Catha For Council Blog

“Intellectual government is the government that draws conclusion from public opinion” - Lay Vicheka (2005).

More or less, Cambodia is seen domestically, regionally and globally, immensely favoring “liberal democracy”, especially during and after the transitional period of UNTAC-backed election. As the result, a honeymoon government was born to enrich people’s well-beings, perk up economic prosperity, preserve the remaining territorial integrity…etc.

With obvious written evidence, we see that the government is democracy-oriented; decentralization, accountability, balance of power (as stated in the constitution), market-based policy, open to constructive criticisms…etc. To better the procedure, I, really personally, would like to propose an idea to push Cambodia’s democratic process, more specifically to push the power of transparency, which is one of the indispensable elements of democracy. But from the outset, we must have some notion about what is transparency.

What does transparency, in a practical way, mean?

Transparency, in accordance with my perception, is referred to “nude government”. Government must have nothing to hide from public awareness. People must have access to every conduct of the government, whether it is national spending budget, government’s foreign debts, international affairs, plenary session of the National Assembly, annual development targets, every courts’ judgments, government officials’ dismissing, government’s failures/successes. The different between people and government is just that, ordinary people have no decision-making power, but they have access to everything, known by the government. People almost have every access to all of these information, but one negative point that I have seen is that people have no knowledge at all to the personal background (internal knowledge) of the high-ranking governmental officials, members of parliament/senate, as well as the court. With better awareness of these senior officials data, would bring in three benefits; fortifying trust, selecting best of the best officials, recording a good-model history.

I. Fortifying Trust

Without knowing the personal background of these senior governmental officials, members of parliament/senate, and judges/prosecutors of the court, people would loss confidence with their leaders, representatives and judges. This is one of the reasons that Cambodian people respect this senior officials in the physical manner and not in the mental attitude. If these senior officials’ personal data were widespread dispatched to every corner of the people, heartfelt respect would be appeared out from the people. Lacking awareness of personal data of the leader, I think, would clearly categorize between the leader and the populace. These two levels of people would be clandestinely veiled from each other, as the son and father don’t know each other very well, into the extent that would make them trust and respect each other.

II. Selecting Best of the Best Officials

Though party chooses deputies to represent in the parliament and dignitary to create council of ministers, having the internal knowledge of the senior government officials is still beneficial. Party itself, would have to appoint the best candidate so that it can respond to people’s needs, otherwise, the party won’t be reelected. If they choose the corrupt officials, and people know about this official’s background, the result is clearly seen for the next-term election. Having complete or much knowledge about the senior officials would benefit the party itself, would enrich Cambodia’s social development, and the people-oriented policy of the party would have better prospect to achieve.

III. Recording A Good-Model History

Why Cambodia has this current fruit? How come this person fit for the leadership profession and not another person? Why different leaders yield different fruit? What are the proper characteristics and criteria for leaders?…? The best answer to these questions must be extracted from the history of Cambodia’s leaders or dynasty. Indeed, Cambodia has history on dynasty, but I have never seen or stumbled across the written personal backgrounds of current Cambodian leaders.

History record on Cambodian leaders would serve as incentive for younger Cambodian generation. And without, I think, young Cambodia would never aspire for leadership role, and would never have critical-thinking skills. The final positive point is that, young and next Cambodian leader would never “repeat the past” (this is one of the best essences of history).

Conclusion

One of the reasons for Cambodia’s current grave result, I think, is “unfit people for specific professions”. And I don’t believe that Cambodia will prosper, if this phenomenon still prevails in Cambodia. It is really hard to bring more benefits to explain on this scope of paper, as I tend to make my work practical and brief; targeting the unprofessional people.

Cambodia should draw examples from the developed country and study on how and why they have today. North America and the West alike, always publicly show off their senior officials, especially before the public nomination, and this is one of the reasons why they are always the frontrunners of human-oriented regime (liberal democracy). Not only just showing off, openness to criticisms and personal analysis are also allowed for individuals and state/private entities.

To be even more correspondent to my above article’s essence, I am pleased to invite in all kind of constructive criticisms and opinion participation; domestically and all corner of the world.

Lay Vicheka is the freelance writer for a New York-based research company. 855 11 268 445, vichekalay@yahoo.com. Go to google and type his name: Lay Vicheka to know more about him.

Comments Off

Today we wish to examine a fallacy, or error in reasoning, which we have found springing up now and again in today’s popular discourse about the so-called War On Terror. This one comes straight from the top — well, not the VERY top — but from Washington D.C. You have heard the President say it on national teevee, and so have we: “We either have to fight them [the terrorists] over there [i.e. Iraq], or we have to fight them over here [i.e. inside the U.S. border].”

Now we have chosen to examine this particular Bushism because, here, Mr. Bush has offered quite the textbook example of what informal logic-addicts call, a “false disjunction,” or simply the “either-or” fallacy. To commit this error in reasoning, you only need to oversimplify a range of many options, reducing it to a pretended range that limits them to two logically-possible options only.

For instance, isn’t possible that, if the U.S. pulled its troops from Iraq, using many of them to assist with border patrol duties, that we could avoid fighting “them” here by not letting them in, and yet not fight them “there” either? Now, to be sure, many will hasten to point out that they see this as impractical, ill-advised (for whatever reason), etc. My only point remains this: the option I have mentioned is logically possible. And I could imagine quite a few others.

For instance, the U.S. could spend a handsome little sum on policing our domestic internal affairs, and arrest all terrorists before they can do any harm. We have already arrested quite a few of them here without any fight whatever. One might argue that bloodless arrests seem much better, not to mention a good deal cheaper, than national invasions where the whole countryside gets shot up.

Now, if the U.S. can act with pre-emptive success in Iraq (for the president has suggested many times that it can), why can it not do so also much closer to home? But if the U.S. cannot do so on its home turf, why should anyone think they can do it in Iraq?

Remember, I do not mean to argue here against the U.S. presence in Iraq, but only to critique one particular reason offered for it by the president. He has, after all, listed quite a few different reasons for the invasion, at different times — which may or may not be a good thing.

For today, then, let the reader take away this lesson in the logic of popular discourse — never reduce a range of many possible options to two only, unless you prepare well enough to show that the others do not represent truly logical options. Otherwise, you will have committed the either-or fallacy.

This brief lesson in critical thinking has been brought to you by Ophir Gold Corporation.

About the Author

Christopher Brown attended the Calif. State Unviersity, and then seminary in Orlando, FL. He now manages 5 websites for OGC. Please stop by and visit us at our Blogic For Writers site, http://blogique.blogspot.com or at our Free Web Traffic Site at http://ophirgoldcorp.blogspot.com or at our Writing With Power site at http://scriberight.blogspot.com

Comments Off

ROBBINSDALE, Minn. - Innocent victims are faced with
confrontational crimes of violence every day, and the old
assumption that resistance to the crime is futile has now been
proven to be false.

In a unique partnership, a gun shop and a martial arts
instructor have teamed up to provide a self-protection training
class for the public. The class teaches simple methods of
“humane self-defense” without the use of any type of weapon.

“Protecting yourself or a loved one from violence is imperative
in today’s environment. Using only the appropriate level of
force is the law. Doing no more harm than absolutely necessary
is what we mean by ‘humane self-defense,’” explained Scot Combs
of Full Circle Self Defense.

It has been a common belief that it is better to offer no
resistance to attackers, but now a study from the Florida State
Univ. department of criminology indicates the opposite. The
study found that people who use self-protection strategies
reduce their likelihood of injury when compared to those who use
non-resistance.

The Tactics Training Center at Bill’s Gun Shop and Range has
teamed up with Combs and Full Circle Self Defense of Blaine,
Minn. to offer the public an opportunity to learn how simple it
is to take protective action when confronted with acts of
violence.

“People have no trouble locking their homes and cars, or
installing alarm systems as a form of self-protection. They also
need to know the right way to respond to a personal attack,”
said Combs. “It is imperative that they neither over-respond or
under-respond.”

The course is open to the public and provides specific training
in the methods of humane self-defense, which does not involve
the use of any type of weapons. Participants are taught to use
non-lethal techniques. The methods are easy to learn, practice,
and put into use if needed.

“The use of deadly force is an absolute last resort. The legally
armed citizen must have the ability to use less than lethal
force, should the situation warrant it. The ‘humane
self-defense’ seminars provide realistic training in viable
options for conflict resolution. Everyone should have these
excellent tools for personal protection,” said Leonard M.
Breure, PhD, training coordinator for the Tactics Training
Center. The course focuses on simple, effective, humane
methods of personal protection. These are proven techniques that
anyone can master. There is a special emphasis on methods of
avoidance and escape. The topics of awareness, victim profiles,
attacker profiles, the law and liability are fully discussed and
explained.

Classes are held Tuesdays from 6 to 9 p.m. at Bill’s Gun Shop,
4080 West Broadway Ave. N., Robbinsdale. Registration in advance
is recommended because class size is limited. Call 763-533-9594
for information and registration.

Comments Off