Public discourse in Thailand has increasingly included the label “Scambodia” to describe Cambodia. At the same time, Thai government communication on the conflict has been primarily directed at domestic audiences. Many official statements and social media posts are restricted by location settings, limiting access for international observers. In parallel, alternative narratives are circulated in English and Khmer for external audiences. This separation has resulted in different understandings of the same events.
When public information is fragmented in this way, domestic opinion can be shaped without full reference to developments on the ground. This has direct implications for how political leaders maintain public support, justify military action, and manage accountability.
For more than five months, Thai authorities have accused Cambodia of planting new landmines. These claims have been widely reported in domestic media and some international outlets. However, Thailand has not submitted these allegations to an independent international verification mechanism, nor pursued legal review through international channels. In public remarks, Donald Trump stated that landmine incidents involving Thai soldiers were accidents. Despite this, but Thailand responded with heavy relatiation.
Following renewed clashes since 7 December, Cambodia has again been framed in official narratives as a centre of scam activity. This framing coincided with air operations involving F-16 fighter jets that struck multiple locations inside Cambodia, including civilian areas. To date, no independent international verification has been presented to confirm whether the targeted sites were linked to scam operations or were civilian infrastructure. At the same time, Thai military officials publicly stated that their objective was to “cripple Cambodia’s military capability to neutralise threats,” complicating claims that the operations were purely law-enforcement measures.
Official messaging has also shown inconsistencies. Thai authorities previously stated that no dialogue would take place. Subsequently, the Foreign Minister indicated that Cambodia must submit a proposal to Thailand to secure a ceasefire. Meanwhile, today, President Trump stated that Thailand started the conflict over again.
Taken together, these developments point to a widening gap between domestic narratives and internationally verifiable facts. Without independent verification, claims made to domestic audiences are difficult to assess, even when external reporting offers a different account and tone.
This raises a central analytical question: should recent operations be understood as law-enforcement actions against transnational crime, or as military operations framed through an anti-crime narrative? The absence of transparent verification leaves this distinction unresolved. In conclusion, such ambiguity increases escalation risks, weakens confidence in official communication, and complicates regional efforts to stabilise the situation.