Nearly a year after fighting on the Thailand-Cambodia border, a ceasefire remains in place, but normal relations remain distant. Land crossings are still closed, distrust persists, and online hostility continues to shape public perceptions in both countries.
Against that backdrop, I met Cambodianess editor-in-chief Sao Phal Niseiy in Bangkok last month for a rare cross-border discussion on how journalists can report the conflict without deepening the divide. The meeting was made possible by the Bangkok-based Asia Centre, led by James Gomez, a Singaporean who is mostly based in Bangkok and tirelessly promotes democracy, human rights and peace in the region.
The three of us met for a fireside chat at a Bangkok hotel, with Gomez as moderator. He also wrote about it here
My main qualification for being the only Thai journalist to have met and held a serious discussion with a Cambodian counterpart in Bangkok amid continuing tensions between Thailand and Cambodia was that I am “chatty.”
Humour aside, I submitted a few questions for Niseiy regarding Thailand-Cambodia relations and prospects. Here are the questions and his answers:
Pravit: How would you describe the Cambodia-Thai conflict? One year on, is the situation getting better or worse?
Niseiy: I believe strong public sentiments remain, but we can also see that the situation is not as bad as it was during the conflict. Occasionally, tensions can erupt, particularly through social media and media reports, rather than through actual interactions between ordinary people. People still cross between the two countries by air, despite the fact that the land borders have remained closed.
With that said, I am cautiously optimistic. As long as we can push for a diplomatic breakthrough, prevent the recurrence of armed clashes and ensure that both sides continue to show restraint, we can begin thinking about what comes next. And it needs to come by changing public perception.
But the most critical part is how we can work together to discourage online slander, personal attacks and the spread of hatred that continue to deepen animosity. This effort seems to go beyond the interests or mandates of governments. Thus, the responsibility may also fall on the shoulders of private citizens, especially those who care about humanity and peace between nations.
The stakes of the ongoing conflict are too high for us to remain passive. Without action from all of us, it will not only continue to hurt people living along the border, but also risk creating long-term animosity and allowing an intergenerational conflict to take root, holding back both progress and harmony.
As for the restoration of relations, I repeat that this mission rests heavily upon every one of us, especially those who have influence over decision-making in Bangkok and Phnom Penh. We also have to recognize that both sides have domestic audiences to consider, and public sentiment carries significant political weight. This can pressure leaders to do what their public wants rather than what should be done.
That is why altering public perception remains key. If we can change those perceptions, or at least reduce the negativity that fuels hostility, then we can begin thinking about the rehabilitation and restoration of relations in the future.
To achieve that, we need a concerted effort among key actors and relevant stakeholders. What I see now are scattered efforts being mobilized by different groups, whether youth organizations, think tanks, civil society groups or even foreign countries such as China and potentially Japan. Until we can connect the dots and establish common channels, it will be difficult to achieve meaningful results in reducing polarization and animosity between the two peoples.
Pravit: Most media in both countries have been largely one-sided and focus on bad news from the other country. Is this healthy or mutually beneficial?
Niseiy: I think that is common when hatred is running deep among both peoples, and it allows the situation to be exploited by different actors, including the media. Some may be influenced by nationalist sentiment and find themselves entangled in what they see as an ultranationalist duty to fight.
Slandering those considered to be belligerent can also be praised as patriotic or nationalistic. Some media outlets may feel compelled to follow this pattern because it becomes part of the common narrative, which they can hardly resist. Others may fear public backlash if they do not follow it, especially when public sentiment becomes overwhelming.
Another key aspect is the changing online space, with a growing number of individual content creators, or so-called influencers. For some of them, media slander fits into a broader strategy of rage-baiting. Like some media outlets, their actions may be shaped by their views of Thailand or Cambodia, but there is also a financial motivation. The more hatred, reactions and comments they can generate, the more money they can make.
Unfortunately, this is how social media works, with these emotions amplified by algorithms. The situation will only worsen unless people understand their role in reducing hatred by refusing to fall into the algorithmic trap.
Pravit: What can be done about it? Social media spaces in both countries have become very toxic. Is there any light at the end of the tunnel? What is your key advice to the Thai government, media and people?
Niseiy: I think it is crucial that we pay close attention to tackling the toxic environment, but we should not focus on it without understanding the factors driving it. As I mentioned earlier, much of it is fueled by algorithms and money-driven practices.
But the media also needs to ask itself: What benefit is there in creating this toxic environment and carrying out slanderous campaigns?
Journalists should focus on producing carefully investigated reports that are balanced and contain elements that contribute to peace rather than further tearing the two sides apart while the situation remains fragile. It would also be valuable if media organizations from both countries could speak to one another more often and develop practical approach.
After answering my questions, Niseiy asked me to answer the same questions myself. I do not wish to make this article too long, so I will leave my responses for another occasion.