Why Hun Sen plays with fake news

The war of words between Thais and Cambodians, fuelled by both governments, mainstream media and social networks, is perhaps understandable given the emotions involved. Each side ends up seeing “its version of the truth.” Yet in reality, truth is singular. When two competing “truths” exist, it means one of them is a manufactured reality, deliberately created. 

Hun Sen ruled Cambodia as prime minister for 38 years. Even after stepping down from the post, he still wields absolute power to the point where many Cambodians feel that Hun Sen and Cambodia are inseparable. Together with his family, he continues to pursue dominance over the country.

Beyond instilling fear through intimidation, his chosen weapon has been propaganda, particularly fake news, a tool long employed by authoritarian leaders, whose effectiveness Hun Sen understands all too well.

Today, however, Hun Sen is applying a new method. Instead of relying solely on traditional state-controlled media, he has embraced social media and the internet to spread what is known as computational propaganda.

This strategy is reinforced by his family’s grip on conventional media and by exploiting the beliefs of the Cambodian people, repeating messages endlessly until they become embedded. The approach mirrors the classic playbook of authoritarian regimes.

In addition, Hun Sen has reportedly drawn on the seven propaganda principles once attributed to Hitler, combining threats and persuasion to keep the population compliant and dissent muted.

The comparison with Nazi Germany is instructive. Hitler managed to silence domestic media and build an extensive propaganda machine, but he could not entirely control the international press.

The Nazis went to great lengths to push fake news abroad and labelled any critical foreign coverage as “Lügenpresse”, the “lying press.” They even staged elaborate deceptions, such as the 1944 visit by the Red Cross to the Theresienstadt concentration camp. There, prisoners were forced to construct fake houses, gardens, and shops to present an image of comfort, while selected healthy inmates testified to living happily inside the camp. 

The Nazis staged a scene in which Jewish children in the concentration camp were given one-time passes to appear on the streets during the Red Cross visit, as part of an effort to fabricate the impression that Jews in the camp were living comfortably and happily.

Hun Sen’s situation is not far removed. He may silence domestic voices and dominate Cambodian media, but he cannot suppress international outlets or the evidence that continues to surface before the world’s eyes.

Beyond fabricating false news to deflect attention and cover up its misconduct, the Cambodian side has also staged elaborate propaganda scenes reminiscent of Nazi tactics.

In a recent incident, Cambodian authorities invited Michael Alfaro, a lobbyist and former US Marine, to the Ban Nong Chan border checkpoint in Khok Sung district, Sa Kaeo. The area is under Thai sovereignty and has been secured by Thai troops with barbed wire and tyres.

During the visit, Cambodian officials claimed to Alfaro that Thai soldiers had encroached on the area and blocked Cambodian villagers from accessing their homes. To dramatise the accusation, they mobilised children and villagers to greet Alfaro, staging tearful pleas for sympathy and alleging Thai soldiers were bullying locals and attempting to seize land. In reality, several Cambodian houses in the area were built inside Thai territory, similar to the case at Chong An Ma.

Alfaro livestreamed in front of the barbed-wire fence and tyres, portraying the scene as evidence of Thai obstruction. The footage quickly went viral, attracting millions of views within hours. Once such images circulate globally, countering them becomes an uphill battle; for much of the international audience, unaware of the context, the narrative appears credible.

Analysts note that Cambodia’s use of external witnesses and staged evidence is a direct borrowing from the Nazi playbook of deception, employed during World War II to conceal atrocities. The aim is to convince the world that Cambodia is the victim of aggression by a larger neighbour. Yet for those familiar with Cambodia’s methods, the entire exercise is nothing more than propaganda repackaged from wartime tactics of the past.

Why Cambodians believe fake news

The war of words between Thais and Cambodians, fuelled by both governments, mainstream media and social networks, is perhaps understandable given the emotions involved. Each side ends up seeing “its version of the truth.” Yet in reality, truth is singular. When two competing “truths” exist, it means one of them is a manufactured reality, deliberately created. 

Those exposed to this fabricated version are often swayed by fake news. And once such misinformation spreads, even hard evidence is difficult to use in countering it.

For example, the accusation that Thailand used chemical weapons against Cambodians, a claim already been proven to be doctored imagery. Nevertheless, the clip has circulated widely on social media, with many Cambodians convinced it was real. The video’s creator even appeared on camera, feigning sadness, appealing for the world to condemn Thailand.

This vulnerability is not unique to Cambodians; Thais, Westerners and all humans are prone to it. People tend to trust information presented to them, especially if it aligns with their pre-existing beliefs. This is a psychological weakness known as motivated reasoning. Instead of analysing new information critically, individuals respond emotionally, reinforcing what they already believe.

Once a belief takes root, people actively seek information that confirms it while downplaying or rejecting contradictory facts, a process known as confirmation bias. Repeated exposure, whether through word of mouth or algorithms feeding content based on prior preferences, traps individuals in echo chambers. Even when presented with hard evidence, many refuse to change their minds. Anyone daring to disagree within such a majority, the “black sheep among white” or vice versa, risks being attacked online, further deepening the polarisation that defines social media.

In Cambodia’s case, fake news alone is not enough to sway the population. The deeper problem lies in the long-term narrative pushed by Hun Sen and figures within his government. For years, the public has been conditioned with messages like “Thailand is the aggressor” or “Thailand is the enemy.” These messages become a bias embedded in the national psyche.

Thus, when new false information about Thailand appears, it is easily “tuned” to fit those entrenched beliefs. This makes Cambodians far more likely to accept Hun Sen’s words, or those of other Cambodian leaders, as the truth, without questioning whether the information is real or fabricated.

The Ukraine model and the role of platforms

The ongoing information war between the Thai and Cambodian governments, and between their citizens on social media, has exposed the world to an unprecedented flood of fake news, bold lies, and fabricated evidence. This large-scale propaganda campaign will likely be remembered as one of the defining case studies in modern information warfare and disinformation history.

Misinformation spreading across platforms can provoke anger and resentment, but in times of heightened tension or conflict, certain types of content can fuel violence in the real world. Fact-checking mechanisms cannot keep pace with the sheer volume of falsehoods circulating online almost around the clock. Countering with verified information and hard evidence is one approach, but it may fall short without timely and serious cooperation from social media platforms themselves.

The war in Ukraine demonstrated similar dynamics. Disinformation spread widely online, misleading global audiences much like the Thai-Cambodian propaganda battles. In Ukraine, Meta stepped up efforts by deploying AI tools to detect content inciting violence and hiring large numbers of human moderators to screen posts during the war. While somewhat effective, the challenge remained: fake news tends to attract far more attention than factual reporting and generates significant revenue for platforms. This leaves companies in a dilemma: remove such content and risk losing revenue, or allow it to spread and face accusations of irresponsibility.

There is also the complication that deleting content en masse could erase digital evidence later used to prosecute war crimes, forcing security agencies to weigh the risks carefully.

For Thailand, the disinformation war with Cambodia presents an opportunity to demand stronger cooperation from global platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok. These companies should be urged to tighten content moderation and take responsibility for the proliferation of fake news, much like Meta did in Ukraine. 

So far, however, there has been little sign of concrete action, neither from the Thai government requesting assistance, nor from the platforms themselves, which continue to host an overwhelming volume of disinformation without accountability.

Pansak Arpakajorn 

An independent scholar specialising in technology and communications

(2025/08/21-00:00)