By Masayori Ishikawa
In recent years, Cambodia has increasingly appeared in Japanese news coverage. In late May 2026, Japanese media widely reported on tax-related allegations involving Susumu Tai, who serves as the Honorary Consul of the Kingdom of Cambodia in Sendai.
Public attention focused not only on the tax issue itself, but also on the fact that he held the positions of Honorary Consul and Special Advisor to the Prime Minister of Cambodia.
Shortly before that, sanctions imposed by US and UK authorities against Prince Holding Group were widely reported in Japan. Media coverage extended beyond the company and touched on its connections with the Japan-Cambodia Association, prompting broader discussions about the organizations and networks that link Japan and Cambodia.
In addition, Cambodia has repeatedly appeared in recent Japanese media reports related to online fraud, telephone scams and human trafficking.
Such coverage has not been limited to specialist publications; it has been featured in major national newspapers and television news programs and has attracted considerable public attention.
Each of these cases is different in nature and background. However, in the minds of many people, they are not always perceived as separate incidents. As a result, they are beginning to influence broader perceptions of Cambodia itself.
What concerns me is not the individual incidents. It is entirely natural for the media to report on crimes and scandals, and I do not question that role. What concerns me is that the words Japanese people associate with Cambodia appear to be changing.
In the past, the images most commonly associated with Cambodia in Japan were UNTAC, demining activities, international cooperation, Angkor Wat and a friendly nation with strong ties to Japan.
Japan played a significant role in Cambodia’s peace process and has remained a key partner in the country’s reconstruction and economic development. As a result, Cambodia came to be widely viewed in Japan as a friendly country that had overcome great difficulties and continued to move forward.
Today, however, those images increasingly coexist with words such as phone scams, online fraud, human trafficking, and border disputes.
None of these issues defines Cambodia as a nation, and each should be understood within its own context. Yet most readers are not Cambodia specialists. They form impressions based on the news they encounter in their daily lives. Over time, those impressions shape how a country is perceived.
Having observed both Japan and Cambodia for many years, I cannot help but feel concerned that the words people associate with Cambodia in Japan are beginning to change.
This matters because it is not simply a question of reputation.
Japan remains one of Cambodia’s most important investment partners. Many young Cambodians aspire to study and work in Japan, while Cambodian businesses continue to seek stronger ties with Japanese companies.
Most importantly, many Cambodians already live and work in Japan. The way Cambodia is perceived within Japanese society affects not only investment and educational exchanges, but also the opportunities available to these individuals.
National credibility is not an abstract matter of prestige; it is a practical asset directly linked to the opportunities available to ordinary citizens.
Over the past three decades, Japan–Cambodia relations have been one of the success stories of international cooperation in Asia.
Japan has supported Cambodia from the peace process through reconstruction and economic development. Japanese investment, human resource development, and Japanese-language education have expanded steadily, and Cambodia has become widely recognized in Japan as one of the region’s most pro-Japanese countries.
The challenge we face today is not the result of failure. In many ways, it is the consequence of success. As Japan–Cambodia relations have deepened and become more valuable, the trust built between the two countries has itself become an asset. Inevitably, there are individuals and organizations that seek to benefit from that trust.
The history of the Japan-Cambodia Association offers an important example. For many years, the association played a significant role in promoting cultural and people-to-people exchanges between the countries.
More recently, it has focused increasingly on supporting Japanese business expansion and investment in Cambodia, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises.
Few would oppose such a direction. Japanese investment and technology transfer have contributed significantly to Cambodia’s economic growth, job creation and business development.
However, the responsibilities required in an era centered on cultural exchange differ from those needed in an era centered on investment promotion.
Connecting people is different from connecting companies and capital. The latter requires a higher level of transparency, accountability and due diligence. Trust is essential but trust alone is not enough. It must be supported by proper oversight and responsibility.
The same principle applies to positions such as honorary consul, government advisor or special representative.
The issue is not the title. The issue arises when titles and government connections are used to enhance the credibility of individuals or organizations for private benefit.
If a relationship with a state carries social credibility, then the use of that credibility must also carry a corresponding level of responsibility. National trust exists for the benefit of the nation and its people, not for the benefit of specific individuals or organizations.
This is where the role of parliamentary diplomacy deserves renewed attention.
Today, Japan–Cambodia relations involve not only governments but also businesses, educational institutions, financial organizations, local governments, and civil society groups.
This is a positive development. Yet it also raises an important question: who is responsible for safeguarding the trust that underpins the relationship?
Businesses pursue commercial interests. Associations and organizations have their own objectives. There is nothing wrong with that. However, maintaining the integrity of the bilateral relationship and defining the standards that govern it ultimately remains a public responsibility.
As private-sector exchanges have expanded, businesses and organizations have often become the most visible actors in the relationship. Yet the responsibility for establishing direction, standards, and accountability within a bilateral relationship belongs to elected leaders and public institutions.
For that reason, parliamentary diplomacy and government-to-government dialogue are arguably more important today than ever before.
In Cambodia, the distinction between public authority and private activity is generally clear. Those who represent the nation are expected to do so in an official capacity.
In Japan, by contrast, private organizations and economic groups play a particularly influential role in international engagement. This is one of Japan’s strengths and has contributed greatly to the development of Japan–Cambodia relations.
At the same time, it can sometimes blur the line between public trust and private interests. The issues discussed above highlight that challenge.
For many years, I have reported from Cambodia. I have seen the concern that His Majesty the King shows for his people.
I have observed the years of effort invested by Senate President Hun Sen in maintaining national stability. I have also witnessed Prime Minister Hun Manet’s efforts to attract investment, strengthen international partnerships and advance administrative reform.
Cambodia’s credibility today is built upon the cumulative efforts of national leaders, public servants, businesses, civil society and ordinary citizens. It is not something that emerged naturally, nor is it the achievement of any single individual.
For that reason, I cannot view the use of public titles or government connections for personal advantage as merely an individual matter.
I find it difficult to understand how anyone could seek to benefit personally from credibility that has been built through the efforts of so many others. This is not simply a question of ethics. It is a question of appropriating trust that belongs to an entire nation.
Moreover, when national credibility is damaged, the people who pay the price are rarely those who caused the damage.
The consequences are often borne by workers in Japan, students seeking educational opportunities, and businesses hoping to expand their partnerships with Japanese companies. That is why national trust must never be used for private gain.
Who, then, does national trust exist for?
It does not exist for governments, businesses, associations, or any particular individual. If national trust attracts investment, creates jobs and opens opportunities for future generations, then national trust is, in essence, part of the future of the people themselves.
National trust exists for the people. Preserving that principle is essential if the success of Japan–Cambodia relations is to be sustained and passed on to the next generation.
Masayori Ishikawa is an AIPS member based in Cambodia, who has been reporting on the intersection of sports, culture and international relations in Southeast Asia.
