(1) No Water Festival in Phnom Penh to Keep Security for the ASEAN Summit; Digital System for Education Leapfrogged; Knowledge Is the Best Jewelry; Pondering Schooling for Migrant Workers’ Children
This year, although we did not celebrate the water destival, auk ambok, and floating lanterns, which are to take place on 6, 7 and 8 November, I allowed the opportunity to hold water festivals at the provincial level. The reason we postponed the festivities in Phnom Penh was because we are going to have meetings that we needed to take security measures to protect the top leaders that we invited from many countries this year (to attend). We have produced watches for top executives and top institutions as well with the ASEAN insignia on it but “Made in Cambodian.” That will let them know that Cambodians can now make watches and I will give them as gifts to the heads of states/governments. On that day, I will wear the ASEAN brand watch to host the ASEAN Summit too.
We have only 10 ASEAN countries, but we invite more partners because we are hosting the second global dialogue. We have invited the President of the World Bank, the President of the IMF, the President of the Asian Development Bank, the President of the World Trade Organization, the President of the World Health Organization, the President of the European Council, the President of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the President of the World Economic Forum to attend the Second Global Dialogue. We did this in 2012 […]
Along with the ASEAN Summit, we have many accompanying events. We are busy. That we are not celebrating the water festival in Phnom Penh is not because (Hun Sen) government lacks money but we are keeping security for leaders […] yesterday, HE Vongsey Visoth (the Secretary of State for Economy and Finance) received an order on a number of water and air measures to ensure security for such a large meeting that there will be many Heads of State/Government and leaders of major international institutions to come and attend […] I am begging the people of Phnom Penh to be patient as at that time there will be many guests […] that we have to close some roads […]
It is true that during the Covid-19 phase, the digital system leapfrogged, whereas in the field of education, millions of students continued their studies with the help of information technology, or so-called digital systems […] the internet, however, is not covering everywhere. We need in that case to reopen schools. While fighting with Covid-19, we were most worried that our children/teachers would be contracted with this lethal Covid-19 pandemic, so we are forced to suspend our studies and opted to online study program […]
Regarding those students with disability, I stopped by with them a moment ago and said to them that we may be physically disable, but we are not mentally disable. This point is very important. I hate and always condemn anyone who curses a disabled person as the blind/ the paralyzed, etc. They are immoral people. I just confirmed that because of our physical handicaps, we have to work harder. Knowledge is the best jewelry than the body. Some have good bodies but no knowledge. It is a different story […]
… I am talking about (people) migration inside the country first. For construction workers who come to work in Phnom Penh, some bring their wives and children with them. How do we solve this problem so that these children can learn? Let us find a way (for them) to study. For example, where there is a construction site and there is a school nearby, try to get those children to go to a nearby school. If they move from one place to another, (may be we must) transfer from that place to another place to continue learning. That is not yet a recommendation but I am calling out for thought […] some may keep their children with grandparents/relatives lest certain difficulties could affect their studies … that is one aspect of families who may leave their children in their home villages. Some bring their children with them and they cannot go to school […] we need to cooperate with the construction sites and with the nearby schools for them to get in or to create a mobile classroom […]
It may be related to both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labor regarding migrant workers to Korea/Japan, and who cannot afford to take their children with them. Those who go to Thailand, however, some leave children with grandparents and/or relatives (to) continue the study. Those who go to Thailand, what should we do […] whether Thai or Khmer, we should let them have their studies. Otherwise, we have a gap here and some children could be illiterate or forget the letters […]
(2) Needed Someone to Bring Agriculture to New Speed; Spoken Theatre “Life of a Pagoda Boy” into a Movie
[…] Why removed the Minister of Agriculture? Some said that it was correct that I removed the Minister of Agriculture, but it is unconstitutional […] while Article 119 of the Constitution only mentions the formation, not the dissolution of the Royal Government […] however, the Constitution indicates in Article 21 for the King to issue a Royal Decree to promote or remove senior civil/military officials […] concerning the (Royal) Government, the Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Council of Ministers, Article 20 stipulates – “The Prime Minister proposes to the King to terminate the position of a member of the Royal Government by Royal Decree” […] now, some may ask where will Veng Sakhon go? Things that happened have not been too serious. (It’s just that) what I wanted was not responded. Today, I am writing a letter to the Royal Palace appointing Veng Sakhon as Minister Delegate to the Prime Minister […] we need someone with more responsibilities to move the agricultural sector forward […]
(Talking about movie making) there is another story – “Life of a pagoda boy”. It came from a song I wrote with HE Hun Heng from 1995-96 and has been recorded a lot. Most recently, Mr. Fay Sam Ang, with the support of Oknha Heng Long and Ms. Chan Chaan Leakena, President of the Arts Association, (they are making it into a movie) […] the story is a reflection of a historical fact […] they (movie makers) are filming and not using Hun Sen as name. The story is based on the tale that has been broadcast in spoken theatre/drama since 1997 or 1988. They are making it into a movie in response to many requests. The do not name actor after my name Hun Sen. They called the main actor ” Commander Samrech” […] This is not a separate story for me alone but the story of Cambodian society entering the genocidal regime Pol Pot […]
(3) “From Cambodia to France, That’s All I Wanted”; UN GA on Russian Annexation
Let me first of all thank my team of lawyers and the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ambassador in Paris, and the four French lawyers who successfully defended this case (that I was accused of being behind the death of Police Gen. Hok Lundy). There was a lot of propaganda last night, but I should confirm as to what does Hun Sen want that he followed the person to his home. Hun Sen wants justice. They think they win. What on earth are they talking about. This is the whole verdict, all in 13 pages in French, but I am just quoting (some) points that the French court (decided) […]
I thank the French court for providing justice/cleanliness for me. I just take three points from the verdict here. That’s all I need. I posted on Facebook last night, “From Cambodia to France, that’s all I wanted” […] here is from ta paragraph on page 7 – “The accusation that Mr. Hun Sen was the commander and that there was a politically motivated assassination in both cases and that he concealed the circumstances of the murder was defamatory and the reputation of the plaintiff, Hun Sen, because the facts mentioned in this accusation may be considered as conspiracy to commit murder through participation in the commission of a crime punishable by the penalty of Article 221.3 of the French Penal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, this accusation must be considered as defamation of Hun Sen, which the accused party, Sam Rainsy, did not deny.”
What does that mean? This means that they defamed Hun Sen. This point is confirmed here, how do you state that you win? […] they put (in here that) so this accusation is considered to be defamation of Hun Sen, which the accused did not deny. This is the first point of success in seeking justice, which I termed – “I chase home to find my justice and purity.”
The second point on page 12 […] “Mr. Sam Rainsy did not present clear evidence to support his hypothesis that the cause of the bombing was not a climate problem, like the plaintiff parties confirmed, in the direction of concealing the exact cause of Hok Lundy’s death. In fact, a press article claiming the helicopter was lightning protected, which is supposed to mean that the helicopter that Hok Lundy was riding in had the same lightning protection system, was too general to confirm or deny the Cambodian authorities’ claims about the incident. In addition, although the accused Sam Rainsy mentioned both during the trial and in the words that the court accused him of making the accusation based on the announcement of the aviation expert, the court noted that the accused did not provide any specific confirmation or autopsy at the hearing. Finally, providing the court with vague photographs of the wreckage does not indicate that the crash was caused by a bomb blast rather than a normal crash, should there be without expert reports.”
It means that this person made accusation without further evidences to present. On this point, the court confirmed here that it has nothing to do with Hun Sen.
The third point, at the end of the paragraph, “based on all the above reasons, (the court) sees that the relevant facts of Sam Rainsy’s accusation are weak, which is in stark contrast to an allegation that cannot be left for any doubts about the alleged involvement of Hun Sen in the assassination of Hok Lundy” […]
Even though (the court’s) decision does not approve you to pay me one Euro, I do not appeal because I already got what I wanted. The legal strategy, I have been waiting for since 2019, has at least cleared my name by the French court. Do you understand what a legal strategy is? If you do not understand, please continue to be so […] the stories that you accused me of have been confirmed by the court (that I am cleared) […] while, they decide giving you a favor of this, as stated in these terms, “the criminal prosecution may clearly affect the disproportionate amount of freedom of expression between the plaintiff and the accused, protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, Mr. Sam Rainsy will be acquitted of the charges.”
In their words, the court “acquitted (you) of the charge according to European law.” Where do you win at this point?
In that decision, it is said “for this reason, the confrontation between Mr. Sam Rainsy, the defendant and Mr. Hun Sen, the Civil Party, decided to acquit Mr. Sam Rainsy” […] related to European law. They also drew a comparison that Mr. Hun Sen, a person of power, and Mr. Sam Rainsy, a person that does not have the power, an ordinary people, caused them to concern about the issue of freedom of expression here, so they decided to acquit Mr. Sam Rainsy. That is the first point. For the second point, they recognize Mr. Hun Sen as a civil party. And for the third, reject Mr. Hun Sen’s claim (of asking for one Euro in compensation) because Mr. Sam Rainsy was acquitted, and the fourth point – “rejects Sam Rainsy’s claim for all expenses, because he demanded that if he won the case, I should pay all the expenses to his lawyers. Both were kicked out […]
People today know how to think. I think some people/intellectuals are watching. (This court verdict has) 13 pages in French, but we quoted the point that we sue them and seek them to present evidences whether I did it or not? If I did, as in what they said, they would not let me go. I would be imprisoned for life and would have to pay a lawyer’s fees to the defendants […] all I wanted is justice and cleanliness. Now I got my purity […]
From here, as a plaintiff who has the right to sign a lawyer, I declare my decision not to appeal because I was satisfied with the interpretation that “I am not involved in the allegations of the villains.” But in case you appeal, I will accompany you to the end […] strangely, at the beginning of the court procedure, both RFA/defendants/supporters went to court. Yesterday, however, there was none. What is the reason? […] the person accused me many times and got pardons many times too. In 2006, he asked a number times for pardons […] and requested me to withdraw the complaints. Soon after that, he did again. Let me tell you that you are to stay abroad forever […]
I thank the French judges, my French lawyers and the Cambodian team for doing a good job. What I got is enough for what I wanted. Through the French court, which is considered an independent court, I consider it to be a victory and I am clear of all doubts. The independent court considered what he had said in accusation a defamation of Hun Sen […] you (the opposition) must understand how it is written here. They make their judgments at the top, and pardon at the bottom. The above confirms that it is not Hun Sen (as accused involved in the incident), the second is you have defamed me, and the third you have no evidence. Finally, based on the fact that it is a case between the Prime Minister and an ordinary person […] and if to proceed further it will relate to European law, then (the court decides to) acquit (him). With that they come out and shout they have won the case […] at the end of the day, who is standing here to serve the people when the people need is what counts […]
[…] I am talking a bit too loud. Last night, not only the court case in (Paris), there was another issue at the United Nations General Assembly. We needed to monitor the discussions at the United Nations regarding the fact that Russia has taken four other regions (from Ukraine) into its territory. It is not a good thing that in the 21st century a country has annexed another […] if our neighbors do that to us, are we angry? We have to adhere to the basic principles of law. I have to follow that issue. Earlier in the evening, I had a talk with Prak Sokhon (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation) […] maybe they have even voted on the issue already […]./.