Dear Cambodian Professionals

“Was there cheating in the election on 29th July 2018 or not?”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro (Cambodian Professionals online network)

“… I personally collected the results of the election on 29th July 2018 from 82 polling stations in 6 schools in Phnom Penh. I simply used my phone to take snapshots of the result Form 1102 that was displayed on the outside polling station.”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro

“In my opinion based on this evidence, other anecdotes, I don't think there was cheating or cooking in this election.”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro

“It is important to bear in mind that the sample is not a representative one for Phnom Penh or Cambodia, but it is a large enough number of polling stations (82) in 6 schools, which can tell some meaningful statistics, I believe.”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro

“The key finding is that the result of this sample is not too different from the preliminary result published by NEC in terms of voter turnout rate (74% from the sample), invalid votes (15% from the sample), and the votes for CPP and other small parties.”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro

“This finding suggests to me that if any cheating or cooking it would not have happened at the level above the polling stations. There would be no need to cheat and change such already good results at the polling stations. So if any cheating, it would have happened at the polling stations, which I think is very very difficult to do.”

Centre for Policy Studies Director Chan Sophal, 1 August 2018, Campro

Director Chan Sophal poses a controversial question, does Hun Sen cheat in the recent elections?

In his scientific quest for the truth, the director who makes a living out of research work conducts a simple data collection. His sample size is 3.8% of all the 2,138 polling stations in Phnom Penh. He sprinkles over his research numbers “other anecdotes” though he does not specify the nature and extent of these additives. And then Voilà, Hun Sen does not cheat in Phnom Penh, and by the power of his statistical inference, anywhere. To justify this conclusion, he claims on CPP’s behalf that they do not need to cheat since they have done “tremendous work in both reforms and in pleasing their local constituencies”.

The director admits his sampling is not random. Any research professionals worth their salt know random sampling is a prerequisite for any statistically reliable and valid outcomes. He believes his sample size is large enough for “some meaningful statistics”. He does not say, however, if he calculates a confidence interval and level for his outcomes validity and reliability.

It is rather amusing the director seems excited to discover that his numbers and calculations are “not too different” from those of the NEC. He copies source numbers straight from the NEC’s published Form 1102; how could there be any material variance beyond calculation errors?

The director also believes – to support his conclusion that there is no cheating – any cheating at the poll stations will be “very very difficult to do”. No, it is not.

Here are some factors for the director who often claims to be logical to ponder if cheating is so difficult at poll stations. At every station in Phnom Penh, there are two CPP party agents making up a total of 72.6% of all party agents. Thirteen competing parties have none; six have a handful; they say they rely on the NEC’s integrity for a clean process; many are somewhat under CPP’s control or influence. All election officials are recruited by the NEC whose executive members are either CPP members or beneficiaries of a CPP patronage. Hence, a logical question is: are these minions stupid enough to deprive Hun Sen of what he wants – a high turnout that gives legitimacy of his next government? Indeed, it is inevitable they cheat; and it is up to them to sell it.

It remains unclear though why the director bastardises his sampling work. He may not have enough grasp of the technique complexity, or he just plays some 600 professionals on Campro network for a fool. Either way, the director clearly uses statistics like a drunk using a lamp post – for support rather than illumination.

It is hard to say whether the Campro professionals buy the director’s research method and conclusion. Most have held their cards close to their chest seldom saying anything at all online. Indeed, a few vocal ones will applaud them as they use the network mainly to go with the flow like a dead fish.

Ung Bun Ang

08viii18

Fake News You Can Trust

The following quote is an excerpt from a report in 1834 by Vietnamese General Troung Giang Ming to his emperor Minh Mang.

An opinion leader in the Campro network rebuts the quote pointing out his contemporaries are different from the Cambodian officials of 1834. He says they now have a much better brain with high education degrees up to PhD and beyond.

As it turns out, the only difference is that now with higher degrees of intelligence they also have developed a larger corrupt brain to deal with much bigger bribes their ancestors could never have dreamt of. They have been collectively validating General Troung research outcomes for 184 years and will likely continue do so until Vietnam completes its westward journey in Hun Sen’s peace and economic prosperity.

"After studying the [Cambodian] situation, we [Vietnamese] have decided that Cambodian officials only know how to bribe and be bribed. Offices are sold; nobody carries out orders; everyone works for his own account."

David Chandler (2008), A History of Cambodia, 4th Edition, Westview Press, Page 150

Should you wish to receive Pseng-Pseng on your screen as soon as it is released, subscribe to it at https://tinyletter.com/pseng-pseng

Pseng-Pseng is published irregularly. Previous issues are archived at pseng-pseng.blogspot.com