Traveling style of Senior Khmer Statesman Hun Sen

Khmer Times, Opinion, 19 December 2022 (Link)

As a prime minister, Hun Sen has travelled a lot both domestically and internationally.

Wherever he goes, he has a popularity like a “Rockstar” that triggers love, support and envy, the charismatic leader who gathers crowd and attention. The frequency and intensity of his travelling is beyond compare and it is very hard to find any international leaders, young or senior, that can travel as much as he does.

This is not  leisure traveling. These are travels that are full of agenda and energy to create an impact, some even creates history. The traveling that requires heavy physical and mental stamina. The word “healthy” alone may not be sufficient to describe the capability to carry out these heavy duties, the like of Hun Sen’s style of work and travel.

There are many examples of his intensive travel and working style.

Just before the 40th and 41st ASEAN Summits and Related Summits, Hun Sen made a tour to northwestern provinces of Cambodia in late October to meet with Cambodian flood victims.

On 21 and 22 October, he met with 1,853 families and 3,200 families in two separate occasions in Siem Reap province. On 23 October, he met with more than 5,000 families in Banteay Meanchey province.

On 24 October, he met with 11,528 families in Battambang province. On 25 October, he met with 5,145 families in Pursat province. On 26 October, he met with 3,460 families in Kampong Chhnang province. On 29 October, he visited Kampong Thom province and met with 6,844 families. On 30 October, he met with 6,112 families in Prey Veng province.

This is an example of his extremely hectic schedule. And that did not include the schedule that he set for meetings with local authorities and armed forces after meetings with the flood victims.

Long live ASEAN!

Asia Times, Opinion, October 14, 2022 (Link)

By staying true to its founding principles, the association has not only survived for 55 years but grown stronger

It is not unusual for pundits to say the Association of Southeast Asian Nations is doomed to fail, or the end of ASEAN is coming. In fact, it has been said since its creation.

After all, with nations that are so colorful as those in ASEAN, everyone can question how the organization will stick together. But the organization has survived for 55 years. More than that, ASEAN has expanded from five to 10 members, and is making steps toward 11.

There are three rationales, conscious or unconscious. behind the naysayers’ arguments.

First is the misperception that new members add burdens for ASEAN. Second is the misperception that the older members are always united and aligned. And third is a sense of hopelessness over ASEAN’s slow action on divisive international and regional issues.

On the first rationale, Cambodia is a good case study for discussion.

Back in the 1980s, “Cambodian problems” were a major security challenge for the region. Peace and stability were threatened as countries in the region were fearful of the domino effects of communist expansionism.

Indonesia and Thailand had been active in supporting peace negotiations among Cambodia’s different parties. Well ahead of the Paris Peace Agreements of 1991, the proactive contribution from ASEAN to Cambodia’s peace-making process is historically recorded. Large-scale war was fading gradually from Cambodia as well as the region. And as peace solidified, Cambodia applied for ASEAN membership, and acceded to the grouping in 1999.

The fact here is that even when Cambodia was not a member of ASEAN, the organization was proactive in helping Cambodia to achieve peace, and in securing the whole region from large-scale war and the humanitarian plights that are the consequences of war.

This proved that the founding fathers of ASEAN were open-hearted, altruistic and farsighted. They were not selfish at all. The great ASEAN statesmen of those times chose to mediate Cambodian problems even if Cambodia was not a member of ASEAN, because they knew that it was in the interest of ASEAN to do so.

Now, ASEAN is benefiting from a safer and more developed Cambodia. After all, Cambodia sits in the heart of Southeast Asia, and ASEAN would not want to have a poor and war-torn country within its borders.

ការនិយាយថា ខ្មែរក្រទៅក្រទៅ គឺមិនត្រឹមត្រូវនោះទេ !

ទស្សនៈមិត្តអ្នកអាន, Freshnews, ថ្ងៃទី ២ ខែ មិថុនា ឆ្នាំ ២០២២ (តំណភ្ជាប់)

(ភ្នំពេញ)៖ ពាក្យថា « ខ្មែរក្រទៅក្រទៅ» នរណាក៏ធ្លាប់ស្តាប់លឺពាក្យនេះដែរ ហើយដល់ស្តាប់យូរទៅ ហើយថែមទាំងឃើញឡានលុចស៊ីស រ៉ូលរ៉យ ជិះពេញផ្លូវនៅក្រុងភ្នំពេញ ទន្ទឹមគ្នានឹងអ្នកដើរសុំទាននៅតាមភ្លើងស្តុប យើងក៏ប្រហែលជាអាចនឹកភ្នកក្នុងចិត្តថា តិចដូចគេថាមែនទៅ។ តើយើងគួរជឿតាមគេថា ឬគួរជឿតាមអារម្មណ៍ ដោយគ្មានការពិចារណាឬយ៉ាងណា?

ប្រាកដជាអត់ហើយ។ បើដូច្នេះ តើយើងមានអំណះអំណាង ឬសូចនាករអ្វីដើម្បីធ្វើជាមូលដ្ឋានវាស់វែងភាពមានក្រ និងដើម្បីវែកញែក ដោយសត្យានុម័តទៅលើសំណួរខាងលើនេះ?

ឥឡូវយើងពិភាក្សា និងពិចារណាលើបញ្ហានេះទាំងអស់គ្នា។
ដំបូង យើងយកតួលេខវិទ្យាសាស្ត្រមកពិនិត្យ។ ដើម្បីដឹងថាប្រទេសមួយក្រ ឬមាន ជាទូទៅគឺគេពិនិត្យមើលលើអត្រាភាពក្រីក្រ ពោលគឺភាគរយនៃចំនួនប្រជាជនដែលរស់នៅក្រោមបន្ទាត់ក្រីក្រ ដែលមានចំណូលតិចជាង១,៩ដុល្លារក្នុងមួយថ្ងៃ។ សូចនាករមួយទៀតគឺការពិនិត្យមើលទំហំនៃផលិតផលសរុបក្នុងស្រុក (ផ.ស.ស ឬ GDP) ឬចំណូលជាតិដុល (GNI) ក្នុងប្រជាជនម្នាក់ៗ។

តួលេខរបស់ធនាគារពិភពលោកបានបង្ហាញថា អត្រាភាពក្រីក្ររបស់កម្ពុជាបានធ្លាក់ចុះពី ពី ៥៣% ក្នុងឆ្នាំ២០០៤, មកនៅ ៤៧,៨% នៅឆ្នាំ២០០៧ និងមកនៅត្រឹម ១៣,៥%នៅឆ្នាំ២០១៤។ តួលេខនេះបានបន្តធ្លាក់ចុះនៅក្រោមកម្រិត ១០% នៅមុនពេលវិបត្តិជំងឺកូវីដ-១៩ វាយលុក។ ដើម្បីទប់កុំឱ្យពលរដ្ឋជាច្រើនធ្លាក់ក្នុងស្ថានភាពក្រីក្រសាជាថ្មី ដោយសារវិបត្តិជំងឺកូវីដ រាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលបានបញ្ចេញសាច់ប្រាក់ជាង៤០លានដុល្លារក្នុងមួយខែ ដើម្បីឧបត្ថម្ភជីវភាពដល់ក្រុមគ្រួសារក្រីក្រជាង ៧សែនគ្រួសារ ឬស្មើនឹងប្រជាជនជាង ៣លាននាក់។

យ៉ាងណាក្តី យោងតាមការប្រែប្រួលនៃស្ថានភាពសេដ្ឋកិច្ច និងសង្គម ថ្មីៗនេះ កម្ពុជាបានកំណត់ខ្សែបន្ទាត់ភាពក្រីក្រឡើងវិញ តាមរយៈការប្រើប្រាស់ទិន្នន័យអង្កេតសេដ្ឋកិច្ច សង្គមកម្ពុជាថ្មីបំផុត ឆ្នាំ ២០១៩/២០២០ ហើយខ្សែបន្ទាត់ភាពក្រីក្រថ្នាក់ជាតិនៅកម្ពុជា បច្ចុប្បន្នគឺស្មើនឹង ១០.៩៥១ រៀល ឬស្មើនឹង ២,៧ ដុល្លារអាមេរិកសម្រាប់មនុស្សម្នាក់ក្នុងមួយថ្ងៃ ។ ជាមួយនឹងខ្សែបន្ទាត់ភាពក្រីក្រថ្មីនេះ ប្រហែល ១៨% នៃប្រជាជនកម្ពុជាត្រូវបានកំណត់ថាជាអ្នកក្រីក្រ។

បើគ្មានវិបត្តិកូវីដកើតឡើងទេ អត្រាភាពក្រីក្ររបស់កម្ពុជាគឺធ្លាក់ថយចុះជាលំដាប់ ដូច្នេះ ការនិយាយថា ខ្មែរក្រទៅក្រទៅគឺមិនត្រឹមត្រូវនោះទេ។ កំណើនសេដ្ឋកិច្ចក្នុងអត្រាមធ្យម ៧,៧% ក្នុងចន្លោះពីឆ្នាំ១៩៩៨ ដល់ឆ្នាំ ២០១៩ បានធ្វើឱ្យកម្ពុជាក្លាយជាប្រទេសដែលមានកំណើនលឿនបំផុតមួយនៅក្នុងពិភពលោក និងបានចូលរួមចំណែកដល់ការកាត់បន្ថយភាពក្រីក្រផងដែរ។ ក្នុងចំណោម ៦៩ ប្រទេស ដែលមានទិន្នន័យអាចប្រៀបធៀបគ្នាបាន ពីឆ្នាំ ២០០៤ ដល់ឆ្នាំ ២០០៨ កម្ពុជាស្ថិតក្នុងចំណាត់ថ្នាក់ទីបួនលើការកាត់បន្ថយភាពក្រីក្រលឿនបំផុតក្នុងពិភពលោក។

Cambodia’s Win-Win Policy and International Peace Theories

Khmer Times, Opinion, 9 February 2022 (Link)

1. Dichotomy of debate: international intervention or endogenous initiative?

It takes only a short time to start a war but ending it and building peace requires generations. Cambodia’s three decades of civil war had sowed distrust and a vicious cycle of structural violence on top of the mutually annihilating behaviour and social destruction. As a result, the whole society had lost every chance of development, as poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, and the deprivation of basic human rights became the norms.

The Win-Win Policy refers to the national reconciliation policy crafted and implemented by Prime Minister Hun Sen from 1996 to 1998 to end the more than three decades of civil war through dismantling the Khmer Rouge’s political organisation and integrating them into the social, economic, and political life of the Cambodian state.

Not much research has been done on this specific topic due to international perception that peace was fully restored after the 1993 United Nations-brokered elections. However, this perception has gradually changed. More scholars and media communities have started to acknowledge that the 1993 election was merely one building block of the long process of peace-building and was not a definitive point of peace attainment.

When discussing Cambodia’s peace, one should not adopt a mutually-denial manner and focus only on who should take the monopoly of credits for Cambodia’s peace, the international community or the Cambodian government. Discussion on Cambodia’s peace-building tends to adopt two opposite extremes, the “overemphasis on external intervention” and the “nationalistic monopoly of peace.” The former group thinks that the international community should be more assertive in Cambodia’s peace process and should not heed to political compromise with the Hun Sen government. They believe that the international community has an obligation to bring peace to Cambodian people. However, they tend to ignore the limited time and resources that the international community could commit.

The overemphasis on foreign intervention draws criticisms of an imperialist or colonial mindset in which the roles of local actors are not fully appreciated. Consequently, the “nationalistic monopoly of peace” paradigm has emerged to countervail the “overemphasis on external intervention” paradigm to give credits to local actors and initiatives. Indeed, there were historical facts showing achievements by the local actors. Unfortunately, they were not fully appreciated by some circles of the international community. The Cambodian government’s narrative on the Khmer-initiated Win-Win Policy is thus viewed as a propaganda attempting to promote local monopolisation of Cambodia’s attainment of peace. However, the “nationalistic monopoly of peace” paradigm has its firm ground. As war lingered on, monopolisation of the peace process by local stakeholders increased because international intervention could not endure the lengthy peace-building process that could take decades. Aid fatigue and human resource exhaustion are the limit of international intervention.

Nevertheless, it is not right to suggest that total peace can be achieved without external involvement because if international actors still provide military, diplomatic, and political support or even media support to rebel groups, secessionist groups, or groups that seek the violent overthrow of the government, peace created by local stakeholders cannot withstand. Thus, on top of the domestic stakeholders’ commitment to peacebuilding, durable peace requires direct and indirect support from the international community for state legitimacy.

Cambodia’s economy: what to watch for in 2022

Asia Times, Opinion, February 4, 2022 (Link)

The country has largely brought the pandemic under control, and signs of a strong recovery are good

Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Cambodia was a world leader in economic growth and poverty reduction. It sustained an average growth rate of 7.7% between 1995 and 2019, raising its per capita income from US$323 in 1995 to $1,621 in 2019, and graduated to a lower-middle-income economy in 2015. The poverty rate fell from 47.8% in 2007 to 13.5% in 2014.

Like every country, Cambodia’s economy as well as society as a whole has been severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Nonetheless, since last November, Cambodia has reopened the country and started to live with Covid-19, betting on the kingdom’s herd immunity built upon one of the world’s highest vaccination rates.

As of November 28, the country was ranked second in Asia and seventh in the world for the total share of fully and partly vaccinated people in its total population. On December 20, the results of the so-called “February 20 community event” were declared an end after the government had struggled to contain the outbreak nationwide for 10 months.

The world is quite contradictory because the advanced economies have a surplus of vaccines and yet they are struggling with vaccine hesitancy, while developing countries have been battling for access to vaccines.

Cambodia is among the lucky few developing countries that can secure vaccines for its people, who welcome inoculation as the only means and strategy for national reopening up. The World Health Organization attested to Cambodia’s vaccine success in that regard, but also warned of “vaccine optimism.”

As of November, 87.7% of the population of about 16 million had been fully vaccinated, and Covid-19 has been under control with fewer than 3,000 deaths.

On top of public health measures, robust fiscal, economic and social-security measures have been pursued to prevent the full-scale fallout of the economy and people’s livelihoods. In December, the government laid out 10 rounds of intervention measures to support survival and recovery of micro, small and medium enterprises and sectors most affected, namely garment and tourism, and to provide minimum basic needs for 700,000 vulnerable households.

According to the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), $829 million was spent for interventions in 2020, and $1.454 billion in 2021. For the national budget in 2022, under the “3Rs” pillars (“Recovery, Reforms, Resilience”), the government has earmarked $1.014 billion for intervention, making the total expense since 2020 amount to approximately $3.4 billion.

The MEF predicted growth for 2021 at 3.0% and 5.6% for 2022, expecting the economy gradually to reach its potential in the medium term, supported by global demand and a gradual recovery in investment confidence.

For 2022, three trends should be key for observation on development of Cambodia’s economy.

Economic aspects of ASEAN Community Building Efforts

Khmer Times, Opinion, 20 December 2021 (Link)

 

There is a tendency for media and public opinion to overly focus on the political security aspect of ASEAN. Indeed, the aspect is of high importance because without peace, a wide spectrum of cooperation and community building efforts cannot be done.

Nonetheless, with the intensification of superpower rivalry, while ASEAN can be flattered to receive unprecedented attention, it can also be submerged with agenda of superpowers and get lost from our own goals for the sake of community interest.

While ASEAN is being praised for being the center for specific geopolitical strategies of superpowers and major powers, in other words, it also means that ASEAN is becoming the central platform for superpower and major power rivalries.

There can be optimistic view that competition between major powers creates balance of power that in turn supports stability and prosperity of the region. But this narrative is only partially completed. We need to remind ourselves that geopolitical competition and rivalry had been pursued at the expense of peace for some part of the region during the 1970s and 1980s.

This lesson should not be forgotten, and not least, be repeated in the region. Being the theater for superpower and major powers rivalry does not serve the whole region well, if history is of any reminder for all of us.

For ASEAN, political security is not all about confrontation and rivalry. And ASEAN is not all about political security either.

For the benefit of our community, apart from the maintenance of peace and security, we need to constantly think about what kind of tangible benefits that the ASEAN community bring towards people in the region. How could the ASEAN community support the betterment of people’s livelihood in the region? This is where the economic pillar comes into play.

When  Covid-19 is still looming, the prospects for the economy is gloomy as countries look internally for economic security and survival, and resorted to de-globalization, or at worst protectionism. Ensuring resilient economic recovery, revitalising post-pandemic competitiveness are among the key economic priorities for ASEAN in the near future.

To that end, among many areas of cooperation, three key areas should deserve stronger attention from media and public opinion.

តើអង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សអាចជួយកម្ពុជាក្នុងការឆ្លើយតបនឹងវិបត្តិកូវីដ-១៩ ដោយរបៀបណា?

ទស្សនៈមិត្តអ្នកអាន, ភ្នំពេញប៉ុស្តិ៍ ថ្ងៃទី ១៧ ខែ កញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ​ ២០២១ (តំណភ្ជាប់) 

យោងតាម​ធនាគារ​អភិវឌ្ឍន៍អាស៊ី សេដ្ឋកិច្ចកម្ពុជា​បាន​ធ្លាក់ចុះ​ ៣,១ ​ភាគរយ​ នៅ​ឆ្នាំ​ ២០២០​។ ​អង្គការ​កម្មវិធី​អភិវឌ្ឍន៍​សហប្រជាជាតិ (UNDP) បាន​ព្យាករ​ថា អត្រា​ភាពក្រីក្រ​របស់​កម្ពុជា​នឹង​កើនឡើង​ដល់​ ១៧,៦ ​ភាគរយ​ ដែល​ស្មើនឹង​ការកើនឡើង​ប្រហែល​ ៨ ​ភាគរយ​ខ្ពស់ជាង​មុនពេល​មាន​វិបត្តិ​ជំងឺ​រាតត្បាត​កូវីដ​ ១៩​។

យោងតាម​ការគណនា​តាម​គំរូ​ម៉ូដែល (modelling) របស់​អង្គការ UNDP បាន​បង្ហាញថា កញ្ចប់​ថវិកា​ឧបត្ថម្ភ​ក្នុង​ការគាំពារ​សង្គម​ទំហំ​ ៣,៥ ​ភាគរយ​ នៃ​ផលិតផល​ក្នុងស្រុក​សរុប (​ផ.ស.ស) អាច​នឹង​រារាំង​ប្រជាជន​ ៥៧០ ០០០ ​នាក់ ​មិនឱ្យ​ធ្លាក់ចូល​ទៅក្នុង​ភាពក្រីក្រ​ឡើងវិញ​។ ​

ជា​ការឆ្លើយតប រាជរដ្ឋាភិបាល​កម្ពុជា​បាន​ចេញ​វិធានការ​ដូចជា ការផ្ទេរ​សាច់ប្រាក់​ទៅ​គ្រួសារ​ក្រីក្រ និង​ងាយ​រងគ្រោះ ការឧបត្ថម្ភ​លើ​បៀវត្សរ៍​កម្មករ​ការផ្តល់​កម្ចី​ការប្រាក់​ទាប​ និង​ការបន្ធូរបន្ថយ​ពន្ធ​សម្រាប់​អាជីវកម្ម​ក្នុង​វិស័យ​ដែល​រងផលប៉ះពាល់​ខ្លាំងជាងគេ ការផ្តល់​សាច់ប្រាក់​ពលកម្ម (cash-for-work) នៅតាម​ទីជនបទ និង​ការគាំទ្រ​ដល់​សហគ្រាស​ខ្នាតតូច និង​មធ្យម (SMEs)​។ រាជរដ្ឋាភិបាល បាននិង​កំពុង​អនុវត្ត​ការផ្តល់​សាច់ប្រាក់​ដល់​គ្រួសារ​ក្រីក្រ និង​ងាយ​រងគ្រោះ​ជិត​ ៧០ ​ម៉ឺន​គ្រួសារ​។

ការធ្លាក់ចុះ​សេដ្ឋកិច្ច​បាន​ប៉ះពាល់​យ៉ាងធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ​ដល់​ការងារ​។ ​យោងតាម​ការសិក្សា​របស់​មូលនិធិ​អាស៊ី​ (TAF) និង​មជ្ឈមណ្ឌល​សិក្សា​ខ្មែរ (CKS) បាន​បង្ហាញថា គ្រួសារ​ជា​មធ្យម​ក្នុង​វិស័យ​កាត់ដេរ និង​ស្បែកជើង​បាន​បាត់បង់​ ១ ​ភាគ​ ៣ ​នៃ​ប្រាក់ចំណូល​របស់​ពួកគេ​។

​ការរអាក់រអួល​ ឬ​ការបិទ​អាជីវកម្ម​ដោយសារ​ការរីករាលដាល​នៃ​ជំងឺ​កូវីដ​ ១៩ ​មានន័យថា​ពលករ​ចំណាកស្រុក​ជាច្រើន​ត្រូវបាន​បង្ខំចិត្ត​វិល​ត្រឡប់មក​កម្ពុជា​វិញ​។ ​បុគ្គលិក​សេវា​ទេសចរណ៍​បាន​រងគ្រោះ​ធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ​បំផុត​ដោយសារ​កូវីដ​ ១៩ ​ដោយ​ពួកគេ​បាន​បាត់បង់​ប្រាក់​ចំណូល​ ៩០ ​ភាគរយ​។

ការសិក្សា​នេះ​បាន​ផ្តល់​អនុសាសន៍​គោលនយោបាយ​មួយចំនួន​សម្រាប់​ស្ថាប័នហិរញ្ញវត្ថុ​ ដើម្បី​កែសម្រួល​គោលនយោបាយ​ដូចជា​ការពន្យារ​ការសង​ប្រាក់កម្ចី​ជាដើម ដើម្បី​ផ្តល់​ការការពារ​ដល់​អ្នក​ជាប់បំណុល​បូករួម​ទាំង​កម្មករ​ងាយ​រងគ្រោះ​។ ​ការសិក្សា​នេះ​គឺជា​ឧទាហរណ៍​ដ៏ល្អ​មួយ​អំពី​របៀប​ដែល​អង្គការ​សង្គម​ស៊ីវិល​អាច​ផ្តល់​ការគាំទ្រ​ជាក់ស្តែង និង​អនុសាសន៍​គោលនយោបាយ​។ ​វិធីសាស្ត្រ​បែបនេះ​ផ្តល់​អាទិភាព​ដល់​ការស្វែងរក​ដំណោះស្រាយ​ដោយ​ពិនិត្យ​ទៅលើ​ទិដ្ឋភាព​ផ្សេងៗ​ជា​ជាង​ការទម្លាក់​កំហុស ឬ​បន្ទោស​ស្ថាប័ន​ណាមួយ​ចំពោះ​ផលប៉ះពាល់​នៃ​វិបត្តិ​ដែល​មិន​ធ្លាប់មាន​ពីមុនមក​។

អង្គការ​សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​តែងមាន​និន្នាការ​ផ្តោត​តែ​លើ​សិទ្ធិ​នយោបាយ ប៉ុន្តែ​និន្នាការ​បែបនេះ​មិន​បាន​បង្ហាញ​ពី​រូបភាព​ពេញលេញ​នៃ​សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​នោះឡើយ ជាពិសេស​នៅក្នុង​អំឡុងពេល​នៃ​វិបត្តិ​កូវីដ​ ១៩​។ ​ក្នុង​អំឡុងពេល​នៃ​វិបត្តិ​នេះ​សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​ជា​មូលដ្ឋាន​រួមទាំង​សិទ្ធិ​រស់រាន​មាន​ជីវិត សិទ្ធិ​ទទួល​បាន​ការងារ​សមរម្យ​មាន​ម្ហូបអាហារ​បរិភោគ សិទ្ធិ​ទទួលបាន​ការថែទាំ​សុខភាព​ការអប់រំ និង​ជម្រក​ស្នាក់នៅ​ជាដើម​ក៏​ត្រូវតែ​ផ្តល់​ការយក​ចិត្ត​ទុកដាក់​ដូចគ្នា​ដែរ​។

ជំងឺ​កូវីដ​ ១៩ ​មាន​គ្រោះថ្នាក់​អាច​គំរាមកំហែង​ដល់​អាយុជីវិត​។ ​ដូច្នេះ​គ្រប់​សមាសធាតុ​នៃ​សង្គម​រួមទាំង​អង្គការ​សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​គួរតែ​ដាក់​សិទ្ធិ​រស់រាន​មាន​ជីវិត​ឱ្យ​សំខាន់​លើសពី​អ្វីៗ​ទាំងអស់​។ ​សិទ្ធិ​នយោបាយ និង​សេរីភាព​បុគ្គល​ដូចជា​សិទ្ធិ​ក្នុង​ការដើរហើរ​ដែល​អាច​ចម្លងជំងឺ​ទៅ​អ្នកដទៃ សិទ្ធិ​បញ្ចេញមតិ​ដោយ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ព័ត៌មាន​ដែល​គ្មាន​ការពិត និង​ជំរុញ​ឱ្យ​ពលរដ្ឋ​មិន​គោរព​តាម​វិធានការ​រដ្ឋបាល និង​សុខាភិបាល​ជាដើម វា​បានធ្វើឱ្យ​ប៉ះពាល់​យ៉ាងធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ​ដល់​សង្គម​នៅ​គ្រាអាសន្ន​បែបនេះ​។

អង្គការ​សិទ្ធិមនុស្ស​គួរ​ចៀសវាង​ការសាបព្រោះ​កំហឹង ការស្អប់ខ្ពើម​គ្នា ការមិនទុកចិត្ត​គ្នា និង​បំបែកបំបាក់​សាមគ្គីភាព​ក្នុង​សង្គម​ខ្មែរ ឧទាហរណ៍​តាមរយៈ​ការផ្តល់​ការគាំទ្រ និង​ការលើក​ទឹកចិត្ត​ដល់​អ្នក​ដែល​បាន​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ព័ត៌មាន​មិន​ពិត​ ឬបាន​ជំរុញ​ឱ្យ​ពលរដ្ឋ​ប្រឆាំង​នឹង​វិធានការ​របស់​អាជ្ញាធរ​ដោយ​ចាត់ទុកថា ទង្វើ​របស់​អង្គការ​ខ្លួន​គឺជា​សកម្មភាព​ការពារ​សេរីភាព​នៃ​ការបញ្ចេញមតិ និង​សេរីភាព​ក្នុង​ការប្រមូលផ្តុំ​ជាដើម​។ ​

How human rights groups can help Cambodia’s COVID-19 response

East Asia Forum, Opinion, 15 September 2021 (Link)

According to the Asian Development Bank, Cambodia’s economy contracted by 3.1 per cent in 2020. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) predicts that Cambodia’s poverty rate will rise to 17.6 per cent, around 8 percentage points higher than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

UNDP modelling suggests that a social protection stimulus of 3.5 percent of GDP in Cambodia would prevent 570,000 people from sliding back into poverty. In response, the Cambodian government is providing cash transfers to poor and vulnerable households, wage subsidies, low-interest loans and tax relief for businesses in hard-hit sectors, a cash-for-work program in rural areas and support to small and medium-sized enterprises. Government cash relief has reached nearly 700,000 poor and vulnerable families.

The economic contraction adversely affected employment. According to a study by the Asia Foundation and the Center for Khmer Studies, average households in the garment and footwear sector lost one-third of their income. Disruption or closures of businesses due to the COVID-19 surge meant that many migrant workers were forced to return to Cambodia. Tourism workers were hurt the worst by COVID-19, reportedly losing 90 per cent of their income.

The study suggested some policy recommendations for financial institutions to improve loan restructuring policies to better provide protection to borrowers, including vulnerable workers. This study is a good example of how civil society organisations can provide practical assistance and policy advice. Such an approach prioritises looking for solutions from different angles instead of blaming institutions for the impacts of an unprecedented crisis.

Human rights groups tend to focus solely on political rights, yet this results in an incomplete picture, especially during COVID-19. During the COVID-19 crisis, fundamental human rights — including the right to life, to a decent job, to food, shelter, healthcare, education and subsistent livelihood — should be equally prioritised.

COVID-19 is life threatening. As such, every element of society, including human rights groups, should put the right to life above anything else. Political rights and individual freedoms — such as the right to spread disease, disseminate fake news and conduct civil disobedience — are harming society at this critical time.

Human rights groups should refrain from sowing disunity, hatred and distrust within Cambodian society, for example through providing advocacy support and encouragement to people spreading fake news. Instead, rights groups can educate people about their civic duties and encourage them to fully cooperate with necessary government measures, such as mobility restrictions and quarantine. Human rights groups can also help promote awareness of rights to healthcare by disseminating information about where to go for medical advice and how to adhere to the state’s COVID-19 preventive measures.

Human rights group can also help promote awareness of the importance of vaccination. For instance, the British embassy in Hanoi has offered a grant of up to US$165,000 to support ASEAN in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Human rights groups and foreign embassies should follow its lead.

In Vietnam, companies have managed on-site manufacturing by imposing a strict isolation policy and providing personal-care products to stop workers from going outside. Any worker who chooses to stay at the factory is rewarded with US$239.

Cambodia does not need to emulate Vietnam’s example but human rights groups should make suggestions and recommendations on how to protect the health security of workers. Again, blaming private companies should be avoided as an approach to find appropriate solutions for the promotion of the rights of workers.

Oxfam Cambodia’s program is another good example. COVID-19 has made women working in the informal economy more vulnerable due to unemployment, domestic violence, unintended pregnancies and financial insecurity. Women also tend to be forced to take on greater responsibilities to care for the sick and educate their children during school closures. Oxfam is advocating for more attention and programs to support maternity protection. This advocacy is encouraging the government to better align labour legislation and regulations with the ILO Maternity Protection Convention No 183 and the business community to promote family-friendly policies and better distribute unpaid care work in households.

Human rights groups can also help educate people about how to distinguish fake news on social media and receive information from reliable sources, who to contact when help is needed and where to get information about vaccinations.

Human rights groups in Cambodia need to be aware that their voices are important. Rights groups engage at the grassroots level, so they can directly mobilise local people to conduct civic engagement in the joint fight against the pandemic. Their voices are vital in shaping international solidarity and multilateral actions which address fundamental human rights holistically.

កាសែត The New York Times បំភាន់សាធារណៈមតិពីកិច្ចខិតខំប្រយុទ្ធនឹងកូវីដរបស់កម្ពុជា

Freshnews, ថ្ងៃទី ៣ ខែ សីហា ឆ្នាំ ២០២១ (តំណភ្ជាប់)

(ភ្នំពេញ)៖ អត្ថបទនេះគឺជាការឆ្លើយតបទៅនឹងអត្ថបទរបស់លោក Charles McDermid ដែលបានចុះផ្សាយនៅក្នុងកាសែត The New York Times នៅថ្ងៃទី២៤ ខែកក្កដា ឆ្នាំ២០២១ ដែលមានចំណងជើងថា «ទីនោះធ្លាប់ជាកន្លែងប្រណីត។ ឥឡូវកន្លែងទាំងនោះបានក្លាយជាមណ្ឌលឃុំឃាំងកូវីដដ៏អាណោចអាធម (grim Covid camps)» ដែលការបរិយាយបែបនេះគឺប្រាសចាកពីតថភាពពិតនៃកិច្ចខិតខំប្រឹងប្រែងរបស់កម្ពុជា ក្នុងការទប់ស្កាត់ការរីករាលដាលនៃជំងឺកូវីដ-១៩ ដ៏កាចសាហាវ។

កាសែតនេះកំពុងប្រាប់ពិភពលោកថា កម្ពុជាកំពុងឃុំឃាំងប្រជាជានខ្លួនឯង ក្នុងកាលៈទេសៈនៃជំងឺរាតត្បាតដោយមិនមានការព្យាបាល។ វាជាការពិតដែលថា កម្ពុជាជាប្រទេសតូច និងទន់ខ្សោយ។ ប្រជាជនកម្ពុជាក៏ដឹងច្បាស់ពីការពិតនេះដែរ ហើយយើងគ្មានការលាក់លៀមអ្វីទាំងអស់។ នរណាក៏អាចមើលឃើញ និងដឹងលឺពីស្ថានភាពខ្វះខាតនៃទីតាំងព្យាបាល និងចត្តាឡីស័កកូវីដ ហើយអ្នកនៅក្នុងទីតាំងនោះផ្ទាល់តែងតែចែករំលែករូបថត និងវីដេអូជាក់ស្តែង នៅលើបណ្តាញផ្សព្វផ្សាយសង្គម។

វាគឺជាការពិតដែលកម្ពុជាកំពុងស្ថិតនៅក្នុង «បន្ទាត់ក្រហម» ហើយការរអ៊ូរទាំគឺជាការចៀសមិនផុត ហើយរាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលក៏បានប្រកាសជាសាធារណៈដោយ គ្មានលាក់លៀមអំពី ស្ថានភាពធ្ងន់ធ្ងរនៃការរាតត្បាតនេះដែរ។

រាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលថែមទាំងបានអនុញ្ញាតឱ្យមានការព្យាបាលនៅតាមផ្ទះ ដោយសារបុគ្គលិកសុខាភិបាលកំពុងព្យាយាមទប់ទល់នឹងការកើនឡើងនៃករណីឆ្លង ដូច្នេះ ហើយបានជាការធ្វើតេស្តិ៍មានភាពយឺតយ៉ាវខ្លះ ហើយការពិនិត្យថែទាំអ្នកជំងឺ ឬពលរដ្ឋដែលជាប់ចត្តាឡីស័ក អាចមានការខ្វះចន្លោះ។

ដោយសារតែខ្វះបុគ្គលិកសុខាភិបាល កម្ពុជាបានចលនាពេទ្យយោធា និងពេទ្យស្ម័គ្រចិត្ត ឱ្យចូលរួមជួយគាំទ្រដល់យុទ្ធនាការចាក់វ៉ាក់សាំង និងព្យាបាលអ្នកជំងឺថែមទៀត។
ប៉ុន្តែកាសែត New York Times កំពុងតែបំភាន់សាធារណៈមតិនៅពេលដែលកាសែតនេះបរិយាយថា កម្ពុជាបានធ្លាក់ដល់កម្រិតក្លាយជា «មណ្ឌលឃុំឃាំងកូវីដដ៏អាណោចអាធម» ហើយថា អាជ្ញាធរកម្ពុជាកំពុងឃុំឃាំងពលរដ្ឋខ្លួនឯង។

ជាមួយនឹងធនធានដែលកម្ពុជាមាននៅក្នុងការទប់ស្កាត់ជំងឺរាតត្បាតដ៏កាចសាហាវនេះ ហេតុអ្វីបានជាកាសែតនេះហ៊ានបរិយាយថា ស្រុកខ្មែរ «អាណោចអាធម» នៅពេលដែលរដ្ឋញូវយ៉កខ្លួនឯងមានករណីឆ្លងជាងពីរលាននាក់ និងស្លាប់៥ម៉ឺន៣ពាន់នាក់ បើទោះបីជារដ្ឋញូវយ៉កខ្លួនឯងមានធនធានហិរញ្ញវត្ថុដ៏ធំមហិមា និងមានបុគ្គលិកសុខាភិបាល និងប្រព័ន្ធសុខាភិបាលដ៏ទំនើបផុតលេខនោះ?

ឥឡូវយើងប្រៀបធៀបទាំងអស់គ្នាលើតួលេខជាក់ស្តែង។ រដ្ឋញូវយ៉កមានប្រជាជន ១៩លាននាក់ គឺមិនសូវខុសគ្នាប៉ុន្មានជាមួយនឹងកម្ពុជាដែលមានប្រជាជន ១៦លាននាក់នោះទេ។ តែបើគិតពីទំហំសេដ្ឋកិច្ច រដ្ឋញូវយ៉កមានផលិតផលក្នុងស្រុកសរុប (ផសស) លើសពី ១,៥ទ្រីលានដុល្លារ ហើយស្រុកខ្មែរមានតែប្រមាណ ២៥ប៊ីលានដុល្លារប៉ុណ្ណោះ គឺធំលើសកម្ពុជា ៦០ដង។ បើមើលពីអត្រាចាក់វ៉ាក់សាំងនៅញូវយ៉កមានលើស ៧០% ហើយកម្ពុជាក៏មានប្រហែល ៧០%ដែរ។ ហើយគិតត្រឹមពេលបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះ កម្ពុជាមានករណីឆ្លងលើសពី៧ម៉ឺននាក់ និងស្លាប់ជាង ១ពាន់៣រយនាក់។ នេះគឺវាខុសគ្នាឆ្ងាយណាស់ជាមួយនឹងករណីឆ្លង និងការស្លាប់ដោយសារកូវីដនៅរដ្ឋញូវយ៉ក។

Top US paper misleading world on Cambodia’s Covid fight

Asia Times, 29 July 2021 (Link)

An article by Charles McDermid published in The New York Times on July 24, 2021, titled “They Were Once Luxury Venues. Now They Are Grim Covid Camps” presents a distorted picture of Cambodia’s struggle to contain the spread of Covid-19.

The Times is telling the world that the Cambodian government is imprisoning its own people during the pandemic instead of providing medical treatment.

It is a fact that Cambodia is small and weak. We Cambodians are well aware of this fact and we are not hiding anything. The difficult situation of Covid facilities is in plain sight, and those who are in the facilities can share photos or videos on social media.

It is also a fact that Cambodia is in a “red line” situation and complaints are inevitable, and the government has publicly announced the seriousness of the situation.

The government even allows people with mild cases to receive treatment at home as health personnel are struggling to cope with the increased number of cases, which explains the slow pace of testing and care provided to individual patients or quarantined citizens.

To cope with the shortage of personnel, military doctors and volunteer doctors have been mobilized to support the vaccination campaign as well as treatment efforts.

But to suggest that Cambodia has descended to a level of “grim Covid camps” and is imprisoning its own people, as described by The New York Times, is totally misleading.

With the level of resources Cambodia has to respond to the pandemic, how can it be called “grim” when compared with New York state, which has had more than 2 million infections and more than 53,000 deaths despite all the resources it has in terms of finance, medical personnel, and medical facilities?

Let’s look at the numbers so we can put the comparison in better context.

New York state has a population of around 19 million, a little more than Cambodia’s 16 million. In terms of gross domestic product, New York state’s is more than US$1.5 trillion and Cambodia’s around $25 billion. The vaccination rate in New York state is more than 70% while Cambodia’s is more than 60%. At time of writing, Cambodia has had more than 70,000 infections and around 1,300 deaths.