The history of extremism runs deep

Dear KI-Media Readers,

The recent closing of gambling institutions in Cambodia brings to mind another episode in 2001, when Prime Minister Hun Sen ordered the closing of all night clubs, discos and karaoke parlors within a few days. At that time, Dr. Lao Mong Hay wrote an article to the Phnom Penh Post to comment about this sudden closure. As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they remain the same, we feel that Dr. Lao Mong Hay's comment in 2001 is still relevant to the present case. Please find below, Dr. Lao Mong Hay's comment.

Again, we are indebted to Dr. Lao Mong Hay for his kindness in sharing his insight with us.

Thank you,

KI-Media team
-------------
The history of extremism runs deep

Friday, 07 December 2001
Written by Lao Mong Hay
The Phnom Penh Post

On Tuesday November 20 Prime Minister Hun Sen issued an order to close down nightclubs, discos and karaoke parlours because of violence and drug trafficking associated with such establishments. That order was effective as from 18:00 Friday, November 23.

Orders of our "strong man" are our laws, and our obedient "law" enforcement agencies could not afford to waste any time and rushed to enforce the latest order of our prime minister. Like Greek philosopher Socrates who preferred abiding by the law of his land to acceding to a plea by his friend Crito to escape the death sentence imposed on him by that law, the owners of those establishments together with their workers, being law-abiding citizens as always, uttered no word of protest and accept the death of their businesses and employment. Phnom Penh that Friday night fell dark and quiet when those establishments were closed down.

For puritans our prime minister's decision is justified. But it was too sudden, taken on the spur of the moment without proper consideration of its consequences or alternative measures. It suppressed the problems it had been meant to address. It made the innocent pay for the incompetence of our authorities.

To take the issue of incompetence first: Before giving any license to open and operate such establishments, owners must have satisfied the authorities that they met a certain number of requirements such as good character, no criminal record, adequate measures and ability to ensure law and order in their premises, and financial surety, so that their customers could fully enjoy themselves free of any trouble, and their neighbors were not disturbed. Furthermore, the authorities should have conducted spot checks to ensure that law and order prevailed, and there were no drugs or even prostitution. Non compliance with the standard above would be subject to a variety of penalties such as warning, fine, and closure.

Puritans would argue that corruption had rendered such supervision for compliance with any standard ineffective. Such an argument simply admitted corruption among our authorities. But why make owners and workers pay for the incompetence and corruption of our authorities whose job it is to provide security to citizens anyway? Why does our prime minister or his government not punish those authorities for their incompetence and corruption?

The closure of all such establishments has penalized the ones which had made efforts and taken measures to ensure law and order and have no drug problem within their premises. What kind of value system is it when it cannot differentiate good and evil, and when good is subject to the same penalty as evil?

Look at investment in such establishments. License or approval was obtained before making such investment. It was lawfully made or at least with the knowledge of those authorities in the vicinities. Such investment was badly affected, or even ruined, by such an unpredictable measure. Such an unpredictable measure has faltered all planning and has sent a bad signal to actual and potential investors in other sectors.

How about those workers? Are they well-off people? They had already been punished by the society whose socio-economic organisation had failed to create more decent employment for them and also by its ill-consideration of their employment at those establishments. Such a sudden measure has punished them further. Are we not so cruel to fellow countrymen who had the misfortune of not having been born in better-off or more well-to-do families or in better-off areas, or of not receiving better education? Where will their next meals come from if all of a sudden they lose their job? And the next meals of those who depend on their earnings?

Our prime minister's drastic decision was not unique though in our society and in our history. Many of our actions have an extreme aspect.

In the family, the way we scold our children has such an extreme aspect and has no sense of proportion: "I kick you dead"; "I beat you dead", and the like. When we insult one another we also use "brutal" language: "May the lightening strike you!" "May a bullet hit you!", "May a grenade blast you!", and the like.

At times members of the same family, when having some conflicts, have disowned one another until their death. In our social relations too, sometimes we curse one another and pledge not to talk with one another again or not step on one another's doorstep again, and that for good. We have resorted to such drastic measures over differences or conflicts which a bit more of patience or moderation can solve without necessarily breaking relationships for good or without damage or harm to one another.

In love affairs, among those who have failed, there are those who have made up their mind that it is the end of the world for them in this life or even in the next. Some pledge to avoid their hated partners for this life and for all the next lives if they are born again. Some have committed suicide, others have taken refuge in Buddhist monasteries. Many a time those victims of love affairs are young and have a full life ahead of them.

Some wives who are jealous of their husbands' mistresses have simply got these mistresses killed or thrown acid at. Some men have raped very young girls including girls under ten years old.

The lack of patience, moderation and sense of proportion and the concomitant drastic and extreme decisions have been shown now and again by criminals as well as by those who have arrested and punished them. Sometimes criminals kill their victims to steal earrings worth less than $10, or to steal motorcycles worth some $1,000 or much less. Sometimes those who have arrested robbers have brutally beaten them to death. At times one hears warnings that a killer or a group of killers can be hired for less that $100 or $200 only. Such a case has recently happened in Battambang province.

The change of behavior of some people has also an extreme aspect, and in the old Cambodian value system, in order to characterize the drastic change of behavior following a change of situation, people used a well-known metaphor of butterflies finding caterpillars disgusting and looking down on them. Butterflies forgot altogether that they had been born from caterpillars. Some time back poor Cambodians joined the fight against "the bourgeois" and "the feudal lords" who, they claimed, had exploited the poor. Those revolutionaries were very humble during their struggle days. Once they got power and riches they became bourgeois or feudal lords themselves, at times more arrogant than the bourgeois and feudal lords they had overthrown, forgetting all their humble days and their humble fellow countrymen. There are friends who have become strangers to one another and have avoided one another after they joined different political parties.

Such drastic and extreme measures have also been taken in public affairs, and Cambodians cannot afford to forget some of the disastrous ones.

Our King, when He was Head of State in the 1960s, alleged that American aid and the "dollar god" were corrupting Cambodian army officers and other officials at that time. As a measure to end that corruption he refused to receive that aid.

In 1970 Lon Nol resorted to force to rid the sanctuaries and bases of communist Vietnamese forces in the border regions at the end of the Ho Chi Minh trail thereby engulfing the country in the Vietnam War. He also took a drastic decision to overthrow the monarchy and turn Cambodia into a republic.

In 1975 the Khmer Rouge went to even more extremes. They were not happy with townsfolk and were not able to feed them when they took power. They simply forced them to the countryside to till the land and grow their own food until their death. They alleged that money was corrupting. They simply abolished it. If they were not happy with somebody, they simply killed them. Examples of their drastic and extreme measures are endless.

Even more recently such drastic and extreme measures have been taken from time to time. Somebody or a group of people were not happy with Sam Rainsy, currently the opposition leader, and his followers, and they threw four grenades into the demonstrators he was leading on 30 March 1997, killing 19 demonstrators and injuring over one hundred.

In those days also the two ruling parties, CPP and Funcinpec, were not happy with one another. They armed themselves and eventually on 5 and 6 July, 1997 they fought each other to the destruction of Funcinpec. Somebody or a group of people were not happy with Ho Sok, a senior Funcinpec official, at that time. They simply killed him in his detention cell at the Ministry of Interior.

Later on our then second prime minister was not happy with the rise in crime, and alleged that some criminals were using cars with dark Rayban windows and windscreens and were committing crimes from there. He then banned such windows and windscreens as a measure to fight crime.

When becoming sole prime minister he was still not happy with the level of crime. He alleged that judges were corrupt and released criminals thereby rendering ineffective the government 's measures to combat crimes. He then ordered the re-arrest and retrial of those the courts had acquitted or released.
More recently, previous to his order to close down night clubs, he was not happy with members of the government and government officials for speaking their minds at variance with government policies, he simply banned them from participating and speaking at seminars organised by the civil society unless they had his prior approval.

Almost all drastic, and at times extreme, measures, if not all, taken either by individuals, or by groups, or by "strong men" have met with immediate effectiveness. They have suppressed the problems they have been meant to address, but in general they have not addressed or solved them. They have created new problems some of the consequences of which we have continued to suffer.

It is about time we avoided such measures and proceeded to solve problems in a methodic way, not on the spur of the moment, looking at alternative solutions and weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives.

If we could not get what was suggested above, we wish our prime minister would use the stroke of his pen to raise the salaries of our civil servants and ban corruption throughout the country. Such a drastic measure would be as effective as his order to close down nightclubs, discos and karaoke parlours.

Source: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/200112076532/National-news/The-history-of-extremism-runs-deep.html