Are Cambodians Really Free, and when Is Government Censorship Okay?

Friday, February 18, 2011
Opinion by Keo Cham

I Disagree

To those who believe that freedom must have a limit, that expressions must not harm, and that words must not destroy; I completely supports your views, and humbly submit my freedom for the sake of these noble principles.

But to those who believe that freedom should be curved and that governments should have the responsibility to act as moral police to ensure that expressions do not "libel", "slander", "falsify" or "destabilize", I must respectfully, disagree.

What is the difference? One, we should know and distinguish in our minds that the limitations of freedom and the enforcements of it's limits are not the same. The jurisdiction of enforcement on the limitations of our freedoms does not fall to the governments, its responsibilities lies in the desire and aspirations of our society and the people.

Laws are created to protect society and the people within it; they are not tools to immortalized an institution, or a small clique of people.

While I disagree with my fellow homeland Cambodians about what freedom means, I can understand and do sympathize for them. Cambodians, I believe still have a lot to learn about freedoms, and specifically, freedom of expressions.

We know that our environments shapes our thoughts and frames our worldview. Given this axiom, it is not hard to understand why so many Cambodians who never left Cambodia can develop such a restrictive attitude and narrow definition for freedoms.

For their whole life they have always been accustomed to being told what they can do and what they cannot do. No one truly experiences freedom in Cambodia, only the freedoms sanctioned by Mr. Hun Sen's ruling party.

Mr. Hun Sen's freedom comes with many caveats and strings attached, and over time --30 long years, the Cambodian people have become habituated to it and willfully relinquished their birth rights to free conscious, free thoughts, and the freedom to disemniate those thoughts through vocal or expressive opinions ---whether they may manifest in the form of media, academic publications, or public assemblies.

The Habituated Resignation of Khmers: Bound by Choice

The Cambodians have fait acompli relinquished their own freedoms, and they do so willingly for a small group of people, who claims to represents and speak for the thoughts and opinions of more than 14 million souls and individuals.

Habituated resignation- this is the only way I can explain the state of the Cambodians' apathy and even some's support of Mr. Hun Sen's policies. Otherwise, how else could you explain, in a "free" and "democractic" society, a group of people so willing to stand by a government who:

Shuts up journalist with defamation law suits; ban documentaries; shunned artists; blacklist cartoonist; beats up landless victims; evict thousands from their homes; and "provide coffins" to any Khmers who vocally speaks up against the oppressions of their own people in Vietnam?

Have we forgotten that a former abbot of Phnom Denh pagoda was allowed to be kidnapped and humiliated by a foreign country, while helping refugees in his own Cambodia?

Have we forgotten that two innocent men were framed and jailed over 2 years for the murder of a union leader whose only crime was to encouraged fair treatments and wage for the sweat works of our Cambodian women and factory workers?

Are these the limits of our freedoms that we Cambodians must lowered ourselves to accept?

No one should die because they believed differently from you. No one should be jailed because they are honest about their feelings. No one should be imprisoned because they shared an article that does not agree to your taste - And yes, it does not matter if they shared it with a few private colleagues, or a campus full of citizens.

My fellow homeland Cambodians, wakeup and see the change in the world. Ask yourself if freedom truly exist for you if you have to ask permissions to do everything else that others in the world so freely enjoy and take for granted. Such things if I must spell it out again, are independent press, assemblies, free critiques of their governments, free complaints of their disastifactions, and vocal expressions of their dislikes for a public institution or figure. Such are the freedoms that we take for granted sometimes but dearly enjoy here in a democratic country in the west. Is that what you have in Cambodia?

The Role of Censorship

Freedom should only be denied when the acts carries a threat of existence to a group, a person, or a nation - but it should never be denied based on the fear that it could "destabilized" an institution, such as:

The Church, The State Religion, The State Party, or any Political Entity such as a particular regime.

Any government that seeks to ban or control freedom of expression through:

A.) Curbing protests and building of "freedom" squares or parks

B.) Destroying public screenings of documentaries

C.) Arresting leaflets distributors of opposing views

D.) Threatening defamation lawsuits against whistle blowers or journalists

The authority do not take this actions because these are a threat to our existence, a threat to our safety, or a threat to the continuation of our nation. Our nation is over 2 thousand years old, and will continue to exist, whether the CPP is at the helm or not. The Cambodians should take pride in the ancientness of our culture, and take comfort that the fall of Mr. Hun Sen, by their will whether through legal or popular means does not spell the destruction of our resilient nation.

Mr. Hun Sen's government take the actions mentioned above not for the sake of maintaining your freedom, but for the sake of maintaining their power over you, and for the sake of maintaining the survival of their institution- the CPP. An institution is not a person, or a group of people, they can change and sometimes completely disappear. Criticizing such instutions therefore does not constitute a threat to any individual or harming of any group. Even slandering, or libeling them in my opinions are perfectly within the domains of freedom that any future Cambodian government must protect.

The job of a working democratic Cambodian government should be to protect our freedoms, but never to limit it. That jurisdictions falls to the people. They will decide where the limits of their freedom lies. Institutions, parties, and even philosophy and religions change. But these changes reflect the people's desire for the development of their human potentials, and therefore should not be obstructed by the government via the excuse of "protecting" freedom or maintaining "stability". Stability of what? stability of their power over you! Stability of their own regime! How the people manifest their desires, is important to their progress. If they are kept silent, they will never achieve those aspirations.

If a government stands in the way of the people's aspiration, should you throw your support behind them, so you can be bound too by their definitions of freedom? I don't know for you, but for me, No Thanks!

Final words to my Khmer government and people:

(This opinion is in no way to interpret that I am in disagreement with our government on the current Thai Khmer situation, KHMERS are UNITED on this issue -- pressed on harder!)