On Sep 12, 3:23 pm, Khmer Young <[email protected]> wrote:
> My Letter to Mr. Hem Heng in Washington
> DC.<http://cambodianbrightfuture.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-letter-to-mr-hem...>
> Dear
> Mr. Hem Heng,
>
> Mr.Hem, your long description is just the excuse, or I can say it is really
> unproductive excuse. Your statement has created only more conflicts among
> our Cambodian people. You should use your own intelligence to surpass other
> CPP's idea on how to rebut criticism in a productive way.
>
Can you give us your explanation why you say it as excuses and
unproductive excuses?
Can you tell us why you think that the statement would create more
conflicts?
Can you explain to us why he should use his intellingence to surpass
other CPPs idea since he is representing CPP?
> I am so impressed with your response to the Tom Lantos
> <http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/09/hun-xens-barking-mouthpiece-in.html>Human
> Rights Commission Hearing in the US.
>
And why did you disagree or dislike it?
> Again, all your description, if it was true, it is the outcome from the
> Paris Peace Accord, not from the Vietnamese occupation. But frankly, I do
> accept the truth that Vietnamese occupation has given you and Hun Sen the
> power and wealth today not the nation and Cambodian people. For general
> Cambodians, they has just escaped from the crocodile (KR) but slip into the
> mouth of tiger (Vietnam). Paris Peace Accord on 23 October 1993 has given
> second life for all Cambodians.
>
Are you trying to tell us that Cambodia IS NOT better than it used to
be twenty years ago?
Do you still believe that Vietnamese is still occupying Cambodia in
secret as many Cambodians have been saying ?
> However, the outcome of Paris Peace Accord has been badly evaluated by many
> scholars and observers under the leadership of current Cambodian
> administration. Scholars and observers have cordially described the
> backwardness of democracy development, rampant corruption, human rights
> violation, limited freedom of expression, and killing perpetrators are still
> free of trial (impunity).
>
Why are you saying that?
Do you think that the right way for Cambodia is the way that you like?
Is it wrong when it's not the one you like?
> Mr.Hem, your long description is just the excuse, or I can say it is really
> unproductive excuse. Your statement has created only more conflicts among
> our Cambodian people. You should use your own intelligence to surpass other
> CPP's idea on how to rebut criticism in a productive way.
>
Please explain it to us.
All people can say this thing is white. But they need to explain it
why it's white when they don't like it.
Now it's your turn. Can you explain it to us why you said that the
statement is unproductive and excuses?
> You merely said there thousand NGOs spread entire Cambodia, but you didn't
> elaborate how hurtful those NGOs are struggling inside Cambodia in working
> with the dominate political party. You said there is peace and security in
> Cambodia, but you didn't elaborate that this peace and security is not
> having principle of democracy and the rule of law. So it is different only
> from the Khmer Rouge regime. Or your task as well as CPP's task is to
> develop something better than KR regime only. I am really curious with this
> concept regarding CPP's intelligence.
>
So in your mind, everything should go the way those organizations and
people want in their own individual mind?
Americans blasted China about these things twenty years ago. Yet,
China still acted as they had been for a very long time.
Today, China is a great country in their own way. Yet, China is a
great partner with America.
What happened to those accusations? Have they forgotten since China is
a great partner?
> You said in this world especially in developed countries, the powerful men
> (or leaders) sued their people or others with the verdict of defamation, and
> again, your statement is absolutely wrong and unproductive. You have never
> assured to having our leaders practice tolerance, but you supported the
> intolerance of the leaders. As I know, and many more evidences, your
> statement is not right. In developed countries, the leaders have never
> merely sued their people because of speech and expression. Journalists badly
> criticized their public leaders, only a few cases relating personal and
> social security needed clarification and correction from those journalists.
>
My friend,
Look at the cases. Look at the case of Mu.
What happened?
Mu Sued Hun Sen without any ground except hearsay and sentiments.
Then Hun Sen slapped her with the same kind of lawsuit.
Why is it unfair? Mu started it, not Hun Sen. How intelligent is Mu?
Ofcourse she is an intelligent woman. She did it in the act of her
activism. She wanted to demonstate her will against Hun Sen and his
government. It was not that she was a victim of something. She created
this environment. Hun Sen reacted to it with determination to destroy
Mu. With his position, Mu was crushed because she did it without any
ground or foundation except her activism. One cannot win with hearsay
and actimvism.
> The court in those countries have never taken seriously into any verdict of
> expression if it doesn't physically injure. You are living in the US, have
> you ever opened your eyes and ears to see the truth in the US, if you swear
> or talk bad to someone, the court cannot take that as evidence, but if there
> was scar of injury physically, that could be the acceptable allegation.
>
So are you telling us that Cambodia SHOULD BE a country like America?
Please tell us about Mu's story in your own words from your own mind.
I don't see Mu as a victim. Actually, Mu is a political activist, not
a serious politician who wants to lead her people for better future.
Actually, she wants to lead her people to be activist against her own
government. Is that healthy for Cambodia? In my belief, it is not.
Mu's activism leads to seperation and division of the Cambodian
society. It means the same way to Sam Rainsy. All of their activities
are based on activism. They have no intention to unite with their own
people. They want to destroy others for their own indulgement. They
use democracy to hide their ugly truth. They don't have any intention
to help the change to better Cambodia. They want to destroy others so
they can change Cambodia to what they believe it's a democratic
society. That's wrong. They use democracy to hide their ugly truth to
keep the division among Cambodians.
> Mu Sochua has been publicly twisted by the court in Cambodia under Hun Sen's
> vanguard. You can fool the ignorant, but you can not fool the world who are
> full of fair judgment.
>
In Mu's case, it's very clear. It's twisted by any other means.
Intelligent people could see it coming.
Mu started her case without any ground except hearsay and sentiment.
Her lawsuit was dismissed.
How was it twisted? Please tell us. Perhaps we are missing something
here.
I don't think Hun Sen is trying to fool the world. His action is very
clear whether it's good or bad for Cambodia. He didn't twist
anything.
He slapped Mu with a counter suit, which the court took it and
convicted Mu. I don't think that he twisted the case. Perhaps, you are
trying to tell us that you don't like what Hun Sen did to Mu. And you
are trying to tell us that your sentiment whole heartedly go toward
Mu. You are trying to accept her activism. And you are trying to tell
the world that that is the way it ought to be.
That's not how you fight to better something. Unfortunately Mu, her
boss and her party are trying to indulge themselves for power of their
own. That is the truth.
Oh@ You may think that this message is trying to defend Hun Sen and
his actions. My friend, Hun Sen doesn't need any help from anyone. He
has the power today to do anymeans to anyone or anything.Only a foul
would fight him with groundless act like Mu did in her lawsuit.
> More than this, general Cambodian people are really worrying about the lose
> of Cambodia land to Vietnam who has transformed their imperialism policy
> from ancient technique of using arm force to use political economy instead.
> Evidences from this assertion are numerous. For instance, the uncountable
> unequal treaties and submissive behavior of Hun Sen's administration towards
> Vietnam authority, the non-stop influx of Vietnamese illegal immigrants, the
> land concession and triangle development monitored by Vietnam, privatized
> Angkor Wat and Sukimex gas company owned by original Vietnamese Sok Kong and
> other schemes which are indirectly serving Vietnam's successful domination
> over Cambodia.
>
Now it is the Vietnamese thing again. Khmer Rouge fought for the
country against Vietnamese. Yet they killed millions of their own and
brought their nation to ground zero. It took a Vietnamese invasion to
stop it. What kind of society is that?
Now, some people deosn't like Hun Sen and CPP. Then they label them as
Vietnamese. That's right. Sam Rainsy used it aggressively to persuade
Cambodians to vote for him so he could become a prime minister of
Cambodia. Cambodians didn't buy it. They have been doing it for so
long now. What is it? Now they come out with Mu's action hoping that
they will gain from it. The majority of Cambodians today don't buy it.
They show it clearly in the last election, which was the best election
yet since the fall of Khmer Rouge and the withdrawal of Vietnamese
troops.
Mu and Sam Rainsy party base themselves with activism. That's not a
leadership for Cambodia. They may be material to better society at
time. Today it's nothing more than destruction and division during the
time that Cambodians needs to move themselves out of the pit.
> Among those schemes, the ongoing dispute of Preah Vihea temple with Thailand
> and the legal verdict of those 23 soldiers with opposition MP and
> journalists are good cause to exceed Vietnamization over Cambodia.
>
What did Thailand's act help the Vietnamization over Cambodia?
Do you know what you are saying here?
Are you trying to tell us that Thai acted to help Vietnam taking over
Cambodia to become a part of Vietnam. Is that what you are saying?
> Mr.Hem, I would like to confirm that your letter is good only for biased
> media within Cambodia to fool our innocent Cambodian farmers. In short term
> period, you and your colleagues can enjoy wealth, power and fame, but long
> term period, Cambodia and your children will sadly cry as Cambodia will be
> totally devastated and dominated by foreigner.
>
So it's ok for Cambodia to be dominated by America in your mind.
It doesn't mean that Cambodia is being dominated by someone. But why
do people believe it without any explanation?
Why do they think that Cambodia is being lead by Vietnam?
> With my sincere regards,
>
> KY
>
> --
> Cambodian Brighter Future depends on enduring conscience and tireless
> strivings of Cambodian Younger
> Generation!http://cambodianbrightfuture.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
