By John Maloy
THE CAMBODIA DAILY
It was a contentious law—one that many said would stifle the opinions of Cambodia's lawmakers. But on Aug 30, the National Assembly voted overwhelmingly 93-1 in favor of the legislation that restricted what its own members could and could not say.
Despite the official tally of 93 lawmakers in favor of the law and just one against, two SRP parliamentarians, Yim Sovann and Keo Remy, later insisted they had both voted no.
"I even checked with the secretary [who recorded the votes] ...and he assured me I voted 'no,'" Yim Sovann said.
A reporter at the Assembly noticed that Yim Sovann's colleague Keo Remy did not raise his hand to vote for the draft law, despite only one "no" vote being registered that day.
Under the current system of voting, parliamentarians who step out of the Assembly during a vote could very well be counted as voting in favor of something that they had no intention of supporting.
Some parliamentarians even claim that inaccurate vote tallies are very common.
"The way they count.is not precise," SRP lawmaker Son said. "We have complained a lot."
But vote-count errors could easily be resolved if the Assembly simply used the high-tech electronic voting system that was installed several years ago. To date, that system has never been used.
Currently, Assembly members raise their hands to vote in favor or against and are counted by three "session secretaries"—one from each political party.
Each secretary counts the raised hands in their section of the Assembly floor and the three tallies are then added together. This final number is subtracted from the total number of parliamentarians who signed an Assembly attendance sheet on that day.
There is only one count of "yes" votes, and no distinction made between those who oppose, abstain or happen to be out of the room during a vote.
Sometimes session secretaries will take shortcuts and only count those opposed to a vote, and deduct that number from the total who signed the attendance sheet, Son Chhay said.
That means that anyone absent from the room during the vote could become a supporter by default.
The Assembly, Son Chhay said, purchased an electronic voting system in 1999 or 2000 for around $300,000. Sitting atop of every parliamentarian's desk is a little black computer with an attached microphone and a series of five buttons for voting.
Hanging from the ceiling to the left of the Assembly president’s podium is a small bulky scoreboard that would display the electronic vote tallies to the room: For and against votes, as well as abstentions.
Even so, the system has never been used.
Funcinpec lawmaker Khieu San, who supports the idea of electronic voting, said that the Assembly continues to vote by show of hands because most lawmakers are old-fashioned and have not warmed up to electronic gadgetry.
There is also an element of fear, Khieu San conceded.
"People are scared that [parliamentarians] will not vote along party lines," if they don’t have to publicly raise their hands, he said.
Senior CPP lawmaker Ek Sam Ol said the electronic system was never used because of unspecified "technical difficulties." Nevertheless, the old system is better, he said.
"I think the hand raising is better than the electronic [voting]," Ek Sam Ol said.
"Sometimes I do not trust electronic voting systems because they are not human beings," he said. "We have three secretaries counting, this is better."
Many parliamentary systems around the world use simple systems like hand raising. In Britain, most votes are carried by parliamentarians yelling out their opinion— with sheer volume winning the day. But if a vote is close, members can dispute the result.
The lawmakers then file into separate rooms according to how they plan to vote. Their decisions are individually recorded in writing and made available to the public.
In the case of the Aug 30 draft law limiting the speech of lawmakers, the alleged miscount or either one or two "no" votes had no impact on the passage of the legislation, but votes on other controversial laws have been much closer.
Yim Sovann and Ek Sam Ol said that any member of the Assembly can dispute a vote tally, and a re-raising of hands can be called for—but it is counted by the same method.
Even so, several lawmakers said that no vote count has ever been disputed on the Assembly floor.
(Additional reporting by Lor Chandara)
Despite the official tally of 93 lawmakers in favor of the law and just one against, two SRP parliamentarians, Yim Sovann and Keo Remy, later insisted they had both voted no.
"I even checked with the secretary [who recorded the votes] ...and he assured me I voted 'no,'" Yim Sovann said.
A reporter at the Assembly noticed that Yim Sovann's colleague Keo Remy did not raise his hand to vote for the draft law, despite only one "no" vote being registered that day.
Under the current system of voting, parliamentarians who step out of the Assembly during a vote could very well be counted as voting in favor of something that they had no intention of supporting.
Some parliamentarians even claim that inaccurate vote tallies are very common.
"The way they count.is not precise," SRP lawmaker Son said. "We have complained a lot."
But vote-count errors could easily be resolved if the Assembly simply used the high-tech electronic voting system that was installed several years ago. To date, that system has never been used.
Currently, Assembly members raise their hands to vote in favor or against and are counted by three "session secretaries"—one from each political party.
Each secretary counts the raised hands in their section of the Assembly floor and the three tallies are then added together. This final number is subtracted from the total number of parliamentarians who signed an Assembly attendance sheet on that day.
There is only one count of "yes" votes, and no distinction made between those who oppose, abstain or happen to be out of the room during a vote.
Sometimes session secretaries will take shortcuts and only count those opposed to a vote, and deduct that number from the total who signed the attendance sheet, Son Chhay said.
That means that anyone absent from the room during the vote could become a supporter by default.
The Assembly, Son Chhay said, purchased an electronic voting system in 1999 or 2000 for around $300,000. Sitting atop of every parliamentarian's desk is a little black computer with an attached microphone and a series of five buttons for voting.
Hanging from the ceiling to the left of the Assembly president’s podium is a small bulky scoreboard that would display the electronic vote tallies to the room: For and against votes, as well as abstentions.
Even so, the system has never been used.
Funcinpec lawmaker Khieu San, who supports the idea of electronic voting, said that the Assembly continues to vote by show of hands because most lawmakers are old-fashioned and have not warmed up to electronic gadgetry.
There is also an element of fear, Khieu San conceded.
"People are scared that [parliamentarians] will not vote along party lines," if they don’t have to publicly raise their hands, he said.
Senior CPP lawmaker Ek Sam Ol said the electronic system was never used because of unspecified "technical difficulties." Nevertheless, the old system is better, he said.
"I think the hand raising is better than the electronic [voting]," Ek Sam Ol said.
"Sometimes I do not trust electronic voting systems because they are not human beings," he said. "We have three secretaries counting, this is better."
Many parliamentary systems around the world use simple systems like hand raising. In Britain, most votes are carried by parliamentarians yelling out their opinion— with sheer volume winning the day. But if a vote is close, members can dispute the result.
The lawmakers then file into separate rooms according to how they plan to vote. Their decisions are individually recorded in writing and made available to the public.
In the case of the Aug 30 draft law limiting the speech of lawmakers, the alleged miscount or either one or two "no" votes had no impact on the passage of the legislation, but votes on other controversial laws have been much closer.
Yim Sovann and Ek Sam Ol said that any member of the Assembly can dispute a vote tally, and a re-raising of hands can be called for—but it is counted by the same method.
Even so, several lawmakers said that no vote count has ever been disputed on the Assembly floor.
(Additional reporting by Lor Chandara)
6 comments:
Mr Sam Rainsy,
WHERE ARE YOU, YOU AND YOUR PARLIAMENTARIAN MEMBERS Laws and draft laws to restrict lawmakers' freedom of speech.
If ONLY ONE VOTED NO (Mr KEM REMY OR MR YIM SOVAN) instead of 15 as you claimed, IT DOES MEAN
(YOU Mr SAM RAINSY AND YOUR 22 PARLIAMENTARIANS SAMRAINSYPARTY had
VOTED YES).
(Despite the official tally of 93 lawmakers in favor of the law and JUST ONE AGAINST,
BUT TWO SRP parliamentarians, Yim Sovann and Keo Remy, later insisted they had both voted no).
HERE IS YOUR AMBIGUOUS DECLARATION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2006
SRP Admits 10 Approved Controversial Law
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
By Yun Samean and John Maloy
THE CAMBODIA DAILY
Sam Rainsy admitted Monday that 10 of his own lawmakers voted in favor of the controversial law passed by parliament last week to limit the free speech of its members, despite the Sam Rainsy Party having officially branded it as unconstitutional.
The controversy over the law, which passed Wednesday, centers on a provision that makes it possible to prosecute legislators who abuse "an individual's dignity, public order, social customs or national security." The provision, in Article 5 of the law, allows for lawmakers to be detained immediately—without their immunity being stripped—for undefined "obvious crimes."
Sam Rainsy claimed that the 10 SRP lawmakers who voted for the law did so due to undefined "inconsistency" and confusion. The party will not discipline them because their mistake to vote for the law was a "mistake in good faith," he added.
SRP parliamentarian Eng Chhay Eng said he voted for the law even though he didn't support Article 5. He added that other articles in the law, which gave lawmakers pensions and funeral expenses, were good. He also maintained that Article 5 could be amended later.
SRP lawmaker Cheam Channy revealed Monday that he had voted for the law in part because he hadn’t paid any serious attention to Article 5. He added that he ultimately decided to vote yes because he saw that other SRP members were voting in the law's favor.
The official count of Wednesday's vote was 93 lawmakers for the law and one opposed to the law. SRP lawmaker Yim Sovann said he was the SRP’s no-voter. However, SRP lawmaker Keo Remy also maintained that he was in fact the SRP’s only dissenter.
Cambodian Center for Human Rights Director Kem Sokha said the SRP lawmakers who voted for the law appeared to be more focused on their own personal interests than in serving the country.
"They think of their benefits and not the people," he said.
Senior CPP lawmaker Ek Sam Ol held a press conference at the National Assembly Monday morning to defend the passage of the law. "The lawmakers voted to support the law in a responsible manner and in the spirit of freedom," Ek Sam Ol said, adding that the law was not designed to silence lawmakers.
"The law is a tool for the Kingdom of Cambodia to protect the rights, freedom and immunity of lawmakers," he added. Ek Sam Ol, who is also CPP legislation chairman, said that comments by US Ambassador Joseph Mussomeli, who last week said that the National Assembly had castrated itself with the legislation, were unacceptable.
US Embassy spokesman Jeff Daigle said the ambassador stands by his comments.
Ek Sam Ol also noted that both Funcinpec and SRP lawmakers voted for the legislation.
POSTED BY SOCHEATA AT 11:34 AM
Mr SAM RAINSY,
DID YOU VOTE “ YES”
IN FAVOUR THE LAW TO RESTRICT LAWMAKERS’FREEDOM OF SPEECH,ON LAST AUGUST 30.
If JUST ONLY ONE OF YOUR PARLIAMENTARIAN SAMRAINSYPARTY HAD
VOTED AGAINST THIS LAW,( Mr KEM REMY OR MR YIM SOVAN?)
YOU, Mr SAM RAINSY, AND YOUR 22 PARLIAMENTARIANS
SAMRAINSYPARTY HAD CERTAINLY VOTED IN FAVOUR OF THIS LAW).
“on Aug 30, the National Assembly voted overwhelmingly 93-1 in favor of the legislation that restricted what its own members could and could not say.
Despite the official tally of 93 lawmakers in favor of the law and just one against, two SRP parliamentarians, Yim Sovann and Keo Remy, later insisted they had both voted no.”
I HAVE NOTICED YOUR DECLARATION BELOW IS AT VARIANCE WITH THE FACT.
PLEASE COULD YOU EXPLAIN ABOUT THIS QUESTION AGAIN?
HERE IS YOUR AMBIGUOUS DECLARATION IN THE WAKE OF THE VOTE.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 05, 2006
SRP Admits 10 Approved Controversial Law
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
By Yun Samean and John Maloy
THE CAMBODIA DAILY
Sam Rainsy admitted Monday that 10 of his own lawmakers voted in favor of the controversial law passed by parliament last week to limit the free speech of its members, despite the Sam Rainsy Party having officially branded it as unconstitutional.
The controversy over the law, which passed Wednesday, centers on a provision that makes it possible to prosecute legislators who abuse "an individual's dignity, public order, social customs or national security." The provision, in Article 5 of the law, allows for lawmakers to be detained immediately—without their immunity being stripped—for undefined "obvious crimes."
Sam Rainsy claimed that the 10 SRP lawmakers who voted for the law did so due to undefined "inconsistency" and confusion. The party will not discipline them because their mistake to vote for the law was a "mistake in good faith," he added.
SRP parliamentarian Eng Chhay Eng said he voted for the law even though he didn't support Article 5. He added that other articles in the law, which gave lawmakers pensions and funeral expenses, were good. He also maintained that Article 5 could be amended later.
SRP lawmaker Cheam Channy revealed Monday that he had voted for the law in part because he hadn’t paid any serious attention to Article 5. He added that he ultimately decided to vote yes because he saw that other SRP members were voting in the law's favor.
The official count of Wednesday's vote was 93 lawmakers for the law and one opposed to the law. SRP lawmaker Yim Sovann said he was the SRP’s no-voter. However, SRP lawmaker Keo Remy also maintained that he was in fact the SRP’s only dissenter.
Cambodian Center for Human Rights Director Kem Sokha said the SRP lawmakers who voted for the law appeared to be more focused on their own personal interests than in serving the country.
"They think of their benefits and not the people," he said.
Senior CPP lawmaker Ek Sam Ol held a press conference at the National Assembly Monday morning to defend the passage of the law. "The lawmakers voted to support the law in a responsible manner and in the spirit of freedom," Ek Sam Ol said, adding that the law was not designed to silence lawmakers.
"The law is a tool for the Kingdom of Cambodia to protect the rights, freedom and immunity of lawmakers," he added. Ek Sam Ol, who is also CPP legislation chairman, said that comments by US Ambassador Joseph Mussomeli, who last week said that the National Assembly had castrated itself with the legislation, were unacceptable.
US Embassy spokesman Jeff Daigle said the ambassador stands by his comments.
Ek Sam Ol also noted that both Funcinpec and SRP lawmakers voted for the legislation.
POSTED BY SOCHEATA AT 11:34
tver pennung kor tver min kert. tver ey kor tver min kert. khmer ey kor lognung mes nor?
All these fucken politicians are self-serving too much and don't give a bull fuck any Cambodian people! I am sicken tire of them!
Cambodian people need to check their voting record very closely!
Mr Sam Rainsy,
Have you recently heard the death threats against prince Thomico? Where are you? Why do you remain silent on it?
Maybe, for you, it's just a problem between YUON XEN and the Royal Family? and this doesn't concern you and your party at all, such as Heng Pov affair which your adviced your members not getting involved.
Maybe your main object is to preserve the coalition plan with CPP after the election 2008.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2006
Rumor Mills: Hun Sen’s attempt to meet Sam Rainsy in France to ask him to intervene with L’Express to stop Heng Pov’s publication
Saturday, September 16, 2006
By Chey Dara
Sralanh Khmer newspaper
Translated from Khmer by Heng Soy
One source who is a CPP official let it know that Prime Minister Hun Sen attempted to meet opposition leader Sam Rainsy in France, to ask him to intervene with the French magazine L’Express to stop further publication of Heng Pov’s case. The source indicated that Hun Sen, Hok Lundy – the national police chief, and several CPP leaders are concerned about the proofs and voice recorded documents that Heng Pov, the former advisor of Hun Sen, threatened to reveal in the near future.
The same CPP source also said that Hun Sen believed that Sam Rainsy and Tioulong Saumura, Sam Rainsy’s wife, have the ability to intervene with the (French) magazine L’Express because Antonya Tioulong-Noseda, Sam Rainsy’s sister-in-law and sister of Tioulong Saumura, is in charge of reviewing articles before they go to press, and she is also in charge of collecting articles for this well known magazine. Therefore through this channel, Hun Sen hopes that Sam Rainsy and his wife will have the ability to intervene to stop further publication of or interview with Heng Pov.
An anonymous source claimed that Hun Sen left Helsinki following the ASEM conference last week and went for an unofficial visit to France.
The opposition party said that Sam Rainsy is scheduled to leave Cambodia for France on 16 Sept 2006, and that he plans on returning back to Cambodia on 01 October. However, the opposition leader instead left Cambodia for France on 14 Sept at 8:00 PM, his visit to France coincides with Hun Sen’s presence in France also. Hun Sen plans on returning back to Cambodia this Saturday.
Another source also claimed that Hun Sen was trying to meet Sam Rainsy by phone in August also when the latter was visiting the USA. Hun Sen’s request to meet Sam Rainsy was to ask Sam Rainsy not to be involved in the CPP’s internal affairs, in particular in the case of Heng Pov. Prior to his departure from Phnom Penh to the US, Sam Rainsy told news media that he was planning to meet US government leaders, FBI officials, as well as state, congress and senate government officials in regards to the case of the grenade attack in front of the National Assembly on 30 March 1997.
This latter source also indicated also that it appears that the phone meeting actually took place because Sam Rainsy called on his party leaders not to get involved in Heng Pov’s case because it is a CPP internal problem, and Sam Rainsy also said that this is a case where the thugs of this party (CPP) are dealing with each other.
Nevertheless, on the morning of 31 August 2006, after he returned home from his visit in the US, Sam Rainsy told the news media at the Pochentong airport that he did not meet Hun Sen over the phone.
CPP leaders know that L’Express is an independent institution and it will not suffer any pressure from anyone. Nevertheless, this magazine will honor the intervention request made by Sam Rainsy and his wife. Therefore, if Sam Rainsy allows Hun Sen to meet him in France, Heng Pov’s case will surely be raised, in particular, regarding the mean to stop L’Express from publishing interviews and documents which Heng Pov threatened to reveal in the future.
It is noted that before publishing any accusation on any party, L’Express has the actual proof such as documents and contents of the interviews such as the one provided by Heng Pov recently. Therefore, if there is a meeting between Hun Sen and Sam Rainsy, it is purely coincidental, and the above issue will not be raised for discussions.
L’Express had published in the past stories of the extra marital between Hun Sen and Mrs. Piseth Pilika – a former beautiful star, of the corruption in the construction of the [new] National Assembly building, and more recently the publication of Heng Pov’s case.
Before his departure to France on 14 Sept, Sam Rainsy told a news agency in Cambodia by phone that his trip to France is merely a simple visit among his visits to several other European countries. Sam Rainsy said that during his trip overseas, he has no intention of meeting with Heng Pov at all.
Even though the Singaporean and Malaysian authorities claimed they have lost Heng Pov’s trace, the Cambodian public still wants to know and still follows this case with great attention, in particular, the Cambodian public wants to see Heng Pov reveal the documents and proofs involving the criminal acts perpetrated by Cambodian leaders. This is why the Phnom Penh regime, in particular, Hun Sen and Hok Lundy are concerned with the new revelation by Heng Pov because he (Heng Pov) was a former advisor of Hun Sen and he was a former high ranking official at the ministry of Interior. This is also the reason why the public says that the 9-page statement issued by Heng Pov and his interview with L’Express could actually be truthful.
KI-Media note: According to L'Express magazine website, Ms. Antonya Tioulong-Noseda is the Chief Editor of the magazine.
POSTED BY HENG SOY AT 12:48 AM
9 COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
If Sam Raisy is stupid enough then Sam Raisy can help Hun Sen for this dirty job. Cambodians people around want Hun Sen and Hok Lubdy out from Cambodia for good. These two animals have destroyed Cambodia for too long and to much. It is time for them to stay out from Cambodia or completely retire.
3:36 AM
Anonymous said...
Mr Sam Rainsy,
We are looking forward to hearing soon your corroboration or denial of this rumour.
Thank you,
Khmer pdo chivitt
Post a Comment