A former assistant minister to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has questioned whether the cancellation of the MOU 44 maritime agreement was a case of gross negligence or a deliberate move to benefit Cambodia.
Rasm Chaleechan, a former Thai ambassador, made the claim in a social media post on June 19, describing what he called a “sinister clue.” Chaleechan said the sequence of events surrounding the leaked ‘Uncle’ audio clip on June 18 last year, followed by a change in Thailand’s political leadership, appeared too closely connected to be coincidental.
He argued that the decision to scrap MOU 44 was made in haste, despite there being no genuine urgency. According to Chaleechan, the move was taken without proper deliberation, prior negotiation, or any alternative mechanism prepared in advance, leaving Thailand exposed to compulsory conciliation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Chaleechan pointed to past analysis by international maritime law experts, as well as the Australia and Timor-Leste dispute, in which he said the larger country ended up at a disadvantage. He suggested the same outcome could favour Cambodia in Thailand’s case.
He outlined two possible explanations. The first is that the cancellation reflected an unwise and seriously negligent decision, potentially driven by nationalist sentiment, that exposed the country to unnecessary risk and could fall under Section 157 of the Criminal Code, which covers malfeasance in office. The second is that the cancellation was intentional, designed to benefit Cambodia in exchange for an undisclosed favour.
Chaleechan said he believed one of the two explanations must be true, though he did not present direct evidence for either, reported Daily News.
The story Former diplomat warns MOU 44 risked losses to Cambodia as seen on Thaiger News.
