Sam Rany, Ph.D.

Monday, 8 July 2013

បទវិភាគ៖ តើបក្សកាន់អំណាចអាចរក្សាអាសនៈសភា៩០កៅអីបានឬទេ?

ដោយ វណ្ណ វិចារ

ចាប់ពីបោះឆ្នោតឆ្នាំ១៩៩៣ មក គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា បានចូលរួមដឹកនាំរដ្ឋាភិបាលអស់ ៤អាណត្តិទៅហើយ បើទោះបីបក្សនេះចាញ់ឆ្នោតកាលពីការបោះឆ្នោតលើកដំបូងក្ដី។ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា កើនអាសនៈជាលំដាប់ពី ៦៦ នៅឆ្នាំ១៩៩៨ បន្ទាប់មក ៧២ នៅឆ្នាំ២០០៣ និងរហូតដល់ ៩០អាសនៈ នៅឆ្នាំ២០០៨។

តើនៅក្នុងការបោះឆ្នោតជ្រើសតាំងតំណាងរាស្ត្រអាណត្តិទី៥ នៅឆ្នាំ២០១៣ នេះគណបក្សកាន់អំណាចអាចបង្កើនចំនួនអាសនៈជាបន្តទៀត ឬយ៉ាងណា?

ធាតុពិតការកើនឡើងនៃចំនួនអាសនៈសភារបស់គណបក្សកាន់អំណាច មិនមែនបានមកដោយការប្រជែងផ្នែកផ្សព្វផ្សាយគោលនយោបាយឡើយ តែជាលទ្ធផលដែលបានមកពីការប៉ែងជើងគូប្រជែង ឬដៃគូរដ្ឋាភិបាលចម្រុះ គឺគណបក្សហ្វ៊ុនស៊ិនប៉ិចប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ គណបក្សកាន់អំណាច មិនអាចទាញសំឡេងឆ្នោតពីបក្សប្រឆាំងបានទេ ដោយសារតែបក្សប្រឆាំងក៏កើនសំឡេងគាំទ្រដែរ ពីមួយអាណត្តិទៅមួយអាណត្តិ។

គេនៅចាំបានថា កាលពីការបោះឆ្នោតឆ្នាំ១៩៩៨ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា យកឈ្នះគណបក្សហ្វ៊ុនស៊ិនប៉ិចបាន ដោយសារហ្វ៊ុនស៊ិនប៉ិច បែករង្គោះរង្គើ និងចាញ់ការប្រយុទ្ធបង្ហូរឈាមកណ្តាលទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញ ក្នុងព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ថ្ងៃទី៥ ទី៦ ខែកក្កដា ឆ្នាំ១៩៩៧។

មន្ត្រីគណបក្សហ្វ៊ុនស៊ិនប៉ិច មួយចំនួន បានស្លាប់ ហើយខ្លះទៀតក៏ចុះចូលនឹងគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា អមទៅដោយអ្នកគាំទ្រទៅជាមួយផង។ មិនតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ក៏បានទទួលឥស្សរជនមួយចំនួនពីគណបក្សសេរីនិយមព្រះពុទ្ធសាសនារបស់ លោក សឺន សាន ដែរ។

កាលឆ្នាំនោះដែរ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន មានប្រជាប្រិយភាពខ្លាំង ដោយសារបង្កើតនយោបាយ ឈ្នះ ឈ្នះ នាំខ្មែរក្រហមចូលស្រុក និងបានមេដាយសន្តិភាពជាលើកដំបូង ការសាងសង់សាលារៀនស្ទើរគ្រប់ទីកន្លែងជាដើម។ រីឯគូប្រកួតរបស់លោក ហ៊ុន សែន កាលនោះ គឺសម្ដេចក្រុមព្រះ នរោត្តម រណឫទ្ធិ ហាក់មិនសូវមានប្រជាប្រិយភាព និងថ្វីមាត់ដូចលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ឡើយ។

លុះដល់ឆ្នាំ២០០៣ គូប្រជែងរបស់គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា នៅតែជាគណបក្សហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច ដដែល។ ហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច កាលនោះចុះខ្សោយចាញ់គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ដោយសារតែវិបត្តិជម្លោះផ្ទៃក្នុង។ មន្ត្រីធំៗ មានឥទ្ធិពលមួយចំនួន បានចុះចូលគណបក្សប្រឆាំង សម រង្ស៉ី និងអ្នកខ្លះបន្តចូលគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ទាំងចំហ និងសម្ងាត់។ អ្នកបោះឆ្នោតក៏បែកសំឡេង អ្នកខ្លះបោះឆ្នោតឲ្យគណបក្ស សម រង្ស៉ី អ្នកខ្លះបន្តបោះឆ្នោតឲ្យហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច និងអ្នកខ្លះទៀត បោះឆ្នោតឲ្យគណបក្សប្រជាជន។

កាលនោះបើគណបក្សហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច រួមបញ្ចូលគ្នានឹងគណបក្ស សម រង្ស៉ី ក៏គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា មិនអាចបានកៅអីសភាដល់ទៅ ៧២អាសនៈដែរ នេះបើផ្អែកតាមរូបមន្តបែងចែកអាសនៈសភា។ អ្នកបោះឆ្នោតកាលពីឆ្នាំ២០០៣ ក៏មើលមិនសូវឃើញពីចំណុចអវិជ្ជមានរបស់មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាល ដែលដឹកនាំដោយគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជាទេ។

រហូតដល់ឆ្នាំ២០០៨ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ឈ្នះឆ្នោតគគ្រឹកគគ្រេងសំបើមណាស់។ ការឈ្នះឆ្នោតនេះ មិនមែនជារឿងចៃដន្យទេ តែជាសន្លឹកឆ្នោតដ៏ច្រើនសន្ធឹកដែលបានមកពីការបែកបាក់គណបក្ស ហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច ជាពីរ។ ម្ខាងជាគណបក្សជាតិនិយមដឹកនាំដោយសម្រេចក្រុមព្រះ នរោត្តម រណឫទ្ធិ និងម្ខាងទៀតជាគណបក្សហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច ដែលដឹកនាំដោយលោក ញឹក ប៊ុនឆៃ។

នៅឆ្នាំ២០០៨ នោះ លោក កឹម សុខា ដែលធ្លាប់កាន់ការជាអ្នកតំណាងរាស្ត្រគណបក្សសេរីនិយមព្រះពុទ្ធ សាសនារបស់លោក សឺន សាន នោះ ក៏ឆ្លៀតឱកាសបង្កើតគណបក្សសិទ្ធិមនុស្សបានចំណេញ ៣កៅអីនឹងគេដែរ។ ឆ្នាំ២០០៨ ក៏ជាឆ្នាំដែលសេដ្ឋកិច្ចឡើងខ្ពស់ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន ក៏ប្រើយុទ្ធសាស្ត្ររុញទូកបណ្ដោយទឹក ថ្លែងថា លោកគ្រប់គ្រងបានល្អ បោះឆ្នោតឲ្យគណបក្សប្រជាជន ដីនៅតែឡើងថ្លៃជាដើម។ ម្យ៉ាង ថៃលើកទ័ពចូលប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ ជាមូលហេតុមួយនាំពលរដ្ឋបោះឆ្នោតឲ្យលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ដែរ។ ម្ចាស់ឆ្នោតភាគច្រើនជឿថា ក្នុងចំណោមបេក្ខជននាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រីពីគណបក្សធំៗ មានតែលោក ហ៊ុន សែន ទេ ដែលមានជំនាញប្រើទ័ព និងថ្នឹកខាងចម្បាំងដែលអាចរំដោះប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ ពីការឈ្លានពានរបស់កងទ័ពថៃបាន។

ចំណែកនៅឆ្នាំ២០១៣ នេះ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា ទំនងដូចជាមិនបានបញ្ចេញឥទ្ធិពលណាមួយលេចធ្លោ ដែលអាចឲ្យចំនួនអ្នកបោះឆ្នោតកើនឡើងសោះឡើយ។ មួយអាណត្តិចុងក្រោយនេះ គណបក្សកាន់អំណាច បានធ្វេសប្រហែសលើបញ្ហាមួយចំនួន ដូចជាការហុចដងដាវឲ្យបក្សប្រឆាំងកាប់ផ្ទួនៗ។ ប្រការទាំងនេះ មានជាអាទិ៍ ការផ្ដល់ដីសម្បទាន បង្កើតជាទំនាស់ដីធ្លីគ្រប់ទីកន្លែងមិនទាន់មានដំណោះស្រាយសមរម្យ អ្នកតវ៉ាដីធ្លីត្រូវបានបង្ក្រាបដោយហិង្សាពីសំណាក់សមត្ថកិច្ច។ មនុស្សស្លាប់ជាង ៣០០នាក់ នៅកោះពេជ្រ ដោយមិនមានអ្នកទទួលខុសត្រូវ។

អំពើអយុត្តិធម៌សង្គម ឧទាហរណ៍ករណីអ្នកស្រី យ៉ោម បុប្ផា និងករណីលោក ឈូក បណ្ឌិត ដែលបានបាញ់ប្រហារកម្មករនៅបាវិត។ ករណីចាប់ខ្លួនលោក ម៉ម សូណង់ដូ ដាក់គុកជាដើម។ ក្នុងនោះសង្គមស៊ីវិលរកឃើញថា ម្ចាស់ដីធ្លីនិងសកម្មជនការពារសិទ្ធិមនុស្សជិត ៥០០នាក់ ត្រូវបានតុលាការចោទប្រកាន់ដោយអយុត្តិធម៌។

ម្យ៉ាងវិញទៀត ការរីកចំរើននៃបច្ចេកវិទ្យាក៏ជាមូលហេតុដែលនាំឲ្យគណបក្សកាន់ អំណាចធ្លាក់ប្រជាប្រិយភាពដែរ។ អ្នកប្រើអ៊ីនធឺណិត ដែលមាននិន្នាការប្រឆាំងរដ្ឋាភិបាល ក៏បានគាស់កកាយរូបភាពរឿងរ៉ាវសកម្មផ្សេងៗផ្សព្វផ្សាយកាន់តែច្រើន ឡើង។

ព្រឹត្តិការណ៍ដែលឆក់យកបេះដូងយុវវ័យឲ្យគិតថា រដ្ឋាភិបាលដែលនាំដោយគណបក្សប្រជាជនមិនល្អច្រើននោះ រួមមានអាជ្ញាធរបង្ក្រាបអ្នកតវ៉ាយ៉ាងព្រៃផ្សៃ ព្រឹត្តិការណ៍បាញ់ប្រហារគ្នាថ្ងៃទី៥-៦ កក្កដា ព្រឹត្តិការណ៍វាយបង្ក្រាបហ្វូងបាតុករ រួមទាំងវាយសំពងលើព្រះសង្ឃកាលពីឆ្នាំ១៩៩៨ ។ល។

ក្រៅពីនោះ អំពើពុករលួយក៏ជាមូលហេតុចម្បងដែលនាំឲ្យគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា បាត់បង់ជំនឿចិត្តពីសាធារណជនដែរ។ បើតាមតួលេខស្រាវជ្រាវ កម្ពុជានៅតែជាប់ជាប្រទេសមានអំពើពុករលួយលំដាប់លេខរៀងទី១៥៧ ក្នុងចំណោមប្រទេសជាង ១៧០ ទូទាំងពិភពលោក។ គ្រាន់តែភ្ញាក់ពីដេកក្រឡេកមើលផ្លូវថ្នល់ដែលសង់មិនបានមួយឆ្នាំ ឡើងរលួយវល់នោះ ក៏គេគិតថា ពុករលួយបាត់ហើយ គេមិនចាំបាច់គិតដល់ជីវភាពដ៏ធូរធាររបស់មន្ត្រីធំៗ ដែលជិះឡានទំនើប ចាយវាយសុទ្ធតែ ដុល្លារ តែប្រាក់ខែត្រឹមមួយលានពីរលានរៀលនោះទេ។

ទន្ទឹមនឹងនោះការរឹងមាំនៃកម្លាំងប្រមូលផ្តុំរបស់គណបក្ស ប្រឆាំង ក៏ជាមូលហេតុនាំឲ្យបក្សកាន់អំណាចចុះអន់ថយដែរ។ បក្សប្រឆាំងបានបង្ហាញគោលនយោបាយ ៧ចំណុច គួរឲ្យទាក់ទាញសម្រាប់អ្នកក្រ និងមន្ត្រីរាជការដែលមានប្រាក់ខែទាប និងមិនមានឱកាសប្រព្រឹត្តពុករលួយ។ ចង់មិនចង់កម្លាំងប៉ូលិស ទាហាន គ្រូបង្រៀន ដែលមានប្រាក់ខែចាយ សល់ថ្ងៃផងនោះ ក៏គង់គិតថា តើគាត់គួរយកប្រាក់ខែច្រើន ឬធ្វើការក្រោមឥទ្ធិពលអំពើពុករលួយតទៅទៀត?

កាលពីពេលបោះឆ្នោតមុនៗ ឲ្យតែជិតដល់ពេលឃោសនាគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា តែងប្រារព្ធពិធីបញ្ចូលសមាជិកបក្សថ្មី កន្លែងខ្លះបញ្ចូលរហូតដល់រាប់ពាន់នាក់ តែឥឡូវហាក់ដូចជាស្ងាត់ទៅវិញ។មួយវិញទៀត គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា មិនបានបង្ហាញគោលនយោបាយ ឬកម្មវិធីកំណែទម្រង់ណាថ្មីប្លែក គួរជាទីទាក់ទាញម្ចាស់ឆ្នោតទេ។ ពលរដ្ឋភាគច្រើនចង់បានតុលាការយុត្តិធម៌ ចង់បានការងារធ្វើសមរម្យអ្នកធ្វើការងាររដ្ឋចង់បានប្រាក់ហូប ឆ្អែតជាដើម។

តែគណបក្សកាន់អំណាចឃោសនាតែរឿងដដែល ដូចជាការលើកសរសើរសមិទ្ធផលដែលធ្វើរួច មានស្ពាន ផ្លូវ សាលារៀនជាដើម។ គណបក្សប្រជាជនប្រហែលជាភ្លេចគិតហើយមើលទៅថា សមិទ្ធផលដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលសាងសង់មួយចំនួនមិនសូវមានគុណភាពនោះឡើយ។

ទោះយ៉ាងណាក៏ដោយ បក្សកាន់អំណាចបានលេងល្បិចជាច្រើន ដូចជាការចាក់បំបែកមេបក្សប្រឆាំង សម រង្ស៉ី និងលោក កឹម សុខា តាមរយៈអាយ៉ៃឆ្លើយឆ្លង។ ការបង្កើតច្បាប់ប្រឆាំងអ្នកដែលមិនទទួលស្គាល់របបខ្មែរក្រហម។ បាតុកម្មប្រឆាំងលោក កឹម សុខា ដែលដឹកនាំដោយអ្នកគាំទ្រគណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា លោក ជុំ ម៉ី ព្រមទាំងបណ្ដឹងពីរប្រឆាំងលោក កឹម សុខា ដែលមជ្ឈដ្ឋានមួយចំនួនចាត់ទុកថា ជារឿងនយោបាយ។ ប៉ុន្តែបក្សប្រឆាំងនៅតែដើរឆ្ពោះទៅមុខមិនថយក្រោយ ទេ។

នៅដំណាក់កាលឃោសនាបោះឆ្នោតនេះ គណបក្សកាន់អំណាចបានបញ្ជាឲ្យរដ្ឋមន្ត្រីស្ដីទីក្រសួងព័ត៌មាន ចេញលិខិតមួយហាមឃាត់ មិនឲ្យវិទ្យុ FM ក្នុងស្រុកផ្សាយបន្តនូវកម្មវិធីផ្សាយរបស់វិទ្យុអន្តរជាតិទេ។ បម្រាមនេះ ធ្វើឲ្យមានការខឹងសម្បាយ៉ាងខ្លាំងពីស្រទាប់មហាជនទូទៅអ្នកកាន់ ជើងបក្សប្រឆាំង និងអ្នកកាន់ជើងបក្សកាន់អំណាចរហូតដល់អ្នកខ្លះចង់ធ្វើបាតុកម្ម ថែមទៀត។ ស្របគ្នានោះ សង្គមស៊ីវិលជាតិ និងអន្តរជាតិ ព្រមទាំងសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិកផងនោះ ក៏ផ្ទុះប្រតិកម្មដៀលថា រាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលជាន់ឈ្លីរដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ និងរំលោភបំពានសិទ្ធិពលរដ្ឋដែរ។ ដោយឃើញសភាពការណ៍មិនស្រួល ក្រសួងព័ត៌មានក៏ចេញលិខិតមួយលុបចោលបម្រាមនេះយ៉ាងតក់ក្រហល់ដែរ។ តាមរយៈ បម្រាមរបស់ក្រសួងព័ត៌មាននេះ ក៏កាន់តែធ្វើឲ្យបក្សប្រឆាំងកើនប្រជាប្រិយភាពថែមទៀត។

មូលហេតុចុងក្រោយមួយទៀត គឺការរួមបញ្ចូលគ្នារបស់គណបក្សរាជានិយមហ៊្វុនស៊ិនប៉ិច និងបក្សជាតិនិយម ការរួមបញ្ចូលគ្នារវាងគណបក្ស សម រង្ស៉ី និងគណបក្សសិទ្ធិមនុស្សនោះ ក៏ត្រូវបានសង្គមស៊ីវិលបញ្ជាក់ថា ចំនួនអាសនៈសភារបស់គណបក្សទាំងនោះ មានការកើនឡើង ដោយផ្អែកតាមរូបមន្តគណនារកកៅអីសភាដែរ។

ប្រការទាំងអស់នេះហើយ ដែលធ្វើឲ្យគេពិបាកជឿជាក់ថា គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា នឹងឈ្នះឆ្នោតរហូតដល់ ៩០កៅអី ដូចអាណត្តិមុនណាស់។ តែគណបក្សកាន់អំណាច ទំនងជានឹងឈ្នះឆ្នោតដដែល ហើយមិនច្រើនទេ គឺអាចប្រដំប្រសងគ្នានឹងបក្សប្រឆាំងប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ម្យ៉ាងទៀត បើសិនជាមិនមានការកែទម្រង់នយោបាយក្រសោបចិត្តរាស្ត្រឲ្យបានទេ នោះ គណបក្សប្រជាជនកម្ពុជា អាចនឹងបាត់បង់អំណាចនៅអាណត្តិបន្ទាប់ក៏អាចថាបាន៕

Monday, 24 June 2013

In Search of Votes, CNRP Turns to Youth and Beauty

By Alex Willemyns - June 24, 2013

Lacking the funds and an expansive network of volunteers the ruling CPP has behind its well-oiled election campaign, the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) is turning to a resource it now boasts in increasingly large numbers: young women.

On Thursday, as the CNRP ramped up preparations for July’s national election, young volunteers flocked to the party’s headquarters in Phnom Penh. Among them were fashionable women who were frantically assembling party-branded flags.

Volunteers prepare promotional flags bearing the logo of the Cambodia National Rescue Party at the party’s headquarters in Phnom Penh, in this photo released online by a campaigner on Thursday.

As they sat hard at work, a party member took photographs of them and before long had posted a collage of images to a popular CNRP-affiliated Facebook page.

“We are women ready for the rescue of the Khmer nation this July 28, 2013. And you, are you ready for the nation’s rescue yet?” read a message alongside the image, which showed young women clad in CNRP clothing and memorabilia.

The photo, which carried the caption, “It is known that the young National Rescue girls are beautiful and gentle when you meet them,” has received more than 700 “likes” on Facebook and has been shared more than 135 times on the social networking site.

With elections now just over a month away, the CNRP is hoping to gain some leverage from integrating young, smart—and attractive—women into its campaign. In a country where more than half the population is below the age of 30, the CNRP is also trying to compete with the ruling party’s own hugely successful youth movement.

CNRP Phnom Penh campaign director Ly Sovichea, who posted the images of the CNRP’s latest female recruits last week, said since the post went online the party had drawn a substantial number of new recruits to its campaign.

“A beautiful woman, she always has a lot of friends—especially boys— studying with her. And I told them: ‘You have to bring your friends to come to join us, okay?” said Mr. Sovichea, adding that since his post went up on Thursday the party had seen roughly 200 young male members join the party as volunteers.

In a country where more than half the population is below the age of 30, the CNRP is also trying to compete with the ruling party’s own hugely successful youth movement.

CNRP Phnom Penh campaign director Ly Sovichea, who posted the images of the CNRP’s latest female recruits last week, said that since the post went online the party had drawn a substantial number of new recruits to its campaign.

“A beautiful woman, she always has a lot of friends—especially boys—studying with her. And I told them: ‘You have to bring your friends to come to join us, okay?” said Mr. Sovichea, adding that since his post went up on Thursday, the party had seen roughly 200 young male members join as volunteers.

On Saturday, the CNRP’s headquarters was a site of industriousness, with young men hard at work cutting and stripping bamboo poles in the building’s basement, while upstairs, groups of professionally-dressed young men and women painstakingly nailed policy posters to the bamboo.

The volunteers stopped only to smack each other playfully with the campaign materials, collect drink orders delivered from a nearby restaurant, and pose as Mr. Sovichea took more photos with his smartphone.

While attracting more men to the cause is one benefit of promoting young, female party members, CNRP candidate Mu Sochua, who was Cambodia’s Minister of Women’s Affairs between 1998 and 2004, said such campaigning was also part of an effort to empower young women throughout the country.

“Usually it takes a lot more for women to come out and campaign, so when the men see them engaged, they…come out too,” she said. “Usually, it is the other way around,” with men driving election campaigns, “but now with social media, women can come out without being afraid.”

Ms. Sochua also noted the opposition’s work during last year’s commune elections, when the opposition SRP attempted to mobilize more young people in its campaign and saw an unprecedented increase in young women coming to join the party.

“Young women, when they campaign, she will take the party’s message serious…. She will work 10 to 12 hours a day,” Ms. Sochua said.

In one of the photos posted online is 18-year-old high school student Thy Vantha.

She said that she was more than happy to be photographed campaigning if it meant she was helping attract new members to the party.

“Sometimes they post my photograph on Facebook, and then more people come because they see that I am not afraid,” Ms. Vantha said Friday. “They see I am only a high school student, but even I am not afraid.”

“I think they see that I am young, and I am brave to come here to help, so they have to take their time and show that they are brave,” she added.

Kim Sophea, secretary of the CNRP’s executive campaign committee, said showing pictures of young, female party members was less about attracting male voters and more about highlighting the general appeal of the party to the country’s youth.

“Some people, especially the men, they say: ‘Wow, they are very beautiful ladies. Pretty ladies go with the CNRP. Should we go and see those ladies in the headquarters?’” he explained. “The main thing is that the youth are willing,” to join the CNRP, he added.

Branom Kalyaney, a first-year university student who is also involved in the CNRP’s campaign preparations, signed up one of her friends to the opposition party on Saturday.

“I think if we have more women, then men want to join,” she said.

The push to promote young women within the opposition’s campaign has not gone without criticism. According to Mr. Sovichea, the party campaigner, the CNRP’s Phnom Penh campaign director has already been accused by CPP members of using underhanded methods, and even of paying young women to turn up at the CNRP’s campaign headquarters.

The strategy does not appear unique to the CNRP, with a Facbook page attributed to the Phnom Penh branch of the CPP-affiliated Union of Youth Federations of Cambodia also displaying photographs of its events attended in large numbers by young women.

However, Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan said Sunday that the posting of such images was not a strategy of the CPP, and any photos on Facebook of attractive women attending party-sponsored events were the result of its young members’ choices.

“It’s not in the guidelines of the party. We don’t work for young and beauty, we work for youth and principle,” he said.

Mr. Siphan said that he was not worried that pictures of attractive women campaigning for the CNRP might steal young members away from the CPP, as the majority of the country’s young people simply do not approve of such tactics.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to have young pretty girls to promote the party,” he said. “It doesn’t help that party [the CNRP] because the youth of Cambodia is still very conservative. On Facebook, the youth always raise the national issues, they don’t go on how people look.”

Hun Sen Says Change Is a Dangerous Game

By Kuch Naren - June 22, 2013

You may have to flee your homes. That was the latest pre-election warning message from Prime Minister Hun Sen to the people of Banteay Meanchey province on Friday, where he once again raised the specter of a near-apocalyptic scenario should he not be re-elected on July 28.

Continuing his slew of public speeches peppered with warnings of civil war and near societal collapse should his long-ruling CPP be defeated in the election, Mr. Hun Sen had a simpler yet no less ominous message for the public: “Change is not a game.”

“Voting for the CPP means you are voting for yourself: Voting for peace, political stability and development for yourself,” in terms of roads, schools, hospitals and pagodas, Mr. Hun Sen said.

To vote for someone else, he added, is to gamble with the possibility of receiving such infrastructure, and it might even mean that people “face fleeing.”

The prime minister did not explain what the public might have to flee from, but presented a history lesson of the dangers of changing leaders in Cambodia; a lesson that ultimately focused on the rise of the Khmer Rouge and mass killing in Cambodia.

“Change is not a game,” Mr. Hun Sen said. “After changing Lon Nol to the Pol Pot regime, the genocide occurred,” he said.

He also warned the public to treat the national election with more importance than last year’s commune election, which had no impact on political parties—only local government services, he said.

“Voting in the upcoming election is to vote for political parties and for the prime minister’s position, which involves the turning upside down of domestic and international policies, which could mean destruction,” he said.

Addressing an audience of thousands who turned out for his speech in Poipet City at the inauguration of a new road, Mr. Hun Sen implored the public to return him to office.

“In the near future, we hope people will again vote for the Cambodian People’s Party,” he said, noting that 67.7 percent of the voters in Banteay Meanchey voted for the ruling party at last year’s commune election.

“So, I would like to appeal to people, if they have seen the correct leadership policy of the Cambodian People’s Party, and my right leadership…if you love, like and sympathize…and trust Hun Sen, vote for the Cambodian People’s Party.”

Yem Ponhearith, spokesman for the Cambodia National Rescue Party, the main election challenger to the CPP, said Mr. Hun Sen’s constant reference to war and instability should there be an election upset amounted to psychological pressure on voters.

“Change is not bad. Why don’t they look at change after elections in Thailand, the United States, France, Singapore and so on? It doesn’t bring instability and chaos for countries,” Mr. Ponhearith said.

Changing the leadership to improve development in the country should be done freely and fairly, he added.

Mr. Hun Sen on Friday also said that he expected more votes in Banteay Meanchey thanks to his student volunteer land-titling project, which had distributed 23,186 individual titles to 13,718 families covering more than 44,000 hectares of land.

Congratulating himself on bringing peace and development to border regions in Banteay Meanchey, including a $72 million road linking the cities of Poipet, Battambang and Pailin, Mr. Hun Sen said that such success depended on political stability.

“Development cannot be started with the instability or war. [We] will try to protect the peace and political stability that we have struggled hard to achieve,” he said.

UNITED STATES Affirmative threat to private-sector admissions

John Aubrey Douglass22 June 2013 Issue No:277

Once again, the United States Supreme Court will soon pass judgment on affirmative action as a factor in admissions in America’s most selective universities and colleges.

As in previous cases, a Euro-American student filed a lawsuit against a highly selective public university, in this case the University of Texas at Austin (UT). The plaintiff, Abigail Noel Fisher, claims overt racial discrimination when UT rejected her freshman application in 2008.

Her lawyers filed the case that same year, and it wound its way to a district court where Texas prevailed. Fisher appealed and the Supreme Court decided to review the case and began deliberations last October. This court is decidedly more conservative than in the past and seemingly more sympathetic to simply ending affirmative action.

There has been much attention on one or two perceived swing voters. Because Justice Kagan recused herself due to her former position as US solicitor general, which generated an earlier brief in support of UT in the case, eight of the nine justices will decide the case.

A four-to-four vote, a real possibility, leaves the lower court's decision in the case intact and binding – in this case, the ruling in favour of UT.

With Kagan out of the mix, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, it seems, would vote in favour of Fisher’s argument.

Most pundits assume that Justice Kennedy will decide the case. In earlier decisions, Kennedy has seemingly supported narrowly tailored race-conscious admissions policies. But he voted on the minority side in one earlier case, arguing that the University of Michigan’s law school had used “numerical goals indistinguishable from quotas”.

Kennedy indicated his predilections in his give-and-take with UT’s lawyers when he questioned the inclusion of upper-income African Americans and Hispanics as meeting affirmative action racial criteria.

Others suggest that Kennedy might reject UT’s particular use of race, specifically the seeming favouritism towards upper-income minorities, but uphold the basic tenets of 1978 Bakke and 2003 Grutter decisions that race could be one factor among many in admissions decisions.

We will see whether Kennedy’s views will ultimately decide the case, or if we are surprised once again – as we were in the Obamacare law ruling – by Chief Justice John G Roberts.

Ivy league

There may be another factor that will influence the justices’ decision.

All of the court’s justices are products of Eastern elite private educations – each with law degrees either from Harvard or Yale. How the case might ultimately influence or, to be more exact, interfere in the admissions decisions of the Ivy League and similar institutions, may emerge as a concern for one or more of the conservative block of justices.

Thus far, selective private colleges and universities have avoided scrutiny in their admissions practices. They have rarely been open about how they make their decisions.

Most private institutions, for example, have policies that favour children of alumni or benefactors – a major factor for selective private institutions, such as Harvard, where over 20% of the students are ‘legacy’ admits. But this is not clearly articulated to the general public or, specifically, to prospective students.

At the same time, selective private, non-profit universities and colleges are clearly quasi-public institutions: they rely on student financial aid supplied by federal and, in some cases, state governments, and they claim a large percentage of federal research dollars and must meet federal rules and guidelines such as Title IX.

These institutions also claim, and serve, a larger public purpose beyond their origins as largely sectarian entities, serving a defined and limited population. At the same time, selective public universities are becoming increasingly quasi-private as public funding plummets. The dividing line between these selective private and public institutions in terms of public purpose is increasingly grey, to say the least.

Why should private institutions play by one set of alternative universe rules in admissions? Could a decisive ruling in favour of Fisher lead to a court-induced foray into limiting admissions practices at private institutions as well?

Previous Supreme Court decisions, including Bakke, have stated that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act making racial discrimination illegal does extend to private universities that receive federal financial support.

Private sector concerns

Worries over the possible Supreme Court ban on using race is one reason that Columbia University and Fordham University, in association with a group of Catholic institutions, filed separate friend-of-the-court briefs in support of UT.

An overturning of Bakke and Grutter would, it appears, spawn new lawsuits against selective private institutions, and possibly open the door for an eventual Executive Order via the White House to regulate their admissions practices – an event more likely under a conservative Republican president, with none on the immediate horizon.

Of course, this is pure conjecture and a bit cynical.

But perhaps the issue looms in the back of the minds of a group of justices, even if this is a notion not fully articulated. A fear of venturing into the admissions practices and prerogatives of private entities (whatever they be) might, in the end, actually preserve what is now nearly four decades of precedent in US law.

There are other, more important reasons why the court should rule against Fisher, in my view.

To a degree unmatched by any other single institution in the US, or by any other nation in the world until recently, America’s public universities were conceived, funded and developed as tools of socioeconomic engineering – an observation perhaps uncomfortable for those who view markets and the rugged individual as the hallmark of the nation’s development.

The goal was not simply to benefit the individual, but to support socioeconomic mobility and integration within a nation of immigrants, to shape a more progressive and productive society.

Any decision on affirmative action needs to keep this American vision viable by providing our universities and colleges, public and private, the autonomy to shape their incoming pool of students.

* John Aubrey Douglass is senior research fellow at the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE), and the author of The Conditions for Admissions: Access, equity and the social contract of public universities. Stanford University Press, 2007. This article reflects a longer essay, "Affirmative Action, the Fisher Case and the Supreme Court" published online as part of the CSHE, University of California Berkeley’s Research and Occasional Paper Series.

UNITED STATES: Fixing a broken international policy

Mitch Leventhal22 June 2013 Issue No:277

After 15 months of deliberations, the United States’ National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) Commission on International Student Recruitment has all but agreed that commission-based recruitment is permissible – but its report only feebly addressed what comes next.

Its recommendation that commission-based international student recruitment be tolerated is severely tempered by its incomplete coverage of developments on the ground, and its supplemental recommendations, which appear to pander to a variety of vested interests.

Further, the general tenor appears to be designed to slow down the legitimate efforts of colleges and universities, and their private sector marketing partners. Perhaps we could not have expected more from a commission with such divergent views.

But the reality is that the outcome reflects a much deeper existential malaise within NACAC, as well as a lack of coherence in US policy. If we all open our eyes, we will see the elephant in the room: NACAC’s exercise is not really about the future of commission-based recruitment. Rather, it is all about the future role of NACAC itself, an organisation that has largely remained at the margins of international recruitment in the past and is now struggling to regain the centre during an era of unprecedented change in international recruitment.

And there is no hiding the fact that NACAC is deeply divided on how to address this change.

The NACAC commission’s report is a strange hodgepodge of fact, wishful thinking, evasive manoeuvres, procrastination and, sadly, obfuscation.

The one point upon which the majority of the commission apparently agreed was that member institutions engaged in commission-based recruitment should not be punished. This concession must have resulted from their growing awareness that hundreds of NACAC members, of all stripes and including Ivy League institutions, are engaged in this practice to some degree.

Thus, the commission opted to avoid recommending a policy that would have immediate negative consequences for NACAC, such as the expulsion of a substantial number of member institutions, or an irreparable schism within the organisation.

So it punted what Commission Chair Philip Ballinger referred to as recommendations “of an interim nature”. These are not sufficient. Not for NACAC, and not for American higher education. The commission’s most momentous recommendation came down to changing the word "will" to "should": institutions should not pay commissions to agents. Thus the commission managed to nod and shake its head simultaneously, perhaps hoping that dissenting parties would each read into it only what they want to see.

The NACAC commission recommended additional actions around the usual buzzwords about which everyone agrees – best practice, accountability, transparency and integrity. But oddly, it carefully avoided addressing the most significant recent industry developments in those very areas, once again appearing to make progress without actually recommending any real action.

It is important to remember that the industry developments to which I refer resulted from the need of colleges and universities for assistance in the absence of NACAC leadership in the area of international recruitment practice.

Questionable assertions

Stranger still, although unrelated to the central question of agency compensation, the NACAC commission went out of its way to uncritically praise the State Department’s EducationUSA advising network, even advocating that it should be the very first stop for any institution’s international recruitment strategy.

As if, by virtue of being operated by a federal department jointly with its prime educational contractor, the Institute of International Education (IIE), EducationUSA sui generis reflects best practice and industry standards.

This assumption is highly questionable. At a minimum, greater transparency regarding EducationUSA is needed. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

But it goes deeper. One alarming example is the recent arrest for bribery and visa selling of consular officer Michael T Sestak – the face of EducationUSA in Vietnam. How can we know whether this case represents a lone wolf, or is emblematic of a broader problem with student visa operations? What is being done to repair America’s reputation overseas?

Many institutional recruitment officers have stories about unusual or unexpected visa denials and approvals from around the world. What can be done to assure institutions that everything possible has been done within consular affairs and EducationUSA to improve access to American higher education by international students?

IIE would like to be viewed as a venerable and unbiased party to this debate. In reality, the federal government provides 60% of its operating revenue for managing EducationUSA, along with other initiatives.

Marginalisation

As for industry standards and best practices; if the NACAC commission was so concerned with these, why then did it studiously avoid any discussion of the most significant development in this area (to which I alluded earlier) – the work of the American International Recruitment Council, or AIRC?

The commission’s report dedicated a scant three paragraphs to AIRC – out of 65 pages! This deliberate marginalisation of AIRC is self-destructive. NACAC and its members would be better served if they took a hard and honest look at what has been achieved by AIRC.

AIRC is a registered standard-development organisation founded by US accredited post-secondary institutions in 2008. AIRC’s industry-developed standards for recruitment agencies and best practices for institutions were derived and extended from the best practices that had already emerged in Australia, the UK and other parts of the world.

The agency certification process developed by AIRC is the first enforceable standards process binding on international recruitment agencies, wherever they are in the world. In its five years of existence, AIRC has grown to more than 200 US accredited institutional members, including top-echelon schools. Forty-eight AIRC-certified agencies are operating in 88 countries through hundreds of branch offices.

Ironically, the very countries cited by the commission as leaders in agency recruitment are now looking closely at the AIRC process to determine whether it may, in fact, represent the next stage of international collaboration around industry standards and regulation, since its framework clearly surpasses the London Statement in terms of rigour and enforceability.

These same countries wonder why the US government is unable to engage in meaningful multi-lateral dialogue about recruitment industry standards, even as other countries forge ahead.

Given these facts, AIRC’s achievements should have been a central focus on both the NACAC commission report and its recommendations. Yet, the commission scrupulously avoided inflaming NACAC stalwarts who appear to be threatened by the development of enforceable industry standards by an organisation not their own.

The NACAC commission report once again exposed profound disagreement among federal departments, with the Department of State deploring the practice of agency recruitment, the Department of Homeland Security participating in agency trade shows and sponsoring agency events, and the Department of Commerce actively brokering (for a fee) introductions between institutions and agents around the world.

Even among federal departments there appears to be no agreement on best practices. In this no-man’s land where everybody wants to be king, the NACAC commission has missed another opportunity to lead. So what is to be done? Here are my suggestions:

To all institutions engaged in commission-based recruitment, in the name of transparency and of the protection of students, come out of the closet. Publicly disclose your agency relationships and engage with appropriate standards-development organisations and professional bodies.
To the NACAC board, if you truly want to break out of your organisational malaise, then go beyond the commission’s minimalist recommendations. Officially join as a partner with AIRC in the continuing development of best practices and standards, and encourage your own members to do so as well.

Establish a liaison committee with AIRC to ensure that NACAC’s concerns are integrated into the AIRC standards-setting process. Partner with AIRC to create global recruitment events that build upon NACAC’s domestic recruitment expertise and AIRC’s regulatory approach to global recruitment.

If the NACAC board proposes this, and if the membership consents, then NACAC will have a chance to participate in the effort to establish standards and best practice in international student recruitment, and will regain credibility and respect. If NACAC limps forward as it currently is – and as the commission recommends – then its relevance in the international arena will continue to erode.
To President Barack Obama, recognise that American international education policy is profoundly broken, and that this is harming our global competitiveness – both in attracting global talent and in earning foreign exchange.

Colleges and universities are deeply hampered by the contradictory policies among competing federal departments, and a generally non-consultative approach vis-à-vis the higher education industry.

This federal disharmony also harms those states that have economic development strategies that are, in part, tied to their public higher education institutions effectively recruiting talent and deriving revenue from around the world.

Two years ago, in a commentary published in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I described other failures of policy and vision and argued for the creation of a federally mandated national higher education export council to transcend competing agendas, break down misconceptions, and forge a coherent national strategy.

I argued then that such a council should include key higher education associations and leaders from institutions and the private sector. In 2011, this call was met largely with indifference. President Obama, please take action now.

* Mitch Leventhal is vice-chancellor for global affairs at the State University of New York.

GLOBAL: Strategy, media and international student integration

Katherine Forestier 22 June 2013 Issue No:277

As universities recruit more international students, they need to work out their media messaging about the benefits for local and national communities, as well as their campuses, the “Worldviews 2013” conference in Toronto heard.

Views differed as to whether universities should sell the economic benefits, or use the media to promote wider cultural and social advantages. Both could help or hinder the integration of international students.

Teboho Moja, clinical professor of higher education at New York University, said: “Media reporting of the economic benefits is over-emphasised.” The result was insufficient awareness of what international students could contribute.

This reflected attitudes within universities, which were not doing enough to promote integration both on campus and with their wider local communities, she told a session on “International Students and Campus Integration: Institutional strategies and media representations”.

In the United States, international student offices focused on practicalities such as visa issues, rather than intercultural learning, Moja said. Orientation programmes brought groups of international students together, but rarely involved domestic students.

“I would like to see programmes for everybody. Everybody needs to be a part of it,” she stressed, adding that faculty also needed orientation programmes for working in an internationalised institution.

She urged universities to make better use of the “cultural and social capital” that international students brought with them, such as promoting language exchange, rather than one-way English language development for those from overseas, and getting more domestic students to participate in study-abroad programmes.

“Too often integration is seen as an event, rather than a process for the whole time students are there,” she said.

Money, money, money?

Shaun Curtis, director of 'International Exeter' at Exeter University in the UK, said the economic argument was important for winning political as well as local community acceptance for the presence of large numbers of international students – particularly when cutting immigration was high on his country’s political agenda.

Research commissioned by Exeter had demonstrated that international students pumped £88 million (US$136 million) a year into the local economy, contributed 2%-3% to GDP and underpinned around 3,000 jobs, he said.

“Local media is not interested in the cultural and educational benefits. They are interested in jobs and investment.”

However, while this message was important, he warned of the dangers of international recruitment merely being portrayed as a cash cow, especially if reported back to the students themselves.

“We want them because we want to be a leading international university, with the best and brightest on campus,” he said.

“Integration strategies need to be conditioned by the local context, focused beyond students to the local community. We need to deliver messages to multiple audiences, and need media to help with that.”

His university tried to promote integration by diversifying its international recruitment beyond the “easy win” countries such as China, and capping numbers. Too many students from one country resulted in “autonomous populations” that did not mix.

Once students arrived, student unions and sport played key roles in integration. Campus design that helped bring people together in open spaces was also important.

Jane Ngobia, director of the human rights and equity office at the University of Guelph in Canada, said: “The media focuses on the mobility aspects of international education – the numbers – rather than the human aspects.”

On campus, those working in student affairs needed better training to support students from different cultures, religions and ways of life.

Maria Mathai, director of MM Advisory Services in India, said she could not find any media coverage at the national level in India on the issue of integrating home and overseas students. “They talk about India as a source country, not about all the international students there,” she said.

Moja said that, in South Africa, the focus was on recruiting international students to support the development of the whole region, not on income. Five per cent of places were reserved for students from the Southern African Development Community, and they were charged the same fees as local students.

SINGAPORE: Yale-NUS first cohort – Breaking the education mould?

Yojana Sharma22 June 2013 Issue No:277

Singapore’s first US-style liberal arts college in collaboration with Yale University, set up at the National University of Singapore (NUS), has selected its first cohort of 157 students to start in August – after sifting through 11,400 applications from over 130 countries – the college announced last week.

This was more than the 150 students initially planned. Around two-thirds of the first cohort are Singaporean, with the rest from 25 countries, Yale-NUS said.

Student numbers will be increased by 250 new students per year to reach around 1,000, and they will receive NUS degrees.

Many students from outside Asia were attracted to the idea of being part of the ‘Asian century’, said Yale-NUS College President Pericles Lewis.

All the students had been selected for their “leadership potential”, not just their academic records, which Yale-NUS described as “stellar”.

“We are getting the top students academically but we are looking for something beyond academic results,” Lewis told University World News on Friday, at the “Worldviews 2013: Global trends in media and higher education” conference in Toronto, Canada.

“We are not looking just for people who are good at implementing rules. We are looking for people who are going to be creative and driving new – whether new technologies or new forms of industry – people who are going to question authority as well.”

The college’s promotional literature boasts of a broad-based education with small classes and an intense residential experience to nurture graduates who can think deeply and across different disciplines.

Asia wants innovative thinkers

Although Singapore and other Asian nations perform at the highest international level in mathematics and science and have a number of world-class universities, many Asian leaders look enviously at companies like Apple, Facebook or Google, and want similarly innovative businesses to emerge from the region.

“But it’s not all about the economy and the high tech. Leaders in government need to be created too. If you keep going through the well-worn paths, you’re not ready for the next challenge,” Lewis said.

“When we look at leadership qualities, you also need people who can see other people’s points of view and who are responsive to change and have a quality of empathy.”

Broad humanities education such as the liberal arts programme on offer in Singapore could help develop that, he believes. Several countries in Asia, including South Korea and China, have shown an interest in US-style liberal arts education.

“The kind of education we’re offering is very important for rising democracies because decisions are made on the basis of rational debate and possibly consensus or even reasoned disagreement rather than based on who has the authority,” Lewis said.

Critics say it is hard to reverse an autocratic Asian political culture with just one university offering a course borrowed from the US, and controversy continues regarding the amount of academic freedom that will be allowed on campus.

Academic freedom

“It’s understood that we will be inviting both government and opposition leaders to speak at Yale in Singapore. I don’t think there’s an issue there at all,” Lewis said.

But he admitted: “Some events we will have we will keep private for students and faculty. We’re not going to be hosting partisan political campaign events. We would remain non-partisan.”

During a conference session on 21 June, Lewis reiterated to the audience: “A bedrock principle for Yale-NUS is academic freedom, and that’s something that’s strongly guaranteed in our interactions with NUS in our founding agreement.”

“The restrictions on political demonstrations in Singapore are something of concern to a lot of Yale faculty. You need a permit to hold a public demonstration, and [there are] various restrictions of that type and very strong libel laws if you criticise a government minister.

“These are restrictions on speech that are perhaps not ideal...we can’t wait for a partner country to perfectly meet all our political requirements before we open up a college or university there.”

Faculty

Lewis also said that 90% of the faculty at the new college will be living in Singapore. Although most of them had studied in the US, less than half had US citizenship. “Its true we will have Yale visitors [faculty] and it’s not cheap to get people from there. But we can fit it into the budget because it’s not the main source of our teaching.”

For shorter one- or two-week courses, about half would be taught by professors from Yale in the US and half by local professors.

But he said the curriculum was a mixture of Eastern and Western approaches. “Its really not just Yale exported. But really a study of Western and Asian conversations and their interactions with each other.

“True, we are drawing on the US pedagogical style”, which he said was popular with Asian students who go to study in the US.

"We will try it out and see what works – it is also possible that in Singapore we might wind up changing things and some of that might wind up influencing the US in the future,” Lewis said.

Thursday, 20 June 2013

Hun Sen Defends His Decision to Break the Law

By Neou Vannarin and Zsombor Peter - June 20, 2013

Prime Minister Hun Sen on Wednesday again admitted publicly to breaking the law when he helped opposition leader Kem Sokha escape arrest for an alleged sexual encounter with a 15-year-old girl.

Mr. Hun Sen first leveled the accusation against the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) acting president last week, claiming that Mr. Sokha had paid the girl $500 for sex, and that he himself broke the law by preventing his arrest for fear of being accused of interfering in Mr. Sokha’s personal affairs.

Mr. Sokha has denied the claim and his party has dismissed it as political mudslinging ahead of next month’s national election.

According to legal experts, Mr. Hun Sen’s public admission should lead to a police investigation into whether the prime minister has placed himself above the law of the land.

“Some people said I broke the law. Yes, it is true. I did say I broke the law because I stopped police from arresting you [Kem Sokha] before you had sex with her,” Mr. Hun Sen said Wednesday at a high school inauguration in Kandal province.

“Today they broadcast that I violated the law. I acknowledge that I broke the law,” the prime minister continued.

Mr. Hun Sen then defended his decision to break the law, claiming that it was the best move for all involved.

“I told them [the police] don’t do it [arrest Kem Sokha], just scare him away,” the prime minister said.

“Once he runs away, we don’t need to arrest him. This was not win-win, it’s equal-equal. The girl did not lose her virginity, we don’t need to have trouble with accusations and he wasn’t punished,” the prime minister continued.

Despite Mr. Hun Sen’s public admissions of wrongdoing, senior police and court officials declined Wednesday to say whether the prime minister’s claims would be investigated.

Kirth Chantharith, national police spokesman, said the matter was “out of my capacity.”

Mr. Chantharith also said that he could not comment because he had not heard the prime minister’s admissions, which were broadcast over national radio both last week and Wednesday.

“Let me watch the TV program first, then I can answer what is the competence of the national police. Right now, I have no idea.”

Brigadier General Kheng Tito, spokesman for the military police, said an investigation would need a court order.

“We haven’t received any official letter from the government or the courts to do anything about it,” he said.

Phnom Penh Municipal Court deputy director Kor Vandy said he was unfamiliar with the matter and declined to comment.

Sok Sam Oeun, a lawyer who heads the Cambodian Defenders Project, a legal aid NGO, said police were required to investigate the prime minister if they believed a crime was credible.

“The law says that if police believe it is a crime, police can take action…they must. It is their duty if they believe a crime happened,” he said.

But admitting to a crime was not the same as evidence of one, Mr. Sam Oeun added, noting that police did have some discretion.

“The problem isn’t admit or not admit,” he said. “The police must [make an] investigation, if it is a real crime or not.”

There’s also the matter of the legal immunity the prime minister enjoys as an elected lawmaker.

Before being able to investigate the prime minister or even demand that he honor a court summons, Mr. Sam Oeun said, the National Assembly would have to take his parliamentary immunity away.

Mr. Sam Oeun said police could move against a lawmaker even with immunity if the alleged crime qualified as “serious or flagrant,” but he was not sure if Mr. Hun Sen’s professed wrongdoing qualified.

According to the law, people with a criminal conviction cannot run for office in Cambodia. That is exactly what has happened to CNRP president Sam Rainsy, who faces 11 years in jail on charges including defamation and damage to public property.

Yeng Virak, who heads the Community Legal Aid Center, another legal aid NGO, said the prime minister’s public admission ought to be investigated.

“It should be possible, but in reality I don’t know,” he added, noting the cautionary example of opposition lawmaker Mu Sochua.

When Ms. Sochua attempted to sue the prime minister in 2009 for defamation, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court dismissed the case claiming a lack of evidence but accepted a countersuit Mr. Hun Sen filed against her in retaliation for her having the temerity to sue him in the first place.

The National Assembly then stripped Ms. Sochua of her parliamentary immunity to allow the court to investigate, judge and convict her for defaming the prime minister.