2024៖ បញ្ហានិងការប្រុងប្រយ័ត្នសម្រាប់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មានចិននៅបរទេស—សារពីប៉ូលីស

នៅថ្ងៃទី 26 ខែកញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ 2024 វេលាម៉ោង 1 រសៀល នាយករដ្ឋបាលស្នងការដ្ឋានបានផ្ញើសារមួយឲ្យអ្នកសារព័ត៌មាន VP ដែលបានបង្កើតការភ្ញាក់ផ្អើលយ៉ាងខ្លាំង។ ប្រសិនបើ VP មិនមែនជាមនុស្សដែលបានឆ្លងកាត់ឧបសគ្គជាច្រើន ស្ថានការណ៍នេះប្រហែលជាធ្វើឲ្យស្លូតត្រង់ជាច្រើន។ ដើម្បីការពារសុវត្ថិភាព និងការសម្ងាត់នៃព័ត៌មានផ្ទាល់ខ្លួន រូបតំណាង VP បានកាត់បន្ថយព័ត៌មានខ្លះ មុននឹងចែករំលែកសារនេះសម្រាប់ការវិភាគជាមួយសហគមន៍ចិននៅកម្ពុជា។ អត្ថន័យរបស់សារនេះមានន័យជ្រាលជ្រៅ ហើយសូមឲ្យពលរដ្ឋចិននៅបរទេសយកចិត្តទុកដាក់ដល់បញ្ហានេះ។

សារជជែកនោះចាប់ផ្ដើមដោយប៉ូលីសម្នាក់បានសួរអ្នកសារព័ត៌មាន VP ពីការផ្តល់ភស្តុតាងថា តើគាត់ពិតជាអ្នកកាន់ឈ្មោះនៃសារព័ត៌មានបែបនេះដែរឬទេ។ ក្នុងនាមជាមនុស្សម្នាក់ដែលធ្វើការផ្សាយព័ត៌មានអស់រយៈពេល៦ឆ្នាំចូលរួមក្នុងការលើកកម្ពស់ភាពវិជ្ជាជីវៈ និងធ្វើការជាសារព័ត៌មានដែលមានសុចរិតតាំងពីដើមមក សំណួរនេះធ្វើឲ្យ VP មានការភ្ញាក់ផ្អើលចំពោះការសង្ស័យនេះ។

ការចោទសួរពីសំណាក់ប៉ូលីស

សារ​ដែល​ប៉ូលីសបានចោទសួរនោះ​បានលេចឡើងនៅក្នុងការសន្ទនាដូចខាងក្រោម៖

• ប៉ូលីស៖ “យើងត្រូវការការបញ្ជាក់ពីការងាររបស់អ្នកនៅបរទេស។ អ្នកអាចផ្តល់បានទេ?”
• VP៖ “ច្បាស់ជា​បាទ/ចាស តើត្រូវការវត្ថុអ្វីខ្លះ?”
• ប៉ូលីស៖ “ការបញ្ជាក់ពីការងារផ្លូវការអ្វីមួយគ្រឿងគ្រប់គ្រាន់ហើយ។”
• VP៖ “ខ្ញុំជាអ្នកសារព័ត៌មានដែលមានវិជ្ជាជីវៈ ហើយក៏មិនដែលផ្លាស់ប្តូរវិជ្ជាជីវៈផងដែរ។”
• ប៉ូលីស៖ “តើអ្នកមានឯកសារចុះបញ្ជីអាជីវកម្មនៅក្នុងតំបន់ទេ?”
• VP៖ “មិនមែនជាអាជីវកម្មផ្ទាល់ខ្លួនទេ ខ្ញុំគ្រាន់តែជាម្ចាស់ភាគហ៊ុនប៉ុណ្ណោះ។”
• ប៉ូលីស៖ “អញ្ចឹងក៏បានដែរ។”

អ្នកដែលបានធ្វើការរស់នៅកម្ពុជាយូរណាស់ ចាប់អារម្មណ៍យ៉ាងខ្លាំងលើបញ្ហាដូចនេះ ដោយសារការងាររបស់ពួកគេគឺគ្មានសុវត្ថិភាពជាពិសេស។ ពួកគេគ្រប់គ្នាមានអារម្មណ៍ថា ជារឿងដែលមិនគួរអោយជឿថាអ្នកដែលបានធ្វើការតម្លើងសុចរិតក្នុងអាជីពអស់រយៈពេល ៦ឆ្នាំ ត្រូវត្រូវជាប់នៅក្នុងស្ថានភាពនេះ។ នេះបានធ្វើឲ្យប៉ូលីសនៅប្រទេសចិន ចំពោះការប្រព្រឹត្តលើការចោទប្រកាន់បែបនេះ អាចត្រូវតែមានវិធានការទាន់ពេលវេលា។

ការត្រឡប់ទៅសភាពការណ៍បច្ចុប្បន្ន

បន្ទាប់ពីការពិភាក្សានេះគឺជារឿងធម្មតាណាស់សម្រាប់អ្នកដែលមានការងាររយៈពេលយូរ នៅបរទេស។ កាលពី ៦ ឆ្នាំមុន នៅពេលដែលមានករណីឧក្រិដ្ឋកម្ម និងការគំរាមកំហែងដែលកើតឡើងចំពោះពលរដ្ឋចិននៅកម្ពុជា និងមានភាពមិនសមស្រប។ រឿងទាំងនេះរួមមានករណីក្លែងបន្លំ អំពើពុករលួយ ឬអំពើបោកប្រាស់។ អ្នកសារព័ត៌មាន VP និងពលរដ្ឋចិនម្នាក់ៗ បានអនុវត្តនូវការងាររឹងមាំ ដើម្បីចាត់ការជាមួយនឹងស្ថានភាពដែលព្រួយបារម្ភជាបន្តបន្ទាប់។

ចំណុចសំខាន់អំពីអាជីវកម្មបច្ចុប្បន្ន

ការស្រាវជ្រាវ និងការពិភាក្សាបន្តជាមួយមន្រ្តីផ្ទៃក្នុងបានបញ្ជាក់ថា ប៉ូលីសចិន និងកម្ពុជាបានចាប់ផ្ដើមយកវិធានការច្បាស់លាស់ដើម្បីបង្ការ និងទប់ស្កាត់សកម្មភាពក្លែងបន្លំ និងអំពើហិង្សា។ ជាពិសេសនៅក្នុងករណីដែលទាក់ទងនឹងការជួញដូរ អំពើសក្តិបង្រួមឬការបោកប្រាស់តាមអ៊ីនធឺណិត។

ប៉ូលីសចិនបានបង្ហាញឱ្យឃើញភាពយុត្តិធម៌ និងការអនុវត្តនយោបាយដែលត្រួតត្រាសកម្មភាពដែលអាចជាជម្រើសដែលសមស្របសម្រាប់ការលុបបំបាត់បញ្ហាកុបកម្មសហសកម្ម នៅក្នុងកម្ពុជា។

ការសន្និដ្ឋាន

ចំពោះការងាររបស់ប៉ូលីសដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការចោទសួរអំពីការងារអ្នកសារព័ត៌មានដូចជា VP វាគួរតែត្រូវបានអនុវត្តក្នុងនាមជាអង្គការដែលមានភាពស្របច្បាប់ និងមានភាពសុចរិត។

នៅពេលប៉ូលីសចិននិងកម្ពុជាធ្វើការចុះបញ្ជីនិងត្រួតពិនិត្យសកម្មភាពចំពោះការប្រព្រឹត្តទាំងនេះ តម្រូវឲ្យមានវិធានការផ្តាច់ខាត ដើម្បីការពារសុវត្ថិភាពជាតិ និងប្រជាជនផងដែរ។

本文中，主编VP提出了与国内警方的沟通和互动中遇到的一些问题，揭示了海外中国公民，尤其是在柬埔寨生活和工作的人员，常常感受到的困惑与压力。这种困惑并非仅仅是来自于与当地政府的互动，更多时候是由于国内与海外之间信息传递和理解上的不对等造成的。VP通过此次经历，引发了关于民警沟通方式是否合理，以及未来中柬联合打击电信诈骗和网络赌博的执法行动的诸多思考。

一、民警小同志的沟通方式是否合理合规？

在VP与民警的对话中，民警要求VP提供证明，证明其工作性质和微信号的使用情况。这一要求引发了VP对“证明自己身份”这一点的质疑。VP指出，作为一个实名认证的微信号，凭什么还需要进一步证明其真实性？此处可以联想到中国近年来关于反电信诈骗的严密打击措施，要求提供工作证明及实名认证，是警方在预防和打击电信诈骗中的常见举措。

在国内日益严峻的反电信诈骗环境下，警方可能因为职业敏感性而提出这种要求，但问题的关键在于沟通方式。正如VP提到的，长期正能量的媒体工作和社会奉献，理应得到尊重，而不是被轻易质疑。警方的职责是保护公民安全和财产免受非法活动的侵害，而非通过过于僵化的流程给守法的海外公民增加不必要的麻烦。

从程序上看，警方的要求可能是合理的，但在态度和沟通方式上，VP的批评反映了一个普遍存在的问题：执法过程中缺乏对个人职业或道德素养的信任，往往使公民感到被侵犯。反电信诈骗工作固然重要，但在执行时，尤其针对有明确职业身份和贡献记录的公民，应有更多的灵活性和尊重。

二、中柬联合执法对电信诈骗和网络赌博的打击

近年来，中国和柬埔寨联合打击电信诈骗和网络赌博的力度不断加大，特别是针对居住在柬埔寨的中国公民中可能涉及的非法活动。

1. 劝返与布控措施

中国警方与柬埔寨政府保持了密切合作，针对参与电信诈骗和网络赌博的人员，实施劝返政策。通过外交、警务合作机制，中国驻柬埔寨大使馆和相关部门多次协助柬埔寨当地政府处理涉案人员的遣返工作。这些措施表明了中柬两国在打击跨国犯罪方面的决心。

近年来，中国对涉嫌电信诈骗和网络赌博的个人采取了布控措施，特别是对出入境和国际旅行的数据进行监控。例如，在中国国内，个人如有参与诈骗等犯罪活动的嫌疑，将会在出入境处受到限制，甚至被直接逮捕。对于那些已经逃往海外的嫌疑人，中国也通过国际刑警组织发布红色通缉令，协助各国警方将嫌疑人缉拿归案。

2. 中柬合作打击的成果

自2018年以来，柬埔寨政府多次配合中国警方展开大规模打击行动，对诈骗分子进行了拘捕、遣返等严厉措施。例如，2020年中国与柬埔寨在短短数月内联合行动，逮捕了数百名涉及诈骗的嫌疑人，并通过多次行动成功破获了多起涉及诈骗、赌博的跨国犯罪集团。

这些行动的成功不仅体现了中柬两国在执法层面上的密切合作，也展现了两国政府对保障公民合法权益、净化海外中国公民生活环境的强烈意愿。柬埔寨政府对电信诈骗、网络赌博的零容忍态度也使得在该国境内从事非法活动的空间逐渐缩小。

三、未来中柬联合执法的新举措

中柬两国在打击电信诈骗和网络赌博的合作已经取得显著成果，但未来仍有必要继续加强合作，以应对不断演变的跨国犯罪手段。以下是一些可能的未来举措：

1. 加强信息共享和技术合作

未来，中柬两国可以进一步加强网络犯罪情报的共享和执法技术合作。例如，利用大数据分析、电信运营商监控等技术手段，提前发现可疑交易和通讯记录，从而更高效地进行跨国犯罪侦查。

2. 提供更便捷的举报渠道

为了更好地保护在柬埔寨的中国公民，尤其是那些遭遇电信诈骗威胁的群体，中柬两国可以进一步提供便捷的举报渠道。例如，设立专门的跨国犯罪举报热线、网络举报平台等，使公民能够及时向两国执法机关反映可疑活动。

3. 制定长期的防控机制

除了短期的打击行动，中柬两国可以探讨建立长期的防控机制，尤其是对中资企业员工的管理和教育。通过定期开展法律教育、预防培训等方式，减少中国公民在柬埔寨因不明法规而涉入违法行为的可能性。

4. 增强法律执行力度

除了打击电信诈骗和网络赌博，中柬两国未来也可以加强对逃避法律监管、非法经营的相关群体的执法力度，特别是对利用法律漏洞从事非法活动的犯罪团伙，实施更加严格的监管。

四、结语

主编VP此次与国内民警的沟通经历揭示了海外公民与国内执法机构之间在理解和信任上的落差。未来，中柬联合打击电信诈骗和网络赌博的合作需要更多的人性化执法，同时也需要两国政府加强合作，保护守法公民的合法权益。最终，我们期待看到的是一个更加安全、透明、公正的海外环境。

English Version

On September 26, 2024, at approximately 1:00 PM, a police officer from VP’s hometown sent a message that left the chief editor VP almost speechless. As a precaution, VP decided to blur out certain parts of the conversation that could reveal personal information about public officials. The sheer amount of information in this message was overwhelming. Chinese citizens living abroad should pay close attention, as the implications are far from simple. Now, let’s break it down step by step.

The officer said, “Didn’t you claim that this public account isn’t operated by you? Well, now I’ll prove it. At least VP’s WeChat account has gone through domestic real-name verification. Surely, you don’t think someone else is using VP’s account, right? That would be too far-fetched.”

This brings to mind a situation from the past: Just like this, one can’t help but draw parallels between the officer’s tone and the infamous “How do you prove that my mother is my mother?” scenario. After publishing positive news stories for over six years and being committed to helping others, does VP still need to prove their legitimate profession?

Let’s approach it from another angle: if VP’s articles over these six years were nothing but lies, falsehoods, and scams, wouldn’t the police officer demand proof that VP is indeed the author? The problem becomes obvious: a seasoned journalist is being entirely negated by a few words. Don’t take offense, but your message clearly implies that VP’s six years of legitimate work in Cambodia, running a media outlet, are suddenly in question.

VP has worked in Cambodia for over six years. Whether it’s human language or coded speech, VP has become fluent in interpreting intentions. So why the show? Is it necessary to complicate things when the truth is obvious?

In the conversation, VP indirectly points to another issue: Officer: “We need a certificate of your overseas employment. Can you provide that?” VP: “Of course. What kind of proof do you need?” Officer: “A formal employment certificate will suffice.” VP: “I’m a professional journalist, and I have never changed my career path.” Officer: “Do you have something like a local business registration?” VP: “Not my own license, but I’m one of the shareholders.” Officer: “That works too.”

After all these years, especially for Chinese citizens like VP who have spent long periods in Cambodia, our true circumstances are difficult and often painful to revisit. Those of us still living in Cambodia remember all too well the major incidents of recent years. These include the 818 crisis, the string of violent kidnappings and murders, the 220 community transmission event that led to three years of pandemic lockdowns, and the recent 916 operation.

When these unfavorable, unjust incidents were happening to Chinese citizens abroad, where were you, officer? What could you have done for us? Chinese citizens abroad constantly think of the mainland. Those who stand close to VP have always upheld righteous values. Even though your message yesterday was directed at VP alone, it affected a wide group of people. You’ve essentially negated everyone’s efforts and dedication with one careless statement.

Are you all that idle? Please use your network data wisely and stop harassing ordinary overseas citizens. If you had real evidence, once you release it, the person involved would become a public outcast in all of Cambodia. Cambodia’s authorities, in fact, are stricter on issues like online gambling and telecom fraud than even Chinese police. They detest fraud of any kind.

Meanwhile, VP’s articles have provided many warnings and tips to Chinese authorities. But what have you done in return? Scams and violent cases still occur. Yet, instead of targeting criminals, you’ve decided to trouble law-abiding citizens. What’s your motive?

Analyzing the Legitimacy of Police Claims and China’s Stance on Telecom and Gambling Fraud

From VP’s recount, the police officer’s request for proof of overseas employment appears legitimate. The officer is following protocol, as formal employment certificates are a standard requirement for many international investigations, particularly in fraud and telecom-related cases. However, the problem lies in the underlying assumption that VP, who has operated as a reputable journalist for over six years, needs to prove the legality of their work despite a well-documented history. This could point to a lack of effective data sharing between domestic authorities and overseas Chinese communities, resulting in unnecessary bureaucracy and harassment.

Moving forward, Chinese authorities will likely continue tightening their stance on telecom and online gambling fraud, particularly in regions like Cambodia, where such activities have been rampant. China’s collaboration with Cambodia has already yielded several joint enforcement actions, including deportations and crackdowns on criminal syndicates. However, challenges remain in ensuring that innocent citizens are not unfairly targeted or harassed due to poor communication or a lack of understanding of the local situation.

Future Measures and Sino-Cambodian Cooperation

The key to success lies in improving data sharing, increasing transparency, and providing better support systems for overseas Chinese citizens. One potential area for improvement could involve establishing an official verification process through Chinese embassies to streamline documentation and reduce friction between Chinese citizens and law enforcement. This could include embassy-led initiatives to certify legitimate businesses and media outlets in high-risk regions, providing a clearer framework for local authorities when vetting Chinese expatriates.

Additionally, further joint law enforcement efforts between China and Cambodia could focus on preventive measures, such as better public education on the risks of fraud and more robust anti-fraud campaigns targeting at-risk individuals. Both governments should prioritize finding ways to protect innocent citizens from being unjustly caught up in fraud investigations, while continuing to pursue criminals aggressively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Chinese law enforcement’s focus on telecom and gambling-related fraud is well-intentioned, there needs to be more nuanced handling of overseas Chinese communities. Innocent citizens, such as VP, should not be burdened with excessive proof of their legitimacy when clear records exist. Both China and Cambodia must continue to strengthen their collaboration in combating fraud, but with an eye on protecting the rights and reputations of law-abiding citizens. Implementing better communication channels and streamlined verification processes could reduce unnecessary conflicts, making joint law enforcement efforts more effective in the long run.