Guess who he voted for (AP)Aug 6th 2008
From Economist.com
One of the last (we hope) Asian strongmen
OLD-SCHOOL Asian strongmen have become an endangered species. The future of even Central Asia’s venerable strongman tradition has been in doubt since the death in 2006 of Turkmenistan’s Sapurmurat Niyazov, who called himself “Turkmenbashi”, the father of the Turkmen. The daddy of them all, Genghis Khan, is probably spinning in his grave at Mongolia’s turn toward namby-pamby multi-party democracy.
Indonesia’s Suharto and the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos are long gone, their countries now democracies, albeit messy ones. The top dog in Myanmar’s regime, General Than Shwe, is old, ailing and—it is said—circled by would-be successors. In other authoritarian states like China, Vietnam and Laos, the party, rather than any particular dominating individual, is in charge.
Standing firm against what one hopes is a strong tide of history is Hun Sen, Cambodia’s newly re-elected prime minister. After his sweeping victory on August 27th Mr Hun Sen looks as strong as ever, 23 years after first becoming prime minister at the age of just 33. The election was riddled with irregularities, mostly in favour of his Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). But he would likely have won anyway: the stability he has brought to a previously war-wracked country, though often iron-fisted, has given Cambodia one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies.
Furthermore, like many successful strongmen, he has the common touch, which allows him to connect with ordinary Cambodians in a way that his principal opponent, Sam Rainsy of the eponymous Sam Rainsy Party, has struggled to equal. The opening pages of “Hun Sen, Strongman of Cambodia”, a flattering 1999 biography by Harish and Julie Mehta, describe him descending by helicopter on a rural paddy-field and, after hugging some grannies and babies, showing off his skills as a rice-harvester. “I am a farmer. I am very poor. I am not like a prince,” he told admiring villagers.
Of course, he did not get where he is today by being entirely loveable. He was an officer in the army of Pol Pot’s ghastly Khmer Rouge regime, fleeing to Vietnam in 1977 to avoid being purged. He returned two years later when the Vietnamese army entered Cambodia and deposed the Khmers Rouges. He was made foreign minister in the Hanoi-installed government and then, in 1985, prime minister.
In a United Nations-backed election in 1993 that ended years of civil war, Mr Hun Sen lost and became “second prime minister” under Prince Norodom Ranariddh. This did not suit him. Four years later, amid renewed street fighting between the CPP and the prince’s royalist movement, Mr Hun Sen seized power in a coup, and had dozens of royalist officials shot.
In the three elections since then the Cambodian leader has gradually eased up on the hardball tactics, occasionally jailing or exiling critics, but also wooing opponents into the fold with promises of power. Divided and in disarray thanks to Mr Hun Sen’s manoeuvrings, the royalists’ vote collapsed in the latest election. Cambodia’s King Sihamoni, unlike his once-powerful father Sihanouk, is very much a ceremonial monarch.
So assured was he of victory, Mr Hun Sen kept a low profile in the election campaign, making few public comments. On the CPP’s posters he appeared in equal-sized portraits with Heng Samrin and Chea Sim, two party stalwarts. But neither they nor anyone else wields as much power as Mr Hun Sen. Except, that is, the prime minister’s fearsome wife, Bun Rany, whom he met when she was running a hospital for the Khmer Rouge.
Though none in the CPP would challenge him, that does not mean Mr Hun Sen is in absolute command. Last year he rebuked corrupt officials and soldiers for stealing land from peasants and city slum-dwellers, warning them: “I really don’t want bloodshed, but if you still fail to obey me, blood must flow.” The old Hun Sen, of course, might have given no warning.
Like Suharto and other Asian strongmen of old, Mr Hun Sen likes to see himself as a benign “father of development”. He has won grudging acceptance from the outside world and many Cambodians by arguing that without his tight rule the place would collapse in chaos again. Suharto’s Indonesia demonstrated that fast growth is possible for a while even under deeply corrupt governments. But as the system grows ever more rotten, such regimes tend eventually to collapse, leaving a nasty mess.
Mr Hun Sen is said to be obsessed with Cambodia’s ancient Khmer kingdom, which built the awesome Angkor Wat complex and once ruled much of Indochina. His critics fault him for having a sense of the past but not the future. Mr Sam Rainsy says that “Hun Sen has no vision. He has a genius for one thing: political survival. This is his biggest achievement.” Some diplomats who have met the prime minister agree.
Still, Mr Hun Sen looks set to continue comfortably unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Some speculate that he plans to hand the reins of power one day to his studious, British-educated son, Hun Manet.
In the meantime, foreign governments moan about his government’s corruption, ineptitude and abuses, but he knows they are itching to spend their aid budgets and they lack the guts to turn their tough words into action. With rising Asian neighbours like China and Vietnam keen to invest in Cambodia, and Western ones like America and France keen to maintain their presence, Mr Hun Sen can cheerfully play them off against each other, while collecting goodies from all.
OLD-SCHOOL Asian strongmen have become an endangered species. The future of even Central Asia’s venerable strongman tradition has been in doubt since the death in 2006 of Turkmenistan’s Sapurmurat Niyazov, who called himself “Turkmenbashi”, the father of the Turkmen. The daddy of them all, Genghis Khan, is probably spinning in his grave at Mongolia’s turn toward namby-pamby multi-party democracy.
Indonesia’s Suharto and the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos are long gone, their countries now democracies, albeit messy ones. The top dog in Myanmar’s regime, General Than Shwe, is old, ailing and—it is said—circled by would-be successors. In other authoritarian states like China, Vietnam and Laos, the party, rather than any particular dominating individual, is in charge.
Standing firm against what one hopes is a strong tide of history is Hun Sen, Cambodia’s newly re-elected prime minister. After his sweeping victory on August 27th Mr Hun Sen looks as strong as ever, 23 years after first becoming prime minister at the age of just 33. The election was riddled with irregularities, mostly in favour of his Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). But he would likely have won anyway: the stability he has brought to a previously war-wracked country, though often iron-fisted, has given Cambodia one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies.
Furthermore, like many successful strongmen, he has the common touch, which allows him to connect with ordinary Cambodians in a way that his principal opponent, Sam Rainsy of the eponymous Sam Rainsy Party, has struggled to equal. The opening pages of “Hun Sen, Strongman of Cambodia”, a flattering 1999 biography by Harish and Julie Mehta, describe him descending by helicopter on a rural paddy-field and, after hugging some grannies and babies, showing off his skills as a rice-harvester. “I am a farmer. I am very poor. I am not like a prince,” he told admiring villagers.
Of course, he did not get where he is today by being entirely loveable. He was an officer in the army of Pol Pot’s ghastly Khmer Rouge regime, fleeing to Vietnam in 1977 to avoid being purged. He returned two years later when the Vietnamese army entered Cambodia and deposed the Khmers Rouges. He was made foreign minister in the Hanoi-installed government and then, in 1985, prime minister.
In a United Nations-backed election in 1993 that ended years of civil war, Mr Hun Sen lost and became “second prime minister” under Prince Norodom Ranariddh. This did not suit him. Four years later, amid renewed street fighting between the CPP and the prince’s royalist movement, Mr Hun Sen seized power in a coup, and had dozens of royalist officials shot.
In the three elections since then the Cambodian leader has gradually eased up on the hardball tactics, occasionally jailing or exiling critics, but also wooing opponents into the fold with promises of power. Divided and in disarray thanks to Mr Hun Sen’s manoeuvrings, the royalists’ vote collapsed in the latest election. Cambodia’s King Sihamoni, unlike his once-powerful father Sihanouk, is very much a ceremonial monarch.
So assured was he of victory, Mr Hun Sen kept a low profile in the election campaign, making few public comments. On the CPP’s posters he appeared in equal-sized portraits with Heng Samrin and Chea Sim, two party stalwarts. But neither they nor anyone else wields as much power as Mr Hun Sen. Except, that is, the prime minister’s fearsome wife, Bun Rany, whom he met when she was running a hospital for the Khmer Rouge.
Though none in the CPP would challenge him, that does not mean Mr Hun Sen is in absolute command. Last year he rebuked corrupt officials and soldiers for stealing land from peasants and city slum-dwellers, warning them: “I really don’t want bloodshed, but if you still fail to obey me, blood must flow.” The old Hun Sen, of course, might have given no warning.
Like Suharto and other Asian strongmen of old, Mr Hun Sen likes to see himself as a benign “father of development”. He has won grudging acceptance from the outside world and many Cambodians by arguing that without his tight rule the place would collapse in chaos again. Suharto’s Indonesia demonstrated that fast growth is possible for a while even under deeply corrupt governments. But as the system grows ever more rotten, such regimes tend eventually to collapse, leaving a nasty mess.
Mr Hun Sen is said to be obsessed with Cambodia’s ancient Khmer kingdom, which built the awesome Angkor Wat complex and once ruled much of Indochina. His critics fault him for having a sense of the past but not the future. Mr Sam Rainsy says that “Hun Sen has no vision. He has a genius for one thing: political survival. This is his biggest achievement.” Some diplomats who have met the prime minister agree.
Still, Mr Hun Sen looks set to continue comfortably unchallenged for the foreseeable future. Some speculate that he plans to hand the reins of power one day to his studious, British-educated son, Hun Manet.
In the meantime, foreign governments moan about his government’s corruption, ineptitude and abuses, but he knows they are itching to spend their aid budgets and they lack the guts to turn their tough words into action. With rising Asian neighbours like China and Vietnam keen to invest in Cambodia, and Western ones like America and France keen to maintain their presence, Mr Hun Sen can cheerfully play them off against each other, while collecting goodies from all.
8 comments:
all of uuuuuuuu want only power...all of uuuu should joint together and vote against cpp then reelect for new leader...but uuuu all want only power...may be "see luy..hun sen too...." now what???? live with it....ok
One of the best articles in recent time, truly grasping the situation in today's Cambodia.
Every one see what he is and he not afraid to say so!
What a modern time GOD FATHER!!!!
The Helpless People: What Cambodians Owe Their Nation and Heroes
Cambodians once again made shameful decisions on the 2008 general elections that will potentially lead to the end of Cambodian history and sovereignty
By: A. Christopher Windsor
London, 28th July, 2008
It was a shame when I read a news article about Cambodian general elections in 2008 and found out that the majority of Cambodians (who were able to vote) voted for a dictator once again. The difference that Cambodian voters made in the recent elections was that they provided almost two-third of the parliamentary seats to the corrupt and unpatriotic party, namely CPP.
What do these results show us? Simply, the more you educate them, the more irrational they become. One should never blame the lack of education for such destructive results of the 2008 elections. Recently, we have seen the improvement in education of human rights and democracy principles. For example, the public forums and human rights trainings conducted by Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) and other organisations have been tremendously effective and have increased the understanding of human rights and democracy in Cambodia.
In addition to that, the outreach of internet has also helped Cambodians living in the city to better understand the outside world and see where the world has been up to. Globalization, on its positive side, has also provided more information to urban Cambodians about the other countries' economies and living standards, compared to which the Cambodian living standard is way below. These are all the advantages that urban Cambodians, namely Phnom Penh residents, have to exploit to make better decisions. Unexpectedly, these people with higher education and better understanding of the outside world made the worst decisions compared to other people across the country. As shown in the unofficial results, CPP has gained more supports in Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia—where we would expect better outcomes.
Now let me ask, do you think that the lack of education really played a role in these destructive results? To me, it is obvious that the poor, uneducated countryside voters have stood up for and demanded democracy and change in their homeland more than do the educated Phnom Penh voters. It is also difficult to blame the uneducated for the fact that some of their votes were bought. After all, they are poor and they have the reason to sell their votes for money only to feed their family for one day and ignore the fact that their country will be forever in the dark future. But Phnom Penh voters cannot use the same excuse for the fact that they gave the opportunity to CPP to destroy their homeland.
Who to blame?
Yes, the elections were not transparent. Some votes were bought. Some voters were threatened. And, according to recent news reports, some voters' names were removed from the lists, resulting in an unusually low turnout. However, I would like you to pay attention to the number of votes that CPP received. Do you think CPP could get these many votes only by frauds? I do not think so. It is true that frauds existed in these elections, but without frauds, do you think the
opposition parties, namely HRP and SRP, could together win these élections? I do not think so. CPP would have won the majority seats but probably not as many.
Why do I think so? There are a lot of irrational voters out there who would always ruin the efforts of democracy lovers to pull this nation out of the current darkness. These voters tend to be those who live in the urban areas. They have better living standards and tend to forget that their living standards would be much higher if their country were developed. They have the option to migrate to another country when Cambodia is totally ruined. This group of Cambodian citizens also has acceptable levels of education. With these levels of education—which are not too low but not very high either—these people believe that they are so educated and that therefore they need not to listen to anyone. These people tend to believe that there is nothing beyond their knowledge. What is so sad is that their knowledge is so low.
The followings are what these people believe and why they are wrong:
Cambodia just got out of a huge civil war and it takes time for this country to recover. Why they are wrong: It has been almost 30 years—long enough for any economy to recover if its government is really working. Let us take Japan as an example. The country suffered from the destructive World War II, which was way more destructive than any civil wars Cambodia has ever suffered from. From the 1960s to the 1980s, not too long from the end of WWII, the overall of the Japanese real economic growth has been called a miracle. It did not take Japan longer 30 years to recover its economy and become the world's second biggest economy. We do not have that high expectation for Cambodia, but at least this nation should have shown some real improvement.
Cambodia has a growth rate of 11%; does it not mean Hun Sen government is doing a good job? Why they are wrong: Yes, CPP is doing a good job in bringing money to its elites' pockets. Yes, the growth rate is 11%, but the inflation rate has already hit 18%. What does this mean? Wake up, Cambodians. This means you are poorer. Even if you make twice as much as you did before, but if goods and services are three times more expensive, it means you are poorer. I am also sure that the 11% growth is distributed only among rich CPP members while the 18% inflation affects all Cambodians, including those who voted for CPP.
"I'm voting for a different reason this time - my choice is for a government that can protect Preah Vihear temple," 76 year-old Hok Hour in Phnom Penh's Chamkarmon district quoted in a Phnom Penh Post article. The old man, with not much brain, voted for CPP as he thought this party will protect the temple. Why they are wrong: First, let me ask, how could such an old person with life experience be so brainless? Can you not see that the Preah Vihear issue was a trick Hun Sen played to get votes from such brainless voters? You want a government that can protect Preah Vihear temple but not the Cambodia-Vietnam boarder? What would you do with Preah Vihear temple if the land you were living in was taken away from you? A democratic government would be able to protect not only Preah Vihear temple but all of Cambodian territory.
CPP has built roads, bridges and schools. Why they are wrong: If Cambodia had a better government, the number of roads, bridges and schools built would go up by not twice but 10 times at least. Cambodia accepts a large amount of foreign aid and money from loans. In the case of foreign aid, Cambodian citizens do not have to worry about paying back. In the case loans, however, they all have to pay back. So, watch out, Cambodians! Most of this money does not go to development, but it instead goes to the pockets of CPP members. While the benefits Cambodians receive from such loans are very minimal, they will have to pay back these loans in full amount—plus interest rates in some cases.
By making such shameful decisions, what do these voters owe their nation and hero?
What Cambodians owe their nation
Because of the lack of both social and economic development, Cambodia is potentially heading to the end of its history. As citizens, Cambodians have the legal and moral obligations to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, as shown in the recent election results, most Cambodians chose not to. Instead, Cambodians chose to indirectly destroy the land that gave life to them. If anything bad happens to Cambodia in the future, we are to blame no one, but Cambodians.
The Vietnamese's fault? The Thais' fault? No. It is all Cambodians' fault. The Vietnamese and the Thais are not smart, but Cambodians are brainless. Cambodia is the only original nation of the Golden Land that is strong enough to survive from its neighbors' invasions. This nation protected itself from losing its sovereignty so that the current generation of Cambodia could live in its homeland peacefully. Unfortunately, the current Cambodians do not take into account the good this nation has offered them.
Only one day before I wrote this paper, Cambodians chose to take a convenient way to the destruction of their nation. They chose to ignore the great values their nation has always offered them. Surprisingly, these Buddhist Cambodians chose not to pay back what they owed their nation. Such an act is against Buddhist philosophy, which believes that you should always pay back what you owe. But who cares?—when the nation is destroyed, its religion will also be destroyed. Cambodians only took a shortcut to such destruction.
What Cambodians owe their heroes
The spirits of patriotic kings, such as Jayavarman II and Jayavarman VII, deserve an explanation from Cambodians who voted for CPP. These kings sacrificed their lives and their happiness to build a nation known as the Khmer Empire, the greatest power in South East Asia from the early 12th century to the early 13th century. If we look at the current situation of Cambodia, their lives have been sacrificed for nothing. I am sure that when these kings gave their lives to serve this nation, they did not know that their people would one day give this nation to the hands of an unpatriotic leader, such as Hun Sen.
When the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh, the Khmer Republic troops fought until the last drops of their blood to prevent communism from spreading into this historic capital city. The spirits of these troops also deserve an explanation from CPP voters. These troops fought against not only the Khmer Rouge but also the communist Vietnam. Today, their children and grandchildren have forgotten all of their efforts. This current generate has already given the power to a pro-Vietnamese government.
The worst is that this current generation has also ignored the recent hero who was imprisoned not too long ago. I need not to mention his name as we should all know who he is. This human rights activist decided not to leave his nation and Cambodians behind. He sacrificed his own wellbeing to protect freedom of speech for Cambodian citizens. And sure enough, these people have already forgotten him and his patriotic act. Someone told me that if you do not forget your people they will never forget you. This is apparently wrong in the case of Cambodian CCP voters.
How many people have been killed by the current government? Did they already forget monks and protestors who were attacked and killed by the government force in 1998? Did they not remember the FUNCINPEC troops who were killed during the 1997 coup? Some reporters and the former Labour Union leader Chea Vichea were killed, leaving sorrow for their families and friends. What did these people sacrifice for? It was all of Cambodians, wasn't it? Is that how Cambodians pay them back, by voting for the person who killed these heroes?
What do CPP voters owe these people?
Their lives.
To those who voted for CPP: You owe your nation and heroes. And you owe them big. Cambodians who voted for CPP are betrayers. They betrayed not only their nation and heroes, but also themselves. They will have to pay back and we will see this when the corrupt government takes their land away, cuts down trees and ruins the whole economy.
My last words: Who am I to tell you all of these? Well, I am no one. I am only a British economist who happens to have been to Cambodia many times (Cambodia is like my second home). I have once fallen in love with this country and its culture. Please excuse my language and any mistakes I might have made in this paper as I wrote it out of anger and disappointment.
The strong man only know how to intimedate, threat, kill and murder his own people with the help from aisan country, the European, the west.
SWOT Analyse
win-thai
Stength
we are stronger because most of military support is from individual's private property-means we are rich no need government budget.
Siams use govt budget to supply army.
Human resources- a lot of Generals-Phd. Excellencies- Co-ministers/Primeministers/ a lot of Kings/Samdachs..Oknhas
Budget: unlimited- collecting from people/monks/poors
Military strength- qualified/ mostly ghost soldiers (invisible)-many Generals
Margic Spell/Black margic: very effective- one thai army died may be due AIDS
Financial resources: land/govt. , any stateowned properties buildings/ heritage natural resources can be sold quickly to buy weapons without any parliamentary Approval ...
Power- handed only one strong man/ every thing can be decided fast...
Political Parties: no need to oppose any govermental decision
Infrastructure-very poor- makes rhais army difficult to move into Cam-territory
Economy: Low- Thais have nothing to eat when invade into Cam....
Weakness:N/A
Oppoertuny- unknown
Treat: uncountable/unknown
Conclusdion- Cam wins Siams unconditionally
Excellency Dr. Bandit Oknha Achar Knoy- Phd. in multi-disciplinary Subjects: Poli/Multi-econom. Laws /From Chea Chamreourn Unviersity PPenh/Campuchia
Prah viharn, Prasat Tamuan, Cham sagnam and Koh Kong Halek etc.. de jure and de facto belong to thailand because more percent of thais people have chance to visit the sites, and all modern infrastructure/raod are well connected from Thailand and mostly are constructed and developed by Thailand.
Kham do nothing with those prasats areas...letf them lonely spare for long time.
Chatchai
5:34am
As a non Cambodian with connections to Cambodia, I feel the same as yourself, I would hesitate to call people brainless, but I cannot understand why they continue to vote for the CPP. This notion of "stability" is a fallacy. There is some stability in a CPP government on the face of it, but in truth the CPP and it's cronies are asset stripping a nation. They will sell off every cultural and natural asset Cambodia has until the Khmer culture becomes so diluted that it will be no longer Khmer
Post a Comment