POST BAG From Cambodia with clarity

GMT +07:00

Send suggestions

Opinion » Opinion

POST BAG From Cambodia with clarity

  • Published: 13/10/2009 at 12:00 AM
  • Newspaper section: News

Re: "Hun Sen, Cambodia's agent provocateur?" (Bangkok Post, Oct 7) written by "pseudo scholar" Pavin Chachavalpong-pun. His article, which was written with ill will and malicious intent, contains many manipulative and baseless arguments against Samdech Techo Hun Sen, prime minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, as follows:

First, when the Thai soldiers entered Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda near Preah Vihear temple, Cambodia exercised maximum restraint and great tolerance because the country was about to hold elections. At the same time, Prime Minister Hun Sen wanted to avoid armed clashes between the two countries.

Second, undoubtedly Prime Minister Hun Sen is far from being an ''agent provocateur''. He is a statesman and a respected leader of Asean. He did not stir up nationalism, as the writer has wrongly accused. In fact, it was Thailand that initiated the problem and tried to exploit extreme nationalist sentiment in order to make political gains.

Third, if you know Prime Minister Hun Sen, he has never wanted to provoke an armed conflict with Thailand. There is, and has been, no reason whatsoever for him to engage in this act of provocation. The true reality is that Thailand was the one that started it all. No peace-loving nation on earth like Cambodia wants to make political gains by provoking armed conflict with its neighbours. Therefore, the recent tensions between the two countries began with the yellow-shirt protesters from Thailand who wanted to enter our Preah Vihear temple.

The Cambodian government simply wanted to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. With regard to the point of warning the Thais to stop ''trespassing on Cambodian land'', what Prime Minister Hun Sen really wanted was to protect Cambodia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to avoid any armed clash between the two sides.

Fourth, Prime Minister Hun Sen never said that he wanted Thailand to give up its Asean chairmanship. Again, this is another factual error. What he really said at the time was whether Thailand would be able to host the Asean Summit and other related meetings, given its domestic situation then. Of course, later the Asean Summit and other meetings in Pattaya were cancelled, in April of this year. What Prime Minister Hun Sen said was proved absolutely right and no one can deny this fact.

Fifth, there was no need for Prime Minister Hun Sen to use the Preah Vihear temple issue to increase his popularity because he is already popular, and his Cambodian People's Party won the election with more than a two-thirds majority.

Sixth, after Thailand had destroyed the Cambodian market inside our territory, the Royal Government of Cambodia had to demand that the former pay compensation to the Cambodian people who were affected by the destruction of the market on Cambodian soil. This is a normal process, and Thailand should comply.

Seventh, we all know very well that the opposition party in any country in the world usually does not have any good things to say about the government in power. So, do you really want to join the opposition party in Cambodia against the Royal Government of Cambodia?

Finally, the issue of ''love-hate relations'' could only take place in Thailand, certainly not in Cambodia. Everyone in the world knows that the Preah Vihear temple belongs to Cambodia. Cambodia has no ''love-hate relations'' whatsoever.

H E MRS YOU AY

Ambassador, Kingdom of Cambodia

-----

CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING, 136 NA RANONG ROAD, KLONG TOEY, BANGKOK 10110

Fax: 02 2403666, email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th

All letter writers must provide full name and address.

All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.

Share your thoughts

For more candid, lengthy, conversational and open discussion between one another, use our Forum

Report objectionable comments click here. Include: discussion #, commenter name, comment date / time as it looks on the page. Example: discussion 15: 09/01/2009 at 10:00 AM.

  • Bubba

    Discussion 14 : 19/10/2009 at 10:07 AM14

    BOB # 5: You write this: "Both sides didn't provided solid evidences to support their claims."


    Really? What evidence would that be? I would rather say NEITHER side provided any factual evidence at all.

    The only difference is, the BP took the initiative to write a provocative article, and the Cambodian representative responded.

  • Candide

    Discussion 13 : 14/10/2009 at 09:37 AM13

    Tough love?

    The article "Hun Sen, Cambodia's agent provocateur?" (Bangkok Post, Oct 7) written by Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun may indeed be perceived as slightly manipulative and is definitively biased. However, his analysis contains also some very interesting insights in the past and current tensions between The Kingdom of Thailand and the Kingdom of Cambodia. Similarly, the letter from the Cambodian Ambassador (Bangkok Post, Oct 13) is both insightful and fundamentally biased.

    The Cambodian Ambassador did her duty when describing Samdech Techo Hun Sen as “a statesman and a respected leader of Asean”. As the leader of Cambodia Samdech Techo Hun Sen has the right and duty to defend his country against any external interference or any trespassing on the Cambodian territory.


    However, the Cambodian Ambassador failed to clarify the following statement made by Samdech Techo Hun Sen: “I am the leader of Cambodia who was elected by the will of the people, not by robbing power.”

    Whether the comment was an implicit reference to the current Thai government remains to be clarified. Until then, it can certainly be perceived as interference in the internal affairs of Thailand as well as some other ASEAN country. Nevertheless, the term “agent provocateur” may probably be dubbed “nappropriate”.

    The Ambassador of Cambodia is in the opinion that love-hate relations “could only take place in Thailand, certainly not in Cambodia”. If “love-hate relations” is not an appropriate way to describe the ransack of the Thai Embassy and Thai-owned business in January 2003 by Cambodian students from a nearby public university, then let’s call it “tough love”.

  • CalmKhmer

    Discussion 12 : 14/10/2009 at 07:49 AM12

    What's up with FM Kasit Piromya? Does he ever stick to what he said? One week he said this and the next he said the opposite. Last week he said he wanted ASEAN involved in the talk about Cambodia land Thailand is claiming and this week he said no he doesn't want ASEAN involvement. Why all the flip-flopping?

  • Peuv

    Discussion 11 : 14/10/2009 at 02:18 AM11

    I am sorry I am not sure to what country H E MRS YOU AY is the Cambodian ambassador. I assume … to Thailand. Again, “the pot calling the kettle black”. How can you correct the others when you are not able to clarify yourself?
    Let’s get straight to the point. Cambodia is a strange country where the ambassadors or the high-ranking officials, in the public or in the foreign media, praise and cajole the prime minister to show their allegiance in order to keep their job or to seek further promotion. They are so delighted to run into any foreign news report that attacks the Prime Minister so that they have a chance to counter-attck to protect the prime minister to show their allegiance. They respond relentlessly, with or without conscience ... no matter how. In front of foreign media, they usually use high-noble word, such as Samdech Decho (King and legendary Hero) to entitle Hun Sen. Their counter-attack means a show-off of their allegiance to the prime minister. The allegiance means further promotion or keeping a competed position. Last July, Cambodia ambassador to Britain, Hor Nambora, lashed out his temper without professionalism and conscience at Global Witness that accused Hun Sen and his closed friends of pocketing the money earned from exploiting the country’s natural resources. He called on the donors to stop funding Global Witness. Was he kidding? Or, was he just showing his allegiance to Hun Sen to keep his job? Is this how a Cambodian high-ranking official do to keep his/her job?

  • Zuluka

    Discussion 10 : 13/10/2009 at 11:20 PM10

    Does Thai have something to hide ?
    Cambodia wanted to take this problem to ASEAN or UN; however, Thai kept denying.

    Thai took Cambodia land and tried to avoid ASEAN involvement or UN.

  • Mike Barringtor

    Discussion 9 : 13/10/2009 at 08:12 PM9

    The article made it necessary for the Cambodian Ambassador to respond.

    Good response. Of course the Ambassador is biased, however, everything he stated is basically the objective truth.

    I would add though that the Ambassador should not have submitted his "fifth" point, that when the Ambassador states that Hun Sen wouldn't use the issue to increase his popularity because he is already popular -- well this is just wishful thinking because most politicians will do almost anything to increase or hold onto power and Hun Sen has a long history of doing just that.

  • Jonh

    Discussion 8 : 13/10/2009 at 07:20 PM8

    from what i've observed, everything is fired and started by stuff called "yellow shirt". i cannot forget the time i was stuck at thai airport when it was robbed by that stuff.

  • gareth

    Discussion 7 : 13/10/2009 at 06:45 PM7

    Problem with Thai "government" is there are too many loose cannons running around freely spouting their own opinions to anyone who will listen. As Bob said, just children.

  • Ramon

    Discussion 6 : 13/10/2009 at 12:12 PM6

    Thanks the ambassador for the clarification. However, I'm not sure whether the article deserves the response from the top Cambodian representative to Thailand. I don't think the ambassador needs to respond to all comments unless they made by politically significant and influential author(s). I still believe that the 2003 incident would not have happened if we just ignore what Suvanand said or rumour of what she said because she is just a movie star and her comments hold no weight on the matter.

    Another example of why we should be careful in response to media publication is today's headline on The Nation "Thai FM denies wanting Asean involvement". Few days ago Bangkokpost quoted Kasit saying he would seek to create mechanism within ASEAN to help solve conflict between members, including Thai-Cambodian border conflict. But Abhisit still insists the matter is solved bilaterally. Yesterday, Cambodian FM sent letter to Kasit proposing to put the matter in the agenda of Asean summit (based on what was quoted by Bangkokpost); and here comes the denial from Thai FM on The Nation saying Kasit may have been quoted "out of context" and no words from Bangkokpost.

  • Bob Dean

    Discussion 5 : 13/10/2009 at 10:31 AM5

    Dr. Pavin said, "Hun Sen did this" and the ambassador said "No, Hun Sen didn't do that, all he did was...."

    Both sides didn't provided solid evidences to support their claims.

    This didn't sound like an arguement between an academic and an ambassador. It sounded more like two kids arguing, "Did Too," "Did not."

Reply

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  • As a courtesy to our readers, please use proper punctuation and correct spelling.

back to top