He Sure Knows How to Put His Foot in It – or What Was He Thinking?

Three months before the election another stumbling block looms on the horizon for Sam Rainsy. The Foreign Minister sued Sam Rainsy for slander in municipal court in Phnom Penh for his remarks Sam Rainsy made on the occasion of the commemoration the fall of Phnom Penh to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas in 1975.

He said at least two ministers in the current government were cadres of the Khmer Rouge regime.“One of them was a secretary and interpreter for Pol Pot and who is senior minister and Minister of Economy and another is the current Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs who was the director of Beoung Trabek prison,” Sam Rainsy said. “The director of a prison can point to someone and this person would disappear.”

Keat Chhon is the Minister for Finance and the Economy, and Hor Namhong is the Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Hor Namhong denied the charges maintaining he was never part of the Khmer Rouge. He did not elaborate what his exact role during those years was. It appears to be indisputable that he was the ‘head of prisoners’ at the Beoung Trabek prison. Usually, the ‘head’ or ‘chief’ or ‘spokesman’ for prisoners acts as liaison between the prisoners and the warden and the guards. Whether Hor Namhong’s function extended beyond that has not been proved.

The former King Sihanouk had made those same allegations naming exactly those persons in 1990, upon which Hor Namhong sued the former king there. He prevailed over the former king, as the court did not find any substance to those allegations. Sihanouk would have had the right to appeal that decision but waived it on the grounds that it might derail the peace process for Cambodia under way in France at that time. Naturally, it was entirely possible that the former king did not have more evidence to make his case. Appeals are meant to review lower court decisions for procedural errors, wrong assessment of presented evidence, or if new evidence is presented that had theretofore not been known.

An attempt at a clarification of the role of those two government officials was made by The Cambodia Daily, a respected newspaper founded by Bernhard Krisher, the former Newsweek correspondent in SE Asia during the Vietnam War era. This article can be accessed here: http://www.audiojournal.com/kringov.html.

Though it sheds some light on that aspect of the Cambodian history the reporters were unable to produce any concrete evidence as to any executive involvement of those two ministers.

As a result of Sam Rainsy’s remarks Hor Namhong filed a civil lawsuit for slander against Sam Rainsy.

Sam Rainsy maintains his remarks claiming that he was only repeating the former king’s words. He also called for the ECCC to take up this case as this issue dates back to the Pol Pot era, which the ECCC is charged with adjudicating.

Sam Rainsy also says he had not mentioned Hor Namhong by name, nor accused him of killing anyone. But his remarks are anything but ambiguous. He clearly accused both men of being Pol Pot henchmen.

In the run-up to the elections in a verifiably heated political climate these remarks are not only gaffes but blunders of the worst kind any politician in his right mind can make. After all, a truly independent court in France had dealt with the matter before. If Sam Rainsy had been a novice on the political scene in Cambodia one might have understood his words and subsequent attempted explanations. But given that he has been a longtime member of Cambodia’s political nomenclature this can only be viewed as amateurish pandering to the older part of the Khmer population and an attempt at enhancing his stature among Western countries. He himself had once before been the target of a defamation lawsuit brought by the Prime Minister, of which he was found guilty and sentenced to prison, which he only escaped by going into exile. A pardon by the King enabled his return to Cambodia’s political life.

Hor Namhong made it public that he would withdraw his lawsuit if Sam Rainsy apologizes to him. This he steadfastly refuses to do, thereby risking his chances of even participating in the election, for if the court decides against him, he might go to prison for up to three years - not a bright prospect for an opposition politician in an election campaign.

Whether both parties to the lawsuit are politically motivated by all this is a question only these two can truthfully answer. Everybody else can only speculate on it – it might be a mixture of both a political and personal nature; the ingredients are all there: hurt personal feelings, vague historical facts, previous court decisions, an election campaign, and efforts to enhance one’s public profile.

Sam Rainsy’s call for the ECCC is a lame diversionary tactic, as he well knows. The ECCC was instituted to try people who committed crimes against humanity during the Pol Pot era. If Hor Nam Hong and Keat Chhun were guilty of those crimes then the ECCC would have jurisdiction. At this time those two people have not been named in any indictment nor has the ECCC indicated that both men will be called before the ECCC.

Promptly, Reach Sambath, the ECCC spokesman, said that Hor Namhong’s lawsuit against Sam Rainsy is not under the jurisdiction of the KRT (Khmer Rouge Tribunal). He explained that the ECCC has a clearly defined power to judge 2 groups of people only: the top leaders and the top persons responsible under the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) regime for the crimes, which took place between 1975-1979. He added: “Other lawsuits, such as defamation lawsuits or spreading disinformation are not under the jurisdiction of the KRT.” He added that all of us, small or big, including politicians, should let the ECCC operate under the agreement between the government and the UN according to the National Assembly’s approval. We should not tell the ECCC to do this or that.”

Since Sam Rainsy saw fit to repeat Sihanouk's words he subjected himself to the same repercussions that Sihanouk faced, namely a lawsuit. Since this is Cambodia only a Cambodian court has jurisdiction. Cambodian law applies when a plaintiff files a complaint in that venue, no matter whether anybody believes that court to be partial.

And it doesn’t matter whether anybody believes these two people were indeed members of the Khmer Rouge top ranks and committed crimes against humanity. What matters is that any allegation must be substantiated with evidence; hearsay, innuendo, and rumors have no standing in court. The rule of law cuts both ways. People calling for the rule of law cannot be selective in its application.

The argument that Sihanouk would have won the appeal is worth nothing; it is purely hypothetical. Appeals are tricky and only a naïve person can believe those are won easily. His contention that the former king should go to court with him is outright ludicrous. What the king said in 1990 was repudiated by court decision. The former king has no reason to involve himself in events that would undermine his own perception as the father of the new Cambodia. Even though his record during the Pol Pot time is anything but spotless and even his present stature is very controversial, the former king will not speak against the current government, which he praises exuberantly on many occasions.

If Sam Rainsy is taking this chance deliberately, thinking that a verdict against him would make him a martyr, then he is a greater fool than many hold he is. He is running the risk of being incarcerated at the time of the election and his political future is at stake.

The CPP has not shown any inclination in the past to back down from such confrontations. Speculating that it might reflect negatively on the CPP in the elections might prove erroneous; quite the opposite might happen: the population will recognize that there is only one source of power in this country.

Sam Rainsy is in hot waters again because he can't keep his mouth shut when he knows full well that some things need to be treated and words need to be weighed very carefully. He has shown this tendency to run off at the mouth without presenting any evidence in the past. It led to his exile. It might just happen again. Because of his confrontational attitude and unsubstantiated allegations he is treading on very thin ice.

A United Opposition - A Dream?

Many attempts have been made by the various opposition parties to form a coalition so as to be in a stronger position for the coming election in July. All these attempts have floundered on account of the very disparate personages leading the respective parties, each claiming a singular right for their own party. A recent article in The Asia Times more than aptly describes the current situation of the political landscape in Cambodia. (See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JD29Ae02.html )

Undoubtedly the SRP is the strongest party with the most popular support as the previous elections clearly showed. But that in itself does not indicate that it will continue to be as strong as before in view of the latest publicly debated dissension within the party and the party defections, whether for monetary gain or dissatisfaction with the leadership and direction of the SRP.

As in previous posts on this site it is held (not only) by this author that Sam Rainsy does not have the political acumen to even lead his own party let alone the country. Again, that is not to say that the author believes the current prime minister is better qualified or suited for the job. But as the article in the Asia Times points out the CPP can pretty much do what they want in the present circumstances – having virtually no real opposition. The opposition is in disarray, fighting each other rather than trying to build a united front by forming a coalition, mostly because of apparently unreasonable pre-conditions by each party while it is clear to even the uninitiated that only such a coalition might unseat the CPP. The next question arising from such a possible scenario, of course, is whether those parties would have the capability to form a government. Coalition governments have the tendency to fail due to in-fighting and petty squabbles, more over individual power rather than political objectives. No real leader seems to have what it takes to turn the country around from its current free-for-all, swim-or-sink political and social climate and environment.

The formerly strong FUNCINPEC has lost its popular footing almost completely and could practically be discounted as it put itself firmly in the CPP’s corner. However, since it is expected to get at least 2 or 3 seats it could tip the scale in a play for power. Its former chairman Ranariddh and his new party have great name recognition but it is widely reported to have no real support among the people. Ranariddh has been in exile for 2 years now and a political comeback seems more than unlikely. Real contenders for a coalition, even though it might include the Ranariddh party without him, are then only the Human Rights Party and the SRP.

At look at the past attempts for a coalition, which have been published on KI-Media by anonymous but obviously inside sources (KI-Media is a blog heavily in favor of the SRP) demonstrates the apparent rift and general failure of especially Sam Rainsy to assess the political landscape objectively. (The comments have been slightly edited for syntax, content remained untouched.)

1st Source:
Quote
A few days after the coup (in 1997) Western powers gave great support to the idea of the 3 main democratic parties to form a UCD (United Cambodian Democratic Party). They asked Kem Sokha to be the deal broker (the middle person). Son San accepted it. Ranaridh was OK with it. But Rainsy refused. He said the same thing now "His party will win. His party does not need anyone else". If they had united, they would already have won over the CPP at that time. After seeing Rainsy's attitute, Son San's team later joined FUNCINPEC.
After staying with FUNCINPEC for awhile Kem Sohka saw no hope that FUNCINPEC would go up but to come down. He then secretly talked to Rainsy to bring about the defection half of FUNCINPEC's team to join Rainsy. But Rainsy refused again.Later on Kem Sokha started his Human Rights group organization (CCHR) and gained (considerable) popularity. Seeing and fearing Kem Sokha’s popularity, Rainsy and his wife then secretly met Kem Sokha and offered him a Vice Presidency at the Sam Rainsy Party. But it was Kem Sokha's turn to refuse. Later in 2006 one of the Western countries tried to put these two men together at a round table in Phnom Penh and asked them to work together. But Rainsy refused again. He said, "His tree has grown strong roots. His ship is going toward the goal. His party is OK. He does not need anyone."Again in 2007 after Kem Sokha launched the Human Rights Party, a group of Western countries tried to put them together. They arranged for both of them to meet in Switzerland. Kem Sokha showed up, but Rainsy did not. Rainsy and his wife went to Paris instead.I think it was the final attempt of the West to help these two groups to unite. And I think they will never be able to come together. In their heart they have become the enemies now.They are both now trying so hard to gain votes and seats in order to be a partner with CPP to run the government. But they are wrong again. FUNCINPEC will win a few seats (2 or 3 at least) that will add up to 50+1 with CPP. Then they (FUNCINPEC) will still be strong partner in the government.It is too late for Kem Sokha, Rainsy or anyone else to call for the unity.
Unquote

2nd Source
Quote
Before forming the Human Rights Party, Kem Sokha met with San Rainsy in Son Soubert's house. Kem Sokha at that time requested the meeting as the last hope for forming an alliance. At that meeting Kem Sokha's conditions was that Sam Rainsy restructure the ever more autocratic internal party structure and address the internal fracture within the SRP. Close observers knew all along of the disgruntled steering committee members--about half of the SRP's steering committee members have never made a single decision, and about the other half was not happy. Lots left the party without speaking out to avoid further fracture. At some point, the steering committee made decisions only to be overturned by the so-called "permanent committee" which according to the internal rule of the SRP has the power to make or overturn any decision; and it is the president who has the final say.
Please check the members of this "permanent committee"--it consists of the Eng's clan and the Sam's clan--husbands and wives and in laws (one example of this is the nomination of Mr. Ket Key to the deputy president position at the National Authority on Land Conflicts which was overturned by Sam Rainsy and his wife within the "Permanent Committee" to hand the position to Eng Chhay Eang instead. The position is lucrative and Eng Chhay Eang was silent within this position for more than 2 years until recently. Other examples include the nomination of two people to the National Election committee, etc. Had Sam Rainsy made an effort to unite, it would have been a lot easier then. He only needed to reform the steering committee and make the steering committee a true assembly with certain ability (authority) for oversight. One of the other main ideas was to limit the maximum number of the steering committee to avoid a power struggle and a dilution. Unfortunately, Sam Rainsy did not accept. Worse, there was a promise not to speak to anyone outside of the few people who attended the meeting—but less than one month after the meeting, Mr. Sam Rainsy himself gave an interview to Rasmey Kampuchea, a CPP's paper, with all the details. In so doing he prevented any future meeting, as no one trusted Sam Rainsy anymore. Sam Rainsy wanted to destroy other people involved so they lose the funding and show that he made an effort to unite but in reality all he did was criticize Kem Sokha in the whole meeting. It was unfortunate!!!
Unquote

3rd Source
Quote
There is no doubt that the SRP is loosing ground in a number of places to HRP. They no longer enjoy the support they had before the commune elections in 2007, at least in the places we supported, as in Kampong Cham, in Battambang, in Takeo and in PNH.Our message to SRP overseas supporters is to audit your financial supports given to and received by the SRP elite. As activists on the ground we see no overseas financial support is being used as intended. We are operating with our own funds for the benefit of a small elite based in Phnom Penh and abroad. We, in Cambodia, have lost faith in the SRP leadership for many reasons. They are ineffective in making the case. They have been in opposition for more than a decade and they will be the opposition again if they are as arrogant as today. They spend our time, resources even lives, all for nothing. They are still fighting internally and are trying to sideline the party base, as they want to run the group for life. They never treat the differences as assets. There is no point in supporting them any more.
Unquote

No doubt if this were published in a major publication and not just on blogs this would create a major outcry and backlash by Sam Rainsy’s supporters. But time and again exactly those supporters have shown themselves to be rather ignorant of the real internal struggles within the party. Sam Rainsy’s suave and gentle demeanor has fooled them. By all accounts, many journalists included, he is, however, a power-hungry autocrat who has delusions of grandeur packaged in political speak that appeals to the poor and uneducated and to Western liberal movements.

And it is precisely his autocratic, intolerant attitude that prevents such a coalition, which would offer the only chance for an electoral victory. His inability to compromise and make deals for the greater good, not just his own, and his inability to build a majority among even his followers will eventually be Sam Rainsy’s undoing.

Amateur Night

Here was Sam Rainsy at his best again speaking to a gathering of, lo and behold, 60 people in the U. S. He wants to win the election and remove Hun Sen from power. Well, that is legitimate but will prove tricky. If his overseas supporter show up in such huge numbers we can only surmise the amount of money raised for his election campaign. One thing is for sure, it won’t be too much.

One really needs to take a closer look at the politically active overseas Khmer. First how many are there? Altogether it is estimated that there are about 500,000 Khmer living outside Cambodia with about 300,000 in the U. S. As everywhere the majority is politically disinterested, more concerned with their daily problems and how to make a living. Going by normal standards about 10% are politically active, which would translate to 50,000. Compared to more than 7 million voters in Cambodia – in other words they can be discounted for all intents and purposes. But this is just an aside.

Sam Rainsy wants to return land back to their original owners. He must mean illegally obtained land. Well, nothing wrong with that either. But who is to determine which land was stolen and which land was rightfully purchased? He will create such confusion and bureaucratic entanglements the likes of which he has not seen since his return to Cambodia, not to mention the possible responses from disgruntled owners (and possibly sellers too). If he were to go after investors, most of them from abroad, one can only hope Sam Rainsy will be driven out of office after 6 months, because that would be like cutting the lifelines of Cambodia.

About free medical care – another noble and commendable goal. Where will he find the money to pay for this? Even the U. S., arguably the richest country is debating how to achieve this? Some don’t even want to touch this subject, like John McCain.

And now the two great opportunities that would sway the voters - inflation makes people angry and they blame it all on the government. Mr. Sam Rainsy please tell us how you would fight inflation when most factors are out of your control, e. g. oil prices, imported inflation because of the dollar-based economy, etc.?

And the joke of the evening: if John McCain is elected president he will help Cambodia with all his might. Come on, Sam Rainsy, where do you live? On another planet? John McCain will be busy with Iraq, Iran, and China, and his domestic problems. Cambodia won’t be on his schedule the first 36 months in office, if at all. As for the FBI report - don’t be so naïve to believe that will ever be released to the public. The U. S. government itself had a hand in suppressing it. Don’t expect any help there. You will find a wall of silence on that subject.

And if Kenya and Zimbabwe are any yardsticks to go by, the U. S. will not move a finger to help, or should we say intervene in, Cambodia. And those are not the only examples – Darfur, Zaire (now the Congo), Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia were all countries sinking into chaos and mayhem with the U. S. standing idly by.

In summary, Sam Rainsy started out well in the 1990s, but after the last election he has undergone an incisive change in his attitude and pronouncements and it looks like he has lost his look for reality.

The Food Crisis and the SRP

Notwithstanding that the food crisis is a worldwide phenomenon caused by factors largely beyond the control of governments, the SRP wants to again stage a demonstration protesting the recent drastic increase in food prices, solely blaming the government for doing nothing about it, and its cronies for pocketing inordinate profits.

Major internationals newspapers as well as the Cambodian press, both in English and Khmer, have reported widely on the true causes of that crisis. See www.nytimes.com, www.voanews/khmer.com, www.phompenhpost.com, just to name a few, so this blog will abstain from repeating them here again.

This crisis has led to demonstrations and riots in some countries where the poor can no longer afford to buy their main staple, mostly rice.

In continuation of its populist stance the SRP tries to take advantage of this crisis to foment unrest. Yes, demonstrations are legitimate, but they must be for a worthy cause. To exploit the fears of the masses for the party's and his own political gain is irresponsible and reprehensible. The SRP continues to claim this is the government’s entire fault and the result of unscrupulous businesspeople squeezing the poor people dry. Economists all over the world paint a different picture. But in spite of this, and it is hardly believable that the SRP officials don’t read the international press, they have embarked on a voyage of obstructionism, which may eventually even lead to riots – and this is something Cambodian most certainly doesn’t need.

Given the present incendiary rhetoric by Sam Rainsy and other party officials, one cannot but wonder about their motivation. Do they just strive to enhance their profile or do they really want to help the people? As mentioned many times previously, the SRP is long on words and condemnations but short on action and proposals of real solutions for the problems facing Cambodia. They have not introduced a single detailed program outlining concrete steps in the fight against inflation.

As the current Democratic presidential debates in the U. S. more than clearly show, politicians are fair game and their mistakes, faults, and blunders receive public airing ad nauseum, whether relevant or not. By the same token, the CPP is an easy target for its lack of progress on the social front, and its unwillingness to earnestly fight corruption. The passage of that long awaited anti-corruption law, still mired in committees, would be a step in the right direction and a welcome signal to the population at large, and the donor community in particular.

Contrary to what conservative readers of this blog maintain, this writer is not a supporter of the CPP. What is desirable, however, is a strong constructive opposition that puts forth genuine action plans and does not only engage in oftentimes unsubstantiated allegations and accusations. When some regional party official utilizes his position for his own gain, the SRP collectively condemns the CPP as a whole, and not only the one official. The business community is painted as the common enemy of the people, reminiscent of Communist times, when the then government denounced the private sector as bloodsuckers of the common people. The SRP, which wants to present itself as a morally superior party that only has the interest of the common people at heart, miserably fails in this respect. The international press makes hardly any mention of Sam Rainsy. In the international arena he is a virtual non-entity. His current trip to the U. S. more than clearly shows this. It does not appear that any meeting even with lower-ranked U. S. officials is planned. Of course, the largely anti-government Khmer conservative, backward-looking Diaspora supports him as their hero who they hope can bring about change. Why they want change remains somewhat of a mystery. Most of them are either U. S. or French citizens. They chose to leave their country and build new lives in their new home country. They apparently have no intention of ever returning to their birth country. Why do they keep meddling in Cambodia’s affairs? But they will soon find out that their financial support is a wasted effort. Sam Rainsy will never win an election.

But if indeed it came true, they would be in for a big surprise. He would plunge the country into chaos if he follows through with his general policy pronouncements. But then, it won’t happen and this is why Hun Sen likes Sam Rainsy so much for what he really is – a basically weak opposition leader that only lends credibility to Cambodia’s status as a democracy. Sam Rainsy cannot rally the masses; he is not a fervent orator who can motivate people. He is not an opponent to be taken seriously.

His biggest drawback is that he doesn’t have the support of the incipient middle class, let alone the upper class, which in any modern society, gets the president or prime minister elected. To counter their influence, the opposition leader must be a convincing public persona with charisma. And this is something Sam Rainsy most definitely is not. In other countries, opposition leaders went to prison for their convictions and beliefs. Sam Rainsy chose to spend one and a half years in comfortable exile. When he returned he had turned into a virtual puppy. Only lately has he begun to be more outspoken in his criticism. But this won’t be enough to turn the tide. Although it is too late now for the coming elections, the SRP ought to re-invent itself, starting with a new name and a new, more charismatic leader. Perhaps then they might have a chance of changing the course of this beautiful country. It would deserve it.

The Increase in Food Prices

In the context of the above article we are publishing this op-ed.

To some extent the surge in food prices is driven by corporate greed. That greed is fueled by the basic capitalist market principle of supply and demand. When suppliers recognize that demand outstrips supply they raise their prices – it is as simple as that. The food producers are at the bottom of the food chain and will apply this economic law as readily as the wholesaler and retailer. In the end, it is the consumer who ends up paying the bill. That applies to food the same way as it does to oil. Why is it that Exxon records the largest profits in its history? Additionally, higher oil prices also add their share to higher food prices.

Sadly, it is true that the poor suffer the most. With $50 a month who can survive when the average inflation is 11% across the board, and food prices have risen 24%? The recent increase in the minimum wage to $55 a month was supposed to compensate for inflation. Of course, we all know that everybody was caught more or less unawares when the price surge hit the consumers, and that the 10% increase in their wages was a mere drop in the bucket for most Cambodians.

But even in the U. S. and in Europe consumers are hit hard by price increases. The U. S. economy is in a recession, consumer prices are up, and statistics show that the average American makes less money in 2008 than in 1998, when adjusted for inflation. As an example, imported Jasmine rice from Thailand saw a price increase of up to 20% in recent weeks, affecting most Asian consumers there.

Of course, we can’t compare the U. S. or Europe to Cambodia. But this just goes to show that this is not an exclusive Cambodian problem. Now, did the Cambodian government do enough to fight the increase? Probably not. The implemented export ban was undermined by its exclusion of cross-border sales to Vietnam in the Eastern provinces. The government cited that the livelihoods of a large part of the population there who depend on that trade would be put at risk if the ban was to apply to them for a longer period of time. Well, it sounds logical but is it true? Naturally, pundits will quickly point to the government’s Vietnam-friendly attitude, but this seems to be as partisan as everything else that is coming from those quarters.

Everybody, many self-appointed experts among them, quickly hopped on the bandwagon blaming each and everybody in perceived power positions on that crisis. But does it really affect Cambodia this hard? What is widely forgotten is the fact that 65% of the rural population lives on subsistence farming. These people do not buy their rice. If they don’t grow it themselves they barter it. This translates into roughly 50% of the population, or roughly 7 million people, existing on subsistence farming; in other words, they are not as affected as wage earners. A look at the relevant statistics also reveals that there are about 1 million people employed in the service and industry sector. These are the sectors where those wages of $55 a month are paid. Again, this translates into 4 million of the population who are dependent on those incomes. The public sector employs about 1 million as well, which means another 4 million people of the population depend on that sector. Does this affect these people? Yes, by all means, but they have a way of making ends meet. We all know how that works, don’t we? It’ll just mean that, for instance, elementary students will have to give their teachers 750 riel instead of the 500 per day. It is sad, yes, it is.

Even given the increase of corruption in the public sector as a result, the numbers indicate that about 20 % of the population or roughly some 3 million people will suffer from the recent price increases. But can the government do anything about it in the short term? The answer is a definitive no. No government in the world can grapple problems of that magnitude in a couple of weeks or months. The ban on the export of rice was the correct step to take but it needs to be enforced strictly, and it must be extended for at least a year. The economic police are hardly in a position to safeguard against gouging. The vendors just put the fix in and the problem has gone away. A second, but much more drastic step would be to implement a temporary price freeze on rice in the markets. Although this is anathema to the principles of a free market economy, into which Cambodia has successfully transformed itself, this might be worth a second look.

Cambodia is self-sufficient in rice; it has even become a rice-exporting nation. The interest of its own people must be the foremost priority, so the export ban is the one tool that will bring relief. Regulated prices in the basic food industry ought to be mandated. Regulation of industries, if in the public interest, is an established tool in the government’s arsenal, as has been shown in many developed countries. Subsidies, widely used in the industrialized world, are out of the question for lack of funds.

So to alleviate the plight and to avoid widespread hunger among a large part of its population the government should have the courage to take these drastic measures. It will take a strong political will to follow through with such a policy. It remains to be seen whether this can be a defining moment for the government. It would certainly add to their appeal in the coming elections.