THAI WORRY OVER UNISCO'S INSPECTION TO PREAH VIHEAR TEMPLE

On Thursday 21^st May 2009, on the website of one of the famous Thai English Newspaper called The Nation reported that Thailand's Foreign Minister warned UNESCO's official over the UNESCO's mission to Preah Vihea Temple in April that UNESCO must get the permission from Thailand before entering the land at Preah Vihear Temple as they claimed that it's the dispute area.

The warning to this organization by Thailand is not acceptable for Cambodia. UNESCO came to do the inspection to the temple of Preah Vihear as it's just registered into the World's Heritage list. The job of UNESCO is to ensure that this heritage is well conserved.

Why UNESCO has to ask for permission from Thailand if they are just visit Cambodia? Is Thailand Cambodia's parent?

Thailand react to this is just to cover their bad deed acted during the clash that caused damage to the temple because of their army's shooting. They don't want UNESCO to see the evidence which they think that they will loose face if UNESCO issue a statement commenting that Thailand damaged World Heritages.

EVIDENT FOR NATIONAL ELECTION COMMITTEE

On 17th May 2009, the first-ever nationwide concil election was held by indirect vote. The only commune coucilors are allow to cast the vote. The National Election Committee (NEC) has set up 15 days as campaign period for eached registered party to do the campaign. During the campaign, there are many comlaints, mostly from Sam Rainsy Party, were submitted to the NEC and its subordinates. Some of the complaints were rejected by Provincial Election Committee or Municipal Election Committee due to not enough evidence.

In Phnom Penh, there was one complain submitted by SRP but the Municipal Election Committee rejected with reason of not enough evidence even the SRP's member show the mobile phone recording. On the Cambodia Daily, the Leading Cambodian English Newspaper, quoted the sentence of Mr. Lun Chheng, the director of Municipal Election Committee (MEC), that "The voice on the phone is not stipulated in law". He also mentioned that "if they have a signature letter with a stamp, it is evidence to charge".

Form me, it think that it's not a good judgement to the complain as the SRP complained that there was vote buying during the campaign. The MEC should do the investigation before giving the judgment. The vote buying has no middle man and the law does not allow. How can the people sign the contract to buy the vote? How can we ask the thief to sign the contract before committing their acts? It's so pity to the non-ruling party. They are not able to find the enough evidence.