The border did not suddenly become clearer because Thailand announced 94.58% progress in placing temporary markers. What actually happened is simpler and far less dramatic: both sides completed another round of field surveying based on old physical pillars, not the final legal line. These markers are not decisions, not sovereignty, and not demarcation. They are the early scaffolding of a long process that must still return to the historical documents and the legal map that define the boundary. The achievement here is technical, not territorial. It shows cooperation on the ground, the ability to survey without conflict, and the database both sides will need when the real negotiations begin. It is a step in the process, not the end of it, and the press language reveals more about Thailand’s internal fears than about any change in the legal architecture itself.
When Thai media repeats the line that the border survey “does not use the 1:200,000 map,” many readers misunderstand what that actually means. It does not mean the map has disappeared from the border process. It only means the temporary survey markers being placed this week follow the old physical pillars on the ground. These markers are not legal demarcation, not sovereignty decisions, and not the final line between the two countries. They are field reference points that help teams coordinate before the real work begins.
The final border, the one that will carry legal force, cannot be drawn without returning to the sources that defined the boundary in the first place. Under the existing agreements and the MoU of 2000, the Joint Boundary Commission must reference the original colonial-era 1:200,000 map, the Annex I map, and the instruments used by both states in previous ICJ and bilateral proceedings. This is not optional. It is how international law works. Temporary markers can follow tree lines and old stones, but the legal demarcation must follow the documents that established the boundary.
This is why Thailand’s sudden emphasis on “not using the 1:200,000 map” should be understood as domestic calming, not geopolitical truth. That map is emotionally charged inside Thailand; nationalists treat it as a symbol of loss, and villagers fear it will redraw their farmland. The military’s messaging is designed to soothe internal anxieties, not to announce a change in the legal framework. When the JBC resumes its formal work, both sides will still have to sit down with the same map that has governed the border for more than a century.
The reality is that temporary markers follow old pillars on the ground. The permanent boundary will still require the 1:200,000 map. The press releases do not change the treaty architecture, and they do not rewrite the rules of international law. They only show how carefully Thailand is trying to manage its own internal fears while the border narrative intensifies.
Midnight