 |
| Hun Sen (L) can't take the heat after being compared to Tunisia's Ben Ali by Dr. Lao Mong Hay |
Listen to RFA's report below:
Showing posts with label Criticism on Dr Lao Mong Hay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criticism on Dr Lao Mong Hay. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
Hun Xen fears the shadow cast by Tunisia's Ben Ali regime
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Mr. Bora Touch: I Am A Monarchist
Dear Readers,
After my article titled "Cambodia: The Monarchy Or A Republic" was posted here in my blog, I received a few replies in my emails. Among them, the comments from Mr. Bora Touch, a lawyer from Sydney, Australia have been very academic and interesting. His comments are below - Khmerization.
----------------------------After my article titled "Cambodia: The Monarchy Or A Republic" was posted here in my blog, I received a few replies in my emails. Among them, the comments from Mr. Bora Touch, a lawyer from Sydney, Australia have been very academic and interesting. His comments are below - Khmerization.
Learned friends:
I am too a monarchist, a Khmer monarchist to be particular, as I came to appreciate the Khmer monarchy as a symbol, if not the symbol, of the Khmer culture, tradition, civilisation and institutionally maturity.
For us Khmer, republicanism is not a new (exciting) conception.It has been around before the times of our Lord Buddha. Buddha, our Lord guru, after experiencing life, philosophically and practically, rejected, because of a pragmatic knowledge of human failings, the republicanism way of ruling. The Lord had this to preach:
For us Khmer, republicanism is not a new (exciting) conception.It has been around before the times of our Lord Buddha. Buddha, our Lord guru, after experiencing life, philosophically and practically, rejected, because of a pragmatic knowledge of human failings, the republicanism way of ruling. The Lord had this to preach:
" For as Long as there are bullies and liars, monarchs are needed. For as long as the poor look for hope and the rich seek excess, for as long as the wicked fight for dominion and other nations manoeuvre for control, for as long as evil men oppose the impulses of the good, we need to believe in a king whose power comes from above."
Still in the relevant subject. We all know that India and Cambodia had the oldest/superior polity/political science treatises and teachings, Kaulya's Artharastra, to name one. Some dozen centuries later, ie in 4th century, Kamandakiya authored another significant treatise on political science called Nitisara (elements of polity). According to Khmer inscriptions, most if not all of Indian treatises, such Artharsastra and Nitisara, (Mahabatara, Mahayana, Buddhism included) etc. came to Cambodia before Angkor: ( KK Sarkar, Early Indo-Cambodian Contacts (1968). During the French colonial dominion, instead of teaching us the Khmer-Indian philosophies and polity, they taught us the western ones. Until today, we still are taught the same things at those universities because we/ the Khmer teachers are unable to teach our own thoughts. Lok Sar Sarun, through his Aryadharma ning Varpadharma Khmaer, (Khmer Civilisation and Culture (1972), arguing a long the line of Dr. Theos Bernard, Hindu Philosophy, (1947) gave us a starting point, but again we failed to pick his thoughts up and expand.
The French had also known that by the time they arrived in Cambodia in 1863, the later had a surviving constitution/Kram Srok (1693) which was older than theirs, older than the US's, and a rather sophisticated legal system and laws. The Khmer 1947 constitution, which most scholars wrongly called it the first constitution of Cambodia, was a copy of the draft constitution of the fourth French Republic. Again we ignored our own thoughts.
Bora Touch.
--------------------
And the following is another reply from a reader named Salen Sy.
--------------------
And the following is another reply from a reader named Salen Sy.
Dear Bora and all,
I personally have enough with the Monarchy, and the Royalist Character's is detestable but for the Khmer interests, and the Khmer glory to the future though, Royalist State in Cambodia is a must, as long as I can understand the Cambodian problem. Therefore, I am another person who support the Monarchy state in Cambodia. Bravo ! ! !
Regards
Salen Sy.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Cambodia: The Monarchy Or A Republic?
3rd January, 2009
Opinion by Khmerization
The debates about the roles of the monarchy and the royals in politics have heated up again following the appeals by Prince Sisowath Thomico for all members of the royal family to stay out of politics.
It is no surprise for a member of the royal family like Prince Thomico to appeal to his peers to stay out of politics. For the monarchy, and the royals in particular, the last few years have been a turbulent time and the annus horribilis for them. The monarchy was on constant attacks from Prime Minister Hun Sen for meddling in politics and the royalist parties have faced their electoral defeats ignominiously. A call for a voluntary dignified exit from politics is the only option.
Cambodia has had a monarchical system of government for more than 2000 years. Since then, Cambodia has seen the ups and downs, the bad and the good of this feudal system. Some kings ruled well and had turned Cambodia into a superpower at their times, while others were clumsy kings who have relentlessly engaged in family feuds which have made Cambodia shrunk and reduced to its present size.
The Cambodian royals have engaged in politics, in one way or another, since the birth of Cambodia as a nation. But royal politics as we know it today has only begun to take shape in the 1950s when the then king Sihanouk abdicated in 1955 to enter politics and installed his father, Prince Suramarit, as king. Sihanouk’s actions have put the monarchy in the political firing lines ever since.
Sihanouk ruled Cambodia with an iron fist. Political activities or expressions contravening to his views were not tolerated. Political opponents were hunted down, jailed and, to some extent, executed.
Sihanouk’s repressive actions and his anti-American stance as well as his communist-leaning politics have led to discontents and angers within his inner circles that culminated into a coup against him in 19970 which has seen the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic. Since then, Cambodia has plunged into a civil strife that has caused irreparable political and national divisions until today.
On the other hand, with fairness, the monarchy, to a large degree, must be credited with the restoration of peace to Cambodia, the source of political stability and a focal point for all the political spectra to be united all around the monarchy, especially the person of a king.
Sihanouk, who angered many intellectuals with his repressive pre-1970 rule and who was accused to have been credited with helping the Khmer Rouge to come to power in 1975 and have been associated, to some degree, with the Khmer Rouge rule, has somewhat redeemed himself, when he spearheaded the Paris Peace Negotiations with the Vietnamese-backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen that led to a comprehensive Paris Peace Accords in 1991. He was credited, rightly or wrongly, with a smooth transition of powers after the Untac-organised election in 1993, mediated the reconciliations between Prince Ranariddh and Prime Minister Hun Sen, post-1997 coup. He was also credited, again, rightly or wrongly, for averting political and military crisis after the elections of 1998 and 2003.
But, politics aside, is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant to the Cambodian society in the present political context? The answer is yes and no, depending on ones own monarchical or republican views.
To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.
Some views perceive the Cambodian monarchy as irrelevant in the present Cambodian political context that has outlived it’s purpose. To the proponents of the monarchy, the Cambodian monarchy is as relevant to the Cambodian society as 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The following exchanges between the two heavyweight proponent and opponent of the monarchy are interesting. Some people, like Dr. Lao Mong Hay, believe that the monarchy is very relevant to the Cambodian society. He made an analogy between the past regimes with the following rationales: “As to the political regime, according to its recent history, constitutional monarchy (with the monarch as head of state) is best for Cambodia. Was the Lon Nol (1970-75), the Maoist (1975-78) or the Marxist-Leninist (1979-91) republics better than the constitutional monarchy which ruled Cambodia between 1953 and 1960?”
Dr. Lao Mong Hay’s comments have infuriated KJE (Klaus J. Engelhardt), which the latter retorted with these comments: “Dr. Lao is a monarchist, and many of those have lived in the past and don't realize that the world and paradigms have changed. The monarchy helped bring and maintain peace in 1993, no doubt, but in general, monarchies have outlived their purpose and will eventually fade away. What will happen when a single and childless Sihamoni leaves the throne? Although it will be a while, my guess is this is when the Cambodian monarchy will end.”
Who is right and who is wrong? Only the readers can judge.
To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is the source of stability. They believe that, with the way Hun Sen ruled the country, the Cambodian political mess is not over yet. They believe that Mr. Hun Sen’s iron-fisted rule will one day cause political instability and some sorts of internal political wrangling will resurface, like the 1997 coup. They rationalised that some sorts of a political dogfight or even a factional street fighting will also resurface when Hun Sen is faced with a strong challenger or rival. This is when the king needs to step in to mediate.
So, the question is: is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant in the present Cambodian political context? Does Cambodia need the monarchy or the republic?
Only time will tell…..
------------------------
* Related article: Mr. Bora Touch: I Am A Monarchist.
Opinion by Khmerization
“To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.”
The debates about the roles of the monarchy and the royals in politics have heated up again following the appeals by Prince Sisowath Thomico for all members of the royal family to stay out of politics.
It is no surprise for a member of the royal family like Prince Thomico to appeal to his peers to stay out of politics. For the monarchy, and the royals in particular, the last few years have been a turbulent time and the annus horribilis for them. The monarchy was on constant attacks from Prime Minister Hun Sen for meddling in politics and the royalist parties have faced their electoral defeats ignominiously. A call for a voluntary dignified exit from politics is the only option.
Cambodia has had a monarchical system of government for more than 2000 years. Since then, Cambodia has seen the ups and downs, the bad and the good of this feudal system. Some kings ruled well and had turned Cambodia into a superpower at their times, while others were clumsy kings who have relentlessly engaged in family feuds which have made Cambodia shrunk and reduced to its present size.
The Cambodian royals have engaged in politics, in one way or another, since the birth of Cambodia as a nation. But royal politics as we know it today has only begun to take shape in the 1950s when the then king Sihanouk abdicated in 1955 to enter politics and installed his father, Prince Suramarit, as king. Sihanouk’s actions have put the monarchy in the political firing lines ever since.
Sihanouk ruled Cambodia with an iron fist. Political activities or expressions contravening to his views were not tolerated. Political opponents were hunted down, jailed and, to some extent, executed.
Sihanouk’s repressive actions and his anti-American stance as well as his communist-leaning politics have led to discontents and angers within his inner circles that culminated into a coup against him in 19970 which has seen the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic. Since then, Cambodia has plunged into a civil strife that has caused irreparable political and national divisions until today.
On the other hand, with fairness, the monarchy, to a large degree, must be credited with the restoration of peace to Cambodia, the source of political stability and a focal point for all the political spectra to be united all around the monarchy, especially the person of a king.
Sihanouk, who angered many intellectuals with his repressive pre-1970 rule and who was accused to have been credited with helping the Khmer Rouge to come to power in 1975 and have been associated, to some degree, with the Khmer Rouge rule, has somewhat redeemed himself, when he spearheaded the Paris Peace Negotiations with the Vietnamese-backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen that led to a comprehensive Paris Peace Accords in 1991. He was credited, rightly or wrongly, with a smooth transition of powers after the Untac-organised election in 1993, mediated the reconciliations between Prince Ranariddh and Prime Minister Hun Sen, post-1997 coup. He was also credited, again, rightly or wrongly, for averting political and military crisis after the elections of 1998 and 2003.
But, politics aside, is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant to the Cambodian society in the present political context? The answer is yes and no, depending on ones own monarchical or republican views.
To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.
Some views perceive the Cambodian monarchy as irrelevant in the present Cambodian political context that has outlived it’s purpose. To the proponents of the monarchy, the Cambodian monarchy is as relevant to the Cambodian society as 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The following exchanges between the two heavyweight proponent and opponent of the monarchy are interesting. Some people, like Dr. Lao Mong Hay, believe that the monarchy is very relevant to the Cambodian society. He made an analogy between the past regimes with the following rationales: “As to the political regime, according to its recent history, constitutional monarchy (with the monarch as head of state) is best for Cambodia. Was the Lon Nol (1970-75), the Maoist (1975-78) or the Marxist-Leninist (1979-91) republics better than the constitutional monarchy which ruled Cambodia between 1953 and 1960?”
Dr. Lao Mong Hay’s comments have infuriated KJE (Klaus J. Engelhardt), which the latter retorted with these comments: “Dr. Lao is a monarchist, and many of those have lived in the past and don't realize that the world and paradigms have changed. The monarchy helped bring and maintain peace in 1993, no doubt, but in general, monarchies have outlived their purpose and will eventually fade away. What will happen when a single and childless Sihamoni leaves the throne? Although it will be a while, my guess is this is when the Cambodian monarchy will end.”
Who is right and who is wrong? Only the readers can judge.
To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is the source of stability. They believe that, with the way Hun Sen ruled the country, the Cambodian political mess is not over yet. They believe that Mr. Hun Sen’s iron-fisted rule will one day cause political instability and some sorts of internal political wrangling will resurface, like the 1997 coup. They rationalised that some sorts of a political dogfight or even a factional street fighting will also resurface when Hun Sen is faced with a strong challenger or rival. This is when the king needs to step in to mediate.
So, the question is: is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant in the present Cambodian political context? Does Cambodia need the monarchy or the republic?
Only time will tell…..
------------------------
* Related article: Mr. Bora Touch: I Am A Monarchist.
Friday, December 14, 2007
In a kingdom led by a blind, it's easy to be accused of not looking ... at least one can still see
Rights Commission: Cambodia Has Peace, Not Freedom
By Heng Reaksmey, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
13 December 2007
By Heng Reaksmey, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
13 December 2007
A senior Cambodian researcher for the Asian Human Rights Commission said Thursday Cambodia enjoys peace at the cost of freedom.
His remarks follow the visit of the UN secretary-general's special rights representative to Cambodia, Yash Ghai, after which the envoy said Cambodians lived in fear of the police and the courts and under threat of losing their land and other rights.
Lao Mong Hai said in a statement from Hong Kong Thursday people have been increasingly "robbed of their freedom" since 2003, and have little recourse.
As a member of the United Nations, Cambodia could also seek to solve human rights issues with the international body, Lao Mong Hai said.
Government officials shunned Ghai during his visit earlier this month, and government spokesman Khieu Kanharith said Thursday Lao Mong Hai had spent too much time away from Cambodia to criticize.
"Mr. Lao Mong Hai does not quite look at the law, and that is normal because he does not often stay in the country," Khieu Kanharith said. "Please review the law, review the demonstration law, which has just been passed."
He accused Lao Mong Hai staying in air-conditioned rooms with his "eyes closed."
His remarks follow the visit of the UN secretary-general's special rights representative to Cambodia, Yash Ghai, after which the envoy said Cambodians lived in fear of the police and the courts and under threat of losing their land and other rights.
Lao Mong Hai said in a statement from Hong Kong Thursday people have been increasingly "robbed of their freedom" since 2003, and have little recourse.
As a member of the United Nations, Cambodia could also seek to solve human rights issues with the international body, Lao Mong Hai said.
Government officials shunned Ghai during his visit earlier this month, and government spokesman Khieu Kanharith said Thursday Lao Mong Hai had spent too much time away from Cambodia to criticize.
"Mr. Lao Mong Hai does not quite look at the law, and that is normal because he does not often stay in the country," Khieu Kanharith said. "Please review the law, review the demonstration law, which has just been passed."
He accused Lao Mong Hai staying in air-conditioned rooms with his "eyes closed."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
