Monday, May 11, 2020

តើ​អ្វី​ទៅជា​ «​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​»?

 

ពាក្យ​ «​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន» (noblesse oblige) ​នេះ​មាន​ប្រភព​ដើម​ពី​ភាសា​បារាំង និង​ជា​ផ្នត់គំនិត​ទូទៅ​នៅ​អឺរ៉ុប​ដែល​គេ​សំដៅ​ទៅលើ​តួនាទី​របស់​ត្រកូល​អភិជន (noble) ក្នុង​ការតបស្នង និង​ទំនុកបម្រុង​សង្គម​។ កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន មិនមែន​ជា​ការទទួល​ខុសត្រូវ​ខាង​ផ្លូវច្បាប់​ទេ តែ​ជា​មនសិការ​ខាង​សីលធម៌​ទូទៅ​សម្រាប់​អភិជន ឬ​ឧត្តមជន​។

ពាក្យ «​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​» ត្រូវបាន​បង្កើតឡើង​ដោយ​អ្នកនយោបាយ​បារាំង Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Levis (១៧៦៤-១៨៣០) ​ដែល​ជំរុញ​ឱ្យ​មាន​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ផ្នែក​មនសិការ​ទៅលើ​បុគ្គល​ដែល​មាន​ឋានៈ តួនាទី​ខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់​។ ទន្ទឹមនឹង​ការទទួល​បាន​អភ័យឯកសិទ្ធិ​សង្គម បុគ្គល​ទាំងនោះ​ត្រូវ​ដើរតួ​ជា​គំរូ ឱ្យ​ប្រដំប្រសង​នឹង​ឋានៈ​សង្គម​របស់ខ្លួន​ដោយ​ធ្វើ​ការងារ​សប្បុរសធម៌ មនុស្សធម៌ ឬ​កិច្ចការ​នានា​ក្នុង​បុព្វហេតុ​នៃ​ការអភិវឌ្ឍ​សង្គម​លើសពី​ការស្វែងរក​ផលប្រយោជន៍​បុគ្គល​។

ក្នុង​សម័យ​ទំនើប​ពាក្យ​នេះ​ក៏ត្រូវ​បាន​គេ​បកស្រាយ​ឱ្យ​ទូលំទូលាយ​ដោយ​មិន​សំដៅ​តែ​ទៅលើ​ត្រកូល​អភិជន​ដូច​ក្នុង​សតវត្សរ៍​ទី​ ១៩ នោះទេ​។ ការបកស្រាយ​ទូលាយ​ទៅលើ​ពាក្យ​នេះ​គឺ​ចង់​និយាយ​ថា អ្នក​ដែល​កើតឡើង​ក្នុង​ត្រកូល​ស្តុកស្តម្ភ ឬ​បុគ្គល​ដែលមាន​ឋានៈ​ខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់​ក្នុងសង្គម​ ឬ​អ្នកមាន​ឧបនិស្ស័យ​ពិសេស​ពី​ធម្មជាតិ មាន​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ធ្វើ​កិច្ច​ការដែល​បម្រើ​ដល់​សង្គម​ទូទៅ​លើសពី​ផលប្រយោជន៍​បុគ្គល​ផ្ទាល់ខ្លួន​។

ឧបមា​ថា បើ​យើង​ជា​បញ្ញវន្ត​រៀន​បាន​ខ្ពង់ខ្ពស់ នោះ​យើង​គួរ​ដឹង​ខ្លួនឯង​ថា​យើង​ជា​បុគ្គល​ដែល​មាន​ទេពកោសល្យ​ផ្នែក​ចំណេះដឹង ដូច្នេះ​ត្រូវ​ប្រើ​ចំណេះដឹង​នេះ​ឱ្យ​ជា​ប្រយោជន៍​ដល់​ការអភិវឌ្ឍ​សង្គម លើស​ពី​ផលប្រយោជន៍​ផ្ទាល់ខ្លួន​។ មនុស្ស​កើត​មក​មិនមាន​សមត្ថភាព​ដូចគ្នា​នោះទេ ដូច្នេះ​កាលបើ​យើង​មាន​ទេពកោសល្យ​អ្វីមួយ​លើស​ពី​អ្នកដទៃ​យើង​ត្រូវ​ចេះ​ប្រើ​ទេពកោសល្យ​នោះ​ដើម្បី​ជា​ប្រយោជន៍​សង្គម​។ ទេពកោសល្យ​ពី​កំណើត​មិនមែន​សំដៅ​តែ​លើ​សមត្ថភាព​ចំណេះវិជ្ជា​នោះទេ អ្នកខ្លះ​អាចមាន​ទេពកោសល្យ​ពិសេស​ក្នុង​ការរក​ជំនួញ​ជួញដូរ សិល្បៈ​វប្បធម៌​ជាដើម​។

ជាទូទៅ​អ្នក​ដែល​មាន​សមត្ថភាព​គឺ​អាចមាន​បញ្ញាញាណ​គ្រប់គ្រាន់​ក្នុង​ការប្រកបរបរ​ចិញ្ចឹមជីវិត ឬ​រក​សេចក្តីសុខ​ដល់​ខ្លួនឯង​បាន ប៉ុន្តែ​បើ​មាន​ទេពកោសល្យ​លើស​មនុស្ស​ដទៃ​ហើយ​បែរ​ជា​មិន​ប្រើ​ទេពកោសល្យ​នេះ​ឱ្យមាន​ប្រយោជន៍​ដល់​សង្គម​នោះ​បានន័យថា មិនបាន​បំពេញ​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​។ បើ​មាន​ងារ​ថា ជា​អ្នកប្រាជ្ញ ប៉ុន្តែ​អ្នកប្រាជ្ញ​នោះ​មិនបាន​បន្សល់ទុក​ស្នាដៃ​អ្វី​ដល់​សង្គមជាតិ តើ​មាន​ឈ្មោះ​ថា​ជា​អ្នកប្រាជ្ញ​ដើម្បី​អ្វី​? បើ​មាន​សមត្ថភាព​ខ្ពស់​ហើយ តែ​សុខចិត្ត​ទៅ​ធ្វើ​ការងារ​ងាយៗ​ស្រណុកៗ​ដោយ​មិនបាន​ប្រើ​អស់​ទេពកោសល្យ​របស់​ខ្លួន​នោះ​គឺ​ស្មើនឹង​មិនបាន​បំពេញ​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​។

ឧបមា​ថា បើ​យើង​កើត​ក្នុង​ត្រកូល​ដែល​មាន​ទ្រព្យ​ស្តុកស្តម្ភ​មាន​អ្វី​គ្រប់យ៉ាង​ទោះ​ចាយ​ប៉ុន្មាន​ជំនាន់​មនុស្ស​ក៏​មិន​អស់ ប៉ុន្តែ បើ​យើង​មិនបាន​បំពេញ​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​គឺ​យើង​គ្រាន់​តែមាន​ឈ្មោះថា ទទួល​កេរ​ពី​បុព្វបុរស មិនបាន​ធ្វើ​អ្វី​ជា​ចម្រើន​ដល់​សង្គម​នោះឡើយ​។ ផ្នត់គំនិត “​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​” មានការ​អនុវត្ត​ច្រើនណាស់​នៅ​បស្ចិមប្រទេស​។

ឧទាហរណ៍​ងាយ​យល់​គឺ​លោក អាល់ហ្វ្រេដ ណូបែល ដែលមាន​ទ្រព្យសម្បតិ្ត​មហាសាល ហើយ​គាត់​បាន​បង្កើត​មូលនិធិ​ដើម្បី​ផ្តល់​ជា​រង្វាន់​ណូបែល លើកទឹកចិត្ត​ដល់​អ្នកវិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ​ដែល​បាន​អភិវឌ្ឍ​អ្វីមួយ​ថ្មី បម្រើ​ដល់​សេចក្តី​សុខសាន្ត​របស់​មនុស្ស​ជាតិ ឬ​អ្នក​ដែល​ធ្វើ​វិភាគទាន​ដល់​សន្តិភាព​ក្នុង​ពិភពលោក​។ ប្រធាន​ក្រុមហ៊ុន Microsoft លោក ប៊ីល ហ្គេត បាន​បង្កើត​មូលនិធិ​ទ្រទ្រង់​ដល់​សកម្មភាព​កម្ចាត់​ជំងឺ​ស្វិតដៃជើង និង​ជំងឺគ្រុនចាញ់​ជាដើម​។

មាន​ឧទាហរណ៍​បែបនេះ​ច្រើនណាស់​នៅក្នុង​សង្គម​បស្ចិមប្រទេស​។ ក្រុមហ៊ុន​ល្បីៗ​ធំៗ​តែងតែ​មាន​បង្កើត​មូលនិធិ​អាហារូបករណ៍ ឬ​មូលនិធិ​សម្រាប់​ទ្រទ្រង់​ដល់​ការសិក្សា​ស្រាវជ្រាវ​ជាន់ខ្ពស់ ដែល​ជា​កត្តា​ជំរុញ​ឱ្យមាន​ការរីកចម្រើន​ផ្នែក​វិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ​ និង​បច្ចេកវិទ្យា​។

តារាសម្តែង អេនជេលីណា ជោលី មាន​កេរិ៍្តឈ្មោះ​ល្បី​ពេញ​ពិភពលោក មានទ្រព្យ​សម្បត្តិ​ស្តុកស្តម្ភ តើ​នឹង​មាន​ប្រយោជន៍​អ្វីដែល​គាត់​ត្រូវ​ទៅ​លំបាកលំបិន​ដើរទៅ​ក្នុង​តំបន់​សង្គ្រាម​ក្នុង​ការងារ​ជា​ទូត​សុច្ឆន្ទៈ​សម្រាប់​ជនភៀសខ្លួន ឬ​ក៏​ត្រូវ​មកជួយ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​វប្បធម៌ និង​ប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ​របស់​កម្ពុជា​នោះ​? នេះហើយ​ដែល​គេ​ហៅថា​ «​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​»​។

គួរឱ្យ​សោកស្តាយ​ដែល​នៅក្នុង​សង្គម​អាស៊ី ឧទាហរណ៍​គំរូ​នៃ​ការអនុវត្ត​កាតព្វកិច្ច​ឧត្តមជន​ក្នុង​ត្រកូល​អភិជន​នៅមាន​កម្រិត​តិចតួច​។ ខ្ញុំ​តែងតែ​ស្រមៃ​ថា បើ​អភិជន​របស់​កម្ពុជា ប្រកួតប្រជែង​គ្នា​ក្នុង​ការបង្កើត​រោងចក្រ បង្កើត​ការងារ​បង្កើត​ឧស្សាហកម្ម​ថ្មី​ណាមួយ​ដែល​ពុំ​ធ្លាប់​មាន​ពីមុនមក​ក្នុង​សង្គម​ជាតិខ្មែរ នោះ​មិនដឹង​ជា​ល្អ​យ៉ាងណាទេ​។

បច្ចុប្បន្ន​អភិជន​កម្ពុជា​ចំណាយលុយ​រាប់សិប​លាន​ដុល្លារ​ទៅ​ព្យាបាល​ជំងឺ​នៅ​ក្រៅ​ប្រទេស ដូច្នេះ​ខ្ញុំ​ក៏​តែងតែ​ស្រមៃ​ដែរ​ថា បើ​ពួកគាត់​ប្រកួត​គ្នា​បង្កើត​មន្ទីរពេទ្យ ឬ​មន្ទីរពិសោធន៍​កម្រិត​អន្តរជាតិ​ក្នុង​ស្រុក​មិន​ដឹង​ជា​សង្គមជាតិ​ចងចាំ​គាត់​ប៉ុនណា​ទេ​។

តើ​យើង​គ្រាន់តែ​ចង់ឱ្យ​គេ​ចងចាំ​ថា យើង​ជា​អ្នកមាន​ទ្រព្យ​ច្រើន​បំផុត​លើសគេ​? ប្រើ​របស់​ថ្លៃ​បំផុត​លើ​លោក​? រស់នៅ​ក្នុង​វិមាន​ធំ​បំផុត​លើ​លោក​? តើ​យើង​គ្រាន់តែ​ចង់ឱ្យ​គេ​ចាំ​ថា​ជា​អ្នក​ដែល​រៀន​បាន​សញ្ញាបត្រ​ច្រើនជាងគេ​? ឬមួយ​ក៏​យើង​ចង់​ឱ្យគេ​ចងចាំ​ថា គាត់​គឺជា​អ្នក​នាំមក​នូវ​សេចក្តី​ចម្រើន​ក្នុង​វិស័យ​កុំព្យូទ័រ សុខាភិបាល​ស្រាវជ្រាវ​វិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ​ជា​អ្នកបង្កើត​រោងចក្រ​ផលិត​អ្វីមួយ​ដំបូង​បំផុត​របស់​កម្ពុជា​ជា​អ្នក​នាំមុខ​ក្នុង​ការផ្តល់​សេវាសាធារណៈ​ជា​បុគ្គល​គំរូ​ក្នុងការ​ធ្វើកំណែទម្រង់​ស្ថាប័នរដ្ឋ​ជា​អ្នក​នាំចេញ​កសិផល​កម្ពុជា​ទៅកាន់​ទីផ្សារ​ពិភពលោក ជា​ម្ចាស់​ឧស្សាហកម្ម​ខ្មែរ​ដែល​ល្បីឈ្មោះ​ក្នុង​កម្រិត​តំបន់ និង​ពិភពលោក​?

កម្ពុជា​ឆ្លងកាត់​សង្គ្រាមរ៉ាំរ៉ៃ​ច្រើន​ទសវត្សរ៍ ដូច្នេះ​ប្រហែល​ជា​តថភាព​សង្គម «​ប៊ិះ​រស់ ប៊ិះ​ស្លាប់​» បាន​បង្ខំ​ឱ្យ​មនុស្ស​ម្នាក់ៗ​ខំប្រឹង​យក​រស់​តែ​ខ្លួនឯង​។ ប៉ុន្តែ បច្ចុប្បន្ន​កម្ពុជា​ប្រហែល​ជា​ឆ្លង​ផុត​របត់​សង្គម​បែប​នេះ​ហើយ​។ យើង​ឈានដល់​សម័យកាល​ដែល​មាន​សន្តិភាព និង​មាន​កម្លាំង​សេដ្ឋកិច្ច​ដែល​ត្រូវ​សាង​ស្នាដៃ​ និង​កេរិ៍្តឈ្មោះ​ដល់​ជន​ជំនាន់​ក្រោយ​ហើយ​។

ដូច្នេះ​ក្នុង​នាម​ជា​ឧត្តមជន គួរ​បំពេញ​កាតព្វកិច្ច​មនសិការ​ដោយ​ប្រើ​សមត្ថភាព ទេពកោសល្យ ឬ​ប្រើ​ធនធាន​ទ្រព្យសម្បត្តិ​របស់ខ្លួន ដើម្បី​ការរីកចម្រើន និង​ផលប្រយោជន៍​រួម​របស់​ស្ថាប័ន និង​សង្គមជាតិ​លើស​ពី​ការស្វែងរក​ត្រឹមតែ​ផលប្រយោជន៍ សេចក្តីសុខ និង​ភាព​ស្រណុក​ផ្ទាល់ខ្លួន​៕

ដោយ​ស៊ឹម វីរៈ ទីប្រឹក្សា​នៃ​វិទ្យាស្ថាន​ចក្ខុវិស័យ​អាស៊ី (AVI)

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Cambodia’s state of emergency law in context

Asia Times, Opinion

Cambodia’s state of emergency law in context

https://asiatimes.com/2020/04/cambodias-state-of-emergency-law-in-context/
 
 

 
 
Should the government deem it necessary to impose emergency measures to fight Covid-19, they will adhere to international standards
 
The World Health Organization has officially declared the Covid-19 outbreak a pandemic and has called on all countries to continue efforts that have been effective in limiting the number of infections and slowing the spread of the virus. Countries around the world have proclaimed national emergencies, and many have imposed quarantines, lockdowns and school and business closures. More than a third of the planet’s population is under some form of restriction. 

In the US, a national emergency was declared on March 13 and the National Guard was deployed to aid California, Washington state and New York. Almost all US states have declared states of emergency to fight the coronavirus.

Countries across Europe have significantly curbed public life in order to halt the spread of Covid-19. In Spain, police have been using violence to enforce strict restrictions on movement, and hundreds have been arrested or fined for defying the measures.

As British lawyer Nicholas Clapham pointed out when explaining the UK’s emergency legislation, “The new legislation provides parliamentary authority for the government to act in ways that might otherwise be considered unlawful or draconian. Like much emergency legislation, it is an attempt to balance liberty and necessity.”

Cambodia is a newcomer in terms of utilizing emergency law. While such proclamations are permissible under a 1999 constitutional amendment, Article 22, a new law to govern such an implementation was deemed necessary. A draft law to that effect now has passed through the National Assembly and the Senate.

Cambodia’s draft Law on the Management of the Nation in State of Emergency (LMNSE) has 12 articles under five chapters.

Article 1 provides for the purpose of the law, which aims to govern the nation under a state of emergency in order to safeguard national security and public order, to protect citizens’ lives and public health, and to protect properties and environment.

According to Article 3,​ such a state of emergency shall be proclaimed by the king after requests from the prime minister, president of the National Assembly and president of the Senate. The duration shall not exceed three months. While it can be extended, it can also be terminated earlier.

Article 4 provides that conditions for proclamation of a state of emergency shall involve dangers caused by war or foreign invasion, public health emergencies caused by pandemics, tumultuous chaos in national security and public order, and severe disasters that threaten the nation as a whole.

Article 5 stipulates specifically restrictive measures that can be taken by the government. These include prohibition of or restrictions on traveling, freedom of assembly and work; quarantine; mobilization and evacuation; governing of properties and services; price management; closures of facilities; information monitoring; and other measures deemed necessary to respond to emergencies. These measures can be applied nationwide or over a specific geographical scope.

It is mandatory that the government shall regularly report to the National Assembly and the Senate about the imposed measures (Article 6).

Obstruction to the execution of emergency measures can result in fines from 2 million to 10 million riels (about US$500 to $2,500) and/or carry a jail term from one to 10 years according to the severity of the crimes (Article 7). Non-compliances carry lighter punishment (Article 8) while heavier punishment is reserved for crimes committed by legal persons (Article 9).

The conduct of state authorities is also governed by this law. Officials who conduct arbitrary abuse of power in contravention to the purpose of this law shall be punished under the laws of Cambodia (Article 10).

Measures derogating public liberty are permissible under international human-rights instruments. Article 4 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that: “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant….”

However, the freedom of action of states is not without limitation. According to a document titled “The Administration of Justice During States of Emergency” published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, states are limited by the principles of exceptional threat, official proclamation, non-derogability of certain rights, strict necessity, compatibility with other international legal obligations, non-discrimination, and international notification. Relevant measures must be tailored to the “exigencies of the situation” in terms of their territorial application, their material content and their duration.

All rights that can be derogated from are listed in the ICCPR. Non-derogable rights must be fully protected in such emergency situations. Non-derogable rights include the right to life; the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; the right to freedom from slavery; the right not to be imprisoned on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation; the right not to be subjected to retroactive legislation (ex post facto laws); the right to recognition as a person before the law; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the right not to be subjected to the death penalty.

Through the above-mentioned criteria, it is observed that Cambodia’s draft law has adhered to the principles set forth by international human-rights standards. As well, compared with the existing emergency actions by some countries, it is fair to say that Cambodia’s draft law is still nascent, rudimentary and soft.

The government has also explicitly declared that considering the current Covid-19 situation, there is a slim chance that Cambodia will invoke a state of emergency. So far, Cambodia has yet to implement any lockdown. As such, concerns over the possibility of serious derogations by Cambodia against international norms and practices seem far-fetched.

Friday, February 14, 2020

COVID-19 brings out the best in Cambodia: Small Country, Big Heart


February 14, 2020


 
Amidst all the sad headlines on coronavirus or COVID-2019 outbreak, a Japanese song “Ue o Muite Arukou” by Kyu Sakamoto or known as “Sukiyaki” released in 1961 keeps ringing in my head.
“I look up when I walk, So that the tears won’t fall, Remembering those spring days,…..Happiness lies beyond the clouds, Happiness lies above the sky……Sadness lies in the shadow of the stars, Sadness lurks in the shadow of the moon”.
 
How could we put our heads up amidst the sad and sudden circumstances?
 
When human lives are concerned, we cannot avoid being emotional. Worse still, the world is fighting a novel virus that has much to be known. The panic and fear, health and medical risks, economic risks, containment measures, confidence on authorities are complex issues to handle and how to handle them with maximum calmness and assurance require an extremely strong nerve.
 
Under the snow, Prime Minister Hun Sen and his entourage visited Beijing on 5 February, without masks. Cambodia is lending moral support with “foot on the ground”, being the first and by far the only foreign leader to visit China after the outbreak when many countries have been distancing themselves from China, issuing travel ban, etc.
 
His Majesty the King Norodom Sihamoni and Her Majesty Queen Mother even donated their personal wealth to the cause.
 
Another event has turned the world upside down. A small country that is often portrayed negatively in international media shocked the world with awe.
 
Cambodia dared to receive all passengers and crew aboard Holland America’s MS Westerdam cruise ship, which docked in Sihanoukville, after medical clearance that showed that none of them were infected with COVID-19. The MS Westerdam, owned by Holland America Line, was turned away by five countries before finally docking in Cambodia, with 1,455 guests and 802 crew members of 41 nationalities on board.
 
They were welcome with Khmer traditional scarves “Kroma”, and roses on Valentine’s day,“day of love.”
 
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, wrote on his Twitter, “Cambodia exemplifies the international solidarity we have consistently been calling for. I am deeply grateful to the government, particularly Prime Minister Hun Sen, for accepting the Westerdam and its passengers. It’s time for solidarity, not stigma.”
 
US Ambassador Patrick Murphy wrote various notes on his Twitter, “We greatly appreciate the support of the Cambodian authorities and people in assisting all passengers on the Westerdam”, and “Heartwarming sights in Sihanoukville as passengers begin disembarking from the Westerdam – with Cambodian hospitality on full display.”
 
The Delegation of the European Union to Cambodia wrote on their Facebook page, “The EU Delegation to Cambodia would like to thank the Cambodian authorities for authorising the docking of the Westerdam, and to express its sympathy to the passengers and crew members of the ship, hoping they will soon be safely repatriated.”
 
Human rights and human life actually has similar a rhyme.
 
Humanity and compassion is in full blown and it humbly shines from Cambodia, “a small country with a big heart.”
Sim Vireak
Strategic Advisor of Asian Vision Institute (AVI)


Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Cambodia faces questions of conscience, self-reliance

Asia Times, Opinion

https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/cambodia-faces-questions-of-conscience-self-reliance/

The European Commission's partial withdrawal of trade privileges under the EBA pact has combined with other factors affecting Cambodia
 

 

February 12, 2020, was reported widely as “EBA judgment day” when the European Commission announced its decision to withdraw temporarily some trade preferences Cambodia had enjoyed under the Everything But Arms deal between Phnom Penh and the European Union.

In effect, a supranational body of one region is imposing its judgment over a sovereign state in another region. How powerful does that sound, when an extraterritorial judgment can be executed thousands kilometers away?

Cambodia is being punished based on criticism of imperfections in its democratic progress and evolution as a nation. In fact many self-acclaimed midwives delivered a baby democracy in Cambodia that falls repetitively as it learns to walk.

The EC decision creates the temptation to recall the history of the “white man’s burden” and “mission civilisatrice” (civilizing mission). The dialogue that was undertaken leading up to the decision was a challenging discourse of empathy, a constant fight with mutually justified egos, and most of all questions of conscience. The desire for independence that may cause economic casualties, the ambition to be freed from conditions, the desire to move on toward the future, the righteousness and sense of self-appreciation for noble and altruistic deeds offer links with the causes of humanity.

There is a Khmer saying, “Klean cha-gnanh, srolanh la-or,” literally translated as “Food is good when you are hungry; seeing beauty when you are in love.” In this sense, looking at the European Union’s trade practices in the region, it is observed that the shady records of universal values can sometimes be overruled by the beauty and strengths of market capitalism. But imposing punishment under laws and values that are supposed to protect people seems to prove otherwise, as no one really knows the exact impacts of this punishment.

It is like in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice where Shylock demands “a pound of flesh” for a due debt and claims that he has that right under Venetian law:

“What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?….

The pound of flesh, which I demand of him,

Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.

If you deny me, fie upon your law!

There is no force in the decrees of Venice.”

But Shylock cannot challenge the natural human law that “a pound of flesh” cannot be taken without shedding blood. The questions of universality of values and principles also lead to questions as to what those values and principles are for in terms of people’s livelihood.

How do we measure impact? Different state institutions provide different levels of impact analysis, from minimal and manageable impacts claimed by the government to the industrial fallout as claimed by some pessimistic critics and doomsday prophets.

Now, on the question of self-reliance. The interdependence that the world has benefited from can be both a strength for development and a disruptive power. On the positive side, interdependence magnifies mutual benefits; in negative terms, interdependence undermines self-reliance.

Cambodia relies on China for investment capital, production chains and material supplies. Cambodia relies on Europe for a market for the finished products made from those materials. A disruption of China’s supplies due to the recent coronavirus outbreak can cut short delivery to European markets. Likewise, restricted access to the European market due to the partial EBA withdrawal can also cut short factories’ purchase orders.

Thus the question of over-reliance here is not only about China. Cambodia, which is in the middle of this production and supply chain, can be said to be over-reliant both on China and the EU.

Apart from the issue of diversity, questions can be pondered about the lack of competitiveness and vulnerabilities of Cambodian economic structures, and probably matters of complacency and sluggish reforms to adjust economic structures and enhance the country’s competitiveness in the region.

Challenges for Cambodia’s economy will be multiple and global in nature. China’s economic slowdown, a global disruption of supply chains due to the coronavirus, impacts from the partial EBA withdrawal, trade wars, geopolitical rivalry between superpowers and regional powers, weak domestic competitiveness compared with other nations in the region, lack of diversity – these are among the compounding factors that may slow down Cambodia’s economy.

Come what may, adaptive solutions will be devised including market and supply-chain diversification, drastic internal reforms, economic stimulus packages, social safety nets, and human capital development. The recent chain of events could provide an exceptional opportunity and driving force for Cambodia to push for a gradual economic structural shift from a low-skilled, labor-intensive growth model toward a knowledge-based and skills-driven one.

Cambodia has braced itself for these challenges. Cambodia will move on. Cambodia will adapt and transform.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

Cambodia’s three wishes for 2020




Cambodia’s three wishes for 2020
Asia Times, Outlook 2020/Opinion , January 2, 2020

As Cambodia faces domestic and international challenges, the country is pinning its hopes on three key issues for 2020, namely its position amid geopolitical competition, a new domestic political culture, and economic resilience.

Geopolitical melting pot

For good or for bad, Cambodia has always been the darling, if not the trash bin, of geopolitical competition. Despite the fact that the last geopolitical proxy war was tragic, the temptation to use Cambodia as a geopolitical platform is re-emerging between the US and China as well as between China and Vietnam.

Cambodia should learn from Thailand in terms of how the latter has never been colonized but instead has always served as a platform for healthy competition that is beneficial for Thailand both economically and politically.

Historically, Cambodia can also take aspiration from its 16th- and 17th-century position when it was the center of commercial connectivity in the region that could balance harmonious co-existence among Chinese, Japanese and European traders. It was known that Phnom Penh in those days was the international and regional Mekong upstream port-of-trade and marketing emporium and a major supplier of deerskins that were shipped to Tokugawa Japan, in return for a variety of silver and international products.

Key to this point is how Cambodia can identify its contemporary “deerskins” that could help appease American, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese and European partners altogether. How can Cambodia position itself as a geopolitical melting pot without another disaster to its own people like that in the period from the 1970s to the 1990s? How can Cambodia appease different players while firmly protecting its sovereignty, independence and national interests?

Let’s cite concrete examples. If the US perceives that Cambodia is hosting a Chinese military port in Ream Naval Base, Cambodia can possibly address such distrust by resuming military exercise with the US at that base at mutually agreeable terms. If the US perceives that Cambodia is hosting a Chinese airbase in Koh Kong province, Cambodia can probably outsource airport management to joint-venture companies that may dilute the Chinese monopoly while maintaining mutual economic benefits among all parties concerned.

If Vietnam perceives that Cambodia is supporting China on South China Sea issues, Cambodia can possibly encourage Vietnam to create a bilateral border mechanism with China to institutionalize constructive dialogues like that between Cambodia and Thailand.
Regarding the South China Sea, there is a growing trend to accept the oversimplification that any failure to reach a consensus over a joint communiqué or any other ASEAN statements in which SCS issues are involved are caused by Cambodia, which is perceived as a vassal state of China, despite the fact that negotiations among 10 actors with different interests and positions are highly complex.

Vietnam and the US should be able to understand by now that it can just never happen that Cambodia would support either China or Vietnam, which have overlapping claims with other member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Because it was an indisputable fact that when Cambodia had territorial issues with Thailand over the ownership of land surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple, neither China, the US, Vietnam, the Philippines or Japan could take any position to the contrary.

It is quite obvious that Cambodia’s position remains the same, taking no side on territorial issues in the South China Sea, and urging states directly involved to deal with the issues among themselves peacefully without provocation, threat or coercion, demonization or victimization.

New domestic political culture

There exists an exceptional opportunity for Cambodia to reset its domestic political culture after the dissolution of an opposition that aligned itself with constant foreign interventions, extremism, racism and non-democratic regime change.

Cambodia should reinvent national consensus and national reconciliation among domestic political actors by building a new political culture that is based on dialogue, policy-based debate, and parliamentary participation. There is a strong hope for future politicians to learn to open their hearts and agree to disagree based on national interest and national consensus.

To that end, Cambodia can learn from Japan’s mature democracy that is less antagonistic and agitating than some Western versions of democracy, which are now being undermined by populism, extreme nationalism and ideological polarization.

Economic resilience and diversified economy

Despite the threat from the European Union to withdraw preferential trade treatment under the Everything But Arms (EBA) scheme, Cambodia should be able to assert clearly, “No EBA, no problem.”

Looking back to the past, one should not underestimate Cambodia’s resilience. Cambodia was able to withstand the 12-year economic embargo by many nations starting from 1979 when the  genocidal Khmer Rouge regime was toppled with support from Vietnamese forces. It also withstood the economic crisis in 2008 following the sudden massive withdrawal of Korean investors due to the global financial crisis. Cambodia also manifested its resilience when Thailand decided to crack down on illegal laborers in 2014, and eventually ousted nearly 200,000 jobless Cambodians.

The current macro-economic stability even provides sober ground to believe in Cambodia’s resilience as compared with the previous economic shocks. For instance, the government collected more than US$4.5 billion in revenue from customs and taxation during the first nine months of 2019, with tax collection exceeding the target by $800 million. Moreover, the government has also reserved around $3 billion to cope with any possible shock.

Apart from preventive measures against external economic shocks, domestically, there is hope that Cambodia will be able to encourage healthy and diversified economic competition among domestic actors. For instance, the government can encourage tycoons to invest in new industries or factories that create jobs instead of heavily investing in sectors that do not diversify the economic base or create sufficient jobs for the young workforce.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

The EU needs to be more realistic




Khmer Times, Opinion, December 17, 2019

Sim Vireak 


Protectionism is re-emerging as a common challenge that all regional and global mechanisms try to address. That holds true for both the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean).

Despite sharing determination to fight against trade barriers and protectionism, interactions between the EU and some Asean member states (AMS) do not show that this mission is equally practised.

For instance, recently, the EU is trying to ban Malaysia’s palm oil, ban Thai fishery products and considering whether to withdraw a trade preference scheme from Cambodia. Malaysia’s case relates to the banning of palm oil.

Thailand’s case relates to the issuance of Yellow Card for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU). Cambodia’s case relates to the possible withdrawal of trade preferences under the Everything but Arms (EBA) trade tariff scheme.

While the first two cases involve the possible banning of specific products, Cambodia’s case, if the preferences are withdrawn, does not involve the banning of products or the closure of specific markets but rather the application of normal tariffs to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to which the EU is supposed to provide preferential treatment.

The EU has market power that can combine force and strength of the proposed sanctions and non-tariff measures (NTMs). The actions taken by the EU against AMS provoked the issues of asymmetrical relations between a united organisation, the EU, against specific members of another organization, Asean, that is not a union.

Asymmetrical issues also drew the questions whether the EU, as an organisation, has better compliance than Asean in terms of human rights, democracy and environmental values. Although the EU’s actions affect particular AMS’ trade in generic term, they can also hamper Asean’s institutional image as a region that gives less consideration to human rights, democracy and the environment. Whether Asean, as an organisation can accept such labelling or not is another issue for discussion between these two organisations.

Challenges, complexities

At the bilateral level, the unpleasant interactions between the EU and AMS that the AMS cannot fully foresee are the scope and scale of the impact of the EU’s legislations and complicated procedures while the EU’s decision is largely dependent on bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels who may not clearly understand AMS’s challenges, complexities and values as well as the sustainability impact of each decision. One Thai analyst said, “Thailand sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to overcome the stringent criteria outlined by the EU.”

Apart from the pure application of their technical procedures, the EU’s decisions can also be swayed by internal political situations, such as European parliamentary elections, as well as the EU’s own geopolitical calculations, for instance the China factor in regard to Cambodia’s EBA.

Once the procedure is launched, it is hard to stop or reverse. Malaysia had tried to lobby some EU member states with the belief that some of them may block the EU’s legislations.
The case of Thailand offered a successful example by way of conforming to the EU’s demands. Thailand could make it because the EU’s demands are involved largely with law enforcement and amelioration of technical management of the issues. Therefore, responses from Thailand can be visible, measurable and, most importantly, “do-able”.

Malaysia’s case is relatively harder than Thailand’s to comply with because the nature of the product itself is considered by the EU as not environmentally friendly. It involves much larger schemes than simply elevating the quality of products or enhancing consideration over the environment. The environmental standard imposed by the EU is very vague and, as the case has proved, the EU did not accept the certification standard set by Malaysia in terms of environmental acknowledgement criteria over the products.

The EU’s demands with regard to Cambodia’s case are seen as the most difficult to comply with because the latter considered some of the EU’s requests as going beyond the red line of respect for sovereign independence and the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs of state. It is not about the issue of law enforcement, product quality, labour standards or environment considerations but about the perception regarding space for civil and political rights, which is hard to measure because the standard of compliance can vary even within the members of the EU.

Human rights

Despite the fact the EU is proving it is adhering to moral standards of human rights in providing trade preferential treatment, for Cambodia or other LDCs, the application of standards can equate to the denial of market access itself regarding the development phase of LDCs. For the post-conflict nations, it is an unrealistic expectation to demand they fully comply with all human rights conventions and treaties that they have ratified.
At the regional level, while the EU has mechanisms to resolve NTMs applied to EU member states or to utilise NTMs against third countries, Asean as an organisation does not have such tools and it does not appear that it is heading in that direction.

The EU side has many organisational tools in its approaches towards external partners, ranging from technical NTMs to non-technical NTMs, such as the cases of Malaysia using environmental justification, or the case of Thailand applying compliance issues of IUU or the case of Cambodia over the issues of democracy and human rights or geopolitical balance against China in the EU’s foreign policy.

As Asean is applying consensus in the decision-making process, AMS can block any progress or decision regarding cooperation with a specific dialogue partner. A case in point: In January 2019 Malaysia and Indonesia had deferred Asean’s decision in elevating its relations with the EU towards strategic partnership because of the EU’s discrimination against palm oil.

There are several lessons learned and applicable tools for member states to interact with one another when the NTMs are applied. The ideal is that states should not apply NTMs but, if they face NTMs, they may choose to conform or retaliate or use both approaches.
NTMs have caused mistrust and are considered as hindrances to the enhancement of cooperation, mutual respect and understanding. In a growing inter-dependent world, NTMs and sanctions rarely yield satisfactory results unless the affected states are totally isolated, which can never be the case. Moreover, as the above cases have shown, it may also provoke political, economic and geopolitical backlashes against states that choose to utilise NTMs.

If states intend to pursue equal partnerships, they should seek to balance mutual interests, to understand the specific context of their partners and to seek agreeable win-win solutions over differences instead of one-sidedly imposing their own agendas or interests because such actions are proven to be counterproductive.