Showing posts with label Op-Ed by Jayakhmer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Op-Ed by Jayakhmer. Show all posts

Thursday, September 23, 2010

A Peek into Cambodia’s Fifth General Elections

Sam Rainsy (2nd from left) and Hun Xen (right) (Photo: Cambodge Soir Hebdo)

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Op Ed by Jayakhmer
Originally posted at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com/

If Cambodia were to hold the general elections today, it is safe to assume that the results would be similar to that of the last election. With the 2006 constitutional amendment that allowed governments to be formed with a simple majority in the parliament rather than the previously required two-thirds majority, the last general elections gave a political party a decisive victory for the first time since 1993.

In the 2008 National Assembly General Elections, the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) captured 90 of 123 seats, the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) won 26, and the rest was shared by other political parties.

Cambodia is scheduled to hold its fifth General Elections in 2013. Two years in politics is a life time. Anything can happen during this time that could change the political dynamic and hence the political climate. It is this uncertainty that drives all kind of speculations. Until such change occurs, current political reality is the only basis from which political speculations should be derived.

For the purpose of peeking into the next elections, let us look at just a few factors that may give credence to the above assumption.

Currently, Cambodia has but two major political parties – CPP and SRP. Other political parties such as the once dominant and now almost defunct National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) and the newly formed Human Rights Party (HRP) are politically too insignificant. (FUNCIPEC captured 58 seats in the 1993 United Nations sponsored parliamentary election. The last election, it managed to secure only 2 seats.) Under the new constitutional requirement, it is conceivable that only CPP or SRP could easily gain a simple majority in any given election without needing to form coalitions with smaller political parties.

At this juncture, though, it seems safe to infer that it will take the SRP more than a few election cycles to get to the point where they are a serious threat to the CPP.

SRP will surely be participating in the next general elections. However, if nothing changes until the elections, SRP will be a much damaged party with its leader is in exile. Furthermore, political defections usually occur prior to major elections. As some of the SRP members need to survive literally and politically, political defections are expected. If these defections do occur, this would potentially weaken SRP further.

Judging from recent political events, the SRP and its leaders do not seem to understand that they are in a political environment where real politics is at play every breathing moment. In real politics, one should not give his/her opponent endless political ammunition. If one takes actions without thinking things through regarding how to achieve a political objective or how to give oneself an honorable exit strategy, one will be taken advantage of every single time. That is a guarantee.

The SRP and its leaders should always remember that in real politics winning is not everything -- ‘winning is the only thing.’ Those who practice real politics usually, if not always, use every means necessary to achieve their political goal(s) or their desired outcome(s).

Here is an example of how the SRP getting itself bogged down in a new trend:

It is quite obvious that a new trend has started in Cambodian politics. High profile law suits and counter law suits seem to capture the country’s headlines frequently. This could be a healthy new trend if the country does it right. It is a good practice to mediate political disputes in the courts. Thus far, though, the results are lopsided.

The odds seem to work against members of the opposition parties. Ms. Mu Sochua, a high profile SRP member, recently lost her case which resulted in a reduction of her salary. Mr. Sam Rainsy, the leader of the opposition party that bears his name, was convicted and sentenced by a provincial court on charges of racial incitement and destroying demarcation posts on the border with Vietnam in January of this year. Mr. Rainsy is also being sued by the government for allegedly spreading a falsified document and misinformation. The impending lawsuit could decide the fate of his political career. If convicted, Mr. Rainsy could face years in prison. But if he chooses to stay out of Cambodia to avoid the trial and/or the sentence, this could be the end his political career in Cambodia. Getting another royal pardon is plausible, but this scenario is highly likely to occur only after the elections – if it will happen at all. If Mr. Kem Sokha, current president of HRP, were to be involved in a lawsuit, chances are he too would lose.

Sometimes, the SRP puts itself into a hole, too. What seemed to be a natural advantage for the SRP, discussing the corruption issues, turned out to be a loss of opportunity. A political blunder on the part of SRP occurred when all its National Assembly members extricated themselves from voting on the country’s only anti-corruption law in March of this year. SRP’s parliament members walked out in protest for being given too little of time to review the proposed legislation. This action gave CPP full ownership of the anti-corruption law when the law was passed without SRP’s votes.

CPP, on the other hand, has been able to continue pilling up its political scores. This should not surprise anyone. CPP has vast resources and full control of the government. CPP can legitimately claim successes in these major areas: the Preah Vihear issue, economic concerns, and corruption.

As long as the Preah Vihear issue with Thailand does not result in a full scale war between the two nations, the government under CPP is credited for exercising self-restraint. At this juncture, a full scale war between the two nations is highly unlikely.

Juxtaposed to its political success, CPP can also claim success in the economic arena. During this worldwide depression, Cambodia is doing moderately well. In a recent IMF review, Cambodia was credited with growth of 4 to 5% in their GDP for 2010. Cambodian infrastructures also improved significantly during CPP’s tenure. All this contributes significantly to CPP being positioned to do very well heading into the next election.

The implementation of information technology (IT) infrastructure by the National Information Communications Technology Development Authority (NiDA) proved to be another major step forward during CPP’s governance simply allowing government institutions to be connected while providing basic services to the public was an instant improvement. As Cambodia tries to catch up technologically with developed nations, it has only one way to go and that way is up. If Cambodia needs to have functional institutions to become a functional democracy, adopting technologies wisely will be an important part of Cambodia’s success in achieving that goal.

The implementation of the long awaited anti-corruption law was not as clearly a defined step forward as Cambodia’s economic and technological advances. It was welcomed with skepticism by some observers and critics because the government appointed its own man, Mr. Om Yentieng, a senior adviser to the prime minister and chairman of the government-run Cambodian Human Rights Committee, to head the anti corruption unit (ACU). Still, it represents forward movement in the effort to make government more transparent and less vulnerable to those with deep wallets who attempt to sidestep the democratic process to achieve their own goals. Heading to the next elections, the ACU will only need to make a few arrests leading to convictions to give teeth to this new law. The country is desperate for such a law and will welcome any arrest and or conviction of any official. They probably will not care whether the actions were done with political motivation or not. Care will have to be exercised when considering how best to implement this law.

So, what does this mean?

This means Cambodia has come far, but till has a long way to go. Everything is not rosy. The people are watching. For some life is wonderful, for others the struggle continues. Despite noticeable progress, human rights, the border, the economy, environmental issues, and natural resources – just to mention some common concerns– remain important to many voters.

On one hand, in a democracy, despite the maneuvering by politicians, people have the ultimate power to decide and they decide through elections. Although sometimes voters do not seem to be rational in their decisions, ultimately they will get it right.

On the other hand, while one should trust the voters to decide, it is everyone’s responsibility, regardless of the political persuasion each may hold, to make sure that the country’s political system remains vibrant and faithful to its original intent so it at least provides people with choices during the elections.

It is also everyone’s responsibility to find ways to promote healthy competition among political parties. CPP does not have to be bad for SRP to win, for instance, nor does SRP has to be completely destroyed for CPP to look good. There must be a way for both parties to find rooms to compromise. Otherwise, we all lose.

In democratic elections, choice is a fundamental requirement. Without choices, democratic elections have no meaning. Without choices, elections are merely symbolic ceremonies that give false legitimacy to those who hold powers. And without choices, the claim that a government is governed with the mandate of the people is simply hollow.

Although CPP has proven that it is more than capable of leading the country alone thus far, it would be much better if it could govern democratically – working collaboratively with minority parties, magnanimously allowing opposing opinions to be debated, and even implementing some of the minority parties’ ideas.

Democracy is messy. It is not as smooth or as efficient as authoritarianism. A democracy has to deal with checks and balances, building consensus, requiring and encouraging participation in the democratic process, respecting rights, and abiding by the agreed upon social contract in the form of a constitution and so on and so forth.

As messy and as inefficient as democracy is, it has its beauty. The idea that a political system is capable of creating a social and political environment that allows individuals to grow to their fullest human potential is priceless.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Political Common Sense


Friday, September 18, 2009
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer

The dispute between our elected officials namely between the most powerful man in Cambodia and a helpless member of parliamentarian takes on new twists and turns. The battle is being fought internationally. Mu Sochua has been attracting a lot of international attentions especially from the US Congress. This proves yet again that Samdech Prime Minister Hun Sen and his advisors have miscalculated the impact.

In the afternoon of September 14th, I attended the meeting at Berkeley. The Goldberg Room at Boalt Hall Law School where Mu Sochua gave a talk was a small room and was packed with about less than 200 people. All the seats were taken; I stood against the wall listening to a courageous woman telling her struggles in her motherland to a friendly and sympathetic audience.

“I will not compromise,” Mu Sochua repeated several times as she described the human rights situation in Cambodia.

Listening to Mu Sochua, I could not help but wonder how we came to this point politically.

I certainly understand her position as an elected Cambodian woman fighting against the most powerful man in the country with the circumstance within which her parliamentary immunity was stripped; her lawyer was threatened to be disbarred and consequently withdrew himself from the case; and the Phnom Penh Municipal Court rejected her lawsuit against the Prime Minister but honored the counter lawsuit by the Prime Minister that everyone including herself knew from the start she had no chance.

On July 24, 2009, of course, the court rendered a verdict of guilty for defaming the Prime Minister and sentenced Mu Sochua to a fine of 10 million riels ($2,500).

As I looked around the room full of concerned and interested students and scholars, I was a bit embarrassed. Cambodia is such a small country about the size of the state of Missouri with a minuscule national budget if we compare to that of California’s and other states’ in the union, and yet it manages to have so many problems. “Why can’t we get our act together or why can’t we get along,” I wonder quietly.

It would be simplistic and a gross generalization to say that “we fight each other like dogs and cats.” There are reasons why we fight. When we fight, each side wants to win.

If any one thinks that Mu Sochua has been a recalcitrant and an unweaving politician in this fight, one should equally, if not more, blame the Prime Minister for creating this political atmosphere. The Prime Minister should have been advised to say, “I am very sorry.” As strong willed and as determined as Mu Sochua, she would have accepted the apology.

The case would have been closed.

Although this is just my conjecture, the Prime Minister should fire all of those advisors if he was advised to pursuit this case with Mu Sochua or and the case with Professor Yash Ghai, the UN Special Envoy on Human Rights in Cambodia in the recent past. Those advisors or the ideas of fighting Mu Sochua and the special envoy on human rights were short-sighted and incompetent for they failed to think through some of the most important issues that make Cambodia appears to be worst than the bad situation the country is already in.

Why CPP chooses to treat member(s) of the minority party this way is beyond me for CPP and its leadership already controls every powerful position in the country. CPP, as a major political party, should be magnanimously working with minority parties to truly fine solutions to improve the country together. That includes the Human Rights issues.

As long as we have a political system with multiple-party structure, it is common and expected to have political fighting.

Political fighting is healthy as long as we remember that winning a political opponent by loosing the respect of the world is not worth winning. And winning the respect of the world but loosing oneself in the process is also worthless.

A true patriot respects and even loves his/her political opponent. After all we are members of the same human race of small nation that barely can sustain itself without the outside’s supports. Our dignity as a human race and as a nation lays on the question of how well we can build each other up and not on how effectively we can destroy each other.

Political common sense requires that a politician always gives his/her opponent a way out with dignity.

Monday, May 04, 2009

Ms. Mu Sochua vs. Mr. Hun Sen

May 02, 2009
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com


Recent dispute between Member of Parliament Mu Sochua and Prime Minister Hun Sen reveals not only the rough and tumble nature of Khmer politics but also the standard by which political discourse are being carried out. If the prime minister managed to incorporate the fact that a woman “tripped on someone and accused him of unbuttoning her blouse” in his political speech, you know that the standard is very low.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, I feel that it is personal issues between the involved parties; and therefore, do not want to get involved with the nature of the lawsuit nor the counter suit. Since it is their prerogatives, I should wait and see how the Khmer legal system handles this grievant process.

On the other hand, when the talk of only stripping of Ms. Sochua’s immunity as an impending possibility, I could not help but only see this heavy handed tactic as an act of oppression.

According to Iris M. Young, a critical theorist and a modern political thinker, oppression as violence is defined as actions that cause “Members of some groups [to] live with the knowledge that they must fear random, unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to damage, humiliate, or destroy the person.”

As a Khmer and an observer of Khmer politics, I think the suit and the counter suit that may be seen as frivolous by some are within the law of the land. But, if the National Assembly steps in and removes Ms. Sochua’s immunity, it will send a chilling message to the country and to the world that there is an “untouchable” person or status quo in the country. It essentially implies that if anyone dares to challenge this person or the status quo, the country will mobilize to defeat you. And that would constitute as oppression.

If this is the norm or the standard by which the country has to get used to, Cambodia is drifting further and further away from the kind of democracy I was once hoped that the country would some day achieve.

I hope that the National Assembly will act in the interest of the nation by abstaining its body from this seemingly private issue.

For now let us carefully observe the situation. Again, let us allow the court handles this process.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A Noble Tradition

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama walk the inaugural parade route in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Op-Ed By Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com


On this sunny but chilly Tuesday morning, up to 2 million people converged at the country’s capitol to take part in history. Barack H. Obama became the president of the United States at noon as required by the 20th amendment of the Constitution.

As the President Obama solemnly took the oath “to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will” to the best of his ability to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the people and the world, for that matter, welcomed the 44th president of the United States.

As a Cambodian American, I found this auspicious occasion very gratifying. A peaceful transition of power from one government to the next is a tradition I am very much hoping that Cambodia will someday adopt.

Cambodia’s past governmental transitions were any but peaceful. March 18, 1970 was a coupe, April 17, 1975 Khmer Communists usurped the power by force, and January 7, 1979 was an invasion.

This noble tradition went back to the first president of the United States. After serving two terms as president, George Washington retired from politics in 1796. The notion for a leader holds on to power for life simply does not exist. I am sure that some may have attempted, but the elections, the rule of law, and the tradition always dictated. After Franking D. Roosevelt who served as president for three terms, the country rectified the issue by adopting the 22nd amendment in 1951 allowing a president to serve only up to two four-year terms.

President Obama know all too well of the challenges the country and the world will face.

“…That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet…”

I am very hopeful, however.

What so great about America is that the fact that it has a political structure to renew itself through term limits and through elections.

President Bush also shared this sense of optimism as he leaves his office. In his farewell address, Mr. Bush said, “America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.”

What truly captured my attention was when President Obama said this in his inaugural speech.

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

I am looking forward to seeing the changing world. I also hope that Cambodia and its leaders will take this opportunity to work with the new administration to renew their commitments to promoting democracy so that every Cambodian can enjoy freedom, liberty, justice, dignity, and decency.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Cambodia Should Abandon January 7th As Liberation Day

Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com

It is quite intriguing to see Samdech Prime Minister reacted to those who did not see January 7th as a day of liberation. He said, "If you ignorant persons and extremists do not dare acknowledge the truth [of January 7, 1979], you are not humans, you are truly animals."

That includes your truly here. I see January 7th as a day of invasion.

I am sure that Samdech Prime Minister is entitled to his opinion. Like all of us, he is free to opine on any matter. On this particular issue, I simply want to offer a different opinion.

Before getting into the substance of the matter, I want to acknowledge all Cambodians who were members of the United Front for National Salvation of Kampuchea (UFNSK) who participate in the invasion. I am grateful for their efforts for doing their very best under the circumstance to dismantle the Khmer Rouge regime. That was a noble deed.

January 7th did in fact stop the killing, but Cambodia was not free. Vietnam occupied Cambodia; therefore, by definition Cambodia was not liberated. This is why the word "liberation" has a major semantic problem. One cannot call oneself a liberated being if one is not free to determine one's destiny. Liberation could not be further from the truth. The world knows that Cambodia was under Vietnam's control from the day it invaded Cambodia until it was pressured to withdraw.

To form a more perfect union with all Cambodians and all political factions, Cambodia should abandon January 7th as "liberation" day.

I am quite sure that every Cambodian can embrace January 7th as a major turning point. It was pivotal in a sense that January 7th allowed Cambodia to temporarily escape from the yoke of the Khmer Rouge regime; it was also the day Cambodia went into another bondage of foreign occupation.

I wish that Samdech Prime Minister views those of us who hold a different opinion another patriots who love the country as much as he does. Imagine if everyone agrees with Pol Pot, we would not have January 7th.

Jayakhmer

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Moving Beyond the 1979 War

Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Op-Ed by Jayakhmer
On the web at http://www.modernprogressivekhmer.blogspot.com


For most of my adult life, I have tried to reconcile the conundrum of the so-called Cambodia's "liberation." The war of 1979 and its aftermath generate this lingering question whether the war was an invasion or liberation. Can we move beyond this debate? I think we can and we should.

It would be easy to decide if the warring parties were all foreign forces against Cambodian's. The complexity increases exponentially when Cambodians collaborated with the invasion forces. Battalions of the Khmer Resistance Force of the United Front for National Salvation of Kampuchea (UFNSK) fought side by side with the Vietnamese forces.

Was it an invasion or a liberation?

To Vietnam it was a conquest and an invasion. It was Vietnam's Machiavellian approach to settling disputes between its weaker neighbors. What were border skirmishes between the former allies during the Vietnam War against the U.S. became a full-blown war between Vietnam and the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) as the two nations deeply divided between the Soviet and the Chinese camp.

"In September [of 1978] Le Duan made the timing of the Vietnamese plan clear when he told the Soviet Ambassador to Vietnam that the Vietnamese Politburo had decided 'to solve fully this question [of Cambodia] by the beginning of 1979,'" according to Merle L. Pribbenow II, a former CIA agent and a Vietnam expert, who hailed the invasion as "one of the most seminal events of the last half century in South East Asia."

To the UFNSK, the war may have been a rescue mission or a liberation.

In my mind, the war would have been a liberation if it was conceived and planned by the leadership of UFNSK. The UFNSK was promulgated as a resistance force in Snoul, Kratie on December 2, 1978 by which time the Vietnamese generals had meticulously planned the war, and the preparations for war were already completed. While it is conceivable that the Vietnamese generals may have consulted with its Cambodian counterparts, the records, thus far, showed that the Vietnamese generals were the brains behind the invasion.

In " The Tale of the Five Generals," Pribbenow II described the war planning and execution in breath taking details. "The Vietnamese army spent all of 1978 drafting and training new recruits, calling up reservists, rebuilding under strength units, and converting military 'economic construction' groups back into regular combat units."

Diplomatically, Vietnam made an informed calculation. To avoid fighting two wars at the same time, knowing that China would send troops to defend Phnom Penh if victory cannot be achieved expeditiously, the Commander of the General Staff, General Le Trong Tan and Party Secretary Le Duan traveled to inform the Soviet Union of the war plan in the summer of 1978.

" The only way China could stop Vietnam would be to send large numbers of Chinese Troops to defend Cambodia" Duan told the Soviet ambassador.

The next month, according to Pribbenow II, when the Soviet diplomat expressed concern over the possibility that Chinese would block the invasion, Senior Vietnamese Party official already concluded that China would not have enough time to dispatch large military units to rescue Cambodia.

The war was scheduled to begin on January 1,1979. The KR made a preemptive move by attacking Vietnam on December 21 and 22 of 1978. The Vietnamese and UFNSK force responded and capture Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979.

The Khmer Rouge's systematic killing of its citizens made an invasion a welcome relief for many Cambodians.

On the one hand, the invasion stopped the killing. Without the invasion, the alternative could have been very gloom for many Cambodians. Clearly, the U.S. could not have rescued Cambodians from the KR – the Vietnam War was too fresh for the U.S to return to the region; the Soviet Union was already Vietnam's staunchest ally; and China supported the KR.

On the other hand, the invasion has been a constant source of criticism and mistrust for the current government many of whose members served in the UFNSK that became the government of Cambodia after the 1979 invasion.

In the coming weeks, the debates about the war will go on. As more and more information about the war is available, I encourage my fellow Cambodians to read, research for more information, and to come to your own conclusion.

I have concluded that the war was an invasion, and that the Royal Government of Cambodia, while pursuing a peaceful and friendly relation with Vietnam, should be free to determine its own destiny. Cambodia does not owe Vietnam anything. Vietnam did what Vietnam had to do to deal with the DK government. Vietnam defeated the KR. It accomplished its mission.

Cambodia based on its current bilateral relationships with the rest of the world and especially with China and the U.S. seems to be free of its neighbor's influence. It is up to all of us to find a way to put our past behind us and to focus on the future.

The prime minister has stated that he will be serving as prime minister again after the 2013 election. The implication is Cambodian People's Party (CPP) will win again. The prime minister may be correct in his prediction if the opposition parties fail to unite and fail to inspire a simple majority of Cambodians to vote for change.

Based on past performances, it is highly likely that the opposition parties will fail again unless they are serious about winning by making drastic changes in the messages and leadership.

With all due respect to the prime minister, the picture does not look quite right when CPP can only come up the same candidate. And it is equally sad that the opposition parties keep sticking to the same strategy with the same leadership election after election.

The future depends on all Cambodians to work together to find a common ground that moves the country forward. Cambodia may be poor comparing to the rest of the world, but it has enough resources and talent to move Cambodia to be developed nation. Cambodia simply needs to provide equal opportunity for all to participate in the process.

While election is one of the vehicles to bring change, term limit can do wonder in spreading the responsibilities to those who are qualified to serve and to lead the nation.