By:
• Sao Phal Niseiy

• 29, August 2024 , 2:15 PM

The way we in Cambodia interact, exchange ideas and converse has been transformed by the rise of social media in recent years.

Technological advancement makes passing on information easier and boosts the ability of people to engage but this comes at a cost.

One harmful effect is less tolerance of opposing thoughts. By tolerance, I mean  the ability to accept or respect “opinion, action or cultural trait” though you dislike or disagree. 

Many of you may have experienced this. We are afraid of ideas that are not ours. We fail to listen, let alone agree to disagree. 

We are also scared of expressing distinctive opinions while failing to fight to defend our differing views even when necessary because we are concerned about disrespectful reactions, personal attacks and harmful ramifications. This leads to severe social fragmentation and polarization. 

The main reason is Cambodia's political culture, built for decades on promoting anger, hatred, racial discrimination, and personal insults or attacks rather than emphasizing constructive policies and intellectual debates that catalyze sustainable growth. 

Since the first democratic elections in 1993, we have rarely seen any of our politicians engaging in open forums that involve direct questions from the public, particularly the press, or genuine debates that promote meaningful and impactful exchange of ideas. 

Instead, our political space has been dominated by one-sided reactions or denials, most frequently personal attacks, pointless disputes and rebuffing challenges. 

Political views, either of the government and its officials or those with the opposition camps, are becoming more averse to being questioned and less tolerant of differing opinions and opposing thoughts, adding a layer of complexity to the intolerance issue.

The second reason is the lack of exposure to more diverse thoughts in online conversations, which leads to an eco-chamber in which we share similar opinions, which outnumber independent thoughts.  

Like many countries, this trend is not a surprise, as it is shaped by digital media platforms and algorithms to boost users’ engagement and satisfaction.

Who benefits from this? The short answer is that many can — including tech companies. However, political actors also enjoy the benefits because it gives them an effective way to filter opinion. 

This serves their efforts to cope with rapid social, economic and political changes, which necessitate more appealing rhetorical alternatives and strategies that can be more suitable for rallying support and ensuring political control. 

That eventually leads to a condition in which moderate ideas and constructive criticisms that could improve society are often dismissed. 

Social media platforms are also manipulated with low-quality information, misinformation and disinformation, all designed to exploit the media landscape, using online trolls, bots, or other human-generated creations to ensure widespread distribution. 

Corrosion of our academic freedom also contributes to this complex problem. People can disagree, but I have seen the influence of political agendas extend to independent sectors such as education. 

Politics have often interfered with academic institutions, directly or indirectly, resulting in a steep decline in freedoms. Schools and educational institutions, which should stimulate intellectual debates and independent thinking, restrain open discussions of controversial domestic issues to avoid trouble. 

Many are willing to engage in discussions on international politics but few will address critical domestic problems. This lack of willingness to discuss critical issues and express alternative voices along with constructive feedback within academic communities is a sign of trouble and contributes to an increasingly intolerant society.

The government's lack of interest in promoting the press and expressive freedoms also contributes to intolerance. Critics have lamented the government for many years as it attempts to control independent media by shutting down critical outlets and cracking down on opposing views.

We often see people feeling intimidated, even when expressing their thoughts, for fear of repercussions, such as being accused of obstruction to development or public incitement. 

Misusing laws intended to protect rights and freedoms against those holding differing views contributes to a less tolerant society. In the political space, it suppresses political opponents to dismantle any credible political opposition. 

While the absence of effort to protect expressive freedoms and political rights limits people’s political choices, the inadequate level of independent journalism also prevents people from access to diverse, fact-based and accurate information. 

It is exemplified by the arrests of youth groups and social and political activists accused of plotting protests to topple the government this month. 

Instead of arbitrarily arresting anyone who speaks out against its policies, it would be better for the government to focus on addressing the underlying issues that caused public trust to decline and working on improving its ability to respond to the people’s concerns.

We must also discuss what can be done to alter the trajectory of intolerance. We must be brave enough to admit this is a severe social problem. When we do, it opens the door for us to figure out ways to deal with it. 

The issues do not come only from the government. The people are also responsible for curing the social disease of intolerance. They can do that when they gain a solid educational foundation and skills vital for thinking and articulating rational thoughts on different subjects. 

I recently read an opinion article titled “Can Cambodians Think?”; I totally agree that the country needs to invest more in educational reforms, extending the focus to boosting critical thinking, media and digital literacy, reading habits, and fostering a quality mindset. Robust reform in our education system, along with different awareness-raising campaigns on issues that encourage respecting other opinions and a tolerant society, especially among the younger generations, will be crucial.

In fact, continuing to foster a reading culture will help develop and advance open-mindedness and the ability to view things from different perspectives and boost critical thinking. 

The main issue may lie in the traditional political culture and constraints posed by politicians and key stakeholders. This hinders open conversation and consensus-building among the people. 

Ruling and opposition politicians need to reconsider their methods and mindset, which only prioritize their groups' interests over those of the public.

The government should also address the decline in academic freedoms to create an environment conducive to the free and scholarly exchange of ideas and innovative thinking. This will promote research and long-term development, leading to practical solutions for society's problems. 

The government should be wary of creating an echo chamber by suppressing opposing thoughts and criticism from the public. While this may result in short-term political gains, it can be highly destructive in the long run. 

It can fuel radicalized thinking and contribute to hostility and polarization, detrimental to social harmony and sustainable growth. 

The ruling establishment must have the courage to admit its mistakes and weaknesses and be open to constructive criticism and critical suggestions. 

Such a practice has always been crucial in government decision-making and policy formulation because alternative thoughts do not undermine the government’s position but complement and advance existing knowledge. 

Only when active participation and constructive feedback from the public are approved and endorsed can we build a more tolerant society that respects others and discounts no one.

We have failed to build a tolerant society because we haven’t yet agreed that this is a serious social issue. The longer we delay recognizing it as a pressing problem, the harder it will be to solve. Failure will hamper our efforts to ensure a harmonious and sustainable future. 

The ball is in our court but how we deal with it is problematic.