The SRP’s men and women of principl

Opinion by Khmerization
20th May, 2009

“People have been talking about an outright victory for the CPP. Considering that the CPP controls 100% of all levels of local, district and municipal administrations, the results of this municipal and district election should be seen as a victory for the SRP. Starting from zero councillors before the election to 600 councillors after the election, the SRP had emerged as a force that can weather the storm.”

Mrs. Mu Sochua’s testimonies of the courageous men and women of the Sam Rainsy Party who refused to sell their conscience to the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) during the municipal election is very inspiring, despite threats, coercions and the offer of massive amount of money to buy their votes.

These SRP’s councillors, who are poor, have resisted the temptation of a get-rich-quick scheme and opted to go with their conscience and principle. They are good role models for all future generations of Khmer politicians. They should be commended for their non-corrupt and clean conscience.

People have been talking about an outright victory for the CPP. Considering that the CPP controls 100% of all levels of local, district and municipal administrations, the results of this municipal and district election should be seen as a victory for the SRP. Starting from zero councillors before the election to 600 councillors after the election, the SRP had emerged as a force that can weather the storm, considering that there are massive frauds and vote-buying committed by the ruling CPP.

The results of this election have put the SRP on another step forward to strengthening itself as a political party that can withstand the political storm that have been created by the ruling CPP, especially Prime Minister Hun Sen. But importantly, it means that, with the SRP councillors working by their sides, the CPP’s councillors who were prone to commit corruption, will have to think twice before they will doing anything wrong because their actions can be exposed by the SRP’s councillors. Services at the district and municipal levels will be improved because of competition and because of the fears of being exposed by the opposition SRP for neglect of duties as have been practising by the CPP-controlled administrations in the past.

Another good news for the SRP is, with this solid foundation at the district and municipal levels, it can strengthen its party one step further. And the conscience that have been shown by courageous SRP’s councillors who refused to sell out to the CPP vote-buying scheme is very impressive and inspiring indeed. With this clean image and clear conscience, they have inspired voters who will look up to them as their role models and true representatives. They are the SRP’s men and women of principle.

*News has arrived that 9 SRP's councillors had been expelled from the party for taking bribes to vote for the CPP.

Cambodia: The Monarchy Or A Republic?

3rd January, 2009
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.

The Rielisation Of The Dollarised Economy

Opinion by Khmerization
13th December, 2008

“The Riel of today is heading the way toward its demise. Unless we “Rielise” this dollarised Cambodian economy any sooner, the Riel will lose its relevance in the Cambodian economy and the poor peasants, who are unable to have their hands on the dollar, will be the ones to bear the greatest brunt of this financial model of the foreign economic mastery.”

For the last 17 years or so, the Cambodian people have lost faith in the Riel, the Cambodian currency, and depended on the U.S dollar in their everyday livelihood. Most of Cambodian financial transactions, from multi-national transactions down to the petty transactions in the local economy, have been carried out in U.S dollar since the time of the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) in 1991. Since then, the Cambodian economy has become a dollarised economy- the sort of a dollar-dependent economy. And since then, there have been calls for the Rielisation - the use of the Riel in all financial transactions - and the de-dollarisation of this dollarised economy by restricting the use of the dollar in the local economy.

The Cambodian economy has always been at the mercy of the world economy. Since Cambodia gained independence from France in 1953, Cambodia had, one way or the other, depended on international aid in order to survive. The 1950s was when Cambodia became dependent on French aid to sustain the national economy. In the 1960s, at the time when America was vying for Cambodia’s supports for the Vietnam War, America had injected substantial amount of aid to Cambodia.

During the Khmer Republic regime of Marshall Lon Nol from 1970-1975, Cambodia had almost totally depended on American aid to support the survival of a regime that was facing an onslaught by the ultra-nationalist Khmer Rouge and the North Vietnamese Army.

When the Khmer Rouge ruled the country from 1975-1979, in trying to establish an agrarian Utopia, Pol Pot had abolished the money, which have seen the demise of the Riel, and Cambodia became heavily dependent on Chinese aid. When the Khmer Rouge regime was toppled in 1979, Cambodia was again heavily depended on the Russian and Vietnamese aid until 1991. The Vietnamese-backed regime of Prime Minister Hun Sen had tried to re-energise the Cambodian currency and stimulate the defunct Cambodian economy by re-introducing the money into the national economy but the people don’t have the confidence in the local currency and gold had become the only most trusted unit of currency for most financial transactions.

From 1991, during the time of UNTAC rule until today, Cambodia had survived on an average of $700 million of foreign aid annually. The U.S dollar flooded the Cambodian economy and it had become the most single trusted currency beside gold in the Cambodian financial transactions.

This sort of aid-dependency and a dollarised economy has put Cambodia at the mercy of world economic situations and makes the Cambodian economy susceptible and prone to world economic woes.

The Cambodian economy, if it is to survive competitively, must Rielise and de-dolarise all financial transactions. After all, our neighbours, like Laos, Vietnam and Thailand have, for decades, never allowed foreign currencies to flood their financial markets and their economies have survived and thrived until today. The de-dollarisation and the Rielisation of the Cambodian financial markets is essential to boost local confidence in the national currency during the time of world economic slowdown, precipitated by the perceived collapse of the U.S economy that could cause the Domino Effect. With a dollar-dependent economy, Cambodia could suffer adverse economic effects and financial collapse, dragged down by the apparent collapse of the U.S economy of which Cambodia is heavily dependent on its dollar for all major financial transactions.

Cambodia, if it is to sustain deep financial crisis, must devise plans to tackle the anticipated world economic meltdown, similar to the measures taken by Malaysia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. During that time, George Sorros, the American financier and financial speculator was flooding the U.S dollar in the Malaysian financial markets. Realising that George Sorros was deliberately attempting to destroy the Malaysian economy and fearing the collapse of the Malaysian financial markets, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad restricted the U.S dollar from the Malaysian financial markets and banned the exchange between the Malaysian Ringgit and the U.S dollar. The Malaysian economy had survived the Asian financial crisis unscathed.

The Cambodian currency, the Riel, had suffered image problems and confidence since Cambodia plunged into civil strife in the 1970s. Since then, people depended on gold, and foreign currencies for their financial transactions instead of the local currency.

Currently, Cambodia, to a certain degree, has been flooded with three foreign currencies. In Phnom Penh and provincial towns and even in the rural areas, the U.S dollar is widely used and are in large circulations, at the expense of the Riel. In the eastern provinces of Kampong Cham, Svay Rieng, Ratanakiri, Mondulkiri, Takeo and parts of Kampot, the Vietnamese currency, the Dong, has been widely used. And in the western provinces of Battambang, Siem Reap, Pursat, Pailin, Koh Kong, Oddor Meanchey and Preah Vihear, the Thai currency, the Baht, had become the de facto local currency. This has caused the Cambodian Riel to become worthless, idle and unacceptable currency in most parts of its own financial markets. As a result, people have refused to accept the Riel in financial transactions. In one example, during the UNTAC period, foreign businesses jokingly asked to be paid in “real money”, not “Riel money”. This is because they do not have the confidence in the unstable Cambodian currency and due to the fluctuations in the Riel-dollar exchange rate and the instability of the Riel.

There are legitimate reasons and rational arguments for the restrictions of the circulations of foreign currency, in particular the U.S dollar, the Thai Baht and the Vietnamese Dong, in the Cambodian financial markets, in order to boost confidence in the Riel. The de-dollarisation, the de-Dongisation and the de-Bahtisation in the Cambodian financial transactions is essential if the Cambodian currency, the Riel, is to have any chance of survival and maintain its significance and relevance in the Cambodian financial markets at all. The widespread circulations of foreign currencies in the Cambodian financial markets have eroded the confidence in the Riel and if measures are not taken to re-energise and re-articulate the use of the Cambodian currency by local people, we could see the demise of the Riel in the not too distant future.

For argument’s sake, there are valid reasons to revitalise the use of the Cambodian Riel. Cambodia, by allowing the widespread circulations of the foreign currencies in the local economy, has lost its economic independence. Instead it will be at the mercy of those countries whom their currencies flooded the Cambodian economy. If the economies of those countries go under, by the theory of the Domino Effect, the Cambodian economy will follow suit.

One other subtle evidence for the revitalisation of the Riel was the important role it played in the stabilisation of the Cambodian economy during the Sangkum Reatr Niyum in the 1950s and 1960s. The Cambodian economic growth was slow then, but due to the ban of foreign currencies in the local economy and the widely use of the Riel, its valuation was very stable and it was widely acceptable as a single unit of currency in the local economy. The Riel exchange rate was on par with the Thai Baht. Teachers, public servants, bureaucrats and ordinary workers were well paid. The living standards for most families were similar to the living standards of the people of Thailand.

On the contrary, there are also legitimate arguments for not allowing the circulations of foreign currencies in the Cambodian local economy. Currently, the Cambodian economy is a dollar-dependent economy. And presently, most dollars are hoarded in the hands of a few privileged people in Phnom Penh and the provincial towns. Most of these people, mostly businesspeople, politicians and bureaucrats, have foreign bank accounts. Most of the dollars that have been injected into the local Cambodian economy will end up in the foreign bank accounts of those few people. And as such, most of the money and funds that are supposed to be in circulations to support and stimulate the Cambodian economy are sitting idle in the foreign bank accounts of those privileged few Cambodians in Switzerland or in Singapore. As a result, the Cambodian economy has been deprived of its much needed fund injection and a stimulus factor to stimulate the growth.

The Riel of today is heading the way toward its demise. Unless we “Rielise” this dollarised Cambodian economy any sooner, the Riel will lose its relevance in the Cambodian economy and the poor peasants, who are unable to have their hands on the dollar, will be the ones to bear the greatest brunt of this financial model of the foreign economic mastery.
-------------------------------------------
Khmerization is not an economist nor has he claimed to be one. The views expressed here are not arguments based on economic rationale, but rather they are purely the personal opinions of the author.

Cambodia: The economy of aid

6th December, 2008
Opinion by Khmerization

“This aid money, while it will help boost the Cambodian economy tremendously, is more likely to help strengthen and solidify the iron fist rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen. While we, as conscious citizens of Cambodia, are not contented with the corrupt rule of Mr. Hun Sen, we have to be contented that he has successfully convinced the international donors to give his regime and our nation, Cambodia, generously. We must acknowledge that he is a master of convincing.”

Cambodia has been aid-dependent for as long as one can remember. Cambodia has been reduced to the status of international beggar for one reason and that is due to the incompetence and the corrupt mentality of our clumsy leaders.

For the last 15 years or so, Cambodia has received international assistance to the tune of $600-$700 million annually. Yet, Cambodia is still one of the poorest countries in the world. This week, the international community has pledged $1 billion, its biggest aid package to Cambodia since 1993.

Cambodians of all circles and political persuasions, politics aside, should appreciate this generous assistance to our unfortunate nation. I for one, is thankful that the international community has not abandoned Cambodia, despite the world economic slowdown and despite the mismanagement of the present Cambodian government. While I appreciate this generous assistance, I’m also disappointed that the international donors are giving so much money to be managed by a corrupt regime without having the need for any accountability measures attached.

The anti-corruption laws, which have been demanded by donors and promised by Mr. Hun Sen so many times before, have not yet been approved by the Cambodian People’s Party-dominated parliament, 14 years after they were drafted. The bloated bureaucracy, of which a large portion of the national budget was spent on the salary of its idle bureaucrats, has got larger every year. The corrupt judiciary, the army, the police and the civil and public services have not been reformed, despite Mr. Hun Sen’s promises in previous donors meetings. Deforestations and human right abuses such as land-grabbing and forced evictions are still happening in a larger scale. These are some of Mr. Hun Sen’s unfulfilled promises. Yet, the donor countries pour an enormous sum of aid money into the hands of this incompetent and corrupt administration without putting any punitive measures in place should Mr. Hun Sen fail again to fulfil his often-broken promises.

This year’s promises are no different from the previous years. Prime Minister Hun Sen on Thursday opened the meeting promising foreign donors he would fight corruption with a new anti-graft law as soon as possible. How soon, no one knows because the same promises like this has been said by Mr. Hun Sen for the last 15 years, but the anti-corruption laws are still not being enacted into laws yet.

The aid money has been pledged, and like previous years, will be given regardless of whether Mr. Hun Sen kept his promises or not. We, as Cambodians, including the opposition parties, who love our nation, Cambodia, must be appreciative of this generous assistance. The only things we can do now is to campaign and push for accountability. The role of the opposition parties in any democratic countries is to keep checks and balances. They are there to monitor the performances of the government and expose their shortcomings to the public. While our Cambodian voters are not as well-educated and well-informed as voters in developed democracies, the opposition parties in Cambodia can still put pressures on the government and makes them accountable by effectively exposing their failings to the international community, the Cambodia-based international organisations and foreign embassies.

This aid money, while it will help boost the Cambodian economy tremendously, is more likely to help strengthen and solidify the iron fist rule of Prime Minister Hun Sen. While we, as conscious citizens of Cambodia, are not contented with the corrupt rule of Mr. Hun Sen, we have to be contented that he has successfully convinced the international donors to give his regime and our nation, Cambodia, generously. We must acknowledge that he is a master of convincing.//

Thailand’s Betrayal of the 1907 Treaty

Opinion by Khmerization

1st November, 2008

“Thailand, as a neighbour of Cambodia, must realise and understand that good neighbourly co-existence is based on mutual understanding and mutual respect. Its refusal to accept and honour the mutually-agreed conventions and treaties with Cambodia will not be reciprocated with due respect from Cambodia, but will only create irreversible mistrusts and suspicions.”

Recent statements by Thailand’s director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Varachai Plasai, are not helping the cause of the search for the solution to the current Khmer-Thai border disputes. Thailand’s stance, by the statements of Mr. Varachai, in rejection of the mutually agreed 1904 convention and the 1907 Khmer-Thai treaty, has dashed any hope of an amicable solution to the already complex Khmer-Thai border issues. On the contrary, his statements will fuel and add more diplomatic and border tensions between the two countries.

His statements: "We acknowledge the existence of the maps which are the results of the demarcation works of commission of delimitation of the boundary set up under the 1904 and 1907 treaties of Siam-France but we don't accept", and “Thailand will reject any attempt made by Cambodia to use the 1904 French map as a basis for border delimitation because according to this map, all the disputed Khmer temples are located inside Cambodia”, are clear indications that Thailand is not keen on settling the border disputes amicably and mutually, but on Thailand’s terms. Thailand has consistently reiterated that it will only agree to negotiate based on maps unilaterally drawn by Thailand. In other words, Thailand will not settle the current border disputes with Cambodia if Cambodia does not allow Thailand to keep the territories it had claimed and occupied to date. So, is peace and border solution possible between Cambodia and Thailand in the future?

Thailand, as a neighbour of Cambodia, must realise and understand that good neighbourly co-existence is based on mutual understanding and mutual respect. Its refusal to accept and honour the mutually-agreed conventions and treaties with Cambodia will not be reciprocated with due respect from Cambodia, but will only create irreversible mistrusts and suspicions.

The Khmer-Thai borderlines have been settled once and for all since 1907. The delimitation of the borders between Cambodia and Thailand have long been recognised under international law as having been once and for all settled by the findings and the works of the Franco-Siam Mixed Commission instituted and ratified by the Convention of 1904 and the Franco-Siam Treaty of March 23, 1907. Furthermore, the Franco-Siam Treaties of 1925 and 1937 as well as the adjudication of June 15, 1962 of the International Court of Justice, in which the Preah Vihear temple was adjudged to belong to Cambodia, reaffirmed the border disposition as prescribed by the works of the Franco-Siam Mixed Commission.

In regard to the current disputes, Thailand has consistently insisted that the surrounding areas in the vicinity of the Preah Vihear temple have never been delimited and that the verdict of the International Court of Justice in 1962 did not cover the issue of those surrounding areas. The notion that the areas in the vicinity of the Preah Vihear temple have not been settled is a misconception. The Cambodian ownership of the temple and the surrounding areas, deemed disputed by Thailand, has been settled once and for all by that court’s verdict. And that verdict has vindicated the Cambodian claims and render justice to the 1907 treaty. The court adjudicated that:

1. "the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia;"

2. "Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory"

3. "Thailand is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects of the kind specified in Cambodia's fifth Submission which may, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.": ICJ Reports 1962, p. 36, 37.

The second judgement of the court was crystal clear that Thailand is under the obligation to withdraw all its forces from the temple or from “its vicinity on Cambodian territory”. As the court’s judgements were based on the maps of the 1904 and 1907 treaties, the issue of the ownership of the temple and “its vicinity” has been resolved, as the maps of the 1904-1907 treaties placed both the temple and “its vicinity” inside Cambodia.


Thailand has long claimed that Franco-Siam treaty of 1904-1907 has always been in favour of Cambodia to the detriment of Thailand’s territorial integrity. The same was said by Cambodia, as evident by king Sisowath’s letter of protest to the French Governor in 1906. King Sisowath demanded the return of all Khmer provinces occupied by Siam by which he said “We insist on the former natural limits of the Khmer Kingdom which, prior to the Siamese invasion, included on Siam’s side the provinces of Battambang, Siem Reap, Stung Treng, Tonle Ropov, M’lou Prey, Kuckhan [currently known as Sisaket], Prey Sar, Soren [Surin], Sankeac [Sangka], Neang Rong, Nokoreach Seima (Korat), beyond the Phnom Dangrek Mountain, Koh Kong, Krat and Chantabor (Chantaboun [Chantaburi]) touching upon Bacnam and the Kingdom of Champassac (Passac). All these provinces are still populated by Cambodians and they preserve their absolute Khmer patriotism.”

Contrary to Mr. Varachai’s comments and in respect to international laws, maps from the 1904, 1907 treaties should be used as a basis for the settlement of border disputes between Thailand and Cambodia because they are the only internationally-recognised treaties as they were agreed, signed and ratified by both countries. Furthermore, they were vindicated and rendered justice by the International Court of Justice in 1962.

Thailand’s insistence on the use of maps unilaterally drawn by Thailand, without Cambodia’s agreement, is against the spirit of good neighbourly respect and contrary to international laws. Those maps have no legal basis under international laws. Under any circumstances, Cambodia should never agree to use maps unilaterally drawn by Thailand as a basis for the negotiations. If the 1904, 1907 maps were not used, and instead the maps unilaterally drawn by Thailand were used, it would be a betrayal of the treaties and a tragedy as it will set a precedent because it will trigger future violations of subsequent treaties.

So, if Thailand is intransigently insisting on using the maps unilaterally drawn by Thailand itself, will there ever be an agreement and peace at all? If that is the case, is there any room for Cambodia to manoeuvre in the negotiations? If Thailand does not conform to international laws by accepting the internationally-recognised treaties of 1904, 1907 treaties, the Khmer-Thai border disputes will become a quagmire and result in future deadly armed conflicts as what has happened on the 15th of October. And that would be a tragedy in the Khmer-Thai relations. No one single country, but both countries, will lose from these insignificant and petty disputes.

The Cambodian patience should run out long time ago

Opinion by Khmerization
18thth September, 2008

“It is time for Cambodia to react strongly and not weakly as Cambodia has shown in the past. To react cowardly is a sign of military weakness and this will only provide Thailand with more reasons to bully Cambodia. Now, Thailand is testing the water. In fact it is testing Cambodia’s patience. The Cambodian patience should have run out long time ago.”

I am a non-violent person and I love peace. But if somebody punch me I will punch them back. This is called self-defence.

I raised the points above as an analogy to the ongoing gross violations of Cambodian territories by Thai forces. Thailand has repeatedly sent in its troops to violate Cambodian sovereignty and territorial integrity since time immemorial, but particularly in the last two months. First, it sent the troops to occupy Preah Vihear and then Ta Moan Thom and Ta Moan Toch temples. Recently, Thai troops are occupying Ta Krabey and Sdok Kok Thom temples, and now the Thai violations have reached O’Plok Damrey in Pursat province.

It is time for Cambodia to react strongly and not weakly as Cambodia has shown in the past. To react cowardly is a sign of military weakness and this will only provide Thailand with more reasons to bully Cambodia. Now, Thailand is testing the water. In fact it is testing Cambodia’s patience. The Cambodian patience should have run out long time ago.

Militarily, Cambodia is not as weak as Thailand would have thought. At the end of the civil war in 1998 Cambodia was thought to have around 130,000 armed forces. After some demobilisations, Cambodia still has a substantial size of the armed forces. The fact that Cambodia appears not to have enough troops to protect our borders is because all the troops are stationed at the wrong locations. They are stationed in the cities and towns to protect Mr. Hun Sen’s power.

These troops should be brought to our troubled borders in a show of military force that Cambodia is militarily capable of standing up to Thailand’s bullying. Cambodia has over 30 years of battlefield experience. Our troops are battle-hardened. The Thai troops has none. This would make them cowed when it comes to wars. If Cambodia and Cambodian troops mean business, then the Thai troops will never dare to bully Cambodia and Cambodian troops the way they have done up until now. The fact that the Thai troops are so arrogant is due to Cambodia’s weak reactions, giving Thai troops the impressions that Cambodia is terrified of them.

By advocating the military show of force, at no time that I prefer a military solution to the border crisis with Thailand. Diplomatic solutions, whether bilateral or multilateral, should be sought and exhausted. But personally, I believe that Cambodia’s fruitless bilateral diplomatic engagements with Thailand for the last two months have been exhausted. Thailand has never been sincere in its diplomatic engagements with Cambodia regarding the issues, because legally it doesn’t have the claims to the areas it has occupied. Thailand’s diplomatic engagements with Cambodia were used only to appease Cambodia and the internationally community in order to prolong Thailand’s occupation, with the intention of permanently staking the claims to the areas they have occupied.

So, the steps to reaching the solutions would be to seek multilateral approach, such as inviting a third party, like France who signed the 1904-1908 treaty with Thailand on Cambodian borders, or the UN Security Council to get involved. If this is failed, then Cambodia can try its second luck with the International Court of Justice in The Hague. If all of the above options failed to yield a satisfactory result, then the last resort would be military options.

Military options I envisage here is not an all out war with Thailand. Military actions in the forms of small scale clashes in the disputed zones should be employed as a mean to push the Thai troops out of Cambodian territories and to get the UN Security council involved. Without any armed conflict, the UN Security Council would turn a blind eye.

Thailand Wants A Piece Of The Preah Vihear Cake

Opinion by Khmerization
28th August 2008

“When Mr. Samak was talking about “promoting tourism at Preah Vihear temple”, he was talking about sharing the Preah Vihear tourist dollars between Cambodia and Thailand. This is an insult to injury and a double robbery because while the issue of “Thai occupation” of the Preah Vihear areas had not been resolved, Thailand now turned its attention to acquiring benefits from the Preah Vihear temple.”

The recent agreement between Defence Minister Tea Banh and Thai PM, Samak, to develop tourist areas at Preah Vihear is a cause for concern. It is a cause for concern because, after numerous negotiations, the issue of Thai occupation of areas around Preah Vihear has still not been resolved and the control of the areas has not been transferred to Cambodia.

The Thai tactics now is to divert the attention from the real issue of territorial integrity and territorial disputes into the issue of mutual tourism promotion. Cambodia must not fall into this trap. Cambodia must stick to the issue of total Thai troop withdrawal from the “occupied zone” first before agreeing to any tourism co-operation in the areas.

While the ownership of the so-called “disputed zone” has not been established, the proposed “tourist site” would see Cambodia’s territorial integrity eroded as the proposed site, which will be the so-called “disputed zone”, is a Cambodian territory.

Cambodia should only agree to develop a tourist site or a garden of peace, as some have suggested, only when the “occupied territories” at Preah Vihear have been transferred to Cambodian control. To agree to build a garden of peace or tourist site there before the transfer of the ownership of the areas to Cambodia would be tantamount to conceding Cambodia’s territorial integrity to Thailand.

Cambodia must not be so naïve about the Thai proposal, but must be wary about Thailand’s real intention, and that is it wants a piece of the Preah Vihear cake. Mr. Samak’s statement of “territorial problems which cannot be resolved by now will be left for negotiations later” must be viewed with suspicion. That kind of statement has its connotation. It means that the territorial issues at the so-called “disputed zone” at Preah Vihear and the Ta Moan temples “will be left for negotiations later”. What Thailand wants to concentrate now is to “promote tourism at Preah Vihear temple”. Cambodia must be wary about this Thai proposal. Cambodia must be mindful that Preah Vihear temple is a Cambodian temple and that promoting tourism should be the exclusive rights of Cambodia and that all tourist revenue should be the sole benefits of Cambodia. It must not be shared with Thailand.

When Mr. Samak was talking about “promoting tourism at Preah Vihear temple”, he was talking about sharing the Preah Vihear tourist dollars between Cambodia and Thailand. This is an insult to injury and a double robbery because while the issue of “Thai occupation” of the Preah Vihear areas had not been resolved, Thailand now turned its attention to acquiring benefits from the Preah Vihear temple. As I said earlier, any tourism co-operation with Thailand should only happen when the “occupied zone” has been transferred to Cambodian control. To agree to develop the areas before the ownership of the “occupied areas” was established would be tantamount to conceding Cambodia’s territorial integrity to Thailand.

On a footnote to this editorial, I wish to congratulate PM Hun Sen’s initiative of giving lands to the families of landless soldiers who are stationed on the borders to protect our borders. The PM’s initiative should be supported wholeheartedly. But, like Mr. Cheam Channy said, I am concerned that the military leaders might take advantage of this policy by distributing the lands or good lands to themselves and their families. The Cambodian government, if it wants this policy to be implemented properly and equitably, must devise a mechanism to ensure that the lands should only be given to the landless soldiers and that rich military leaders are not eligible to receive any land concessions at all.

The Great Wall Of Preah Vihear

Opinion by Khmerization

25th August 2008

“Cambodia, as a sovereign nation, must plan the future of Preah Vihear alone for the good and the benefits of Preah Vihear and Cambodia, regardless of whether Thailand agreeing with the ideas or not. This includes the building of a Berlin-style wall or even the Great Wall of Preah Vihear that is comparable to the Great Wall of China.”

It was said that the Great Wall of China was built more than 2200 years ago (220-200 BC) to protect China from the invasion of Xiongnu- a confederation populated by the nomadic tribes which was consisted of the Hunnic tribes, who were said to be the ancestors of the present day Mongolian people. By the same token, with the Thai making a journey eastward by pushing its borders deep inside Cambodia, in particular around the Preah Vihear and Ta Moan temple areas, Cambodia’s plans to build a Berlin-style wall is a great idea indeed.

This is the 21st century and to some fair-minded people, the idea of building a wall to shut off foreign invaders or encroachers is too extreme. But with Cambodia’s borders being chipped away on a constant basis by our neighbours, it is imperative and appropriate for Cambodia to do everything possible to protect its borders from being encroached by our greedy neighbours, including going into extreme like building a Berlin-style wall.

The gate to Preah Vihear temple from the Thai side should be shut off permanently with the Berlin-style or the Israeli-style concrete walls which were built to fence off the attacks from the Palestinian extremists. Cambodia should encourage private and foreign investors to invest heavily in the Preah Vihear areas by offering them incentives and concessions in order to develop tourist facilities.

Road-building, proposals for cable cars and hospital buildings are ideas that are very encouraging. Access to the Preah Vihear temple from the Cambodian side is essential for the developments and the growth of Preah Vihear. If Preah Vihear remains dependent on access from Thailand, Cambodia and, to a larger extent, Preah Vihear temple will always be at the mercy of Thailand.

I predict a bleak future for the solutions of the Preah Vihear and Ta Moan temples that are favourable to Cambodia. The solutions to the Preah Vihear and Ta Moan temples can only be achieved to the benefits of Thailand. With four negotiations taken place and the status quo still remain, the solutions are nowhere in sight, the situation remain as volatile as ever and the status quo remained unpredictable, the Cambodian people can only be pessimistic. With this scenario in mind, Cambodia must not be too complacent and lethargic about the Preah Vihear issue. On the contrary, Cambodia must be forceful, vigilant and pro-active by taking the initiatives, and not waiting for Thailand to make an offer.

Cambodia must be mindful and wake up to the facts that, with three negotiations that have failed to produce any outcomes so far, the Thai tactics in successfully manipulating the negotiation processes toward their advantages by hijacking the agenda of the negotiations, are aimed at prolonging the Thai occupation until such time a solution that is favourable to Thailand can be reached. So, Cambodia, as a sovereign nation, must plan the future of Preah Vihear alone for the good and the benefits of Preah Vihear and Cambodia, regardless of whether Thailand agreeing with the ideas or not. This includes the building of a Berlin-style wall or even the Great Wall of Preah Vihear that is comparable to the Great Wall of China.

The Ranariddh Syndrome

13th August, 2008
Opinion by Khmerization
On the web at http://khmerization.blogspot.com

“Prince Ranariddh’s behaviours can only be equated with the behaviours of a stray dog, running around with no sense of direction. His repeated betrayals of Mr. Sam Rainsy can only be termed “The Ranariddh Syndrome” - a term that should be coined permanently to refer to those who are obsessed with betraying his/her friends only to be repeatedly cheated, betrayed, used, abused and trashed by another friend. And Prince Ranariddh fits this description perfectly well.”

I was in the process of writing an editorial on how wonderful it was to hear the news of a possible merger between the three main opposition parties, including the Norodom Ranariddh Party (NRP), when the news came that Prince Ranariddh, President of the NRP, had taken an about face U-turn by declaring a withdrawal from the Sam Rainsy-led opposition coalition to join the Cambodian People’s Party-led coalition government. And so, I have to abandon that article, re-write it, change it and modify it significantly.

I wasn’t surprised of Prince Ranariddh’s betrayal because this is not the first time, and probably not the last time, that he had behaved in this erratic and mercurial manner. But I was shocked, shocked because I believe that, after being used, abused and trashed repeatedly in the past by Mr. Hun Sen, he had learned his lessons. Prince Ranariddh’s behaviours prove correctly the old saying that “a leopard never changes its spots”.

I dare to predict that, like in the past, Prince Ranariddh has been duped by Mr. Hun Sen to be used as a political tool and then abused and trashed like rubbish. Mr. Hun Sen, well known as a master of tactician and a master of deception, is interested only in achieving his political supremacy and his ultimate immortal iron fist rule, through a carefully planned strategy and deception. And as I said, Prince Ranariddh, like many times before, has been duped and deceived one more time.

The coalition of the disunited, as I would like to call the Sam Rainsy-led opposition, is being significantly weakened by these desertions. One by one, his coalition partners had chosen to betray him and their supporters by joining Mr. Hun Sen’s coalition of evils. First the Funcinpec Party, who had briefly joined the oppositions in rejecting the election results. Two days later it withdrew from the oppositions and declared that it will maintain its long term alliance with the Cambodian People’s Party. Now, Prince Ranariddh had chosen personal interests over the interests of Cambodia by deciding to join Mr. Hun Sen’s coalition of evils and abandoning Mr. Sam Rainsy for the fourth times. Next, it could be Mr. Kem Sokha of the Human Right Party. Mr. Kem Sokha’s commitment to the Sam Rainsy-led opposition coalition is not very re-assuring. Since the election on 27th July, he had only appeared briefly in the public. Since then he had taken a back seat and retreated into the political wilderness, preferring to send his lieutenants to appear in public on his behalf.

Mr. Sam Rainsy is a man of principle and has never betrayed his supporters and his principle. But with people around him are enticed and lured by a possible plum job with the Hun Sen government, he would have an uphill battle to rally them to his cause, and that is denying the Hun Sen government its legitimacy by boycotting the swearing in ceremony. Mr. Hun Sen will employ all strategies and tactics, including using money, coercions and even threats to break up the Sam Rainsy-led coalition and he will employ all tactics and strategy to thwart Rainsy’s political advancement. I hope that his upcoming trip to protest the election results to the UN and to the international community will be a fruitful trip and somehow succeeding in convincing them to re-appraise the election results. But, frankly, with the international election observers declaring the election results acceptable, I doubt that Mr. Sam Rainsy is able to convince them otherwise.

Prince Ranariddh and Mr. Sam Rainsy are not strange political bedfellows. They have had an on-again off-again political love affairs for more than 15 years. But they are strange political bedfellows in the sense that they are politically and ideologically incompatible. One is a non-principled royal lame duck politician and the other is a patrician republican politician with strong conviction and a sense of political directions. And so, their political union is poised to fail from the start.

Prince Ranariddh’s behaviours can only be equated with the behaviours of a stray dog, running around with no sense of direction. His repeated betrayals of Mr. Sam Rainsy can only be termed “The Ranariddh Syndrome” - a term that should be coined permanently to refer to those who are obsessed with betraying his/her friends only to be repeatedly cheated, betrayed, used, abused and trashed by another friend. And Prince Ranariddh fits this description perfectly well. Not only that he suffers from the Ranariddh Syndrome but he is certainly fit to be called the Downs Syndrome Ranariddh.