A delicate and decisive step towards a ceasefire on the Thai and Cambodian frontline — Phar Kim Beng
This, what emerged from that encounter in Putrajaya, the administrative capital of Malaysia, may not be a final resolution writ large—granted this is a historical feud—but it is undoubtedly a delicate and decisive step forward.
In a region where border flare-ups are often left to fester or quietly extinguished by backroom diplomacy, this was a moment of strategic transparency and calibrated cooperation.
The meeting, co-organized with the participation of the United States and the People's Republic of China, where the latter was a keen Observer and responsible stakeholder, produced something seldom achieved so quickly in the midst of rising hostilities: a mutual pledge to immediately halt all military activity.
The ceasefire agreement—set to take effect by the end of that day—reflects the seriousness with which both Cambodia and Thailand have decided to de-escalate.
What makes this moment especially promising is not merely the ceasefire itself, but the careful architecture built around it to ensure accountability and communication. How ?
There is now a clearly defined system of coordination in place. On the military front, regional commanders from both sides—those operating closest to the flashpoints—will hold face-to-face discussions to ensure the ceasefire holds at the operational level.
These formal and informal meetings signal a shift from confrontation to collaboration, allowing military actors to communicate directly rather than through politicized or delayed national channels. Commanders can talk to commanders to halt the violence while the capitals and the world will back them.
Simultaneously, the foreign and defense ministers of all three countries—Malaysia, Cambodia, and Thailand—have been instructed to formulate a detailed mechanism for the implementation and verification of the ceasefire. This will likely involve daily reporting, neutral observation, and clearly outlined rules of engagement.
Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (centre) mediates a ceasefire deal between Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet (left) and Thailand's Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai (right) in Putrajaya on July 28, 2025 to ease escalating tensions following an armed confrontation between the two South-east Asian countries. — Bernama pic
The political and military chain of command are therefore engaged in parallel with the Cambodian and Thai military, reinforcing the ceasefire from both the top and bottom of the security architecture. As President Donald Trump of the United States has further warned. If the guns do not go silent, come August 1, Thailand and Cambodia will not get a "trade deal" to reduce the high tariffs with which the US is about to impose on them. For the sake of their national interest, the military and political elites of Cambodia and Thailand should take heed. Malaysia has yet to reach a deal with the US yet. But Anwar has taken his vital time off his packed schedule, too, to help both sides make peace.
Perhaps most importantly, both Phnom Penh and Bangkok have agreed to resume direct communication between their respective Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, and Defense Ministers. This step not only restores trust but also institutionalizes it. Direct lines of communication reduce the risk of miscalculation and create space for longer-term dialogue to stabilize the 817 KM border that separates them.
On the multilateral side, a crucial meeting of the General Border Committee is scheduled to take place in the coming days. Cambodia will host this meeting, which should serve as the first formal platform to stabilize the ceasefire and propose future cooperation on unresolved border demarcation issues. Malaysia, as Chair of Asean, has offered to coordinate a neutral observer team to monitor implementation on the ground.
This is no small offer, given the Chair's centrality in Asean's consensus-based diplomacy and the credibility it carries within the region.
Notably, both the United States and China have endorsed and participated in this process. President Donald Trump has indeed reportedly communicated directly with both leaders, urging them toward peace. It is unique that the US has offered itself to ameliorate the tensions between Cambodia and Thailand without being intimidated by how complex the situation on the ground is.
China, meanwhile, has remained in constant contact with all key actors and supports the broader effort to reestablish normalcy. That these two great powers—often at odds in Southeast Asia—can find common ground with the Chair of Asean, therein Anwar, on this issue reinforces how high the stakes are for regional peace and stability.
Yet despite this rare alignment of interests, the situation remains fragile. Ceasefires are only as strong as the discipline of those tasked with enforcing them. Border skirmishes can reignite from a single misfire, especially when nationalism, historical grievances, or digital misinformation stoke the flames.
That is why the establishment of a joint mechanism for verification, supported by Asean observers, is essential. Without it, peace could prove elusive.
Kuala Lumpur has therefore not only offered a space for resolution—it has provided a blueprint for how peace might take root. The architecture is sound: military-to-military dialogue, ministerial coordination, resumed political communication, regional oversight, and great power buy-in. But these are only frameworks. The true test will come in how each actor chooses to honour the commitments made in Malaysia's capital.
In the weeks ahead, the spotlight will remain fixed on Cambodia and Thailand, but also on Malaysia as the steward of Asean's moral and strategic leadership. This is a chance not only to prevent further loss of life but also to reaffirm the region's commitment to peaceful coexistence, diplomacy, and responsible statecraft. If the momentum gained in Kuala Lumpur can be maintained, this ceasefire may become something more than just a pause—it may become the first page in a new chapter of regional stability.
* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies at IIUM and director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Race-based policies a thorn in both sides, says ex-Umno man
(From left) Shahril Hamdan, formerly of Umno, was at a panel discussion with Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad of PKR and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal of Bersatu. KUALA LUMPUR : A former Umno leader has called for an honest national dialogue on how Bumiputera policies are implemented, as current approaches have bred resentment not just among non-Bumiputeras but also within the Bumiputera community itself. 'I think you need to make sure that whatever set of policies you have, reduce resentment,' former Umno Supreme Council member Shahril Hamdan said at the Malaysian student leaders summit held here today. 'There's too much resentment in this country,' he said. 'Clearly, the Bumiputera policy has been actioned in a way that has caused resentment among the non-Bumiputeras. And what's tragic is that you also have resentment from the Bumiputera community. 'Although they get Bumiputera privilege, they feel that they got a raw deal,' he said at a panel discussion on the mandate of the Madani government. Another speaker, former minister Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad of PKR said Malaysia should gradually shift away from race-based affirmative action to a needs-based approach, which was also seen in the 13th Malaysia Plan. Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal of Bersatu called for the social contract to be renegotiated, through a national dialogue. He agreed that some reforms were overdue, saying: 'It's high time in certain areas, race-based policies need to be forgone.' However, he said he would continue to uphold Bumiputera rights and privileges as part of his political struggle, but without sacrificing justice for other communities, because strategic intervention or affirmative action in certain areas was still needed on a race-based basis. Shahril said Singapore also provides for Malay rights in its constitution, but does so without stoking public frustration. 'Nobody talks about it, because the way it is expressed is probably a lot smaller than ours, and secondly, it's done in a way that does not cause resentment.' He said Malaysia's constitutional provisions for Bumiputera rights are difficult to amend, requiring not only a two-thirds majority in Parliament but also consent from the Conference of Rulers. 'So how do we then action (act) the policy in a particular way that reduces resentment? And that's a worthwhile national dialogue to have, but it has to be done honestly and sincerely,' he added. Wan Fayhsal, in calling for renegotiation of the social contract, said: 'How do we go about it? Through political discussion. And there has to be a lot of engagements done by political parties and governments. It's a national dialogue to begin with.' Any shift towards a more inclusive identity must be preceded by public engagement, 'unless you want a somewhat equal identity of Malaysian-based politics or economic policy'. Nik Nazmi said affirmative action must also consider other factors beyond race. 'We need to look at gender, look at communities, and race in terms of how you push people to participate in the country,' he said. He said this shift was discussed in Najib Razak's government and remains relevant today. Current policies place excessive focus on race alone, which undermines the broader goals of equitable development, he said. The three political leaders were responding to a question on what each panel member thought about Bumiputera quotas and the relationships between Bumiputeras and non-Bumiputeras.
Free Malaysia Today
6 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Creating Anwar's legacy — ending ‘gomenshud'
One of the most common Malaysian words I hear is 'gomenshud'. This is used whenever an issue of concern arises and the 'government should' do something about it rather than the private sector or, heaven-forfend, that individuals should fix it for themselves. It is ironic that people complain of incompetence, systemic corruption and moral turpitude within the executive, legislature, judiciary and the permanent civil service at federal and state levels but still demand that more money, responsibility and interference opportunities should be handed to them. The economics of government and policy design, called 'public choice theory' tells us clearly that people in government are not driven by the 'greater good' or the 'public interest', they are, just like the rest of us, driven by personal and collective self-interest. This is not meant to be cynical or offensive but simply to help us understand those in public policy as human beings — they have hopes and dreams, they want to make life easy for themselves as far as possible and if there is a chance to make a few bucks they will take it. Each year the auditor-general reports hundreds of millions lost in wastage and leakages across the government sector. The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) estimates RM277 billion lost to corruption between 2018 and 2023. The think tank Emir Research estimates that RM4.5 trillion was lost to corruption in the last 26 years. This is all identified after the fact and to stop this haemorrhage of resources we need to address the 'gomenshud mentality' which defaults to intervention from the start without proper evaluation of the costs and benefits and the likely losses due specifically to policy design. A common form of policy design in Malaysia is the 'patronage cascade' where projects, concessions and access routes to money are specifically built-in to benefit middlemen often through pre-allocated packages and contracts. With this in mind, the 13th Malaysia Plan which will be tabled this week should reduce the role and interference of government. We should be cautious if we see 'patronage cascades' where policies are specifically designed to pass projects to vested interests. Instead, broad-based universal programmes, available to everyone, with open and transparent access routes should be the emphasis. This can be achieved first by government exiting commercial activities which crowd out large businesses, SMEs and micro enterprises and leaving these activities to the private sector. Second by slashing regulations and focusing only on minimum standards of health and safety, anti-corruption, good governance and anti-trust issues. Finally, by focusing on the basic role of government in many areas where there are direct and legitimate concerns for public policy including public health, education and social protection. Economic mechanisms we hope to see in the 13MP include liberalisation of markets, reducing regulatory burdens, limiting government interference and promoting creative, innovative, agile, competitive businesses. The US tariff issue also sends us a lesson that protectionist policies come with a reciprocal cost. So removing restrictions to market access should also be a priority for the 13MP. Proper independent assessments have rarely been made of the targets of previous Malaysia plans and many have not been delivered, fully or at all. The main unfulfilled target of every Malaysia plan is to build in a mechanism to end the need for future plans. In other words, these are 'forever wars' against dreamed up economic challenges more typical of centrally planned economies. They are increasingly irrelevant in a modern technology-driven economic environment in which anything laid down in July 2025 will be obsolete by December 2025 let alone by 2030 — gomenshud recognise this and end it once and for all. The views expressed are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Free Malaysia Today
8 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Review 25km ‘straight-line' travel allowance for Sabah teachers, says union
The union said several teachers in Sabah were forced to pay back the travel allowances they had received. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : The education ministry and public services department have been urged to review the implementation of a new 25km 'straight-line' travel allowance rule for teachers in Sabah. The allowance for teachers travelling from their home to their schools is capped at a travel distance of 25km, measured as a straight line on a map rather than the actual distance covered by road. The Sabah government teachers' union (KGKS) said this rule cannot be implemented rigidly in Sabah given the state's hilly terrain and lack of infrastructure, like roads. KGKS president Gundohing Murkam Hussien cited the example of teachers working at SK Penimbawan Tuaran, which can be reached by boat or road, The Borneo Post reported. 'The first way is by boat along the river, which takes between 10 and 15 minutes, depending on weather conditions. The second is to use a car and drive for 78km. 'This means that strictly enforcing the 25km requirement is not appropriate. After considering the views of all KGKS members, the union has agreed to appeal to the ministry to review this issue,' he said. Gundohing said several teachers under KGKS were taking home lower salaries now because of this rule. Previously, they were given the travel allowance after it had been verified by the district education office. Gundohing also said some teachers were ordered to repay the allowances they had 'wrongly' received, forcing a few of them to apply for bank loans or sell their cars to pay off the amount. 'Of course, the teachers involved have been badly affected, leading to a decrease in their enthusiasm for work. 'All those involved in the process (of approving the allowances for the teachers) should by right be held responsible and share the cost of these claims,' he said.
