A Modest Proposal

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Op-Ed by JayaKhmer
On the web at http://modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

The Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) decisively won the election. On July 27, 2008 Cambodia held its fourth Parliamentary Election in 15 years. Although 11 political parties participated in the election, CPP managed to capture 90 seats out of 123 according to official result. This means even without the 2006 constitutional amendment to change the requirement from a super majority to a simple majority (50+1) to form a government, CPP could have easily met the former requirement.

If democracy is only about elections, Cambodia shows an impressive progress considering the country had just emerged from decades of wars and conflicts. Democracy, however, is much more than elections though they serve as important processes. Rather, the principles and practices are characteristics necessary to determine whether a nation is democratic.

While I want to offer my heartfelt congratulations to CPP for its impressive victory, I have lingering concerns as to what political progress will this victory bring.

As CPP is poised to form a new government, its actions after the election will determine the direction of the country. CPP is credited for the country’s impressive economic progress. As an optimist, I hope that CPP will take this golden opportunity to addressing these important political issues.

Political Liberty is core of a democracy. The U.S. would not be the way it is now if the founding fathers failed to incorporated the Bill of Rights in the constitution. According to John Stuart Mill, liberty is “the protection against the tyranny of the political rulers.” The first ten amendments of the U.S constitution practically restrict the power of government and protect individuals’ liberty.

The current Cambodian constitution recognizes citizens’ rights, but it fails to restrict the power of government. There is a thin line between tyranny and democracy. Restricting the power of government and a devotion to creating a well-ordered society by all where no one is above the law will push Cambodia rapidly toward democracy.

This is also a perfect time for CPP to set term limit for office of the prime minister. The U.S did not impose term limit for president until the ratification of 22nd amendment in 1947. Most countries allow their prime ministers to serve without term limits; Cambodia under CPP should take this bold step by making term limit as a permanent part of the constitution.

CPP has to look beyond this transitional period. The country must keep changing to progress. With term limit, the country knows and expects new policies and new ways of governing after a leader’s term limit is expired. Even if the country keeps voting for the same party, at least term limit will provide opportunities for other capable members of that party to serve the nation. With term limit, the country also will depend on the rule of law to change a leader rather than depends on the mercy of a leader to relinquish his/her power.

The checks and balances are also very important in a democracy. Perhaps, the framers of the Cambodian constitution overlooked this important issue. In a unitary system, as oppose to the federal system, Cambodian government wheels tremendous power. Realistically, there is no separation of power between different branches of the government. Therefore, currently there are no checks and balances.

CPP happens to be the winner this time around. What would CPP do if it were to become an opposition party? As Cambodia becomes more developed, it is conceivable that country’s political landscape will also change and can change drastically. This is the right time to make sure that there is reflective equilibrium that provides ample opportunity for opposition parties to participate in political deliberation process to provide the much needed checks and balances.

If election in a democracy is a way in which a political party justifies its legitimacy to govern a nation, CPP should use this people’s mandate to create a legacy for all citizens – not just for CPP - that last from one generation to the next. Political liberty, term limit to the highest office in the nation, and legitimate checks and balances that encourage political oppositions a continued cooperation will be the most precious legacy that a political party or an election can offer.

Cambodian People’s Party should be Magnanimous

Sunday, June 01, 2008
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

Based on a simple majority requirement to form a government and divided opposition parties, it is highly likely that Cambodian People's Party (CPP) will win the July 27th election.

Although the constitutional amendment to change the requirement from a super majority to a simple majority to form a government will allow a political party or parties to form a government easier than it was it the past, post election crisis will be there if the election is perceived to be not free and fair.

Therefore, CPP should be magnanimous by making sure that the election is free fair. This means CPP should stay clear from the National Election Committee (NEC) and the international observers so that they can truly be independent.

NEC and the international observers must make sure that electoral process is transparent, that political parties and the candidates have equal media and orderly election campaign, that the election is free of fear and intimation, and that there is no misuse of government facilities for campaign purposes.

In past elections although CPP has not won decisively, it has been managing to control the government since the first election.

In 1993, CPP won 51 seats second to National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) won the most with 58 seats. Since it was required 81 seats to form a government, CPP with skilled political maneuvering managed to become equal partner with FUNCINPEC.

CPP narrowly won the election in 1998 with 64 seats in front of the backdrop of two important events preceded the election -the grenade attack on peaceful rally near the National Assembly in March that resulted in at least 16 people were killed and many injured and the 'coupe' of July 1997 also resulted many killings. The atmosphere of fear and intimidation certainly were there. CPP and FUNCINPEC, then, formed a coalition when Prince Norodom Ranariddh accepted the compromise by allowing the former Co-Prime Minister Hun Sen as Prime Minister and Prince Norodom Ranariddh as President of the National Assembly.

The election of 2003 gave CPP a stronger hand of 73 seats out of 123. FUNCINPEC won only 26 seats was markedly weaker than the last two elections when it captured 53 seats in 1993 and 43 seats in 1998. Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) showed an improvement by receiving 24 seats jumping from the 1998 election when it captured 15 seats.

Since no political party captured the 2/3 majority necessary to form a government, it took 11 months of political maneuvering and negotiating to reach an agreement. The crisis after each election prompted scholars and politicians to re-think about the existing formula of super majority requirement.

In 2006, in the spirit of rapprochement with Prime Minister Hun Sen who agreed to settle political conflicts Sam Rainsy after his self-impose exile in France, the opposition leader proposed an amendment to the constitution that allows a government to be formed with a simple majority. The proposal was too good that CPP could not refuse.

Besides the simple majority requirement, CPP will highly like to win this coming election partly because of the opposition parties are not united. Although SRP has shown sign of improvement in the 2003 elections by gaining 9 seats more than it had in the 1998 election, it has a long way to go to capture a simple majority.

SRP has to swallow its pride by taking a critical look at its internal structure and even considering of changing the party's name so that other can join without losing their party identity. SRP must do what it takes to unite with of all other opposition parties if it hopes to capture a simple majority.

Human Rights Party has no track record and is too new that made it hard to gage as to what impact it will have on the coming election. Based on the last election CPP only captured 47% of the total votes. This means the new requirement of simple majority will give a united opposition party a chance to win this election if and only if they work together.

Thus far, there is no sign of a united opposition party – not now or any time soon.

Norodom Sihanouk vs. Khmer Republican: Please Keep On Fighting

May 23, 2008
Op-Ed by Jaya Khmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

Recently, a barrage of posts of HM Norodom Sihanouk published on KI Media. From the contents of these posts, it appears that that the relentless and pernicious attacks by those who hate the former king finally get under his skin.

The fight between the former king and some Khmer Republicans may go on for perpetuity.

Please keep on fighting because both sides are free to do so but understand that this fight won't do a thing for those who are suffering from social, political, and economic injustice that go on in Cambodia right now. What an excellent way to exercise your freedom!!!

In the final analysis, ordinary people normally ended up as the biggest losers.

I am dumbfounded over the fact that both sides are more than eager to duke it out over these retroactive issues.

The decades of tensions:

In 1955, when the former monarch desired to be a legitimate leader of the nation due to his kingship was given by the French in 1941 by abdicating the thrown and creating Sangkum Reastr Niyum, he did it despite by those who were closed to him pleaded not to so. The former king did and won the election handedly. Not to mention, the fact the oppositions were intimidated, harassed, and threatened to the point that many did not go out to vote to be safe.

In March of 1970, the table was turned. Khmer Republican put an end to Sangkum Reastr Niyum. Sangkum Reastr Niyum to Norodom Sihanouk's credit gave Khmer people a glimpse of what Cambodia could be as a self-sustained and independent nation. By the time Khmer Republic decided on what new government structure to adopt, the country by now was deeply mired in the Indochina War that was too enormous for Cambodia to handle. Ordinary people could not wait for the war to end hoping that the country would return to peace and tranquility. They could not be further from the truth.

The former king joined the Khmer Rouge, I surmise, because he wanted to win the Khmer Republican much more than he loved the communists. In order to restore his honor, the Khmer Rouge with the supports from China gave him the best chance to achieve that end. The content of his recent posts clearly reflected the former king's on going bitterness with the Khmer Republican.

In 1975, the former king again returned to Cambodia as a victor along with the Khmer Rouge. Except the Khmer Rouge once seized the power had a different agenda. Consequently, ordinary people were the biggest losers. From 1975 to 1979, nearly 3 million Khmer died during this worst regime in world's history among modern governments.

In 1993 after a long peace process, Cambodia held its first UN sponsored election. If there was any question or any doubt about the former king popularity and legitimacy, the election unequivocally answered the question and erased all doubts. Norodom Sihanouk was once again ascended to the thrown as King of Cambodia when the Khmer people voted for change and by giving FUNCINPEC the most votes in the national assembly.

What his majesty the former king and FUNCINPEC did with the victory was quite a different story. Some may argue and perhaps rightly so that 1993 could have been the golden opportunity to build a true democratic foundation for Cambodia. But that is entirely a different topic.

The funny thing is while the battle between the former king and Khmer Republican continues until each side no longer exists; the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) continues to win election after election.

It is nice for the victor to claim moral victory over this peripheral issue, but winning while the country goes down the drain, is this worth winning?

Should Ranariddh be allowed back if he is stripped of political involvement?

Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranariddh should be Free to Come Home?

Thursday, March 13, 2008
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer

His Majesty the King of Kampuchea should grant a pardon to Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranariddh only with a condition that the Prince agrees not to be involved in politics again. Samdech Krom Preah should retire from politics.

Personally, I do not have any animosity toward Samdech Krom Preah; I am advocating for members of the royal family to stay out of politics because I have too much respect and love for the institution of monarchy, our tradition, and our history. We happen to be next door to a neighbor whose people have a strong tradition of love and respect for their king.

It is a matter of national pride that we get our act together and do the right thing. I truly believe that the current arrangement by which a king reigns but not rules is a perfect balance to have for Khmer society. The king and the Khmer Royal members should stay above the fray of the mud slinging politics that often involved unnecessary roughness.

Allowing Samdech Krom Preah to go back to politics will ruin this perfect balance. The king should be politically neutral. How can Khmer people trust their king if he is perceived to be a rescuer of a member of his family?

Historically some members of the royal family had disgraced the Khmer people judging them by today's standard. By the same token, there were great kings in the past who had done great things for the Khmer people. In fact, those great kings have defined us as Khmer by our connection to the glorious past. Our Khmer identity is uniquely connected to these great world heritages such as Angkor Watt and the Bayon.

Therefore, the institution of Khmer Monarchy should be honored and respected by all Khmer regardless of their political persuasions. Encouraging Samdech Krom Preah to stay out of politics would remove any foreseeable risks that could taint this institution. The only guarantee that Samdech Krom Preah will not be in trouble again is that he should stay out of politics. Otherwise, the institution of monarchy will inevitably be marred. That is the risk the nation should not take.

Since this is an election season, some may argue that Samdech Krom Preah could tip the balance by joining the opposition parties that would bring change to Cambodian politics. That is a flawed argument. Samdech Krom Preah is no longer an asset. Rather he is a political liability. Under Samdech Krom Preah's leadership, FUNCINPEC's seats at the National Assembly have been eroding. NRP, the Prince's latest invention, could not muster much during the recent commune election.

If the opposition parties want to shine as the alternatives to the Cambodian People Party (CPP), they can and should do it without Samdech Krom Preah.

Those who love Cambodia and at the same time want fortune and political appointments by pushing Samdech Krom Preah back into politics should face the reality that the probability of getting any of that will be very slim. Joining other parties is not too late.

The bottom line, Samdech Krom Preah should be free to come home and to work on humanitarian projects.

Should Cambodia Town in Long Beach be politically all inclusive and accept Sok An's visit?

The Cambodia Town in Long Beach Should be a Neutral Place for All Khmer

Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
Posted at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

Energy has been wasted on an issue that should be a non-issue. I have listened to both sides of the arguments about whether or not Deputy Prime Minister Sok An should be invited to be part of the Khmer Town New Year celebration.

Let me first acknowledge that from an outsider’s perspective, I may be looking at the forest while community members in Long Beach look at the tree. I am looking at a broader picture as a Khmer Community while some in Long Beach look at individuals.

I understand that we, Khmer, are political creatures. This kind of events it is expected that there will be people who are trying to score unnecessary political points. That would be a wrong thing to do on both sides.

Cambodia Town should be a neutral place for all Khmer. It means that all Khmer dignitaries should be welcomed because the town is a place where members of the community belong to diverse political groups. This means Cambodia Town should welcome not only the government members but also any political leader from any political parties.

Not all CPP members are corrupted. If we want change, we need to develop a dialogue between all political parties especially those who are in power. This does not mean you have to compromise on your principle. It simply means you are willing to engage in order to find common ground on issues that benefit Khmer people as a community and as a nation.

Without knowing all the sensitive issues in Long Beach, my first impression of the spat is that the community is narrow minded and short sighted.

Why couldn’t Cambodia Town be a place where political inclusiveness is promoted?

Why couldn’t Long Beach be a beacon of democracy where diverse members of the community are encouraged in vibrant debates that promote positive principles and policies that benefit member of the community here and benefit Khmer in Cambodia?

If Long Beach is indicative of a typical Cambodian Community, we are in bigger trouble than we thought. This tells me that the foreigners are not the predicament of Cambodia’s unity and its progress. It is our divisiveness that continues to weaken us as a community and as a nation.

If we, Khmer, cannot find a common ground to resolve our issues in a civilized and effective manner, we are the worse enemy to ourselves.

Cambodian Election 2008: Natural Alliances

Sunday, November 25, 2007
Op-Ed by jayakhmer
Posted at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

As election is near, politicians are scrambling to find ways to ensure their place at the national political arena. This political maneuvering has happened before. It was done in the façade of national unity where political parties struck deals to form an alliance in order to face a stronger opponent. In the end, natural alliance emerged and politics was just as business as usual.

If we are not examining the issue carefully, it can be very confusing. Politicians tend to use undefined political terms to confuse people.

I am going to focus on two operating terms that being tossed back and forth out there – “the Royalists” and “the Democrats”. Who are the royalists and who are the democrats?

Here are the main parties to be contested in the 2008 election: The Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), The Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), The Norodom Ranariddh Party (NRP), The FUNCINPEC Party (FUNCINPEC), and The Human Rights Party (HRP).

Let us examine the term “Royalists” first. Under the current constitution, aren’t we all royalists?

The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes”. Legally, we are royalists because Cambodia is a kingdom. As it states in article 131, the constitution is the highest law of the land within which it devotes at least 23 articles defining the role of the king.

If all of us are legally royalists, it is safe to draw a conclusion that all political parties are royalists.

Be careful. Politically speaking, not all royalist parties are equal.

For a moment one would think that FUNCINPEC and or the NRP have the credential or even the blood line, if you will, to be the legitimate royalist parties.

If you think so, you couldn’t be further from the truth. CPP, as it turns out, is the most royalist political party of all. CPP leaders evidently were just handsomely awarded with honors and titles that are too long and complicated to state them here.

Do not be fooled by political rhetoric of last minute scrambling designed to achieve a short term gain.

If alliance to be formed, it would be natural for CPP, FUNCINPEC, and the NRP to be together.

Who are the democrats?

Well, technically speaking all political parties are democratic. All seem to adhere to a certain democratic process to run their parties. As far as alliance is concerned, without the alliance of royalists, the only main parties left are the SRP and the HRP.

I also want to be cautioned here. Not all democrats are the same even when they all claim to be one.

If one of the democratic processes requires a transparency of elections within a party structure, the SRP and the HRP would meet that requirement. In principle, both parties are advocate for more democratic reform within the government.

Although the HRP is too new to have any track records that can be used to evaluate its political performance, it is safe to assume that the party is in the same mold as that of the SRP.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense, and it is natural for both parties to form an alliance of democrats if the two parties can compromise and find common ground to work together.

Between the two camps - royalists and democrats, politically parties should reject any flaw and unnatural alliances because unnatural alliances only last right after the next election.

If natural alliances are formed, this would give Cambodian people a clear choice to choose in the next election. This also takes away the guessing game out of election politics.

The only question we need to ask is that will CPP be willing to work or the share power with FUNCINPEC and the NRP when it is conceivable that CPP may already have enough votes to meet the simple majority requirement to form the next government without both FUNCINPEC and the NRP.

Is term limit good for Cambodia?

November 11,2007
OpEd by Jayakhmer
Posted at MODERN PROGRESSIVE KHMER

The recent clash between the prime minister and the leader of the Sam Raingsy Party (SRP) on term limit for the prime minister position highlighted a significant difference in political thinking between the two parties.

Thus far the debate of term limit, unfortunately, is nothing more than heated rhetoric between the parties’ leaders. The debate geared toward personal attacks rather than geared toward debating the merit of an idea or legislation.

Apparently, the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) does not seem to be in a hurry to legislate themselves out of the power nor do they want to contemplate on replacing its candidate for prime minister.

Obviously, the SRP also exposes somewhat its own hypocrisy by raising the issue of term limit while the party has been producing the same candidate for prime minister in past and current election. If the SRP is serious about term limit, it must lead by example.

Is term limit good for Cambodia?

Political term limit is a recent phenomenon. The United States of America did not have term limit for the office of presidency until 1951 with the ratification of the 22nd amendment of the constitution. Generally, American president serves for one or terms with the exception of Franklin Roosevelt who was elected to the office for three terms.

The debate on term limit should be about the future of Cambodia. The idea of term limit reflects the questions whether Cambodia will be a nation of law or a nation of men.

A nation of men will be more risky than a nation of law. By a stroke of luck, if nation elects a capable and competent man as its leader, a nation prospers; and if nation ends up with an incompetent leader, the nation suffers.

With term limit where the law dictates the term of office of a leader, at least the people know that they only have to endure for one or two terms which ever the law of term limits may require if they end up with an incompetent leader.

Without a term limit, a nation depends on men of good conscience such as George Washington of the U.S. or Nelson Mandela of South Africa who did not want to hold on to power for too long.

Term limit is about political maturity of a nation. Term limit allows a civilized nation to peacefully transfer of power between individuals or facilitate a regime change without a coup d’etat or a revolution.

How long should a term limit be for Cambodia?

The nation must decide purely base on a unique character of Cambodia not a quick copy of neighbor nations. Cambodia’s term limit should reflect the balance or the tension between Khmer’s thirst for power and the stability of the nation.

Term limit is good for Cambodia.

Samdech Krom Preah Norodom Ranariddh: Please Retire from Politics

Prince Norodom Ranariddh reviews combatants of the Armée Nationale Sihanoukiste (ANS) on Thai-Cambodian border (Photo: Courtesy of Frank Tatu)

Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Op-Ed By Jayakhmer
Posted at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com/

Your highness, if I may have the honor and the permission to advise your highness on political matter, my advice to your highness is short and simple. Please stay out of politics. Here are the reasons:

The last commune election should have given your highness a clue as to whether or not your highness should stay in politics. If I read the result of the election correctly, it is highly likely that your highness will not have any chance to survive the next one. Therefore, your highness should get out of politics now while it is bearable and honorable to get out with the excuse that not many people know your highness’s new political party, and that the people are confused between FUNCINPEC and Norodom Ranariddh Party.

Your highness, those who are observing Cambodian politics are saying the same thing on this matter.

Dr. Milton Osborne in May 2007 analysis, for example, wrote, “Prime Minister Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party (CPP) has further entrenched its control as the result of sweeping successes in the Commune Council elections held on 1 April. These elections, which very loosely can be equated with municipal elections elsewhere in the world, saw the CPP win control of 1,591 of the country's 1,621 communes, representing 98.2% of the total contested. The Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) managed to win control of 28 communes, or 1.7% of the total. On the basis of the information currently available it is possible that control of the remaining two communes has been shared between the Norodom Ranariddh Party and the Hang Dara Party.”

Your highness, the vote was significant because it represented the level of trust and confidence of the Khmer people over your highness’s leadership. If this last commune election result was indicative of your highness’s leadership, it is safe to say your highness has almost zero trust and confidence of the country’s voting population.

Aside from this issue, earlier this year His Majesty has encouraged the royal family members to stay out of politics. I think your highness should take His Majesty advice seriously after all His Majesty had been in the political arena for at least six decades. His Majesty knew what he was talking about.

If your highness insists that politics is the only way that makes your highness’s life meaningful, your highness should know a few things that your highness’s closest advisers could never have told your highness.

When I was an impressionable young student, I traveled to U.C. Berkeley, California to hear your highness’s speech in a conference during the late eighties. I was not impressed. Then, I thought your highness was pedestrian, uncharismatic, and lack of originality. I found that your highness’s imitation of His Majesty was annoyance. My immediate reaction at the time was that I thought your highness was using His Majesty’s image and reputation to promote yourself.

I could be wrong because I was young and perhaps a bit progressive in my thinking, but that was my impression. Your highness has to be true as to who your highness really is. Your highness is educated. Your highness loves your country. Your highness was borne into a privilege family, your highness already ahead than most of us in terms of name recognition and social status. Your highness could truly do some thing with these qualities.

Going back to politics, your highness will have to consider a few matters such as credibility, CPP, and the Khmer royal family reputation.

To have any impacts in the next election, your highness will have to work with other parties. It is highly likely that your highness lost all credibility. The other parties simply do not trust your highness because they do learn from lessons of the past. They joined your highness’s call; your highness left them in the cold.

Without other parties, your highness will have to content with CPP.

CPP has always been there to make things just a little difficult for your highness. Your highness, CPP does not seem to go anywhere any time soon.

Remember, when FUNCINPEC, under your highness's leadership, won the election in 1993, CPP could still take advantage. Kheang Un in Patronage Politics and Hybrid Democracy points out that, “…The United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Cooperative Cambodia Party (FUNCINPEC), won 45 percent of the total vote, while the CPP received 38 percent. Although the CPP failed to capture the plurality of votes in that election, it succeeded in muscling its way into a coalition government.”

With a newly adopted simple majority rule (50+1) to form government, it is a very high probability that CPP will have total control of the government without building a coalition. CPP would still make thing difficult for your highness if they wish to do so.

Your highness the risk is high if other mishaps will occur. Not only your highness completely ruins the records your highness’s services to the county for more than two decades, your highness will also ruins the Khmer royal family reputation domestically and internationally.

These are some of the reasons why your highness should consider staying out of politics. Your highness should just enjoy your new family and take care of your highness’s other private matters.

Cambodian Nationalism: Can we be Civilized – a self reflective journal

October 19, 2007
Op-Ed By Jayakhmer
http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com/

Khmer nationalists love Cambodia. Millions across the globe visit the online media to read, and to discuss the affairs of their nation on a regular basis. Some even visit the online media daily. The fact that we love our country does not mean that we are automatically united or brotherly loved. Decades of wars and conflicts divided us into many diverse groups. We are vicious in our political discussion.

It does not matter what we are discussing, we will end up placing the responsibility of the problems on either the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) or His Majesty Norodom Sihanouk. Or at the end up we chastise each other.

To put thing in context, Cambodia has been governed largely by both His Majesty Norodom Sihanouk and CPP for decades only with the interruption of the Khmer Republic from 1970 to 1975 and the Khmer Rouge from 1975-1979.

The fact that the retired monarch is politically active along with CPP whose government has been marred by corruptions, both are the natural targets.

March 18, 1970, on the one hand, marked the end of an era. It was the end of the Khmer Monarchy as we knew it. The monarch who had been regarded as divine was now appearing in political cartoons regularly. The Khmer for the first was able to express their political dissatisfactions their leader freely. That trend continues up to the present day.

April 17, 1975, on the other hand, marked the beginning of the end of the Khmer innocence. The Khmer Rouge not only managed to kill most of the Khmer educated population, they also striped away our ethic and our morality. The Khmer gentility was gone forever. Survival of the fittest has become the catalyst that shapes the present social and political events.

Social civility is no longer the norm. Political discourses are no longer expressed in a civilized manner. If one listens to the political speech given by the highest level of the government and those expressed on the online media, they are very similar. They are raw and many are undisciplined and uniformed. We tend to criticize individuals instead of evaluate the ideas. We rush to brand each other as Sihanoukists or CPPists if any of us dare to rationalize a discussion.

There are those of us who expressed our opinions in a disciplined and informed manner only to get shut down by those who refuse to engage in a rational discussion.

If we are to build a democracy in Cambodia we have to be much better. We have to come the realization that Cambodian democracy only as good as its citizens. We are judged by our words and our deeds. I know that we cannot control the political events in Cambodia nor do we control any one else’s behavior. I do know that that we have full control of our action. We control what we say and what we do.

While I value the freedom to express our opinion freely, I wish that we all should do it in a disciplined, informed, and civilized manner.

Norodom Sihanouk: The Turning Point II

Sun, 30 Sep 2007
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
Posted online

In my last article, I mentioned casually that relation between Cambodia and the U.S was strained at best. Since this pivotal moment changed the faith of the country, I decided to investigate further. The evidences contradict the popular notion that Norodom Sihanouk was hastily and readily embraced the North Viet Nam and China in the sixties.

I know that Norodom Sihanouk was "no angel." That does not give us the rights to make a gross generalization about all his conducts. If we continue to let our passion dominates our otherwise rational selves, we are vulnerable to repeat the mistakes our predecessors committed again and again.

American's attitude about the Cambodia's border issues played and important role in this matter. To achieve its objective which was defeating the Vietcong, America was indifferent about violations of Cambodia's borders by its neighbors Viet Nam and Thailand despite endless complains from the former king.

Thailand repeatedly occupied Preah Vihea at the time. "According to the White Book of the Cambodian Foreign Ministry, from 1962 to May 1969....the Saigon authority committed 7,178 violations of Cambodian territory (165 by sea, 1864 by land, and 5149 by air), killed or wounded 983 Khmers..."

The diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Cambodia in the spring of 1964 alone tell us that Norodom Sihanouk was not hasty. He was unsuccessful in his attempt.

February 8, 1964 Norodom Sihanouk held the U.S. responsible for "the South Vietnamese attack on a Cambodian village on Feb. 4," and the former king asked the US to finance truce observation posts along the Cambodian-South Vietnamese border. February 11, 1964 Norodom Sihanouk proposed, "An international conference to guarantee Cambodia's neutrality." By February 13, the former king warned that, "If the US does not agree to an international conference by May, he would sever diplomatic relations with Washington and possibly sign assistance agreements with 'certain great friendly countries'. [Referring to China and North Vietnam]" Basically, the warning was if the U.S. does not take the former king's proposal seriously he would support the Vietcong. Here is a piece of Dean Rusk's telegraph from the Department of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom on March 22, 1964. "To sum up, I think it is possible that your and my approach to these issues differs somewhat because of our different situations. We are heavily engaged in South Viet-Nam and are taking casualties every week in an effort to keep that country from going communist. Further, the Thais obviously rely more heavily upon our bilateral commitments than upon the general structure of SEATO in which they think non-regional members will be negligent of Thai security. Our regional stakes in Southeast Asia are so great that it is not easy for us to cooperate with the non-regional members of SEATO at the expense of South Viet-Nam and Thailand. I do not see how the United States can come to a general Geneva Conference without Saigon and Bangkok. Since Sihanouk's initiative was aimed at both these countries, I do not see how a conference could produce any worthwhile result unless they were present. You may believe that we have unlimited influence in Saigon and Bangkok, but this is simply not the case. Were we to try to drag these two countries kicking and screaming to a Geneva Conference, the situation in Saigon might well collapse through fear of neutralization and Thailand might well decide that we are wholly unreliable and that their only course is to make their peace with the communists in the North. This is the heart of the matter as I see it, and should not be glossed over by purely procedural considerations as to whether it is congenial to have a conference. If the issue is whether an unbalanced Sihanouk will irrationally turn to the communist North, we must balance this against the impact of a complete loss of morale in South Viet-Nam and Thailand." America was uneven handed and indifference when it came to resolving Cambodia territorial issues.

Could Norodom Sihanouk side with a hesitated America who sided with the perceived enemies of Cambodia at the time? The answer to this question demands our rationality. We all knew too well of the faith and consequences of this pivotal moment.

Political Prostitution

Thu, 12 Jul 2007
By Jayakhmer
Op-Ed Posted Online

If you betray the people whose supports make you what you are today, if you betray your principle and your conscience just to hold on to power and position in order to maintain your corrupt lifestyle, you are a politician who is practicing political prostitution.

In a free world one is free to affiliate oneself with a group, association, or organization of one's choice. In an ideal situation, political ideology and principle usually are the catalysts that force one to affiliate oneself with a political party. Once one is comfortable with a party's political platform, one remains a faithful member of that party forever through defeats and victories.

So do we call those who switch political party political prostitutes? No, not at all, there are those who switch political party with legitimate reasons.

In reality, if one joined a party because that party advocated for a certain issues that was very dear to one's heart, and now that party is no longer working or fighting for those issues any more. By all mean switch the party. In short, if one switches a political party because ideology and principle reasons, one should not be called a political prostitute.

Political prostitutes are those who have all the qualities: education, name recognition, and even very capable. He/she perpetually parades him or herself in front of the highest bitters. As soon as he or she is offered a position that provides a mean to continue that corrupt lifestyle, he/she will go for that.

Political parties should reject political prostitutes for they cannot be trusted. If they cheated others once or twice, they will cheat you again and again.

Walking Backward

Tuesday, July 3, 2007
By Jayakhmer
Op-Ed posted online

"Khmers are the gentle people." For the most part, I think, we are, but that quality is hard to trace nowadays. The impending Khmer Rouge trial reminds us that being gentle is a thing of the past. The Khmer Rouge era also reminds us that if we are not careful our gentle quality can be diminished and we can become very brutal.

It is unfortunate and shameful that I have to make such a gross generalization about my own people when I say "we." Of course, I do know that not all of us are Khmer Rouge, and I also know that brutality usually is exercised by those who are in power. For example, Khmer Rouge who was in power from 1975- 1979 committed the worse brutality in our recent history.

In the present time, if we look around us, we are not quite out of the woods yet. Journalists who tried to perform their due diligence as reporters are being threatened. Government critics are being warned. I think we are reduced to our lowest common denominator, when Buddhist monks are being used to act against other monks just to please our international neighbor. The fact that Vietnam is a friend of Cambodia does not mean that everything it does is right and just.

The argument that monks should not be involved in politics or international affairs, I agree wholeheartedly. However, if you blame our monks, you are missing the big picture. The question is how did it get to this point?

If democracy is the system we are striving for, is it wrong that people are struggling for freedom? When Khmers are being oppressed everywhere, it impacts Khmer everywhere. All Khmers should care, be vigilant, and condemn any violent acts against any Khmers.

An argument that a monk can ruin a good relationship between two nations and therefore he must be oppressed is ludicrous. When is the Cambodian government going to understand that we, Khmers, do not trust the Vietnamese government? If the Vietnamese government is a true friend, ask them to give Kampuchea Krom back to the Khmer people. If they can do that, then and only then can trust be restored. Otherwise, we are not going to understand the Vietnamese government the way the Cambodian government does.

If the Cambodian government does not understand this point, it is out of touch with its people.

Am I advocating that we should fight with our big and strong neighbor? Not at all, all that I am saying is that we, Khmers, love the have peace with our neighbors. Perhaps, asking for Kampuchea Krom back from the Vietnamese government is too extreme, we simply ask that the Vietnamese government behave as good friend should behave; that is, the Vietnamese government respects the Khmer people who rightfully live in their land that belong to their ancestors. If the Cambodian government is truly a friend on equal ground with the Vietnamese government, do advocate for all the Khmer in Kampuchea Krom; otherwise, the Cambodian government will always be viewed as a servant to its counterpart.

The fact that a monk is missing, it is safe to assume that the culture of fear is being perpetually fostered. There are those who love to please. If the leader or a boss says, "jump," they say, "how high?" They would go to any length to threat or even kill just to make their leader or boss happy. Ethical and morality have no place in their psyches.

If this kind of activity is allowed to continue, we are taking one step forward and ten steps backward. While the country seems to move forward economically, in humanity, we are getting further and further away from the rule of law society and going back toward our recent dark history. Walking backward should be a great concern to everyone.

------
KI-Media note: We apologize to the author of this Op-Ed for taking the liberty to make some minor typographic changes.