July, 2015
now browsing by month
Political Paradigm of Pragmatism from the Khmer Youth part 28
This part (28) which is broadcasted by CMN Khmer Radio in July 12-13, 2015, the author Mr. Sophan Seng continued to discuss the Sun Ray Policy Platform phase 3. For this phase, different from phase 1 and phase 2 on lifting up and building up shadow cabinet of the opposition party CNRP respectively, the author talked about the importance of Public Policy, the meaning of it, and its theoretical and practical frameworks to adding towards the meaningful Policy Platform of a political party.
According to Bardach Eugence, a meaningful public policy analysis consists of eight steps:
1. Define the Problem
2. Assemble Some Evidence
3. Construct the Alternatives
4. Select the Criteria
5. Project the Outcomes
6. Confront the Trade-offs
7. Decide
8. Tell Your Story
The author himself had experienced during his schooling for the courses on Public Policy Analysis by joining practicum with the office of Honolulu city mayor. His analysis mainly focused on the Political Participation for the Neighborhood Board policy of the city. While his key criteria were “cost benefits, administrative feasibility, and political 
acceptability” to be used for his study, the concepts of efficiency, equality, political acceptability, and robustness etc. are widely useful for analysts.
Drawing from these contextual frameworks, Cambodia political parties are in need to focus on policy than to focus on leader figures as also claimed by Asia Foundation, in which the author shall discuss in details for the next part of “Political Paradigm of Pragmatism from the Khmer Youth” program.
Cambodia’s Strategic China Alignment
Cambodia’s Strategic China Alignment
The Diplomat
According to conventional wisdom, the international system leaves small states less room for maneuver. Cambodia is no exception. Since the kingdom won its independence from France in 1953, it had been preoccupied with protecting that independence, as well as its sovereignty and territorial integrity. During the Cold War, Cambodian foreign policymakers tried various approaches, from neutrality to alliances with major power(s) and, worst of all, isolationism. Yet Cambodia remained a victim of power politics, and ended up with a civil war and some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.
Economically, China plays an increasingly important role in the socio-economic development of Cambodia as its primary trading partner, largest source of foreign direct investment, and top provider of development assistance and soft loans. Noticeably, two-way trade between Cambodia and China grew from $2.34 billion in 2012 to around $3.3 billion in 2013. Recently, the two countries agreed to boost their bilateral trade to reach the target of $5 billion by 2017. Similarly, Chinese investment in Cambodia in 2013 rose 65 percent, to $435.82 million compared to $263.59 million in 2012. More importantly, Chinese loans and grants to Cambodia reached $2.7 billion in 2012, making it one of the latter’s largest donors. Moreover, Cambodia will reap enormous benefits from new Chinese initiatives such as the Maritime Silk Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
In geopolitical and strategic terms, Cambodia had been a victim of its location as a country sandwiched between two powerful and historically antagonistic neighbors, Thailand and Vietnam. The history of Cambodia vividly suggests that over the six hundred years following the fall of the Khmer Empire, Thailand and later Vietnam regularly defeated Khmer armies and annexed Khmer territories. The two countries had always attempted to impose their suzerainty over Cambodia. Cambodia’s acceptance of the French protectorate in 1863 was an escape from suzerainty.
The eruption of a border conflict with Thailand from 2008 to 2011 reminded Cambodian leaders that its stronger neighbors remain a security threat to the kingdom’s territorial integrity. It also prompted Cambodian leaders to rethink the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) role in maintaining peace and stability in the region. In fact, since becoming a member of ASEAN in 1999, the regional grouping has always been the cornerstone of Cambodia’s foreign policy. Cambodian policymakers were convinced that ASEAN would be a crucial regional platform through which their country could safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as promote its strategic and economic interests. However, it seems that Cambodia’s confidence in ASEAN has faded due to the grouping’s ineffective response to the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute.
Policy Platform through the Survey of Asia Foundation
Arguing towards this research finding by Asia Foundation resonates different aspects. While the finding is very crucial for policy maker(s) to determine their policy platform, the finding doesn’t help much in crafting “institution” but it has helped a lot regarding public opinion for political parties. This research (survey) couldn’t avoid from bias and deviation within the nature of population sampling, technicality, and methodology. In a nation-state of democratic principles that consists of two-ways communication: state-people and people-state, this research is purely focusing on people-state channel, thus it is hard to comprehend the effective approach in “capacity building on state-institution”.
I am keep to articulate more in “state-institution” building which importantly relies on the equity of the state-approached and people-approached participation. It is nice to read the lacking of trust of Cambodian people towards the institution with many clauses of recommendation to bringing about trust from the people. But it is a jargon to read lengthy description on people’s bad mentality towards institutional corruption without having people’s self-responsiveness to discourage corruption, for instance “no bribe, no corruption” etc.
Cambodia is lacking nation founding father. Cambodia is fulfilled personal-cult founding fathers. By evidence, founding father have projected long term interest for the nation such as paving strong foundation for Cambodia as a nation-state to having strong institution accounting from neutral media to educate the public, to political parties system of sound balanced government party leadership and opposition party leadership, to building trust in between state and society etc. Now, government leadership party can enjoy all the provisions in term of party’s base of people-networking, media and financial injection, the opposition party is non-available at all in term of state’s funding while the party has wholly relied on generosity and donation in kind from the members. This kind of political system is not existing in civilized democratic countries. And this culture of non-equity political system shall not sustain Cambodia in its long term democratic system at all.
Interestingly, the research didn’t involve itself towards the new political concept and philosophy conundrum of “Culture of Dialogue” at all. It is probably the concept itself is too complicate for the researches design or the researchers missed to add into their questionnaires just one clause or one word “culture of dialogue”. I am keen to see the researches related this to their questionnaires so that “social capital” of “trust” might be enriched among those respondents.
To recap, I copied and pasted the key ideas in here for everyone to digest more. The research is shedding light towards political parties, academia and news outlets. It is hugely benefiting those “think tank” to think about embodying themselves to be “nation founding father”, or at least “to avail themselves for critical thinking” through word of mouth, facebook, blog, workshop, writing to the editor, or other simple sharing etc.
Democracy in Cambodia2014
…the majority of respondents in the 2014 survey said the country is headed in the wrong direction.
…the survey findings suggest the July 2014 agreement was popular on at least two accounts: first, the majority of respondents support a constitutional amendment to provide for a “balanced” National Election Committee; second, the majority of respondents believe that electoral reform should take place before elections.
Obama facing bipartisan criticism for meeting with Vietnam’s Communist Party head
Obama facing bipartisan criticism for meeting with Vietnam’s Communist Party head
Published July 09, 2015, Op-Ed: Associate Press and posted by Foxnews
Courtesy: VOA Khmer
President Obama is facing bipartisan criticism for hosting Vietnam’s Communist Party boss at the White House this week, given the government’s “deplorable” human rights record and “authoritarian” one-party system.
The president met Tuesday with Nguyen Phu Trong, head of Vietnam’s Communist Party. Trong does not hold an official government position, but is regarded as the nation’s de-facto leader for directing Vietnam’s controlling party.
But the meeting, coming after the administration took yet another step to normalize relations with Communist Cuba, rubbed many on Capitol Hill the wrong way.
“I am disappointed that the administration has chosen to host Nguyen Phu Trong,” Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Vietnam, said in a statement. “As an advocate for human rights in Vietnam I cannot ignore the dismal state of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.”
Sanchez is among several lawmakers who want the administration to challenge Vietnam’s human rights record. She added that Vietnam’s religious and political persecution has gone unchecked, and said the nation must improve its human rights record before it can be an economic and security partner.