Behind deadly clashes, a bitter spat between 2 dynastic leaders
He had a stunning message to deliver: His decades-long relationship with Cambodian strongman Hun Sen was over. "I used to be close to him - like brothers," Thaksin said. "But after what he did to my daughter, I was shocked. How could this even happen?"
For years, many had believed that the personal relationship between Thaksin, 75, and Hun Sen, 72, would be the glue holding the two neighbors together despite an border dispute.
Both were among Southeast Asia's most seasoned politicians, bound by a friendship spanning 33 years and by their shared dynastic ambitions, with children who were elevated to power within a year of each other.
Now, a rift has opened up between the two men, bewildering even Thaksin himself and shocking insiders. And the fallout has been severe, with Thai and Cambodian troops exchanging fire in the deadliest clashes in over a decade.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Bo Derek's Probably The Most Gorgeous 68-Year-Old.
Paperela
Undo
Analysts say they worry that the animosities could spiral out of control.
Hours after fighting began Thursday, Thaksin and Hun Sen lobbed insults at each other on social media. Thaksin said many had offered to mediate but that he wanted to "let the Thai military do their duty to teach Hun Sen a lesson about his cunning ways first."
Hun Sen fired back at Thaksin on FB while referring to himself in the third person: "Now, under the pretext of taking revenge on Hun Sen, he is resorting to war, the ultimate consequence of which will be the suffering of the people."
Analysts say Hun Sen has sought to exploit the turmoil within the Thai govt to shore up his own legitimacy. Even opposition figures in Cambodia have taken the govt's side, arguing that the disputed temples that lie along the border belong to the country.
A crisis may solidify the nationalist credentials of Hun Manet, the current prime minister and Hun Sen's son, who has implied that Cambodia's one-party rule is better than the domestic chaos in Thailand because there is "no confusion or conflicting orders."
The political standing of Thaksin, a billionaire tycoon, and his ruling Pheu Thai party have both weakened since he struck a deal with the royalist-military establishment in 2022 to end 15 years of exile, alienating his core supporters.
For decades, Thaksin and Hun Sen worked to anchor their personal and political fortunes together. In 2001, they signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue the extraction of oil and gas in the Gulf of Thailand.
But that plan fizzled because of resistance from Thaksin's rivals.
Hun Sen and Thaksin remained close even after Thaksin was ousted in a 2006 coup. Hun Sen appointed Thaksin as an economic adviser to the Cambodian govt, and allowed him and his sister, Yingluck, who was also overthrown in a coup, to seek refuge in his home in Cambodia. Hun Sen later said he named the bedrooms the "Thaksin room" and the "Yingluck room."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
Ritlal's teacher wife to face action for biz partnership
Patna: Rinku Devi, wife of incarcerated Danapur MLA Ritlal Yadav, is set to face legal action for being a partner in a construction company while serving as a govt school teacher in Patna. ADG (headquarters) Kundan Krishnan has written a letter to the additional chief secretary (ACS) of the education department, S Siddharth, for action against Rinku. Rinku is a contractual teacher employed at Kothwa Mushari Vidyalaya in Patna district. However, an investigation revealed that she was involved in business activities as a partner of a construction firm. Bihar STF is already reviewing a case related to RJD MLA Ritlal Yadav, and his family has come under administrative and legal scrutiny. In the letter sent to the education department, it has been mentioned that Rinku has been a partner in a firm named "Vijay Construction" since Nov 11, 2017. This came to light during the investigation of a case registered at Khagaul police station. The ADG stated in his letter that indulging in commercial activities while being in govt service is a violation of the Bihar Govt Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, and the Bihar govt's 2024 notification for the code of conduct. Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas in Dubai | Search Ads Get Info Undo by Taboola by Taboola Gangster-turned-politician Ritlal's wife has worked as a teacher for the last 19 years at the primary school in Kothwa Mushari, Danapur sub-division. Ritlal was arrested by Patna police for allegedly demanding extortion money from a builder. Ritlal, a close aide of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad, surrendered in the case in April this year at Danapur court. After keeping him in Beur jail for a few days, the police shifted him to Bhagalpur jail citing security reasons.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Negative approach': PM Modi slams Congress' 'questions' on Op Sindoor, Balakot, Abhinandan; 'old habit of doubting armed forces'
Prime Minister Narendra Modi NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday criticised the Congress party for questioning army operations, saying it has long been the party's "old habit" to take a negative approach toward the armed forces. Narrating his government's cross-border operations against Pakistan, PM Modi said the Congress party sought proof of the 2017 surgical strikes carried out at terrorist bases in PoJK after the Uri terror attack. During the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor, PM Modi further said: "But when they read the public mood, Congress changed tune to claim that their governments too had carried out surgical strikes." "Opposing the army and showing negativity towards it -- this has been Congress's old attitude. The country just observed Kargil Vijay Diwas , but the nation knows that during its tenure, and even today, Congress has neither accepted the victory of Kargil, nor celebrated Kargil Vijay Diwas, nor honoured Kargil's glory," the PM said. PM Modi also lashed out at the Congress for demanding the photographic evidence after the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, which were carried out after a terrorist attack on an army convoy in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama. The Prime Minister claimed that when Pakistan captured IAF pilot Abhinandan, some in India were "whispering quietly that now Modi is trapped". "When pilot Abhinandan was captured, it was natural for there to be celebration in Pakistan -- after all, they had caught a pilot from the Indian Air Force. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World But even here, there were some people whispering quietly... 'Now Modi is trapped, let's see what Modi does now'. Abhinandan returned -- openly, proudly, and with full honour," PM Modi said. "After the Pahalgam attack, when one of our BSF jawans was taken captive by Pakistan, they [Congress ] thought -- Now Modi will be trapped. Now Modi will surely be disgraced. And their ecosystem spread all kinds of narratives on social media. What will happen to the BSF jawan? What will happen to his family? That BSF jawan too returned with honour, pride, and dignity," PM Modi said. Praising India's air defence system for neutralising Pakistani drones and missiles "like straws," PM Modi took a jibe at the opposition and said: "Not just me but the entire country is laughing at you." "Terrorists are crying, their masterminds are crying and seeing them cry, some people are crying here too. They tried to play a game during surgical strike, it didn't work. During airstrike, they tried playing another game. That didn't work either. When Operation Sindoor took place, they adopted a new tactic - "Why did you stop?"... Waah re bayan bahaduron! You need one or the other excuse to oppose. So, not just me but the entire country is laughing at you.
