Hun Sen has always surrounded himself with hundreds of bodyguards wherever he travels in the country.
By Khmerization
Source: RFA
Prime Minister Hun Sen's increasing iron-fisted rule has caught the ire of many donor countries and Cambodia-watchers, especially diplomats and political observers.
Many Khmer and foreign political analysts are unanimous in labelling him a dictator, citing his erratic behaviours and short tempered temperament who had bullied his way into a coalition in 1993 after losing the election and has since used police and military powers, as well as the judiciary, to consolidate his powers, while cutting down his enemies, internal and external, at the same time.
Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, professor emeritus of the University of Guam, a Cambodian-born political scientist and a long time observer of the Cambodian political affairs, said by an email to RFA that Mr. Hun Sen is a dictator because all powers, both the judicial and administrative as well as the legislative powers, rest in his hands alone.
Mr. Chett Cholasa, another Cambodian political scientist, said Mr. Hun Sen is a short-tempered and hot-tempered person who likes to be lauded and praised, who used his own words as the laws and regulations. "Mr. Hun Sen is a gentlemanly dictator who used his own words as the laws. It did not indicate as dictatorial through his words, but the meanings of his words become laws. Normally, speech is just an art, but speeches of the world's leaders have different characteristics. The most important thing is whether their words as an order are more important than the powers of the judicial system. So, he has used all his words immorally as laws on specific cases", he said.
He also said that Mr. Hun Sen is an autocratic leader who has the final say on every petty case. "He controls from all very little things to very big things. Even the crab catchers to who fought over crabs have used Mr. Hun Sen to protect them. So, we see a weakness in the laws and the judicial system in Cambodia because all the powers concentrated on only one person, who is Prime Minister Hun Sen. This point is referred to a case when he made a speech about the fishing lots (cancelling fishing licences). If we look at his speech, it sounds like he is a gentleman, like he is a virtuous person. But in fact, it is a solution that is bypassing the judicial system. If we talk about a state of law, they resolve everything through the hierarchy, not through the prime minister's intervention on everything. Even about the illegal road checkpoints, about the 5 metres of damages on a bridge, needs the intervention (of the prime minister) also", he added.
On 12th August 2009, Mr. Hun Sen angrily denied accusations from the oppositions and the international community that he is a dictator when he sued opposition MP Mu Sochua for defamation. "I am a prime minister, I am a prime minister, if I don't use court, do you want me to use guns (to settle to the dispute)? Please be clear: If I order, in 2 hours, Phnom Penh will all be taken over. Please try, this hour it only takes two hours. If I use dictatorial powers, even if you run, you can't escape, all of you will be detained. And they said that I am a dictator. This is nonsense. The one who said that I am a dictator, even if they are foreigners or Khmers, they are all stupid, you are all ignorant, you don't know the laws. You only recognise the rights of the opposition groups, but you never recognised the legal rights of the rulers", he said.
International observers have in the past said that Cambodia is ruled by fears, suppression, calling Cambodia's laws existed only on papers, but there is no respect for the rule of those laws.
A global organisation which monitors freedom of expression around the world called Freedom House, in early 2011 made an assessment that Cambodia lacks freedom of expression, while 90% of the judicial system is controlled by the ruling (Cambodian People's) party.
Mr. Brad Adams, executive director for Asia Chapter of Human Rights Watch, said Mr. Hun Sen has controlled all the powers in Cambodia. "Mr. Hun Sen's characteristics is of a person who wants to fully control everything. When Mr. Hun Sen wants something, he must have it whenever he wanted it through his orders to the military, the police, the court and the parliament. I just give one example, when he wanted to lift the parliamentary immunity of a particular member of parliament to arrest them or prosecute them, Mr. Hun Sen always forced other members of parliament to vote for him, and sometimes he had used the armed forces to surround the parliament to force the parliament to lift the parliamentary immunity (of other MPs)", he said.
In 2010, the American International Republican Institute did a survey of 2,000 people and found that 76% of the people surveyed supported Mr. Hun Sen. Some government officials boasted that Mr. Hun Sen is more popular than President Barack Obama.
Mr. Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Council of Ministers, said Mr. Hun Sen's critics are those who are evil people who wanted to topple him from powers. "Those who said that Samdech Hun Sen is a dictator or not a dictator, it is not up to them to decide. Those groups of people are evil people who wanted the Cambodian people to suffer through turmoil, through uprising because the Cambodian people have received benefits from Samdech Hun Sen, which is peace. The people who said that are those who are not responsible, they only attack. The dictatorship that those people has talked about are only for the benefits of those people, not for the benefits of the people", he said.
Mr. Ear Channa, Secretary General of the Norway-based Cambodian Watchdog Council, gives the definition of a dictator as someone who is autocratic and who thinks that he is right in everything, a person who is afraid of criticism, a person who likes to use threatening behaviours, intimidation and those who like to be praised and lauded. "A dictator is someone who applies absolute powers, especially those who want to monitor and absolutely control the government without giving privilege to other people to get involved in the decision-making process or providing any advice, and this is the characteristics of a dictator", he said.
Mr. Pang Sokhoeun, a Sweden-based freelance political analyst of the Cambodian affairs, said Mr. Hun Sen thinks that only him alone can lead Cambodia. "In his political view, both Mr. Hun Sen and his families as well as his cronies often said that only Mr. Hun Sen alone can lead Cambodia. Without Hun Sen, no one else can lead Cambodia. So, in this group, he had created a theory of selfism", he said.
Dr. Sok Touch, a professor of political science, sees Mr. Hun Sen as a leader of compromise, but acknowledged that Mr. Hun Sen is an autocratic leader. "He is not a dictator. If he is a dictator, our society won't be rich like now. It only means that he used his words more than (the laws). He is not a dictator, when he forbids logging, logging still continues, when he bans illegal checkpoints, illegal checkpoints still exist. So, how can he be a dictator?', he said.
Mr. Hun Sen was born in 1952. He joined the Khmer Rouge movement in 1970 and then defected to Vietnam in 1977. When the Vietnamese army toppled the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979, he came foreign minister at the age of 26 and in 1985, with the support of Vietnam, became prime minister of Cambodia.
15 comments:
Excuse me!!! i am just an ordinary university student. Please don't prejudge me as opposition or government or anything. I think the picture u display here is during 1990s when Khmer Rouge still held some ground. Prime Minister Hun Sen respectively took this precaution. If m not mistaken, the picture was taken during army integration from Khmer Rouge in which he needs cautious protection or during the 1997 flash conflict. Please, any author, consider and discuss in this political forum with respect and fairness, and avoid any bias and misinformation. Thank you in advance.
Mr. Hun Sen still surrounded himself with hundreds of bodyguards. He has more than, maybe, 1500 personal bodyguards and hundreds of tanks and artillery based near his Takhmao compound. Most of Cambodian army units are now his bodyguard unit. Ask Hing Bunheang, Mol Roeub, Hun Manet, Kun Kim, they are all commanders of Hun Sen's personal bodyguard units.
Yes, you are right. There are about this amount but Prime Minister Bodyguard Unit (PMBU) is part of Cambodian Army which means they serve to protect Prime Minister only. When other is appointed as PM through national election, the bodyguard will shift to serve him. It is not different from White House guard, just we are so new democratic country and we need to take care of leader security more strategically. Moreover, tanks you have mentioned are called Phnom Penh reserve. It is not only situated in Takmao but more areas surrounding the capital at the strategic point taken defensive measure. No doubt! this strategy is used in any countries as military bases are used to secure the capital.
If Hun Xen is not a Dictator so neither Gadhafy of Libya.
4:41 PM, only dictators surrounded themselves with bodyguards like this. These bodyguards are commanded by Hun Sen's cronies like Hing Bunheang, Hun Manet and Kun Kim, so there is no chance that they can be transfer to another PM, say Sam Rinsy or Kem Sokha. They are Hun sen's private army will will only be loyal to Hun sen and protect Hun Sen's powers. Ask yourself, did Thai PM, Singporean PM, U.S president, Australian PM and UK PM has these numbers of bodyguards? No.
If you label yourself to this absolute idea. Whatever opinions we share here won't make any different.
We should remember that Hun is the product of the communist.He did not know about UN role was when he was first installed by Hanoi in 1979. Much of his thinking is still limited and is stil mainly influenced by the way his master,Hanoi, trained him to rule.
Has his intellectuality improved 32 years later?
To my observation: no!. Why? I noticed on many occasions,but I like to give you two incidents out of his hundred of his irrational behaviours.
in Nov 2010,there were 373 Cambodian people were killed .The first reaction,we saw Hun dropped his tears,but a day later he blamed those victims that they did not responsible for their lives "There was nothing wrong with the bridge" He said.You can imagine how the hell can one on the planet could do that while people were already dead why did he not give them some dignity? instead he still tried to protect his polices who failed to controlled huge crowd that tried to move away from the electrocuted area. My feeling about Hun is that his intellectual faculty is narrow that is why he sometimes behaves so irrational and out of step with the norm of the world .
The second incident was in 2007 when oil was first discovered by Cheveron in the sea of Cambodia,Hun and a few of his clans had tried to hide it from the public. Hun did not inform the parliament or the rest of the government to know about this until a year later.I remembered this event from BBC reported about corruption in Cambodia. The film footage showed that Hun's clans were running away from the camera like a thieves,when British journalist raised that question.
Imagine if oil money is pouring in,who know what Hun can do as he is now trying to shut all the windows and curtains in the house.The idea is,like most dictators did,when the light is off they can do what they want.
Now it's time that NGO,UN, and the opposition parties should work together to fight this crime. Cambodia and her people is not just belong to Cambodian government alone,but we are citizen of the world and we are governed by UN and other organisations too. They too have direct responsibilities to protect freedom, to maintain peace and security in Cambodia.
Yes you can UN!.
We are now in the 21st century. The world should be freed from dictatorship. It's unimaginable how much the world could be a better place if UN could get the grip with this problem.Billions of dollars are in the wrong hand of state criminals and as a result millions of people around the globe are starving. Cambodia is one of this disease.Some time,I feel that UN are too soft and that softness allow dictators to organise illegal states within the umbrella of the UN itself.
UN should use big stick to punish this type of criminal leaders they are nothing but are the parasites of the world.
I am truely believe that UN have not been tough enough to stop Hun 's criminal behaviour. He should be condemned by UN for breaking all the rules of the peace agreement and human right in Cambodia.
To my perception, as the whole world are becoming fast towards democracy and transparency,Hun is seen to be on the fast track riding Cambodia back to the dark side of the world.
Perhaps,this motion of Hun's politics,that is against the gravity of the world, would help him to meet his demise sooner than I expected if I am not wrong.
True Khmer
I really appreciate your explanation here. This gives us some ground information. Yes! Cambodia was communist. But why were we all together communist? I am not a scholar in history but i, as a normal student, can provide some basic discussion here. After Khmer Rouge were overrun by mighty Vietnamese troops in 1979 not taking into consideration what they tried to make us, satellite state or saving us from hell. My own opinion, we should give Hanoi credit on this; without this incursion, there is no more Cambodia by now. Please here. (once again, don't prejudge as Kbal Youn Kloun Khmer, I am just sharing my idea.) Furthermore, thing always comes with price. Yes, both Cambodia and Vietnam all benefited from that.
So, here is the point. After the fall of Khmer Rouge 1979, United Nation (UN)'s seat still belong to 2-million-people-killer if i am mistaken with support from the west. A hardly-breath Cambodia was economically surrounded. We received no aid despite continuous attack from Khmer Rouge and others factions. The breathing respirator was only from the Soviet Union which of course the king of communist. Ok! I want to elaborate more the possibility we could have been democratic at that time being but it's out of our context here since we already become one. Thus, when Soviet collapse in 1989, our international policy undoubtedly changed, that's not abnormal, every country do this. Cambodian ever first democratic National Election emerged after Paris Treaty 1991. If dictatorship was mentioned for Cambodia, it had been a very long absolute monarchy and period before this 1991 treaty.
Absolutely considerable about your critic on government's ability to take over the Koh Pich incident. Cambodia lacked materials and experience over such sudden incident which claimed almost 400s people. We are all very sorry for this including the government. However, Fund had been raised, government support on funeral ceremonies, family compensation, which were all wholehearted done i believe. Despite your criticism on Prime Minister behavior, i think this would not apply to a perception as dictator. Rule of law is vowed to be employed in all countries just what definition it is vary from one to another state. Cambodia new's democratic policy would be encouraged by all state but they would respect her(Cambodia) interests for all. On the other hand, what is the definition of dictatorship? The article author explains dictator as whatever he rules must be employed. Cambodian Prime Minister is not allowed to implement this. If he could, many internet forums would have been shut including this one like what people do in Thailand. Boeng Kok residents would have been forced out long before what opposition said World Bank reaction happened. Illegal checkpoint would never be seen. Real situation in Cambodia differ mostly from what is being broadcast abroad. Now the state acquired modern communication facility to weaken spreading misinformation. I am able to say this because i live and learn here.
To my own opinion, dictatorship should not be given to Cambodia. We will have commune election in the following year, national election a year after. The result will tell its story. If the long-serve leader fairly elected is defined as dictator, so let. it be.
Normal Student
Normal Student
Very well written. I agree with you. True Khmer and his SRP boss will try whatever to overthrow and digs dirt on Hun Sen to make him look bad in the world eyes so that they can have excuse to bring foreigner to invade Hun Sen with the help from those country claimed to be democracy lover rather than oil lover. They wanted regime changed but they don't know how to get it done so they are on thier attack; every sneeze the government made, they will something wrong with it. Now they have their NGO group that doesn't want to obey the law. they want to turn Cambodia into another middle east situation. Look where they are at now at middle east. is there stability in middle east?
The title "Hun Sen a dictator or a compromising leader?" plus a bunch of opinions in this blog brought me a great attention. In short, Hun Sen is not only a dictator but a murder leader who kills and destroys his own people and nation.
How come does Hun Sen, his family, and his supporters have million and billion dollars? while 90% of the country live in poverty. Simple answer, Hun Sen robs his own people and country.
No debate on Hun Sen a dictator or compromising leader. Just shut the hell up. Kids.
I wonder who is a real kid.
Hun sen is a real dictator because he refused to give up power when he lost election in 1993, staged a coup in 1997 to topple the elected leader, cheated to win in 1998, 2003 and 2008 elections. He surrounded himself with thousands of bodyguards, made decision by himself, sack anyone he likes to sack. No need to analyze, by seeing his actions we know Hun Sen is a dictator.
Thank you very much for your support comment. I really appreciate your idea. However; here, i am not trying to manipulate any political perception; instead, but here since one of the commenter raised a doubt in 1993 election, Let me elaborate a little bit to what i have understood. The 1993 deadlock came out at the end as the power sharing strategy. No difference from 1998 and 2003 election when one party tried to postpone the government settlement by which national assembly claimed a quota of two third among all members to agree. They all disagreed to approve the cabinet and made the situation dreadfully locked. They all tried to gain politically which is logical and obvious from natural person. Ok! 1993 election, party winner did not acquire enough seats in parliament to run the government by its own self (two third). After political compromising, a power sharing had emerged agreed to all people which made 2 prime ministers. Making no different from 2003 election to make one prince a chief of National Assembly or a full amnesty to one opposition leader. Here which i meant a fair power compromising among all which claimed political stability for Cambodia. Politic works this way since Cambodia emerged with multiple interest groups. I wouldn't call that a "power claimer" by the prime minister so as the prince and the opposition leader, i would instead call a political game.
Now! since you have said there are 90% poverty in Cambodia, please elaborate more with some concrete evidence. Here, i wouldn't raise a statistic here since what you argue does not have reasonable ground.
Other thing about the 1997 flash conflict. Please learn more in history written by both parties in the conflict rather than media broadcast which is bias to one party. I would not dare to change your perception here but you rather try not to be convinced by false statement. Study and research are important for us making no space to be deceived by media.
Normal Student
RFA, is sucked
Thank you for your supporting comment. I really appreciate your idea. However, i am not trying to manipulate any political perception, but since one of the commenter here raised a doubt about 1993 election, let me elaborate little more upon level of my understanding about the situation.
Ok! let me take one step forward to 1998 or 2003 election deadlocks before i come back. During the 1998, Cambodia's political lock; as a result, one prince was appointed as a chief of national assembly and a full amnesty for one opposition leader. Despite the winning during election, government cannot be settled (as cabinet approval need two third agreement from NA), power were demanded from all parties as they tried to gain from the situation. This is logical and obvious from the perception of natural person since Cambodia political context emerged from multiple interest groups. Then stability came. This scenes of problems made no different to the 1993 election deadlock. As one party which won the election could not establish a fully-own-run government (need two third approval from NA) and forcibly need a coalition. They must undoubtedly make a compromise among all. As a result, Cambodia made 2 prime ministers. To me, i wouldn't call this a "Power Claimer"; instead, i'd say a "political game."
I couldn't raise a statistic here since what you argue about poverty did not come with concrete evidence to support. Please elaborate more with references.
To some extend about the flash conflict in 1997, i recommend you read history written by both parties rather than media which is viewed as bias. Study and research are important in order to help us develop no space to be deceived by media.
Normal Student
Post a Comment