| Cambodia | Vietnam | Thailand | Bulgaria | Romania | ||
| Population: | 13,995,904 | 85,262,356 | 65,068,149 | 7,322,858 | 22,276,056 | |
| GDP (purchasing power parity) | $ 25.79 billion | $ 222.5 billion | $ 519.9 billion | $ 86.73 billion | $ 246.7 billion | |
| GDP (official exchange rate): | $8.3 billion (2007 est.) | $53.61 billion (2007 est.) | $211.1 billion (2007 est.) | $30.41 billion (2007 est.) | $86.84 billion (2007 est.) | |
| GDP - real growth rate: | 9.1% (2007 est.) | 8.2% (2007 est.) | 4.3% (2007 est.) | 6.1% (2007 est.) | 5.9% (2007 est.) | |
| GDP - per capita (PPP): | $1,800 (2007 est.) | $2,600 (2007 est.) | $8,000 (2007 est.) | $11,800 (2007 est.) | $11,100 (2007 est.) | |
| GDP - composition by sector: | agriculture: 31% | agriculture: 19.4% | agriculture: 10.8% | agriculture: 8.1% | agriculture: 7.9% | |
| industry: 26% | industry: 42.3% | industry: 45.3% | industry: 31.3% | industry: 35.6% | ||
| services: 43% (2007 est.) | services: 38.3% (2007 est.) | services: 43.8% (2007 est.) | services: 60.7% (2007 est.) | services: 56.5% (2007 est.) | ||
| Labor force: | 7 million (2003 est.) | 45.73 million (2007 est.) | 37.12 million (2007 est.) | 3.44 million (2007 est.) | 9.35 million (2007 est.) | |
| Labor force - by occupation: | agriculture: 75% | agriculture: 56.8% | agriculture: 49% | agriculture: 8.5% | agriculture: 31.6% | |
| industry: NA% | industry: 37% | industry: 14% | industry: 33.6% | industry: 30.7% | ||
| services: NA% (2004 est.) | services: 6.2% (July 2005) | services: 57.9% (2nd qtr. 2006 est.) | services: 37.7% (2004) | |||
| Unemployment rate: | 2.5% (2000 est.) | 4.2% (2007 est.) | 1.7% (2007 est.) | 8% (2007 est.) | 4.5% (2007 est.) | |
| Population below poverty line: | 35% (2004) | 19.5% (2004 est.) | 10% (2004 est.) | 14.1% (2003 est.) | 25% (2005 est.) | |
| Inflation rate (consumer prices): | 4.4% (2007 est.) | 8.1% (2007 est.) | 2% (2007 est.) | 7.8% (2007 est.) | 4.6% (2007 est.) | |
| Investment (gross fixed): | 20.3% of GDP (2007 est.) | 33% of GDP (2007 est.) | 27.4% of GDP (2007 est.) | 27.6% of GDP (2007 est.) | 26.9% of GDP (2007 est.) | |
| Budget: | revenues: $915.5 million | revenues: $18.28 billion | revenues: $43.61 billion | revenues: $16.62 billion | revenues: $52.96 billion | |
| expenditures: $1.101 billion (2007 est.) | expenditures: $19.79 billion (2007 est.) | expenditures: $48.18 billion (2007 est.) | expenditures: $15.18 billion (2007 est.) | expenditures: $56.85 billion (2007 est.) | ||
| Agriculture - products: | rice, rubber, corn, vegetables, cashews, tapioca | paddy rice, coffee, rubber, cotton, tea, pepper, soybeans, cashews, sugar cane, peanuts, bananas; poultry; fish, seafood | rice, cassava (tapioca), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts, soybeans | vegetables, fruits, tobacco, wine, wheat, barley, sunflowers, sugar beets; livestock | wheat, corn, barley, sugar beets, sunflower seed, potatoes, grapes; eggs, sheep | |
| Industries: | tourism, garments, rice milling, fishing, wood and wood products, rubber, cement, gem mining, textiles | food processing, garments, shoes, machine-building; mining, coal, steel; cement, chemical fertilizer, glass, tires, oil, paper | tourism, textiles and garments, agricultural processing, beverages, tobacco, cement, light manufacturing such as jewelry and electric appliances, computers and parts, integrated circuits, furniture, plastics, automobiles and automotive parts; world's second-largest tungsten producer and third-largest tin producer | electricity, gas, water; food, beverages, tobacco; machinery and equipment, base metals, chemical products, coke, refined petroleum, nuclear fuel | textiles and footwear, light machinery and auto assembly, mining, timber, construction materials, metallurgy, chemicals, food processing, petroleum refining | |
| Industrial production growth rate: | 12% (2007 est.) | 10.5% (2007 est.) | 4.6% (2007 est.) | 5.5% (2007 est.) | 8% (2007 est.) | |
| Electricity - production: | 134 million kWh (2005) | 51.33 billion kWh (2005) | 124.6 billion kWh (2005) | 45.7 billion kWh (2006) | 56.91 billion kWh (2005) | |
| Electricity - consumption: | 206.6 million kWh (2005) | 45.46 billion kWh (2005) | 117.7 billion kWh (2005) | 37.4 billion kWh (2006) | 48.17 billion kWh (2005) | |
| Electricity - exports: | 0 kWh (2005) | 0 kWh (2005) | 642 million kWh (2005) | 7.8 billion kWh (2006) | 5.224 billion kWh (2005) | |
| Electricity - imports: | 82 million kWh (2005) | 0 kWh (2005) | 4.419 billion kWh (2005) | 0 kWh (2006) | 2.321 billion kWh (2005) | |
| Oil - production: | 0 bbl/day (2005) | 375,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 310,900 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 3,661 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 122,700 bbl/day (2005 est.) | |
| Oil - consumption: | 3,700 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 254,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 929,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 108,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 236,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | |
| Oil - exports: | 0 bbl/day (2004) | 399,200 bbl/day (2004) | 225,700 bbl/day (2004) | 51,000 bbl/day (2005 est.) | 92,510 bbl/day (2004) | |
| Oil - imports: | 3,585 bbl/day (2004) | 238,400 bbl/day (2004) | 893,400 bbl/day (2004) | 138,800 bbl/day (2004 est.) | 181,100 bbl/day (2004) | |
| Oil - proved reserves: | 600 million bbl (1 January 2006 est.) | 291 million bbl (1 January 2006 est.) | 15 million bbl (1 January 2006 est.) | 955.6 million bbl (1 January 2006 est.) | ||
| Natural gas - production: | 3.836 billion cu m (2005 est.) | 22.73 billion cu m (2005 est.) | 407,000 cu m (2005 est.) | 11.22 billion cu m (2005 est.) | ||
| Natural gas - consumption: | 3.836 billion cu m (2005 est.) | 31.23 billion cu m (2005 est.) | 5.179 billion cu m (2005 est.) | 17.46 billion cu m (2005 est.) | ||
| Natural gas - exports: | 0 cu m (2005 est.) | 0 cu m (2005 est.) | 0 cu m (2005 est.) | 0 cu m (2005 est.) | ||
| Natural gas - imports: | 0 cu m (2005) | 8.497 billion cu m (2005) | 5.179 billion cu m (2005) | 6.234 billion cu m (2005) | ||
| Natural gas - proved reserves: | 184.7 billion cu m (1 January 2006 est.) | 400.7 billion cu m (1 January 2006 est.) | 5.703 billion cu m (1 January 2006 est.) | 96.41 billion cu m (1 January 2006 est.) | ||
| Exports: | $4.1 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $49.91 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $143.1 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $19.77 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $39.62 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | |
| Exports - commodities: | clothing, timber, rubber, rice, fish, tobacco, footwear | crude oil, marine products, rice, coffee, rubber, tea, garments, shoes | textiles and footwear, fishery products, rice, rubber, jewelry, automobiles, computers and electrical appliances | clothing, footwear, iron and steel, machinery and equipment, fuels | textiles and footwear, metals and metal products, machinery and equipment, minerals and fuels, chemicals, agricultural products | |
| Exports - partners: | US 53.3%, Hong Kong 15.2%, Germany 6.6%, UK 4.3% (2006) | US 21.2%, Japan 12.3%, Australia 9.4%, China 5.7%, Germany 4.5% (2006) | US 15%, Japan 12.7%, China 9%, Singapore 6.4%, Hong Kong 5.5%, Malaysia 5.1% (2006) | Turkey 12%, Italy 10.4%, Germany 10%, Greece 8.2%, Belgium 6.8%, France 4.3% (2006) | Italy 17.9%, Germany 15.7%, Turkey 7.7%, France 7.5%, Hungary 4.9%, UK 4.7% (2006) | |
| Imports: | $5.3 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $51.95 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $121.9 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $28.79 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | $63.16 billion f.o.b. (2007 est.) | |
| Imports - commodities: | petroleum products, cigarettes, gold, construction materials, machinery, motor vehicles, pharmaceutical products | machinery and equipment, petroleum products, fertilizer, steel products, raw cotton, grain, cement, motorcycles | capital goods, intermediate goods and raw materials, consumer goods, fuels | machinery and equipment; metals and ores; chemicals and plastics; fuels, minerals, and raw materials | machinery and equipment, fuels and minerals, chemicals, textile and products, basic metals, agricultural products | |
| Imports - partners: | Hong Kong 18.1%, China 17.5%, Thailand 13.9%, Taiwan 12.7%, Vietnam 9%, Singapore 5.3%, South Korea 4.9%, Japan 4.3% (2006) | China 17.7%, Singapore 12.9%, Taiwan 11.5%, Japan 9.8%, South Korea 8.4%, Thailand 7.3%, Malaysia 4.2% (2006) | Japan 20.1%, China 10.6%, US 6.7%, Malaysia 6.6%, UAE 5.6%, Singapore 4.5% (2006) | Germany 15%, Italy 10.6%, Turkey 7.2%, Greece 6.3%, China 5%, France 4.9%, Romania 4.5% (2006) | Germany 15.2%, Italy 14.5%, Russia 7.8%, France 6.5%, Turkey 4.9%, China 4.3% (2006) | |
| Economic aid - recipient: | $698.2 million pledged in grants and concession loans for 2007 by international donors (2007) | $1.905 billion in credits and grants pledged by the 2006 Consultative Group meeting in Hanoi (2005) | $171.1 million (2005) | $742 million (2005-06 est.) | $914.3 million (2004) | |
| Reserves of foreign exchange and gold: | $1.662 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $17.16 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $75 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $13.8 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $37.06 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | |
| Debt - external: | $3.98 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $24.41 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | $58.6 billion (30 June 2007) | $29.29 billion (30 June 2007) | $85.86 billion (31 December 2007 est.) | |
| Stock of direct foreign investment - at home: | $26.27 billion (2006 est.) | $69.06 billion (2006 est.) | $20.86 billion (2006 est.) | $40.69 billion (2006 est.) | ||
| Stock of direct foreign investment - abroad: | $5.605 billion (2006 est.) | $345.8 million (2006 est.) | $278 million (2006 est.) | |||
| Market value of publicly traded shares: | $139.6 billion (2006) | $10.32 billion (2006) | $32.78 billion (2006) |
Friday, February 22, 2008
Cambodia - Thailand – Vietnam – Romania – Bulgaria -- A Comparison of 5 Economies
Part II - Data
Cambodia - Thailand – Vietnam – Romania – Bulgaria -- A Comparison of 5 Economies
Part III - Annotations
It must be pointed out that the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania has no real significance in the comparison, as the underlying conditions are vastly different. They were only included to obtain some kind of perspective as to how other formerly decrepit Communist economies have fared after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The numbers practically speak for themselves. Cambodia is the smallest country of the three SE Asian nations here with only a little over 14 million people (latest estimate) versus the more than 85 million in Vietnam and 56 million in Thailand. Efforts to achieve progress in a smaller poor country are disproportionately more difficult due to the lack of adequate human resources.
Nevertheless, Cambodia has made great strides in the past 8 years or so reaching a per capita GDP of $1800 (it used to be in the $200 to $500 range before) compared to the $2600 in Vietnam. Given the disparate underlying conditions for development in both countries, this is a rather good result.
The agricultural sector is Cambodia is far greater than in both neighboring countries, almost one third of the GDP. Since subsistence farming makes up more 60% of that, this would clearly be one sector that needs the government’s close attention. It is obvious that most of these farms are family-run and have no employees.The transformation of the agricultural sector becomes even more imperative when seeing the 75% of the work force being employed there.
It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to really measure the labor force/industry ratio in Cambodia’s case where 75 % of the labor force contribute 31% to the GDP, versus 56.6% of the labor force contribute only a mere 8.7 % to the GDP in Vietnam, and 49% of the labor force contribute 10.8% to GDP in Thailand.These figures, of course, demonstrate the large concentration in all three countries in rural areas. Bulgaria as a smaller industrialized country shows a preponderance of the service sector, whereas in Romania the production forces appear to be evenly distributed.
Cambodia shows a 26% share of industry, which is mostly garment processing, a 43% share in the service industry, which is mostly the tourism and hospitality sectors, whilst Vietnam has a large industrial base almost equivalent with Thailand. Even the two semi-developed Southeastern European countries Bulgaria and Romania do not have such a high percentage of industry.
The unemployment rate of 2.5% in Cambodia appears to be very low. This would translate into 175,000 people without job, although it is known that only a very small portion of the about 300,000 school graduates entering the job market per year can find jobs. This figure obviously does not take into account that the subsistence farmers and their families, for all intents and purposes, are at least to some extent part of the unemployed work force. They are not reflected in that low figure. Similarly, the number in both Vietnam and Thailand seem rather low, especially in rural areas. The cause may be inaccurate record keeping capabilities in all three countries. Bulgaria and Romania with a functioning bureaucracy show more realistic numbers.
Similarly, the population below the poverty line appears somewhat low too. Lately, the poverty was drawn at $2/day income in Cambodia, which would make it roughly $60 a month. That may just be enough in the countryside to feed and clothe your family but in the cities this is barely sufficient to feed you, not to mention housing.
The inflation rate has been rising steadily because of exorbitant oil prices in all countries.The share of investment in Cambodia is still too low. Both Vietnam, which spends 33% and Thailand with 27.4% far outdo Cambodia in this very important sector.
Cambodia has fewer agricultural products in comparison to its similarly structured neighbors. By adequate education of farmers and implementing appropriate programs the country could greatly increase its rice production and become a seafood exporter.
Today Cambodia is basically a dual-industry economy, tourism and garments, which outweigh the rest by far. The natural rubber industry could be expanded considerably. There is bauxite for mining, which is virtually untapped. The fishing industry can be transformed into a substantial segment by using more modern methods and by tapping into the resources of the Tonle Sap, the Mekong River, and the coastal waters.
Though industrial growth rates have been impressive, the further development of existing industries and the establishment of more diverse industries in line with today’s world markets, such as light machinery, automobile parts, computer parts will be key to averting the dependence on the dual-industry structure.
As known, Cambodia has a long way to go in electrification. Most of the power plants are fossil fuel driven, polluting the environment. Alternative power sources need to be developed. The latter sector has created jobs on a large scale in other countries.
Oil is the scourge of today’s world. With increasing motorization and power needs, oil consumption will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. The oil reserves and exploitation due to begin in 2011 will alleviate the problem considerably, if handled for the benefit of the Cambodian people as a whole.
Cambodia will become an oil-exporting country, although small in comparison to other oil-producing nations. Nonetheless, oil will contribute substantially to the GDP. With the modernization of the natural rubber processing plants, rice, and seafood products, an enlarged export range will gradually transform the outlook and shape of the Cambodian economy.
Currently, the U. S. is the most important export-trading partner. In paraphrasing the saying, ‘If the U. S. sneezes, Cambodia will catch cold’, it is clear that this dependence must be abandoned completely. The EU constitutes a vast market for all Cambodian products. This needs to be cultivated. Both Bulgaria and Romania, as members of the EU, export most of their commodities to other EU nations. This is a clear advantage of a common market. ASEAN is aiming to emulate some aspects of the EU.
With the advent of oil exploitation and exportation the era as an economic aid recipient should come to an end.
Cambodia will establish a stock exchange in 2009. The shares of which companies are to be traded there remains to be decided. So far there is not one public company registered in Cambodia. Only foreign registered and traded companies make direct foreign investment there. The trading of their stock on the exchange won’t benefit the Cambodian economy at all. It is very doubtful whether the current larger Cambodian companies will go public which entails making public balance sheets, earnings, etc. Most observers don’t see this happening very soon. It can be assumed that the stock exchange will only be another vehicle for foreign speculators to earn non-taxable profits abroad.
It must be pointed out that the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania has no real significance in the comparison, as the underlying conditions are vastly different. They were only included to obtain some kind of perspective as to how other formerly decrepit Communist economies have fared after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The numbers practically speak for themselves. Cambodia is the smallest country of the three SE Asian nations here with only a little over 14 million people (latest estimate) versus the more than 85 million in Vietnam and 56 million in Thailand. Efforts to achieve progress in a smaller poor country are disproportionately more difficult due to the lack of adequate human resources.
Nevertheless, Cambodia has made great strides in the past 8 years or so reaching a per capita GDP of $1800 (it used to be in the $200 to $500 range before) compared to the $2600 in Vietnam. Given the disparate underlying conditions for development in both countries, this is a rather good result.
The agricultural sector is Cambodia is far greater than in both neighboring countries, almost one third of the GDP. Since subsistence farming makes up more 60% of that, this would clearly be one sector that needs the government’s close attention. It is obvious that most of these farms are family-run and have no employees.The transformation of the agricultural sector becomes even more imperative when seeing the 75% of the work force being employed there.
It is, therefore, somewhat difficult to really measure the labor force/industry ratio in Cambodia’s case where 75 % of the labor force contribute 31% to the GDP, versus 56.6% of the labor force contribute only a mere 8.7 % to the GDP in Vietnam, and 49% of the labor force contribute 10.8% to GDP in Thailand.These figures, of course, demonstrate the large concentration in all three countries in rural areas. Bulgaria as a smaller industrialized country shows a preponderance of the service sector, whereas in Romania the production forces appear to be evenly distributed.
Cambodia shows a 26% share of industry, which is mostly garment processing, a 43% share in the service industry, which is mostly the tourism and hospitality sectors, whilst Vietnam has a large industrial base almost equivalent with Thailand. Even the two semi-developed Southeastern European countries Bulgaria and Romania do not have such a high percentage of industry.
The unemployment rate of 2.5% in Cambodia appears to be very low. This would translate into 175,000 people without job, although it is known that only a very small portion of the about 300,000 school graduates entering the job market per year can find jobs. This figure obviously does not take into account that the subsistence farmers and their families, for all intents and purposes, are at least to some extent part of the unemployed work force. They are not reflected in that low figure. Similarly, the number in both Vietnam and Thailand seem rather low, especially in rural areas. The cause may be inaccurate record keeping capabilities in all three countries. Bulgaria and Romania with a functioning bureaucracy show more realistic numbers.
Similarly, the population below the poverty line appears somewhat low too. Lately, the poverty was drawn at $2/day income in Cambodia, which would make it roughly $60 a month. That may just be enough in the countryside to feed and clothe your family but in the cities this is barely sufficient to feed you, not to mention housing.
The inflation rate has been rising steadily because of exorbitant oil prices in all countries.The share of investment in Cambodia is still too low. Both Vietnam, which spends 33% and Thailand with 27.4% far outdo Cambodia in this very important sector.
Cambodia has fewer agricultural products in comparison to its similarly structured neighbors. By adequate education of farmers and implementing appropriate programs the country could greatly increase its rice production and become a seafood exporter.
Today Cambodia is basically a dual-industry economy, tourism and garments, which outweigh the rest by far. The natural rubber industry could be expanded considerably. There is bauxite for mining, which is virtually untapped. The fishing industry can be transformed into a substantial segment by using more modern methods and by tapping into the resources of the Tonle Sap, the Mekong River, and the coastal waters.
Though industrial growth rates have been impressive, the further development of existing industries and the establishment of more diverse industries in line with today’s world markets, such as light machinery, automobile parts, computer parts will be key to averting the dependence on the dual-industry structure.
As known, Cambodia has a long way to go in electrification. Most of the power plants are fossil fuel driven, polluting the environment. Alternative power sources need to be developed. The latter sector has created jobs on a large scale in other countries.
Oil is the scourge of today’s world. With increasing motorization and power needs, oil consumption will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. The oil reserves and exploitation due to begin in 2011 will alleviate the problem considerably, if handled for the benefit of the Cambodian people as a whole.
Cambodia will become an oil-exporting country, although small in comparison to other oil-producing nations. Nonetheless, oil will contribute substantially to the GDP. With the modernization of the natural rubber processing plants, rice, and seafood products, an enlarged export range will gradually transform the outlook and shape of the Cambodian economy.
Currently, the U. S. is the most important export-trading partner. In paraphrasing the saying, ‘If the U. S. sneezes, Cambodia will catch cold’, it is clear that this dependence must be abandoned completely. The EU constitutes a vast market for all Cambodian products. This needs to be cultivated. Both Bulgaria and Romania, as members of the EU, export most of their commodities to other EU nations. This is a clear advantage of a common market. ASEAN is aiming to emulate some aspects of the EU.
With the advent of oil exploitation and exportation the era as an economic aid recipient should come to an end.
Cambodia will establish a stock exchange in 2009. The shares of which companies are to be traded there remains to be decided. So far there is not one public company registered in Cambodia. Only foreign registered and traded companies make direct foreign investment there. The trading of their stock on the exchange won’t benefit the Cambodian economy at all. It is very doubtful whether the current larger Cambodian companies will go public which entails making public balance sheets, earnings, etc. Most observers don’t see this happening very soon. It can be assumed that the stock exchange will only be another vehicle for foreign speculators to earn non-taxable profits abroad.
Cambodia - Thailand – Vietnam – Romania – Bulgaria -- A Comparison of 5 Economies
Part IV
Conclusions
Going back to opposition leader Sam Rainsy’s negative remarks on the comparison of Cambodia to Thailand and Vietnam, one can see that overall the Cambodian economy has not done too badly, all things considered.
As mentioned before, the underlying conditions in Cambodia before 1993 were vastly different from the ones in Vietnam and Thailand.
Vietnam had won their war of unification in 1975 and received generous help from the Soviet Union and East Germany. Cambodia was plunged into something reminiscent of the Dark Ages with the annihilation of the elite, the destruction of the entire economy, abolishment of money, and a workable administration. During the time of the Vietnamese occupation in the 1980s, efforts at establishing an administration in the country were half-hearted at best and self-serving at worst, as Vietnam had to cope with its own problems caused by the same events in their economy as the Soviet Union. Both were faltering, which led to a gradual introduction of more liberal economic policies in both countries. They had no resources to aid a suffering country like Cambodia, and the aid that was forthcoming was symbolic at best. (See also John Tully, “A Short History of Cambodia”.)
Faltering economies occurred in all former Soviet satellite countries. But both Romania and Bulgaria had a stronger industrial base even in Communist times, so their economic rebirth would not begin at point zero, and, consequently could develop much faster. Additionally, these countries had the vast European market in their front yard. European businesses were eager to utilize the proximity of those production facilities. Average wages in those countries in the early 1990s rivaled those in Vietnam and China in attractiveness.
Thailand had a 30-year head start. Conventional wisdom holds that Cambodia would today be on a par with Thailand had it not undergone those tragic experiences of the Pol Pot terror and the subsequent ruinous Soviet-Vietnamese inspired Communist reign.
The turning point for Cambodia came with the elections in 1993 but no overnight miracles could be expected. This was going to be a long and arduous process, which would have failed without the foreign that started pouring in from mostly Japan, the U. S., France, and others.
The country’s leadership was under-educated with no experience in running a democratic, pluralistic country and a free-market economy. It was no wonder that they were overwhelmed with the task, and seeing those huge amounts of money pouring in, succumbed to the temptation of helping themselves to a good share of it. The base of the government was precarious. Each party focused on strengthening its own power base rather than on the development of the country. This ended abruptly in 1997 with the removal of Ranariddh as first prime minister. Unfortunately, this also led to an erosion of confidence of foreign investors, which was not to be restored until after the 2003 elections. The surge in foreign investment, mostly from China and South Korea, did not come until after 2003. The major growth in the Cambodian economy has occurred since then. So, in effect, the first 10 years of liberty were indeed wasted on internal struggles. But there is not one blameless party in that conflict, any finger pointing is counterproductive. Each party contributed its share to the instability, be it intransigence on positions, or simple hunger for power and personal wealth.
Endemic corruption is blamed for most of the woes of today’s Cambodia. Given that some $320 million a year is lost due to that, and since that has been going on for almost 15 years, this is a sizable amount that could have been invested in the development of the country. It is probably safe to say that approximately 20% of the national budget disappears in a black hole. Remedies or cures for this disease are not easy to find. This problem will remain the greatest obstacle to the further and more rapid development of Cambodia.
Of course, tax revenues must reflect the actual incomes earned. The majority of income earners in Cambodia does not pay any income tax. A rigorous tax reporting and collection system must be implemented.
There remains a wide field for programs to enlarge the base of the economy, and as a result, create the necessary jobs. Incomes need to be spread more evenly among all segments of the population, most significantly in rural areas where about 75% of the population lives.Cambodia needs to create programs for a number of existing industries in order to achieve better growth and stability, like tourism, natural rubber, cement, rice, tropical fruits, spices, as well as attract new industries to create a stronger base, e. g. computer parts, light machinery, automobile parts, tire production, cell phone production.
The wage structure in Cambodia, even if increased to a minimum wage of $150/month for factory workers, is still very competitive with Vietnam and China. All other SE Asian nations have higher averages wages already. By extending incentives to large international companies, e. g. rent-free land for 5 years, long-term leases thereafter at low rent, no taxes for the first 3 years, etc. these industries will certainly be interested in setting up production in Cambodia. These incentives would ideally be on a gliding scale tied to the number of jobs created. What the government would lose in tax revenues initially would be compensated by the creation of jobs.
But for this to happen, all parties must cease to play at politics and begin to formulate and execute policies.
Conclusions
Going back to opposition leader Sam Rainsy’s negative remarks on the comparison of Cambodia to Thailand and Vietnam, one can see that overall the Cambodian economy has not done too badly, all things considered.
As mentioned before, the underlying conditions in Cambodia before 1993 were vastly different from the ones in Vietnam and Thailand.
Vietnam had won their war of unification in 1975 and received generous help from the Soviet Union and East Germany. Cambodia was plunged into something reminiscent of the Dark Ages with the annihilation of the elite, the destruction of the entire economy, abolishment of money, and a workable administration. During the time of the Vietnamese occupation in the 1980s, efforts at establishing an administration in the country were half-hearted at best and self-serving at worst, as Vietnam had to cope with its own problems caused by the same events in their economy as the Soviet Union. Both were faltering, which led to a gradual introduction of more liberal economic policies in both countries. They had no resources to aid a suffering country like Cambodia, and the aid that was forthcoming was symbolic at best. (See also John Tully, “A Short History of Cambodia”.)
Faltering economies occurred in all former Soviet satellite countries. But both Romania and Bulgaria had a stronger industrial base even in Communist times, so their economic rebirth would not begin at point zero, and, consequently could develop much faster. Additionally, these countries had the vast European market in their front yard. European businesses were eager to utilize the proximity of those production facilities. Average wages in those countries in the early 1990s rivaled those in Vietnam and China in attractiveness.
Thailand had a 30-year head start. Conventional wisdom holds that Cambodia would today be on a par with Thailand had it not undergone those tragic experiences of the Pol Pot terror and the subsequent ruinous Soviet-Vietnamese inspired Communist reign.
The turning point for Cambodia came with the elections in 1993 but no overnight miracles could be expected. This was going to be a long and arduous process, which would have failed without the foreign that started pouring in from mostly Japan, the U. S., France, and others.
The country’s leadership was under-educated with no experience in running a democratic, pluralistic country and a free-market economy. It was no wonder that they were overwhelmed with the task, and seeing those huge amounts of money pouring in, succumbed to the temptation of helping themselves to a good share of it. The base of the government was precarious. Each party focused on strengthening its own power base rather than on the development of the country. This ended abruptly in 1997 with the removal of Ranariddh as first prime minister. Unfortunately, this also led to an erosion of confidence of foreign investors, which was not to be restored until after the 2003 elections. The surge in foreign investment, mostly from China and South Korea, did not come until after 2003. The major growth in the Cambodian economy has occurred since then. So, in effect, the first 10 years of liberty were indeed wasted on internal struggles. But there is not one blameless party in that conflict, any finger pointing is counterproductive. Each party contributed its share to the instability, be it intransigence on positions, or simple hunger for power and personal wealth.
Endemic corruption is blamed for most of the woes of today’s Cambodia. Given that some $320 million a year is lost due to that, and since that has been going on for almost 15 years, this is a sizable amount that could have been invested in the development of the country. It is probably safe to say that approximately 20% of the national budget disappears in a black hole. Remedies or cures for this disease are not easy to find. This problem will remain the greatest obstacle to the further and more rapid development of Cambodia.
Of course, tax revenues must reflect the actual incomes earned. The majority of income earners in Cambodia does not pay any income tax. A rigorous tax reporting and collection system must be implemented.
There remains a wide field for programs to enlarge the base of the economy, and as a result, create the necessary jobs. Incomes need to be spread more evenly among all segments of the population, most significantly in rural areas where about 75% of the population lives.Cambodia needs to create programs for a number of existing industries in order to achieve better growth and stability, like tourism, natural rubber, cement, rice, tropical fruits, spices, as well as attract new industries to create a stronger base, e. g. computer parts, light machinery, automobile parts, tire production, cell phone production.
The wage structure in Cambodia, even if increased to a minimum wage of $150/month for factory workers, is still very competitive with Vietnam and China. All other SE Asian nations have higher averages wages already. By extending incentives to large international companies, e. g. rent-free land for 5 years, long-term leases thereafter at low rent, no taxes for the first 3 years, etc. these industries will certainly be interested in setting up production in Cambodia. These incentives would ideally be on a gliding scale tied to the number of jobs created. What the government would lose in tax revenues initially would be compensated by the creation of jobs.
But for this to happen, all parties must cease to play at politics and begin to formulate and execute policies.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Hun Sen and Sam Rainsy on Stability in Cambodia
Comments on a report gleaned from the Radio Free Asia as published and translated by KI-Media
In connection with the report of increasing land price in Cambodia currently, several observers and Cambodian politicians point out that this is due to peaceful stability in Cambodia.Yesterday, Prime minister Hun Sen confirmed that political stability and social security constitute the importance leading to fast progress and to all sorts of development for Cambodia, he also compared (the current situation) with the land price during the various war time inside the country.
It is certainly true that stability is a prerequisite for a growing economy, which in turn will attract many investors from abroad. Cambodia itself does not have a broad capital basis. As a consequence, it needs foreign capital to come into the country.
Hun Sen said that people could reject the fact that land price increase in Cambodia is not on par with the rise of land prices in the world: “I talked in Takeo, one politician replied back that the land price increase is due to the price increase on the world market.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Although real estate prices differ vastly from country to country, there is usually a trend in a region. But even a market such as the U. S. shows great disparities in the value of land. The land prices in Cambodia are currently driven by sheer speculation fueled in part by the large presence of South Korean and Chinese investors. In the end, a simple market mechanism will determine whether this rise in land prices is justified – supply and demand.
On his part, opposition leader Sam Rainsy is happy with the Cambodian people to receive such boon from this rise of land price, however, he also warned about other numerous negative impacts, including the social instability in the near future also.Sam Rainsy said: “Those who claim that the increase of land price is his achievement, is not right. Take a look at it, this is not a good achievement, it is a bad achievement instead. These bad achievements came from the fact that it allows crooks, international thieves aka the mafia, to bring in their dirty money to clean up by buying and selling lands. The money belonging to the mafia and the international thieves, they cannot buy goods anyway they want in the world, they must abide by the law. The money collected by corrupt Cambodians is the same also. I say that in our country, there is no stability when the number of poor farmers losing their lands is increasing, and currently, their children also have no jobs, no income. The youngsters now have no jobs and no income, and each year, about 300,000 Cambodians reach the job market, but they couldn’t find any job, and they still live in poverty.”
If this is what Sam Rainsy has to offer as an explanation he is no better than the current Prime Minister. While Hun Sen tends to oversimplify and cast everything in a favorable light to himself and the CPP, Sam Rainsy can only find fault with everything. According to him there is not one positive development in Cambodia. Leaders must be optimistic with a view to the future. Instead of haranguing the present government, he should offer solutions.
What about the construction jobs created because of that building boom? So all those South Korean developers are thieves? Real estate and job creation programs are two different issues. In his usual populist way he lumps everything together. Is this the way a true leader talks?
Displacement of people, high unemployment rates, and continuing poverty are in fact the breeding ground for civil unrest. This is the last thing Cambodia would need at this point. Only irresponsible politicians foment this unrest, pour oil into the fire by making inflammatory speeches and broadcasts. Sam Rainsy is either moving down a dangerous path or he lost sight of the real goal, namely, working for improving life in Cambodia. Cooperation and moderation are much better tools in accomplishing change.
In connection with the report of increasing land price in Cambodia currently, several observers and Cambodian politicians point out that this is due to peaceful stability in Cambodia.Yesterday, Prime minister Hun Sen confirmed that political stability and social security constitute the importance leading to fast progress and to all sorts of development for Cambodia, he also compared (the current situation) with the land price during the various war time inside the country.
It is certainly true that stability is a prerequisite for a growing economy, which in turn will attract many investors from abroad. Cambodia itself does not have a broad capital basis. As a consequence, it needs foreign capital to come into the country.
Hun Sen said that people could reject the fact that land price increase in Cambodia is not on par with the rise of land prices in the world: “I talked in Takeo, one politician replied back that the land price increase is due to the price increase on the world market.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Although real estate prices differ vastly from country to country, there is usually a trend in a region. But even a market such as the U. S. shows great disparities in the value of land. The land prices in Cambodia are currently driven by sheer speculation fueled in part by the large presence of South Korean and Chinese investors. In the end, a simple market mechanism will determine whether this rise in land prices is justified – supply and demand.
On his part, opposition leader Sam Rainsy is happy with the Cambodian people to receive such boon from this rise of land price, however, he also warned about other numerous negative impacts, including the social instability in the near future also.Sam Rainsy said: “Those who claim that the increase of land price is his achievement, is not right. Take a look at it, this is not a good achievement, it is a bad achievement instead. These bad achievements came from the fact that it allows crooks, international thieves aka the mafia, to bring in their dirty money to clean up by buying and selling lands. The money belonging to the mafia and the international thieves, they cannot buy goods anyway they want in the world, they must abide by the law. The money collected by corrupt Cambodians is the same also. I say that in our country, there is no stability when the number of poor farmers losing their lands is increasing, and currently, their children also have no jobs, no income. The youngsters now have no jobs and no income, and each year, about 300,000 Cambodians reach the job market, but they couldn’t find any job, and they still live in poverty.”
If this is what Sam Rainsy has to offer as an explanation he is no better than the current Prime Minister. While Hun Sen tends to oversimplify and cast everything in a favorable light to himself and the CPP, Sam Rainsy can only find fault with everything. According to him there is not one positive development in Cambodia. Leaders must be optimistic with a view to the future. Instead of haranguing the present government, he should offer solutions.
What about the construction jobs created because of that building boom? So all those South Korean developers are thieves? Real estate and job creation programs are two different issues. In his usual populist way he lumps everything together. Is this the way a true leader talks?
Displacement of people, high unemployment rates, and continuing poverty are in fact the breeding ground for civil unrest. This is the last thing Cambodia would need at this point. Only irresponsible politicians foment this unrest, pour oil into the fire by making inflammatory speeches and broadcasts. Sam Rainsy is either moving down a dangerous path or he lost sight of the real goal, namely, working for improving life in Cambodia. Cooperation and moderation are much better tools in accomplishing change.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Sam Rainsy and Comparison of Progress
This is in addition to the recent article on who to vote for in the next election.
Comments on a report gleaned from Radio Free Asia as Published on KI-Media.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy maintained that the yardstick that should be used to measure progress in Cambodia should be based on the comparison of the progress made in neighboring countries, as well as the progress made in other developed countries in the world.
It appears as if these remarks were made off the cuff without thinking too much about what is was really saying. It certainly does not make any sense comparing Cambodia to developed nations. The economic base for those countries is quite different from developing countries. This is like the proverbial apples and oranges. Somebody with a degree in economics and finance should know that you have several categories: developed, semi-developed, threshold, under-developed countries. How can you compare the first category to the lowest category? This is plain nonsense. Thailand is a semi-developed country and as such is not comparable. It can only serve as an example to be followed (although not in all aspects). Vietnam is one step above Cambodia in its development as a threshold country, but it may still be used as a yardstick because of its similar economic base.
Sam Rainsy said that he still maintained his previous stance in which he claimed that Cambodia cannot move towards real progress if it were to be compared with that of neighboring countries.
What does he mean by that? Comparison is an obstacle to progress?
Sam Rainsy said: “I am maintaining that the progress in neighboring countries is 10 times better than ours. In Thailand for example, people have work, and their salaries are 10 times more than us. They have 10-20 times more roads, schools, hospitals than us.
Thailand has had a head-start of about 30 to 35 years. It never had a colonial power in its country except for the period of the Japanese occupation during WWII. They have been close allies of the U. S. since and have received massive help from that country, especially during the Vietnam war time, perhaps as thanks for their help. Thailand did not have stone-age communism in its country for 4 year during which time the entire infrastructure was destroyed and the elite of the country eliminated. Thailand did not have a Communist regime under the aegis of another Communist country for 10 or 11 years. Thailand did not have a civil war for 10 years. What is he talking about?
As for Vietnam which was also a victim of a war where the US dropped so many bombs on, and it also sustained 30-40 years of war during the French colonial regime, it was destroyed much more than us, and even though it was a communist country, their leaders were responsible and they led their people to prosperity that is 2 to 3 times better than us.”
Though Vietnam is ahead of Cambodia because of Vietnam’s Doi Moi policy introduced in 1986/1987, it did not make real progress until the U. S. re-established diplomatic relations in 1997, which ushered in a time of renewed U. S. and European investment in Vietnam. Vietnam was and is seen as a better country for investment due to its large economic base and population of 85 million people, which constitute a formidable consumer base. It may be used as comparison, but then on the base of its similarly structured economy, and to see how they did it and possibly to be emulated by Cambodia. Their ‘responsible’ leaders repress their people much more than the much-vilified Hun Sen does. The existence of the Sam Rainsy Party is proof of at least a semblance of democracy, which the Vietnamese government most certainly won’t ever allow to happen.
Even though several authors wrote that Cambodia fell into Year Zero between 1975 and 1979, and that the country cannot be reconstructed as well as other countries during such short period of time, Sam Rainsy blamed on the corruption and the lack of responsibility of the current leaders still.
All historians agree that Cambodia was for all intents and purposes in the Year Zero in 1979. It is also agreed by economists that a redevelopment will take much longer than in a country that was not ravished and literally run into the ground by dystopian rulers. Although there is undoubtedly widespread corruption and a lack of responsibility on the part of the current party in power, there has also just as undoubtedly been progress, which he cannot deny. By the way, corruption is similarly widespread in neighboring Communist Vietnam and to a somewhat lesser extent in Thailand.
Sam Rainsy added: “Japan after World War II was heavily bombarded by the US, and even 2 atomic bombs were dropped and turned Japan into ashes, but in 1964 – 19 years after the end of the war in 1945 – with good and non corrupt leaders, Japan rose from the ashes and became an economic Superpower, and the Japanese had the highest living condition in Asia. But, in our country, 30 years after the Khmer Rouge – not just 19 years like in Japan – it has been 30 years already and the majority of the Cambodians are still living in poverty, some are getting even poorer because they lost their lands, their forests, their fishes, they are poor because of corruption, because of the inabilities and the lack of responsibility of our current leaders.”
This is the most ignorant observation somebody in Sam Rainsy’s position could make. Japan was an industrialized and powerful country before WWII.
But when Japan lay destroyed the U. S. undertook the rebuilding of the country in an almost unparalleled, massive endeavor, comparable to the one in Germany. Japan did not do this out of its own capability and without the Americans that ‘rise from the ashes’ would have taken much longer. Japan still had its elite and has a long tradition of higher education, an atmosphere conducive to creativity and ingenuity. Cambodia under Sihanouk in the 1960s was not even close to Japan in terms of education or overall development at that time. The last 30 years of Cambodia must separated into two periods – one before 1993 and one after 1993, or better 1997, because that is the year progress became tangible and really visible in Cambodia.
Hun Sen alluded to a politician, whom he declined to name, who allegedly used to cheat in the past. Hun Sen said that he can measure progress by comparing the start of his (political) journey to the current location where he is now standing.Hun Sen said: “There are some politicians who dare not talk about it. There is no need to compare to the Pol Pot regime, and the comparison must be made with developed countries instead. Oh Sir, now we must know where we came from, and how far we have walked to? But, they do not dare (talk about it?), if you are scared, make it clear that you are scared, you shouldn’t cheat while talking. Some other leaders said that there should not be any comparison to the Pol Pot era, if compared to the Pol pot era, the Pol Pot era was better and Pol Pot was right. But now you want to compare with developed countries. Now, let’s talk about Thailand, they never had wars, they just had a war in its southern region, and the minor coup d’état which took place, besides that they were always developing (their country), they never saw destruction, did they not? But for us, we destroyed all the way to the roots. Vietnam after the war ended also rebuilt its country while in Cambodia, the destruction was made all the way to the roots.”
It must be assumed that the translation is somewhat diffuse but obviously Hun Sen is making the same point as the writer above. It goes without saying that Hun Sen will not accept any responsibilities for his or his government’s failures and mistakes, and the widespread corruption (which he does on occasion acknowledge).
Nevertheless, Sam Rainsy, who used to say that the Cambodian people are getting poorer and poorer, called on the current government leaders to recognize their leadership mistakes rather than blaming the Khmer Rouge.Sam Rainsy said: “Our country is destroyed by the leaders who came after the Khmer Rouge regime, in the lat 10-20 years. Was it the Khmer Rouge who destroyed the forest (during the KR regime)? In fact, it was done by the leaders who came after the Khmer Rouge regime instead. Was it the Khmer Rouge who allowed the immigrants and the Vietnamese to catch all the fishes from the streams, lakes and rivers in our country? It was not the Khmer Rouge, it was those who came to replace them later on. Was it the Khmer Rouge who sold the state belongings, the people belongings to international thieves (Mafia), to the crooked companies which confiscated lands belonging to the people, and making them poor? The Khmer Rouge case dated from 30 years back, what I am talking about is the destruction of the nation in the past 10-20 years only. They shouldn’t blame the Khmer Rouge on everything that they did wrong. They should accept their own mistakes – mistakes which are caused by corruption, dictatorship, lack of capabilities.”
It is unfortunate that the current leaders in government were also the leaders in the Vietnamese-installed government in 1979 and 1985. Certainly a complete break with the past by having new and unburdened people form the government after 1993 would have given the Cambodia fresh impulses and been a complete renewal from the ground up. But those new faces were few and far between in 1993. Judging by Ranariddh’s political escapades, those impulses would have been somewhat erratic too. Sam Rainsy still has to prove his mettle as a statesman.
Nonetheless, the fact that is was the Vietnamese Communist government in Hanoi that virtually plundered the complete resources during the 10 years of their occupation must not be overlooked when apportioning blame.
The reference to the Vietnamese is again pandering at its worst and the constant repetition of this makes Sam Rainsy appear racist.He would do well by acting a little more aloof and more reflective at times. Perhaps he should get a media adviser.
Comments on a report gleaned from Radio Free Asia as Published on KI-Media.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy maintained that the yardstick that should be used to measure progress in Cambodia should be based on the comparison of the progress made in neighboring countries, as well as the progress made in other developed countries in the world.
It appears as if these remarks were made off the cuff without thinking too much about what is was really saying. It certainly does not make any sense comparing Cambodia to developed nations. The economic base for those countries is quite different from developing countries. This is like the proverbial apples and oranges. Somebody with a degree in economics and finance should know that you have several categories: developed, semi-developed, threshold, under-developed countries. How can you compare the first category to the lowest category? This is plain nonsense. Thailand is a semi-developed country and as such is not comparable. It can only serve as an example to be followed (although not in all aspects). Vietnam is one step above Cambodia in its development as a threshold country, but it may still be used as a yardstick because of its similar economic base.
Sam Rainsy said that he still maintained his previous stance in which he claimed that Cambodia cannot move towards real progress if it were to be compared with that of neighboring countries.
What does he mean by that? Comparison is an obstacle to progress?
Sam Rainsy said: “I am maintaining that the progress in neighboring countries is 10 times better than ours. In Thailand for example, people have work, and their salaries are 10 times more than us. They have 10-20 times more roads, schools, hospitals than us.
Thailand has had a head-start of about 30 to 35 years. It never had a colonial power in its country except for the period of the Japanese occupation during WWII. They have been close allies of the U. S. since and have received massive help from that country, especially during the Vietnam war time, perhaps as thanks for their help. Thailand did not have stone-age communism in its country for 4 year during which time the entire infrastructure was destroyed and the elite of the country eliminated. Thailand did not have a Communist regime under the aegis of another Communist country for 10 or 11 years. Thailand did not have a civil war for 10 years. What is he talking about?
As for Vietnam which was also a victim of a war where the US dropped so many bombs on, and it also sustained 30-40 years of war during the French colonial regime, it was destroyed much more than us, and even though it was a communist country, their leaders were responsible and they led their people to prosperity that is 2 to 3 times better than us.”
Though Vietnam is ahead of Cambodia because of Vietnam’s Doi Moi policy introduced in 1986/1987, it did not make real progress until the U. S. re-established diplomatic relations in 1997, which ushered in a time of renewed U. S. and European investment in Vietnam. Vietnam was and is seen as a better country for investment due to its large economic base and population of 85 million people, which constitute a formidable consumer base. It may be used as comparison, but then on the base of its similarly structured economy, and to see how they did it and possibly to be emulated by Cambodia. Their ‘responsible’ leaders repress their people much more than the much-vilified Hun Sen does. The existence of the Sam Rainsy Party is proof of at least a semblance of democracy, which the Vietnamese government most certainly won’t ever allow to happen.
Even though several authors wrote that Cambodia fell into Year Zero between 1975 and 1979, and that the country cannot be reconstructed as well as other countries during such short period of time, Sam Rainsy blamed on the corruption and the lack of responsibility of the current leaders still.
All historians agree that Cambodia was for all intents and purposes in the Year Zero in 1979. It is also agreed by economists that a redevelopment will take much longer than in a country that was not ravished and literally run into the ground by dystopian rulers. Although there is undoubtedly widespread corruption and a lack of responsibility on the part of the current party in power, there has also just as undoubtedly been progress, which he cannot deny. By the way, corruption is similarly widespread in neighboring Communist Vietnam and to a somewhat lesser extent in Thailand.
Sam Rainsy added: “Japan after World War II was heavily bombarded by the US, and even 2 atomic bombs were dropped and turned Japan into ashes, but in 1964 – 19 years after the end of the war in 1945 – with good and non corrupt leaders, Japan rose from the ashes and became an economic Superpower, and the Japanese had the highest living condition in Asia. But, in our country, 30 years after the Khmer Rouge – not just 19 years like in Japan – it has been 30 years already and the majority of the Cambodians are still living in poverty, some are getting even poorer because they lost their lands, their forests, their fishes, they are poor because of corruption, because of the inabilities and the lack of responsibility of our current leaders.”
This is the most ignorant observation somebody in Sam Rainsy’s position could make. Japan was an industrialized and powerful country before WWII.
But when Japan lay destroyed the U. S. undertook the rebuilding of the country in an almost unparalleled, massive endeavor, comparable to the one in Germany. Japan did not do this out of its own capability and without the Americans that ‘rise from the ashes’ would have taken much longer. Japan still had its elite and has a long tradition of higher education, an atmosphere conducive to creativity and ingenuity. Cambodia under Sihanouk in the 1960s was not even close to Japan in terms of education or overall development at that time. The last 30 years of Cambodia must separated into two periods – one before 1993 and one after 1993, or better 1997, because that is the year progress became tangible and really visible in Cambodia.
Hun Sen alluded to a politician, whom he declined to name, who allegedly used to cheat in the past. Hun Sen said that he can measure progress by comparing the start of his (political) journey to the current location where he is now standing.Hun Sen said: “There are some politicians who dare not talk about it. There is no need to compare to the Pol Pot regime, and the comparison must be made with developed countries instead. Oh Sir, now we must know where we came from, and how far we have walked to? But, they do not dare (talk about it?), if you are scared, make it clear that you are scared, you shouldn’t cheat while talking. Some other leaders said that there should not be any comparison to the Pol Pot era, if compared to the Pol pot era, the Pol Pot era was better and Pol Pot was right. But now you want to compare with developed countries. Now, let’s talk about Thailand, they never had wars, they just had a war in its southern region, and the minor coup d’état which took place, besides that they were always developing (their country), they never saw destruction, did they not? But for us, we destroyed all the way to the roots. Vietnam after the war ended also rebuilt its country while in Cambodia, the destruction was made all the way to the roots.”
It must be assumed that the translation is somewhat diffuse but obviously Hun Sen is making the same point as the writer above. It goes without saying that Hun Sen will not accept any responsibilities for his or his government’s failures and mistakes, and the widespread corruption (which he does on occasion acknowledge).
Nevertheless, Sam Rainsy, who used to say that the Cambodian people are getting poorer and poorer, called on the current government leaders to recognize their leadership mistakes rather than blaming the Khmer Rouge.Sam Rainsy said: “Our country is destroyed by the leaders who came after the Khmer Rouge regime, in the lat 10-20 years. Was it the Khmer Rouge who destroyed the forest (during the KR regime)? In fact, it was done by the leaders who came after the Khmer Rouge regime instead. Was it the Khmer Rouge who allowed the immigrants and the Vietnamese to catch all the fishes from the streams, lakes and rivers in our country? It was not the Khmer Rouge, it was those who came to replace them later on. Was it the Khmer Rouge who sold the state belongings, the people belongings to international thieves (Mafia), to the crooked companies which confiscated lands belonging to the people, and making them poor? The Khmer Rouge case dated from 30 years back, what I am talking about is the destruction of the nation in the past 10-20 years only. They shouldn’t blame the Khmer Rouge on everything that they did wrong. They should accept their own mistakes – mistakes which are caused by corruption, dictatorship, lack of capabilities.”
It is unfortunate that the current leaders in government were also the leaders in the Vietnamese-installed government in 1979 and 1985. Certainly a complete break with the past by having new and unburdened people form the government after 1993 would have given the Cambodia fresh impulses and been a complete renewal from the ground up. But those new faces were few and far between in 1993. Judging by Ranariddh’s political escapades, those impulses would have been somewhat erratic too. Sam Rainsy still has to prove his mettle as a statesman.
Nonetheless, the fact that is was the Vietnamese Communist government in Hanoi that virtually plundered the complete resources during the 10 years of their occupation must not be overlooked when apportioning blame.
The reference to the Vietnamese is again pandering at its worst and the constant repetition of this makes Sam Rainsy appear racist.He would do well by acting a little more aloof and more reflective at times. Perhaps he should get a media adviser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Visitors
