Under a liberal, democratic system of government, people's dreams or aspirations stand a much better chance of being translated into realities. Conversely, an authoritarian and autocratic rule as prevailing in Cambodia allows little or no room for these dreams to materialise. If anything, such hopes and aspirations are regarded as more of a threat to the regime or its survival and therefore something to be suppressed and stifled before they ever get the chance to express themselves.
For a people like Cambodians there are no grander dreams than to have basic rights to necessities such as adequate food, shelter, land tenure, communal resources like forest, fishery as well as the right to a fair trial and an impartial judiciary. Cambodia does possess many or most of these basic rights under the formality of the Constitution, including the right to receiving free medical care should people be unable to meet the cost of the treatment. But, the Constitution itself, like the embodiment of the Khmer people's dreams, exists only in a bundle of documents.
Those famous activists from Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, just like some courageous Khmers who pursued their dreams for a better world, all had a run-in with their authorities who had little sympathy with their hopes and aspirations and had to pay their dues with their lives and personal freedom.
Listen to the two young ladies who had been arrested by the police and released from custody recently and try to understand their dreams instead of treating them as potential trouble-makers or enemies of the state.
Whenever you switch on a TV channel in Cambodia, what 'dreams' do you see or hear being endorsed or promoted except those of the Prime Minister's and his yes-men's? Does this fact implies that only the ruling party and its PM can determine what dreams are legitimate and what dreams are not? Are the Khmer people's dreams irrelevant to them?
I would not want to indulge in personal attack, but would encourage Cambodians to think critically about the contradiction in advocating hope and positive thinking and privately defending a repressive regime that does everything in its power to suffocate and throttle precisely these aspirations or outlooks.
For a people like Cambodians there are no grander dreams than to have basic rights to necessities such as adequate food, shelter, land tenure, communal resources like forest, fishery as well as the right to a fair trial and an impartial judiciary. Cambodia does possess many or most of these basic rights under the formality of the Constitution, including the right to receiving free medical care should people be unable to meet the cost of the treatment. But, the Constitution itself, like the embodiment of the Khmer people's dreams, exists only in a bundle of documents.
Those famous activists from Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, just like some courageous Khmers who pursued their dreams for a better world, all had a run-in with their authorities who had little sympathy with their hopes and aspirations and had to pay their dues with their lives and personal freedom.
Listen to the two young ladies who had been arrested by the police and released from custody recently and try to understand their dreams instead of treating them as potential trouble-makers or enemies of the state.
Whenever you switch on a TV channel in Cambodia, what 'dreams' do you see or hear being endorsed or promoted except those of the Prime Minister's and his yes-men's? Does this fact implies that only the ruling party and its PM can determine what dreams are legitimate and what dreams are not? Are the Khmer people's dreams irrelevant to them?
I would not want to indulge in personal attack, but would encourage Cambodians to think critically about the contradiction in advocating hope and positive thinking and privately defending a repressive regime that does everything in its power to suffocate and throttle precisely these aspirations or outlooks.
2 comments:
I have been observing Cambodia more than twenty years, and I have to give Hun Sen some credit the way he is handling the country. There are more schools in the country than any time in the past. It’s actually more than triple. Schools have been built in the remote areas that I have never seemed before. Many of these schools are teaching foreigner language such as English, French, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Hun Sen has allowed foreigners to penetrate into Cambodia Society. There is so much outsider influence in the society. The country might be internationalizing itself in the next twenty years. It is hard for any authoritarian to keep the country such as Cambodia depress for long, when the system are loosely endure ideas and education to take grass root. He also has permitted all kinds of religions to be practice in Cambodia. We may call Hun Sen a dictator, but the way I see it, he is more like a soft dictator. He is certainly not like the Kim in North Korean. Cambodia is actually a lot better than Vietnam. If I’m not wrong, Cambodia will be a lot better than Thailand in the next twenty years. Please, mark my words.
Hun Sen has endorsed and cooperated with some of the U. S policies. However, he does not want the U. S. to push Cambodia around like it has in the past. For example, he dose want to send Cambodia troops into Afghanistan, but he is willing to send Cambodian troops as peace keeper in Africa.
He does not want to send Cambodian troops into Afghanistan,
Post a Comment