Fr: School of Vice
Thank you for taking the time to share with us your insights
into, and thoughts on, the current state of the RCAF and the use of armed guards
by private interests.
Although, I can't speak on behalf of my team members, I
would like to commend you for speaking out on this important national issue,
and indeed for your sharp, penetrating understanding on the same matter.
I had written on many occasions on similar concerns,
particularly, on the need to strengthen and modernise the military which would
require in turn serious reforms across the governmental institutional spectrum.
Therefore, whilst there is no clear independence or
separation between the judiciary, the executive, the law-enforcement agencies
and the army in particular, the use and misuse of armed personnel or elements
of the RCAF for personal and private agendas will remain a major obstacle to
any effort made in the direction of strengthening public security through law
and order. At present, it appears anyone could hire armed security guards for
personal or private protection; and why not when the PM himself has a whole
division – including armoured personnel vehicles and tanks – for his own personal
protection. I don’t know what the Cambodian constitution says about the role of
the PM in relations to the use of or command he is entitled to exercise over
the military. I’m not in politics or government [nor having read the Constitution
in full!], and unlike perhaps, yourself, lacking inside knowledge of what goes on
within the government. My observations are based instead on realities and
symptoms that emanate directly or indirectly out of the workings of governmental
practices and behaviourism. Like a patient’s ailments, these symptoms tell us a
great deal about the kind of prescriptions needed to cure the sickness.
That being said, I do have some degree of sympathy for those
progressive elements within government and the problems facing them in the real
context of a country slowly emerging from decades of political unrest and the
culture of violence that still saturates the national community.
I do agree with you about the inappropriateness of private
use of the national military facilities or guards. Sometime back there were
reports about the government looking into the scheme that would enable private companies/sectors
to sponsor elements of the military? If so, this is not a healthy option for
obvious reasons: when a government [representing the electorate in any
democratic system] is the employer of the army, the latter is placed at the
government’s will and disposal. Accordingly, if the employment of the army is
transferred to the private sectors [even on a very limited scale] would this
not affect the ownership and behaviour of the employee(s) in question?
Why not look to draw financial contributions from within the
private sectors through taxation schemes or some other legal means, such as
capital gains tax or progressive tax on corporate assets? If some of the senators-tycoons
can be persuaded to help fund construction of roads and bridges, surely they
could be persuaded to plough back a fraction of their vast profits into the
national coffer for other purposes including, health, schools, and the
military?
On the other hand, I do feel the use and carrying of fire arms should be
subjected to the severest restrictions by the law or legislation. How often
have we seen private body guards, military officers or their subordinates and
so forth visiting a café/noodle shop in the morning, looking as if they are
prepared for battle! The report about an American tourist having been shot and
wounded recently is a case in point. Please do the sensible thing for everyone’s
sake. No need to shoot or kill anyone for the slightest offence.
Kindest,
-School of Vice
19 comments:
-
អ្នកចេះដឹងខ្មែរគ្រប់រូបគួរបានអាននិងសិក្សា
ច្បាប់រដ្ធធម្មនុញ្ញខ្មែរយ៉ាងហោចណាស់ជា
ត្រួសៗដែរ។តែទាំងខ្ញុំដែលរស់នៅ សហអា និងSOV,
ជាហេតុដ៏អភ័ព្វពុំបានពិនិត្យសិក្សានូវច្បាប់កំពូលនេះ។
ខ្ញុំពុំដឹងប្រាកដថាតើកងខេមរភូមិន្ទ្រត្រូវធ្វើសច្ចាប្រណិធាន
ស្មោះត្រង់ចំពោះព្រះមហាក្សត្រឬក៏អគ្គតេជោដែលជានាយករដ្ធមន្ត្រី។
តើខ្មែរយល់ទេពីប្រភពពាក្យ ទាហ៊ាន?
សម័យលង្វែកមន្ត្រីខ្មែរងារតេជោគឺជាមេក្រុម
កងសឹក។កងសឹកមានក្រុមតូចឬធំតាមលំដាប់ថ្នាក់
ជួនកាលខ្មែរហៅថា កង តេជោន គឺជាកងរបស់តេជោអ្នកមើលការខុសត្រូវ។
ដោយសារការសរសេរបែបបារាំង ពាក្យខ្មែរបានប្រែក្លាយខុសឆ្ងាយពីការពិត។
ឧទាហរណ៍ O Keo,O Ceo,Oc Eo.
ពាក្យ តេជោន Techon ក៏សរសេរជា
Techeaun ព្រោះបារាំង O = eau ។
បន្ទាប់មក Tech ក៏ច្រឡំទៅជា Teah,គឺ
Teaheaun នៅទីបំផុតក៏ទៅជា Teahean
ដោយរលុប u ចេញពីពាក្យ។
កងទាហ៊ានខ្មែរគ្រប់ជំនាន់កាលពេលមុនឋិតនៅក្រោមព្រះរាជបញ្ជារបស់ព្រះមហាក្សត្រ។
បច្ចុប្បន្នកាលនេះ ទាហ៊ានខ្មែរនៅរាត់រាយ
ក្រោមបញ្ជាអ្នកមានប្រាក់គឺជាភាពដ៏អាម៉ាស់
មួយរបស់ជាតិយើង។
បន់សូដេច
These are the exact problems facing Cambodia today. There is no separation between, judiciary, treasury, military, or other branches within the Cambodian government. The PM pretty much in charge of all these division. If he says go, they go...Ideally, the government is on the right track in trying to develop the country. However, it's not the best approach not recommended by the developed nations.
School of Vice,
" I don’t know what the Cambodian constitution says about the role of the PM in relations to the use of or command he is entitled to exercise over the military. I’m not in politics or government [nor having read the Constitution in full!], and unlike perhaps, yourself, lacking inside knowledge of what goes on within the government. My observations are based instead on realities and symptoms that emanate directly or indirectly out of the workings of governmental practices and behaviourism. Like a patient’s ailments, these symptoms tell us a great deal about the kind of prescriptions needed to cure the sickness."
You just contradicted yourself. If you haven't fully read and comprehend the scope and meaning of the constitution, how can you "prescribe" the correction medications. I wouldn't want a doctor who has not thoroughly studied and obtained license to cure my sickness.
I would suggest you read the Cambodian constitution and then make the comments. You would have more credible.
I'm not bashing, just a constructive criticism.
Dear School of Vice,
I am happy to see your article. Most of the comments posted in here are from pro-dictator extremist or pro-opposition extremist. Of course, Cambodia political instituation on the word is democracy but practically dictator. To change the fate of this poor country, the smart criticism is needed. If you know much about the reality (negative aspect) occur both in the city and rural area, which even not come out to the media, no one can support the current government (exclude foreigner and opportunist). Some parts of the country were sold to foreign countries, the land near border, sold to nabour countries` citizen.
Some foreign companies, explore underground mine without freely, even the distric authority can not touch. I alway compare with Sihanuk regime, then we were rich, and the natural rsources such as forest, mine etc, still not destroyed, no much foreign debt.
The current leaders are smart and strong in term of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life. Not all dictators are bad, the dictator for developing the country is still acceptable but for developing their personal and family will lead to destroy the nation.
Would it make much difference to the patient if the doctor is well versed in medical science, yet lacking faith in his profession, or simply not taking its oath or following its professional codes of conduct? Some medical doctors are known to have deliberately prescribed their trusting patients the wrong dose of treatments; more than a few in history were known serial killers hiding behind the facade of their profession.
How many in Cambodia's government today are hiding behind the facade of "democracy"? How many of them take the national Constitution seriously. I understand that the Cambodian constitution is one of the most liberal in the world, but is it being treated any more than a formality in practice?
Will it make the job of constitutional experts and critics any easier knowing that regardless of their expertise, no one in power or government takes the wordings of the Constitution seriously anyway? How many earnest critics [newspaper publishers, opposition workers, MPs etc.] have been penalised, immunity removed, put in prison, or even assassinated and so on for having the temerity to demand the regime be answerable before the Constitution?
Don't blame School of Vice for not taking the Constitution too seriously or for not wasting his/her time studying it in full!
Cambodians tend to believe that if you are not an expert in something, don't criticize some someone or offer of advice on that topic. This is a mentality that is obsolete and should not be practiced anymore. Some critics might not be an expert in the topic they criticized or given advice, but their ideas and criticism could help to improve things.
School of Vice might not be an expert in constitutional laws, but his critique of the government's practices should be taken into account. Any governments, whether in Cambodia or in the West, are not infallible and they are prone to make mistakes and so the best way to right their wrongs is to look at themselves from an outsider's perspective. You can't see how you look like until you look at yourself in the mirror. Likewise, criticism should be viewed as a mirror which reflect our own rights or wrongs.
8:31PM,
"Cambodians tend to believe that if you are not an expert in something, don't criticize some someone or offer of advice on that topic. This is a mentality that is obsolete and should not be practiced anymore. Some critics might not be an expert in the topic they criticized or given advice, but their ideas and criticism could help to improve things.
School of Vice might not be an expert in constitutional laws, but his critique of the government's practices should be taken into account."
You are completely missing my point. My point about a medical doctor is just a metaphor. We are not talking in a real sense.
Listen, we're on the same platform. All I'm saying is that if you don't fully understand an issue, you can still make comments on it. But No one will take it seriously. You have no credential whatsoever. Everyone is entitle to his or her own opinion. However, Substantiate your point evidence is all I'm saying.
All the points that School of Vice made have all been heard before. Nothing new. We can criticize this government until pig fly, nothing will change unless the people inside Cambodia are willing and embracing true democracy and demand changes.
Many people are just satisfied with the status quo. They are continuing to support the CPP due to the relative peace and stability. But peace and stability at the cost of civil liberty that they are willing to compromise. You see, that's why you won't see changes nor any type of revolution.
Taking above argument to its logical end: say nothing [especially, if its negative or critical] about this government because:
1] you have to "substantiate" your point with relevant technical-legal details;
2] it has been said and heard before;
3] even if you have fulfilled the above 2 criteria, you would still be not qualified to speak about the workings of the government unless you happen to be in power or part-taking in the government's decision-making process. As Hun Sen and other dictators would say in refrain: you don't know all the details!
True! What do the rest of us know about all the secret deals between him and the Vietnamese government?; the oil deals between Phnom Penh and Bangkok?; and how many other similar deals are off-limit to the public? Even Sok An is reported to have said that some issues like Angkor Wat and the Vietnamese border are off-limit to the public due to their sensitive nature and that their disclosure would lead to unrest or anarchy [sic!] according to Wiki leaked US Embassy cable.
Simply having read and quoted passages off the constitution itself does not necessarily "substantiate" or lend credence to one's point or argument in a strictly constitutional context given that a constitution is a body of law, and where legal issues are concerned ultimately 'only' qualified recognised lawyers or law-makers such as National Assembly members or MPs are ideally placed to submit their complaints or frame their debate. That would seem to be their jobs. However, this does not imply that policies and practices of the government are off-limit to public scrutiny.
(cont. below)
(Cont. from above)
In developed, healthy democracies, social intellectual dialogue is integral to the health of or condition of public good, and their intelligentsia comprising the publication press and the media at large play an indispensable, actively guarding role in ensuring that their ordinary countrymen stay informed on all issues of public relevance, from every day consumerism issues to international aid and politics, instead of being content to be led by the nose by their sleaze prone, unscrupulous politicians or governments. Even the tabloid press could galvanise public opinion and exert binding pressure on governing institutions in favour of positive causes because the electorates in those countries do have real political voices.
Websites like this is extremely important for Khmers/Cambodians around the world to exchange ideas and information in a climate or spirit of openness and constructive debate or dialogue. What people learn and discover via such news outlets is doubly important if only because many of our compatriots inside Cambodia are not free or privileged enough to access online information, or there are tightly controlled information access measures being applied by the state that makes it virtually impossible for them to have alternative sources of news and information.
What people learn and absorb will eventually impact on social policies and practices. That is why these foreign infiltrators and saboteurs as well as pro-government detractors are here day and night posting snippets of comments in a clear attempt to divert readers' attention from what really might be of substance to them and their compatriots in the millions.
Specious arguments do not make for "constructive criticism". As the above poster said:
"The current leaders are smart and strong in terms of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life". This short quote sums up our debate here, I think.
(Cont. from above)
In developed, healthy democracies, social intellectual dialogue is integral to the health of or condition of public good, and their intelligentsia comprising the publication press and the media at large play an indispensable, actively guarding role in ensuring that their ordinary countrymen stay informed on all issues of public relevance, from every day consumerism issues to international aid and politics, instead of being content to be led by the nose by their sleaze prone, unscrupulous politicians or governments. Even the tabloid press could galvanise public opinion and exert binding pressure on governing institutions in favour of positive causes because the electorates in those countries do have real political voices.
Websites like this is extremely important for Khmers/Cambodians around the world to exchange ideas and information in a climate or spirit of openness and constructive debate or dialogue. What people learn and discover via such news outlets is doubly important if only because many of our compatriots inside Cambodia are not free or privileged enough to access online information, or there are tightly controlled information access measures being applied by the state that makes it virtually impossible for them to have alternative sources of news and information.
What people learn and absorb will eventually impact on social policies and practices. That is why these foreign infiltrators and saboteurs as well as pro-government detractors are here day and night posting snippets of comments in a clear attempt to divert readers' attention from what really might be of substance to them and their compatriots in the millions.
Specious arguments do not make for "constructive criticism". As the above poster said:
"The current leaders are smart and strong in terms of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life". This short quote sums up our debate here, I think.
(Cont. from above)
In developed, healthy democracies, social intellectual dialogue is integral to the health of or condition of public good, and their intelligentsia comprising the publication press and the media at large play an indispensable, actively guarding role in ensuring that their ordinary countrymen stay informed on all issues of public relevance, from every day consumerism issues to international aid and politics, instead of being content to be led by the nose by their sleaze prone, unscrupulous politicians or governments. Even the tabloid press could galvanise public opinion and exert binding pressure on governing institutions in favour of positive causes because the electorates in those countries do have real political voices.
Websites like this is extremely important for Khmers/Cambodians around the world to exchange ideas and information in a climate or spirit of openness and constructive debate or dialogue. What people learn and discover via such news outlets is doubly important if only because many of our compatriots inside Cambodia are not free or privileged enough to access online information, or there are tightly controlled information access measures being applied by the state that makes it virtually impossible for them to have alternative sources of news and information.
What people learn and absorb will eventually impact on social policies and practices. That is why these foreign infiltrators and saboteurs as well as pro-government detractors are here day and night posting snippets of comments in a clear attempt to divert readers' attention from what really might be of substance to them and their compatriots in the millions.
Specious arguments do not make for "constructive criticism". As the above poster said:
"The current leaders are smart and strong in terms of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life". This short quote sums up our debate here, I think.
(Cont. from above)
In developed, healthy democracies, social intellectual dialogue is integral to the health of or condition of public good, and their intelligentsia comprising the publication press and the media at large play an indispensable, actively guarding role in ensuring that their ordinary countrymen stay informed on all issues of public relevance, from every day consumerism issues to international aid and politics, instead of being content to be led by the nose by their sleaze prone, unscrupulous politicians or governments. Even the tabloid press could galvanise public opinion and exert binding pressure on governing institutions in favour of positive causes because the electorates in those countries do have real political voices.
Websites like this is extremely important for Khmers/Cambodians around the world to exchange ideas and information in a climate or spirit of openness and constructive debate or dialogue. What people learn and discover via such news outlets is doubly important if only because many of our compatriots inside Cambodia are not free or privileged enough to access online information, or there are tightly controlled information access measures being applied by the state that makes it virtually impossible for them to have alternative sources of news and information.
What people learn and absorb will eventually impact on social policies and practices. That is why these foreign infiltrators and saboteurs as well as pro-government detractors are here day and night posting snippets of comments in a clear attempt to divert readers' attention from what really might be of substance to them and their compatriots in the millions.
Specious arguments do not make for "constructive criticism". As the above poster said:
"The current leaders are smart and strong in terms of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life". This short quote sums up our debate here, I think.
(Cont. from above)
In developed, healthy democracies, social intellectual dialogue is integral to the health of or condition of public good, and their intelligentsia comprising the publication press and the media at large play an indispensable, actively guarding role in ensuring that their ordinary countrymen stay informed on all issues of public relevance, from every day consumerism issues to international aid and politics, instead of being content to be led by the nose by their sleaze prone, unscrupulous politicians or governments. Even the tabloid press could galvanise public opinion and exert binding pressure on governing institutions in favour of positive causes because the electorates in those countries do have real political voices.
Websites like this is extremely important for Khmers/Cambodians around the world to exchange ideas and information in a climate or spirit of openness and constructive debate or dialogue. What people learn and discover via such news outlets is doubly important if only because many of our compatriots inside Cambodia are not free or privileged enough to access online information, or there are tightly controlled information access measures being applied by the state that makes it virtually impossible for them to have alternative sources of news and information.
What people learn and absorb will eventually impact on social policies and practices. That is why these foreign infiltrators and saboteurs as well as pro-government detractors are here day and night posting snippets of comments in a clear attempt to divert readers' attention from what really might be of substance to them and their compatriots in the millions.
Specious arguments do not make for "constructive criticism". As the above poster said:
"The current leaders are smart and strong in terms of keeping their power, but they use their brain for this, no brain left for thinking about economy and human life". This short quote sums up our debate here, I think.
12:42AM,
You are still missing my point. This is the last comment I'm making on this matter. Did you actually read my comments fully?
Anyone can write or comment anything he/she wants. It is freedom and basic human rights everyone has in a free democracy community. I have no problems with any of School of Vice writing. In fact, I agree with a lot of their articles/opinions.
My overall point is this, when you write or make a blank statement with nothing to support your point it would only weakened it. This is basic writing 101(what, when, where, how and why). I can blah blah all day about how bad this government is concerning just about every issues. But that does not help our cause. It probably just turns off most of the readers. Support your points with concise and relevant information will sell your argument easily.
1:49 AM
It's probably School of Vice's gesture of humility or sense of humour. After all, he/she is only human. And even if the writer had come up with all the "concise and relevant information", you, with your nihilistic mindset would probably still accuse him/her of "always being right while everyone else is mistaken?" Can't win, eh?
Anyway, I don't think School of Vice is out to "sell" anything! Read the article again carefully, and try to grasp the gist of the arguments, and if you are still unhappy about the lack of concise evidence or information, go study the Constitution or do relevant research in your own good time, and come back to share it with us, instead of expecting someone else to do all the work? However, if you are already well-informed on the details of the constitution, why not assist the writer with those related information? What exactly is your issue?
The RCAF is there to protect Hun Sen and families and his CPP. The RCAF is there to kill all Khmers who opposed Hun Sen's rule.
School of Vice,
Please do not feel inadequate. What I am telling you is only my observation that I have observed of your writing skills. You are trying too hard to intellectualize your article that confuses your readers. I mean you used words that irrelevant to one another. Please use simple and plain language that makes sense and provides clear and concise picture. When I read your articles, often I don’t what you are trying to paint. Simple language is always the best in this kind of forum.
I apologize if I offended you.
Simple English Reader….
I am the very first commentator who wrote in Khmer language. I apology School of Vice,the superb writer as I always consider every piece of his writing,for my careless pointing out along my own humility and his of not having the opportunity to study thoroughly Khmer Constitution. I expected someone who knew the issue will share and assist me my short knowledge of whom the RCAF would pledge the allegiance to according to the constitution. Then Lo and Behold,there came a comment claimed to be constructive but offered nothing besides put us down.
I wish all Khmer have the very kindly spirit like 26 January 2012 2:24 AM.
Again, School of Vice,please accept my humble apology and please do not be discouraged. Continue your academically style of writing for us to learn and to transcend our English level as well.
Dear readers,
No need to apologise, especially the first poster in Khmer and again at 8:39 AM above.
I remember my very first post on line on a Khmer website urging posters to express their views without feeling inadequate about expressing themselves, whether it's in Khmer or English. I appreciate only too well that many Khmers have had to learn a new language beside having to adjust to an entirely alien climate and culture. For me, the language represents nothing more than a communicating tool, and being able to speak two languages or more is in itself evidence of one's determination to learn and adapt to life's considerable obstacles and difficulties. It's one's love and pursuit of truth that really count.
At the same time, I know only too well that it's impossible to please everyone with my views or opinions, let alone my various forms of prose! Whilst I do my best to keep things simple, sometimes the nature of the subject matter decides for me the vocabulary and style of writing. Thus, the same post would often draw opposite comments from different readers: one reader would say it's brilliant, and the next would say it's just a case of a bad command of English!
Feeling inadequate? It's not something I go to sleep worrying about! Those brothers and sisters of ours in Cambodia are going through far worse emotions, specifically, the poorest among them who are being tossed about like meaningless objects! It's hard to fully appreciate their fear and despair amidst overwhelming odds stacked against them. All humans tremble before danger.
Please feel free to criticise: I am not above criticism. I myself have probably caused much offence and annoyance to others through my writings over the years. But, my aim is not to offend anyone; only to speak out against what I perceive to be falsehood and injustice.
Again to the first commenter: you have written nothing that would have caused me the slightest offence. In fact, I owe you much gratitude for your enlightened comments, and I can detect your maturity and humanity through your writings, which are rare qualities in people. And yes, I am able to distinguish between what is condescending, what is constructive, what is subversive and what is not.
Thanks again for your company, and take care.
Post a Comment