Letter to DCPP GUY

Fr: School of Vice

Re: Cambodian Armed Forces

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