How to better understand Cambodia

Khmer Times, Opinion, 25 January 2023 (Link)

There are two ways to better understand a country and its people.

One way is to give up all prejudice and try to approach local people with naked eyes.

Another is to seek to understand the original thoughts, cultures and identities of local people.

Now let us discuss about the first way, the importance of seeing local people with naked eyes without predetermined frames of prejudice.

The approach towards Cambodia and Cambodian people should be in a learning attitude, trying to understand without prejudice and predetermined judgment.

For example, for Cambodian people, when asked what they think about Japanese, they often can accept Japanese as they are, not as the imperialist invaders based on historical and cultural prejudice even if Cambodian people like to watch Khmer-dubbed Chinese movies, Korean movies and American movies that portray Japanese as devil imperialists.

They just accept Japanese people as Japanese, as friends, as guests, as pure human being without any prejudgment.

Cambodian people know that there are also some rude and arrogant American, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. But they still approach those foreigners without discrimination.

Cambodian people rarely view Westerners in the historical frames, such as the past colonists, the past bombers over our grandparents, the past “sanctioners” over our parents, or as the past Khmer Rouge sympathizers.

Generally, we don’t have vengeful feeling against foreigners.

Such kind of approach by Cambodian people should be reciprocated by foreigners.

Now let us discuss about the second way, the importance of digging deeper by getting to know the original thoughts and ways of life of local people.

Time to accept Cambodia as it is

Khmer Times, Opinion, 23 January 2023 (Link)

In his memoir, Lee Kuan Yew remarked that Cambodia’s “present leaders,” meaning Hun Sen, “are the product of bitter, relentless struggles in which opponents were either eliminated or neutralized. They are utterly merciless and ruthless, without humane feelings.”

This is the general view of foreign observers over Cambodian leaders. But was it a correct view about Cambodia and Cambodian leaders?

Back then, Singapore was not alone in despising Cambodian leaders whom they treated as Vietnam’s puppet. Many countries put sanction on Cambodia and the remaining few million Cambodian survivors. Many countries provided legitimacy and weapons to, and conducted trade with the Khmer Rouge. The anti-Vietnam and anti-communism sentiment had justified those countries’ being as Khmer Rouge sympathizers.

For now, we have the benefit of re-evaluating history in hindsight.

For now, we could understand that being a Khmer Rouge sympathizer was a mistake against the surviving Cambodian people.

This was the past mistake of foreign observers, and they should learn from that mistake by trying to understand what Cambodian leaders think. They have to remove their own stubborn and rigid ideological and geopolitical frames if they want to understand better about Cambodian leaders.

Was Hun Sen really  Vietnam’s puppet? Was Hun Sen a communist dictator?

By reviewing Prime Minister Hun Sen’s five-hour testimony in the National Assembly on the border issues between Cambodia and Vietnam on 9 August 2012, and his 64-page written statement dated 8 September 2015, one would have wondered why would Vietnam spend more than 40 years to negotiate border issues with its puppet?

If one can read Prime Minister Hun Sen’s book entitled, “10 Years of Cambodia’s March: 1979-1989”, one can re-evaluate what was the situation and challenges that Cambodian leaders were facing, and evaluate their leadership’s approaches and perspectives.

From the book, one can observe that Hun Sen is not an ideologue. He is a pragmatist that cares the most for the nation’s survival and people’s livelihood. He adopted market economy and partial privatization well before Vietnam did. He initiated peace negotiation with the then-Prince Norodom Sihanouk despite internal opposition within his party. He invited the United Nations to broker Cambodian peace and to station in Cambodia despite the fear of losing sovereignty and foreign domination. He was not a dictator as he was trying to mobilize consensus and support from within his party since the beginning. His approach is still the same. He never made a decision in silo, with a complete lack of information or consultation.

All of these historical decisions defined the quality and capability of Cambodian leaders, and those surrounding them.