How Cambodia has progressed a decade after coup [-An interview with Dr Lao Mong Hay]

July 5, 2007
Radio Singapore International

July 5th marks the 10th anniversary of a coup in Cambodia that witnessed the bloody ouster of one Prime Minister by another.

After three days of fighting that erupted on July 5th, Prime Minister Hun Sen deposed his political rival, Prince Norodom Ranariddh.

Royalists close to Prince Norodom were subsequently hunted and executed.

Their bodies were later unearthed by rights workers.

While Cambodia has achieved strong economic growth over the past decade, little headway has been accomplished in the fight for democracy.

Melanie Yip speaks with Dr Lao Mong Hay, Senior Researcher on Cambodia at the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong for a look at how average Cambodians feel about democratic reform.

LMH: More and more Cambodian people realized that democracy has not developed as planned or agreed upon in the 1993 agreement. Cambodia was moving towards one dominant party system with the present ruling party as the overwhelmingly dominant force. Even with the consequences of the past, it continued to enforce restrictions, restrictions on human rights and the weakening of the smaller parties.

But during this past ten years, Cambodia has enjoyed good development in the economic front, and that could have, perhaps, weaned people's interest in the fight for democracy?

LMH: Certainly, Cambodia society has become more open. Yes, we have more freedom than before and more economic development. But economic development does not mean that we are happy. There is a huge income gap between the rich and poor. Cambodian society is moving towards a feudal society, dominated by big land lords, and those land lords are powerful government officials, tycoons, and they are colluding to, sort of oppress the Cambodian people. They are like an oligarchy and becoming more and more like kleptocrats at the moment.

You were quoted in the press as saying "we have a period of peace and stability, but we have not capitalized on that to build sustainable institutions". Could you elaborate on what some of these institutions refer to?

LMH: Based on our history, Cambodia has only showed a period of peace from the decline or the debacle of the Angkor empire in the 14th century. We have had troubles as a rule. We did experience a short period of peace and stability but we did not take that opportunity to build our institution for sustainable development. And on sustainability, irrespective of whether the developments are internal or external, the regimes would collapse and we would have trouble all the time. Cambodia has had fortunes in the past, and for instance, when the French came, when they left, Cambodia became independent. We experienced a period of peace but the generals at that time did nothing to build peace and stability. We depended on what I call "the rule of man" and we developed the cult personality. Now the cult personality culture is concentrated in one man's hands, in the hands of our Prime Minister and his close associates. So there were no proper institutions since the French departures, we have not made any efforts to build up our institutions. Our institutions are very fragile, what do we have now?

But some democrats argue that Cambodia's multi-party legislature and regular elections are good evidence that democracy has taken a greater hold since the 1997 coup. What are your thoughts on that?

LMH: This is just a veneer, a show. It is nothing of substance. When you look at the functionality of it, everything depends on our Prime Minister, Hun Sen.