Speech and Off-the-cuff Remarks of Samdech Moha Borvor Thipadei Hun Manet during the Ceremony to “Officially Launch the National Strategy on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development 2026-2030” [Unofficial excerpts of impromptus and translations]

[1]

(1) Political-level strategic policies must have action plans, operational-level coordination mechanisms, and human resource mechanisms to implement at the tactical level

We plan to pilot (the request for registration, licensing, and other relevant permits as a package through maximum simplification of procedures via the CamDX platform) for soap products in the near future. I want to clarify that these are two of the mechanisms we need to prepare for practical implementation. They say small things assemble into big ones. To achieve long-term goals, we must successfully navigate the short term. We cannot talk about a strategy for achieving a long-term goal if we cannot accomplish anything in the short term. If we disagree, get stuck, or get bogged down in the short term, we cannot go far. Once we issue a policy, we always organize it as a long-term strategy, but it absolutely requires practical measures. A political-level strategic policy must have action plans, operational-level coordination mechanisms, and clear human resource mechanisms to implement at the tactical level. Just like in the military, there are three levels: the strategic political level, which thinks about the entire policy and coordination; the operational level, which leads regional directions […] when it comes to actual implementation, it is the division or the group at the platoon/company, battalion, or division level.

(2) Continue developing the CamDX platform to achieve the E-Government policy

Therefore, to make sure our policy can be successfully launched and implemented, we must evaluate whether it truly helps SMEs or MSMEs reach their targets. We must figure out how to make it move forward. To do that, we have, to rely on the smaller components. Whether it is a Lamborghini or a Ferrari, even one wheel spins unevenly, the car cannot travel fast. So, the crucial point is to focus on what I call the small things that can block the big things—a single leaf can clog a drainage pipe. For example, the solution to establish this SMECU (Small and Medium Enterprise Coordination Unit), combined with CamDX—which is a platform we created long ago for future information-sharing needs—serves this purpose. These mechanisms have been in place since previous mandates, initiated by Samdech Techo and led by His Excellency the Academic Doctor, and we have announced and heavily developed this CamDX platform from the very beginning. However, we must continue to develop it to fully achieve our E-Government policy. The term “E-Government” means the capability to share information electronically, which will eventually facilitate electronic service delivery. It must keep moving forward […]

(3) Technology is a tool used by humans … each ministry must plug into CamDX

Even though we have this platform (CamDX), the platform cannot walk or coordinate on its own. It is merely a means for sharing. Therefore, it requires various other mechanisms to utilize this platform as a tool to help resolve and coordinate issues, especially where inter-ministerial complexities exist. For example, recently, the Ministry of Land Management and the General Department of Taxation agreed to jointly create an information system to be placed within CamDX. In the future, when someone buys land and registers it there, the tax authorities will know instantly, without the hassle of running back and forth to transfer ownership titles. It will be fast. But if these two institutions do not agree to integrate into a single platform to share information, technology itself will not resolve the issue. Technology is organized as a tool used by humans. If people lack the political will or the concept of sharing, it remains completely useless. Therefore, each ministry must plug into the system. Once a mechanism is created, there must be a clear direction and instructions on what must be connected and what must be done. The other day, Oknha Lim Heng came. The other day, I saw his interview. He said that now E-Government is fully connected, yet officials still refuse to stamp approvals until physical documents are brought directly to the ministry. So, it only connects the documents and information to get them there, but the approval must still be done at the ministry itself. Thus, if it involves 10 ministries, you still have had to go to all 10; if it involves 3 ministries, you still have to go to all 3.

(4) Define Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), set clear directions, and guide operations

There must be guidelines, clear instructions, and mandates to implement this immediately. This is the operating principle: it requires sharing and setting clear directions. There must be a coordination mechanism to ensure that during the sharing and transferring process, it does not get bottlenecked at any stage. We must be careful because when tasks are transferred out of sight, over time, people might apply the saying “too many cooks spoil the broth” [literally: too many people make the sticky rice cake burn]—meaning overlapping work. Another issue is “uncooked sticky rice cake,” meaning absolutely nobody takes responsibility for that specific part because they assume it belongs to someone else or to CamDX. Over time, they might think CamDX will handle it. No. CamDX does not do anything on its own. CamDX is merely facilitating data exchange. Whether the data flows or not depends entirely on the ministry. The ministry itself remains the decision-maker. Therefore, we must define Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) clearly, set clear directions, and guide operations effectively. This part cannot be solved by just putting out a policy; it must be detailed in the procedures […] and importantly, if necessary, mechanisms must be created. This SMECU was established after we noticed a number of issues, particularly regarding applications. Right now, applying to set up a license is not difficult—it takes only about 3 days between the Ministry of Commerce, the General Department of Taxation, and the Ministry of Labor and Vocational Training. Now, there is a portal where you can submit it instantly, taking only about 3 days as I recall, or 5 days at most. However, when it comes to applying for manufacturing licenses or other specific permits, that is what takes a long time.

(5) “Body soap goes to Health, non-body soap goes to Industry” … Over-classification can become complicated instead

The other day, the soap matter came up again—it has been going on for a long time. It involved MISTI (Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation) and the Ministry of Health. During our meeting the other day, I asked about it, and they told me that soap is further divided into two categories. I was surprised. There is body wash soap and non-body wash soap. Soap used on the body is considered a cosmetic product because they believe it comes into contacts with the skin. Then there is the other kind of soap not used on the body, like dishwashing liquid and such. I noted that there is practically no soap that does not touch human skin. I requested a review of this matter. We have maintained this division for a long time, since way back when. Body soap went to the Ministry of Health, while non-body soap went to the Ministry of Industry. But it is all just soap. Because of this arrangement, those applying for a manufacturing permit did not know which type of soap was which. From my own experience when I lived abroad, I did my own laundry, had to wash my own car, and washed my own dishes. There is absolutely nothing you wash that doesn’t touch your skin. Believing that these do not touch the skin is incorrect because nobody wears full protective gear to do these chores. Hand soap and laundry detergent constantly come into contacts with our hands when poured, and then it touches our bodies again when we wear the clothes it clings to […] so it goes hand-in-hands. Sometimes, over-classifying things just makes them complicated instead. Therefore, it requires us to re-examine this. However, the original reasoning behind this division had its own context. I am not criticizing it; every country goes through similar developmental stages. When I visited Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, they boasted about their E-Government operations and the new coordination mechanisms they had to establish to harmonize all their ministries and institutions, just like us. It is the same everywhere. It is the same in the United States. Even with their 16 intelligence agencies, they used to be completely divided until they created a unified entity to coordinate among them.

(6) If MISTI is tasked to lead the coordination, MISTI must be granted the leadership authority

We must look at how we intend to handle this work in the future. Certainly, decentralization must exist, but decentralization without clear monitoring, evaluation, and coordination mechanisms can lead to problems. Yet, centralizing everything into a single massive institution does not work either; it can cause delays. So, how do we strike a balance? Decentralization develops specialized expertise, but this expertise must serve the common goal, operate in total harmony, and have a unified commander to move forward. If the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation (MISTI) is assigned to lead the coordination, they must be granted the authority to give directives on certain areas so that other ministries and institutions can let them take charge […] the leadership authority over that specific task must be given to MISTI. This is exactly what we were discussing earlier regarding Research and Development (R&D). If a mechanism is established under MISTI—even if it is named a “National” entity or anything else—but other entities involved in the coordination still only listen to their respective ministries that hold different priorities… then that work will not achieve true coordination. A director might delegate authority on paper, but when asked, the personnel still say, “I haven’t done it yet, I have to ask my boss first.” That is not fast. We must clearly distinguish which parts operate vertically and which parts operate horizontally when implementing a coordination mechanism.

(7) Establishing a leadership mechanism requires detailing procedures, authority, and workflows

Certainly, each unit must listen to the vertical line of command within their own ministry, and follow the horizontal line of leadership. This must be clearly separated. What I am saying here is that it is not enough to just establish a mechanism and assign tasks. That alone will not make it easy. I request that whenever any leadership mechanism is established, please detail the procedures, authority, and workflows very clearly. Otherwise, it will not move forward. If it is only stated that a mechanism has the right to handle something, especially a specific task, but others can still do the exact same work, then everything will remain the same. All 10 people will continue doing the same things as before. How then do we coordinate? This is a practical example. Applying to establish and license businesses in certain sectors—for instance, the soap industry—involves up to two institutions. I am not even counting the three initial institutions required just for the setup stage, which involve the Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training, the Ministry of Commerce, and the General Department of Taxation. We are strictly talking about applying for a manufacturing license. So, after obtaining it from MISTI, one must still go to the Ministry of Health. Coordinating between them can cause delays, and if citizens are unclear about the process, it becomes even more difficult for them. The internal procedures themselves are complicated […] and I am not even talking about thousands of other services yet. I am highlighting just one single product. If we consider thousands of other products involving 15, 16, or 20 ministries, we will face massive challenges. Furthermore, I am not yet talking about the sub-national level; I am speaking solely about the national level. This mechanism focuses strictly on national-level coordination.

(8) SMECU is an independent unit not under any single ministry/institution; it is a single window with teeth to coordinate registration

What is our objective? We want to set up a system somewhere that eliminates complexity for the clients. For this reason, when we examined the issue, we found a lack of a bridging mechanism—an agency mechanism to assist citizens. As a result, they resort to hiring private agents and paying them to handle paperwork across various ministries. Now, we are establishing the SMECU mechanism as a unit that does not operate under any single ministry or institution, but holds the authority to coordinate registration. Secondly, for all registration tasks, clients no longer need to run directly to individual ministries; they must come to this single place instead. Every single involved ministry must interface here. This unit acts as the coordinator. What does this mean? SME clients who need specific licenses only have had to come to this one location. A single window. A single window with teeth […] if it is a unit that merely has roles and duties on paper without clearly defined workflows, that is dangerous. It means that if we create this unit but the services of every ministry and institution remain unchanged, we might as well not create it at all. It would serve no purpose. There would be no coordination at all, and agencies would just pass the blame to one another. People wouldn’t know where to enter […] There are two formulas here. First, citizens come to submit everything at this single location. Any missing documents are handled right there. Let this unit be the one to work directly with all 16 ministries and institutions. Whatever is lacking is resolved right there. Consequently, the applicant faces no difficulties; the unit will handle scheduling the 2 or 3 relevant ministries to go down and inspect the site when a license is requested.

(9) SMECU takes on the headache on behalf of the clients, with the state resolving the problems, while ministries and institutions still retain and execute their rights, roles, and duties

This unit (SMECU) acts as the coordinator by scheduling appointments with the relevant ministries and institutions, arranging just a single joint appointment with all of them […] forming them into teams. They form 3 or 4 teams, arrange an appointment with the client, and go inspect the site together. This way, if there is any paperwork or procedure, the client only needs to come to this single location. Let this institution (SMECU) and unit take on the headache instead […] let the state be the one to resolve the problems. This means the clients no longer have to suffer the headache. We function like an agency—specifically, a coordinating agency. Each individual ministry and institution still retains and executes its own rights, roles, and duties. We are not stripping away their authority. When we brainstormed this from the very beginning, there were two formulas. One formula is called the “Single Roof” approach, similar to what they have in Rwanda. Because Rwanda faced many challenges, the President established a Single Roof entity by bringing the units responsible for registration and decisions from all ministries and institutions under one single roof, with him supervising it from above. Consequently, individual ministries and institutions have had no involvements in any of these decisions; it is all handled at that single location. It passes through just one channel straight to the top. A single unified unit. Everything goes into that unit. The individual ministries can focus on their other duties, while approving business matters is left entirely to this unit. We are not choosing that approach. It is not necessary for us to take away those business approval functions completely.

(10) The decentralization formula, while leaving rights, authority, and expertise with ministries and institutions, features a single unit leading the coordination

We are choosing a formula that maintains decentralization, leaving the specific rights, authority, and expertise with individual ministries and institutions to follow their own internal procedures. However, we have a single unit acting as the lead entity to coordinate the work. We have clear standards. We have clear timelines. In the future, clients who submit applications will only need to come to this single location, and they will know the exact cost and how much they need to pay. They will know what that fee covers and which ministry it goes to. Ministries do not need to charge clients directly. Payment is made at this single location, and this unit will handle distributing the funds to the respective ministries and institutions. Secondly, regarding the timeline setting, let’s say the process must now not exceed 20 days. Therefore, within those 20 days, this unit will be the one coordinating with each institution. Each institution must respond within a specific timeframe. The ultimate goal for the future is to resolve a complex issue for our citizens, clients, and SMEs. We are focusing strictly on SMEs. For the “M” (Micro-enterprises), MISTI handles most of them, largely at the sub-national level. Micro-enterprises are very small. We are focusing specifically on SMEs. I noted that we should not be too greedy with the scope of work. The other day, when the draft duties were initially written, it covered absolutely everything. I pointed out that if we wrote it that way, we might as well dissolve MISTI, because this unit would be doing everyone else’s jobs. Please focus only on the critical keys. Do just a small part to help facilitate the process where it gets stuck. It is not stuck everywhere; it is just a single loose screw. Just tighten that specific wheel screw so it aligns evenly with the rest. Do not try to rebuild the whole car. Leave the other parts to the respective ministries to strengthen. If anyone, any department, or any ministry fails to meet the standards or deadlines, let them strengthen their own internal operations—how their procedures work, how their internal complexities are structured, and how they should be reformed. Do not go around making excessive changes to everything else.

(11) Connect the data systems serving SMEs to CamDX by the end of 2026; do not wait until 2028 …

Right now, if we go around adjusting procedures—for instance, just for a single soap product, going back and forth to adjust between the Ministry of Health and others—it only becomes more complicated. It is like cutting grass while the wilderness grows even faster. The more we create, the more complex it gets. That is just for a single product; if it were 10,000 products, wouldn’t we be completely overwhelmed? Let’s not make it difficult. We established this unit to aggregate everything. Without the support of CamDX, this unit cannot operate. The data must be connected. Once connected, orders must be issued to implement it. It is done now. We must force the issue. His Excellency Kong Marry reported to me that we created CamDX back in 2020, which was 6 years ago. Out of 1,500 services, we initially managed to connect only about 200 or so. In 6 years. How many do we have now? We have 500. His Excellency Kong Marry reported that over 200 were integrated within 6 years. According to his plan, he aimed to push it to 500 out of 1,500 by the year 2028. I said no […] during the Council of Ministers meeting, I stated that whatever serves SMEs must be connected by the end of the month of September. Now we have reached that point. It has already gone up to 500. There is no need to wait. Sometimes, you absolutely have to force it to get results. We issue targeted directives. Occasionally, ministries are just too busy with other priorities. They have too much work, so they do not pay attention to this specific area. Therefore, the directives must carry weight. Now, we have gone from 250 to 500 connected services in just one or two months. We take the critical services and connect them to serve SMEs. By the end of the year, all of them must be completely connected. We will not wait until 2028 […]

(12) Integrating the data systems to serve the implementation of the 2030 policy or to simplify procedures

If any ministry faces issues, whether a lack of technical expertise or anything else, they should submit a request to CamDX so they can provide assistance. Some ministries already have their own systems; they just need to plug them in and share the data. Every ministry and institution has a heavy workload, but this must be set as a definitive direction. Because they are busy and focusing on their respective internal priorities, they don’t naturally connect with one another. This is exactly why it hasn’t been easy to complete. Therefore, sometimes we must strictly align the direction by mandating that within these 3 months, this specific priority must be addressed, and every single ministry must put this item forward […] Because once it is connected, it can serve to resolve the overarching issue—the implementation of the policy that we look toward for 2030 and beyond. If even that information-sharing component does not exist, how can we solve anything? It would be difficult to talk about simplifying procedures. It would remain stuck with the same paperwork as before […] Regarding this implementation, we are currently preparing the office space, recruiting personnel, and aiming for implementation before the end of this year. We plan to run a pilot test. The first product will be soap, which will start in the very near future. The CamDX team, the policy team, and the working groups from MISTI and the Ministry of Health have already worked together on this. They have established the procedures and agreed on the core concepts regarding what to cut, what to keep, and what to facilitate […]

(13) No single Super Ministry doing everything, but rather a cohesive mechanism and integration for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and clear procedures

Right now, we are just organizing the mechanism to operationalize and test the “Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Coordination Unit” (SMECU). The relevant units are combined to create this single entity (SMECU). Let’s not be too greedy. Take it one step at a time. Let’s use this one as a test case. Once it operates successfully for a few years, we can look into expanding it. This is the core philosophy of implementation—transforming policy into concrete action. We do not need to micro-manage every single area. We just focus on one or two critical hubs that serve as priorities to help link things together into action, particularly through inter-ministerial mechanisms. Why are ministries established? To oversee specialized expertise. They look after each individual sector because the governance of a nation is vast; we cannot expect the Office of the Council of Ministers alone to handle everything. There must be ministries specialized in each specific field. Some countries have this set of priorities, while other countries have that set; some nations combine certain ministries together. It depends entirely on our own priorities, efficiency, and needs—namely, decentralization and de-concentration. We do not need what is called a single “Super Ministry” that does absolutely everything. We can have smaller ministries focusing on their respective areas of expertise, but there must be operational mechanisms and interlocking coordination. Particularly for policy execution, there must be implementation mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and clear procedures defining who does what and what authority they possess […]

(14) An inter-institutional coordination mechanism serves to coordinate decision-making aligned toward resolving common problems

In our past experiences, when we failed to explicitly direct this authority, it caused problems. Whenever a gap appeared in collaborative tasks, we generally created a commission. However, regarding the extent of authority this commission possessed, they often lacked real power. Initially, the core concept was for it to serve as a coordination hub, but in practical implementation, it didn’t work out that way. It merely became yet another new administrative actor. Whatever the ministries and institutions did, they continued doing exactly the same. The officials stationed to work there were eventually forgotten over time. What I mean is that according to the initial setup, the officials deployed there were supposed to have the authority to help push things forward—acting as a bridge back to their respective ministries and institutions. The ministries and institutions must actively engage in this work. Therefore, our mindset here must focus on ensuring that this mechanism actually functions. An inter-institutional coordination mechanism must be capable of smoothly facilitating inter-institutional tasks. Certain operations absolutely require coordination. Clear directions must be established. Beyond that, individual ministries and institutions can pursue their own priorities. It does not mean they must abandon everything to work solely on this, but there must be a common priority, a single mechanism, and a unified decision aligned toward a coordinated approach to resolve common problems. For this very reason, it is essential to establish and test this mechanism. I have discussed this with His Excellency Kang Chandararot, who has extensively studied this matter in the past… at that time, it was under the ministry of Brother [Chea] Vandeth, where research was conducted on the mechanism to coordinate SME services… He is now a research expert in this field, but I want him to try leading the practical operations to see how it goes. Being able to write about it does not automatically guarantee knowing how to execute it operationally. I am giving him this opportunity. He has some implementation experience, but we will continue to support him.

(15) Understand the leader’s core concept clearly, bring it back for approval once organized, and ask if you do not understand clearly

It must be done, it must be coordinated, and we must select and organize the right people to ensure we align with the targeted direction. It is as simple as that. We must foster mutual understanding because what we have been doing for decades has become a deeply ingrained habit, affecting both the clients and the ministries/institutions. Therefore, when establishing something new, there must be a clear direction. Initially, this is very exhausting. For most of the work that I lead personally, I stay directly involved at the beginning. Only when it can run smoothly on its own do I step back and let it go. If you look back at the previous mandates, Samdech Techo acted in the exact same way. When establishing any new mechanism, he would lead it personally at first. Only after about a full mandate, when things were properly functioning, would he step back. He would then become an honorary chairman, such as in R&D or other fields, to ensure that the vision of the leadership perfectly aligns with the operational mindset […] Sometimes, someone is told, “Hey, go look into setting up this project.” Then all of a sudden, six months later, they go straight into a meeting without checking back. I ask myself, “Do they even understand my core concept?” By the time they present their report, it turns out to be 180 degrees wrong from the original idea. They just assumed. No, that is not how it works. When I say we need to do things very quickly, the most critical factor is understanding the core concepts of the upper management. If we fail to understand the concept, we take it out to execute and end up deviating completely from the intent. That is the problem. I have a military background. In the military, whether it is a standby order or any other command, the commander’s intent must be crystal clear. Therefore, once you receive the instructions, go organize them, and then bring them back to clear them through me for approval. To ensure you understand the core concept thoroughly, please ask. The difficulty arises when people refuse to ask. If you ask, we can realign the direction immediately. I do not have the time to go and do the work for you […]

(16) As an inter-sectoral mechanism, institutional authority must be defined and leaders must be empowered so that subordinate institutions comply

We must execute and drive this work forward. We used to discuss this in meetings, and His Excellency Sok Saravuth was the one drafting it at the time. We used to meet once every 3 months. He worked fast. However, he didn’t ask a single word… why was it so fast? Just as it was about to be officially announced, I called a meeting with His Excellency Kong Marry and others. Upon closer questioning, it turned out that while he was fast, it was off by 10 degrees. Being off by 10 degrees […] the further it goes, the bigger the deviation becomes. His Excellency Kong Marry noted, “Based on what Samdech said, it doesn’t seem to be like this […] If you want to be certain about what Samdech meant, come meet with me directly. Moving forward, we have R&D and other initiatives led by MISTI. It does not rely solely on this unit. Whatever operates as an inter-sectoral mechanism, if an entity is created to execute policy, there must be a clear monitoring and implementation mechanism. Furthermore, the authority of that institution must be clearly defined to give power to the leader—whether it is a minister or any dignitary—so that they have teeth. Otherwise, the subordinate institutions involved will not comply. Having teeth means being able to tell a minister that a task must be handed over, determining how this specific area should be integrated for coordination, and outlining how to execute the nation’s common policy… Only then will ministers understand which matters are left to that unit and which matters they must handle themselves. This is true allocation, because a coordinating mechanism is already in place.

(17) R&D must set its direction based on the market, but it must align to a certain degree with national policy

It is these fine details that expand and drive the larger objectives forward. To create a mechanism that truly works, what must we do? Therefore, for R&D (Research and Development), go design a model. The day before yesterday, we were discussing R&D… we saw the creation of a council proposed by MISTI. However, as the discussion went on, everyone agreed that it lacked teeth. If it lacks teeth, what must we do to add teeth for the Minister of MISTI, His Excellency Hem Vanndy? Because if he serves as the chairman, but every ministry and institution continue to conduct R&D independently as before, how can that work? Upon closer inquiry, some ministries, when asked how R&D decisions are made and what serves as the core standard, mentioned that there is no fixed direction, as it depends entirely on the market […] The market is one component that we cannot discard, but there must be a certain level of alignment that reflects a true National Coordination, where R&D complies with national policy. If the state sets a direction that for the next 10 or 20 years, R&D must focus on Automotive, Cyber Security, AI, or Electronics, then let’s focus strictly on those fields. Do not bundle agriculture or other sectors into it. Leave those for the respective ministries to handle. National R&D must set its direction in alignment with national policy… There is no need to implement a Single Roof model. Just ensure that this specific hub is robust. Right now, for the Automotive sector, the Ministry of Labour… while for Cyber Security, Brother [Chea] Vandeth’s ministry handles it […]

[2]

(18) The private sector, civil society organizations, and the self-employed generate job opportunities and ensure citizen participation

In the words of His Excellency Cham Prasidh, he called it “pro-business.” We support that because the private sector is the lifeblood and a vital driving force. The state cannot create jobs for everyone. Someone once suggested to me that we should recruit all youth who reach working age into the civil service… Right now, across both national and sub-national levels, we have over 500,000 or 600,000 personnel when including the armed forces, of which more than 200,000 are civil servants. Utilizing 200,000 people effectively is what matters; we don’t need 5 million people. Even with just 200,000 people, there is barely enough office space. Each ministry already faces a shortage of seating space, let alone increasing the civil service by another 1 million people. Instead, what is critical is driving progress across all sectors. The private sector, civil society organizations, and self-employed individuals altogether generate job opportunities and foster the active participation of our citizens. This is a foundational principle. Now, it is almost 10:00 AM, and I would like to open a parenthesis. While the word “parenthesis” implies discussing content that is not directly related to today’s main topic, it is deeply relevant to our national affairs. This particular topic is not meant just for the audience present here—though you are welcome to listen. It is primarily intended for the general public and serves as a message that can be sent thousands of kilometers away.

(19) The slander alleging that the Royal Government is ceding land to foreigners damages the trust of the citizens

Over the past week or so, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, and compatriots have likely observed the situation. I do not easily issue public messages to engage with troublemakers. However, there are certain matters we must speak out on because they directly affect public trust and our territorial sovereignty. If we remain silent while they spread slander, the Royal Government risks being unfairly blamed. This misinformation causes anxiety and unease among the citizens, especially the malicious fabrication that we have ceded territory to others. This is a very grave matter. The loss of territorial control following armed clashes is one thing, and illegal physical occupation is something we are actively contesting. However, when they accuse the government of agreeing to a border line that forfeits our land, it is equivalent to calling us traitors to our own nation. These defamatory claims continue to escalate […] I expect that this topic will face further intensified attacks and distortions as we draw closer to the upcoming Commune/Sangkat elections […] Therefore, during this recent period, you have seen me exchange words publicly with Mr. Um Sam An, where I laid down several conditions. However, some people might not yet fully grasp my underlying reasons and objectives. Today, I would like to clarify this briefly because explaining such matters in writing can be difficult. I must borrow a bit of time from today’s program to explain it directly.

(20) Inviting Um Sam An’s group to verify the border demarcation markers has no intention of causing conflict among fellow Cambodians

Now, what is the reason for inviting Mr. Um Sam An and his group to come debate and verify the case in which he accuses the government of causing the loss of territory at border markers 52 and 59? […] What is the objective? Is the objective to fight among fellow Cambodians? No, it is not. My objective is to appeal to Cambodians of all political tendencies, both inside and outside the country, to remain calm and grant the government the opportunity to strive toward resolving this with Thailand, rather than creating chaos that distracts fellow Cambodians internally. This is a phase where the border dispute has not yet been completely resolved. There is a lot of sensitive information that we cannot disclose. However, we are working with absolute responsibility […] The government asks for calm, trust, and solidarity so that—whether you trust the government, support the government, or do not support it—as Cambodians, you let our national mechanism, represented by the current government, work to resolve this with Thailand to protect national sovereignty. This is not asking to escape accountability. Once it is finalized, we must be the ones to take responsibility. But right now it is not yet finished; it is highly complex. What does this situation demand? This is no ordinary matter. I have said this since before the second outbreak of armed conflict. I stated that during this phase where we are confronting Thailand legally, diplomatically, and previously militarily to hold our ground—though we are now choosing diplomatic, political, and technical border mechanisms to protect our territory—I ask our Cambodian compatriots to strengthen internal solidarity and not tear each other apart over this matter. Please unite in thought and give the government the peace and quiet needed to resolve it.

(21) The government is responsible for resolving the border dispute, protecting lives, protecting territory, and holds accountability toward history

The battlefield is over on that side; we shouldn’t be spending our time exchanging words with our own fellow Cambodians. I am not saying that all citizens must share the exact same political tendency as the government, or must blindly believe in the specific methods we use to solve this. There are many methods. However, what is crucial is just one single request: give us the opportunity, and once the dispute is completely resolved, go check it yourself. Is it lost or not? At that point, the government will not be afraid to face questioning and debate. That is all I am asking […] resolving these issues takes a long time. Right now, we are busy fighting among ourselves […] Most Cambodian citizens understand this. Who wouldn’t worry about their country’s territory? All Cambodians, no matter which political party they belong to, are worried, and the government is worried too. The government does not merely worry; the government carries the actual responsibility to see the resolution through to the end, to protect lives, to safeguard our territory, and in the future, we will stand accountable before history.

Ask yourself, is the government playing games or what? No. If we intended to just hand it over to them, why would we bother confronting them for months? We could just quietly let them have it. Why would we have fought? Why would we have sent His Excellency Prak Sokhonn to UNCLOS twice to contest our maritime boundaries? Why would we bother writing protest letters? Why would our soldiers at the front line stand their ground to stop them from extending their geography when they tried to bulldoze our roads? However, the methods for each specific location are different, the geography is different, and the situations are different […] I tell our compatriots that it is like playing cards. What we hold in our hands cannot always be explained […] Some people ask why we don’t sue, why we don’t do this or that. There are many strategic moves available. Regarding which method to use and at what time depending on the situation—let the government handle it, and the government will take full responsibility […] Please, Cambodians, maintain your composure and grant the government the opportunity to resolve this.

(22) “It is not about wanting to defeat or spite Mr. Um Sam An and his group … it is about wanting consensus and granting trust to the government, instead of accusing one another of treason …”

Making a loud outcry to breed mutual distrust within the country does absolutely nothing to help resolve the issue with the Thai side. It only leaves fellow Cambodians in a state of uncertainty at a time when we are opening fronts for diplomatic, technical, and border negotiations… Here, I am not referring to our ordinary citizens who post their thoughts online about the border situation being this way or that way, or sharing various images on social media. I am speaking specifically about the organized mechanisms and movement groups that seek political gain through the distortion of facts. While ordinary citizens posting is one thing, this involves politically motivated organizations that systematically distort the truth time and again for political mileage. They are willing to tear apart our internal national unity, leave the citizens filled with doubt, and break our collective focus at a moment when the government is responsibly confronting and resolving the issue. That is my entire objective.

It is not about negotiating to win or lose, or to spite Mr. Um Sam An and his group. We simply want everyone to come together in consensus and grant trust to the government, instead of being occupied with accusing one another back and forth of treason and ceding territory. Please put those matters aside for now. Wait until it is finished; wherever is resolved […] go check it out for yourself. We are not afraid, because these markers are physically on the ground. Citizens can go see them. But right now, it is not yet finalized. We are still protesting wherever protests are required. And under what framework are we contesting? […] Unfortunately, Mr. Um Sam An and his group, who style themselves as border experts, seem to want to be greater than the border (experts) itself. I have never seen a Secretary of State for border affairs walking around holding up a map to show people, yet he displays them on Facebook every single day. He goes to libraries abroad to draw lines and look at things… I don’t know. Perhaps he truly is knowledgeable, since he has proclaimed himself an expert, claims to know everything, and puts forward his own assertions.

(23) “We have not cast it aside … we work on it every day, think about it every day … the government has never abandoned its obligation to protect our territory …”

Ultimately, they strike repeatedly. It is not just now; they have been attacking all along. Little by little, they claim this is lost or that is lost […] It is one thing for ordinary people to say it, but this involves an organized structure led by a prominent figure who used to be a politician for the opposition party. Consequently, a number of people believe him. What does this mean? It means he refuses to stay quiet. Why must this be raised at this particular moment? Now, compatriots, look at the facts […] Some say the government has forgotten about the border issues and is only busy fighting fellow Cambodians […] In reality, we have never cast the territorial issue aside. His Excellency Prak Sokhonn travels with the working group—including His Excellency Koeut Rith, His Excellency Keo Rottanak, His Excellency Lam Chea, and the team—comprising legal experts who stay in The Hague to negotiate using the UNCLOS mechanisms. They have met with coordinators for the second time. Next month, they must travel to Malaysia […] to protect our maritime domain. On the land border, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and our forward-deployed armed forces work constantly. First, to maintain the ceasefire, and second, to demand a resolution based on existing agreements by reactivating the JBC (Joint Border Committee). We have not cast this aside. We work on it every day, and we think about it every day. The government has never abandoned its obligation or stopped caring for our territory. And here, I am not even counting our citizens affected by past conflicts, the displaced persons, or our border populations whose livelihoods and local economies were impacted. We manage all of it.

(24) Government officials, particularly our border officials and military personnel, are the ones who directly love the nation

In the past, during this period, did the government go to fight against any Cambodians? … No matter what, we chose to be patient because we do not want to fight or exchange words with our fellow Cambodians. The cards we are playing are against Thailand, not against Cambodians. I have only one single request: for all Cambodians, no matter their political tendency, including his group, to give the government the opportunity to concentrate on working responsibly. The majority of Cambodian people understand this, but you folks refuse to understand. As the election approaches, they intensify their attacks. They think of nothing else except political profiteering; day in and day out, all we hear is treason, exchanging peace, changing power, and toppling the Hun clan […] That is all we see, without them realizing that what they are doing is breaking Cambodian unity and breeding mutual distrust […] I am not referring to ordinary citizens who post about the border issue, but rather to this organized political movement that invents activities for political gain during a phase where we are dealing with complex problems with a neighboring nation. The issue of territory is a massive one, and they are not the only ones who love the nation. Government officials, especially the border officials themselves, are the ones who love the nation, and our military personnel are the ones who directly love the nation themselves. Because these attacks never stop and are instead multiplying, we must call them out to confront this directly.

(25) The accusations made by a political figure cause our citizens to have mutual doubts among themselves

The government has previously issued explanations regarding border markers 52 and 59, but these individuals refuse to listen. Now, why are we calling them out regarding markers 52 and 59? Along the border spanning over 800 kilometers, the government is already actively working across the entire 800-kilometer stretch; we do not need anyone else to come intervene. Regarding the situation at markers 52 and 59, you accused the government of ceding land and claimed to have clear evidence that the reference markers agreed upon had been planted inside Cambodian territory. You have essentially already labeled us as traitors. Before traveling abroad, I went to distribute degrees in Battambang and stated that we had already completed planting the reference markers in that specific area before the armed clashes broke out. Across the span of over 800 kilometers, that specific section of just over 8 kilometers—from marker 52 to 59—is the only area where both sides completely agreed on the locations of the original markers and finalized the placement of the reference markers.

As for markers 42 to 47, some placement was done, but then the armed clashes broke out. It was not finished. That area remains under illegal control by the Thai military. There is nothing completed there. However, you have been hurling insults for months, claiming to have evidence that the government planted marker 55 one kilometer deep into Cambodian territory […] or 500 meters away from here or there. Because you are a political figure, this accusation causes our citizens to harbor mutual doubts among fellow Cambodians, and it further instigates turmoil just as we are engaging in negotiations and trying to stand our ground to resolve the issue. Am I doing this to fight among ourselves or fracture national unity? No. On the contrary, I simply want consensus and unity, to let the government do its work first. Once it is finalized […] we will not be afraid to show the citizens whether we caused any loss or how it turned out.

(26) Border markers 52 and 59 stand in an area of mutual agreement and along a straight border line; it is not militarily tense, has no landmines, and faces no foreign occupation

I am only asking for this period, as everyone already knows the issue is not yet finalized […] these markers 52 and 59 […] serve as a location that can provide clear proof. First, it is an area where both sides reached a mutual agreement and even finalized the planting of reference markers. Second, it is a location where the border line runs straight, faces no occupation, is not a military hotspot, and is completely free of landmines or other hazards. In the past, the Secretary of State for border affairs even delivered a full presentation broadcasted on television. Is His Excellency Neth Pheaktra present here? Which month did we broadcast that? The 5th month. It was already thoroughly explained… yet how can they act as if they don’t know, coming out again to claim we are committing treason and ceding territory to others? Most recently, following that Battambang event, I simply could not tolerate it further […]

They claimed, “Mr. Hun Manet has confirmed that Thailand is doing this inside Cambodian land,” thereby concluding, “so it is crystal clear that Mr. Manet and the Hun clan are ceding territory to Thailand […] because a number of reference markers were planted inside Cambodian territory.” They claimed to have definitive evidence, leaving the public increasingly confused […] If you are a political leader and you remain completely silent upon seeing this kind of situation unfold, it will create massive problems. So, how should we respond? If we just engage in a back-and-forth exchange of words, it remains exactly the same. They simply refuse to listen when the Border Committee provides clarifications. His Excellency Lam Chea and His Excellency Neth Pheaktra already filmed and broadcasted the explanations […] yet it proved useless. It just bounces back and forth, dragging the matter out endlessly. Furthermore, they ask that if the government claims that specific piece of land is not lost, why did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs file complaints against Thailand twice? What exactly did those complaints address?

(27) Due to the slander regarding the border markers creating concepts that fracture the national spirit, the best way to explain is to clarify directly in front of the citizens

Regarding the lawsuits, yes, we did file them. However, you gentlemen must look at the specific substance of each filing, as they contain completely different contents. You didn’t even lay your eyes on it; you just listened with your ears and claimed to have read the text. In some places, we sued over sovereignty issues regarding illegal actions taken on land areas that have not yet been surveyed. At markers 52 and 59, we have already surveyed, and we sued over procedural violations. The other side built a fence in violation of the procedures. According to the demarcation protocols, after surveying and planting the reference border markers, the JBC must meet before any action is taken. Only when the JBC meets can they reach a mutual agreement. The JBC then goes down to build the road and set up the posts directly at that specific site. Go look at the substance of the filing again […]

It is absolutely vital that we come out to explain this specific point. The information has already been fragmented and leaked out. However, it is necessary to explain. We explained that you violated the procedures. When implementing this, our military forces combined with the representatives from the Border Committee stand stationed right there. Some people ask why soldiers would know about borders. Good grief, if a soldier does not know how to read a map, it is completely over […] They ask why we don’t just use the Border Committee. Soldiers understand borders better than anyone else. They know border techniques and they know how to read maps with absolute precision. Nevertheless, we have representatives from the Border Committee stationed right alongside them at that location. The protest we lodged was regarding procedural violations and breach of mutual agreements.

At markers 52 and 59, we dare to take full responsibility. However, the claims raised by his slander have created concepts that fracture the national spirit. I maintain that there is only one single way. We must clarify it directly in front of the citizens, without hiding anything. In this current phase, why can we not just debate this online? As I mentioned, the cards we hold involve many highly sensitive matters. Just regarding markers 52 and 59, there are many more sensitive details that are not yet finalized. The actual placement of the reference markers is entirely correct, but there are still sequential, intricate procedures tied to it.

(28) “You must come to speak with official border documents, not based on hearsay, and let the citizens ask questions …”

If we go ahead and debate this on Facebook, who will be watching? It won’t just be our Cambodian citizens watching. Our counterparts [the opposing side] will be watching too. I have said from the very beginning that we are playing cards; if we show our hand, they will see all our cards […] Our technical working groups are preparing documentation so that when the JBC [Joint Border Committee] resumes, we can continue our work. It is not finished yet. It requires the JBC to execute every single procedure. Right now, only a certain amount has been achieved. Therefore, we cannot debate this online. It is not just our ten-plus million citizens watching; everyone is watching.

Thus, everything would be exposed, especially through questioning and cross-examinations. I think it is best that we organize an in-person meeting to debate in a specific venue—for instance, right here—and invite people. Our citizens, journalists, students, intellectuals, and members of any political party can join—letting hundreds or up to 1,000 people come in—but without any filming or live streaming. Transparency, but with limitations […] let’s see what documents his side has and what documents our side holds. Do not come to speak based on a special sixth sense or anything like that; I will not accept it. You must speak with official border documents. No hearsay. There must be official border documents to ensure transparency with the citizens, and then let them ask questions. Open it up for questions directly.

We can host this in a hall at the Royal Academy of Cambodia; we just won’t broadcast it live to ensure others cannot see it. Let him bring his group along. Those who support his views can prepare questions to try to tear down the government—we are not afraid. We will display our evidence clearly. This means we meet and debate directly inside the room, but we cannot live stream it. This is because the matter is not yet finalized. If the dispute over this specific section were completely resolved, and ultimately both countries had agreed and their respective parliaments had fully ratified it according to procedures, we wouldn’t be afraid to show it. We would live stream the explanation and take questions too. But right now, the negotiation process is not yet finished. Have some sympathy for the country.

(29) Meeting in Cambodia so that the Cambodian citizens, who are the owners of the country, can know and participate

The government is actively negotiating. Whatever the outcome turns out to be, it will be an outcome for our nation. That is why we are taking this approach. We called for this meeting, so why not host it in a third country, or host it in the United States, or in Europe or elsewhere? What good would hosting it there do if it remains completely inconclusive? […] We cannot live stream it, and once it concludes, those who participated will leave separately and say, “this is A, but he said B,” or claim, “this is on the left, but he said it’s on the right,” or argue, “there is only one stream at that spot, but he said no, there are five streams.” Therefore, if there is no method to go down directly onto the ground to verify and conclude it definitively […] I am strictly speaking about physical evidence and technical metrics, not negotiating through words, a special sixth sense, or watching television and jumping to conclusions […] (that too would remain completely inconclusive). Prepare for transparency, and go down to see it practically on the ground together with a number of citizens and representatives. Go inspect it. Let them go down to see directly for themselves how the matter truly stands. How the survey is done, what serves as the reference point, which stream is used, and if that is the stream, what angle is required, what distance, and what clear technical specifications (PV) they hold […] We are meeting this way because we cannot publicize it broadly out of concern that if everyone sees it, we will lose our tactical advantage, even regarding markers 52 and 59. Secondly, we meet in Cambodia so that the Cambodian people within the country—who make up the vast majority of the country’s owners and live directly within it—can know and participate in large numbers. It does not mean Cambodian citizens living abroad possess less value than those inside the country; we are all Cambodians and we share the same value. It is simply that we are hosting it here to allow the majority of Cambodians—students and intellectuals—to participate. For those living abroad, if they wish to attend, they can board a flight and come, and we welcome them. We will host it right here and open it up for the citizens to ask questions.

(30) Um Sam An is not the target … the true target is the movement launching the attacks

Our specialized border officials dare to defend what we have mutually agreed upon and planted as reference markers, and they even dare to go down to inspect them physically on the ground […] People ask, why specifically target Mr. Um Sam An? Even some among our own team advised me that there is no need to confront Mr. Um Sam An, as it only inflates his political value. That is a misjudgment. I am not focusing on Mr. Um Sam An as an individual. The real target is the movement behind him that launches these attacks […] Whether it is Mr. Um Sam An, Mr. A, or Mr. B, it does not matter. What matters is that we must expose what evidence or basis this attacking movement actually possesses. The ultimate goal is credibility. Right now, the citizens do not know who to believe—whether to trust the government’s accountability or to believe the narrative of his group and movement, which claims to have evidence that the government is giving away our land. Who should the citizens believe? So, please, come forward. This is a competition of credibility, not a contest of winning or losing, aimed at giving our citizens peace of mind. If he doesn’t reflect on this, he won’t realize it and will only think, “My value has gone up,” while waving his flag with his pants down […] During this past week, I was occupied with missions across three countries and attending the CICA summit, so I didn’t have time to engage in any back-and-forth exchanges. However, what is critical is that I was completely taken aback. I don’t know what kind of strategy they are running. Day after day, they begin taking off their own shirts and lowering their own pants. They talk far too much, speaking continuously without even realizing they are stripping themselves bare. They are handing me the very sword and the exact outcomes that I want.

(31) Credibility is something that can be demonstrated to the citizens … regarding who is telling the truth

He misjudged, thinking that I wanted him personally. What I actually want is for whatever he possesses to be shown to the citizens—which is credibility, this very trust. Who is telling the absolute truth? He doesn’t realize it and ultimately thinks his own value has inflated […] Calling him out like this is done to clarify things for the citizens, demonstrate reliability, and firmly win the hearts and trust of the public. Using the location of border markers 52 and 59 serves as the baseline—a definitive test or examination. Bring it on, because that is the exact spot where he is fabricating public doubt … They say that lying too much brings self-ruin. He speaks about it time and again. I sat there laughing to myself. They fired shots at me. When I returned, I sat down and watched. I said to myself, “Ah, this means someone is just intoxicated by their own saliva and completely clueless.” Not only does he talk, but he even taunts us. Now, look at what he displays; the more he speaks, both in interviews with his own associates and in interviews with Radio Free Asia with Mr. Moung Nareth (let us not speak coarsely). I don’t know what is wrong with that man; he claimed that people from Kampot who do not know how to steal are betraying their ancestors. To look down on the people of Kampot like that […] that is what happens when you talk too much. Day in and day out, he asks why we don’t sue. He doesn’t even understand the law or the principles of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) or the ICC (International Criminal Court). Mr. Um Sam An is the one bragging about the ICJ. I recall that back in July, the ICC summoned him; where has that led now? Please understand international procedures. It is not as easy or as fast as we think. We are finding methods to resolve this.

(32) If he possesses the documents, Um Sam An will stand to gain, as he can expose the government’s mistakes and potentially become a hero

Now, I want to tell Mr. Um Sam An that he has stood with his pants down. Right now, he has become a “brave man standing with his pants down holding a plastic trophy.” Why? First, based on his numerous statements, he displayed this: at one moment, he claimed he was afraid. His stance changes constantly. He lacks a clear position and has lost all self-control. One moment he says he doesn’t dare to come because he’s afraid of being arrested, shot, or having his head smashed in. Yet, I saw his video clip the other day stating that if Mr. Hun Manet dares to let him come, he and his division will fight without fear of death for the territory. Now, when we simply invite him and offer full guarantees, he doesn’t dare to come. If I were in Mr. Um Sam An’s position and possessed definitive documents, I would stand to gain tremendously when the Prime Minister calls me out and provides such guarantees. First, I would have the opportunity to show the domestic citizens that the government is indeed ceding land because I have the evidence to confront them directly on our home soil, and safety is guaranteed since foreign embassies will be present. Second, if the government fails to honor its word, it means I become a hero—what they call a martyr—without even dying. For example, if the government arrests me, it would mean he successfully destroyed the credibility of a Prime Minister who speaks evasively […] he would win completely. Yet he doesn’t dare to come. If he dares to come and confront us, first, he will have the documents to challenge us. Upon arrival, he can show the citizens that the government is indeed ceding land—if he actually has such proof. Second, if he comes and the government arrests him or causes him harm, it is equivalent to him sacrificing himself to successfully topple the Hun clan […]

(33) “Declaring this to the world and declaring it to the citizens nationwide carries far more weight than a single sheet of paper …”

However, first, he says he doesn’t dare to come, and second, he shifts to say he will only dare to come if he is granted a royal pardon. Now he is no longer afraid for his safety; he just wants to get off the hook. One moment he says he has evidence to talk about border markers 52 and 59 based on the invitation. The next moment he says no, he won’t come to talk about that specific issue—he demands to discuss the entire border, both maritime and land domains. Then he shifts again to say he won’t discuss the border issue at all because he is a politician. If so, what are you coming for? You were called out to display your evidence regarding your accusations against the government over markers 52 and 59, but you say you won’t do it, wanting instead to handle the entire border. Now you say you won’t discuss the border at all, claiming you are a politician who comes to talk about politics. What a foul move. He claimed to have written a letter to me on behalf of the illegal October 23 organization, but at the exact same time, he secretly passed a message through an acquaintance to me, telling them to submit it under the October 23 name for now, and depending on how the government reacts, he would change it later. With such an unstable stance, what are we supposed to do? Ultimately, he issued it under the name of a border working group—which still carries the same underlying meaning; whose border working group is it anyway? […] And he expects the government to respond with an official written invitation letter? No. A public message of this caliber and a guarantee of this nature is entirely sufficient. Honorable people stand by their word. I never act evasively. Declaring this to the world and declaring it to the citizens nationwide carries far more weight than a single sheet of paper. Announcing it to this extent means I dare to say it and I dare to back it up. If I failed to stand by it, it would be political suicide. As a politician, once you lose all trust and credibility from the citizens, it is completely over.

(34) “Not only does he lack a clear stance, but he is also afraid and evasive, manufacturing conditions to get himself off the hook …”

Ultimately, he not only lacks a clear stance, but he is also afraid and evasive, manufacturing conditions to get himself off the hook. How are these conditions designed to get him off the hook? He was invited to come debate the matter of border markers 52 and 59 and display his evidence under full guarantees. But no. First, he asks for a royal pardon from the King. It makes no sense to repeatedly commit offenses against the government, act against the law, and then expect to get off the hook just because you insulted the government by calling them traitors, wanting them to pardon you so you can insult them even further. He creates issues and faces various criminal charges, yet now he wants to get off the hook—and instead of offering an apology, he tries to set conditions after falsely accusing the government of treason and ceding land at markers 52 and 59. It’s like punching someone in the face, wanting to strike them with a shoe next, and then asking to be treated as equals. No way. Second, if I were to seek a pardon for Mr. Um Sam An, it wouldn’t stop there. Others who want to escape their sentences would just manufacture all sorts of accusations against the government to get cleared […] Then he claims he will only come if France is involved. I must ask if his understanding is deficient, or if he is just playing dumb to get off the hook. Does he not understand the state-to-state principles regarding borders between two countries? If you want to involve a third party—even if you want to call the UN or the ICJ—both countries must reach a mutual agreement first. Both governments must sign an official letter of invitation before they will come. Without Thailand’s consent, they will not come. Even if Mr. Um Sam An and I were to sign a letter together, they still wouldn’t come, because this is strictly a state-to-state matter. Therefore, by setting this condition, Mr. Um Sam An simply wants to get out of it entirely. It means it is completely unfeasible. We could write a letter, but they wouldn’t be able to come because it violates interstate protocols. Thus, he manufactured this condition—which I call a condition to absolve himself—just so he doesn’t have to come. Combining these two elements would be an absolute win for him: getting a pardon and then not even bothering to show up because France didn’t come. Nobody is foolish enough to fall for that.

(35) If you have no evidence and no arguments, the people will see your true level … and the people will unite to let the government work without any doubt …”

He is playing far too clever, holding up his plastic trophy, and even posting pictures depicting me wearing a skirt. Let it be. Even if I were wearing a skirt, I would still be covered, whereas you are the one standing completely with your pants down. Ultimately, he wants to pivot away from border markers 52 and 59 and instead challenges us to handle the entire border. There is no need. The government is already fully capable of doing that. Resolving this requires specialized expertise and absolute accountability. Before even entering the process, he is already hurling wild accusations; if he were to enter, he would bring nothing but disruption. Let the government take full responsibility, and stop throwing mud at one another. The government carries this responsibility and is working on it every single day, across both maritime and land domains. As for our working groups—if external working groups wish to join us, I am very grateful, but it is not necessary. Just come to resolve the issue at border markers 52 and 59, and that will be more than enough. Show us if you truly have evidence that the government caused the loss of territory. The government will take responsibility […] but if you have no evidence, no logical arguments, and cannot defend your claims, the people will see right through your level of capability. In the future, whatever you say will carry no weight, and the people will be able to unite in consensus to let the government do its work without any lingering doubt. Wait until the very end, and then point out exactly where we went wrong—the citizens can judge us then. But at this specific hour, I ask for peace and calm.

(36) “Not attacking him personally … targeting credibility. I want to discover the reliability, capability, and evidence he possesses that would justify the citizens’ trust in him …”

Now, regarding the third point I mentioned where he strips himself bare without even realizing it—after all his back-and-forth talking, the truth has finally come out. What is it that I wanted? The goal was never to attack him personally. I am targeting credibility. I want to discover the reliability, capability, and evidence he possesses that would justify the citizens’ trust in him. I expected that by coming here to confront one another, we would find out. Yet, before he has even arrived, he has already exposed everything. I do not want him personally, nor do I want anyone in particular; that is why I ultimately said that if he is too afraid, he doesn’t even need to come himself. He can send anyone else, provided they are granted the exact same mandate and responsibility, and they must bring the official documents to lay it all out and finish it once and for all. If we argue endlessly over border markers 52 and 59, drifting into this or that narrative, it will never end.

Therefore, the only way is to prove clearly that his group has no factual basis. If he has no basis regarding markers 52 and 59, then compatriots should not believe him regarding any other locations either. Conversely, if he can prove that the government caused a loss of territory at markers 52 and 59, the government will take full responsibility, and the same standard will apply elsewhere. That is my ultimate goal. Let’s do this once and finish it. I do not have the time to keep jumping to his tune. We want the citizens to know the facts and evaluate who they should believe. Right now, there is public anxiety over territory, with one group claiming land was lost at markers 52 and 59, while the government states it was handled entirely correctly. Thus, everything he said over these past two weeks has only served to contradict himself, particularly during the questions raised in his interviews with Radio Free Asia and Moung Nareth. In fact, I actually thank his interviewers for asking the sharp questions that pinned him down.

(37) “What evidence do you have … to accuse the Royal Government of losing territory at reference markers 52 and 59? … It is just hearsay!”

Just like Mr. Chun Chanboth asked: “What evidence or documentation do you have, or what specific part can you point to, that allows you to accuse the Royal Government of losing reference markers and ceding territory at markers 52 and 59?” That is exactly what we wanted to know. Even if we were to meet in person, it would still come down to just that. Now, he has torn his own pants open for all 17 million citizens to see. He claimed, “I have the proof, but I’ll wait until we meet.” Now, let me reveal a little bit; when asked to reveal just a small detail, Mr. Chun Chanboth kept pleading, “Please reveal it, reveal it,” and he actually did. First, his claims are based on hearsay. If it were just a matter of hearsay, why would Thailand and Cambodia bother establishing an MOU or setting up the JBC? It would all just be hearsay anyway. Do you remember before the outbreak of the second armed clash?

Thailand also tried to claim territory by bringing in a 70-year-old Thai citizen from Sa Kaeo to speak. That person claimed that the Cambodian land wasn’t actually located there, but that Thai land extended 5 or 6 kilometers deep into that area, and that Cambodians only arrived to live there in the 1980s. The Thai ultra-nationalists, the Thai opposition parties, and the Ruam Thai Sang Chart groups led people out to point fingers, declaring, “this is Cambodian land, and that is Thai land.” Between Thai and Cambodian claims, using the words of Thai villagers who assert their land is 5 or 6 kilometers further inside is a rhetoric… that would never lead to a conclusion. It will never end. You absolutely have to bring out the maps. This is exactly why they task the Border Committee to take the official documentation and do the work. They do not rely on hearsay. Situations on the ground evolve. It is the same with neighboring land plots. Before the introduction of the L-MAP system, some areas were cultivated without anyone knowing exactly where the boundaries stood. That is precisely why they conduct proper technical measurements.

(38) “What evidence do you have … to accuse the Royal Government of losing territory at reference markers 52 and 59? … Hearing it from Radio Free Asia; possessing a special sixth sense!”

Second, when Radio Free Asia asked where he obtained the information, he replied that he heard Radio Free Asia broadcast it. Chun Chanboth was the interviewer asking where it came from, and that gentleman replied that he heard it from what you yourself broadcasted. Third, which made me laugh out loud, he claimed he has a special sixth sense […] Moung Nareth asked him about having an intuition unlike others. He claimed that just by seeing Thai television or a Thai video, he has the intuition to know exactly where that location is. Looking at it just two or three times, he immediately knows that territory is lost. I am not joking; I am simply summarizing what he put out. Let the citizens listen to it. Ultimately, he admitted that he doesn’t know, he doesn’t know anything at all, and that only France would know. If so, on what basis are you accusing others of ceding land and planting reference markers inside our territory? Especially when you don’t even know anything yourself.

He has already stood with his pants down. It means walking around with your pants down while holding a plastic trophy, entirely unaware of yourself. Therefore, let Cambodian citizens both inside and outside the country, along with all intellectuals, look at this—his stance changes constantly. It goes from being afraid to seeking a pardon, and after seeking a pardon, refusing to come speak about border markers 52 and 59 that he accused others over—despite initially claiming he had full evidence. Now he wants to discuss the entire border, and after the entire border, he shifts to national affairs, claiming he is a politician who won’t discuss strictly the border… completely evasive. How can compatriots place their trust and confidence in this kind of individual? In the future, he will come out again; he will not stop. Regarding these political and border attacks, he will continue them, even if we appeal for calm.

(39) “If you have no clear foundation … I request that you shut your mouth, stop using the border issue as political capital, and give the government the opportunity to resolve it …”

Based on this experience, I will no longer engage in further back-and-forth […] If his group comes forward and demonstrates actual logical arguments that the government caused a loss of territory at reference markers 52 and 59 […] he will have the option to continue participating in the work. However, if you possess no clear foundation, I will not arrest or bind you; I simply request that you shut your mouth for now. Stop converting the border issue into a political game. Give the government the opportunity to resolve it, and stop manufacturing groundless narratives to attack others for political profit. Yet, he doesn’t dare to come. He wouldn’t dare to come himself. Seeing that I allowed him to appoint representatives instead, the information shows those representatives are not coming to discuss the border issue at markers 52 and 59 either. What are they coming for?

To negotiate a package deal? Absolutely not. At this hour, the government is negotiating with the Thai side; there is no package negotiation with anyone else. What a foul and evasive play on their part. They style themselves as politicians and as a political movement, but their value rests entirely on clarity and reliability. If he fails to confront us at this specific baseline, it proves he holds absolutely nothing; he can only talk for the sake of talking. That is exactly it—he has already stood with his pants down while holding his trophy. Even without hosting the meeting, the answer is already clear. Nevertheless, why do I still permit them to enter? Because he claimed he only revealed a small part and still holds more definitive information. Therefore, let them come forward to their heart’s content, and let citizens and intellectuals from any political party enter to ask questions, cross-examine both sides, and bring this to a definitive conclusion.

(40) “The government asks the public to maintain calmness and composure, to support and trust the military, the legal team, diplomacy, and border technical teams to continue negotiating and resolving issues with Thailand …”

They even took my photo and put it on a picture of someone wearing a skirt or something. They dared to ask me whether I dared or not, saying they would sue at the ICJ, the ICC […] go ahead and be crazy by yourself. What kind of representative are you supposed to be? And the other day, didn’t they get called to the ICC? Didn’t they go? Didn’t the court summon them? Now, where has that reached? Think about it: procedures, the royal government’s options, stances, steps, strategies, and methods—what do we use to protect our sovereignty? We do everything through responsible means. In the end, we are the ones who are responsible. People ask why we didn’t let them in? How could we let them in when they had nothing in their hands—how could they help? The Cambodian Secretary of State for Border Affairs, combined with border legal experts, have already helped us.

If we called them in, they wouldn’t have helped anything. Moreover, they said they had nothing. They came without even talking about the border issue. Secondly, even before entering, they created issues and made various demands. So, if we were to let them in even further, there would be nothing except for fellow Khmers confusing things internally and, ultimately, throwing water at each other (blaming one another). The government asks the public for an opportunity, asks to maintain stability and composure, to continue supporting the military, to continue supporting, trusting, and giving opportunities to the government, our legal team, our diplomacy, our technical teams, and our border teams to continue working and negotiating to resolve issues with Thailand, in order to protect our territorial sovereignty. That is all we ask.

(41) “This is not directed at regular citizens posting about the border … but rather at a political movement that has an organized structure and a strategy, with Mr. Um Sam An acting as the leader spearheading the border front, aiming for the 2027–2028 elections …”

If you all, as Cambodians, just leave this group of Um Sam An alone for a while—it’s not about taking away opportunities forever so that you don’t have the right to question things. The cards are still in hand, and eventually, all these cards will be played. Don’t ask me to explain it to him. It has already been shown to the public how it is played […] Just wait until I finish playing all these cards, then you can judge my victory or defeat.

You might not be happy with me, you might not like the government, or whatever it may be. But as Cambodians, please maintain calm and silence. In particular, do not play politics by capitalizing on unclear matters just for political gain. I emphasize once again: I am not referring to ordinary citizens who post about border issues—that is one thing. But this is a political movement, and this movement has organized a clear structure and strategy, appointing Mr. Um Sam An as the leader to target this border issue specifically for the 2027–2028 election goals.

If you only think about political gain and destroy political trust within the country, do you realize that the government is currently protecting national interests in front of neighboring countries? You are breaking internal unity and morale. We want you to stop [exploiting this for political gain] … though I believe they will not stop, because that is their livelihood. If he were to pause, Mr. Um Sam An would be out of a job. But at the very least, I can show the public and the people that they have nothing in their hands, and I ask everyone not to feel divided, but to have a unified spirit instead.

(42) “He handed the gold trophy to me while he lifted a plastic one. The gold trophy is credibility … He himself admitted that he does not have any expertise or documents at all …”

It is not that I have plenty of time to sit around arguing back and forth with him just to win or lose. We must stay focused on the objective. He lacks autonomy and cannot hold onto the objective; that is why he handed the trophy to me. The gold trophy came to me, while he lifted a plastic trophy. The gold trophy is his credibility—his precision in border expertise and whatever documents he used to accuse the government. When the people thought his words were true and had a clear foundation, in the end, he himself admitted he has nothing at all. This happened because the government has no fear in clarifying the matter.

I am giving them another opportunity, because he claimed he only revealed a small part of it. Send that group over, but under clear conditions: come to talk about border posts 52 and 59, and come to present the solid arguments and evidence used to accuse the government so that the government can take responsibility. You must present your defense—not just experts facing off against each other, but right in front of the public, journalists, intellectuals, political parties, and civil society organizations. Allowing students and intellectuals to come in and question both sides for clarification—this is my main objective.

(43) “Go ahead and attack us over corruption or scams, but leave this border issue alone for now so it can be resolved … The Cambodian People’s Party isn’t going anywhere …”

I just want to clarify this much. My ultimate goal is simply the trust and confidence of the people. We must find a way to keep the people’s minds stable and aligned with the government, giving the government the opportunity to resolve this responsibly. Once the resolution is complete, then the people can go and inspect it. Whether it is right or wrong, the government will take full responsibility at that time. It is just that while we have not finished [resolving it] and things remain complicated, please do not make us use one hand to hold off [the other country/side] while the other hand is busy [dealing with internal issues].

If we do not protect ourselves, they will bite us from behind and make us fall, especially since the elections are approaching. He has launched an aggressive campaign to gain political leverage using the [border] topic. Go ahead and attack us over corruption, scams, or whatever else—but leave this border issue alone for now so it can be resolved. Once it is resolved, it won’t be too late; that border is not going anywhere. The Cambodian People’s Party isn’t going anywhere. If the Cambodian People’s Party gives away territory during the resolution, it is not a loss of control, you see. Control is established after fighting, but what we are still demanding and contesting is a matter of legality.

Wherever we reach an agreement after surveying and after resolving it legally, technically, and entirely—if you think the government has agreed to hand over territory to others, then go look at it and place the blame on us. We are responsible to the citizens; we are not responsible just for his group… It is truly exhausting.

(44) “If you want to participate, I thank you for your goodwill, but the best way to participate is to remain quiet and not divide our internal unity …”

Looking at this pattern, the attacks will keep escalating. So, if we do not take action, if we do not address it in one way or another, or respond in some form, it will just remain like this. It breaks our internal unity and morale. That is all it is. Our troops on the Dangrek Mountains are facing a very complicated situation. There are some places that others have not yet reached. If we wanted to give [the land] to them, we would have given it already. Why would we need to go to war, deploy troops, or push our forces up there? We go there to hold the line.

They extend their barbed wire, and in some areas, they have extended it past the actual geography. We negotiate so that the JBC (Joint Border Committee) can survey it and have them move it back. Why would we bother doing all this? If we were just trading [territorial integrity] for peace or to maintain power, we would just hand it over to them all at once. If it were Preah Vihear, a victory would be visible to the people. But at that location… our troops are standing guard every single day. We have already fought each other twice there. Weapons were used. We do not want bloodshed. We are resolving this through [legal] means.

Let the government focus on contesting, resolving, and taking responsibility for this. If you gentlemen want to participate, thank you for your heart, but the best way to participate is to stay quiet and not divide our internal unity—that is enough. When you say you want to help, do not come biting or causing issues while things are still unclear. In particular, do not take lies with absolutely no basis and use them to attack and accuse the government of ceding land to others, which causes division among the people. So, if you want to help, stop creating baseless fake stories to accuse us. That is helpful enough. There is no need to come and join in.”

(45) “The ultimate goal we want to achieve is for the citizens to rest assured that the demarcation of border posts does not result in any loss of land …”

I still welcome your group and your representatives, and if Mr. Um Sam An wants to come, let him come. There is no need for a pardon warrant. His Excellency Koeut Rith (Minister of Justice), we can request law enforcement officials to temporarily suspend enforcement for this period. So he can come and then return. Do not say that he only dares to come if there is a pardon warrant. They have their own procedures. I have asked legal experts clearly. If he comes, I guarantee he will not be arrested. Even if he has a warrant, we will request a temporary non-enforcement so he can come and present [evidence], because the national issue is bigger. This is so he can come present it and make the people feel at peace.

If he claims the government really ceded land to others and really placed demarcations inside [our territory], let him come show that it is truly so, so the people can see it. Because that area is already demarcated, and that is the only place where the border posts have been jointly established. I am taking just half an hour of this time to clarify and send this message to Mr. Um Sam An. Your name is being raised because you are the leader of the movement spreading untruths to attack the government over the border and to gain political leverage. But you are not the ultimate target. Aside from you, anyone else can come; as long as they come, I welcome them, but they must represent your movement. The ultimate goal we want to achieve is for the citizens to rest assured that what we have demarcated along the border does not result in any loss [of land]. We have done it correctly.

(46) “If you lose, stop creating fake news and accusations for political gain … The government needs people of all political tendencies behind, whether they agree with our platform or not—what matters is that we are one single Cambodia …”

We are offering you an opportunity to participate through this formula. Even if we cannot broadcast this widely over the internet for everyone to see, including non-Cambodians, we can bring it in here. We can maintain a certain level of transparency, allow the people to debate and ask questions, and if necessary, we can all go down to inspect the border together at posts 52 and 59. Please, come on in and let us talk about this matter. Do not come here just to secretly play politics or anything else. Come solely to negotiate the border regarding posts 52 and 59. Come to speak only about this issue, and the protection provided to you will remain strictly within this context. Arrive at most 2 days early, and depart at most 2 days after. We will grant you 48 hours. Come only to do this work, with no wandering around or causing any messy complications […] If you lack money, I will pay for it. If you lack a place to stay or a vehicle to drive, I will arrange it within this setup. If you lack security, I will provide protection because I guarantee your safety, and I will not let my own reputation be ruined.

Come, as fellow Cambodians, come and show it so that the people inside the country can evaluate and ask questions. I only ask for one thing: if you lose, stop creating fake news and accusations for political gain. As for your movement, just wait until we finish the border demarcation, and then you will have the right to question, debate, or accuse. At this very hour, your continuous shouting only creates more complications. Cambodians do not trust fellow Cambodians. This is happening at a time when the government needs people of all political tendencies standing behind us to negotiate. Whether you trust or distrust, agree or disagree, it does not matter—what matters is that we are one single Cambodia. Those who are confronting us let their government do the work; their various political parties do not act like us, where we keep biting each other from the left and the right.

(47) “In the end, he says he has no evidence and won’t come to talk about the border posts … In the future, whatever he says will lose all its weight …”

We need to unite behind the army and stand with the government, and give the opportunity to the government, the military, and the Royal Government to protect our national interests, territory, and people. I only ask for this much. That is all it is. Now you understand. This is the reason why I absolutely had to choose this option. What is the objective? You gentlemen who are being sarcastic […] I suspect that pretty soon someone will draw an AI picture about it. A brave man stripped of his pants while lifting a plastic trophy. Stripped of his pants without even realizing it. He failed to grasp the main objective. When an army goes to war, it must grasp both the primary objective and the secondary goals, both for defense and for offense. If you cannot even capture my main target, what else can you attack? He thought that I wanted him. No! I want what he has. What is the foundation he possesses to gain the trust of the people? He gave everything to me. I haven’t even attacked yet. A brave general, but in the end, he handed over the trophy completely… Everything he was supposed to come and show when we met, he has already revealed it all. He has nothing. He just heard it from others, he heard it through some special intuition, or he got it from Thai news. He looked at it and assumed that land was definitely lost. In the end, he said he has nothing. He won’t come to talk about that matter. Therefore, it equals his own shifting nature, his irresponsibility, his fear, and his cowardice, which have already destroyed him. Secondly, having no foundation has already destroyed his movement and his role as a border expert attacking the government. I ask that you take this foundation into consideration. Therefore, whatever he says in the future will lose all its weight […] it is over. I have already made my decision. What I called for here is just an addition. And yet he still doesn’t know […]

(48) “Don’t wait until the citizens get confused and divided before explaining …”

My apologies to the diplomatic side. The translator couldn’t keep up. Did the translator interpret just now? Actually, for what I just said, it wasn’t even necessary to translate. But it is fine, he already knows. He is following along too. I don’t have time to keep him company, but what I am talking about as the major goal is the border, the nation, the sentiments of the citizens, and the overall political landscape. If we know this and don’t respond, he will cause problems […] Someone commented, saying: Samdech, have you forgotten Winston Churchill’s quote? I used to post Winston Churchill’s quote stating that we will never reach our destination if we stop to throw stones at every dog that barks. I am not comparing anyone to a dog. Those are his words. I replied to him saying that I have not forgotten his words, but sometimes dogs are dangerous; they come intending to bite us, making it impossible to move forward, so we must throw some stones to make them run away, to let others see that they wouldn’t dare face the stone.

When dealing with the real thing, it has to be like that. We don’t go throwing stones at every dog. We know that they will come again. We evaluate the other one that is just barking from a distance. We see it barking while wagging its tail, but this one barks and approaches us. If we don’t set a target, which they call being proactive, it will come to bite. Should we wait until it bites first? Drive it away so it doesn’t come to bite and wound us. This means don’t wait until the people get increasingly confused and divided before coming out to explain. It would be too late. Do it right from the very beginning, because if you leave it for a long time until the people suspect that we ceding land to others at border posts 52 and 59, and then 5 months later you come out to explain, it is over. It is too late. Play the game right away. How else do you explain it? The only way is to call them out and confront them head-on.

(49) “Accusing me or my family line is one thing, but going as far as accusing government officials … Do not accuse your fellow Cambodians …”

I used to deal with his leader who repeatedly claimed that my degree was just a level 2 certificate at West Point. I said, let us make a bet… but there was no need to bet because simply showing the degree ended the whole matter. It destroys credibility and strips away your value as a politician or whatever you claim to be, especially when you have nothing to back it up after setting yourself up as a political expert. Stop speaking, because even if you do, people will no longer believe you. Only those within his circle who are completely blinded will probably believe everything and come out to argue a little bit more, but those who are in the gray area—who are still weighing options on who to believe—now they know. That is the only goal.

I ask my fellow citizens to understand that my message and my actions are meant simply to show the people that whether it is border post 52, 59, or anywhere else, the government handles this border issue with full responsibility. Our border officials have not secretly agreed to plant posts that cede territory to others. They protect our land alongside the military every second and every single step of the way […] Accusing me or my family line is one thing, but going as far as accusing government officials makes our officials feel deeply hurt […] Do not accuse the officials, and do not accuse your fellow Cambodians. We work to serve the nation. Especially the military, political officials, diplomats, and technical border teams—they are all protecting our sovereignty and legal territory. Please have trust, and give us an atmosphere of stability and calm so that we can carry out the struggle on that side without being distracted. I only ask for this much.

(50) “Come over after the 28th of November … but if you come to speak without any foundation, based only on hearsay, special intuition, listening to Radio Free Asia, or watching Thai television, then do not bother coming …”

If they do not stop, let them keep talking. Because now, on this particular matter, they have already been stripped of their pants. Whether they are stripped of their pants regarding border posts 52, 59, or anywhere else, it is all the same. Believe me… he has seen it. He has looked at it 3 times and he already knows, because he has a special intuition. He doesn’t need any documents. In fact, if you ask where he got it from, he got it from what you showed him […] Now all doubts are cleared. Many people have asked why we had to confront them. Now this explains it. That is it, it is over. Now I will leave it to him—after the 28th of November, if they want to send a representative, go ahead and send one, (because we are hosting the Francophonie summit). I have sent that much of a message […] If you do not come in, stop talking […] unless you have something else to come and present.

If you do not have any border documents, and you only come to speak without any foundation, based on hearsay, special intuition, listening to Radio Free Asia, or watching Thai television while claiming you are knowledgeable and have a basis, then do not bother. I ask our citizens to judge based on that to see who is more trustworthy and who acts with greater responsibility. That is all it is. Now I would like to close this bracket… this matter needs to be cleaned up and finished. The SME sector and all other matters are all big, but every second of our time at this hour belongs to the territorial issue. The government must resolve it, and what is most vital is internal solidarity and unity. Unity of heart, unity of thought, and unity of morale, so that the government can concentrate on fulfilling its responsibilities.

(51) “Continue to listen to the private sector and implement policies and incentive principles for SMEs … so that all mechanisms can continue to work together …”

At the CICA the other day I raised this issue (of border conflict), and I have raised it at international forums inside the country as well. Wherever we go, we raise it. We raise it not to accuse, but simply to showcase the truth […] Our target is to protect national interests in every forum, both national and international […] You all have seen it […] Just because I smile a little bit, they say look at him trying so hard to smile while the territorial issue remains unresolved […] Yet when it comes to them, they go off dancing over there. One of them insulted our Khmer people saying that during the New Year we would lose all our land because we only think about dancing and forget about the territory.

But when he dances himself during the New Year, he calls it cultural solidarity. So, I will say no more; the people can see it clearly […] This issue regarding SMEs and other matters is also an important task that we will continue to work on. Today’s announcement is the policy declaration, but our actual, practical actions will continue. We will continue to listen to the private sector and continue to implement policies that are feasible for us, including incentive principles that His Excellency Aun Pornmoniroth drafted last night. I said we will inspect what aspects we can help facilitate for SMEs, financially and otherwise. We can see how we can assist with taxes so that we can continue to work together through all these mechanisms […]./.