-6.png?v=2026-06-17T05%3A02%3A25.028Z)
Image: ISA Rotany (Tmey Tmey)
The clash between two major Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) has once again brought public attention to the sensitive issue of fundraising to support Cambodia’s first line of defense. While both sides present reasonable arguments, the deeper issue is no longer simply about who is right or wrong. Instead, it concerns transparency, public trust, and whether future citizens will continue contributing to national causes during times of crisis.
According to claims circulating online, around US$2 million was raised to support the country during boarder conflicts to 2 times. While the KOL claimed they gave all efforts to help the nation during the crisis such as risking their lives, some Cambodian citizens began asking for transparency, including invoices, spending reports, and proof that the support reached the intended recipients.
One side argues that full disclosure could expose sensitive military information, such as troop numbers, casualties, supply routes, or delivery locations. The other side argues that the fundraising happened under urgent and chaotic conditions, where supplies had to be purchased quickly and invoices were not always properly recorded.
The real social risk at this point is not merely online division between supporters. The greater danger is that the controversy may weaken public morale, reduce future willingness to donate, and discourage KOLs or public figures from organizing emergency fundraising efforts in the future. If another round of conflict between Cambodia and Thailand were to occur, many influencers may hesitate to take responsibility due to fear of criticism and public scrutiny. More importantly, the long-term concern is whether basic frontline support, such as food and essential supplies, is becoming dependent on unregulated private actors whose legitimacy comes from popularity rather than institutional accountability.
A deeper question: why did KOLs become some of the largest receivers of public donations when formal institutions were already conducting fundraising campaigns? This may reflect a broader issue of public trust. Many citizens appear to feel more confident donating directly to public figures they follow online rather than through public institutions. In the digital era, KOLs are often perceived as more credible because of their social media reputation, personal visibility, and financial status. They also seem more emotionally connected and responsive to the public. Their online presence creates a sense of direct engagement that some institutions still struggle to build. As a result, the fundraising success of KOLs may not only demonstrate the power of social media, but also reveal an underlying trust gap between parts of the public and formal institutions.
Even the word “confidential” has been widely used to limit the disclosure of photos and information related to donation deliveries. Some people question whether soldier numbers or general locations are truly the main concern, as both Cambodia and Thailand may already have a broad understanding of each other’s military capacity. This concern also made some Cambodians avoid taking photos when delivering support to refugees, fearing that Thai forces could identify the location during the clash was happening. However, at the same time, there were many reports of Thai drones flying near refugee areas and Cambodian military bases suggest that some ground information may already have been exposed. At this point, what Cambodia needs to protect most is not basic accountability, but sensitive military details such as tactics, weapon positions, troop movements, and command locations.
Moving forward, the government should avoid any attacking to donors or KOLs who stepped forward during the crisis. Instead, Cambodia needs a controlled accountability system where donations are verified by trusted auditors, reported through broad spending categories, and protected from revealing information that could affect national security. Relevant ministries and authorities must clearly define the boundaries of disclosure, distinguishing between non-sensitive administrative spending and actual tactical data like weapon positions, troop movements, and command locations.