Sam Rainsy’s Plan to Repatriate Is Another “Color Revolution” Under “Change” slogan

ដោយ៖ លី វិទ្យា​​ | ថ្ងៃពុធ ទី២១ ខែសីហា ឆ្នាំ២០១៩​ | ទស្សនៈ - នយោបាយ | 0 |

The announcement – made on 16 August – to take 9 November 2019 as Sam Rainsy’s repatriate’s date caused nothing but another skeptical view that his intention was just another “cheat” on his activists and was merely another new “event” created by the group who concerned that people would miss their faces and names, because actually the declaration was not made by Sam Rainsy himself but the gambling-addicted Eng Chhay Eang who spoke on behalf of him and wrote under the name of the demise CNRP which they robbed from Kem Sokha in a party’s coup. Eng Chhay Eang was allegedly caught red hands – in a video clip that went viral – as being gambling in casino in the US, where he was staying following his self-expelled. In an interview with RFA Khmer and Video News, Eng Chhay Eang was reluctant to confirm Sam Rainsy’s repatriate’s date and added that the Sam Rainsy’s decision to return to Cambodia may be unpredictable and subject to change between now and 9 November.

This was nothing new – a cheat traditionally used by the former oppositions to excuse their promise. Many times, Sam Rainsy excused that the demise CNRP’s board didn’t allow him to return as promised – an excuse raised many times in the past as his repatriate’s date nearing. However, from this time, his promise was nothing because people know clearly how coward he is and how frightened he is of the cell.

This shows clearly that the declaration of the return’s date by Sam Rainsy’s group was mainly intended to relive their “rebellion movement” in Cambodia and to take advantages while the EU is considering to EBA issue. The claim that Sam Rainsy’s return aiming to help solve preferential EBA issue was just an excuse as this group was seen as the one who had lobbied the foreign counterparts to hinder Cambodia’s economic growth and livelihoods of Cambodian people, especially the garment workers.

The group “bowed their heads” to the foreigner’s public and private entities to insist the suspensions of donation, investment and purchasing. But this time, the group was trying to show that they were kind-hearted and patriot, by claiming that they want to involve to solve the problems. In fact, the tears of traitors Sam Rainsy, Eng Chhay Eang and Mua Sokhua were “crocodile’s tears” and merely the cries of a group who have done nothing but destroying the national interest.

The declaration was meant for Sam Rainsy to test his supporting power, as Sam Rainsy is keeping tabs to carry his “color revolution” attempt by inciting the arm force not to obey their commanders’ order, in what was seen as to bring riots to the society, raising discrimination sentiments against foreign migrants in Cambodia, inciting people to go against the court’s rule that saw the dissolution of the former CNRP for the party’s involvement in attempts of “color revolution” and “change of legitimate leadership.” Every single term claimed by Eng Chhayeang, a mastermind for the party’s coup, in an interview with RFA and VOA on 16 August was inciting and provocative, targeting “change of legitimate leadership” under the umbrella of democracy and human rights restoration supported by their foreign boss.

Why Cambodia needs to “change” while the country is enjoying full peace and development and Cambodian people are living in harmony and satisfactory with the development? So, what are the real political aims behind the terms “change” or “positive change” used commonly by convicted Sam Rainsy and his traitor’s group in their political messages? For analysts on Cambodia’s political situation, the terms “change” or “positive change” employed mainly by Sam Rainsy and colleagues were full of hideous, “ill-purpose” politic meaning and were used in a bid to relive their attempt to bring “color revolution” to topple legitimate government unlawfully and undemocratically, which may endanger the national and Cambodian people’s interest.

Lately, convicted Sam Rainsy and colleagues have declared publicly their plan to repatriate following their party’s coup to oust Kem Sokha. For Cambodia’s political analyst, the plan was an agenda leading to another new “color revolution” aiming to overtake the power from the current legitimate government after the first attempt of “color revolution” was foiled and failed on 16 November 2017. There are 3 main raisons we can jump up to the conclusions that Sam Rainsy’s declaration to repatriate was just a political “cheat” and was targeting new “color revolution” as followed:

First reason: Sam Rainsy was a convicted who is wanted by Cambodia’s authority under the arrest warrants. At first glance, Sam Rainsy looks courageous to declare to repatriate despite knowing that he would be arrested by Cambodian authority by the court’s ruling. Having thoroughly studied Sam Rainsy’s political life, we concluded that Sam Rainsy is a person who feared to be in prison, unlike Kem Sokha, and used to flee the country many times to escape being responsible for the crime he committed. He was always criticized for such activities, especially by Kem Sokha’s group; however, he always excused those that to advocate abroad is better than being imprison like Kem Sokha or being murdered like Kem Ley. Hence, his declaration of intended repatriate, though with set date of 9 November 2019, was not for authority to arrest and charge for the crime he committed.

Second reason: His intended repatriate in 2019 was totally different from the situation in July 2013. His return in 2013 was endorsed by amnesty Kret by the King and at that time Sam Rainsy was a head of lawful CNRP and was competing in the 5th Mandate Election of Members of the Assembly based on multiparty democracy principles. So, his then repatriate was reasonable. However, this 2019 declaration of his intention to return to Cambodia was different from the case in 2013 because Sam Rainsy was a convicted and was wanted under arrest warrant due to his role in unlawful political movement abroad.

Moreover, the election of members of the Assembly which was held regularly every 5 years was already held in 2018. Hence, Sam Rainsy’s repatriate this time was not for the election reason. We still remember clearly that when Cambodia was holding the 6th Mandate Election of the National Assembly in 2018, Sam Rainsy had led a campaign to destroy the election by appealing to all competing political parties and the voters to boycott the election under the name “Stay at home, win the election.” The campaign failed embarrassedly as the election was held smoothly based on Cambodia’s constitution and multiparty democracy principles, as well as laws, and as many as 20 political parties have entered the race of the election and the turn out rate was at 83.02%.

Third reason: In his repatriate plan, the former oppositions have organized 5 main activities: 1) setting up a group of people to welcome Sam Rainsy, 2) strengthening diplomatic relationship, 3) increased dissemination of sensitive social news to anger the national public in a bid to restore their belief and confidence on former party, 4) maintain closed tie with so-called democrats to show off that they are still in action and must be recognized and 5) planning a fund.

Besides the 5 activities, Sam Rainsy has been appealing – his local supporters help execute – to the armed force to rise against the government, and angering the public to rise up against authority by inciting, confusing, exaggerating and inflating the sensitive social news by all mean. The organizing of groups inside Cambodia to support and welcome the return of Sam Rainsy was a “trick,” aiming to use them both as a shield to protect them and to resist the application of the law by the authority. This shows clearly the main political intention and ambition behind Sam Rainsy’s repatriate – a new try to remobilize supporters which could lead to another “color revolution” to serve his own ambition to the power. The attempt to persuade EU to remove preferential EBA from Cambodia and to persuade the US to unleash sanctions against Cambodia were important parts of his “notorious” plan to push Cambodia into an economic and social crisis, which would benefit the oppositions’ politics.

Based on the above-mentioned reasons, everyone must have been clear that Sam Rainsy’s return plan to lead another “color revolution” to topple and overtake legitimate power in Cambodia would see failure as planned because:

His intended return to lead another “color revolution” was unlawful, and the authority has been readied to take actions. A plan to gather 5 people from each commune to welcome the return of Sam Rainsy was seen as an illegal involvement in the “color revolution,” which is subject to the action by the authority at any times. Recently, a few violators were summoned and warned by the court, while some who were persistent were arrested and charged. Cambodia has zero-tolerance against such activities which were seen as a cause of the destruction of peace and development.

Cambodian people love peace and they know clearly that their involvement in the “color revolution” for the sake of Sam Rainsy and co’s interests was translated into the destruction of their peaceful lives and the nation’s development.

Cambodian people understand clearly that the only pathway to the power was through a free and fair election, which is held regularly every 5 years. The election of members of the national assembly was held in 2018 and the next election would be in 2023.

The national and international public know clearly that by law the former CNRP, which was found guilty of conspiracy in the “color revolution” case, cannot reincarnate and there would not be any reelection, and the same applied to the former CNRP’s seats in the commune-Sangkat, district-khan or municipal-provincial levels that were redistributed following the dissolution of the CNRP.

Analysts on Cambodia’s political situation believed that Sam Rainsy’s repatriate this time was very adventurous and may seriously endanger him himself, and that those who were trapped in the opposition’s “tricks” by involving in the new “color revolution” under the umbrella of “change” would see themselves in danger of facing the legal actions, as well.
To sum up, Cambodian people do not need “color revolution;” they love peace and development and will stick to the serious application of the multiparty democracy through an election which would be held regularly every 5 years in pursuant to Cambodia’s constitution – the highest-ranked law of the nation!

By Chao Chak Smok
Kamchay Mear, Prey Veng 20 August 2019

បញ្ចេញមតិ
ពាក្យគន្លឹះទាក់ទង
អត្ថបទទាក់ទង