written for The Diplomat

South-east Asian governments are increasingly censoring ‘immoral’ web content. Do they have political motivations as well?

Last February, the Indonesian government dropped plans to filter ‘bad’ content through its Multimedia Content Screening team after the plan met with strong public opposition. Yet, undeterred, it’s now reviving the proposal in the wake of a celebrity sex tape scandal that continues to shock young and old alike in the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation.

The government points to the ease of distribution the Internet offers, which has meant the tape of showbiz stars Nazril Irham and Luna Maya apparently having sexual intercourse has circulated widely since it was first uploaded. The controversy has provoked an outcry among conservative forces in the country who have called for more moral protection for young people, and the government has responded by moving to enforce an Internet blacklist enabled by an anti-pornography law passed two years ago.

Indonesia isn’t the only South-east Asian country to be rocked by such a scandal—there was a similar case in the Philippines last year, which paved the way for the passage of an anti-voyeurism law; lawmakers have also crafted a cybercrime bill. Today, posting of pictures depicting ‘sexual or other obscene or indecent acts’ on the Internet is now deemed a cybercrime offense.

In Cambodia, meanwhile, the government is proposing establishing a state-run exchange point that would allow it to control all local Internet service providers, a move supposedly aimed at strengthening Internet security against pornography, theft and other cybercrimes. The draft regulations are yet to be finalized, but the government is expected to seriously pursue the measure after it found itself powerless in a recent furore over illegally taped women bathing at a monastery.

In each of these cases, opposition to a tightening of the rules has been relatively subdued, in stark contrast to the outcry when South-east Asian governments make more overtly political censorship decisions.

Thailand earned cyber notoriety for becoming the first country in the world to shut down 100,000 websites for containing ‘dangerous’ material, and it famously punishes bloggers and website administrators for violating its strict lese majeste law. Vietnam, meanwhile, has been accused by Google and McAfee among others of launching cyber attacks against selected websites, including those that advocate opposition to bauxite mining, a controversial issue there.

Such moves usually elicit global condemnation among Internet users, media groups and human rights organizations. Governments can, of course, always ignore their noisy critics, but they risk losing international credibility (and business), meaning that governments with at least the trappings of democracy can’t afford to censor online media for extended periods.

So what can they do? Use the ruse of blocking ‘harmful’ websites instead.

Burma, which has some of the most draconian Internet regulations in the world, drew only mild protests from democracy groups after it used powers introduced by the ruling junta to ban two weekly journals for posting photos of female models in short pants.

This aggressive drive to eliminate sex and sexual images from the online world could be a symptom of the rising tide of conservatism in many South-east Asian nations. But it could also be because of recognition by governments that the fig leaf of protecting young people from harm also allows the introduction of potentially useful, tough checks on online freedoms.

Indeed, the morality card is being played to produce ‘desirable’ behavior among populations even when the strategy undermines respect for some of the region’s diverse cultures. When Indonesia passed its anti-pornography law, for example, Bali’s governor protested that the law runs contrary to local traditions where nude statues and erotic dances are still sometimes popular. Cambodia, for its part, blocked websites supposedly showing sexual images, including reahu.net’s artistic illustrations of ancient bare-breasted Apsara dancers and a Khmer Rouge soldier.

The problem for the public (but perhaps an advantage to governments) is the vague definitions of what constitute pornographic, indecent, immoral and obscene acts. Activists here in the Philippines are worried that the cybercrime bill I mentioned earlier would leave it solely to the government to decide what should be banned as ‘improper.’ Today, displaying certain body parts is immoral under the law, but tomorrow the state could decide that immoral or dangerous activity includes participating in certain anti-government rallies.

Now that governments have mastered the tools and techniques of censorship in the traditional media, they’re testing the limits of online regulation. And Indonesia’s efforts to enforce its blacklist will prove a useful test case: Indonesia has more than 40 million Internet users and is acknowledged as the Twitter capital of Asia. If it succeeds in filtering web content, other countries in the region are expected to follow its model.

The potential benefits for governments with an authoritarian bent are obvious. Censorship not only reduces access to information—it also weakens the power of Internet users to form online groups of like-minded people. Even if web censorship has noble intentions, therefore, it’s still an unwelcome distraction for governments who would be better served coming up with more creative, realistic and less potentially nefarious rules for responsible Internet use.

If we want to protect our young people the solution is to educate them, their parents and their communities, and to provide them with relevant information about the potential risks of surfing the web. More information, not less, is what’s needed if governments really want to protect their people.

The Red Shirts’ campaign to force the resignation of Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva got as bloody as it could last month—what could be bloodier than protesters donating 1000 litres of their own blood to splatter on government offices?

The protests, by the United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, established protest camps in the streets of Bangkok from March through May, with the protestors at one point gathering more than 100,000 people in the streets, paralyzing the tourist and business centres of the city.

The government eventually ordered a crackdown that resulted in the worst political violence in the country in about two decades, with more than 50 people dead and dozens of buildings set ablaze by fleeing protestors.

If the intention of the Red Shirts was to grab global attention, then they certainly succeeded—the world watched as the Abhisit government teetered on the verge of collapse as images of Bangkok ablaze were beamed around the globe. The defiance of the Red Shirts earned them the reputation of provocateurs.

But is this fair? After all, the Red Shirts aren’t the original Bangkok protesters—that title goes to the Yellow Shirts. To better understand the tactics of the Red Shirts, it’s essential to understand the Yellows. In fact doing so gives a glimpse of how much, in some ways, the two warring groups in this divided country actually have in common.

The ‘Yellow’ People’s Alliance for Democracy led anti-corruption protests in 2005 and 2006 that triggered a coup that resulted in the ousting of the government of Thaksin Shinawatra. Believing that the government that replaced Thaksin was still influenced by the deposed leader, the Yellow Shirts mounted an aggressive protest campaign in 2008, quietly stopping their protests when Abhisit was made prime minister.

How did the Yellow Shirts do it? In August 2008, thousands of Yellow Shirt protesters occupied Thailand’s Government House, remaining in the government complex until September. The group was also able to disrupt railway operations and three domestic airports including Phuket airport, a major tourist gateway.

The group upped the ante in November by pushing for a ‘final battle’ to remove the elected government and attacked several physical symbols of power, such as the parliament building and the homes of Cabinet ministers, before storming Bangkok’s two major airports. The Yellow Shirts controlled the airports for 8 days, disrupting the tourism that is the lifeline of the Thai economy and stranding more than 300,000 passengers in the process. They agreed to end their protests in December of that year when a court order disqualified allies of Thaksin from running for public office again.

They chose yellow in honour of King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the most revered figure in Thailand. The Reds chose their colour not in defiance of the King, but just to be different, and evolved into the anti-government group that has demanded the resignation of a leader they argue is illegitimate and undemocratic.

So despite their professed differences, the Red Shirts succeeded in replicating the Yellow Shirts’ tactics, grabbing the attention of world leaders in the process last year when their protests forced the cancellation of a major regional summit in Pattaya in April.

The similarities don’t end there. Both the Red and Yellow Shirts have been criticized for using undemocratic tactics to achieve their goals, and despite their claim that they espouse non-violence, both have been accused of instigating deadly violence. By shutting down Bangkok’s two major airports, the Yellow Shirts inconvenienced hundreds of thousands of passengers in Thailand and nearby countries, while by occupying a busy commercial centre in Bangkok for two months this year, the Red Shirts destroyed the livelihoods of local entrepreneurs.

In addition, both Red and Yellow Shirts have confronted the violent machinery of the state, when their peaceful and unarmed protesters were attacked by armed military and police (is brute force colour-blind when applied to groups demanding change?).

And there’s another similarity—both Red and Yellow Shirts wanted an end to corruption and tyranny in the Thai government, though such noble intentions were in both cases also tainted by incestuous ties with factions of the ruling elite. This is particularly unfortunate since veterans of the student movement of the 1970s are active in both of these warring groups.

The Red Shirts may have lost the short-term battle, but their democracy project remains unfinished. If the Yellow Shirts are really determined to permanently prevent Thaksin or his ilk from reclaiming power again, then they must use their influence in the Abhisit government to demand immediate political, economic and social reforms.

Something has to give. Failure to initiate reform will exacerbate the tensions between the two groups and risk the deadly fires that engulfed the capital last month spreading across the country.

1. So Far, Not so Bad
2. Disenfranchised Voters
3. Philippine Elections: The Good, the Bad, and the Funny
4. Replace or Retain Voting Machines?
5. Election Bugs
6. Battle of the Endorsers
7. And the Winners Are…

I’ve also written weblog reports about the ongoing political tension in Thailand. My focus is the citizen media coverage of the protest crackdown in Bangkok. These roundups were written for the Global Voices:

1. Thailand: Protest blockade ends in violence
2. Bangkok clashes: Pictures, Videos and Twitter reports
3. Thailand: Red Shirt protesters remain defiant
4. Thailand: Arson in Bangkok, protests spread to other provinces

“Smorgasbord of snippets”

On the new batch of senators – Their mandate will end on 2016. Six of the 12 winners are incumbents, while four are former senators. Two are children of former presidents, three are children of former senators, and three are grandchildren of former senators of the Republic. Four are actors and five are lawyers. Seven are from Luzon Island, four are from the Visayas, and only one came from Mindanao. Nine are candidates of the opposition. The top senatorial candidate received more than 18 million votes while the 12th senator garnered almost 10 million votes. Surprisingly, a TV/film star topped the senate race. No actor won in the 2007 senatorial elections.

On effective endorsers – There are winners, losers, and endorsers during elections. The list of winners and losers are now posted online, but it’s also worthwhile identifying the effective endorsers in the recent elections. Candidates need endorsers to improve their ratings, but sometimes even the most famous celebrities can’t reverse the sentiment of voters. It’s not enough to buy the support of well-known individuals and groups; candidates should first and foremost convince the public that they are superior over their rivals.

Unbelievable numbers – The recently concluded automated elections in the Philippines were immediately hailed as successful for producing quick and credible election results. Indeed, the counting and transmission of votes were quick. But were they accurate? Some candidates are claiming they were cheated and they say they have the numbers to prove it. The auto polls are now finished but canvassing of results is still ongoing. Reports of auto fraud continue to rise prompting some analysts to rethink their earlier judgment about the auto polls.

On the PCOS machines – Filipinos may be satisfied today with the performance of the PCOS but once the euphoria has died down maybe they will remember the flaws of the PCOS machine which affected the credibility of the automated election system. Maybe Filipinos will cite the inadequate security features of the machine and the awkward ballot design that was used in the elections. There are more advanced voting machines used around the world and the government should seriously consider looking for better alternatives than PCOS. If the government opts to use the PCOS again, it should correct the weak features of the machine. More importantly, the poll body should start training its personnel so that it will be more competent in handling the next auto polls

Who are the Red Shirts? There are Reds, Yellows, Blues, and Pinks in Thailand. Let’s call them Thailand’s colored protesters. The political drama in Thailand can be compared to the Edsa Dos experience of the Philippines. I believe Thaksin is Thailand’s Erap but there are obvious differences. The Red Shirts are not the original provocative rallyists of Bangkok. The Yellow Shirts were more daring. Now these Yellows are in power

Check out my shelfari profile and review the books in my library.

The defamation suit was a reaction to an e-mail complaint sent by Prita to her friends and relatives about the bad service she received at Omni International Hospital in Tangerang. The letter was sent to 20 people in August 2008.

Prita wrote that she was misdiagnosed with dengue at Omni when she went to the hospital with high fever. She also complained about the unprofessional behavior of its doctors. After consulting a doctor in a different hospital, Prita found out that she had mumps, not dengue. Prita advised her friends not to visit Omni. Below is an excerpt of Prita’s open letter to her friends. The translation was made by Multiply blogger Koesuma:

“Don’t let my case happen to other lives especially children, elders and babies. Be careful of the hospital’s “international” title, because the more luxurious the hospital is, and the smarter the doctors are, the more frequent patients are subjected to lab tests, drug prescriptions and injections.

“It cost me my health. Maybe because the cost is covered with insurance that this hospital tried to reach my insurance limit as much as they could. But this hospital doesn’t care about the side effects of its greediness.

“May God give the management and doctors of Omni hospital a conscience to be reminded that someday they too will have family and children who will need medical attention. May they not endure what I had to go through at Omni hospital.”

Prita’s letter was widely circulated on the Internet. It even reached the management of Omni hospital. Because of her e-mail complaint, Prita was charged with defamation. It is peculiar that Omni’s lawyers accused Prita of violating the Information and Electronic Transaction Law, Indonesia’s Cyber Law, which will only take effect this year.

Prita was arrested last May and detained for three weeks. Her case was immediately reported by the media. Bloggers were outraged to learn that a nursing mother was jailed for sending an e-mail complaint. Due to public pressure, Prita was released from prison. It also helped that political candidates had been visiting her in jail.

Prita’s ordeal didn’t end in July when the court junked the case. Her doctors at Omni succeeded in convincing the prosecutors to challenge the ruling. Early last month, the Tangerang High Court found Prita guilty of defaming her doctors. The court ordered her to pay a fine of US$21,680. She was also given a jail sentence of six months.

Last week the court reversed its ruling and cleared Prita’s name. The court ruled that Prita didn’t commit an act of defamation because she merely sent a letter of complaint to select friends and relatives.

Prita’s legal battle has become a national issue in Indonesia. She became a symbol of an ordinary citizen who stood up and defended her rights against a big private corporation. Her trial put Indonesia’s justice system under intense public gaze and scrutiny.

Prita’s case triggered one of the most successful social media campaigns in the country. Facebook fan and advocacy pages in support of Prita attracted thousands of members. An online campaign was launched to collect the money needed to pay the court-imposed fine last month.

The Coins for Justice website was established to gather online and offline donations for Prita. Organizers wanted to collect 2.5 tons of coins. Donors came from everywhere. A former minister pledged US$10,000, or half the fine. Members of the Regional Representatives Council raised US$5,000. A fundraising concert was held. Before the end of December, the campaign had amassed almost US$90,000. The money will now be donated to a charity organization.

Bowing to public clamor, the government hinted that it was willing to review the controversial Cyber Law which was used in Prita’s case. This is good news for netizens who are appealing for a more democratic law that will govern Internet activities in the country.

It was the Internet that facilitated the spread of Prita’s famous e-mail complaint. It was also through the Internet that Prita’s Omni doctors were able to access the controversial letter. In the end, it was the Internet that helped Prita broadcast her appeal for justice and financial support. The Internet is an amazing but dangerous place.

By putting to shame the hospital which accused her of defamation, Prita has forced companies to reevaluate their standard procedures when accepting customer complaints. By refusing to back down in her legal fight, Prita proved that big companies do not always win in the courts.

To protect the morals of society, the youth arm of Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS Youth) proposed the banning of the Michael Learns to Rock reunion concert in Malaysia last August. This is the same political party which banned the concerts of “indecent” music stars like Beyonce, Avril Lavigne and Gwen Stefani in Malaysia.

Malaysian Muslims also weren’t allowed to watch the Black Eyed Peas concert because the show was sponsored by an alcohol company.

PAS Youth accused the foreign artists of corrupting the minds of the public. The group claimed that these types of concerts “will not help motivate the people to become good citizens, but instead will weaken their morals and mental strength, and at the same time will drag them down to drown in the turbulence of lust.”

For promoting same-sex relationships, which are contrary to religious beliefs, the Philippine Commission on Elections has rejected the petition of gay group Ang Ladlad to be recognized as a party that can run in the 2010 elections. The poll body used religious texts like the Bible and Koran, instead of legal documents, to justify its ruling.

The Ang Ladlad group was described by the government election body as an immoral party because it espouses same-sex marriage and other equality demands of the Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender or LGBT sector.

Indonesia’s Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring surprised many when he asserted during a prayer meeting that the powerful quake that rocked Indonesia this year was due to declining public morals.

During an interview he said, “Television broadcasts that destroy morals are plentiful in this country and therefore disasters will continue to occur.” He cited the Indonesia-made porn DVDs which are available in street markets as proof of public decadence. His statement about the immorality-disaster link was supported by the influential Indonesian Ullema Council.

The concert ban in Malaysia, the anti-LGBT ruling in the Philippines, and the immorality equals earthquake thesis in Indonesia confirm the dominance of traditional and conservative values in modern Southeast Asian societies. Despite the economic and technological advances in the region, medieval thinking still reigns in many countries. Government bodies are still ruled by old bureaucrats who cling to feudal values and beliefs. Tech-savvy leaders like Tifatul Sembiring still espouse anti-scientific views.

Church leaders are expected to remind the faithful about the need to follow the teachings of their religion. On the other hand, public officials are not required to subscribe to a particular religious doctrine in fulfilling their constitutional duties. In fact, they are disallowed from using their power and position to advance and impose their religious beliefs on the public.

Secular institutions and public officials usurp the role of the church when they act as guardians of public morals. Their mandate is not to serve as spokespersons and proxies of church leaders. They should not behave like morality cops who dictate what is right and wrong for everybody. Asian countries may have won their political independence decades ago but many are still not free from the clutch of religious bigotry.

To maintain peace and order, governments always devise procedures to control the activities of their citizens. The morality card is being played to produce desirable attitudes, sentiments and behavior among the population.

Perhaps the morality issue is used today in response to the worsening global economic crisis. Governments are afraid that the jobless and hungry segments of the population will express their frustration through radical actions. By invoking morality, governments aim to discourage dissidence.

By banning concerts, denying equal rights and blaming immoral behavior for the occurrence of natural disasters, repressive governments with democratic trappings are hinting that they are ready to displease a certain segment of the population if it will serve their political interests.

Today, immorality is equated with rock stars, same-sex relationships and pornography. Soon the sin of immorality might be extended to all those who dare oppose the policies of the government. Moralist politicians want to normalize the practice of naming things they dislike as immoral. It is important to prevent the morality cops from monopolizing the debate on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.

When hypocrites accuse our favorite rock stars of being immoral, we should advise them that they can choose not to listen to these immoral entertainers. When gay groups are disqualified from running for public office, we should appeal that all corrupt politicians should be prevented too from holding a public position.

Asserting equality demands is a moral right. Rejecting bigotry is a moral stand. Defying unjust policies is a moral act. If we are labeled as immoral because we refuse to surrender our principles, then by all means, let’s prove that sometimes promoting immorality can be the most subversive act we can achieve in our lifetime.

Related articles:

RH bill
Ultranationalism

The 1961 agreement provides for the selling of 350 million gallons of raw water daily at 3 Malaysian cents per 1,000 gallons. In return, Singapore had agreed to provide Johor, a Malaysian state near Singapore, with a daily supply of treated water at a price of 50 cents per 1,000 gallons. This agreement will end in 2011.

The 1962 agreement gave Singapore the right to draw water from Johor River. The agreement also guaranteed Johor with a daily supply of treated water from Singapore. This agreement is valid for 99 years.

Since the first water agreement will end in 2011, many are asking if Malaysia will renegotiate for a better deal. If Malaysia decides not to extend the water agreement, where will Singapore get its water supply? Will this issue drive a wedge between the two neighboring countries?

Through his very popular blog, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad hints at the unfairness of the current deal. He is quietly nudging the current government to demand a higher price for the water that the country is delivering to Singapore. Here is an excerpt from his blog:

“2011 is not too far away. Have we thought about extending the 2011 treaty or not extending it or negotiating a new water supply agreement? Are we going to be charitable again and sell raw water at 3 cents per thousand gallons to our rich neighbor? Being charitable and not raising prickly issues is a good way to make friends. But what is the cost to the people of Malaysia?”

The sarcasm is evident. Mahathir is indirectly castigating the incumbent government for failing to raise the contentious provisions of the water deals with Singapore authorities.

As expected, Mahathir’s commentary elicited strong reactions in cyberspace. Several Malaysian netizens have joined Mahathir in pointing out the need to charge Singapore higher water rates to reflect current market prices. They deem it unacceptable that Malaysia is conducting a losing business by charging its customer “horrible” low prices. They describe the present water agreement as an unreasonable and ridiculous deal.

But there are also Malaysian bloggers who blame the Mahathir administration for the stalled negotiations between Singapore and Malaysia. They cite Mahathir’s “inability to compromise and impatience” with Singapore for the failure of the two parties to review the water agreements more than a decade ago.

This was also asserted by Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, which published a primer in 2003 to clarify the issues surrounding the Malaysia-Singapore water agreements. In this primer, Singapore insisted that it had been fair in dealing with Malaysia regarding the water deals. Below is an excerpt from the primer:

“The water dispute is not about money but Singapore’s existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore’s existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore’s independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.”

“The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.”

The Singapore Ministry also emphasized that the payment for the raw water it buys from Malaysia is not cheap since the latter does not contribute a cent in building, maintaining, and upgrading water treatment facilities. The ministry asserted it is Malaysia that should be embarrassed since it sells the treated water supply to Malaysian consumers at exorbitant prices even though the Malaysian government has minimal investments in water facilities.

Perhaps anticipating that Malaysia might use the water deals to acquire political and other concessions from Singapore in the future, the prosperous city-state has been successfully adopting and developing new technologies in order to achieve water self-sufficiency. Singapore has developed NEWater – reclaimed and treated wastewater – and it recently constructed the biggest desalination plant in Asia.

Because Singapore has learned to recycle water, does this mean it can survive if Malaysia stops delivering water? Most likely Singapore needs to continue importing water from Malaysia. The immigrant population continues to rise in Singapore. The government has been aggressively encouraging its citizens to produce more babies. Singapore’s dependence on raw water from Malaysia will not decrease.

This means Malaysia and Singapore should immediately sit down and renew negotiations on the water agreement, which is about to expire. There is no need to spark an unnecessary war between two friendly countries.

Related articles:

Wet, dry and panic season
Water runs dry
On fishy waters

For example, there are still unsettled border disputes between Vietnam, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, Myanmar and Cambodia. Indonesia is accusing Malaysia of stealing its cultural heritage. Thailand and Cambodia are feuding over the ownership of the historic Preah Vihear temple and the four square kilometers of territory around it.

The recent U.S.-ASEAN Summit was an opportunity for regional leaders to resolve these conflicts. Fortunately for Malaysia and Indonesia, their leaders decided to be friendly during the event. Steps were taken to improve political and economic ties between the two countries.

But the diplomatic row between Thailand and Cambodia has worsened in the past few weeks. Thailand and Cambodia recalled their ambassadors from each other’s capital. An energy exploration deal between the two nations was suspended. The issues are obviously no longer confined to a border dispute. What or who fueled the higher level of animosity between the two neighbors?

The decision of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen to appoint Thailand’s controversial former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra as his special economic adviser did not amuse Thai authorities. Thailand interpreted this move as an intrusion into its internal affairs. The quarrel intensified when Thaksin arrived and stayed in Phnom Penh for five days to give a lecture on the global economic crisis.

Thai officials immediately petitioned for the extradition of Thaksin, who is facing a two-year jail term for corruption. Cambodia refused the request, arguing that Thaksin is a political, not criminal, convict. Also, Hun Sen considers Thaksin his “eternal friend.”

Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 coup. To escape serving a prison term for corruption, he has been living in many countries around the world. The billionaire politician believes he could not get a fair trial in Thailand. He is accusing the present government of being illegitimate and repressive.

Angered by Cambodia’s refusal to extradite Thaksin, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has threatened to close the Thailand-Cambodia borders, which could disrupt and hurt the economic activities in the region. Thai authorities are also preparing to evacuate their citizens in Cambodia in case a war erupts between the two nations.

It is difficult to ascertain Hun Sen’s real motive in appointing Thaksin as his adviser. He knew it would provoke a negative reaction in Thailand. He knew it would further strain relations between two countries. His action definitely reflected his deep anger against the Bangkok government, which ordered a buildup of Thai troops in the Preah Vihear territory last year.

Thaksin, a master at using the media for maximum political effect, agreed to accept Cambodia’s offer during the same week that the ASEAN Summit was held in Thailand. Thaksin always manages to steal the headlines every time Thailand hosts an international event.

But his decision to become Hun Sen’s adviser could ruin his plan of staging a grand political comeback. Thaksin’s political rivals and some media analysts are accusing the former leader of being a traitor to Thailand for accepting a post in a rival nation.

It is understandable for Abhisit to hate both Thaksin and Hun Sen. The two “eternal friends” are obviously working together to undermine Abhisit’s administration. But the Oxford-educated leader should not lose his cool.

Abhisit should be more diplomatic while not losing his assertiveness. He should study the results of a Bangkok University poll conducted last week, which showed that the majority of respondents preferred a soft approach when negotiating with Cambodia. The same poll also showed that an overwhelming majority is opposed to the closing of the Thailand-Cambodia border.

Closing the border today would not only hurt the economies of the two countries, it would also jeopardize the process of normalizing the relationship of the two neighboring nations.

Hun Sen, Thaksin and Abhisit will all manage to survive the current political tensions between Cambodia and Thailand. They can even benefit from the turmoil if they calculate their moves.

Those who stand to lose in this political drama are the citizens of both countries. Instead of celebrating the common history which Cambodia and Thailand share together, their leaders are finding fault with one another. Instead of striving to build a strong unified economy in the region, they are threatening to destroy the livelihood and economic prospects of their neighbors.

Prolonging the diplomatic impasse between Cambodia and Thailand is not good for ASEAN. It is a global embarrassment since it exposes the inability of ASEAN to foster unity and camaraderie among its members. ASEAN leadership is needed to close the gap between Thailand and Cambodia.

Related articles:

Unfriendly neighbors in Southeast Asia
Solidarity needed in Southeast Asia
Thailand’s ‘colored’ protesters