Clarifying Unesco's role in heritage site selection

The independent body which implements the 1972 World Heritage Convention and takes decisions on inscribing sites onto the World Heritage List is the World Heritage Committee.

This committee is a 21-member intergovernmental body elected by the 184 states parties who have ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention. The 21 members serve for a period of four to six years.

The members of the current World Heritage Committee, under the chairmanship of Canada, are Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United States.

Unesco is not a member of the World Heritage Committee and takes no part in deciding which sites are rejected or accepted for world heritage status.

Unesco merely serves as the neutral secretariat to the World Heritage Committee, hosting its website and helping with day-to-day administration.

The Unesco office in Bangkok was happy to receive the recent delegation of senators, national artists, and academics concerned with Preah Vihear and to transmit to the World Heritage Committee, via our headquarters in Paris, the petition presented to us. But it is not accurate to imply, as has appeared in the media, that Unesco will consider or decide on the nomination of Preah Vihear, or indeed any site nominated by any country. That is exclusively the preserve of the World Heritage Committee. Unesco's involvement with world heritage sites occurs, for example, in providing technical assistance in the development of management plans for the site once inscribed onto the World Heritage List and in monitoring the implementation of these plans.

Thank you for clarifying this situation.

Sheldon Shaeffer

Director, Unesco

Bangkok

----------------------------------------

MPs could benefit from  Public Speaking 101

Watching an old lady knitting a crochet is more fun than watching the censure debate. The problem is the opposition MPs neither organise nor rehearse their speech. They ramble on and on until their time is up and they plead for more time. And worse, some even read to the audience.

I wish Parliament would offer a course on public speaking to MPs. Teach them how to organise their speeches. For example, teach them the three basic parts of a speech: first, the introduction (say what you are going to say), second, the main body (say it), and finally, conclusion (summarise what you have said.) Also, teach them that visual aids help only if the audience can see them.

 Use every minute efficiently. Do not spend half  the time telling the audiences about your childhood life and how your first pet died. Moreover, try to get to the point as quickly as you can.

If this is about making Samak look bad, focus on him and not Thaksin and his family, and not the Tak Bai incident. Hit Samak with solid evidence, not irrelevant facts. One MP, who is also a medical doctor, irked me when she said Samak was psychologically unfit to be PM because he ate cake with soda pop!

A censure debate could be interesting and educational if the MPs want it to be.

Mechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

----------------------------------------

Doctors need guidelines for life-and-death decisions

Yesterday we heard about the Siamese twins born in Tak province. The doctor said only one would survive because they share one heart and one liver. We already know that human beings cannot survive unless their vital organs are functioning. But the important thing is that medical science cannot provide the answer on which one of the twins should survive in this case. Medical science can provide only the information that tests reveal. But at last, humans will have to make this life-and-death decision. Now, who is going to make the decision?

I think we shouldn't leave this burden of making that decision with only a group of doctors. If we do so, it means we only think about the science of the human body when deciding on a matter of life and death.

But in this case, we should consider the mind and soul too because in this situation, we not only are choosing who will survive, but also who will die. We should form a committee to make this decision. And this committee should include authorities or organisations relevant on human-right issues, doctors, lawyers, religious representatives, and so on. We should have guidelines to follow for this case and in the future.

A doctor from a state-owned

hospital

Bangkok