គិតដោយសុភវិនិច្ឆ័យCritical Thinking Inspired » Politics

Facebook and Buddhism

P&L — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:46:19 +0000

ព្រះសង្ឃដែលមានឋានៈធំៗទាំងនោះ ភាគច្រើនបញ្ចូលនយោបាយរបស់គណបក្សខ្លះ នៅពេលបានឡើងគង់ទេសនាម្តងៗ។ ជាងនេះទៅទៀត គំរាមកំហែង និងតាមដានព្រះសង្ឃណាដែលចូលរួមសង្កេតតាមដានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ ដែលមកតវ៉ារឿងវិវាទដីធ្លី ព្រៃឈើ និងសិទ្ធិមនុស្សជាដើម ដោយសារព្រះសង្ឃរស់បានអាស្រ័យឧបាសក នៅពេលឧបាសកទុក្ខព្រួយគឺព្រះសង្ឃតែងតែជួយអ៊ីចឹងហើយ។ ឧទាហរណ៍ ដូចកាលពីឆ្នាំទៅ ព្រះសង្ឃលួន សាវ៉ាត ដែលចូលរួមឃ្លំាមើលការតវ៉ារឿងព្រៃឡង់ក៏មិនបានដែរ គឺមានលិខិតគណៈសង្ឃរាជធានីហាមវត្តនានានៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ មិនឲ្យគង់ស្នាក់អាស្រ័យនៅទេ។ ពេលខ្លះធ្វើការតាមដានព្រះសង្ឃណាដែលមាននិន្នាការនយោបាយរក លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យថែមទៀតផង។

Phnom Penh Post

Monday, 06 February 2012 12:00 តុង សុប្រាជ្ញ Hits: 225

ព្រះ សង្ឃ លួន សាវ៉ាត ចូល រួម ឃ្លាំ មើល ការ តវ៉ា រឿង ព្រៃ ឡង់ កាល ពី ខែ សីហា ឆ្នាំ ទៅ ។ រូបថត ម៉េង គីមឡុង

ព្រះពុទ្ធឱវាទបានសម្តែងថា «ធ្វើល្អបានល្អ ធ្វើអាក្រក់បានអាក្រក់» ឬពាក្យសាមញ្ញនិយាយថា «ដាំចេកបានផ្លែចេក ដាំស្វាយនឹងបានផ្លែស្វាយ»។ ពុទ្ធឱវាទនេះ គួរត្រូវបានពុទ្ធសាសនិក ទាំងអស់ចងចាំ និងគោរពប្រណិប័តន៍តាមយ៉ាងខ្ជាប់ខ្ជួន ពិសេស គឺព្រះសង្ឃ ពុទ្ធសាសនា។ ប៉ុន្តែមិនដូច្នោះទេ ព្រះសង្ឃមួយចំនួនប្រព្រឹត្តខុសនឹងពុទ្ធឱវាទជាច្រើនប្រការ ដែលត្រូវបានការប្រមាថពីមតិសាធារណៈ។

កម្មៗប្រែមកថា «អំពើ» អំពើដែលលោកអ្នកធ្វើ លោកអ្នកតែងទទួល បើអាត្មាធ្វើខុសអាត្មាក៏ទទួលដែរ… មានតែព្រះអង្គ(ព្រះពុទ្ធ)មួយព្រះអង្គទេគ្មានគ្រូបាអាចារ្យណា ប្រដៅព្រះអង្គបានឡើយ…ហើយឧបាសកឧបាសិកាគួរតែកុំប្រព្រឹត្តទៅតាម កាមកិលេសតណ្ហា កុំលួចប្រពន្ធគេ ត្រូវចៀសវាងឲ្យបាននូវ ស្រី ស្រា ល្បែង…។ នេះគឺជាធម៌ដែលព្រះសង្ឃទេសនាម្តងៗដើម្បីប្រៀនប្រដៅឧបាសកឧបាសិកា ចំណុះជើងវត្ត កុំឲ្យប្រពឹត្តអំពើអបាយមុខទាំងនេះ។ សាសនា គឺជាផ្នែកមួយនៃបាវចនារបស់ព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជា ហើយប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដែលកាន់ និងគោរពសាសនាព្រះពុទ្ធដ៏លើសលប់គឺ៩៦,៩ភាគរយ នៃសាសនាសរុប។ (ជំរឿនឆ្នាំ ២០០៨) ដែលមានព្រះសង្ឃជាអ្នកដើរតួជាអ្នកប្រតិបត្តិតាមព្រះពុទ្ធ។ តើព្រះសង្ឃសព្វថ្ងៃប្រព្រឹត្តអ្វីខ្លះ នៅក្នុងសង្គម និងបណ្តាញសង្គមហេ្វសបុក(Facebook)?

បច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ បើមើលទៅទីវត្តអារាមណាដែលមានការសាងសង់រចនាប័ទ្មទំនើបស្អាតៗ ប្រណីតៗ សូម្បីកុដិព្រះសង្ឃនោះ ខ្លះក៏សឹងធំជាងវិហារវត្តល្មមផង ហើយតុបតែងស្អាតណាស់បំពាក់សុទ្ធតែឈើប្រណីតៗ និងបរិក្ខារត្រជាក់។ វត្តណាដែលល្អៗទាំងនោះ គឺភាគច្រើនសុទ្ធតែមានព្រះសង្ឃដែលពូកែៗ ខាងស្រោចទឹក ខាងទស្សន៍ទាយដំឡើងជោគជតារាសី បញ្ចូលមន្តអាគមន៍គាថា ហើយអ្នកធំៗ បានឡើងបុណ្យស័ក្តលឿនណាស់ ខ្លះកាន់តំណែងមិនត្រឹមតែរាប់ឆ្នាំទេគឺរាប់ទសវត្សរ៍ទៀតផង កាន់បានយូរណាស់។ នេះជាតួនាទីរបស់ព្រះសង្ឃដែលតែងតែជួយប្រោសព្រំគ្រហស្ថ អ៊ីចឹងហើយ បើទោះបីគ្រហស្ថទាំងនោះប្រកបរបរទុច្ចរិត ពុករលួយលក់ជាតិ ឬក៏មានបាតដៃប្រឡាក់ឈាមក៏ដោយ? ព្រះសង្ឃដែលពូកែៗទាំងនោះ ក៏ឡើងបុណ្យស័កិ្តលឿនដែរប្រៀបដូចចៅហ្វាយឡើងបុណ្យខុនឡើង ស័ក្តិ។ ពេលនិមន្តចេញក្រៅម្តងៗគឺសុទ្ធមានត្រាព្រះសង្ហាថ្នាក់ជាតិនៅ ពីលើចីវរ និងមានអង្គរក្សឆ្វេចឆ្វាចទៀតផង នៅតែថ្ងៃដាក់រថយន្តសៀរ៉ែននៅខាងមុខទេ។ ប្រសិនបើមានញោមៗធម្មតាណាមកនិមន្តទៅឆាន់សង្ឃទាននៅឯផ្ទះ វិញគឺ ព្រះសង្ឃធម្មតានិមន្តទៅបានហើយអាត្មាជាប់រវល់ណាស់ តែបើញោមៗណាថ្នាក់ធំៗ ឯកឧត្តម លោកជំទាវ ឬក៏ឧត្តមសេនីយ៍និមន្តទៅដំឡើងរាសី ឬក៏ឆាន់នៅវីឡាវិញគឺនិមន្តឡើងឡង់គ្រីស័រ ឬឡិចស៊ីសទៅភ្លាម។ គិតៗទៅសូម្បីតែសង្ឃក៏មានអង្គខ្លះកាលីបៗដែរ កុំថាឡើយតែឧបាសកនោះ។

ព្រះសង្ឃដែលមានឋានៈធំៗទាំងនោះ ភាគច្រើនបញ្ចូលនយោបាយរបស់គណបក្សខ្លះ នៅពេលបានឡើងគង់ទេសនាម្តងៗ។ ជាងនេះទៅទៀត គំរាមកំហែង និងតាមដានព្រះសង្ឃណាដែលចូលរួមសង្កេតតាមដានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ ដែលមកតវ៉ារឿងវិវាទដីធ្លី ព្រៃឈើ និងសិទ្ធិមនុស្សជាដើម ដោយសារព្រះសង្ឃរស់បានអាស្រ័យឧបាសក នៅពេលឧបាសកទុក្ខព្រួយគឺព្រះសង្ឃតែងតែជួយអ៊ីចឹងហើយ។ ឧទាហរណ៍ ដូចកាលពីឆ្នាំទៅ ព្រះសង្ឃលួន សាវ៉ាត ដែលចូលរួមឃ្លំាមើលការតវ៉ារឿងព្រៃឡង់ក៏មិនបានដែរ គឺមានលិខិតគណៈសង្ឃរាជធានីហាមវត្តនានានៅរាជធានីភ្នំពេញ មិនឲ្យគង់ស្នាក់អាស្រ័យនៅទេ។ ពេលខ្លះធ្វើការតាមដានព្រះសង្ឃណាដែលមាននិន្នាការនយោបាយរក លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យថែមទៀតផង។

គណៈសង្ឃធំៗទាំងនោះ មិនសូវគិតគូររឿងការបន្តបង្កើតព្រះធម៌ព្រះត្រៃបិដកដើម្បី អភិវឌ្ឍវិស័យព្រះពុទ្ធសាសនា ឬក៏បង្កើតពាក្យថ្មីៗទៅលើវចនានុក្រម សម្តេចសង្ឃ ជួន ណាត ដែលមានស្រាប់ទេ ឬកំណត់យកនិយាមពាក្យដែលត្រូវមកផ្សព្វផ្សាយទេ គឺទុកឲ្យកូនខ្មែរទាំងបច្ចុប្បន្ន ជំនាន់ក្រោយទៀតមានការលំបាក ហើយតាំងបន្ទោសថាកូនខ្មែរមិនចេះសរសេរអក្សរខ្មែរត្រឹមត្រូវ សូម្បីការបង្កើតពាក្យប្រើជាភាសាខ្មែរនៅក្នុងទូរស័ព្ទហ្នឹង ក៏មិនទាន់ចុះសម្រុងគ្នានៅឡើយទេ។ ចុះថាតើនឹងមានបញ្ហាអក្សរខ្មែរអ្វីខ្លះកើតឡើង នៅខែក្រោយនេះ ប្រព័ន្ធអ៊ីនធឺណិត Mozilla Firefox មានគម្រោងបង្កើតកម្មវិធីអក្សរខ្មែរនៅលើវេបសាយរបស់ខ្លួន ឬមួយក៏ទុកឲ្យតាមដំណើរអ៊ីចឹងទៅ? គណៈសង្ឃធំៗបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះមើលទៅដូច គិតគូររឿងបក្ស បុណ្យស័ក្តិ និងអំណាចច្រើនជាងស្រាវជ្រាវធម៌អាថ៌ និងអក្សរសាស្រ្ត ខុសពីព្រះសង្ឃជំនាន់ដើមខិតខំរាប់ឆ្នាំបកប្រែពីភាសាបាលីមក ឲ្យកូនខ្មែរជំនាន់ក្រោយប្រើ ហើយមេដឹកនាំព្រះសង្ឃជំនាន់មុនហ៊ានចេញមុខតស៊ូប្រឆាំងជាមួយនឹង អាណានិគមនិយមបារាំង ដូចព្រះសង្ឃក្រឡាហោមគង់ ជាដើម។ សូមមានពុទ្ធដីកាជាលាយលក្ខណ៍អក្សរប្រាប់ផងសព្វថ្ងៃនេះធ្វើបាន អ្វីខ្លះ ?

ក្រៅពីនោះ មានរឿងប្លែកៗជាច្រើនជុំវិញព្រះសង្ឃដែលប្រព្រឹត្តផ្ទុយពីវីន័យ ធម៌ ព្រះសង្ឃខ្លះលួចផឹកស្រា ខ្លះលួចលេងបៀរ ខ្លះចាក់កន្ទុយលេខ ខ្លះហាត់បើកឡានលេងក្នុងវត្តពេលយប់ៗ ខ្លះលួចមើលរឿងអាសអាភាសក៏មាន អ៊ីចឹងហើយបានជាកើតមានព្រះសង្ឃហ៊ានដល់សេពមេថុន(រួមភេទ) ខ្លះទៀតឈានដល់ថ្នាក់ចាប់រំលោភសេពសន្ថវៈទៀតផង។ ឧទាហរណ៍៖ កាលពីសប្តាហ៍មុន មានព្រះសង្ឃមួយអង្គធ្វើសកម្មភាពរំលោភកុមារីដល់ទៅ២នាក់ ហើយ២នាក់ផ្សេងទៀតប៉ុនប៉ង ហើយគំរាមសម្លាប់ក្មេងស្រីៗទាំង២នាក់នោះទៀត បើស្រែក ឬក៏ទៅប្តឹងប៉ូលិស។ ព្រះសង្ឃអើយ ព្រះសង្ឃ!អីក៏សាហាវម្ល៉េះ ក្រែងទូន្មានគ្រហស្ថសុទ្ធតែ កុំឲ្យប្រព្រឹត្តអបាយមុខនានា តែព្រះសង្ឃខ្លួនឯងនោះជាអ្នកប្រព្រឹត្តទៅវិញ។ ករណីព្រះសង្ឃធ្វើសកម្មភាពយ៉ាងដូច្នេះ មិនឃើញមានគណៈសង្ឃធំៗ រឹតបន្តឹងផ្នែកវិន័យឲ្យបានធ្ងន់ធ្ងរទេ ដូចជា ចេញជាលាយលក្ខណ៍អក្សរ ប្រកាសតាមវត្តនានាទូទាំងប្រទេសជាដើម ពោលគឺទុកទាល់តែទុំជោរ បានដឹងដូចជា ករណី នេត ខៃ បាននាំគ្នាចាត់ការទាំងគណៈសង្ឃទាំងសមត្ថកិច្ច។ បើតាមរបាយការណ៍ឆ្នាំ២០១១ របស់ក្រសួងមហាផ្ទៃ បានបង្ហាញថា ករណីរំលោភសេពសន្ថវៈមាន៣៤០ករណី កើនឡើងជាងឆ្នាំ២០១០ ដែលមាន៣១០ករណី។ ក្នុងនោះករណីរំលោភសរុបក៏រាប់បញ្ចូលទាំងព្រះសង្ឃផងដែរ។ សង្ឃឹមថា ឆ្នាំនេះក្រសួងនឹង វិភាគទិន្នន័យមកបង្ហាញចំពោះករណីអ្នកប្រព្រឹត្តជាព្រះសង្ឃផងដែរ ។

សកម្មភាពអបាយមុខរបស់ព្រះសង្ឃខាងលើនេះ គួរឲ្យខ្ពើមរអើមចំពោះសង្គមជាតិ។ ឧបាសកម្នាក់ៗធ្វើអ្វីៗ មិនហ៊ានប៉ះព្រះសង្ឃទេព្រោះខ្លាចបាប សូម្បីតែនិយាយទៅកាន់ព្រះសង្ឃក៏គិតដែរខ្លាចខុសពាក្យពេចន៍ ចំណែកព្រះសង្ឃខ្លះវិញមិនត្រឹមតែរំលោភទេ ថែមទាំងគំរាមសម្លាប់ទៀត។

ឥឡូវនេះ ចូលដល់ដំណាក់កាលព្រះសង្ឃនាំគ្នាលេងហ្វេសប៊ុក ហើយឆ្លើយឆ្លងជាមួយនារីស្អាត ខ្លះស៊ិចស៊ីទៀត សំណួរសួរថាតើព្រះសង្ឃលេងហ្វេសប៊ុកមានអ្វីខុសដែរឬទេ ? បើតាមវិន័យសង្ឃវិញតើ អាចដាច់អាបត្តិដែរឬទេ? បើព្រះសង្ឃបើកហ្វេសប៊ុកទៅឃើញសុទ្ធតែរូបអាសអាភាស ឬវីដេអូគ្លីបអាសអាភាស ដែលគេបានបង្ហោះ ឬមានមេរោគ(Virus)ដែលបានផ្ញើមកចូលក្នុងខ្ទង់គណនីហ្វេសបុករបស់ ព្រះសង្ឃនោះ? ពេលខ្លះព្រះសង្ឃដែលជាសមាជិកលេងហ្វេសបុកក៏បង្ហោះរូបភាពរបស់ ព្រះសង្ឃក្នុងបន្ទប់ក្នុងកុដិ ដែលរូបថតទាំងប្រុស ស្រី នៅក្នុងបន្ទប់នោះឲ្យញាតិញោមឃើញទាំងអស់ ហើយព្រះសង្ឃខ្លះពាក់តែហង្សសាក់ (អាវកាក់)ទៀត។ តើជាការសមរម្យដែរឬទេបើនារីៗបើកនៅក្នុងហ្វេសបុកឃើញនោះ? បើតាមវិន័យធម៌ព្រះសង្ឃតាមធម្មតា គឺអាចមើលមុខស្រ្តីទាល់តែចម្ងាយសុទ្ធតែ៣ ទៅ៤ម៉ែត្រឯណោះ។ បើព្រះសង្ឃមើលរូបភាពស្រើបស្រាលបែបនេះ អាចបណ្តាលឲ្យព្រះសង្ឃដែលលេងហ្វេសប៊ុកអាចឈានដល់ការរួមភេទ ឬក៏ចាប់រំលោភដែរឬទេ? តើគណៈសង្ឃធំៗមានបានដឹងរឿងព្រះសង្ឃលេងហ្វេសប៊ុកដែរ ឬទេ? បើដឹងហើយ តើមានវិធានការដែរឬទេ?

ចូលរួមផ្តល់យោបល់តាមរយៈ soprach.tong@phnompenhpost.com

Cambodian authority and Decho must use the prowess of Dhamma or law, not the prowess of personality, to protect Cambodian citizens

P&L — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:01:21 +0000

Op-Ed: luonsovath.blogspot.com

It is a tragedy while the government and their leaders have been bragging on economic growth, national development, peace and prosperity after the dark cloud of civil war and brutality ended, many bottom-line people like the residents of Borei Keila have continuously been humiliated by such “development rhetoric”. Listen to the video clip below, a woman said “is this the development in the age of Decho?”. It is shameful for Decho to be heard like this. Hence, this plague has happened every where around the world, not only Cambodia, if the top leader is not having proper conduct and moral attitude in the Dhamma. Dhamma means rule of laws, not rule of personality. As our observation remarked, our Decho has always proliferated his personality to judge and decide all issues happening in Cambodian society.

Buddha has been known as an Enlightened personality, but Buddha has never claimed himself as the central personality in deciding and determining any controversial issues. Dhamma and Vinaya which have been well promulgated for public use is the guideline, the tool for proper decision making and substantial rule for every one regardless of their status, entity or tendencies etc. However, Cambodian Buddhists are sadden and sad when their top leader has been using personality to judge and make a decision with all things. Recent public talk of Decho about ordering his Ohna colleague to arrest the violators inside his company who shot innocent protesters in Kratie because of their curiosity on the land grab, is not right on the proper practice of the Dhamma or the rule of law. Decho must follow the rule of law, he couldn’t use his prowess to overlapped or undermine the existing law.

Cambodian law has solemnly condemned and punished those who committed violence and perpetrated illegal activities. Cambodian authority and Decho must use the prowess of the Dhamma/law, not the prowess of personality, in order to stop humiliating our own race and innocent Cambodian citizens.

Cambodian children are the young seed of Cambodia whom need special care and nurturing

P&L — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:55:37 +0000

To celebration the end year of 2011, Mr.Sophoan Seng, Khmer Youth Association of Alberta, CanCambodia, team-works and generous members, have initiated to help kids at two places in Cambodia in Siem Reap Province of Angkor Wat the Great.

First group of photos are illustrating Mr.Chanroeun Pa and his teams are distributing note-books, scarfs, shampoo, soap, detergent, dry Mii Yeuong noodles, study tools and cash to many kids who have been survived by the rubbish dump. Their living condition has been affected by rubbish environment which is located in remote area: no school, hospital and other amenities. Many kids and families have been moving here in hope for the career of SCAVENGING. Many generous, journalists and NGOs have stepped in to help them release suffering. Some donations offered, wells dug, and we hope that many other plans are on the row. If you wish to spare your heart and love, please do that…the location is following: Phum Tropaeng Thom, Tropaeng Thom Commune, Prasat Bakong District, Siem Reap Province.

Another group was led by Mrs. Chann to distribute note-book, pencil, pen and 500 riel cash to 500 students of primary and secondary school in Phum Dong-het, Khum Kok-thlok Krom, Jikrieng District, Siem Reap province. The school has located in the middle of four villages: Phum Dong-het, Phum Konsaeng, Phum Robieng and Phum Anlong Tro-orn at about 7 km north of national road number 6 at the Domrey Chlong point. During the civil war, this location was ravaged by the factional fighting between the Khmer Rouge armies and Vietnamese armies. The typical career of people here are farmers.

Thank you very much for your kind sharing and hospitality. We expect to receive your extending heart and love for those kids more in the future!!

Cambodia needs to see real change

P&L — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:14:00 +0000

Thank you very much Dr. Peang-Met for raising up this very important controversial debate. In Cambodia as people have been embedded by non-independent mass media including the unalienable traumatic past of war and genocide, the group of stability and stomach need, has been conveyed by majority. However, Buddhists who have learned and experienced deep understanding of the teachings see that the highest goal of Buddhism is “liberty”, not “the four necessities”. In practice, Nama (liberty) and Rupa (four necessities) must be equal and in balance.

In Vipassana meditation, practitioners cannot get into the Dhamma stream if one cannot balance Nama and Rupa. Socially and politically observing, Cambodia is not in the stage of any thing identical to these three stages. Scandals of non-independent judicial system, economic development through poor evictions, non-independent mass media, rampant corruption from tops to bottoms, political autocracy, favoritism and cronyism etc. have been lingering on the murky stage…do we see Cambodia is in the pathway of engineering in development and stability, engineering in creating liberty, or engineering in balancing of both social commodities?

PACIFIC DAILY NEWS
Jan. 25, 2012Cambodia needs to see real change

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth

Many readers emailed me following my series of articles on replacing Cambodia’s dictatorship with a democratic form of government. As many emails contained similar concerns, I have grouped those with similar themes and will use this column to deal with two.

I agree with readers who argued that what Cambodia needs — “first and foremost,” as a respected Khmer reader and author put it — is for the people to have “a filled stomach and stability.”

My “teachings” in this column mirror the substance of the “Introduction to Government and Politics” manual I wrote during my tenure at the University of Guam — that most of the world’s nation-states aspire to some common goals by giving government the task of providing for independence (free from outside control), stability (order and security) and economic and social well-being for all citizens. Cambodians should aspire to nothing less.

The fundamental philosophical conflicts between Western and Eastern civilizations — the West believes in the individual and his/her basic rights and freedom first; the East believes in the community and its security-stability first — have evolved.

Historically, Eastern philosophy has posited there cannot be human rights and freedom in an insecure, unstable and disorderly world and has made primary the institution of security, stability and order. In the West, there is strong opposition to compromising individual rights and freedom.

Evolution brings change — a constant, which, if applied wisely, can avoid disastrous collision.

In today’s world, Eastern nations that embrace community and stability also acknowledge the values of basic human rights and freedom, and Western nations that oppose compromising individual rights and freedom also acknowledge the value of a secure and stable society to build and strengthen the rights and freedom they cherish.

At the University of Guam, I wrote and I taught the necessity for balancing the two conflicting philosophies to build a more harmonious world.

In the real world, people aspire to similar things: To experience a level of contentment in life, to enjoy a level of good health, and to be able to meet basic life necessities — food, clothing, shelter. While a government cannot make people content, healthy or economically and socially well, it can help by providing an environment and conditions that facilitate the meeting of those needs and desires.

Cambodia’s current leadership has been in control since Vietnam’s eviction of the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime from power in 1979. It was legitimized by the 1991 Paris Peace Accords and the first U.N.-supervised elections of 1993. Since a coup d’etat against the royalist partners in 1997, the current leadership has ruled the country unchallenged and autocratically.

Cambodia should be the envy of developing countries, as the government reports the economy has experienced a 10-percent annual growth rate for the past decade, and the country is quickly being developed — physically and materially. Yet, Cambodia owes a debt to foreign countries and development partners of an amount between $3.3 billion (or 29 percent of the country’s gross domestic product) and $7 billion (63 percent of the GDP), depending on which government source provides the figure.

The government also acknowledges that 35 percent of Cambodia’s total 14 million, or 5 million, live below the poverty level. Photos and videos of the miserable lives led by these poor and the violations of their rights and properties by the government inundate the Internet.

Compared to life under the genocidal regime of the Khmer Rouge, when it is generally agreed that more than 2 million Cambodians were brutally killed, contemporary Cambodia is a far better place. However, political calm masquerades as stability at the price of rights, freedom and the rule of law. Many seem content to accept it in place of the atrocities that preceded this government.

Four years ago, Tibet’s spiritual leader, the 14th Dalai Lama, told the world that even if “food, shelter and clothing” have been provided the people, these latter “remain only half human” because those things do not sustain human beings’ “deep nature” that requires “the precious air of liberty.”

He sees in the positive political changes brought about by nonviolent approaches — India’s Mahatma Gandhi, America’s Martin Luther King Jr., the Philippine People Power movement, the Czech Velvet Revolution, the Tibetan and Burmese protests — as revealing of the “truth” that “freedom is the very source of creativity and human development.”

His vision of the future of humanity may be related to another theme in the emails, asking for my comments on how Cambodians can avoid replacing an autocratic regime with one that is similar.

The Dalai Lama, who sees the roots of many problems as manmade, when humans are unable to “control their agitated minds and hearts,” advises people to reduce their “emotions of suspicion, hatred and hostility toward other human beings.” He calls for “an attitude shift” in society through educating the “human heart” and redressing the “imbalance” between the development of the brain and that of the heart.

A regime change is changing a regime of individuals with other individuals, who come from the same society and traditions — changing the license plate without changing the car. Cambodian opponents to the status quo must begin with a change in attitude; to begin with each of us individually … a topic for another day.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/201201250400/OPINION02/201250318

Help sign petition for the freedom and justice for those victims of forced eviction in Cambodia

P&L — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:33:21 +0000

I think those 30 peaceful protestors have sneaked from the detaining centre for freedom already, but reading this petition and the involvement of Amnesty International in Cambodia affair is a sign that Cambodian victims at Borei Keila, Boeung Kak Lake and many other places throughout the country who are suffered by land grabs and forcible evictions, are not alone.

Join Amnesty International to Sign Petition to the Governor of Phnom Penh to release those 30 peaceful protestors for the rights of housing.

Dear Governor;

Objective: Free forced evictions protesters

I am very concerned at the arrest of 30 peaceful protesters on 11 January, including 24 women and six children, who are now detained at Prey Speu Social Affairs Centre, and call for their immediate release.

I acknowledge the government’s statement that these protesters are not detained; however, protesters report that they are unable to leave, have not been given access to local civil society organisations and are being requested to agree to resettlement documents before release. In my view this constitutes detention and I reiterate the need for their immediate release.

I urge you to conduct a full and independent investigation into the forced eviction of some 300 families living at Borei Keila, Phnom Penh on 3 January, including into why the eviction took place, and the apparent excessive use of force by security forces.

The eight villagers detained on 3 January must be released pending further investigations. The members of the security forces found to be responsible for excessive use of force on this day to be suspended and prosecuted.

Those forcibly evicted must be provided with adequate compensation and suitable alternative accommodation that meets international standards for adequate housing. You are obliged to prevent forced evictions and respect and protect the right to adequate housing, in accordance with international treaties to which Cambodia is a state party.

The political battles continue over the anniversary of January 7

P&L — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:57:24 +0000

The game of the Khmer Rouge is a zero-sum game for Cambodians and their nation. 33 years have already passed; the Khmer Rouge regime will never come back again as the world is fast moving forwards.

It is a priceless lesson to learn in order to move forward and not dwell in the tragedy of the past, only to learn from it, as it was arranged to be the two crickets fighting against each other.

Click here to read the whole Lift Issue of 104 dated January 11, 2012

Seven January arrived and split
again the political parties
of Cambodia. While the Cambodian
People’s Party (CPP) wouldn’t
hesitate to call January 7 the day of
liberation from the brutal Khmer
Rouge, the opposition Sam Rainsy
Party (SRP) claimed it as the day
Vietnam invaded the Kingdom.
The CPP has never been reluctant
to emphasise the brutality of the
Khmer Rouge regime, painting the
Vietnamese troops as the life-savers
of the Cambodian people. For the
SRP, however, the arrival of the Vietnamese
troops in Cambodia marked
an invasion, as Vietnam violated
both international and domestic
law by crossing the border into the
country.

The debate lingers on, years after
Pol Pot’s collapse. While the CPP justifies
its historical view by pointing
to the present situation of political
peace and stability, the SRP dredges
up evidence of Vietnamese occupation
inside Cambodia.

But which side is correct in
their judgments? One must think
critically to come to am informed
decision.

Statistics show that nearly two
million Cambodian people were
executed, starved, over-laboured
to death, or had died from sickness
during the Pol Pot regime. On January
7, 1979, Vietnamese troops, in
alliance with Khmer Rouge defectors,
entered Cambodia and stopped
the Khmer Rouge’s operation.

But historians and political scientists
have demonstrated through
evidence that the power of the
Khmer Rouge came from Vietnam’s
support. In his article “Motives
Behind the Vietnamese Occupation”,
Marc Leepson quoted Vietnamese
Prime Minister Pham Van Dong, in
an interview published in Newsweek,
in which he said his government
“could not stand by in good
conscience and watch the Pol Pot
regime butcher millions of innocent
Kampucheans in cold blood”. However,
evidence shows that Vietnam
knew of the Khmer Rouge’s terror for
years prior to the invasion. Professor
Stephen Morris said, “Hanoi showed
not the slightest concern for the
fate of the Cambodian people while
most of the killing was actually going
on; on the contrary, Vietnamese
Communist Party and government
statements were lush in their praise
of Pol Pot and his regime.”

So are both sides right? Who can
we side with, and what can we do?
We must look to ourselves, instead.
We as Cambodians must write our
own history: that of national pride,
heroes, heroines, national unity,
self-struggles, self-determination
and preserving our cultural identity.
We Khmer should be proud of
our own endeavours and intelligence.

The game of the Khmer
Rouge is a zero-sum game for
Cambodians and their nation. 33
years have already passed; the
Khmer Rouge regime will never
come back again as the world is
fast moving forwards.

It is a priceless lesson to learn in
order to move forward and not dwell
in the tragedy of the past, only to
learn from it, as it was arranged to
be the two crickets fighting against
each other.

An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by the Asian Human Rights Commission

P&L — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:49:11 +0000

FOR PUBLICATION
AHRC-ETC-004-2012
January 17, 2012

An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by the Asian Human Rights Commission

CAMBODIA: Toppling cambodian dictators is not impossible if we think smart and act smart

My grandson, 12, a seventh grader, read “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror” (2004), a bestseller by a former Soviet prisoner, Natan Sharansky. He passed the book to me, saying I might be interested in reading it.

I had read about Sharansky, 9 years a prisoner in the Soviet gulag; I hadn’t read his book. I immediately opened the book to pages my grandson had bookmarked: Sharansky’s distinction between “free societies” and “fear societies”; Sharansky’s description of believers, dissenters and the millions of “double thinkers” who don’t speak their thoughts because of fear of arrest, imprisonment and physical harm so they speak with their “eyes” but go through the motion of supporting rulers who are interested only in remaining forever in power.

Sharansky contends that elections are not enough to dub a society free – a free press, an independent judiciary, the rule of law must exist before genuine free elections are held. He became controversial as he blasted conservatives for placing “stability” above human rights in international relations, and liberals for failing to distinguish between struggling democracies and authoritarian regimes that overtly trample human rights. Sharansky advocates the universality of freedom and human rights.

As I browsed through the book, a Khmer saying came to my mind: “Tumpaeng snorng russey,” referring to young bamboo shoots that grow to replace aging bamboo trees – the future is in the making.

A day later my grandson forwarded me comments by an anonymous blogger “Pissed Off” on KI-Media. Although I am rarely interested in anonymous postings, I have commented in this space before about Pissed Off’s well-reasoned op-ed piece on the Internet about using our resources to educate every Khmer child as a way to resolve countless Khmer problems, including the much feared Vietnamization of Cambodia.

In his most recent posting, blogger “Pissed Off” commented on “potential Cambodian leaders” who oppose Hun Sen’s rule as “like different streams that run fiercely toward the same goal, but cannot merge to reach that goal with a strong and full force. Perhaps the four rivers that merge in front (of) Phnom Penh can serve as an enlightenment for them to see.”

Pissed Off’s most relevant question: “(C)an’t potential leaders of Cambodia be bound together by their education and the common goal of saving and helping Cambodia and her people?”

Inquisitive minds

Those who read my columns know that my purpose in writing springs from my role as an educator. I write to share what I know and have experienced and to nudge readers to remain curious and inquisitive: A mind that does not question is intellectually useless, especially in this ever changing world. Cambodia, the land of my birth, has gone through hell and fire for too long and her people have suffered greatly. The least I can do at my age is to write while my brain still functions.

As a political scientist, I have engaged in the discipline’s conventional tasks: to describe objectively what is; to explain through analysis, causes and effects; to project what may or not happen in the time ahead; and to suggest what or what not, to do. Of course, I don’t expect everyone to agree with my views. But diversity is what democracy is about, and in a civilized world gentlemen disagree and move on.

In the past, I carried my tasks further: I became a political activist and “actionist” – a pursuit I put to rest when I left the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front in 1989, to become a teacher. I taught in formal classrooms and engaged in writing for wall-less classrooms. Since my retirement, I continue to share, seeking to educate, and inspire – another form of activism.

The Chinese say, “Talk doesn’t cook rice.” True enough. But I have also often referenced Lord Buddha’s words: “An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea.” It has been said, “The ancestor of every action is thought.”

An old Khmer saying tells of a place for anything and any person in a Khmer’s world: “A vieach york mork thveu kang; A trang york mork thveu kamm; A sam rognam york mork thveu os dot” – “Bent woods make wheel; Straight woods make spoke; Crooked/twisted woods make firewood.” So, think smart, make room; make use of it or him/her, or his/her ideas and thoughts.

The New Year 2012: An unhappy beginning

My end of the year article in December in this space contained unhappy news on Cambodia and her people. The New Year didn’t begin with happy news, either.

On January 3, 2012, some 500 hundred police supported by emergency vehicles provided security to employees of private developer Phan Imex, and to its hired men armed with axes and crowbars, who were bulldozing citizens’ homes in Phnom Penh’s Borei Keila.

The police fired shots and used sticks and electric batons against about 200 residents – including children, as photos and videos on the Internet illustrated. The residents fought back. They threw stones, Molotov cocktails, and used tree branches to fence off those who had demolished nearly 300 homes. Phan Imex was armed with a court order that ruled the land belonged to it.

A 2003 agreement between the government and Phan Imex authorized the latter to construct 10 buildings on 2 hectares of land to house 1,776 families, and to have development rights over a remaining 2.6 hectares. However, Phan Imex has constructed only 8 buildings leaving some 400 families without housing. On Jan. 3, 2012 Phan Imex, backed by the government, began dismantling the rest of the Borei Keila residents’ homes.

The remarks of Var Ponlork, a member of the uniformed military, were posted on the Internet. He asked how Premier Hun Sen could send soldiers to protect Khmer land at the border while taking away land that belongs to the people?

Eleven human rights groups issued a joint statement condemning the “destruction of … homes” and the “violent eviction” of the residents, “Phnom Penh’s urban poor.” The Phnom Penh Post dubbed it “A Battle for Borei Keila” – a far cry from being a welcoming New Year!

If the past is a guide for the future, forced, violent evictions will continue, and more “battles” will be fought between the people and developers backed by the government.

Ironically, an almost identical event occurred in Southern China’s fishing village of 20,000 residents in Wukan, where an open popular revolt took place against local Chinese Communist Party officials following seizures of farmland and land deals. The Wukan revolt began as a protest against officials selling a village-owned pig farm to developers of luxury housing community for $156 million. The townspeople received none of the proceeds of the transaction. The protesters alleged that their village leader died as a result of a beating by police. Subsequently, Wukan villagers ousted the local officials. Worried, China’s higher-ranking authorities called for negotiation – but the fate of the land deal remains unclear.

Some Cambodians speak

After my December column, a Phnom Penh University student, Phiev Tong Him (he authorized me to use his name), identified himself as a teacher of English in a state school and noted he is worried as a “culture of corruption (is) now being promoted in Khmer society”: “Children in all grades do not study hard as they rely on the teachers to whom they bribe to get high scores.” He claimed the situation is “critical” because “corruption is rampant from the bottom to the top in all fields in the country.” He asked “what will happen to society if this habit continues?”

A former comrade-in-arms of mine from the royalist faction of the Khmer Non-Communist Resistance lamented from Phnom Penh about former leaders – both KPNLF and Royalist – “crippled” by the force they once had fought against, as they have been lured by a thirst for “power, money and prestige.” The ranking royalist called “pathetic” a Phnom Penh overpass called “7 January Overpass” – in recognition of Vietnamese seizing the capital in 1979 – and which “the new Khmer people called ‘Liberation Day’ overpass.” He optimistically asserted, “Personally I don’t think this is the end”; “The silent majority is hard at work.”

They will have to work quickly, however. Teveakor, a young Khmer activist I introduced in this space at an earlier time, wrote that he travelled last month from commune to commune in northwestern Cambodia looking for “land to rent, to grow cassava in the next year.” He was shocked, he reported, that “thousands of hectares of land already belonged to foreign companies through land concessions, about 10 hectares only are owned by a middle class family in the city, the Khmer farmers and villagers in the area no longer own land.”

I could feel Teveakor’s nationalist blood boiling in his e-mail, as he asked: “Does this not mean that the Khmer villagers, once masters of the land, will in the short future become farm workers and immigrants on their ancestors’ soil?” The nationalist sentiment is also very personal: “I always owned ten hectares of land in this area, but the authorities found reasons to let a foreign company grow rubber on them.”

He assured me that what happened to him with the land he owned also happened to “countless citizens” throughout Cambodia.

Teveakor is angry, and frustrated.

Elections

The years 2012 and 2013 are election years that will change or sustain the status quo for another term in Cambodia. Looking ahead, Teveakor, a democrat, believes in elections as a founding principle of a democracy. He questions how anyone says s/he believes in democracy but rejects elections even in adverse conditions: If conditions are adverse, then do something to render them more favorable, he says.

Early this month, political analyst Lao Monghay told the Voice of America that, “Now, their destiny is in the hands of the Cambodian people entirely.” In a perfect world, this would have been true. As Pissed Off commented, “Dictators in Cambodia maintain their grip on Cambodians using violence, fear, suppression of justice, false image of monarchy . . . control of the justice system and most importantly with a new method of providing just, or barely, enough for the poor, so they won’t revolt . . .,” et cetera.

Teveakor doesn’t doubt that Hun Sen and the ruling CPP will rig and manipulate the elections, use fear and intimidation, in order to hold on to power. But, he thinks they can hold on to power perhaps for another decade only. There is still much work for rights and democracy advocates to do – like instilling a political awareness and new political thinking in the Khmers. But progress will be made over time.

Teveakor’s thinking dovetails with that of democracy advocate Sambath and colleagues (who seem to keep low profiles at this moment). Even the ranking royalist correspondent shares the same thought.

What will happen when these different forces – and many others not mentioned here – converge against the same adversaries, to attain the shared goal of ending the autocrats’ rule? Of course, democrats must not forget that the autocrats, too, seek to divide, weaken, and defeat them at every opportunity.

Non-Violent Resistance to Topple Dictators

I have written elsewhere about two men whom the December issue of Foreign Policy Magazine identified as among 100 top global thinkers.

One was American political scientist Gene Sharp, 83, a Ph.D. degree holder in political theory from Oxford, Professor Emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and founder of the nonprofit Albert Einstein Institution in Boston, devoted to studies and promotion of nonviolence action in conflicts worldwide. The other was Srdja Popovic a former marine biology student at Belgrade University, who at age 29, and influenced by the work of Gene Sharp, formed “Otpor” (“Resistance” in Serbian) in 1998, to mobilize Serbia’s populace against Slobodan Milosevic, Serbian president (1989-1997) and Yugoslav president (1997-2000), ending Milosevic’s rule in 2000.

Sharp’s work has become a blueprint for the world’s activists against dictatorship, and Popovic’s first hand experiences and his writing have become sought after knowledge by democracy advocates in more than 50 countries – especially the Arab Spring movements against their dictators.

It is more the reason, and with urgency, that Cambodian rights and democracy advocates become familiar with the work by Sharp and by Popovic. Of course Cambodia is not Serbia nor Egypt. But we need to examine the similarities where they exist and learn to see many trees in a forest and see a whole forest from different trees.

I have written on Sharp’s 1993 book published in Thailand, “From Dictatorship to Democracy, A Conceptual Framework for Liberation,” and I am happy to see the book, and Popovic’s “Nonviolent Struggle, 50 Crucial Points” posted on the Khmer Blog KI-Media.

Sharp’s 1973 classic, “The Politics of Nonviolent Action” has influenced revolutionists the world over, and Popovic’s Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies’ (CANVAS) one-hour documentary film, “Bringing Down a Dictator,” is said to be a must-view film (which inspired Burma’s Saffron Revolutionists).

There is no substitute for reading their writings. But here are some of Sharp and Popovic’s ideas that opponents of Hun Sen might draw upon. Activists and “actionists” from other nations have already benefited from them.

Gene sharp

A dictatorial regime remains in power thanks to the obedience, submission and cooperation of the people it governs. Therefore, democracy activists’ goal is to convince the people that their withdrawal of obedience, submission and cooperation from the regime would end the regime’s hold on power. As a regime is like a building that is supported by columns, activists must pull those columns from it to their side. Two very important columns to pull away from autocrats are the police and the military – and Popovic’s Otpor and the Egyptian protesters did precisely that.

Sharp’s seven reasons why the many obey the few are applicable to the Cambodian situation. People obey out of habit, and from fear of punishment if they don’t obey. Thus, many people are what Sharansky called “double thinkers.” Also, there are those who feel a moral obligation to obey (as Cambodians obey “Sdech phaen dei” or the king of the earth); those who obey out of a kind of emotional-psychological identification with the ruler; and those whose “zone of indifference” allows them to tolerate and overlook areas that are unpleasant, so they endure.

Many people obey out of their own “self-interest” in prestige, power position, direct or indirect financial gain incurred. Cambodians in general fit this criteria so well. Those whose self-interests include desire to travel in and out of the country find using Hun Sen’s travel passport and visa to be within their zone of indifference or tolerance. Sharp also mentioned people without the self-confidence to disobey and resist – Sharp refers to this as an avoidance of responsibility.

Can Cambodians reverse some or all of these reasons?

Sadly, Sharp argues, obedience is essentially “voluntary” – a person consents to obey because s/he is unwilling to face the consequence(s) of disobedience. Sharp mentioned Russian Leo Tolstoy’s writing on the English subjection of India: “What does it mean that (a commercial company of) 30,000 men . . . ha(s) subdued 200 million . . .? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?”

Sharp also cited 16th century French writer Etienne de La Boetie on the power of a tyrant: “He who abuses you so has only two eyes, has but two hands, one body, and has naught but what has the least man of the great and infinite number of your cities, except for the advantage you give him to destroy you.”

Sharp’s “Methods of Nonviolent Action” lists about 200 methods available for democracy activists to use against autocrats, including methods of social, economic, and political “noncooperation” and methods of nonviolent intervention (psychological, physical, social, economic, political).

Srdja Popovic

Born on October 29, 1969, the Belgrade University marine biology student Srdja Popovic who, with his friends, founded the Otpor resistance movement on October 10, 1998, at a time when Serbian dictator Milosevic’s rule was firmly entrenched, decided that it must be Otpor’s primary objective to transform the political culture of the Serbian people. Their political consciousness needed to change, and all issues were considered in terms of the overall goal of removing Milosevic.

Otpor leaders were very frustrated by the different opposition political leaders who were more concerned with protecting and promoting their own interests, and who fought among themselves rather than working to remove Milosevic.

A document, “Declaration of the Future of Serbia,” was drafted to expose Otpor’s vision for Serbia’s tomorrow: It defined Serbia’s main problems, Otpor’s objectives, and the methods Otpor proposed to use to remove Milosevic from power. Happily, the document was endorsed and approved by “all” important student organizations in Serbia, and prominent figures from different walks of life emerged to throw their support behind Otpor. Otpor’s symbol of the clenched fist was adopted.

Otpor’s two-pronged strategies included mobilizing the Serbian people to vote, although Otpor leaders knew well that Milosevic would never accept defeat in the elections. As Sharp puts it in his book, “Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones.” So, while people were encouraged to vote, they were also encouraged to carry out “individual resistance” using nonviolent methods of civil disobedience. Otpor made clear that it was a must that the opposition must get more votes than Milosevic, and that in order to reach this objective the different opposition parties must “unite” behind one opposition presidential candidate, and that the only goal in the struggle was removing Milosevic.

Otpor leaders thus worked on improving analytical skills to promote and maintain “unity, planning, and nonviolent discipline” – the analytical skills that can be taught and learned.

Serbian students who led Otpor made use of Serbian translations of Prof. Gen Sharp’s writings on nonviolent action as a theoretical basis for their struggle.

Slowly, the Otpor leaders stripped away the traditional “fear, fatalism and passivity” of the Serbian people, and creatively turned those factors into positive action by making it “even cool” to be a revolutionist. They used humor and creative street theater in public protests to mock Milosevic, to make “those grey and square-headed bureaucrats look stupid and ridiculous.”

The idea was to break down fear, and to inspire “the tired, disappointed and pathetic Serbian society.” Elevate enthusiasm and humor, and fear and apathy would diminish. People needed to be empowered to see the regime’s vulnerability, thus, overcoming their fear of punishment.

“Gotov je” (He is finished!) and “Vreme Je!” (It’s Time!) became slogans to galvanize public discontent. One month before the people stormed Serbia’s parliament, Milosevic’s police arrested some 2,000 Otpor activists in September 2000.

But, in October 2000, Milosevic resigned.

Advice on Violence

Sharp posits: “Constitutional and legal barriers, judicial decisions, and public opinion are normally ignored by dictators.” On the other hand, “By placing confidence in violent means (in the struggle against dictators), one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority.”

Popovic advises: “There are two things you need to avoid if you don’t want your movement to be doomed: One is violence . . .” Popovic sees the maintenance of a “nonviolent discipline” as indispensable for the success of a revolution. A protester who throws rock at the police opens door for the police with superior power to respond with force on the whole group.

The second thing to avoid is “taking advice from foreigners.”

On reliance on outside saviors

Sharp says, oppressed people who are “unwilling and unable to struggle” for lack of “confidence in their ability to face the ruthless dictatorship . . . understandab(ly) . . . place their hope in for liberation in . . . outside force” to come to their rescue.

Sharp presented “a few harsh realities.” Frequently, Sharp tells us, “foreign states will tolerate, or even positively assist, a dictatorship” to serve the foreign states’ “own economic or political interests.” Also, foreign states “may be willing to sell out an oppressed people instead of keeping pledges to assist their liberation at the cost of another objective”; they will act against a dictatorship “only to gain their own economic, political, or military control over the country.” Foreign states may become actively involved “only if and when the internal resistance has already begun shaking the dictatorship . . .” However, Sharp posits, “International pressures can be very useful . . . when they are supporting a powerful internal resistance movement.”

“Foreign governments don’t have friends, only interests,” warned Popovic.

He encouraged democrats to “try to cultivate external support, get the knowledge and material resources from those offering it and use it for your movement’s mission. But beware of their political advice because successful revolutions are only those which are home grown, designed and followed by local people in a certain country.”

Happy 2012

I write this article hoping to spark discussion and cause Cambodians to reflect on what opponents to Cambodia’s autocracy can learn from the experiences of others. Some Cambodian democracy activists may feel helpless and lonely in their fight, but they must not feel hopeless or alone. Many people under the sun have traveled this road and some have seen success.

“Never” is too long a time. Humans’ liberation from oppression is not impossible.

Remember Lord Buddha’s words, “Nothing is permanent”; “He is able who thinks he is able”; “I believe in a fate that falls on (men) unless they act.”

Happy New Year 2012 to all Cambodian democracy activists!

———————

The views shared in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the AHRC, and the AHRC takes no responsibility for them.

About the Author:

Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. He currently lives in the United States. He can be contacted at peangmeth@gmail.com.

# # #

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.