Why the change?
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
Culture of Dialogue but I keep reading Call of Duty.dsl25 wrote:CoD=Cash on Demand?
[Edit: I didn't mean to like my own post.. v_v I was trying to swipe down!]
On topic, my view is that HE and CPP realized they couldn't continue holding onto power and riches with their old ways (abuse of power and influence, force, money, weak rule of law, clientelism, etc.). But going legit and embracing good corporate and public governance will be good in the long run, not only for the local public opinion but also international foreign investment and Cambodia's repute.
So he's giving a transition time for old school businesses to clean up their act and be good corporate citizens once he and the government are serious about enforcing the laws.
At the same time, he continues to weaken and destroy the credibility of the opposition, because they are the one who will not let shady businesses go clean and white during that transition. Victims, activists would never accept that and will demand justice.
However the role and presence of social and mass media are now so changed that they are becoming a Fourth power that HE needs to win over.
So he's allowed reforms, got tough on expendable assets, used social media to show a friendly facet of his life. At the same time he's tightening the screws on the platforms and entities that are critical, outright opposed and/or a danger to his government.
So why the change? That was all part of his game plan, imo. Get SR onboard, taint him as a bedfellow, divide CNRP, associate CNRP with people who were caught on camera being violent, discredit the opposition. It's FUNCINPEC all over again.
So he's giving a transition time for old school businesses to clean up their act and be good corporate citizens once he and the government are serious about enforcing the laws.
At the same time, he continues to weaken and destroy the credibility of the opposition, because they are the one who will not let shady businesses go clean and white during that transition. Victims, activists would never accept that and will demand justice.
However the role and presence of social and mass media are now so changed that they are becoming a Fourth power that HE needs to win over.
So he's allowed reforms, got tough on expendable assets, used social media to show a friendly facet of his life. At the same time he's tightening the screws on the platforms and entities that are critical, outright opposed and/or a danger to his government.
So why the change? That was all part of his game plan, imo. Get SR onboard, taint him as a bedfellow, divide CNRP, associate CNRP with people who were caught on camera being violent, discredit the opposition. It's FUNCINPEC all over again.
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9140
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
Joon wrote: So why the change? That was all part of his game plan, imo. Get SR onboard, taint him as a bedfellow, divide CNRP, associate CNRP with people who were caught on camera being violent, discredit the opposition. It's FUNCINPEC all over again.
This.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
The recent events of Sam Rainsy and Hun Sen such sworn enemies emerging to eat dinner and take selfies to the jailing of the CNRP back benchers reminded me of this section of "The Gentle Land” Cambodia 1975 - 1982 by Michel Vickery.
"In contrast to the Chinese or Vietnamese mass peasant rebellions which occasionally took state power and started a new dynastic cycle, no peasant or other lower class rebellion in Cambodia before the 1970s ever snowballed into a movement which endangered the system. This was no doubt in part due to the individual anarchy resulting from lack of corporate units above the family. The potential rebel wished to be bought off, not change the system."
Has Sam Rainsy sold his party members out to secure his own future? I don’t know enough about it so maybe I’m just clutching at straws but as Joon asked 'why the change?'
"In contrast to the Chinese or Vietnamese mass peasant rebellions which occasionally took state power and started a new dynastic cycle, no peasant or other lower class rebellion in Cambodia before the 1970s ever snowballed into a movement which endangered the system. This was no doubt in part due to the individual anarchy resulting from lack of corporate units above the family. The potential rebel wished to be bought off, not change the system."
Has Sam Rainsy sold his party members out to secure his own future? I don’t know enough about it so maybe I’m just clutching at straws but as Joon asked 'why the change?'
said Tiggerdog!
-
- Bark plop plop bark woof woof
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:55 pm
Joon wrote:So why the change? That was all part of his game plan, imo. Get SR onboard, taint him as a bedfellow, divide CNRP, associate CNRP with people who were caught on camera being violent, discredit the opposition. It's FUNCINPEC all over again.
The only thing I'd add is the CPP realpolitik about the relationship between Cambodia and its neighbors. The CNRP has shown its hand that it is willing to be anti-Vietnamese and likely antagonize the Thais along ideological lines. The stupid border issue looks like an indication the CNRP would allow the Cambodia-Vietnam relationship to lapse back to a situation where Cambodia was unabashedly pro-China and anti-Vietnam. This doesn't play with the South China Sea the way it is and ASEAN relationships. Cambodia can't risk throwing the good will of Malaysia, the Philippines and (not as much) Vietnam under the bus.
Recent Foreign Affairs essay on HE and Cambodian politics.
Bookmark for later reading!
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... n-election
Excerpt:
Bookmark for later reading!
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... n-election
Excerpt:
Stéphanie Giry wrote:An autopsy of the 2013 election and its fallout suggests that even Hun Sen’s opponents cannot entirely escape this conception of power. At the same time that Sam Rainsy and the CNRP pressed for multiparty democracy, liberalism, and human rights, they seemed to unwittingly adopt some of Hun Sen’s ways. The opposition claimed to represent the people’s will and the people’s interests, but it sometimes treated its supporters with a paternalist instrumentalism that evoked manipulation more than emancipation. The CNRP practiced a half-baked form of nonviolent resistance that, instead of shaming the government for abusing its monopoly on force, wound up bowing to it. The party’s appeals to nationalism and flirtations with anti-Vietnamese xenophobia were a gambit designed to contest Hun Sen’s legitimacy, but in addition to courting real danger, they may have indirectly confirmed certain features of Hun Sen’s self-mythology.
Perhaps it could hardly have been otherwise, given the CPP’s lock on state resources. And the CNRP may have nudged along some overdue reforms. But the opposition’s tactics also seem to have confirmed that democratic contestation in Cambodia remains, at bottom, a struggle for power, and that serves Hun Sen above all.
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
I was, for a little while, leaning toward the latter 'prepping for 2018' scenario, that this change is just HS picking his moment to throw off the facade of mutual cooperation and revert to true old-style form in anticipation of the elections. But a couple things have bothered me about this formulation, especially in light of the arrest of the Senator a couple weeks ago, the subsequent comments from both sides, and now today Rainsy telling his people to lay off the VN issue and fall in line. One glaring problem with the 'prepping scenario' is that it relies on Rainsy and his party being no more than passive objects - dupish, naive, cowered and impotent, and Hun Sen the only real political actor in Cambodia. (In fact a lot of anti-HS political analysis relies on this general format - Cambodians as weak, dumb cowards, mere toys in the hands of HS's masterful evil, but that is a different issue.) Another problem with the 'prepping scenario' is that it doesn't explain Rainsy's reaction to the various arrests and harsh words from HS. Up to now Rainsy has said and done almost nothing in response. Even if Rainsy and his people really were impotent idiots, they should still be protesting what's happening, but they are not. What Rainsy has said seems weak and conciliatory, still talking about the CoD, and now admonishing his own people to pipe down on the VN issue. So what's going on? I see several possibilities:
1. Maybe Rainsy really is impotent, has been duped, and is unable to fight back. He's just a clown and a punching bag. For the moment, I am willing to reject this explanation out of hand because I do not believe Rainsy and the opposition are that stupid - that they couldn't see this sort of thing coming, that they had no plan, that they just naively took HS at his word, and now are as lambs being lead to the slaughter. Rainsy is smarter than this.
2. Gandhi and Jesus – Perhaps, confident that CNRP will win in 2018 regardless, they are willing to let themselves be martyred a little in order to shame HS and claim moral superiority both now and in 2018, while remaining in the game until then. But if this is the strategy they should be saying a lot more and making as big a show as possible of their persecution. Yet they are not, instead Rainsy is still talking about the CoD, how they need to negotiate with the HS, and how they need to lay off the border issue. Real martyrs don't go quietly, nor do they bargain with the devil.
3. As suggested by some others, perhaps Rainsy, in his greed and lust for power, is complicit with Hun Sen. I'm also going to reject this explanation out of hand as just too cynical. Rainsy may be a racist, and a political animal, and a bit weak-kneed, but I do not see him selling out his stated principles, his party and Cambodia for a few pieces of silver. I just don't see that in his character. He may be political, and a nationalist, but he is also an honorable man. Maybe I have read him wrong, but I don't think so, and any explanation that relies on him being so venal as to jump in bed with HS for a little money and power cannot be correct (or at least not the whole story.)
4. Rainsy is partially complicit. Perhaps Rainsy can’t control his own people and/or factions, and is willing to tacitly work with HS to bring them in line. Perhaps he is even letting HS do some of his dirty work for him, destroying political enemies within his party and scaring the rest into line. Rainsy may see this as a particularly effective and economical long-game strategy, especially if he is confident of winning the next election regardless. First he lets HS do the work of cleaning up his party for him, leaving him the undisputed leader of his party, then he ousts HS by winning the election. Actually, this is a pretty neat explanation, if Rainsy really is that much of a player, which he may be.
5. Culture of Dialog. Perhaps both HS and Rainsy are being honest in what they have said publicly recently. In reference to the border problem, just after the arrest of the Senator, Hun Sen said “why does Rainsy say one thing but his people do another.” What does he mean by that? Perhaps, as suggested in the first scenario, Rainsy and HS had a deal, some ground rules that sat at the foundation of the CoD, including avoiding the border issue, probably in exchange for certain concessions by HS (e.g releasing the activists, rounding up Vietnamese, stricter law enforcement, etc). Rainsy, knowing the agreed ground rules, believes this most recent breakdown stems, in some part, from his side's violation of the those rules when they started agitating at the border - that CNRP fired the first shot and HS is firing back over this violation, and not just effecting an old-style thuggish election strategy. This is why Rainsy has not been firing back - he believes this is in part their fault and doesn't want to shut the door by escalating the fight. As Rainsy believes the CoD is the best way forward to 2017 and 2018, he wants to mend the CoD, which means reining in his people on the border issue to try to restore the ground rules. And that is what he seems to be doing. (Which is not to say that the attacks by HS are not part of a larger old-style election strategy, only that it was not the spark, nor the primary reason for it. The implication being that there is the potential for a resolution which would not exist if this was merely election strategy.)
At this point I favor this last scenario. It takes the major players at their word and as intelligent, competent men; it explains both HS's and Rainsy's actions and words of late; it explains the timing of HS's attacks (which are way too early if 2018 were the only consideration); and it explain's Rainsy's call to his people today to 'fall in line with the party leadership and cease attacking the ruling CPP on issues concerning the border with Vietnam.'
The former half of that statement by Rainsy hints at one more aspect of confrontation I have been wondering about. Why, if the party leader is trying to maintain the CoD (and the ground rules of that dialogue), are his people out protesting at the border, waiving around maps and stuff? Were they unaware of the deal? Are these just over-enthusiastic party members letting their nationalism get the better of them, or are they perhaps a faction(s) within the party actively attempting to subvert/sabotage Rainsy's detente with HS and the CoD? There are clearly opposition people out there who are more hardline than Rainsy, who took Rainsy and Sokha at their word when they promised "never to work with HS " and to drive the Vietnamese into the sea. In fact, some of them make Rainsy look like a moderate when it comes to Vietnam and HS. Could it be that these border protests by opposition people are aimed as much at Rainsy and the CoD as at Vietnam and Hun Sen?
1. Maybe Rainsy really is impotent, has been duped, and is unable to fight back. He's just a clown and a punching bag. For the moment, I am willing to reject this explanation out of hand because I do not believe Rainsy and the opposition are that stupid - that they couldn't see this sort of thing coming, that they had no plan, that they just naively took HS at his word, and now are as lambs being lead to the slaughter. Rainsy is smarter than this.
2. Gandhi and Jesus – Perhaps, confident that CNRP will win in 2018 regardless, they are willing to let themselves be martyred a little in order to shame HS and claim moral superiority both now and in 2018, while remaining in the game until then. But if this is the strategy they should be saying a lot more and making as big a show as possible of their persecution. Yet they are not, instead Rainsy is still talking about the CoD, how they need to negotiate with the HS, and how they need to lay off the border issue. Real martyrs don't go quietly, nor do they bargain with the devil.
3. As suggested by some others, perhaps Rainsy, in his greed and lust for power, is complicit with Hun Sen. I'm also going to reject this explanation out of hand as just too cynical. Rainsy may be a racist, and a political animal, and a bit weak-kneed, but I do not see him selling out his stated principles, his party and Cambodia for a few pieces of silver. I just don't see that in his character. He may be political, and a nationalist, but he is also an honorable man. Maybe I have read him wrong, but I don't think so, and any explanation that relies on him being so venal as to jump in bed with HS for a little money and power cannot be correct (or at least not the whole story.)
4. Rainsy is partially complicit. Perhaps Rainsy can’t control his own people and/or factions, and is willing to tacitly work with HS to bring them in line. Perhaps he is even letting HS do some of his dirty work for him, destroying political enemies within his party and scaring the rest into line. Rainsy may see this as a particularly effective and economical long-game strategy, especially if he is confident of winning the next election regardless. First he lets HS do the work of cleaning up his party for him, leaving him the undisputed leader of his party, then he ousts HS by winning the election. Actually, this is a pretty neat explanation, if Rainsy really is that much of a player, which he may be.
5. Culture of Dialog. Perhaps both HS and Rainsy are being honest in what they have said publicly recently. In reference to the border problem, just after the arrest of the Senator, Hun Sen said “why does Rainsy say one thing but his people do another.” What does he mean by that? Perhaps, as suggested in the first scenario, Rainsy and HS had a deal, some ground rules that sat at the foundation of the CoD, including avoiding the border issue, probably in exchange for certain concessions by HS (e.g releasing the activists, rounding up Vietnamese, stricter law enforcement, etc). Rainsy, knowing the agreed ground rules, believes this most recent breakdown stems, in some part, from his side's violation of the those rules when they started agitating at the border - that CNRP fired the first shot and HS is firing back over this violation, and not just effecting an old-style thuggish election strategy. This is why Rainsy has not been firing back - he believes this is in part their fault and doesn't want to shut the door by escalating the fight. As Rainsy believes the CoD is the best way forward to 2017 and 2018, he wants to mend the CoD, which means reining in his people on the border issue to try to restore the ground rules. And that is what he seems to be doing. (Which is not to say that the attacks by HS are not part of a larger old-style election strategy, only that it was not the spark, nor the primary reason for it. The implication being that there is the potential for a resolution which would not exist if this was merely election strategy.)
At this point I favor this last scenario. It takes the major players at their word and as intelligent, competent men; it explains both HS's and Rainsy's actions and words of late; it explains the timing of HS's attacks (which are way too early if 2018 were the only consideration); and it explain's Rainsy's call to his people today to 'fall in line with the party leadership and cease attacking the ruling CPP on issues concerning the border with Vietnam.'
The former half of that statement by Rainsy hints at one more aspect of confrontation I have been wondering about. Why, if the party leader is trying to maintain the CoD (and the ground rules of that dialogue), are his people out protesting at the border, waiving around maps and stuff? Were they unaware of the deal? Are these just over-enthusiastic party members letting their nationalism get the better of them, or are they perhaps a faction(s) within the party actively attempting to subvert/sabotage Rainsy's detente with HS and the CoD? There are clearly opposition people out there who are more hardline than Rainsy, who took Rainsy and Sokha at their word when they promised "never to work with HS " and to drive the Vietnamese into the sea. In fact, some of them make Rainsy look like a moderate when it comes to Vietnam and HS. Could it be that these border protests by opposition people are aimed as much at Rainsy and the CoD as at Vietnam and Hun Sen?
- sounds_never_seen
- I live above an internet cafe
- Reactions: 5
- Posts: 248
- Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:56 pm
Interesting analysis, LTO.
I'd say Rainsy is not capable of getting the "party" (more a recently formed conglomerate with low cohesion) in line. As many of his men are unexperienced in bigger politics besides being overly enthusiastic, the recent circus was not really surprising imo. Wasn't it Seanglim Bit who wrote that every Khmer wants to be a leader?
I'd say Rainsy is not capable of getting the "party" (more a recently formed conglomerate with low cohesion) in line. As many of his men are unexperienced in bigger politics besides being overly enthusiastic, the recent circus was not really surprising imo. Wasn't it Seanglim Bit who wrote that every Khmer wants to be a leader?
-
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 22651
- Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:31 pm
- Location: Space, maaaan
Agreed, excellent analysis. Picking up on the last poster's thought, we need to remind ourselves that Rainsy is not the leader of the CNRP - he is the joint-leader. Where in the heck of all this is Kem Sokha? Why is he not part of the CoD? Why is he not coming out in support of SR more clearly? Does he head the extreme faction? Whatever Rainsy's true agenda is, if he doesn't share it with his rank-and-file I can see CNRP splitting and Sokha becoming the head of the dominant force, the only perceived real alternative to HE in many opponents' eyes.
I came, I argued, I'm out
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
I see in today's Daily that Hun Sen is back to some of his usual threats and dire predictions:
Colin Meyn, the Daily's EiC, and for whom I have tremendous respect, noted today on twitter: "As Hun Sen abandons 'code of conduct,' disturbing dialogue about the prospects of a CNRP government." Followed by a link to the above article.
So what exactly was/is this "code of conduct"? In a May article the Daily reported:
In that same article, the CPP spokesman went on to say: "If there is a case of a politician, a lawmaker or a political figure who does not respect [the code of conduct], it is the responsibility of that party’s leaders to admonish them."
In other words, it's up to Rainsy, Sokha and Hun Sen to rein in their people if they violate the code of conduct. In regard to the Vietnam border protests and subsequent comments by CNRP activists and parliamentarians, it would seem this is what Rainsy's most recent admonition of his people is about, i.e. an attempt to adhere to the spirit of the code of conduct, albeit a bit after the fact.
So who abandoned, is abandoning, has abandoned the 'code of conduct'? Colin says it's Hun Sen, in part, because of Hun Sen's comments yesterday. And he has a point. Hun Sen's comments seem an obvious violation of the 'code of conduct.' But, from Hun Sen's perspective, was it not abandoned, or at least violated months ago by the CNRP in its border protests, subsequent comments and lack of action from CNRP leaders to rein it in back then? If we reformulate that Daily quote from above as a conditional sentence, this line of reasoning seems to pop out: 'If the CNRP from does not avoid employing anti-Vietnamese sentiment against the CPP, the ruling party will use threats of arrest and civil war.' Hun Sen feeling that the antecedent was affirmed, the consequent has followed.
Yes, Rainsy does seem to be trying to patch things up now by admonishing his people, but is it too late? Is that door already closed? And, if my speculation is correct, is Hun Sen's interpretation of the situation valid?
Who exactly "abandoned the code of conduct" first, and when? And is it reparable?
In that same article The Daily went on to note that "According to a May code of conduct for his new “culture of dialogue” with Mr. Rainsy, the prime minister and his CPP colleagues are not allowed to threaten the outbreak of civil war if the CNRP forms the government in 2018." The CoD has a CoC.“The fact that I say war will occur is not without reasons, because there are two points to raise. The first is that it considers the rich to be its enemies. The second point is that it considers neighboring countries its enemies,” he said.
“So, of course, war will happen,” the prime minister added. “This point is a point that must be considered.”
“Today is about tourism, but there is a relationship between war and peace,” he said. “People have left Libya, Syria, Iraq and other countries for Europe. Why? It is because of war, color revolutions, and a want for change.”
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/pm-s ... war-95150/
Colin Meyn, the Daily's EiC, and for whom I have tremendous respect, noted today on twitter: "As Hun Sen abandons 'code of conduct,' disturbing dialogue about the prospects of a CNRP government." Followed by a link to the above article.
So what exactly was/is this "code of conduct"? In a May article the Daily reported:
Though not a comprehensive report on the 'code of conduct' it gives us an idea of what both parties saw as some of the more important ground rules to the CoD. CNRP was to lay off stirring anti-VN sentiments and linking them to the CPP, while the CPP was supposed to lay off threats of violence and force (i.e. arrests, civil war, etc.)Parties Agree to Code of Conduct for ‘Culture of Dialogue’...
...The talking points that must be avoided include some of the most common rhetoric used by both parties, banning the CNRP from employing anti-Vietnamese sentiment against the CPP and the ruling party from threatening arrest or civil war...
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/part ... gue-83445/
In that same article, the CPP spokesman went on to say: "If there is a case of a politician, a lawmaker or a political figure who does not respect [the code of conduct], it is the responsibility of that party’s leaders to admonish them."
In other words, it's up to Rainsy, Sokha and Hun Sen to rein in their people if they violate the code of conduct. In regard to the Vietnam border protests and subsequent comments by CNRP activists and parliamentarians, it would seem this is what Rainsy's most recent admonition of his people is about, i.e. an attempt to adhere to the spirit of the code of conduct, albeit a bit after the fact.
So who abandoned, is abandoning, has abandoned the 'code of conduct'? Colin says it's Hun Sen, in part, because of Hun Sen's comments yesterday. And he has a point. Hun Sen's comments seem an obvious violation of the 'code of conduct.' But, from Hun Sen's perspective, was it not abandoned, or at least violated months ago by the CNRP in its border protests, subsequent comments and lack of action from CNRP leaders to rein it in back then? If we reformulate that Daily quote from above as a conditional sentence, this line of reasoning seems to pop out: 'If the CNRP from does not avoid employing anti-Vietnamese sentiment against the CPP, the ruling party will use threats of arrest and civil war.' Hun Sen feeling that the antecedent was affirmed, the consequent has followed.
Yes, Rainsy does seem to be trying to patch things up now by admonishing his people, but is it too late? Is that door already closed? And, if my speculation is correct, is Hun Sen's interpretation of the situation valid?
Who exactly "abandoned the code of conduct" first, and when? And is it reparable?
- Felgerkarb
- Sir Felgerkarb, Kt Pb
- Reactions: 240
- Posts: 9140
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:22 am
- Location: Castle Felgerkarb, Felgerkarbia (Formerly Preah Vihear)
- Contact:
Brilliant. Keep them focused on minutiae of something HE never intended to follow, rather than an actual strategy to beat the CPP. Business as usual.
====================
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
Why are the gods such vicious cunts?
Where is the god of tits and wine?
- LTO
- The Internet is my Friend
- Reactions: 1
- Posts: 6412
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 9:10 pm
- Location: Srok Khmer
- Contact:
I don't think Rainsy is that stupid, though I am not sure the same can be said of others in his party. At the same time Rainsy admonished his people to lay off the Vietnam issue, he added the reasoning that they needed to stay focused on what was necessary to win the next election, i.e. unity. And I think he is right about that. It's all about unity, or at least that is the most direct path. All that he needs to guarantee an electoral win in 2018 is to keep the opposition under a single banner. While HS ultimately would have abandoned the CoD on some pretense, Rainsy seems to be playing it as smart as possible to get through to 2018 in one piece - stringing things along, collecting resources, staying alive today to fight tomorrow - while others in the opposition much less so.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Moto over 125cc test and name change on vehicle registration
by Guets999 » Wed Nov 25, 2020 5:12 pm » in Questions and Answers - 5 Replies
- 2657 Views
-
Last post by Miguelito
Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:08 pm
-
-
-
Visa run to Thailand to change T visa to E visa, plus Cambodian bank account
by MarkVNCB » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:19 pm » in Questions and Answers - 4 Replies
- 6029 Views
-
Last post by Alex
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:13 am
-