BURNING ISSUE: Phra Viharn or Preah Vihear?

Sompong (L) shakes hand with Namhong (R) during the border meeting in Siem Reap on 12th November, 2008.

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation
Published on November 14, 2008

Temple name dispute diverts officials from bigger issues

The subtleties of language nearly jeopardised a ministerial meeting between Thailand and Cambodia on Wednesday in the ancient city of Siem Reap, as Foreign Minister Sompong Amornwiwat and his counterpart Hor Nampong failed to find any acceptable term for an 11th-century Hindu temple.

Basically, there was no problem when Khmer people called it Preah Vihear while Thais called it Pra Viharn, since both sides meant the same huge stone structure on the edge of the cliff at the border of the two countries.

It became a problem when it appeared in the negotiations to settle the border dispute, as the terms Preah Vihear and Pra Viharn have strong links to the sense of ownership.

Cambodia insisted that the name of the temple to be used in the agreement following the ministerial meeting should be Preah Vihear while the Thais preferred their own accent of Pra Viharn.

In English writing, it was widely accepted that the stone temple on the edge of the cliff which has been the subject of bitter controversy between Thailand and Cambodia was named "Preah Vihear".

For the Thai delegation, the agreement was not a normal record of a meeting.

They would not accept any terms in the paper unless it was the exact word mentioned by the negotiation framework approved by Parliament.

Thai officials said they knew very well Preah Vihear and Pra Viharn were the same temple but they would not allow only the Khmer name to appear in the record of the meeting. They suggested the term "Preah Vihear/Pra Viharn" but the Cambodian side disagreed.

Cambodians realised the power of language very well. They felt that if the term Pra Viharn was successfully established in the official negotiation, it would mean Phnom Penh accepted Thai influence. The establishment of the Thai term would be also the acceptance of Thai claim over the temple. They were aware of the fact that Thailand wanted to maintain the sense of its belonging in the Hindu temple.

Cambodian officials argued that the term Preah Vihear might sound very Khmer but it has been used internationally for a long time, perhaps since the French found it sitting on the mountain. Almost all international writings use the term Preah Vihear and even English writing in Thailand used Preah Vihear, rather than Pra Viharn. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), when it ruled the temple belonged to Cambodia in 1962, used the term Preah Vihear.

The Cambodian argument was on solid ground, as many historical records - such as the one made by the well-known historian DG Hall in his remarkable 1955 book "A History of South-East Asia" - called it Preah Vihear.

The Thai argument for international recognition of the term Pra Viharn was not successful. Former foreign minister Thanat Khoman, when he sent a note to then-United Nations chief U Thant to express his disagreement with the ICJ's ruling used the term "Pra Viharn", rather than "Preah Vihear."

However, the Foreign Ministry after Thanat never paid much attention to the term until recently. When former foreign minister Noppadon Pattama signed a joint communiqu้ with Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to support a proposal to list the temple as a world heritage site, he accepted the term Preah Vihear in the document. The communiqu้ was rejected by the Thai Constitution Court on the ground that it was issued against constitutional procedure, not because of the term in the text.

Press statements issued in English by the Thai ministry concerning the Hindu temple stopped using the term Preah Vihear in late August this year. The last statement, still available on the ministry's website, that called the controversial temple as Preah Vihear was dated August 8, 2008 issued to welcome remarks by Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen's on the matter.

Sompong is consulting with Parliament now about the next negotiations with Cambodia. Nationalist MPs must come up with better arguments than they have so far if they really insist on using "Pra Viharn". Otherwise this minor issue could spoil important work that needs to be done with our neighbour.