- Wednesday, 24 October 2012
- Duoglas Broderick
- Sok Chea is a success story. Having grown from a skinny baby to a
beaming, bright-eyed toddler, he’s proof that working together gets
results.
The MDG-Fund Joint Program for Children, Food Security and Nutrition that helped Chea recover from malnutrition brings together the Royal Government of Cambodia and six United Nations agencies.
But this diverse team shares a common goal: giving Cambodians like Chea and his family the future they want.
Every year, October 24 marks United Nations Day.
It’s a day for all of us – the 27 specialised UN agencies, funds and programs working together for peace, poverty reduction and human rights in Cambodia – to reflect on what we’re here for: for people like Chea.
It’s a day when I like to think about the words of the UN Charter, the text that guides and inspires us.
Signed on October 24, 1945, these words define who we are, what we do and how we do it.
They are at the back of our minds at all times, as the UN strives to serve those for whom we work:
“We, the peoples of the world.”
United Nations Day is not just about the UN Charter. It’s about all the stakeholders we work with, without whom we simply cannot fulfil the charter’s ideals.
We co-operate as equal partners with the Royal Government of Cambodia, and operate alongside everyone from local NGOs and civil society to national and international aid agencies.
There are many facets to working together in the spirit of the UN Charter.
Cambodia, for example, supports the charter’s “peaceful and friendly relations among nations” via its peacekeeping forces abroad. More than 1,000 Cambodian “Blue Helmets” have served, or are serving, with UN peacekeeping missions.
Cambodia’s most valuable asset is its people. The economy seems set to continue expanding, and the country will soon reach “middle income” status.
It’s the Cambodian people who are making that happen, so investing in “human capital” is among our main shared priorities.
One of the obstacles to empowering Cambodian people remains malnutrition. The 2010 Demographic and Health Survey showed that 28 per cent of Cambodian children are underweight.
Maternal and child malnutrition can stifle physical and intellectual development, which in turn hurts this “human capital” that drives the nation’s economy.
We and our partners are paying special attention to stronger bodies and healthier minds, which will be the foundations of Cambodia’s continued growth.
Cambodia is home to an ancient civilisation, yet a very young population. According to the 2008 census, one-third of Cambodians are aged between 15 and 29.
Those youngsters aspire to, and deserve, quality livelihoods. They are the ones who will shape the nation’s future. Young people are at the centre of our efforts to solidify Cambodia’s achievements.
The participation of more women in business and the public sector is equally essential.
Equality and empowerment for women cuts through everything we and our partners do. Moreover, the disturbing incidence of violence against women has to be tackled with zeal.
A first step is talking about the problem, and a program involving four UN agencies is finding that peer-to-peer education is one way to change hearts and minds. But, ultimately, zero tolerance is the
only goal to aim for.
There is more to development than simple economic growth, however. Some people are more vulnerable than others, and often need special help.
For example, we have seen that the best place to treat drug addiction is in communities, not institutions. Another joint UN programe works with Government ministries and NGOs on an innovative project to address this challenge.
The poorest of the poor need a social safety net, a way in which all Cambodians can help one another. With UN assistance, the Royal Government of Cambodia is taking significant steps on social protection for these most vulnerable people.
Cambodia is changing fast. Last year’s dramatic flooding indicated yet again that even the climate is changing, and the United Nations stands hand in hand with Cambodia as the challenge evolves.
Still, there has been much progress since 2000, when the international community named eight millennium development goals. (In Cambodia, we have a ninth goal: de-mining, unexploded ordnance and victim assistance).
With the deadline for those objectives approaching, the world is looking to what comes next. A lot of consultation and hard work lies ahead.
But, ultimately, it’s about kids like Chea. Building the Cambodia we want for Chea and his family is, and always will be, a team effort.
As our charter reminds us, the UN is here to play its part. We’re in it together. - រឿងរបស់ សុខ ជា គឺជារឿងជោគជ័យមួយ។ ដោយកើតមកជាទារកម្នាក់
ដែលមានភាពស្គមស្គាំង ហើយបានក្លាយជាក្មេងចេះដើរតះៗ
ដែលមានសុខភាពល្អ។ ភស្តុតាងអំពីទារកនេះ បង្ហាញថា
ការធ្វើការរួមគ្នានឹងទទួលបានលទ្ធផលប្រសើរ។
មូលនិធិ អភិវឌ្ឍន៍សហស្សវត្សរ៍រួមគ្នា ដើម្បីកុមារ សុវត្ថិភាពស្បៀងអាហារ និងអាហារូបត្ថម្ភ ដែលជួយទារក សុខ ជា ឲ្យជាសះស្បើយពីជំងឺខ្វះអាហារូបត្ថម្ភបាននាំឲ្យរដ្ឋាភិបាល កម្ពុជារួមនឹងស្ថាប័នអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិចំនួន ៦ មកធ្វើការជាមួយគ្នា។
ក្រុមទាំងនេះ មាននូវគោលដៅរួមគ្នាគឺផ្តល់អនាគតដល់ក្មេងៗកម្ពុជា និងគ្រួសាររបស់ពួកគេ ដូចទៅនឹងអនាគតរបស់កុមារ សុខ ជា ដែលពួកគេចង់បាន។
ជារៀងរាល់ឆ្នាំ ថ្ងៃទី ២៤ តុលា គឺជាថ្ងៃរំឭកខួប ទិវាអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ។ វាជាទិវាមួយ សម្រាប់យើងទាំងអស់គ្នា រួមទាំងស្ថាប័នអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិចំនួន ២៧ អង្គការមូលនិធិ និងកម្មវិធីផ្សេងៗ ធ្វើការរួមគ្នា ដើម្បីសន្តិភាព ការកាត់បន្ថយភាពក្រីក្រ និងសិទ្ធិមនុស្សក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា និងដើម្បីឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំង អំពីការងាររបស់យើងនៅទីនេះ គឺដើម្បីមនុស្សទាំងអស់គ្នាឲ្យដូចទៅនឹងកុមារ សុខ ជា។ ដោយចុះហត្ថលេខា នៅថ្ងៃទី ២៤ ខែតុលា ១៩៤៥ ពាក្យពេចន៍នៅក្នុងធម្មនុញ្ញអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ បានកំណត់អំពីការងាររបស់យើង ដែលយើងត្រូវតែធ្វើ និងរបៀបដែលត្រូវធ្វើ។ ពាក្យពេចន៍នៅក្នុងធម្មនុញ្ញនេះ គឺស្ថិតនៅក្នុងចិត្តរបស់យើងជានិច្ច ខណៈស្ថាប័នអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ ខិតខំធ្វើការងារបម្រើប្រជាជន៖ «យើងទាំងអស់គ្នា គឺជាប្រជាជនពិភពលោក»។ យើងសហការជាដៃគូស្មើភាពគ្នាជាមួយរាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា និងប្រតិបត្តិការជាមួយភាគីពាក់ព័ន្ធទាំងអស់។ វាមានវិធីសាស្រ្តផ្សេងៗ ក្នុងការធ្វើការងារជាមួយគ្នាស្របទៅតាមស្មារតីធម្មនុញ្ញ អង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ។ ជាឧទាហរណ៍ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា គាំទ្រទំនាក់ទំនងសន្តិភាព និងរាក់ទាក់ក្នុងចំណោមប្រទេសនានា ឲ្យស្របទៅតាមធម្មនុញ្ញអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិតាមរយៈកងកម្លាំង រក្សាសន្តិភាព។ កងកម្លាំងកម្ពុជាជាង ១០០០ នាក់«ដែលពាក់មួកខៀវ»បាននិងកំពុងបម្រើនៅក្នុងបេសកកម្ម រក្សាសន្តិភាពរបស់អង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ។ ទ្រព្យសម្បត្តិដ៏មានតម្លៃបំផុតរបស់កម្ពុជាគឺប្រជាជនរបស់ខ្លួន។ សេដ្ឋកិច្ចនឹងបន្តរីកលូតលាស់ ហើយប្រទេសនេះនឹងឈានដល់ស្ថានភាព«ប្រាក់ចំណូលមធ្យម»នាពេលខាងមុខ ឆាប់ៗ។ វាជាប្រជាជនកម្ពុជាខ្លួនឯង ដែលកំពុងធ្វើឲ្យស្ថានភាពនោះកើតឡើង ដូច្នេះការវិនិយោគនៅក្នុងវិស័យ«ធនធានមនុស្ស»គឺជាអាទិភាពមួយ ក្នុងចំណោមអាទិភាពចម្បងៗផ្សេងទៀត។
ឧបសគ្គមួយ ក្នុងចំណោមឧបសគ្គដល់ប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ដែលនៅតែមានគឺបញ្ហាកង្វះអាហារូបត្ថម្ភ។ ការសិក្សាវាស់ស្ទង់ស្តីពីប្រជាសាស្រ្ត និងសុខាភិបាល បានបង្ហាញថា ២៨ ភាគរយ ក្នុងចំណោមក្មេងៗកម្ពុជា គឺមានទម្ងន់ស្រាល មិនទាន់គ្រប់គ្រាន់នឹងទម្ងន់របស់ខ្លួន។ កង្វះអាហារូបត្ថម្ភ សម្រាប់មាតា និងកុមារ អាចជាឧបសគ្គ ដល់ការអភិវឌ្ឍផ្នែករាងកាយ និងស្មារតី ហើយនេះនឹងធ្វើឲ្យប៉ះពាល់ដល់ការអភិវឌ្ឍ«ធនធានមនុស្ស»ដែល ជំរុញដល់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចរបស់ប្រទេស។
យើង និងដៃគូរបស់យើង កំពុងយកចិត្តទុកដាក់យ៉ាងពិសេស ដើម្បីធ្វើឲ្យប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា មានរាងកាយ និងសុខភាពមាំមួនជាងមុន ដែលជាមូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះ សម្រាប់ភាពរីកចម្រើនជាបន្តរបស់កម្ពុជា។
ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ធ្លាប់ជាប្រទេសមានអរិយធម៌ដ៏អស្ចារ្យមួយ កាលពីសម័យបុរាណ ប៉ុន្តែបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ ប្រជាជនរបស់ខ្លួន នៅវ័យក្មេងច្រើន។ យោងតាមជំរឿនក្នុងឆ្នាំ២០០៨ មួយភាគបីនៃប្រជាជនកម្ពុជាគឺមានអាយុចន្លោះពី១៥ទៅ២៩ឆ្នាំ។ ប្រជាជនវ័យក្មេងទាំងនេះនឹងជាកម្លាំងជំរុញមួយ ហើយពួកគេសមនឹងទទួលបានជីវិតមួយដែលមានគុណភាព។ ពួកគេនឹងជាអ្នកដែលកំណត់អនាគតរបស់ប្រទេស។ ប្រជាជនវ័យក្មេងទាំងនេះ គឺជាកម្លាំងសម្រាប់កិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងធ្វើឲ្យមានការ សម្រេចសមិទ្ធផលរបស់កម្ពុជា។ ការចូលរួមច្រើនជាងមុន របស់ស្រ្តី នៅក្នុងអាជីវកម្ម និងវិស័យសាធារណៈ គឺមានលក្ខណៈសំខាន់ស្មើគ្នា។ សមភាព និងការផ្តល់អំណាចដល់ស្រ្តី នឹងជួយយើងនិងដៃគូរបស់យើង។ ជាងនេះទៀត បញ្ហាប្រើហិង្សាលើស្រ្តី ត្រូវតែដោះស្រាយ។
ជំហានទីមួយ គឺការនិយាយអំពីបញ្ហា ហើយកម្មវិធីមួយ ដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងស្ថាប័នចំនួនបួន របស់អង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ គឺការរកឃើញថា ការអប់រំតាមរយៈមិត្តអប់រំមិត្ត គឺជាវិធីមួយ ក្នុងការផ្លាស់ប្តូរបេះដូង និងចិត្តរបស់ប្រជាជន។ ប្រជាជនខ្លះ ស្ថិតនៅក្នុងក្រុមប្រជាជនងាយរងគ្រោះ ជាងក្រុមប្រជាជនផ្សេងទៀត ហើយជាធម្មតា ត្រូវការការជួយជាពិសេស។ ឧទាហរណ៍ កន្លែងល្អបំផុត សម្រាប់ការព្យាបាលការញៀនថ្នាំញៀន គឺសហគមន៍ផ្ទាល់ ជាជាងមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលព្យាបាលការញៀនថ្នាំ។
ប្រជាជនក្រីក្របំផុត ត្រូវការសំណាញ់សុវត្ថិភាពសង្គម ដែលជាវិធីមួយធ្វើឲ្យប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា អាចជួយគ្នាទៅវិញទៅមក។
ជាមួយនឹងជំនួយ ពីអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិ រដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា កំពុងបោះជំហានសំខាន់ៗ ស្តីពីការការពារប្រជាជនដែលងាយរងគ្រោះបំផុត។ កម្ពុជាកំពុងមានការផ្លាស់ប្តូរយ៉ាងលឿន។ គ្រោះទឹកជំនន់យ៉ាងធ្ងន់ធ្ងរកាលពីឆ្នាំមុន បានបង្ហាញជាថ្មីម្តងទៀតថា សូម្បីតែអាកាសធាតុក៏កំពុងមានការប្រែប្រួល ហើយអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិរួមដៃគ្នាជាមួយនឹងកម្ពុជា ខណៈដែលបញ្ហាប្រឈមនេះមានលក្ខណៈវិវត្តន៍។ ទោះបីយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ ចាប់តាំងពីឆ្នាំ ២០០០ មក មានភាពរីកចម្រើនយ៉ាងច្រើន។ ពិភពលោក កំពុងសម្លឹងមើលអ្វីដែលនឹងកើតមាន នៅពេលខាងមុខ។ បញ្ហាលំបាក និងការងារជាច្រើនកំពុងបន្តមាន។
ប៉ុន្តែទោះបី យ៉ាងណាក្តី វាគឺអំពីកុមារ ដូចនឹងកុមារ សុខ ជា ដែរ។ សម្រាប់ សុខ ជា និងគ្រួសាររបស់គេ ការកសាងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាគឺកិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងជាក្រុម ខណៈដែលធម្មនុញ្ញរបស់យើងតែងតែរំឭកយើង ឯអង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិនៅទីនេះកំពុងដើរតួនាទីរបស់ខ្លួន។ យើងធ្វើការងាររួមគ្នា៕ PS Buoglas Broderick អ្នកសម្របសម្រួលរបស់អង្គការសហប្រជាជាតិប្រចាំកម្ពុជា
Monday, 29 October 2012
Building the nation we want
We should be united
- Friday, 26 October 2012
- Princess Soma Norodom
- The future of the country’s royal institution has been in the minds of
Cambodians as they mourn the loss of the late King Father Norodom
Sihanouk. Not only has this topic been addressed by the locals, but by
the international forum.
I have been asked about the future of the monarchy by several international media outlets including CNN, AsianAffairs.com and the German press agency.
As a journalist, in a country with little freedom of the press, it’s a skill to disseminate the facts without jeopardizing your career.
During the memorial ceremony for His Majesty Norodom Sihanouk on October 17, 2012, I witnessed that unity was weak among the Royal Family members and a division within the current government.
His Majesty King Norodom Sihamoni has no power and is only a figurehead and the government is the new ruler of the country.
It was apparent at the memorial ceremony when some members of the Royal Family could not get inside the Throne Hall of the Royal Palace to pay their respects to their beloved family member, the late King Father Norodom Sihanouk.
The Throne Hall was overcrowded by government officials, delegates and VIPs from Asian countries.
I felt like I was at an ASEAN Summit Meeting instead of at a memorial service for a beloved family member.
Critics have stated that Prime Minister Hun Sen and the government control the political arena and the monarchy, and will continue to do so as long as he is in power.
The government has considerable say about who becomes the next king.
The nine-member Throne Council includes the Prime Minister and top officials from the National Assembly and Senate, all from the same ruling party.
The future of the monarchy is in their hands.
The Cambodian Royal Family has no power and is not wealthy, unlike the royal families in Thailand and England.
The lack of a successor to the current king, His Majesty King Norodom Sihamoni, is a concern to some royalists and supporters.
Some believe the monarchy will slowly fade away.
I witnessed the division among my own Royal Family members on the first day of the memorial ceremony for His Majesty King Father Norodom Sihanouk.
We were all there to mourn the loss of the King Father, but some of my Royal Family members didn’t even speak with each other.
I hardly attend Royal Family functions as I have work obligations to financially take care of my father, but I want to unite our family.
If we can’t get along with our own family, what makes us think we can bring peace to the country?
“United we stand, divided we fall” is a famous motto from the United States which suggests that when we are united we cannot be defeated, but when you are alone you can be defeated.
With the current ruling party domination, and the division among Royal Family members, the future of the monarchy looks dim. Fear can only grow in darkness. Once you face fear with light, you win.
កិច្ចសម្ភាសន៍ពី ស្ថានភាពមេធាវី កម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន រវាងលោក សយ សុភាព និងលោកមេធាវី សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណា (មេធាវីដ៏ល្អជាអ្នករក ដំណោះស្រាយ ឲ្យអតិថិជនមិនមែន ឲ្យជំរុញកូនក្តី ខ្លួនឡើងតុលាការទេ)
ខាងក្រោមនេះ ជាកិច្ចសម្ភាសន៍រវាងលោក មេធាវី សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណា និងលោក សយ សុភាព ជុំវិញនិងស្ថានភាព មេធាវីកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន ។
សយ សុភាពៈ បន្ទាប់ពីលោកជាប់ឆ្នោតជាសមាជិក ក្រុមប្រឹក្សាគណៈមេធាវី តើលោកមាន អ្វីដើម្បីចែករំលែក ជាអទិភាពចំពោះ មេធាវីកម្ពុជា ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ខ្ញុំគិតថាមុនគេ យើងត្រូវពង្រឹងសមត្ថភាព មេធាវីក្មេងៗ ជំនាន់ក្រោយ ដែលចូល មកព្រោះ ការចេញ ពីសាលាមិនមែន មានន័យថា យើងចេះធ្វើការនោះទេ កុំច្រឡំឲ្យសោះ យើងចេញ ពីសាលាគឺចេះតែ ទ្រឹស្តី យើងមើលច្បាប់ យល់ប៉ុន្តែអត់ដឹង អនុវត្តន៍យ៉ាងម៉េចនោះទេ ? អ្វីដែល សំខាន់ ត្រូវមានការហ្វឹកហ្វឺន ដល់ ពួកគេឲ្យយល់ក្នុង ការប្រកបវិជ្ជាជីវៈ វាជារឿងសំខាន់ក្នុងនាម ជាមេធាវី តើយើងត្រូវចេះ អ្វីខ្លះ? មិនមែនចេះ ចេញពី សាលាមក អាចអានច្បាប់យល់នោះទេ “អានច្បាប់ ដឹងអីចឹង ពិរោះអីចឹង” ប៉ុន្តែសួរថា មានន័យថាម៉េច អត់ដឹងទេ ?
សយ សុភាពៈ តើអាចនឹងមានបញ្ហាប្រឈមទេ ចំពោះមេធាវីកម្ពុជាសព្វថ្ងៃ នៅពេលចូល អាស៊ាន ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ការប្រឈមរបស់យើង គឺនៅពេលដែលសេដ្ឋកិច្ច ទីផ្សារក្នុង តំបន់បើក លំហូ ប្រជាជន លំហូ អ្នកជំនាញ បច្ចេកទេស លំហូ វិនិយោគទុន លំហូទំនិញមក ! តើមកជាមួយអ្វី ? គឺមកជាមួយសេវា ការពារ ក្រុមហ៊ុន ហើយអទិភាពមុន គឺគេរកតែពីរមុខ ប៉ុណ្ណោះ គណនេយ្យ និងមេធាវី ការពារក្រុមហ៊ុន ។ អាពីរមុខនេះ ដាច់ខាតហើយ មុនគេដាក់ជើងរកស៊ី គឺត្រូវការអាពីរនេះ ជាចំបាច់ អីចឹងបើមេធាវីយើង មិនពូកែផ្នែក ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ផ្នែកវិនិយោគទុន ផ្នែកអាជីវកម្ម យើងបាត់ ទីផ្សារធំ ព្រោះនៅពេលនោះ គេនឹងរត់ទៅរកអ្នកណា ដែរមាន សមត្ថភាព ។
សយ សុភាពៈ តើសព្វថ្ងៃនេះមេធាវីកម្ពុជាយើង មានជំនាញផ្នែកអ្វីច្រើនជាងគេ ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ខ្ញុំសង្កេតឃើញ ភាគច្រើន គឺផ្នែករដ្ឋប្បវេណី ផ្នែកព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ ពួកគាត់មិនមាន ជំនាញត្រូវ ទីផ្សារ ដែរត្រូវការនោះទេ ។ ក្នុងសង្គម យើងត្រូវមាន អ្នកការពារក្តី ត្រូវតែមានអ្នក ឡើងតុលាការ ព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ រឿងនេះវាជៀសមិនរួច ក៏ប៉ុន្តែយើងមិនអាច កសាងសេដ្ឋកិច្ច យើងឲ្យមំាបាន ការពារអត្ថប្រយោជន៍របស់ ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរយើង ដែរចូលដៃគូ ជាមួយបរទេស នៅពេលដែល បរទេសគេមក គឺត្រូវតែរកស៊ីជាមួយខ្មែរយើង ក្នុង រូបភាពអ្វីមួយ ? ជារូបភាពដៃគូ ជារូបភាពសេវាកម្ម ជារូបភាពវិនិយោគទុន ខ្មែរយើងត្រូវមានសកម្មភាព អ្វីមួយជាមួយ បរទេសហើយ ប្រសិនមេធាវី ខ្មែរ យើងពុំមានលទ្ធភាព អាចការពារ អាចចរចា អាចរកចំណុច ឈ្នះឲ្យកូនក្តី ឬម៉ូយ របស់ខ្លួន នោះ គឺចាញ់ប្រៀបគេ ។
សយ សុភាពៈ តើសព្វថ្ងៃមេធាវីយើង មានជំនាញខាងពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ច្រើនដែរឬទេ ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ខ្ញុំគិតថាខាងពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ខាងវិនិយោគទុន អត់ពូកែទេ ព្រោះសាលាបង្រៀន ភាគច្រើន បង្រៀន ផ្នែករដ្ឋបាល ផ្នែករដ្ឋប្បវេណី និងផ្នែកព្រហ្មទណ្ឌ ច្រើនជាង អីចឹងនៅពេល និស្សិតចេញមក គាត់មិន អាចមានជំនាញ ដែលអាចហ្វឹកហ្វឺន ទៅធ្វើអាជីវកម្មកើត ។ ខ្ញុំឃើញថា សព្វថ្ងៃសេដ្ឋកិច្ច នៅកម្ពុជា យើងមាន ឧកញ៉ា ដែលមានជីវភាព ធូរធាច្រើនណាស់ អាជីវកម្មរបស់ គាត់រីកធំ ហើយតម្រូវការច្បាប់ បញ្ហាផ្នែកគតិយុត្តិ នៅក្នុងក្រុមហ៊ុនរបស់គាត់ ក៏សម្បូរណាស់ អីចឹងគាត់អាចជួល មេធាវីខ្មែរម្នាក់ឲ្យធ្វើការ ប្រចាំក្រុមហ៊ុន ឲ្យប្រាក់ ខែគេ២០០០ ដុល្លារ ទៅ៣០០០ ដុល្លារ ក៏បានដែរ ព្រោះការងារដែលគាត់ធ្វើ រាល់ថ្ងៃគង់តែជួលអ្នក ក្រៅដដែរ អីចឹងមានន័យថា យើងត្រូវតម្រង់ទិស ឲ្យបានច្រើនឲ្យមេធាវីយើង រៀនជំនាញផ្នែកពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ផ្នែកក្រុមហ៊ុន ដំណើរការ ក្រុមហ៊ុន ច្បាប់ការងារ និងរបៀបដោះស្រាយវិវាទក្រៅ ប្រព័ន្ធតុលាការ ទាំងអស់នេះសុទ្ធតែ ជា ជំនាញបច្ចេកទេស ដែលអាចរកអាជីព បានដោយមិនចំាបាច់ ឡើងតុលាការ ។ ចង់មិនចង់ អ្នករកស៊ី គេមិនចង់ ឡើងតុលាការនោះទេ ជម្លោះ គាត់បញ្ជៀសបាន គាត់ជៀសហើយ ការបញ្ជៀសជម្លោះ អាចធ្វើបាន ក៏ដោយសារ តែយើងមាន លទ្ធភាពក្នុងការសរសេរ កិច្ចសន្យា ដែលវា មិនផ្អៀង ខ្លំាង ។ ប្រសិនបើកិច្ចសន្យា ផ្អៀងខ្លំាង ដល់ ពេលមួយអ្នកដែរនៅ ខាងក្រោមនឹង អាជញ្ជីងមួយ ដែលបះជាងគេនឹង ដល់ពេលណាមួយ នឹងរើបម្រះ ទៅជា ជម្លោះ អីចឹងនៅពេល អ្នករកស៊ីមាន ជម្លោះគឺខាតទាំងអស់គ្នា ។
សយ សុភាពៈ ដោយសារតែសព្វថ្ងៃនេះ មេធាវីនៅមានបញ្ហាមួយ ខាងផ្នែកពាណិជ្ជកម្ម តើក្នុងនាម គណៈមេធាវី អាចមានឥទ្ធិពលអ្វីមួយ ដើម្បីជំរុញ ខាងរដ្ឋាភិបាល ឲ្យជួយបង្កើតតុលាការ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម បានដែរ ឬទេ ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ពេលដែលយើងចូលអង្គការពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ពិភពលោក WTO រដ្ឋាភិបាល បានប្តេជ្ញា ហើយ គឺ យើងត្រូវតែធ្វើ តែ៦ឆ្នាំ ៧ឆ្នាំនេះ យើងមិនទាន់បានធ្វើនោះទេ ប៉ុន្តែវាមានការវិវឌ្ឍន៍ មួយល្អដែរ មានមជ្ឈត កម្មពាណិជ្ជកម្ម គឺការដោះស្រាយវិវាទ ក្រៅប្រព័ន្ធតុលាការ ហើយដំណើរការ ទៅបណ្តើរៗហើយ គេបង្វឹកបង្វឺន មួយក្រុម ដំបូងចំនួន៥០ នាក់ជាង សម្រាប់តុលាការ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ត្រូវតែមាន ព្រោះជាកាតព្វកិច្ច ក្នុងការសន្យា របស់យើង នៅពេលចូលក្នុង អង្គការ WTO ។ ប្រសិនបើយើងមានតុលាការ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ជាការផ្តល់សញ្ញាមួយ ទៅឲ្យបរទេស ឃើញថា ប្រសិនបើអ្នក ឯងមានមាយាទ យើងមានតុលាការ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ដែលអាចរកយុត្តិធម៌ ឲ្យវិវាទពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ដែរមាន ។
សយ សុភាពៈ នៅឆ្នាំ២០១៥ ខាងមុខនេះ គេសមាហរណកម្មចូលគ្នា ការងាររកស៊ី មួយចំនួន ដោយឡែក ខាងមេធាវី តើច្បាប់អនុញ្ញាត ឲ្យមេធាវី បរទេសបើក ការិយាល័យ នៅកម្ពុជាដែរឬទេ ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ច្បាប់យើងដែរធ្វើ តាមរយៈ WTO យើងអាចអនុញ្ញាតឲ្យគេ មកផ្តល់ជាអនុសាស្រ្ត តែលើ ច្បាប់ ប៉ុន្តែមិនមែនច្បាប់ កម្ពុជានោះទេ វាមានន័យថានៅពេលឡើង តុលាការប្រើច្បាប់ខ្មែរ មេធាវីខ្មែរជាអ្នក ការពារ ។ ដោយឡែកនៅក្នុងចរន្តនៃ វិនិយោគទុនឆ្លងដែន ប្រសិនបើ វិនិយោគទុន មួយមកពីប្រទេស វៀតណាម មកពីប្រទេសថៃ អីចឹងអ្នកមកពីថៃ គឺត្រូវការច្បាប់ថៃ ត្រូវការមេធាវីថៃ ព្រោះគាត់ចាប់ដៃគូ ជាមួយខ្មែរ ព្រោះរឿងនេះ មេធាវីខ្មែរម្នាក់ឯង មិនអាចផ្តល់យោបល់ថា បើអ្នកឯង រកស៊ីជាមួយខ្មែរ ច្បាប់វាយ៉ាងនេះ ឬវា យ៉ាងនោះ ច្បាប់ពន្ធដា វាយ៉ាងម៉េចនោះ អីចឹងគាត់មិនអាច និយាយទៅលើច្បាប់ថៃ បាននោះទេ បើគាត់មាន ដៃគូ ជាមួយមេធាវីថៃ គាត់អាចរួមគ្នា ឲ្យយោបល់អំពី ការបង្កើតអាជីវកម្ម នៅ ស្រុកខ្មែរ បង់ពន្ធដាយ៉ាងម៉េច ហើយដៃគូជាមេធាវី ថៃអាចប្រាប់ខាងថៃថា បើអ្នកឯងរកស៊ី នៅស្រុកខ្មែរ អ្នកឯងបង់ពន្ធតម្លៃនេះ អ្នកឯងអាច ចំណេញ ប៉ុន្មាន កត្តានេះ វាជាឱកាស ផ្តល់កិច្ចសហប្រតិបត្តិការ ចាប់យកទីផ្សារឲ្យបាន ។ ចំពោះផលវិបាកសព្វថ្ងៃ បញ្ហាមេធាវី បរទេស មួយ ចំនួន គាត់ចូលមកគ្មាន តម្លាភាព មកលួចលាក់ ដាច់ខាត យើងត្រូវ តែគ្រប់គ្រងមេធាវី បរទេសដែលមកធ្វើ អាជីវកម្ម នៅស្រុកខ្មែរ ការគ្រប់គ្រងនេះ មានន័យថា មិនតម្រូវឲ្យ គាត់ ធ្វើអ្វីក្រៅពី ច្បាប់កម្ពុជា ប្រសិនបើយើងមិនទាញ ពួកគាត់ចូលក្នុងរង្វង់ ច្បាប់គ្រប់គ្រងរបស់យើង គាត់ នឹងនៅតែ លួចលាក់ ជិះ យន្តហោះមក គាត់ចុះកិច្ចសន្យា ហើយចុងបញ្ចប់ រុញឲ្យខ្មែរបកប្រែ ។ ក្នុងន័យនេះ មេធាវីបរទេស ត្រូវធ្វើការជាមួយមេធាវីខ្មែរ ក្នុងអង្គការ WTO ដែលកំពុងចរចា មានន័យថា មេធាវីបរទេសអាច ធ្វើអាជីវកម្មរកស៊ីមានបាន ក្នុងស្រុកខ្មែរ ទី១.ត្រូវធ្វើការជាមួយមេធាវីខ្មែរ ទី២.ទាល់តែមាន សកម្មភាពហ្វឹកហ្វឺន មេធាវីខ្មែរ ប៉ុន្មានឆ្នាំក្រោយមក អ្នកឯងត្រូវជម្រុញ សមត្ថភាពឲ្យមេធាវីខ្មែរ ឡើងឋានៈ ឬអ្វីមួយ ទាំងអស់នេះ គឺយើងអាចពង្រឹង សមត្ថភាពមេធាវីខ្មែរ ។
សយ សុភាពៈ តើបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះក្រមសីលធម៌ វិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវី យ៉ាងម៉េចដែរ ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ ខ្ញុំគិតថាក្រមសីលធម៌យើងត្រូវប្រឹងមែនទែន ខ្ញុំមិនបានពាក់ព័ន្ធ ច្រើនរឿង នឹងទេ ប៉ុន្តែតាម ការឮ វាជារូបភាពមួយ ដែលយើង ត្រូវពង្រឹង ខ្ញុំមិនវាយតម្លៃទេ ប៉ុន្តែធ្វើអ្វីមួយត្រូវ តែមានការចាប់ផ្តើម ពីកន្លែង ណាមួយ អីចឹងយើងកុំមើល ថយក្រោយ យើងមើលទៅមុខ វិញថាធ្វើ យ៉ាងម៉េច ដើម្បីពង្រឹងវិជ្ជាជីវៈ ឲ្យទទួល ស្គាល់ថា វិជ្ជាជីវៈគាត់ គឺជាវិជ្ជាជីវៈកិត្តិយស ដែលគេទុកចិត្ត ដែលគេមានភាពកក់ក្តៅ ដល់ពេលនឹងគាត់និង ធ្វើត្រឹមត្រូវហើយ វិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវី ប្រសិនបើគេទុកចិត្ត យើងគឺមិនធម្មតាទេ ។ សម្រាប់ខ្ញុំនៅពេលមាន អតិថិជន គេមកពឹងពាក់ ឲ្យជួយមើលការងារឲ្យ និងចាត់ចែងឲ្យ នេះគឺពិតជាកិត្តិយស សម្បើមណាស់ ការទុកចិត្តនេះ មិនមែនជារឿង ធម្មតាទេ នៅពេលដែរគេប្រគល់ ជីវិតពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ធនធាន ការសន្សំរបស់គេ មកឲ្យយើងជួយ គិត វាមិនមែនជារឿង ធម្មតានោះទេ រឿងនេះមេធាវីយើង ត្រូវគិត មិនមែនដូចជា ការងាររកស៊ី ដូចយើងទៅលក់ នំបុ័ង លក់កាហ្វេនោះទេ មេធាវី គឺជាអាជីពកិត្តិយស បំផុត នៅក្នុង ស្រុកគេមេធាវី មួយៗមិនធម្មតានោះទេ រឿង នេះទាល់តែជំរុញ ស្មារតីចិត្តសាស្រ្ត ឲ្យ ខ្លំាងមែនទែន រឿងនេះមិនមែន ជាអាជីវកម្ម ចេញមកលក់របស់ របរនោះ ទេយើងពាក់អាវផាវ វាមិនធម្មតានោះទេ ។
សយ សុភាពៈ តើលោកយល់យ៉ាងម៉េច ដែរសព្វថ្ងៃនេះ មតិសាធារណជន ខ្លះតែងនិយាយថា មេធាវី និងបុគ្គល ព្រះរាជអាជ្ញា ចៅក្រមមួយចំនួនខ្លះ នៃតុលាការរកស៊ីចូលគ្នា ចរចាលុយគ្នាត្រូវហើយ ទើបកាត់សេចក្តី ?
សុក ស៊ីផាន់ណាៈ បញ្ហានេះ ដូចអ្វីដែលខ្ញុំបានលើកឡើងដំបូងអីចឹង ប្រសិនបើយើងមិន ពង្រឹងសមត្ថិភាព មេធាវីឲ្យចេះធ្វើការងារ ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម អាជីព នៅក្នុងក្រុមហ៊ុន ។ ខ្ញុំផ្ទាល់តាំងពីធ្វើជាមេធាវី គឺមិនដែរបានឡើងទៅ តុលាការម្តងសោះឡើយ ព្រោះជំនាញខ្ញុំវា មិនទាក់ទង តុលាការ ជំនាញ ខ្ញុំនៅពេលដែលឲ្យ យោបល់ទៅ អាជីវករ ដែររកស៊ីជាមួយគ្នា ធ្វើយ៉ាងម៉េចកុំ ឲ្យមានវិវាទ ព្រោះនៅពេលមានវិវាទ គឺខាតទាំងអស់គ្នា ឲ្យតែវិវាទ អាជីវកម្មគាំង មនុស្សឈ្លោះគ្នា អត់រកស៊ីជាមួយគ្នា សេដ្ឋកិច្ចធ្លាក់ អីចឹងយើង ឃើញថា មេធាវីល្អគឺមេធាវី ដែររក ដំណោះស្រាយ ឲ្យអតិថិជនរបស់ខ្លួន ដើម្បីរកផលចំណេញ មិនមែនជំរុញ ឲ្យអតិថិជនរបស់ខ្លួន ឈ្លោះគ្នាដើម្បី ឡើងទៅតុលាការ បានផលកំរ៉ៃនោះទេ ។ ជំនាញខ្ញុំ ខាងពាណិជ្ជកម្ម អីចឹងគឺឲ្យយោបល់ ធ្វើយ៉ាងម៉េច ដើម្បីកុំ ឲ្យអ្នកឯងឈ្លោះគ្នា យោបល់ នេះសំខាន់ណាស់ ខ្មែរយើងនៅពេលមាន ដៃគូ៣ នាក់ ទៅ៤ នាក់ រកស៊ីជាមួយគ្នា មិនស្រួល ប្រហែល៤ ខែក្រោយមកឈ្លោះគ្នា យើងអត់មានក្របខណ្ឌ អត់មានមូលដ្ឋាន ជាក់លាក់ ខ្ញុំសុខចិត្តឲ្យគាត់ ឈ្លោះ គ្នាមុនគាត់ចុះ ហត្ថលេខា ប៉ុន្តែចុះហត្ថលេខា រួចហើយ គាត់នៅ សុខដុម ជាមួយគ្នា២០ ឆ្នាំក្រោយមក រឿងនេះយើងត្រូវបង្រៀន មេធាវីខ្មែរយើង ឲ្យកូនខ្មែរ យើងដើរតួរ កុំឲ្យទៅជាមេធាវី ប្រឈមមុខនឹង តុលាការ យើងឲ្យគាត់ក្លាយ ជាមេធាវីរកដំណោះស្រាយ ទៅ ឲ្យ អតិថិជន របស់ខ្លួនមុនវិវាទ កើតទៅទៀត ព្រោះនៅពេលវិវាទ កើតហើយ មនុស្សខាតទាំងអស់គ្នា អីចឹង ហើយបាន ជានៅក្នុង ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម អន្តរជាតិ ការដោះស្រាយវិវាទ ក្រៅប្រព័ន្ធតុលាការ ជាជម្រៅ ដ៏ល្អ បំផុត ទី១.ពុំមានអ្នកដឹងទេ មនុស្សទាស់គ្នាលើចំណុច១ នៅ ចំណុច៩០ ជាងទៀត ក្រុមហ៊ុននៅដំណើរការ ហើយ អត់មានអ្នកណាដឹងថា ក្រុមហ៊ុននេះទាស់គ្នា លើភាគហ៊ុនណា មួយនោះទេ ? អីចឹងរកស៊ីជា ធម្មតា មនុស្ស អត់ភ័យ ឧទាហរណ៍នៅក្នុង ធនាគារមួយឮថា ម្ចាស់ភាគហ៊ុន ឈ្លោះគ្នា ពេលបែកការអ្នកណាដឹងថា ម្ចាស់ភាគហ៊ុនឈ្លោះគ្នា រកលក់ មនុស្សនាំគ្នា ទៅដកលុយ ធនាគារនឹងរលំ ដែរតាមពិតទៅវាមិនត្រូវ រលំសោះ ។
ព័ត៌មានពាណិជ្ជកម្មវាជារឿងសំខាន់ តួនាទីមេធាវីត្រូវតែរក្សាការ សំងាត់ពាណិជ្ជកម្ម ហើយយើង ជាមេធាវី ដូច ជាប្រអប់ខ្មៅមួយ ងងឹតអីចឹង ព័ត៌មាន ចូលមក ចប់ត្រឹមនឹង បោះចូលធុង នឹងគឺជិតឈឹង ហើយរឿងនេះគឺ ទាមទារ ស្មារតីវិន័យ ខ្លំាងណាស់ ៕
CANADA: What is academic freedom?
Brendan Gillon and Ian Henderson28 October 2012 Issue No:245
No statement on academic freedom should be a 'laundry list' of what one
is permitted to do, but rather a statement of principle whereby one can
distinguish between which activities academic freedom sanctions and
which it does not.
One way to address the question of what academic freedom is, is to begin with an idealisation, in light of which one addresses successive complications going from idealisation to actual application.
We shall ask three questions. What is academic freedom for an idealised community of scholars? How is academic freedom to be preserved once the community of scholars is housed, as it were, in the institution of a university? And how is academic freedom preserved, once the university is situated within the society that supports it?
We take a community of scholars to be a community of thinkers engaged in the search for truth and understanding and in the dissemination of the results of the search. We take it that these thinkers are pursuing the search regardless of where it may lead them.
This means that they pursue their search without constraint of any orthodoxy – popular, political or disciplinary – and independently of any pecuniary benefit that might accrue to the search. The freedom required to undertake such a pursuit is the freedom of scholarship. The freedom of scholarship includes the freedom to disseminate one's research.
Dissemination does not require teaching. Of course, teaching can be brought within the purview of the dissemination of results, but in practice teaching comprises more than mere dissemination, it includes imparting the skills where one conducts research. It is not unreasonable, then, to see a community of scholars engaged in teaching of its scholarship.
Thus scholars, as teachers, enjoy the freedom to teach (lehrfreiheit). Those who come to the scholarly community to study – students – thereby acquire the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and to express their opinions. In other words, such students enjoy the freedom to learn (lernfreiheit).
Academic freedom includes, but is not limited to, the freedom of scholars to engage in scholarship, the freedom of teachers to teach and the freedom of students to learn.
A university is the publicly recognisable institutional form of such a scholarly community and it exists to serve its community. Because the institution serves the scholarly community, the institution has the obligation to protect the freedom of its scholars to do research and to teach and the freedom of its students to learn.
The institution does not, however, enjoy any prerogatives with regard to the scholarly and pedagogical directions of the scholarly community. Such prerogatives belong to the community.
The university is also an institution within a society. In modern societies, the livelihoods of individuals are cast in terms of employment relations. So it is with the members of scholarly communities housed within universities; they are employees of the university. As such, they have certain obligations to their employer that they must discharge.
How to harmonise the freedom scholars have by dint of being members of a scholarly community and the obligations they incur by dint of being employees of the university is a complex matter.
In addition, universities depend on the societies that house them for the funds to operate them. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the society that houses a university receives something in return from the university.
The concern is that the uses to which society wishes to put universities risk subverting their very purpose – namely, to house a community of scholars, teachers and students enjoying academic freedom. This risk is especially acute when powerful institutions within society, such as governments, corporations and professional bodies, seek to reorient the university towards their own ends.
Universities have traditionally provided services to the societies in which they reside. The earliest universities were centred on the training of doctors, lawyers and theologians. Today, they train accountants, agronomists, dentists, engineers, musicians, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and teachers. The corresponding professional associations and accreditation bodies seek to impose requirements on the professional curricula of universities, thereby curtailing the freedom of members of scholarly communities to teach and the freedom to learn.
In addition, in a jurisdiction such as the province of Quebec, the government issues directives to professional programmes specifying which areas are to be expanded and which contracted, impinging not only directly on the freedom to learn and to teach but also indirectly on the freedom to do research.
Since the industrial revolution, and at a terrifically accelerated pace since World War II, governments have come to see universities as the incubators of technological innovation, which governments view as a prime mover of economic development and prosperity.
Governments, by funding certain areas of research in universities but not others, reshape, curtail or even eliminate areas of research. Corporations can have a similar impact.
The institutional autonomy of the university is the independence required to ensure that the demands societies place on universities are not acceded to, to the point where only a ghost of academic freedom remains for the communities of scholars universities house.
Any society that supports a community of scholars and teachers has every right to expect something in return from the community, but as the demands grow, the degree of freedom diminishes.
We risk, in the end, having very powerful universities in which the degree of freedom has been reduced to zero.
As with so many other things, a balance has to be struck between the demands placed by society on scholars and teachers, on the one hand, and the freedom that follows from the raison d'être of a community of scholars and teachers, on the other.
* Brendan Gillon and Ian Henderson are members of the academic freedom committee of the McGill Association of University Teachers, and presented at the Conference on Academic Freedom organised by the office of the provost at McGill University and held on 28 September 2012. The committee was set up to look into the fact that McGill does not have a statement of academic freedom.
One way to address the question of what academic freedom is, is to begin with an idealisation, in light of which one addresses successive complications going from idealisation to actual application.
We shall ask three questions. What is academic freedom for an idealised community of scholars? How is academic freedom to be preserved once the community of scholars is housed, as it were, in the institution of a university? And how is academic freedom preserved, once the university is situated within the society that supports it?
We take a community of scholars to be a community of thinkers engaged in the search for truth and understanding and in the dissemination of the results of the search. We take it that these thinkers are pursuing the search regardless of where it may lead them.
This means that they pursue their search without constraint of any orthodoxy – popular, political or disciplinary – and independently of any pecuniary benefit that might accrue to the search. The freedom required to undertake such a pursuit is the freedom of scholarship. The freedom of scholarship includes the freedom to disseminate one's research.
Dissemination does not require teaching. Of course, teaching can be brought within the purview of the dissemination of results, but in practice teaching comprises more than mere dissemination, it includes imparting the skills where one conducts research. It is not unreasonable, then, to see a community of scholars engaged in teaching of its scholarship.
Thus scholars, as teachers, enjoy the freedom to teach (lehrfreiheit). Those who come to the scholarly community to study – students – thereby acquire the freedom to study subjects that concern them and to form conclusions for themselves and to express their opinions. In other words, such students enjoy the freedom to learn (lernfreiheit).
Academic freedom includes, but is not limited to, the freedom of scholars to engage in scholarship, the freedom of teachers to teach and the freedom of students to learn.
A university is the publicly recognisable institutional form of such a scholarly community and it exists to serve its community. Because the institution serves the scholarly community, the institution has the obligation to protect the freedom of its scholars to do research and to teach and the freedom of its students to learn.
The institution does not, however, enjoy any prerogatives with regard to the scholarly and pedagogical directions of the scholarly community. Such prerogatives belong to the community.
The university is also an institution within a society. In modern societies, the livelihoods of individuals are cast in terms of employment relations. So it is with the members of scholarly communities housed within universities; they are employees of the university. As such, they have certain obligations to their employer that they must discharge.
How to harmonise the freedom scholars have by dint of being members of a scholarly community and the obligations they incur by dint of being employees of the university is a complex matter.
In addition, universities depend on the societies that house them for the funds to operate them. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the society that houses a university receives something in return from the university.
The concern is that the uses to which society wishes to put universities risk subverting their very purpose – namely, to house a community of scholars, teachers and students enjoying academic freedom. This risk is especially acute when powerful institutions within society, such as governments, corporations and professional bodies, seek to reorient the university towards their own ends.
Universities have traditionally provided services to the societies in which they reside. The earliest universities were centred on the training of doctors, lawyers and theologians. Today, they train accountants, agronomists, dentists, engineers, musicians, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and teachers. The corresponding professional associations and accreditation bodies seek to impose requirements on the professional curricula of universities, thereby curtailing the freedom of members of scholarly communities to teach and the freedom to learn.
In addition, in a jurisdiction such as the province of Quebec, the government issues directives to professional programmes specifying which areas are to be expanded and which contracted, impinging not only directly on the freedom to learn and to teach but also indirectly on the freedom to do research.
Since the industrial revolution, and at a terrifically accelerated pace since World War II, governments have come to see universities as the incubators of technological innovation, which governments view as a prime mover of economic development and prosperity.
Governments, by funding certain areas of research in universities but not others, reshape, curtail or even eliminate areas of research. Corporations can have a similar impact.
The institutional autonomy of the university is the independence required to ensure that the demands societies place on universities are not acceded to, to the point where only a ghost of academic freedom remains for the communities of scholars universities house.
Any society that supports a community of scholars and teachers has every right to expect something in return from the community, but as the demands grow, the degree of freedom diminishes.
We risk, in the end, having very powerful universities in which the degree of freedom has been reduced to zero.
As with so many other things, a balance has to be struck between the demands placed by society on scholars and teachers, on the one hand, and the freedom that follows from the raison d'être of a community of scholars and teachers, on the other.
* Brendan Gillon and Ian Henderson are members of the academic freedom committee of the McGill Association of University Teachers, and presented at the Conference on Academic Freedom organised by the office of the provost at McGill University and held on 28 September 2012. The committee was set up to look into the fact that McGill does not have a statement of academic freedom.
KENYA: Graduates on fast track to doctoral degrees
Business Daily28 October 2012 Issue No:245
At least 1,000 university graduates stand to be fast-tracked to earn
doctoral degrees annually as the government moves to bridge the
ever-widening ratio of university students to qualified faculty members,
writes David Mugwe for Business Daily.
Higher Education, Science and Technology Secretary Harry Kaane told an annual conference on industry and higher education last week that the government would introduce funded teaching scholarships for new graduates. “The ministry plans to introduce 1,000 government-funded teaching assistantships annually in both public and private universities for postgraduate students who would be transited straight from their undergraduate studies, allowing them to attain PhDs,” said Professor Kaane.
He said this would help them serve as teaching assistants to support the increased enrolment of undergraduates while gaining hands-on experience in teaching and learning. It is not yet clear how the programme will be run and who would qualify for the scheme, which is likely to generate debate on whether new graduates are suited for the role.
Higher Education, Science and Technology Secretary Harry Kaane told an annual conference on industry and higher education last week that the government would introduce funded teaching scholarships for new graduates. “The ministry plans to introduce 1,000 government-funded teaching assistantships annually in both public and private universities for postgraduate students who would be transited straight from their undergraduate studies, allowing them to attain PhDs,” said Professor Kaane.
He said this would help them serve as teaching assistants to support the increased enrolment of undergraduates while gaining hands-on experience in teaching and learning. It is not yet clear how the programme will be run and who would qualify for the scheme, which is likely to generate debate on whether new graduates are suited for the role.
MALAYSIA: Slow but steady growth in foreign branch campuses
Mariani Dewi28 October 2012 Issue No:245
Branch campuses of established Western universities can be major assets
for emerging market higher education systems – but attracting these
institutions is not easy, even for economically dynamic countries such
as Malaysia.
There are still only six branch campuses in this South East Asian country.
Over the past decade, two new branch campuses have been set up. Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, a branch of Britain’s University of Newcastle, was established in 2009. And this year another UK institution, the University of Southampton, established a campus.
The other four were set up a decade earlier. Three are from Australia: Monash University’s Monash Malaysia and Curtin University’s Curtin Sarawak campus established in 1999, and a Swinburne University of Technology branch set up in 2000. Britain’s University of Nottingham also established a Malaysian campus in 2000.
The Malaysian government wants other reputable foreign universities to establish branch campuses and has publicly encouraged their entry, clearing regulatory hurdles that might impede their development.
But the government has not been keen to throw money at the concept, letting market forces play out.
As a result, the Malaysian branch campus sector remains small compared to the country’s 53 private universities, 403 private colleges, 30 polytechnics and 73 public community colleges, according to the latest 2011 data from the Ministry of Higher Education.
Branch campus advantages
Unlike the more popular twinning – where curricula provided by partnering universities or colleges are delivered by local institutions – branch campuses are direct extensions of universities or colleges, run by the institutions themselves.
“They provide the curriculum and the delivery. The home campus has more control over the quality of the education,” Professor Kevin Kinser, associate professor of educational administration and policy studies, and co-director of the cross-border education research team at the State University of New York at Albany, told University World News.
He emphasised that branch campuses can meet demands for quality education that are not met by local universities and cannot be easily delivered through university partnerships.
Universities opening branch campuses, according to Kinser, are keen to maintain their reputation and so are likely to invest significant money and effort to provide adequate teaching and facilities.
For smaller, emerging market countries such as Malaysia, having major universities offering quality education can increase the higher education reputation of an entire nation.
Some challenges
But for foreign universities, branch campuses are not cheap. They need to invest enough to attract students. Monash University, for example, invested around MYR200 million (US$65 million) setting up its campus.
And these campuses need to have sufficient size to deliver a critical mass of services: Newcastle University’s medical school is built on 5.3 hectares; Swinburne Sarawak has a 6.7 hectare campus; and the University of Nottingham at Semenyih, 30 kilometres south of Kuala Lumpur city centre, occupies a 41 hectare site.
Foreign universities also have to make sure that there is local demand for quality Western education to attract enough prospective students.
And some branch campuses do close – two in Malaysia: the Ireland-based Dublin Business School closed its Malaysian doors in 2007, while Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology shut its branch in 1999.
An attractive destination
However, Malaysia does offer foreign universities a good chance of success – especially in attracting students from East and South East Asia and Muslim students, with Indonesia, China and Iran sending the most foreign students to Malaysia.
“Some students want to enjoy a Western education but do not want to travel or live in a culture very different from their home,” Kinser said.
“Malaysia, as a moderate Muslim country, has leverage to attract students from Muslim countries who want to enjoy a Western education in a Muslim environment,” he added.
Indeed, following the Arab Spring, a significant number of students from the Middle East have chosen to further their studies in Malaysia. This has helped contribute to a 14% increase in international students attending universities in Malaysia in the past three years.
According to Professor Siti Hamisah Binti Tapsir, deputy director general of the private higher education management sector in Malaysia’s Department of Higher Education, the demand is there.
“In term of recruiting international students we are number 10 in the world,” she said, claiming that Malaysia has a 3.7% share in the global market for international students.
And the government is ambitious. It aims to double the number of international students it educates – up from around 100,000 today to 200,000 students by 2020, pushing Malaysia to be an education hub in the region.
Growth slow but steady
But as for the slow growth in branch campus numbers, she argued, it was natural for institutions to be conservative over their development.
“Before they set up a branch, they would see whether the environment is conducive, and the demand. Because once they set up a branch, they are going to be there for long, for a few years. They will be very careful in choosing a country and consider the stability of the country and the openness of the country,” she said.
What Malaysia offers, she said, is a liberalisation policy in tandem with an internationalisation policy, combined with the country's diverse culture – all of which attracts international students.
And despite the small numbers, branch campuses are already a significant contributor to the internationalisation of Malaysia’s student body.
Monash’s branch campus has 5,100 students, and around a quarter of them are international. Curtin University in Sarawak has students from 40 different countries. Swinburne’s campus has 4,000 students from more than 50 countries including Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Myanma (Burma), Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
The government is happy for this slow but steady development of branch campuses to continue.
“Basically we let the institution decide, because they understand the…sector. Some will introduce a twinning programme. Some will do a kind of franchising where the students will do their programme entirely in Malaysia. We leave it to the institutions, because every programme has a different demand for it,” Siti said.
To get government backing for the establishment of a branch, foreign universities must have a good reputation and add value to Malaysia’s higher education system. Institutions offering programmes currently lacking in Malaysia are especially attractive.
As a result, branch campuses currently focus on technology, engineering, science, commerce, computing, design, medicine and social sciences courses.
“If it is offering programmes that we already have, we have to consider,” Siti stressed. “Newcastle was brought in because we didn't have enough medical schools a few years ago – the institutions must…support [our] national aspirations and recruit international students from this region,” she said.
Meanwhile, Malaysian universities have themselves been looking to export their education brands, creating branch campuses abroad.
Limkokwing University for Creative Technology, for example, has branch campuses in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lesotho and Swaziland.
“We encourage them because this is exporting Malaysian education. But we leave it to the institutions to decide because they are familiar with the country,” said Siti.
There are still only six branch campuses in this South East Asian country.
Over the past decade, two new branch campuses have been set up. Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, a branch of Britain’s University of Newcastle, was established in 2009. And this year another UK institution, the University of Southampton, established a campus.
The other four were set up a decade earlier. Three are from Australia: Monash University’s Monash Malaysia and Curtin University’s Curtin Sarawak campus established in 1999, and a Swinburne University of Technology branch set up in 2000. Britain’s University of Nottingham also established a Malaysian campus in 2000.
The Malaysian government wants other reputable foreign universities to establish branch campuses and has publicly encouraged their entry, clearing regulatory hurdles that might impede their development.
But the government has not been keen to throw money at the concept, letting market forces play out.
As a result, the Malaysian branch campus sector remains small compared to the country’s 53 private universities, 403 private colleges, 30 polytechnics and 73 public community colleges, according to the latest 2011 data from the Ministry of Higher Education.
Branch campus advantages
Unlike the more popular twinning – where curricula provided by partnering universities or colleges are delivered by local institutions – branch campuses are direct extensions of universities or colleges, run by the institutions themselves.
“They provide the curriculum and the delivery. The home campus has more control over the quality of the education,” Professor Kevin Kinser, associate professor of educational administration and policy studies, and co-director of the cross-border education research team at the State University of New York at Albany, told University World News.
He emphasised that branch campuses can meet demands for quality education that are not met by local universities and cannot be easily delivered through university partnerships.
Universities opening branch campuses, according to Kinser, are keen to maintain their reputation and so are likely to invest significant money and effort to provide adequate teaching and facilities.
For smaller, emerging market countries such as Malaysia, having major universities offering quality education can increase the higher education reputation of an entire nation.
Some challenges
But for foreign universities, branch campuses are not cheap. They need to invest enough to attract students. Monash University, for example, invested around MYR200 million (US$65 million) setting up its campus.
And these campuses need to have sufficient size to deliver a critical mass of services: Newcastle University’s medical school is built on 5.3 hectares; Swinburne Sarawak has a 6.7 hectare campus; and the University of Nottingham at Semenyih, 30 kilometres south of Kuala Lumpur city centre, occupies a 41 hectare site.
Foreign universities also have to make sure that there is local demand for quality Western education to attract enough prospective students.
And some branch campuses do close – two in Malaysia: the Ireland-based Dublin Business School closed its Malaysian doors in 2007, while Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology shut its branch in 1999.
An attractive destination
However, Malaysia does offer foreign universities a good chance of success – especially in attracting students from East and South East Asia and Muslim students, with Indonesia, China and Iran sending the most foreign students to Malaysia.
“Some students want to enjoy a Western education but do not want to travel or live in a culture very different from their home,” Kinser said.
“Malaysia, as a moderate Muslim country, has leverage to attract students from Muslim countries who want to enjoy a Western education in a Muslim environment,” he added.
Indeed, following the Arab Spring, a significant number of students from the Middle East have chosen to further their studies in Malaysia. This has helped contribute to a 14% increase in international students attending universities in Malaysia in the past three years.
According to Professor Siti Hamisah Binti Tapsir, deputy director general of the private higher education management sector in Malaysia’s Department of Higher Education, the demand is there.
“In term of recruiting international students we are number 10 in the world,” she said, claiming that Malaysia has a 3.7% share in the global market for international students.
And the government is ambitious. It aims to double the number of international students it educates – up from around 100,000 today to 200,000 students by 2020, pushing Malaysia to be an education hub in the region.
Growth slow but steady
But as for the slow growth in branch campus numbers, she argued, it was natural for institutions to be conservative over their development.
“Before they set up a branch, they would see whether the environment is conducive, and the demand. Because once they set up a branch, they are going to be there for long, for a few years. They will be very careful in choosing a country and consider the stability of the country and the openness of the country,” she said.
What Malaysia offers, she said, is a liberalisation policy in tandem with an internationalisation policy, combined with the country's diverse culture – all of which attracts international students.
And despite the small numbers, branch campuses are already a significant contributor to the internationalisation of Malaysia’s student body.
Monash’s branch campus has 5,100 students, and around a quarter of them are international. Curtin University in Sarawak has students from 40 different countries. Swinburne’s campus has 4,000 students from more than 50 countries including Bangladesh, Brunei, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Myanma (Burma), Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
The government is happy for this slow but steady development of branch campuses to continue.
“Basically we let the institution decide, because they understand the…sector. Some will introduce a twinning programme. Some will do a kind of franchising where the students will do their programme entirely in Malaysia. We leave it to the institutions, because every programme has a different demand for it,” Siti said.
To get government backing for the establishment of a branch, foreign universities must have a good reputation and add value to Malaysia’s higher education system. Institutions offering programmes currently lacking in Malaysia are especially attractive.
As a result, branch campuses currently focus on technology, engineering, science, commerce, computing, design, medicine and social sciences courses.
“If it is offering programmes that we already have, we have to consider,” Siti stressed. “Newcastle was brought in because we didn't have enough medical schools a few years ago – the institutions must…support [our] national aspirations and recruit international students from this region,” she said.
Meanwhile, Malaysian universities have themselves been looking to export their education brands, creating branch campuses abroad.
Limkokwing University for Creative Technology, for example, has branch campuses in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lesotho and Swaziland.
“We encourage them because this is exporting Malaysian education. But we leave it to the institutions to decide because they are familiar with the country,” said Siti.
CHINA: Concern over too many postgraduates as fewer find jobs
Yojana Sharma28 October 2012 Issue No:245
Education Ministry officials have expressed concern over the large
number of postgraduates in China, as students with masters and PhD
degrees are finding it even harder than graduates with lower degrees to
find employment in a sluggish jobs market.
Registration for national postgraduate examinations closes at the end of the October, with exams held in early January, and the number applying to sit the exams could reach record levels.
According to one blogger in Jinan, capital of Shandong province in eastern China, writing in July this year, cram schools that prepare students for the postgraduate exams have been overwhelmed by demand, and this year had to open a class in a large gymnasium because of the number of students. The gymnasium’s capacity was put at some 3,500.
But ministry statistics show that the employment rate of students leaving universities with postgraduate degrees has been lower than that of undergraduates for three consecutive years since 2009, although postgraduate employment rates have been dropping since 2005.
Even in China’s fast-growing southern Guangdong province, the employment rate of postgraduates has recently been lower than for graduates – even though a survey in 2004 in Guangdong showed that postgraduate employment rates were 20% higher than for graduates.
According to one Guangdong academic, who spoke on condition that he is not named, the high expectations of postgraduates in terms of salaries and type of jobs is part of the problem. They typically prefer secure positions in state-owned companies and government departments, he said.
“Postgraduates do not have much of an edge on their peers who have not pursued a higher degree,” the official China Daily newspaper said last month, referring to a countrywide trend.
Number of postgraduate students has soared
The number of postgraduate students has risen to 517,000 enrolled in universities this year, compared to 220,000 in 2003 – doubling in less than a decade.
A just-released study by Wuhan University in Hubei province found that at the country’s top 10 institutions, including the elite Tsinghua and Peking universities, the numbers graduating from postgraduate courses in 2011 outnumbered those graduating from undergraduate programmes in the same institutions.
The country’s top institution, Peking University, graduated 2,500 more students with postgraduate qualifications last year compared to those leaving with graduate degrees.
Many universities have expanded postgraduate provision in recent years, in part to increase revenues from fees, but also to reduce the number of graduates going directly into a job market that has seen high unemployment rates for new graduates.
“Some institutions urge their undergrads to take postgraduate studies because postgraduate admissions are counted in the employment rate of their undergraduates,” Li Kongzhen, associate professor of Capital Normal University, was quoted in the official Global Times newspaper as saying.
Official figures put graduate unemployment at 22% last year, although many believe underemployment is far higher.
But universities also have more autonomy to expand and set up courses. Compared to the previous system where the Education Ministry was responsible for setting up new courses and disciplines, this new freedom has meant a mismatch between postgraduate course expansion and employment market needs.
Concern about quality
Although only one in three applicants succeeds in obtaining a postgraduate place, the rise in postgraduate numbers is also causing concern about quality.
The study produced by Wuhan University’s Research Centre for Chinese Science Evaluation found that one in six professors was supervising more than 10 postgraduate students each at some 30 universities, and one in 10 was supervising more than 20 students each.
Qiu Junping, director of the research centre, said the appropriate lecturer to student ratio at postgraduate level was one for every three students, with a maximum of six students, otherwise quality could suffer.
Some universities were hoping to improve their research capability “but this does not depend on the number of postgraduates”, Qiu said, referring to the pressure on universities to improve their national and international rankings, which is based to a large extent on research performance.
“Education authorities should focus on job market requirements and improving the quality of postgraduate education instead of expanding enrolment,” he said.
Xiong Bingqi, deputy director of the 21st Century Education Research Institute in Beijing, said the rise in the number of postgraduate students was not compatible with the needs of the jobs market.
“In the past few years, universities mainly offered courses for academic master degrees, but there aren't many research jobs out there in the market," he said.
The outlook for next year may be worse as China’s economic growth began to slow in the first half of this year.
Economists suggest that enough postgraduate level jobs can only be created in the medium term if the country moves swiftly from a manufacturing economy to an innovation and service economy.
Registration for national postgraduate examinations closes at the end of the October, with exams held in early January, and the number applying to sit the exams could reach record levels.
According to one blogger in Jinan, capital of Shandong province in eastern China, writing in July this year, cram schools that prepare students for the postgraduate exams have been overwhelmed by demand, and this year had to open a class in a large gymnasium because of the number of students. The gymnasium’s capacity was put at some 3,500.
But ministry statistics show that the employment rate of students leaving universities with postgraduate degrees has been lower than that of undergraduates for three consecutive years since 2009, although postgraduate employment rates have been dropping since 2005.
Even in China’s fast-growing southern Guangdong province, the employment rate of postgraduates has recently been lower than for graduates – even though a survey in 2004 in Guangdong showed that postgraduate employment rates were 20% higher than for graduates.
According to one Guangdong academic, who spoke on condition that he is not named, the high expectations of postgraduates in terms of salaries and type of jobs is part of the problem. They typically prefer secure positions in state-owned companies and government departments, he said.
“Postgraduates do not have much of an edge on their peers who have not pursued a higher degree,” the official China Daily newspaper said last month, referring to a countrywide trend.
Number of postgraduate students has soared
The number of postgraduate students has risen to 517,000 enrolled in universities this year, compared to 220,000 in 2003 – doubling in less than a decade.
A just-released study by Wuhan University in Hubei province found that at the country’s top 10 institutions, including the elite Tsinghua and Peking universities, the numbers graduating from postgraduate courses in 2011 outnumbered those graduating from undergraduate programmes in the same institutions.
The country’s top institution, Peking University, graduated 2,500 more students with postgraduate qualifications last year compared to those leaving with graduate degrees.
Many universities have expanded postgraduate provision in recent years, in part to increase revenues from fees, but also to reduce the number of graduates going directly into a job market that has seen high unemployment rates for new graduates.
“Some institutions urge their undergrads to take postgraduate studies because postgraduate admissions are counted in the employment rate of their undergraduates,” Li Kongzhen, associate professor of Capital Normal University, was quoted in the official Global Times newspaper as saying.
Official figures put graduate unemployment at 22% last year, although many believe underemployment is far higher.
But universities also have more autonomy to expand and set up courses. Compared to the previous system where the Education Ministry was responsible for setting up new courses and disciplines, this new freedom has meant a mismatch between postgraduate course expansion and employment market needs.
Concern about quality
Although only one in three applicants succeeds in obtaining a postgraduate place, the rise in postgraduate numbers is also causing concern about quality.
The study produced by Wuhan University’s Research Centre for Chinese Science Evaluation found that one in six professors was supervising more than 10 postgraduate students each at some 30 universities, and one in 10 was supervising more than 20 students each.
Qiu Junping, director of the research centre, said the appropriate lecturer to student ratio at postgraduate level was one for every three students, with a maximum of six students, otherwise quality could suffer.
Some universities were hoping to improve their research capability “but this does not depend on the number of postgraduates”, Qiu said, referring to the pressure on universities to improve their national and international rankings, which is based to a large extent on research performance.
“Education authorities should focus on job market requirements and improving the quality of postgraduate education instead of expanding enrolment,” he said.
Xiong Bingqi, deputy director of the 21st Century Education Research Institute in Beijing, said the rise in the number of postgraduate students was not compatible with the needs of the jobs market.
“In the past few years, universities mainly offered courses for academic master degrees, but there aren't many research jobs out there in the market," he said.
The outlook for next year may be worse as China’s economic growth began to slow in the first half of this year.
Economists suggest that enough postgraduate level jobs can only be created in the medium term if the country moves swiftly from a manufacturing economy to an innovation and service economy.
Hun Sen Marks 25 Years as Country’s Prime Minister
By Paul Vrieze and Phann Ana - October 12, 2012
Stung Trang district, Kompong Cham province – Twenty-five years ago today, Hun Sen was appointed by the Cambodian National Assembly to become, at 33, the youngest prime minister in the world.
Mr Hun Sen’s journey from a communist leader to an elected head of
government, whose party, the CPP, now has a two-thirds legislative
majority in the Assembly, spans a quarter of a century of civil war,
domestic and international upheaval and a negotiated peace and democracy
through which he and his party have imposed themselves as the country’s
deliverers of stability and order.
By retaining the helm in the country’s fractious politics for 25 years, Mr Hun Sen now stands among a unique category of leaders: he ranks as the 11th longest-ruling leader in the world.
In Southeast Asia, only the Sultan of Brunei, now the world’s longest-serving leader since assuming office in 1967, has been in power longer than Mr Hun Sen. Of the other nine longer-serving leaders, five are heads of governments in Africa and four are from the Middle East.
Mr Hun Sen reflected on his long political career and humble beginnings in a speech at the National Institute for Education in Phnom Penh on Tuesday.
“This year is the 31st anniversary of forming the government and it is also the 25th anniversary of my premiership. So I am not an old-timer, but a long time ruler,” Mr Hun Sen said.
“I became [foreign] minister when I was 27 years old, deputy prime minister when I was 29 years old, and prime minister at 33 years old,” he recalled.
He also said he joined the anti-republican maquis, a movement which consisted of several groups including the Khmer Rouge, on April 2, 1970, “based on an appeal from King Sihanouk.”
“Throughout 40 years I have known all kinds of tastes. I knew how my commander commanded the troops and I knew how to make tea for him. I knew how to wash clothes for him,” Mr Hun Sen said in his now trademark plain speaking public address style.
He then went on to talk about his political future, saying he would run in the next election and adding that recent opinion polls by the US-based International Republican Institute showed the CPP was currently more popular than ever.
“The party conference announced my candidacy for the future prime minister and…last week Samdech Chea Sim also reconfirmed my nomination for the premiership,” Mr Hun Sen said, before taking aim at opposition parties. “Please do not try to limit the mandate of premiership. You want the mandate limited because you are worrying you will lose to me,” he said.
On Dec 27, the 25th anniversary of his appointment as acting prime minister in 1984, Mr Hun Sen met with members of his family and contemplated a time when he will no longer rule Cambodia. Should that day come, according to Mr Hun Sen, members of his powerful extended family could find the tables have turned against them if they alienate ordinary Cambodians.
“If Hun Sen loses power, you will become a target for attacks if you do not follow my advice,” he said, advising that they should show charity and concern for the less fortunate.
It was a rare reflection by Mr Hun Sen on the eventual limits of his reign.
Current and former government officials and people who knew Mr Hun Sen in youth or as a budding young communist leader said his rhetorical talents and ability to lead, learn, adapt and survive the changing political and ideological terrain in Cambodia were apparent in his personality from the start.
CPP lawmaker Cheam Yeap said that he remembered Mr Hun Sen exhibited leadership qualities and a capacity to learn fast early in his career.
These skills, Mr Yeap said, allowed Mr Hun Sen to gather loyalty from his staff, to impress officials from Vietnam, whose military remained in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989, and to sway members of the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party–the previous name of the Cambodian People’s Party.
“I met him in 1979 when I was chief of the propaganda department of Prey Veng province. He was deputy prime minister and the youngest foreign minister in the world,” Mr Yeap recounted. “Even though he was five years younger than me, I saw he was hard working. He liked to communicate with people, especially with those with more experience. He is easy to communicate with,” he said.
“Hun Sen…. only finished grade 3 or 4, before joining the resistance movement. Even though he studied a little bit, he learned very fast,” he added.
“In 1984, the party regarded Hun Sen as a smart leader. After the death of Chan Si, the party appointed him as prime minister on January 14 1985,” Mr Yeap said, referring to the prime minister who preceded Mr Hun Sen under the People’s Republic of Kampuchea.
Mr Hun Sen had started on his political path in 1978, when he became a founding member of the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation, after fleeing to Vietnam in 1977 to avoid Khmer Rouge purges in the Eastern Zone, where he was himself a Khmer Rouge regimental commander. Formed in Vietnam in 1978, the Front consisted of former Khmer Rouge cadres, including Heng Samrin and Chea Sim, who fled to Vietnam also. Core members of the Front were prepared by Vietnamese officials to become Cambodia’s new leadership after the removal of the Khmer Rouge regime.
The Vietnamese army and the Front began their push against the Khmer Rouge on Christmas Day 1978, after Khmer Rouge forces began bloody raids into Vietnam earlier that year. They toppled the Democratic Kampuchea regime on Jan 7, 1979 and the Front’s leaders assumed their positions in the PRK government; Mr Hun Sen became Foreign Minister.
Russian diplomat Igor Rogachev was sent to Cambodia in February 1979 by the Soviet Union, which was supporting Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, and was one of the first foreign diplomats to visit the country after the Vietnamese overthrow of Pol Pot, Elizabeth Becker wrote in her book “When the War Over.”
When he met the PRK’s young foreign minister, he was immediately impressed with Mr Hun Sen’s agile intellect, his ambitions for Cambodia and ability to quickly learn what Mr Rogachev told him, wrote Ms Becker.
“Hun Sen was a very good student, a very good pupil,” Mr Rogachev told Ms Becker, “It was clear he stood out from the others,” and as the first years in government passed, Hun Sen “broadened his vision, not only external affairs but internal affairs as well. He became an outstanding politician.”
Mr Hun Sen was born as Hun Bunnal on August 5, 1952, in Peam Koh Snar in Kompong Cham’s Stung Trang district, a village of tobacco farmers located on the banks of the Mekong River, according to his 1999 authorized biography “Strongman of Cambodia” by Harish and Julie Metha.
Local villager Tuon Sea, 69, said last week, he knew Mr Hun Sen as a child, when he was a neighbor of the Hun family.
“I was 24 when I came to live here in 1963, I know him as a neighbor,” Mr Sea said. “At that time he did not like to play as many games as the other kids but he often sat around to think.”
Chhe Noeun, 61, who claimed to be a childhood friend of the premier, said he spent much time listening to his younger friend talk. “He was one of the kids who is smarter than the others. His speaking, his rhetoric, was very good. During farm work he liked to chat a lot, he made a lot of jokes,” Mr Noeun said.
Mr Noeun said Mr Hun Sen left the village to stay in a pagoda in Phnom Penh when he was 16 years old, adding the Hun family had left the village around 1963 to move to Memot district in Kompong Cham province, located on the Vietnamese border, but they returned in 1969 after the start of the US bombing campaign in east Cambodia.
In the Mehta biography, Mr Hun Sen said he left the pagoda in Phnom Penh after unrest in the capital in 1969 and decided to join the resistance soon after the overthrow of then-Prince Sihanouk in 1970.
Mr Noeun said after Mr Hun Sen left the village he did not see him again until 1974 when he showed up on a motorbike at a local primary school as a Khmer Rouge cadre carrying an AK-47 rifle.
Hun Sen then told his friend, “I just come again today and I don’t know when I will come back or if I will die.”
During his time with the Khmer Rouge, Mr Hun Sen met his wife Bun Rany, then working as a Khmer Rouge nurse, and they married in 1975. They were allowed to marry because he was considered disabled after he lost his left eye in the battle for Phnom Penh earlier that year, Mr Hun Sen told Mr and Mrs Mehta, adding only the disabled were allowed to marry before turning 30.
One man who takes a darker view of Mr Hun Sen rise to power is Pen Sovann, the first prime minister of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, who served as premier for only several months in 1981, before being arrested and held under house arrest in Hanoi for a decade by the Vietnamese government.
“Vietnam ordered me to be arrested by 12 armed soldiers. Hun Sen was there to read the charges against me,” Mr Sovann said during an interview at his Takeo province home.
Mr Sovann said that he was purged by the Vietnamese due to his support for a degree of free market reform, his opposition to what he perceived as lax rules on Vietnamese immigration to Cambodia and his opposition to the K-5 project, a massive defensive project started in the west of Cambodia in the mid 1980s to keep resistance forces on the Thai border from penetrating the interior of the country to battle the Phnom Penh government. K-5 was based on compulsory labor by the civilian population and is bitterly remembered for resulting in countless deaths from malaria and other diseases and land mines.
Mr Sovann, who was only released in 1992, knew Mr Hun Sen from the time he joined the Front in Vietnam and said that as the PRK’s new government was formed Mr Hun Sen initially objected to his appointment as foreign minister, arguing he was too young and inexperienced and lacked the educational credentials for the post.
“But after my explanation he accepted his position,” said Mr Sovann, who characterized Mr Hun Sen as smart and a talented public speaker, but also as an authoritarian with few scruples.
“He learns very fast and then he can lecture [on a topic] later on,” he said, before adding, “Hun Sen has outstanding capacities. His intellect is strong but he has no morals to go along with it.”
Mr Sovann said he was “not surprised” by Mr Hun Sen’s world-beating political longevity.
“Hun Sen likes power, he wants to increase his power. He doesn’t listen to anyone… If anyone criticizes him he will do anything to defend his power,” he added.
Although opinions on Mr Hun Sen’s accomplishments during his quarter of a century of rule varied among the researchers and observers contacted for this article, most acknowledged the transformation of war-torn Cambodia into a stable, peaceful country with an open and growing economy as his greatest achievement.
However, human rights abuses, land evictions, rampant corruption among government officials, a lack of an independent judiciary, and intimidation of political opponents, are part of life in Cambodia under Prime Minister Hun Sen, according to local and international human rights groups.
The country’s opposition party concurs with those sentiments.
SRP leader Sam Rainsy, who is currently in France but facing criminal charges here over the removal of posts along the border with Vietnam, said that during his long premiership Mr Hun Sen had shown his objectives were personal and did not serve ordinary Cambodians.
“It is obvious that Hun Sen’s only or predominant goal is to remain in power, to survive politically… Power is everything for him. But above all, power means impunity for him and his clan,” Mr Rainsy wrote in an email.
“But when survival is your life goal you cannot have any vision. This is why Cambodia under Hun Sen is going nowhere, if not down the drain, [through] corruption, poverty, human rights abuses, in spite of competent civil servants, dedicated civil society and abundant natural resources,” he wrote.
“Hun Sen has had only two ways in dealing with his political opponents: Buy them or eliminate them either physically, [through] grenade attack, military coup [...] or politically, [through] sham lawsuits.”
“There is no example in the whole world of any country being a democratic and prosperous one with the same top leader for decades,” Mr Rainsy added.
According to a confidential 2008 report on Cambodia by the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the US legislature, “[T]he autocratic tendencies of Prime Minister Hun Sen have discouraged foreign investment and strained US-Cambodian relations.”
According to historian Evan Gottesman, author of the book “Cambodia After the Khmer Rouge,” the mere fact of Mr Hun Sen’s durability is itself exceptional.
“The fact that the same man who led Cambodia in 1985 could also run the Cambodia of 2010 is remarkable,” Mr Gottesman wrote in an e-mail.
“Hun Sen’s most impressive achievement was his ability to lead Cambodia from being an isolated communist country to economic and political integration with the non-communist countries of the region,” he said. “Hun Sen’s greatest failure is his failure to promote, in fact, his willingness to undermine, democratic institutions such as an independent judiciary, accountable security forces, and a professional civil service,” he added.
According to Gottesman, three qualities are central to Mr Hun Sen’s hold on power: The first is ideological flexibility, which he said became apparent when he decided to abandon communist orthodox ideas in the late 1980s when it suited the situation.
“The second is a willingness to be absolutely ruthless with his opponents when he feels it necessary. The third is his cultivation of a patronage system that supports him,” Mr Gottesman wrote.
Reflecting on how the character of the 1980s communist PRK regime, many of whose officials are still in the government, influences Cambodia today, Mr Gottesman said, “Cambodia’s government is still built on patronage systems that support top officials, with Hun Sen at the top.”
A “lack of an independent judiciary or accountability for human rights abuses [also] persist because these hallmarks of modern democracies do not serve the interests of leaders who intend to remain in power indefinitely,” he added.
Chea Vannath, an independent political analyst, said Mr Hun Sen’s most important accomplishment was restoring peace in Cambodia, while she said his premiership had lacked in producing economic growth and improving child and maternal health.
“His achievement is that he was able to bring peace to Cambodia, a very valuable achievement. His shortcoming is the economy, it moves but it stumbles… It seems the economy could have done better, maternal and child health should also be better,” she said.
“Human rights and political freedom are not real shortcomings. It’s normal in a post-conflict country,” she added.
Ms Vannath said Mr Hun Sen’s strengths had been his ability to cope and navigate a changing political climate and system, his “ability to equitably share political power with others” and his vigilance to not rest on his laurels.
“So far, another blessing is [his] good health,” she added.
According to historian Henri Locard, Mr Hun Sen is able to fascinate the Cambodian public.
“Hun Sen is a past master in the control of rhetoric…. He is sure to hold the majority of the population by the invisible thread and the fascination of his words,” he said.
“He also takes these opportunities to warn his underlings publicly to tow the line or, for the more affluent ones, to commit themselves to making some generous donations for a just cause,” Mr Locard added.
“The Cambodians relish all their newly-acquired freedoms…. With one major exception: the freedom to challenge his all-embracing power…. there is a great deal of self-censorship exerted in this country,” Mr Locard stressed.
Indeed, many consulted for this article, foreign and local, declined to comment on the prime minister.
CPP lawmaker Cheam Yeap defended Prime Minister Hun Sen record on human rights abuse, tolerance of corruption and intimidation of political opponents.
“Fighting corruption is not easy. Europe and the US have these problems too,” he said, adding claims of intimidation were not true.
“Sam Rainsy breaks the law and then he says his rights are violated when he gets charged.”
Mr Yeap reminded that Mr Hun Sen and other CPP members had built up the country after its destruction by the Khmer Rouge.
“I would like to ask you who could do it? Sam Rainsy, Ranariddh, Kem Sokha couldn’t do it,” said Mr Yeap.
“They came later on, then they demanded this, they demanded that. They want freedom to attack everyone, everything. The CPP cannot allow them to do that.”
Stung Trang district, Kompong Cham province – Twenty-five years ago today, Hun Sen was appointed by the Cambodian National Assembly to become, at 33, the youngest prime minister in the world.
A
young Hun Sen delivers an address in this undated picture that is
believed to have been taken sometime between 1981 and 1983. (File photo)
By retaining the helm in the country’s fractious politics for 25 years, Mr Hun Sen now stands among a unique category of leaders: he ranks as the 11th longest-ruling leader in the world.
In Southeast Asia, only the Sultan of Brunei, now the world’s longest-serving leader since assuming office in 1967, has been in power longer than Mr Hun Sen. Of the other nine longer-serving leaders, five are heads of governments in Africa and four are from the Middle East.
Mr Hun Sen reflected on his long political career and humble beginnings in a speech at the National Institute for Education in Phnom Penh on Tuesday.
“This year is the 31st anniversary of forming the government and it is also the 25th anniversary of my premiership. So I am not an old-timer, but a long time ruler,” Mr Hun Sen said.
“I became [foreign] minister when I was 27 years old, deputy prime minister when I was 29 years old, and prime minister at 33 years old,” he recalled.
He also said he joined the anti-republican maquis, a movement which consisted of several groups including the Khmer Rouge, on April 2, 1970, “based on an appeal from King Sihanouk.”
“Throughout 40 years I have known all kinds of tastes. I knew how my commander commanded the troops and I knew how to make tea for him. I knew how to wash clothes for him,” Mr Hun Sen said in his now trademark plain speaking public address style.
He then went on to talk about his political future, saying he would run in the next election and adding that recent opinion polls by the US-based International Republican Institute showed the CPP was currently more popular than ever.
“The party conference announced my candidacy for the future prime minister and…last week Samdech Chea Sim also reconfirmed my nomination for the premiership,” Mr Hun Sen said, before taking aim at opposition parties. “Please do not try to limit the mandate of premiership. You want the mandate limited because you are worrying you will lose to me,” he said.
On Dec 27, the 25th anniversary of his appointment as acting prime minister in 1984, Mr Hun Sen met with members of his family and contemplated a time when he will no longer rule Cambodia. Should that day come, according to Mr Hun Sen, members of his powerful extended family could find the tables have turned against them if they alienate ordinary Cambodians.
“If Hun Sen loses power, you will become a target for attacks if you do not follow my advice,” he said, advising that they should show charity and concern for the less fortunate.
It was a rare reflection by Mr Hun Sen on the eventual limits of his reign.
Current and former government officials and people who knew Mr Hun Sen in youth or as a budding young communist leader said his rhetorical talents and ability to lead, learn, adapt and survive the changing political and ideological terrain in Cambodia were apparent in his personality from the start.
CPP lawmaker Cheam Yeap said that he remembered Mr Hun Sen exhibited leadership qualities and a capacity to learn fast early in his career.
These skills, Mr Yeap said, allowed Mr Hun Sen to gather loyalty from his staff, to impress officials from Vietnam, whose military remained in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989, and to sway members of the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party–the previous name of the Cambodian People’s Party.
“I met him in 1979 when I was chief of the propaganda department of Prey Veng province. He was deputy prime minister and the youngest foreign minister in the world,” Mr Yeap recounted. “Even though he was five years younger than me, I saw he was hard working. He liked to communicate with people, especially with those with more experience. He is easy to communicate with,” he said.
“Hun Sen…. only finished grade 3 or 4, before joining the resistance movement. Even though he studied a little bit, he learned very fast,” he added.
“In 1984, the party regarded Hun Sen as a smart leader. After the death of Chan Si, the party appointed him as prime minister on January 14 1985,” Mr Yeap said, referring to the prime minister who preceded Mr Hun Sen under the People’s Republic of Kampuchea.
Mr Hun Sen had started on his political path in 1978, when he became a founding member of the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation, after fleeing to Vietnam in 1977 to avoid Khmer Rouge purges in the Eastern Zone, where he was himself a Khmer Rouge regimental commander. Formed in Vietnam in 1978, the Front consisted of former Khmer Rouge cadres, including Heng Samrin and Chea Sim, who fled to Vietnam also. Core members of the Front were prepared by Vietnamese officials to become Cambodia’s new leadership after the removal of the Khmer Rouge regime.
The Vietnamese army and the Front began their push against the Khmer Rouge on Christmas Day 1978, after Khmer Rouge forces began bloody raids into Vietnam earlier that year. They toppled the Democratic Kampuchea regime on Jan 7, 1979 and the Front’s leaders assumed their positions in the PRK government; Mr Hun Sen became Foreign Minister.
Russian diplomat Igor Rogachev was sent to Cambodia in February 1979 by the Soviet Union, which was supporting Vietnam’s overthrow of the Khmer Rouge, and was one of the first foreign diplomats to visit the country after the Vietnamese overthrow of Pol Pot, Elizabeth Becker wrote in her book “When the War Over.”
When he met the PRK’s young foreign minister, he was immediately impressed with Mr Hun Sen’s agile intellect, his ambitions for Cambodia and ability to quickly learn what Mr Rogachev told him, wrote Ms Becker.
“Hun Sen was a very good student, a very good pupil,” Mr Rogachev told Ms Becker, “It was clear he stood out from the others,” and as the first years in government passed, Hun Sen “broadened his vision, not only external affairs but internal affairs as well. He became an outstanding politician.”
Mr Hun Sen was born as Hun Bunnal on August 5, 1952, in Peam Koh Snar in Kompong Cham’s Stung Trang district, a village of tobacco farmers located on the banks of the Mekong River, according to his 1999 authorized biography “Strongman of Cambodia” by Harish and Julie Metha.
Local villager Tuon Sea, 69, said last week, he knew Mr Hun Sen as a child, when he was a neighbor of the Hun family.
“I was 24 when I came to live here in 1963, I know him as a neighbor,” Mr Sea said. “At that time he did not like to play as many games as the other kids but he often sat around to think.”
Chhe Noeun, 61, who claimed to be a childhood friend of the premier, said he spent much time listening to his younger friend talk. “He was one of the kids who is smarter than the others. His speaking, his rhetoric, was very good. During farm work he liked to chat a lot, he made a lot of jokes,” Mr Noeun said.
Mr Noeun said Mr Hun Sen left the village to stay in a pagoda in Phnom Penh when he was 16 years old, adding the Hun family had left the village around 1963 to move to Memot district in Kompong Cham province, located on the Vietnamese border, but they returned in 1969 after the start of the US bombing campaign in east Cambodia.
In the Mehta biography, Mr Hun Sen said he left the pagoda in Phnom Penh after unrest in the capital in 1969 and decided to join the resistance soon after the overthrow of then-Prince Sihanouk in 1970.
Mr Noeun said after Mr Hun Sen left the village he did not see him again until 1974 when he showed up on a motorbike at a local primary school as a Khmer Rouge cadre carrying an AK-47 rifle.
Hun Sen then told his friend, “I just come again today and I don’t know when I will come back or if I will die.”
During his time with the Khmer Rouge, Mr Hun Sen met his wife Bun Rany, then working as a Khmer Rouge nurse, and they married in 1975. They were allowed to marry because he was considered disabled after he lost his left eye in the battle for Phnom Penh earlier that year, Mr Hun Sen told Mr and Mrs Mehta, adding only the disabled were allowed to marry before turning 30.
One man who takes a darker view of Mr Hun Sen rise to power is Pen Sovann, the first prime minister of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, who served as premier for only several months in 1981, before being arrested and held under house arrest in Hanoi for a decade by the Vietnamese government.
“Vietnam ordered me to be arrested by 12 armed soldiers. Hun Sen was there to read the charges against me,” Mr Sovann said during an interview at his Takeo province home.
Mr Sovann said that he was purged by the Vietnamese due to his support for a degree of free market reform, his opposition to what he perceived as lax rules on Vietnamese immigration to Cambodia and his opposition to the K-5 project, a massive defensive project started in the west of Cambodia in the mid 1980s to keep resistance forces on the Thai border from penetrating the interior of the country to battle the Phnom Penh government. K-5 was based on compulsory labor by the civilian population and is bitterly remembered for resulting in countless deaths from malaria and other diseases and land mines.
Mr Sovann, who was only released in 1992, knew Mr Hun Sen from the time he joined the Front in Vietnam and said that as the PRK’s new government was formed Mr Hun Sen initially objected to his appointment as foreign minister, arguing he was too young and inexperienced and lacked the educational credentials for the post.
“But after my explanation he accepted his position,” said Mr Sovann, who characterized Mr Hun Sen as smart and a talented public speaker, but also as an authoritarian with few scruples.
“He learns very fast and then he can lecture [on a topic] later on,” he said, before adding, “Hun Sen has outstanding capacities. His intellect is strong but he has no morals to go along with it.”
Mr Sovann said he was “not surprised” by Mr Hun Sen’s world-beating political longevity.
“Hun Sen likes power, he wants to increase his power. He doesn’t listen to anyone… If anyone criticizes him he will do anything to defend his power,” he added.
Although opinions on Mr Hun Sen’s accomplishments during his quarter of a century of rule varied among the researchers and observers contacted for this article, most acknowledged the transformation of war-torn Cambodia into a stable, peaceful country with an open and growing economy as his greatest achievement.
However, human rights abuses, land evictions, rampant corruption among government officials, a lack of an independent judiciary, and intimidation of political opponents, are part of life in Cambodia under Prime Minister Hun Sen, according to local and international human rights groups.
The country’s opposition party concurs with those sentiments.
SRP leader Sam Rainsy, who is currently in France but facing criminal charges here over the removal of posts along the border with Vietnam, said that during his long premiership Mr Hun Sen had shown his objectives were personal and did not serve ordinary Cambodians.
“It is obvious that Hun Sen’s only or predominant goal is to remain in power, to survive politically… Power is everything for him. But above all, power means impunity for him and his clan,” Mr Rainsy wrote in an email.
“But when survival is your life goal you cannot have any vision. This is why Cambodia under Hun Sen is going nowhere, if not down the drain, [through] corruption, poverty, human rights abuses, in spite of competent civil servants, dedicated civil society and abundant natural resources,” he wrote.
“Hun Sen has had only two ways in dealing with his political opponents: Buy them or eliminate them either physically, [through] grenade attack, military coup [...] or politically, [through] sham lawsuits.”
“There is no example in the whole world of any country being a democratic and prosperous one with the same top leader for decades,” Mr Rainsy added.
According to a confidential 2008 report on Cambodia by the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of the US legislature, “[T]he autocratic tendencies of Prime Minister Hun Sen have discouraged foreign investment and strained US-Cambodian relations.”
According to historian Evan Gottesman, author of the book “Cambodia After the Khmer Rouge,” the mere fact of Mr Hun Sen’s durability is itself exceptional.
“The fact that the same man who led Cambodia in 1985 could also run the Cambodia of 2010 is remarkable,” Mr Gottesman wrote in an e-mail.
“Hun Sen’s most impressive achievement was his ability to lead Cambodia from being an isolated communist country to economic and political integration with the non-communist countries of the region,” he said. “Hun Sen’s greatest failure is his failure to promote, in fact, his willingness to undermine, democratic institutions such as an independent judiciary, accountable security forces, and a professional civil service,” he added.
According to Gottesman, three qualities are central to Mr Hun Sen’s hold on power: The first is ideological flexibility, which he said became apparent when he decided to abandon communist orthodox ideas in the late 1980s when it suited the situation.
“The second is a willingness to be absolutely ruthless with his opponents when he feels it necessary. The third is his cultivation of a patronage system that supports him,” Mr Gottesman wrote.
Reflecting on how the character of the 1980s communist PRK regime, many of whose officials are still in the government, influences Cambodia today, Mr Gottesman said, “Cambodia’s government is still built on patronage systems that support top officials, with Hun Sen at the top.”
A “lack of an independent judiciary or accountability for human rights abuses [also] persist because these hallmarks of modern democracies do not serve the interests of leaders who intend to remain in power indefinitely,” he added.
Chea Vannath, an independent political analyst, said Mr Hun Sen’s most important accomplishment was restoring peace in Cambodia, while she said his premiership had lacked in producing economic growth and improving child and maternal health.
“His achievement is that he was able to bring peace to Cambodia, a very valuable achievement. His shortcoming is the economy, it moves but it stumbles… It seems the economy could have done better, maternal and child health should also be better,” she said.
“Human rights and political freedom are not real shortcomings. It’s normal in a post-conflict country,” she added.
Ms Vannath said Mr Hun Sen’s strengths had been his ability to cope and navigate a changing political climate and system, his “ability to equitably share political power with others” and his vigilance to not rest on his laurels.
“So far, another blessing is [his] good health,” she added.
According to historian Henri Locard, Mr Hun Sen is able to fascinate the Cambodian public.
“Hun Sen is a past master in the control of rhetoric…. He is sure to hold the majority of the population by the invisible thread and the fascination of his words,” he said.
“He also takes these opportunities to warn his underlings publicly to tow the line or, for the more affluent ones, to commit themselves to making some generous donations for a just cause,” Mr Locard added.
“The Cambodians relish all their newly-acquired freedoms…. With one major exception: the freedom to challenge his all-embracing power…. there is a great deal of self-censorship exerted in this country,” Mr Locard stressed.
Indeed, many consulted for this article, foreign and local, declined to comment on the prime minister.
CPP lawmaker Cheam Yeap defended Prime Minister Hun Sen record on human rights abuse, tolerance of corruption and intimidation of political opponents.
“Fighting corruption is not easy. Europe and the US have these problems too,” he said, adding claims of intimidation were not true.
“Sam Rainsy breaks the law and then he says his rights are violated when he gets charged.”
Mr Yeap reminded that Mr Hun Sen and other CPP members had built up the country after its destruction by the Khmer Rouge.
“I would like to ask you who could do it? Sam Rainsy, Ranariddh, Kem Sokha couldn’t do it,” said Mr Yeap.
“They came later on, then they demanded this, they demanded that. They want freedom to attack everyone, everything. The CPP cannot allow them to do that.”
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Norodom Sihanouk—The End of an Era
By Michelle Vachon - October 17, 2012
King Father Norodom Sihanouk, the flamboyant, tireless monarch who led Cambodia to independence in 1953, watched it descend into genocide and civil war, and reigned once more as the country struggled to its feet, died Monday in Beijing.
The monarch who peacefully won Cambodia’s independence from France, rallied political factions in the 1980s to achieve peace against all odds and, when crowned for a second time, mediated the country’s conflicts out of crisis in the 1990s, Norodom Sihanouk will be remembered as one of the foremost Southeast Asian leaders of the past 60 years.
“His Majesty the King Father…was truly the father of his country and the legendary figure we meet only once in our lifetimes,” Gordon Longmuir, a former Canadian ambassador to Cambodia, wrote in a message on Monday.
“One of the indisputably great figures of the 20th century, and a champion of his people always, His Majesty will be deeply mourned and greatly honored by all Cambodians and the many friends of the Kingdom abroad.”
For people throughout the world, the former King will remain to this day the face of Cambodia, his legendary smile one of the country’s best-known images.
Twice forced into exile and twice proclaimed King, Norodom Sihanouk never failed to be larger than life. His ebullient personality and leadership style were the perfect complement to his dramatic life, and he played up the drama in books with brash titles such as “My War With the CIA” and “Prisoner of the Khmer Rouge.”
In the 1980s, he was the leader that Cold War superpowers trusted and believed could bring an end to decades of civil war in the country. And for Cambodians in the early 1990s, Norodom Sihanouk became the symbol of an era that had known peace before the turmoil of the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge nightmare.
Norodom Sihanouk once called himself the country’s “natural ruler.” He often referred to his people as “my children” in French and “grandchildren” in Khmer. And biographers say he commonly identified himself as the embodiment of Cambodia. The retired King’s admirers say that attitude spurred him to work tirelessly for the country’s interests, his critics that he was hugely intolerant of criticism. But even his detractors would admit that Norodom Sihanouk was a unique and mercurial, character—charming, self-dramatizing, unpredictable, sometimes self-indulgent. He mixed shrewd diplomatic skills with a disarming frankness that never failed to make a strong impression on those who met him.
“His deep love for the Cambodian people—not shared throughout history by any other Cambodian ruler that I know of—was sincere and moving,” historian David Chandler said on Monday. “His impatience with dissent and his narcissism are also important ingredients of his behavior. Interestingly, unlike other Cambodian rulers before and since, he did not get rich during his years in power.”
Norodom Sihanouk was “a chief of state unlike I had ever met,” wrote New York Times reporter Henry Kamm in his 1998 book, “Cambodia: Report From A Stricken Land.”
“He blurted out with disregard for conventional hypocrisy truths that statesmen are supposed to keep to themselves…. Moreover, he dwelt on his country’s weakness rather than praising pretended strength. He laughed at his own remarks more uproariously than his audience.”
This acute awareness of his country’s fragility in the face of stronger neighbors and self-centered superpowers may give a clue as to how the late King Father kept Cambodia out of the war in neighboring Vietnam for many years, though ultimately the country was drawn into the conflagration in the final years of his reign, which was ended by a military coup in 1970.
“In a world without pity, the survival of a country as small as Cambodia depends on your god and my Buddha,” Norodom Sihanouk told Mr. Kamm, explaining why he hewed to a neutralist policy as neighboring Vietnam was engulfed in flames.
Born on October 31, 1922, Norodom Sihanouk admitted to being a mostly solitary child during his education in a French primary school in Phnom Penh and a French high school in Ho Chi Minh City. He was still a quiet boy of 18 when he was selected as King, and he reportedly wept at the thought of ruling.
Chosen by the French administration for what they took as docility, he would end up playing a major role in ending French Indochina.
“The French chose me because they thought I was a little lamb,” Norodom Sihanouk once wrote. “Later they were surprised to discover that I was a tiger.”
On the death of King Monivong in 1941, Cambodia’s French administrator Admiral Decoux recommended the Cambodian prince, who was studying at a Ho Chi Minh City high school, as the King’s successor.
Numerous French documents of that era remain sealed today but, according to historians, the main reason for selecting Prince Sihanouk was that the prince seemed more malleable and less prone to independent action than other candidates.
France would have ample ground to regret that decision when the young King Sihanouk lobbied world press and leaders to force the French government’s hand and give the country independence in 1953.
The official explanation when he was selected would be that, as a descendent of both royal families—Norodom on his father’s side and Sisowath on his mother’s—choosing Prince Sihanouk would put an end to squabbles between the two competing families. So in October 1941, as war raged in Europe and Cambodia was under Japanese military control through a French administration loyal to Axis powers Germany and Japan, King Sihanouk acceded to the throne.
Thus began the reign of a man that Time magazine in 1999 called one of the most influential Asian leaders of the 20th century, a fascinating ruler and consummate politician whose actions—at times brilliant and often controversial—will be debated by historians and political analysts for decades to come.
Yet the King that Norodom Sihanouk was to become took time to emerge.
When France put him on the throne, nothing had prepared the young prince for this role, writes Mr. Chandler, the historian.
At first kept under strict control by the French, Norodom Sihanouk admitted that, prior to 1952, he was more concerned with female conquests than affairs of state. By the time he was 24 he would have six children; by 1954, he would have 13 children to five different women.
But he was also learning his trade as the nation’s leader, as he demonstrated after the adoption of Cambodia’s 1947 constitution and the 1951 national election.
In January 1953, King Sihanouk asked the National Assembly for special powers, saying that the country was in danger. Refused, he had troops surround the National Assembly building, dissolved the assembly, had about 10 politicians jailed and, holding full powers, concentrated on his “Royal Crusade for Independence” to fulfill the promise he had made to the country to gain Cambodia’s independence within three years.
“[Norodom] Sihanouk’s own sense of confidence and his unshakeable belief that he knew what was best for Cambodia was to be the hallmarks of his rule until his hold on Cambodian politics began to slip in the late 1960s,” historian Milton Osborne writes.
Pursuing his promise, he left for France in February 1953. Once there, he petitioned the French government for independence. But his plea was not taken seriously. After several high-level meetings including a luncheon with French President Vincent Auriol, he was finally told by the French commissioner for associated countries, Jean Letourneau, that his request was “inopportune.”
Rebuffed, he took to the world stage, traveling to the U.S., Canada and Japan to give interviews to muster support for independence. He was interviewed by the Canadian television network CBC in Montreal; The New York Times; and received editorial support in The Washington Post.
The French, wearied from waging a losing battle in their war with Vietnamese nationalists next door, agreed to talks for a peaceful transition to independence in Cambodia. On November 9, 1953, Norodom Sihanouk was able to declare independence for his country. Indochina dissolved the following year.
The young King Sihanouk, and now Father of Independence, had his own vision for Cambodia and was not satisfied to be a constitutional monarch. In 1955, he took the bold step of stepping down as King and, while his father acceded to the throne in his stead, entered the political arena by founding the political party Sangkum Reastr Niyum, which would hold power until 1970.
During those 15 years in power, Norodom Sihanouk embarked on an ambitious program that turned Phnom Penh into one of the most dynamic capitals in the region.
The period was the beginning of what many older Cambodians recall as a golden age. In the post-independence years, education blossomed with the construction of thousands of elementary schools. More than 1 million students received primary education, and nine universities were built for an estimated 10,000 students. New hospitals and clinics were constructed. Cambodia’s brilliant post-independence architects, such as Vann Molyvann, developed a distinctive style of architecture whose work still inspires to this day.
In 1961, war broke out between North and South Vietnam, and Norodom Sihanouk began a tightrope walk that kept Cambodia neutral for nine years.
“His most positive contribution to Cambodian history, I think, was to keep Cambodia out of the Vietnam War for as long as he did,” Mr. Chandler said.
As Sihanouk sought foreign support for his neutralist position, he became a leader within the Non-Aligned Movement of countries such as India, Egypt and Indonesia, which refused to take sides in the Cold War. And while Norodom Sihanouk became a hero of the international left, he also suppressed the growth of left-wing parties in his own country through surveillance and arrest.
At the same time, the 1960s were the heyday of the highlife for Phnom Penh’s elite, crowned by Norodom Sihanouk’s flamboyance.
Playing saxophone and clarinet, Prince Sihanouk would lead a band mostly composed of his fellow princes, which played into the early hours of the morning with a mix of 1930s swing, French pop and the prince’s own songs. Diplomats would sip vintage champagne and dance all night at the Royal Palace soirees, historian Mr. Osborne recalled.
Yet the Koh Santepheap, or “oasis of peace” as Cambodia was known during those years, also contained the seeds of the prince’s downfall. His unspoken policy of vanquishing his political opponents bred resentment.
After arrests of left-wing intellectuals and repression of their publications, leftists fled into the jungle, later to re-emerge as the deadly Khmer Rouge. Meanwhile, the universities produced well-educated graduates who had few job opportunities and who were angered by the corruption in the capital.
Neither backing the U.S. nor the Eastern bloc entirely, his political allegiance led some diplomats and commentators to view him as unreliable, while others saw his unpredictability as a strategy in itself.
“The key to understanding Sihanouk,” wrote Bernard Krisher, publisher of The Cambodia Daily and longtime friend of Norodom Sihanouk, “is that when you are the leader of a small and defenseless country in need of foreign aid, and when competing big powers will help only at the price of your joining their camp, then the only meaningful strategy is to be unpredictable—to play one side against the other and keep everybody guessing. It was a delicate art and Sihanouk was a master.”
But his high-stakes balancing act was not to last.
In 1970, as he was on a trip abroad, Norodom Sihanouk was ousted by the pro-U.S. Lon Nol government.
Told that he could stay in France as long as he remained out of politics and receiving a lukewarm reception in the U.S., he accepted China’s invitation to reside in Beijing and head the opposition movement to the Lon Nol regime that consisted of Khmer Rouge forces backed at the time by North Vietnam. In that capacity, Norodom Sihanouk launched on March 24, 1970, from Beijing a radio appeal to Cambodians to join the “maquis” guerrillas to fight the Lon Nol government and restore him to power.
By leading the movement, he had formed a strategic alliance with the Khmer Rouge insurgents who pledged to support him. Nonetheless, in 1973, he told a New York Times reporter of his fear that when the Khmer Rouge no longer needed him they would “spit him out.” Sure enough, soon after taking power in 1975, the Khmer Rouge imprisoned Norodom Sihanouk, Princess Monineath and Prince Norodom Sihamoni in his own palace in Phnom Penh. He was often in fear of execution during his stay in what he called his “gilded prison.” The Khmer Rouge eventually killed many members of his family who were still in Cambodia.
Just ahead of Vietnamese forces who toppled Pol Pot in January 1979, Norodom Sihanouk, Princess Monineath and Prince Sihamoni were put on a plane bound for Beijing.
The 1980s saw a protracted civil war between a tenuous alliance composed of Khmer Rouge, royalist and republican forces based on the Thai border and the Hanoi-backed government in Phnom Penh. But by 1987, as Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing policy that would lead to the end of the Cold War, Norodom Sihanouk began peace talks with Prime Minister Hun Sen.
As Cambodia’s most prominent and respected figures, Norodom Sihanouk was at the center of negotiations with the various factions to finally end the Cambodian conflict—one of the last hangovers from the Cold War. Reconciliation led to the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991, and Norodom Sihanouk returned from exile that year to Phnom Penh where he was greeted with a hero’s return. He rode together with Mr. Hun Sen in an open top limousine from Pochentong Airport to the Royal Palace.
The next year, the $2 billion U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) began its operation to bring peace, stability and democratic elections to the war-weary country. Though it failed to disarm the Khmer Rouge, UNTAC did usher in elections, which were won by the royalist Funcinpec party, chaired by Norodom Sihanouk’s son Prince Norodom Ranariddh.
During the 1993 elections, Norodom Sihanouk was determined to remain neutral. But he soon became associated with the Funcinpec party he had previously founded, and turned into the royalist party’s biggest asset, bringing it to victory.
After the defeated CPP threatened a return to civil war, Norodom Sihanouk took charge. Always pragmatic with a profound understanding of his people and politics, Norodom Sihanouk sealed a compromise to the relief of the U.N. and the world’s superpowers: The CPP and Funcinpec would share power with Prince Ranariddh acting as first prime minister and Mr. Hun Sen as second prime minister. This arranged marriage would end in armed combat in the streets of Phnom Penh in 1997.
In September 1993, 38 years after leaving the throne, Norodom Sihanouk was crowned King yet again. The new post-UNTAC Constitution assigned him ceremonial powers, specifying that he was to reign, but not rule.
Until his retirement in 2004, Norodom Sihanouk continued to appeal to the international community to support the country’s development. He also kept mediating conflicts among Cambodia’s various parties.
In 1993, he tried to broker an agreement between the new Cambodian government and the Khmer Rouge who had resumed fighting shortly after signing the Paris Peace Agreement and were controlling western portions of the country. He even suggested offering “acceptable” Khmer Rouge leaders government positions if they surrendered and gave up control over zones they were occupying. That offer, however, did not extend to Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Nuon Chea or Ta Mok. As observers mentioned, Norodom Sihanouk believed that Khmer Rouge with government positions would be easier to control.
In a March 1994 message, he suggested a cease-fire and peace talks between government and Khmer Rouge leaders. Otherwise, the country could be in “mortal danger” of remaining in a state of perpetual war, he said. Peace talks did take place in June 1994 but failed to end the hostilities. On January 18, 1995, King Sihanouk made another appeal for national reconciliation and suggested to extend the government’s amnesty policy to Khmer Rouge defectors. The government announced 10 days later that it endorsed his suggestion except in the case of Pol Pot and Ta Mok, who would have to leave the country. This second attempt also failed.
With heavy fighting depleting the Cambodian army, the government contemplated conscription, a measure for which King Sihanouk strongly disapproved. Obligatory military service would cause social injustice because, he wrote in February 1996, “children from rich and powerful families would always find a way to escape [it].”
That same year, he spoke in favor of a Khmer Rouge war crimes tribunal, describing Pol Pot as a monster.
Regarding his granting of amnesty to Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Sary in September 1996, the late King explained that, even though he did not agree with it, he had to comply with the request of the government and the majority of the National Assembly who approved the move.
Shortly after the amnesty for Ieng Sary, he announced his intention of granting pardon to the largest possible number of prisoners on the occasion of his 74th birthday, saying that since he had given a free pass to a Khmer Rouge leader whose regime had caused the death of nearly 2 million people, he had to pardon those who had committed far less serious crimes.
It was only in December 1998 that the last Khmer Rouge forces would surrender and war in the country would finally end.
In 1999, Norodom Sihanouk criticized the Cambodian government for rejecting the concept of a joint war crimes tribunal dominated by U.N.-appointed judges and prosecutors which, he said, would not infringe on the country’s sovereignty as the government claimed.
The late King’s comments would often put him at odds with Mr. Hun Sen and, prior to his retirement, this would lead to him toning down his comments for a few weeks or months for the sake of good relations with the prime minister. Norodom Sihanouk’s old friend Ruom Rith, however, would often take over and continue to publicly voice criticism of the government.
In 2004, Norodom Sihanouk stepped down, which paved the way for his chosen heir and son, King Norodom Sihamoni, to be crowned King.
The King Father’s death marks the end of an era for Cambodia. An era that saw the country buffeted by the powerful forces of colonialism, the Cold War, civil war and genocide. It was an era unique in the scope and scale of the brutality and devastation suffered by a small country and its people.
In 1985, the French intellectual, Helene Cixous, wrote a play about Norodom Sihanouk that portrayed him as a tragic hero with the stature of a king in a William Shakespeare play. Upon seeing it, the King Father remarked that it was not he that should be portrayed as a tragic hero; it was all of Cambodia.
(Additional reporting by Rick Sine)
King Father Norodom Sihanouk, the flamboyant, tireless monarch who led Cambodia to independence in 1953, watched it descend into genocide and civil war, and reigned once more as the country struggled to its feet, died Monday in Beijing.
The monarch who peacefully won Cambodia’s independence from France, rallied political factions in the 1980s to achieve peace against all odds and, when crowned for a second time, mediated the country’s conflicts out of crisis in the 1990s, Norodom Sihanouk will be remembered as one of the foremost Southeast Asian leaders of the past 60 years.
“His Majesty the King Father…was truly the father of his country and the legendary figure we meet only once in our lifetimes,” Gordon Longmuir, a former Canadian ambassador to Cambodia, wrote in a message on Monday.
“One of the indisputably great figures of the 20th century, and a champion of his people always, His Majesty will be deeply mourned and greatly honored by all Cambodians and the many friends of the Kingdom abroad.”
For people throughout the world, the former King will remain to this day the face of Cambodia, his legendary smile one of the country’s best-known images.
Twice forced into exile and twice proclaimed King, Norodom Sihanouk never failed to be larger than life. His ebullient personality and leadership style were the perfect complement to his dramatic life, and he played up the drama in books with brash titles such as “My War With the CIA” and “Prisoner of the Khmer Rouge.”
In the 1980s, he was the leader that Cold War superpowers trusted and believed could bring an end to decades of civil war in the country. And for Cambodians in the early 1990s, Norodom Sihanouk became the symbol of an era that had known peace before the turmoil of the early 1970s, the Khmer Rouge nightmare.
Norodom Sihanouk once called himself the country’s “natural ruler.” He often referred to his people as “my children” in French and “grandchildren” in Khmer. And biographers say he commonly identified himself as the embodiment of Cambodia. The retired King’s admirers say that attitude spurred him to work tirelessly for the country’s interests, his critics that he was hugely intolerant of criticism. But even his detractors would admit that Norodom Sihanouk was a unique and mercurial, character—charming, self-dramatizing, unpredictable, sometimes self-indulgent. He mixed shrewd diplomatic skills with a disarming frankness that never failed to make a strong impression on those who met him.
“His deep love for the Cambodian people—not shared throughout history by any other Cambodian ruler that I know of—was sincere and moving,” historian David Chandler said on Monday. “His impatience with dissent and his narcissism are also important ingredients of his behavior. Interestingly, unlike other Cambodian rulers before and since, he did not get rich during his years in power.”
Norodom Sihanouk was “a chief of state unlike I had ever met,” wrote New York Times reporter Henry Kamm in his 1998 book, “Cambodia: Report From A Stricken Land.”
“He blurted out with disregard for conventional hypocrisy truths that statesmen are supposed to keep to themselves…. Moreover, he dwelt on his country’s weakness rather than praising pretended strength. He laughed at his own remarks more uproariously than his audience.”
This acute awareness of his country’s fragility in the face of stronger neighbors and self-centered superpowers may give a clue as to how the late King Father kept Cambodia out of the war in neighboring Vietnam for many years, though ultimately the country was drawn into the conflagration in the final years of his reign, which was ended by a military coup in 1970.
“In a world without pity, the survival of a country as small as Cambodia depends on your god and my Buddha,” Norodom Sihanouk told Mr. Kamm, explaining why he hewed to a neutralist policy as neighboring Vietnam was engulfed in flames.
Born on October 31, 1922, Norodom Sihanouk admitted to being a mostly solitary child during his education in a French primary school in Phnom Penh and a French high school in Ho Chi Minh City. He was still a quiet boy of 18 when he was selected as King, and he reportedly wept at the thought of ruling.
Chosen by the French administration for what they took as docility, he would end up playing a major role in ending French Indochina.
“The French chose me because they thought I was a little lamb,” Norodom Sihanouk once wrote. “Later they were surprised to discover that I was a tiger.”
On the death of King Monivong in 1941, Cambodia’s French administrator Admiral Decoux recommended the Cambodian prince, who was studying at a Ho Chi Minh City high school, as the King’s successor.
Numerous French documents of that era remain sealed today but, according to historians, the main reason for selecting Prince Sihanouk was that the prince seemed more malleable and less prone to independent action than other candidates.
France would have ample ground to regret that decision when the young King Sihanouk lobbied world press and leaders to force the French government’s hand and give the country independence in 1953.
The official explanation when he was selected would be that, as a descendent of both royal families—Norodom on his father’s side and Sisowath on his mother’s—choosing Prince Sihanouk would put an end to squabbles between the two competing families. So in October 1941, as war raged in Europe and Cambodia was under Japanese military control through a French administration loyal to Axis powers Germany and Japan, King Sihanouk acceded to the throne.
Thus began the reign of a man that Time magazine in 1999 called one of the most influential Asian leaders of the 20th century, a fascinating ruler and consummate politician whose actions—at times brilliant and often controversial—will be debated by historians and political analysts for decades to come.
Yet the King that Norodom Sihanouk was to become took time to emerge.
When France put him on the throne, nothing had prepared the young prince for this role, writes Mr. Chandler, the historian.
At first kept under strict control by the French, Norodom Sihanouk admitted that, prior to 1952, he was more concerned with female conquests than affairs of state. By the time he was 24 he would have six children; by 1954, he would have 13 children to five different women.
But he was also learning his trade as the nation’s leader, as he demonstrated after the adoption of Cambodia’s 1947 constitution and the 1951 national election.
In January 1953, King Sihanouk asked the National Assembly for special powers, saying that the country was in danger. Refused, he had troops surround the National Assembly building, dissolved the assembly, had about 10 politicians jailed and, holding full powers, concentrated on his “Royal Crusade for Independence” to fulfill the promise he had made to the country to gain Cambodia’s independence within three years.
“[Norodom] Sihanouk’s own sense of confidence and his unshakeable belief that he knew what was best for Cambodia was to be the hallmarks of his rule until his hold on Cambodian politics began to slip in the late 1960s,” historian Milton Osborne writes.
Pursuing his promise, he left for France in February 1953. Once there, he petitioned the French government for independence. But his plea was not taken seriously. After several high-level meetings including a luncheon with French President Vincent Auriol, he was finally told by the French commissioner for associated countries, Jean Letourneau, that his request was “inopportune.”
Rebuffed, he took to the world stage, traveling to the U.S., Canada and Japan to give interviews to muster support for independence. He was interviewed by the Canadian television network CBC in Montreal; The New York Times; and received editorial support in The Washington Post.
The French, wearied from waging a losing battle in their war with Vietnamese nationalists next door, agreed to talks for a peaceful transition to independence in Cambodia. On November 9, 1953, Norodom Sihanouk was able to declare independence for his country. Indochina dissolved the following year.
The young King Sihanouk, and now Father of Independence, had his own vision for Cambodia and was not satisfied to be a constitutional monarch. In 1955, he took the bold step of stepping down as King and, while his father acceded to the throne in his stead, entered the political arena by founding the political party Sangkum Reastr Niyum, which would hold power until 1970.
During those 15 years in power, Norodom Sihanouk embarked on an ambitious program that turned Phnom Penh into one of the most dynamic capitals in the region.
The period was the beginning of what many older Cambodians recall as a golden age. In the post-independence years, education blossomed with the construction of thousands of elementary schools. More than 1 million students received primary education, and nine universities were built for an estimated 10,000 students. New hospitals and clinics were constructed. Cambodia’s brilliant post-independence architects, such as Vann Molyvann, developed a distinctive style of architecture whose work still inspires to this day.
In 1961, war broke out between North and South Vietnam, and Norodom Sihanouk began a tightrope walk that kept Cambodia neutral for nine years.
“His most positive contribution to Cambodian history, I think, was to keep Cambodia out of the Vietnam War for as long as he did,” Mr. Chandler said.
As Sihanouk sought foreign support for his neutralist position, he became a leader within the Non-Aligned Movement of countries such as India, Egypt and Indonesia, which refused to take sides in the Cold War. And while Norodom Sihanouk became a hero of the international left, he also suppressed the growth of left-wing parties in his own country through surveillance and arrest.
At the same time, the 1960s were the heyday of the highlife for Phnom Penh’s elite, crowned by Norodom Sihanouk’s flamboyance.
Playing saxophone and clarinet, Prince Sihanouk would lead a band mostly composed of his fellow princes, which played into the early hours of the morning with a mix of 1930s swing, French pop and the prince’s own songs. Diplomats would sip vintage champagne and dance all night at the Royal Palace soirees, historian Mr. Osborne recalled.
Yet the Koh Santepheap, or “oasis of peace” as Cambodia was known during those years, also contained the seeds of the prince’s downfall. His unspoken policy of vanquishing his political opponents bred resentment.
After arrests of left-wing intellectuals and repression of their publications, leftists fled into the jungle, later to re-emerge as the deadly Khmer Rouge. Meanwhile, the universities produced well-educated graduates who had few job opportunities and who were angered by the corruption in the capital.
Neither backing the U.S. nor the Eastern bloc entirely, his political allegiance led some diplomats and commentators to view him as unreliable, while others saw his unpredictability as a strategy in itself.
“The key to understanding Sihanouk,” wrote Bernard Krisher, publisher of The Cambodia Daily and longtime friend of Norodom Sihanouk, “is that when you are the leader of a small and defenseless country in need of foreign aid, and when competing big powers will help only at the price of your joining their camp, then the only meaningful strategy is to be unpredictable—to play one side against the other and keep everybody guessing. It was a delicate art and Sihanouk was a master.”
But his high-stakes balancing act was not to last.
In 1970, as he was on a trip abroad, Norodom Sihanouk was ousted by the pro-U.S. Lon Nol government.
Told that he could stay in France as long as he remained out of politics and receiving a lukewarm reception in the U.S., he accepted China’s invitation to reside in Beijing and head the opposition movement to the Lon Nol regime that consisted of Khmer Rouge forces backed at the time by North Vietnam. In that capacity, Norodom Sihanouk launched on March 24, 1970, from Beijing a radio appeal to Cambodians to join the “maquis” guerrillas to fight the Lon Nol government and restore him to power.
By leading the movement, he had formed a strategic alliance with the Khmer Rouge insurgents who pledged to support him. Nonetheless, in 1973, he told a New York Times reporter of his fear that when the Khmer Rouge no longer needed him they would “spit him out.” Sure enough, soon after taking power in 1975, the Khmer Rouge imprisoned Norodom Sihanouk, Princess Monineath and Prince Norodom Sihamoni in his own palace in Phnom Penh. He was often in fear of execution during his stay in what he called his “gilded prison.” The Khmer Rouge eventually killed many members of his family who were still in Cambodia.
Just ahead of Vietnamese forces who toppled Pol Pot in January 1979, Norodom Sihanouk, Princess Monineath and Prince Sihamoni were put on a plane bound for Beijing.
The 1980s saw a protracted civil war between a tenuous alliance composed of Khmer Rouge, royalist and republican forces based on the Thai border and the Hanoi-backed government in Phnom Penh. But by 1987, as Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing policy that would lead to the end of the Cold War, Norodom Sihanouk began peace talks with Prime Minister Hun Sen.
As Cambodia’s most prominent and respected figures, Norodom Sihanouk was at the center of negotiations with the various factions to finally end the Cambodian conflict—one of the last hangovers from the Cold War. Reconciliation led to the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991, and Norodom Sihanouk returned from exile that year to Phnom Penh where he was greeted with a hero’s return. He rode together with Mr. Hun Sen in an open top limousine from Pochentong Airport to the Royal Palace.
The next year, the $2 billion U.N. Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) began its operation to bring peace, stability and democratic elections to the war-weary country. Though it failed to disarm the Khmer Rouge, UNTAC did usher in elections, which were won by the royalist Funcinpec party, chaired by Norodom Sihanouk’s son Prince Norodom Ranariddh.
During the 1993 elections, Norodom Sihanouk was determined to remain neutral. But he soon became associated with the Funcinpec party he had previously founded, and turned into the royalist party’s biggest asset, bringing it to victory.
After the defeated CPP threatened a return to civil war, Norodom Sihanouk took charge. Always pragmatic with a profound understanding of his people and politics, Norodom Sihanouk sealed a compromise to the relief of the U.N. and the world’s superpowers: The CPP and Funcinpec would share power with Prince Ranariddh acting as first prime minister and Mr. Hun Sen as second prime minister. This arranged marriage would end in armed combat in the streets of Phnom Penh in 1997.
In September 1993, 38 years after leaving the throne, Norodom Sihanouk was crowned King yet again. The new post-UNTAC Constitution assigned him ceremonial powers, specifying that he was to reign, but not rule.
Until his retirement in 2004, Norodom Sihanouk continued to appeal to the international community to support the country’s development. He also kept mediating conflicts among Cambodia’s various parties.
In 1993, he tried to broker an agreement between the new Cambodian government and the Khmer Rouge who had resumed fighting shortly after signing the Paris Peace Agreement and were controlling western portions of the country. He even suggested offering “acceptable” Khmer Rouge leaders government positions if they surrendered and gave up control over zones they were occupying. That offer, however, did not extend to Pol Pot, Ieng Sary, Nuon Chea or Ta Mok. As observers mentioned, Norodom Sihanouk believed that Khmer Rouge with government positions would be easier to control.
In a March 1994 message, he suggested a cease-fire and peace talks between government and Khmer Rouge leaders. Otherwise, the country could be in “mortal danger” of remaining in a state of perpetual war, he said. Peace talks did take place in June 1994 but failed to end the hostilities. On January 18, 1995, King Sihanouk made another appeal for national reconciliation and suggested to extend the government’s amnesty policy to Khmer Rouge defectors. The government announced 10 days later that it endorsed his suggestion except in the case of Pol Pot and Ta Mok, who would have to leave the country. This second attempt also failed.
With heavy fighting depleting the Cambodian army, the government contemplated conscription, a measure for which King Sihanouk strongly disapproved. Obligatory military service would cause social injustice because, he wrote in February 1996, “children from rich and powerful families would always find a way to escape [it].”
That same year, he spoke in favor of a Khmer Rouge war crimes tribunal, describing Pol Pot as a monster.
Regarding his granting of amnesty to Khmer Rouge leader Ieng Sary in September 1996, the late King explained that, even though he did not agree with it, he had to comply with the request of the government and the majority of the National Assembly who approved the move.
Shortly after the amnesty for Ieng Sary, he announced his intention of granting pardon to the largest possible number of prisoners on the occasion of his 74th birthday, saying that since he had given a free pass to a Khmer Rouge leader whose regime had caused the death of nearly 2 million people, he had to pardon those who had committed far less serious crimes.
It was only in December 1998 that the last Khmer Rouge forces would surrender and war in the country would finally end.
In 1999, Norodom Sihanouk criticized the Cambodian government for rejecting the concept of a joint war crimes tribunal dominated by U.N.-appointed judges and prosecutors which, he said, would not infringe on the country’s sovereignty as the government claimed.
The late King’s comments would often put him at odds with Mr. Hun Sen and, prior to his retirement, this would lead to him toning down his comments for a few weeks or months for the sake of good relations with the prime minister. Norodom Sihanouk’s old friend Ruom Rith, however, would often take over and continue to publicly voice criticism of the government.
In 2004, Norodom Sihanouk stepped down, which paved the way for his chosen heir and son, King Norodom Sihamoni, to be crowned King.
The King Father’s death marks the end of an era for Cambodia. An era that saw the country buffeted by the powerful forces of colonialism, the Cold War, civil war and genocide. It was an era unique in the scope and scale of the brutality and devastation suffered by a small country and its people.
In 1985, the French intellectual, Helene Cixous, wrote a play about Norodom Sihanouk that portrayed him as a tragic hero with the stature of a king in a William Shakespeare play. Upon seeing it, the King Father remarked that it was not he that should be portrayed as a tragic hero; it was all of Cambodia.
(Additional reporting by Rick Sine)
Sam Rainsy Seeks Return To Bid King Father Norodom Sihanouk Farewell
By Dene-Hern Chen and Chhorn Chansy - October 21, 2012
Opposition party leader Sam Rainsy has sent a request to Prime Minister Hun Sen and King Norodom Sihamoni asking for permission to return to Cambodia in order to pay his respects to the late King Father Norodom Sihanouk, who died October 15 in Beijing.
Currently in self-imposed exile in Paris—where he has now been for
three years—Mr. Rainsy wrote his request in two letters sent and
delivered October 18 to the Council of Ministers and King Sihamoni’s
cabinet.
“During this time of great sadness, I would like Samdech’s help and understanding to allow me to pay my respects to his soul and see the King Father’s face for the last time in Phnom Penh,” Mr. Rainsy wrote in the letter.
“I was very close to the King Father and I owe him a lot. So the least I could do is pay my last respects,” Mr. Rainsy said by telephone from Paris.
“I would be happy [to return], even for 24 hours,” he said.
Mr. Rainsy was sentenced in 2010 to a total of 12 years in prison on charges of incitement, disinformation and destruction of public property for removing a temporary border marker along the frontier with Vietnam. Although critics slammed the verdict for being politically motivated, Mr. Rainsy has remained abroad, often communicating with his supporters through video link.
He recently vowed that he would return to Cambodia in December to lead the national election campaign of the Cambodian National Rescue Party, a newly merged coalition between the Sam Rainsy Party and the Human Rights Party.
Prince Sisowath Thomico, chief of cabinet for the late Norodom Sihanouk, confirmed that King Sihamoni’s staff had received the letter, but admitted that it was not something the King could intervene on.
“There is an arrest warrant against Sam Rainsy. So if the King allows him to come and pay his respect to the King Father, then what about the arrest warrant? The King cannot decide this case,” Prince Thomico said.
“This is a decision from the royal government.”
Prince Thomico added that in the spirit of honoring Norodom Sihanouk, the government should consider issuing a blanket amnesty for all political prisoners, and under those circumstances, Mr. Rainsy could return without fear of arrest.
“King Sihanouk is a symbol of national reconciliation and I think it would be a good opportunity on this occasion for the government to grant an amnesty to all political prisoners,” Prince Thomico said. “This would be a great opportunity to show that the royal government is paying respects to the King Sihanouk.”
Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, referred questions to officials at Mr. Hun Sen’s Cabinet. Deputy chief of the prime minister’s Cabinet, Lim Leangse, declined to comment.
Mr. Rainsy was one of the first members of Funcinpec, the royalist party formed by Norodom Sihanouk when he was in Paris in 1981. Though he went on to become a Funcinpec minister of finance after the 1993 elections, Mr. Rainsy was subsequently expelled from the royalist party in 1994 after a disagreement with his party leader, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, and CPP leader Mr. Hun Sen, who were sharing the role of co-prime ministers at the time.
Mr. Rainsy said that any disagreements he had at the time with Prince Ranariddh and Funcinpec did not extend to the King Father.
“[Norodom Sihanouk] gave me a lot of advice when I was minister of finance—he encouraged me to stop corruption in government, and to stop deforestation,” Mr. Rainsy said by telephone from Paris.
Click to read related stories.
Opposition party leader Sam Rainsy has sent a request to Prime Minister Hun Sen and King Norodom Sihamoni asking for permission to return to Cambodia in order to pay his respects to the late King Father Norodom Sihanouk, who died October 15 in Beijing.
Mourners
offer incense near a photograph of King Father Norodom Sihanouk outside
the Royal Palace in Phnom Penh on Friday. (Lauren Crothers/The Cambodia
Daily)
“During this time of great sadness, I would like Samdech’s help and understanding to allow me to pay my respects to his soul and see the King Father’s face for the last time in Phnom Penh,” Mr. Rainsy wrote in the letter.
“I was very close to the King Father and I owe him a lot. So the least I could do is pay my last respects,” Mr. Rainsy said by telephone from Paris.
“I would be happy [to return], even for 24 hours,” he said.
Mr. Rainsy was sentenced in 2010 to a total of 12 years in prison on charges of incitement, disinformation and destruction of public property for removing a temporary border marker along the frontier with Vietnam. Although critics slammed the verdict for being politically motivated, Mr. Rainsy has remained abroad, often communicating with his supporters through video link.
He recently vowed that he would return to Cambodia in December to lead the national election campaign of the Cambodian National Rescue Party, a newly merged coalition between the Sam Rainsy Party and the Human Rights Party.
Prince Sisowath Thomico, chief of cabinet for the late Norodom Sihanouk, confirmed that King Sihamoni’s staff had received the letter, but admitted that it was not something the King could intervene on.
“There is an arrest warrant against Sam Rainsy. So if the King allows him to come and pay his respect to the King Father, then what about the arrest warrant? The King cannot decide this case,” Prince Thomico said.
“This is a decision from the royal government.”
Prince Thomico added that in the spirit of honoring Norodom Sihanouk, the government should consider issuing a blanket amnesty for all political prisoners, and under those circumstances, Mr. Rainsy could return without fear of arrest.
“King Sihanouk is a symbol of national reconciliation and I think it would be a good opportunity on this occasion for the government to grant an amnesty to all political prisoners,” Prince Thomico said. “This would be a great opportunity to show that the royal government is paying respects to the King Sihanouk.”
Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, referred questions to officials at Mr. Hun Sen’s Cabinet. Deputy chief of the prime minister’s Cabinet, Lim Leangse, declined to comment.
Mr. Rainsy was one of the first members of Funcinpec, the royalist party formed by Norodom Sihanouk when he was in Paris in 1981. Though he went on to become a Funcinpec minister of finance after the 1993 elections, Mr. Rainsy was subsequently expelled from the royalist party in 1994 after a disagreement with his party leader, Prince Norodom Ranariddh, and CPP leader Mr. Hun Sen, who were sharing the role of co-prime ministers at the time.
Mr. Rainsy said that any disagreements he had at the time with Prince Ranariddh and Funcinpec did not extend to the King Father.
“[Norodom Sihanouk] gave me a lot of advice when I was minister of finance—he encouraged me to stop corruption in government, and to stop deforestation,” Mr. Rainsy said by telephone from Paris.
Click to read related stories.
King Sihanouk the Uniter
- Friday, 19 October 2012
- David Boyle
- King Father Norodom Sihanouk speaks in 2011 at the Royal Palace. Photograph: Pha Lina/Phnom Penh Post
- An Enduring figure in a country marked by near-constant, often
tumultuous, change and perhaps the one person able to consistently
create a sense of national unity, the late King Father Norodom Sihanouk
leaves behind him questions over where Cambodia is headed following his
death.
As king and then prince, Sihanouk ruled his country like a father. Even once that hard power waned, in the hearts of the majority, he remained revered as the country’s last “god-king”.
But with his passing, many wonder about the future influence of the monarchy on Cambodian social and political life.
Political analyst Lao Mong Hay is worried that without a figure who held such “tremendous” moral authority amongst the public to act as a reconciler, the country could become divided.
“I think in our recent history, he is our greatest leader. Regarding his errors of judgment, they are in the past. Look, Lon Nol was nothing, Pol Pot was a disaster for us, even these days our leaders have not been able to unite the country,” he said.
“Without him around, perhaps we will become more and more polarised politically. And there is a risk of politics going extreme.”
Even as re-ascending to the throne in 1993 effectively ended his political ambitions, Sihanouk remained a figure whom Cambodia’s disparate political forces felt they had to both reconcile with and learn from.
“In terms of statecraft or rulership, I think that in Cambodia, he was the master, a great master. I've mentioned this to the King [Father], face-to-face, 'you are just a great guru and everyone should learn from you to learn statecraft or rulership from you.'”
Since Sihanouk abdicated for the second time, there have been concerns that the monarchy would quietly drift out of public relevance under the shadow of increasingly dominant and hostile political forces.
Yet of the masses who turned out Wednesday to pay their final respects as Sihanouk’s body was driven through the streets of Phnom Penh, one constant was the vast number of young people who turned out to mourn a monarch who hadn’t reigned since 2004 or wielded hard power since 1970.
Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia, believes the King Father’s passing will revitalise interest in the monarchy and serve to strengthen the moral fibre of the country as the public unites in paying their respects.
“I think we can look at it in a different way than as a weakness, but as a strength, as a respect, as a restoring of culture,” he said.
“This is something that perhaps others have failed to look at or failed to understand, that we also have the role to restore, because a lot of damage has been done by war and genocide and what King Sihamoni has done is to show respect to the father.”
In years to come, said Youk, young people will remember the momentous historical event they witnessed when the King Father’s body was repatriated, and reflect on how Sihanouk contended with the near-constant struggles that confronted him throughout his life.
Youk also said that King Norodom Sihamoni, who is perceived as a far more passive monarch than his father, should be spared unfair comparisons to Sihanouk and accepted as a king that has to develop his own, unique way of reigning.
Political analyst Son Soubert, who is also an adviser to King Sihamoni, said it remains to be seen whether the King will take a stronger and more vocal role in Cambodia’s political affairs now that his father has passed, but, regardless of the path he chooses, he does not expect the country to become more polarised.
Soubert did not expect the passing of Sihanouk to radically change the way people thought of the Kingdom’s monarchy, either by sparking a royal revival or causing a feeling of disconnection from the palace.
“I don’t think people have lost any interest in the [monarchy]. We saw that in the crowds of people in the street,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Boyle at david.boyle@phnompenhpost.com
With assistance from Shane Worrell
Norodom Sihanouk Norodom Sihanouk, ruler of Cambodia, died on October 15th, aged 89
IN THE days before Norodom Sihanouk, then 18, succeeded to the throne, a gust put out the sacred candles lit in the palace to mark the event. Courtiers tried to conceal the bad omen, but Sihanouk heard of it. At his coronation in October 1941, a God-King with a crown as tall as a temple, people thought he looked uneasy.
If so, it was not about that. Sihanouk—as he always called himself, in the third person—was shocked that the French, Cambodia’s colonial rulers, had chosen him as king. He was disturbed, too, that they expected him to be a figurehead like his father, pliant and cuddly, a little lamb. True, he stayed giggly all his life, with a penchant for making films, playing saxophone, fast cars and pretty women. Elvis might have played him, he thought. When excited, betraying his French education, he would cry “Ooh la la!” in his high child’s voice. But underneath he was a tiger.
“National dignity” was his motto. By that, he meant proper independence for “my Cambodia”. It began with independence for himself, breaking out from the stifling, insulating halls of the palace to tour among the peasants. Muddy ricefield salutations to “Papa King” gave him his taste for active politics. In an Indo-China roiled by post-colonial disputes and the shoving of the great powers, he wanted a dignified neutrality, and spent his career struggling to achieve it. On the one hand, he tried to stem the revolutionary communism seeping over the border from Vietnam; on the other he rebuffed attempts by America to make Cambodia its puppet.
An accomplished charmer, he made friends with anybody who looked useful: China’s Zhou Enlai, India’s Nehru, Indonesia’s Sukarno, North Korea’s Kim Il Sung. He made allies even of the Khmers Rouges who destroyed his country. He also played, at his royal whim, whichever role seemed most effective: king, prime minister, or humble Khmer citizen-prince in pyjamas, cap and scarf. As a result, he survived to croon his love songs into elegant old age.
Throwing off his handlers took time and guile. For his first “royal crusade”, ejecting the French, he travelled secretly to Paris in 1953 to petition for independence. Rebuffed there, he went on to Canada, the United States and Japan, genially lifting Cambodia out of its obscurity. When the French, besieged in the region, eventually gave in, his old cavalry instructor from Saumur remarked: “Sire, you have whipped me.” It was a pleasing moment.
Yet he still seemed cast as a figurehead in his newly freed country—a fate tantamount, he said, to keeping Charles de Gaulle on the sidelines after the general had freed France. So he moved pre-emptively, renouncing the throne in 1955 to run in Cambodia’s first elections. Royal powers came in useful to suppress opposition parties, especially the newly formed Democrats. The peasants rallied round him, and he became prime minister.
His country, he proclaimed to the world, was moderate and modernising: new hospitals, new schools. It was neither communist nor capitalist, but “Buddhist socialist” with a feudal flavour. While neighbouring Vietnam and Laos plunged into civil war, Cambodia remained his green “oasis of peace” in which visiting dignitaries were regaled with fine French wine and musical numbers by the king himself. He was indifferent to the poverty of the countryside, the corruption of his officials and the spread of communist cells; his peasants he saw as disobedient children who needed to be put in their place. After one revolt, the heads of villagers were displayed in the capital on spikes.
Meanwhile, his diplomatic neutrality was cracking too. As Vietcong in their thousands sought sanctuary from American firepower in the jungles of eastern Cambodia, he let them stay—and in 1970 his generals, with American backing, organised a putsch against him. Outraged at this treachery, he threw his support behind Cambodia’s communists (“Khmers Rouges”, in his dismissive phrase), giving them legitimacy at a stroke. In 1975 they seized power. Sihanouk, now immured in his palace under house arrest, became a symbol again: a useful man to make occasional smiling tours of the collective farms while a quarter of the population perished. Five of his own children, out of 14 by several women, were killed, as he waited for the Khmers Rouges to “spit him out like a cherry pit”. They never did.
Croissants in Beijing
When Vietnamese forces toppled the Khmers Rouges in 1979, he fled into exile. His old friends, the Chinese and North Koreans, both sheltered him. In Pyongyang he had the run of a 60-room palace; in Beijing he feasted with Deng Xiaoping on croissants fresh from Paris. After the Vietnamese had left Cambodia and the UN had brokered peace, he returned in 1991 with a squad of North Korean bodyguards, convinced his rapturous people would want him to rule again.
They did, but as the figurehead he had never wanted to be. “Papa King” was now checked by a strongman, Hun Sen. From the sidelines, he chattered on. Even after his abdication in 2004 he ran a blog to instruct his people, and an online commentary in French on how the country was doing; and on his website the black-and-white slideshow of his reign went on flickering back and forth, until the fade.
From the print edition | Obituary (Source: The Economist)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)