new & rather compelling) reasons. And I’ll try my best to present them to you in the near future.
Sincerely, Peter P.S. M.L. Valvipa told me that the Dean or Rector of Thammasart Univ has steadfastly given her hard time, strongly opposed & prohibited her from taking any activity/action on Prasart Pra Viharn. This is not right! I wonder if he is a Thai or Cambodian. It’s only a traitor or a Cambodian who is willing to oppose the patriotic efforts by M.L. Valvipa, by Khun Vera Somkuamkid or any Thai doing their duties to protect & defend our beloved king, our country & its territory. This scum should be disqualified & expelled from holding such a high & prestige position particularly in the nation’s top rank education institution! Can you or anyone please help bring this into the forefront of national attention or front page of media coverage? This guy should not be receiving his monthly income & fringe benefits from the tax payers' money. |
October 3, 2009 Dear friends, It has been more than a week since I emailed you copies of World Court (WC) decisions on Prasart Pra Viharn & to inform you why we should think differently about the ancient Hindu structures & history about SE Asia. Before jumping into the subject, may I share some information & my thoughts with you on the World Court’s decision because Prasart Pra Viharn is one of the ancient Hindu sites which I’ll discuss later & because the temple is very hot on the news again? For those of us who lived on July 4, 19 62 or 2505 (BE) when Marshall Sarit Thanarat told the nation through the national radio station that the World Court’s judges gave their verdicts awarding Prasart Pra Viharn to Cambodia, it was the dark day & a bad memory hard to forget in our lives. Millions were immensely disappointed & shed tears. The loss of this ancient Hindu temple has been a thorn on our chest since. They said time heals all wounds. But for almost all of us, except the sq. face exPM & his cronies, the wound from this loss has not really healed up at all. We still feel the pain from the loss. Most of us did not & have not really known any detailed fact or the key factors that the judges used & based their decisions on. We have lived with hope, based on Marshall Sarit Thanarat’s statement, that one day Prasart Pra Viharn will return to our possession again. I was no exception to these feelings particularly the lack of detail information. But last year, after the former Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, officially helped the Cambodian govt to further reaffirm & cement its claim on the dispute Prasart Pra Viharn by solely & successfully getting the ancient temple approved by UNESCO as the world’s heritage site, I began to curiously search for more info on the World Court ’s decision. My efforts led to, for the first time, the actual details of the lawsuit, WC’s proceedings, and the historical data involving the actions by all parties. From the discovery, I printed out some pages of WC’s detailed decisions which I’ve forwarded to some of your earlier. They are attached herein again for your review and as my references (Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C) for our discussion. Briefly, Exhibit A is the World Court’s summary of the decisions and key facts involved on the case while Exhibit B contains partial details of decisions & the judges’ reasons. To facilitate your review, I’ve annotated important facts on Exhibit A with the numbers from 1 to 7. Let us refer to them as item A-1, item A-2, item A-3, so on and so forth. To distinguish the key points on Exhibit B, I used item B-1, item B-2, etc. Based on these important facts and key points, I reconciled them against the WC judges’ reasons used to derive their verdicts. I have to conclude that the French surveyor, the Mixed Commission team, the French President governing Cambodia then, and the 9 judges (who gave Prasart Pra Viharn to Cambodia) all acted in BAD FAITH, misused their knowledge & skills to solve & create the problem, and were likely to be biased against Siam/Thailand while favoring Cambodia. But nonetheless, the actions, inaction and silence from Thai officials (from the treaty negotiators, border guards, provincial governors to Prince Praya Dumrong) were used by the WC judges as the main reason to inflict the painful loss of the temple on us, the majority of Thai citizens, and the country. The loss has become a continuous problem & the truth has not really been told or widely acknowledged. Personally, I believe that we should face the fact & tell the truth. It is wrong to tell our fellow Thais everywhere that the judges only gave the temple to Cambodia, not the ground it situates on. There are a few things we (govt & military leaders as well as citizen groups) can do to prevent further territorial loss (as the near term goal) and perhaps to reclaim Prasart Pra Viharn back to us (as the long term shot). I am sure some of you will think that what a waste of time reviewing my writing/comments, that it’s useless to argue, and what benefits will derive from this. Well, a failure had occurred and problems have continued to derive from it. For any failure, there are lessons to learn from. To solve the problems & prevent them from recurring, we need to know the cause(s) & the root. Using the problem solving technique, in addition to addressing it & taking actions, will lead to the improvement as well. Thus, success will ensue replacing failure. But by ignoring it, we become ignorant. Knowing the fact(s) allows us to be the learnt one. Though some of you may have already known about the facts on this issue, a large number of people does not know or is still misinformed, I thought I should share the facts with those of you who are part of latter group. Being a good student, I try to think critically & logically on issues. Since some of you are educators, I’d like to present my comments & logics for your review & further comments. I hope to increase the awareness, ignite the interest on the history of SE Asia and change the perception that Khmers were the most influential & civilized group of people in the region. Below are the WC judges’ decision & statements (after the bullet point) and my comments (in highlight) for your review & consideration. On the Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A Item A-1 is the World Court’s precise decision on Prasart Pra Viharn. Nine (9) of the twelve (12) judges found that the temple was situated in territory under Cambodia’s sovereignty.
Here, the WC did not clearly specify how close or far the land/territory around the ancient structure belongs to Cambodia. But per item B-6 and B-7 on page 37 & 38 of Exhibit B, the judges referred to the sovereignty over the portion of territory in which the temple is situated. This means, we have the good reason to argue, that Thailand has the sovereignty on territory beyond the portion of the land (immediate perimeter) where the temple is. But it is very important for us to clearly understand that the World Court’s judges gave the temple to Cambodia as well (see B-5 on page 36 of Exhibit B), not just the land it situates on. Please do not let others fool or mislead you about this fact any longer. Item A-2 refers to the application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904.
Being the 1st treaty, it became the Parent Treaty which is like the main & most important law. It set the tone or preamble to be further followed by future acts on the subject matter. It’s like the Constitution that is used to create other subsequent related treaty or laws to supplement the first one. The judges were wrong to give no weigh or ignore this Parent (or Grand Parent)Treaty while accepting others done later with mal-intent or hidden agenda. The World Court also recognized this treaty as the Parent Treaty (see item B-2 on page 34 of Exhibit B). If what prescribed in the Parent Treaty carries no value, why did they have the treaty to begin with? Disregarding it (natural watershed line) but opting to go with man made one just does not make good sense. As we all know, it is the man who made, has made & will make mistakes. It is the man who created biases and prejudices. It is the man who killed & has killed one another besides killing those less intelligent animals. It is the man who has destroyed the environments including forests or jungles once abundant in the world. All these things happened even during the times when religion founders were alive preaching for higher morality while raising the awareness of consequences on evil deeds. So, it is not uncommon at all that whether intended or not, mistake(s) will occur during the work process of determining the border lines using the means other than the natural watershed line. This is what happened to the Annex 1 map unilaterally drawn by Frenchmen Item A-3 mentions that in the eastern sector of Dongrek range where Pra Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the Watershed line.
This clearly established the fact, per the 1st or original treaty of 13 February 1904, that wherever visible and possible, the natural Watershed line was to be first choice used in marking & settling the boundaries. It should be also understood even without clearly specifying that, on the location or territory without the Watershed line, then a fair and equitable method (as the alternative means) be employed with the consent from both sides to delimit the border. In the Kao Pra Viharn case, the watershed line is clearly present in addition to the cliff and mountain range that physically separates our country from Cambodia on the low land below. The Court’s opinions (see item B-3 & B-4 on page 35 of Exhibit B) about discounting & refusing to accept the use of the natural watershed line as the effective means of dividing boundaries were the main problem in this case. The 9 judges were wrong. As the most logical and practical method, the natural watershed line should be and has been internationally accepted as the primary line for dividing the borders just like rivers or lakes were used to separate many nations’ borders. Amur River separates Russia from China. Mekong River separates Thai & Laos. Uruguay Rivers is used as borderline between Argentina & Uruguay, between Argentina & Brazil. The Great Lakes are used to separate Canada & US border. So, the Court’s judges clearly were wrong in refusing to use the natural watershed line to mark the area on the Dongrak mountain range.
EXHIBIT B Item A-4 states that a MIXED commission (of Thai & French representatives) should travel along the Dongrak range for reconnaissance and that A French SURVEY OFFICER should survey the whole eastern part of Dongrak range.
Here, the fact is it was not a mixed commission but one with all members was Frenchmen; thus making it a tilted one, off from neutral. As the result, it’s very likely that its work was partial towards its protectoral client state of Cambodia. Moreover, how could a sole surveyor of French citizen/service man be trusted as impartial and fair without the proof & control or supervision? The fair & right thing to do was to have other neutral parties (at least 3 members) who have no vested interest to do the survey & mapping. Item A-5 states that in January-February 1907, the President of French section reported to his Government that eh frontier-line has been definitely established (after being surveyed & FIXED). But there was no record of decision or reference made on the Dongrak region in the Commission’s meeting minutes after 2 December 1906 meeting……..
The President of French sector did not honestly say who owned the temple. It’s a dishonest act for the President of French sector to hide the fact that his subordinates had already drawn up the boundary lines on the map giving the ancient temple to Cambodia when he reported to his nat’l government in France. Though the Mixed Commission was designated to work on the border delimitation, it was revealed here that they actually paid more focus & attention on the coming treaty of 23 March 1907. So, based on these statements, the French representatives had worked in concert manipulating information & facts to unilaterally preconceive the mapping & content of 23 March 1907 treaty (the 2nd one) while our side was in the passive mode without knowing what actually had occurred in the remote corner of the kingdom. Item A-6 refers to the fact that the final stage of delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese govt, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers. Some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission. ……... Amongst them was a map of the Dongrek range showing Pra Viharn on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as ANNEX 1 to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, and the map had never been accepted by Thailand …….
Our legal team had presented the facts which sounded very reasonable & realistic. But despite these logical facts, 9 judges out of 12 were not convinced & chose to rely solely & only on the ANNEXT 1 map itself (which has the scale of 1:200,000 or so). Despite the fact that, in 1934-1935 (item A-9 of Exhibit A), the govt of Thailand had offered a more refined & accurate map to counter the Cambodian, and despite knowing that the Parent Treaty of 13 Feb 1904 which stated the border line be established based (primarily) on the watershed line, these judges chose to give no weigh or place no value to these facts but opted for the Annex 1 map instead. These show that the judges acted in bad faith, with negligence and prejudice no matter how well their explanations were. Item A-7 says that the ANNEX 1 map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production.
Despite the long list of logical arguments, facts and references including the parental treaty (done on 13 February 1904) & other subsequent treaties and/or agreements to support the claims made by our country’s legal team (see Exhibit A item A-9), the judges made their decisions based solely on the map called “Annex 1” drawn by a team of French surveyors/officers. The fact as pointed out by the World Court ’s document here that the ANNEX 1 had never been formally approved by the MIXED COMMISSION, it clearly shows that the map had some problems & flaws. If the map was good enough in terms of fairness & accuracy, it would have been approved by the MIXED COMMISSION & forwarded to Thailand for acceptance. Moreover, our officials involved then would certainly know that the Annex 1 map could not be entrusted or relied on. That’s why Siamese officials did not formally accept or approve it despite repeated presentation & reference by the French counterpart. That’s why Siamese officials came up with the map of our own & brought it to the French in 1934-1935 (item A-8 & A-9 of Exhibit A). Based on this, how could the World Court, in its deliberation (see item B-1 on page 32 of Exhibit B) consider that Thailand in 1980-1909 did accept the Annex 1 map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation? The Court’s view seemed to contradict to the fact as stated on item A-7 by the Court’s document itself summarizing their judgment. All 9 judges who voted for Cambodia further showed their prejudice by picking & choosing parts of the facts & created reasons to justify their decisions. There were 2 maps; yet they chose the French’s creation of Annex 1. In human behaviors, most people typically are not vocal. The great majority of people in many cultures are quite reserve. Most people tend to remain quiet even if they do not agree unless it’s the matter of life and death. In dealing with foreigners, barriers often come into play. These barriers include language, culture, and custom (procedural) practice. Additionally, because France was the world superpower, it was very possible that our officials felt intimidated then. Was there any coercion involved, I wonder? Was there any threat involved using the GUN BOAT DIPLOMACY type of tactic then, I wonder? Just because Thai or Siamese officials did not say and/or take action to object to the Annex 1 map, why did the judges chose to negatively interpret as our side had agreed by default? Why did the judges fail to think positively (for the benefit of the doubt & afore-mentioned barriers) that our side had not formally accept & disagreed with the Annex 1 map; that’s why we produced our own map 30 years later when our officials knew a little bit more & better in the mapping technique? Even if some Thai officials gave out the wrong map to others, it was just an inadvertent human error (like the case of left hand does not know what the right hand did) which should not become a key factor used against us. As we know, before 1904, Frenchmen had traveled to all 7 seas & navigated to various corners of the world to map the localities and colonize them to be their territories as part of their global imperialistic expansion. They were the world’s superpower along with the English & Spaniards after the Portuguese & Dutchmen had become weaker. With their superiority in military power, technological skills (particularly in surveying & mapping), education & legal knowledge in addition to their cunning ability, a small & very backward country with little formal education & elementary knowledge of European languages/customs had little chance to stand up to the world’s superpower like France. So based on these together with the language barrier, I can understand why our representatives dealing with the French officials in early 1900s did not (as indicated by Cambodian & the judges) take appropriate actions as they should to clearly (on equal footing) counter the Frenchmen’s questionable acts in the process of delimitating & settling the borders between Siam & France (+ Cambodia) then. The international justice system was not properly served when the World Court’s judges failed to incorporate these factual conditions while ignored the evidence as presented for their consideration before making the judgments (based solely on the Annex 1 map) against Siam/Thailand but in favor of the Cambodia. For your info, the word “Annex” is the term usually & exclusively used by any government (either city or county) in its plan to claim a sizable land area not belonging to anyone to become its own territory. The land that a government tries to possess through ANNEXATION may include body or bodies of water (pond, lake) or whatever in the boundaries. I also had seen architects used the word Annex on their maps or blueprints for building projects. The examples include “the Arnold Building Annex”, “the Broadway Annex”, etc. So, when the Frenchmen used the name “ANNEX 1” for the map of Siam & Cambodia they drew up, I could not help to think that French officials/govt representatives then would likely have the idea or intention to further ANNEX more sites or land from Siam to add to Cambodia’s side of the border because if 1 was established, 2-3 or 4 would follow. If it was not the case, then with Frenchmen’s proficiency of language, legal terms & incomparable superior technical knowledge, why they did not use other more appropriate term? This appears to me the Frenchmen involved at the time had hidden motive and the Annex 1 map, solely drawn up by the French team, was done in a bias manner favorable to Cambodia , France ’s protectoral state.
EXHIBIT C Also for your info, though our team of lawyers, advisors and experts were larger than the Cambodia’s counterpart, the Cambodia was smart enough to recruit Dean Acheson (see Exhibit C) to help representing them on the case. Mr. Dean Acheson was the world’s most renowned diplomat during the post WW2 era. A Yale & Harvard Law School graduate, he was a lawyer by profession with the US Supreme Court experience and also a knowledgeable economist before leaving his legal practice to serve in the US Am-forces participated in the WW2 battles. He later became the US Secretary of State in President’s Harry Truman’s administration & earned the recognition as the Statesman afterward. He was also a strategist credited for being a primary architect of the infamous Cold War & playing the central role in the Marshall Plan, NATO, IMF, World Bank, WTO, and the Truman doctrine. His most famous move was to convince Truman to intervene in the Korean War. Dean Acheson also was instrumental in framing the US policy on Vietnam persuading Truman to send aids to French forces in Indochina . I also thought that his present & involvement in the Prasart Pra Viharn lawsuit contributed immensely to outcome of the judges’ decisions. (Summarized from Wikipedia) I agree that our immediate goal is to stop & prevent further loss of the 4.6 KM land. But I’d also suggest that the longer range is to find supporting evidence to convince the world that Prasart Pra Viharn was built, not by Khmers, but by another more civilized group of people who dominated the region before the rise of Khmers & Thais around 1000 AD & centuries thereafter. The ultimate goal is to re-affirm and/or re-establish the acceptance that natural watershed line must be the primary means as border marking method between Thailand & Cambodian borders. If it’s the case, it also should apply to the border area along Dongrak mountain range where Prasart Pra Viharn situated. Thai government & officials must tell the world & the World Heritage Committee through mass media & independent NGOs that the site around Prasart Pra Viharn is littered with landmines. It was the work of the Khmer Rouge which Hun Sen was a member who had planted them there. But in recent years, Cambodian soldiers also have added many more while our Thai soldiers have tried to defuse & eradicate them. The environment surrounding Prasart Pra Viharn is extremely unsafe, and unsuitable or unqualified to be approved as the World Heritage site. Some one must reimburse Thailand for the costs of cleaning up the landmines, of the limbs & lives lost from the landmines planted by Cambodians. Remember – the issue of landmines was so popular during Princess Diana’s final years of her life. People in developed countries still care a lot about this issue. We can reignite worldwide attention & interest to help our cause or to side with us in stopping Prasart Pra Viharn from further development. Remember that a buffer zone is needed around the World Heritage site. Without adequate surrounding space, the project can’t & will not go anywhere but be retracted or canceled. Perhaps, Thai government should file a lawsuit against the French government for their questionable & dishonest acts which led to our loss of the territory & Prasart Pra Viharn because their officers intentionally ignored to follow the use of the natural watershed line in mapping the Dongrak mountain area for border delimitation. They knowingly drew the line eastward passing the ancient temple further into Thailand’s territory on the map which they solely created & was in charge of. Since they were the one who created the continuing problem & the mess, they must take responsibility. Additionally, we should conduct deeper research in greater details about the ancient Hindu structures all over SE Asia to confirm that they were built first & mostly by the Cham people, not by Khmers whom Cambodians claimed to be their ancestors. The preceding underlined statement is my personal contention. Just because Anchor Wat temples are the largest, it does not mean that other smaller ones scattered in Vietnam , Laos , Thailand , and Burma were all built by Khmers. In my next emails, I’ll share with you the information & facts that I’ve come across & gathered to help support my contention. Thank you for your time & attention given, Regards, Peter |
October 5, 2009 Hello K. Ronald & everyone,
Attached above are some more files containing info for you & everyone to be aware of. They are all related to Khao Pra Viharn (the specific question “APPEALING” you asked) and a pair of Thai citizens with Cambodian heat who gave interview to a foreign media along with news & opinions from people in Cambodia . As you can see from the attached “Frequently Ask Questions” section of the “Practical Information” document, the answers on question 6 should give you the answer about appealing. The Court’s judgments are final and without appeal. But in the event of the discovery of a fact hitherto unknown to the Court which might be a decisive factor, either party may apply for revision of the judgment. Despite this fact, there have been over 1000 appeal for revision or reversion of the judgments so far (please see the attachment with single page for some examples). Additionally, a few months ago, I read somewhere in the World Court ’s proceedings & regulations which said that there was a 10 year statue of limitation for appealing on Prasart Pra Viharn case. And we all knew, 10 years has long gone. But I must confess that my memory is not as sharp as when I was 10-20 yr younger. Besides, I am not a lawyer. So, I could be wrong on this. As Sun Wu wrote in the Art of War, there’re 2 lessons that came into my mind. Before engaging in war, one must learn to be familiar with the terrain & environment of the battle fields. Know your enemy & know your own strength (and limitation).
Because of these, I thought we should know How the World Court Works before filing the lawsuit or an appeal. I thought we should know what the Cambodians have been saying, doing or plan to do on the disputed temple. We should also know what would be the impacts on the economy & politics (international) from any hostile action taken either legally or by force. If we’re going to appeal, we must know about the statute of limitation. And most importantly, we must have the new fact or evidence affecting the case which were unknown to the Court when the judges made their decision then. As I mentioned earlier, our gov’t must establish a nat’l committee with the tasks to exclusively focus & deal with the issues on Prasart Pra Viharn & other ancient Hindu sites along the border. More & serious attention from leaders (civilian & military) must be given on this. Private advocacy groups must be formed to work closely & in coordination with the govt to solidify the efforts against Cambodian’s side to firmly hold our grounds, protect what we still have & reclaim what we have lost. The cohesive & comprehensive strategies with options must be formulated on the issue.
Thank you for your kind consideration of publicizing my comments & facts provided you on Prasart Pra Viharn. But I personally think that they are not good enough to deserve such consideration for publication. Besides, with everyone’s earnest & honest effort, the fact can be effectively passed on to others who have been misinformed or have not had any factual info on the WC’s actual decisions. As I mentioned to you before, the Cambodian’s side has spies who are closely monitoring us including ASTV & Manager Online. In addition to the increase in population & diversity, Thugsin & his cronies have greatest impact in the hike of hostile elements (in Thai society) that have no loyalty or patriotism towards ethics, our country & our beloved king. Some friends or people in the group could be foes & turning against us as what we’ve seen in Thai politics & during PAD’s movements in the long & hard fight during the past few years. So, for now, let’s keep things in private between/among us.
Regards, Peter "Cambodian Heart" International Court of Justice - Practical Information International Court of Justice - How Court Works |