Opinion by Sam Rainsy
Letter sent to The Cambodia Daily
Related to the story "Opposition Asks King for Separate Swearing-In" (Sept 4, page 29), I wish to specify that the reasons for our demand are twofold:
Everybody realizes that the new Assembly cannot validly convene without participation from the opposition. Article 76 of the Constitution states, "The National Assembly consists of al least 120 members."
At its first meeting after any legislative election, the Assembly has to first proclaim the validity of ail its members' mandate. Therefore, with only 94 sworn in members (CPP + Funcinpec + NRP) present at its first meeting on Sept 24 or 25, while 29 other members-elect (SRP+HRP) will have yet to be sworn in, the Assembly on that day will hold an illegitimate session and will not have the power to make any valid decisions, including the decision to proclaim the validity of ail its members. Because the Constitution is the country’s supreme law, no provisions from any other laws can supercede the above Article 76.
What's more, the CPP also intends, at that very first Assembly meeting, to proceed with the simultaneous election of the Assembly speaker and the prime minister through a single ballot called a "package vote." The tact that the legislative and executive branches of the government will have their respective leaderships elected at the same time, through the same single vote, clearly proves that there is no separation of powers and no system of checks and balances, which is the very essence of a functioning democracy.
The opposition does not want to legitimize Cambodia's crumbling façade of democracy or to appear in an irresponsible and ludicrous show that may lead to a dangerous political crisis.
Sam Rainsy,
SRP President
- The 29 National Assembly members-elect from the opposition have legitimately won their parliamentary seats without a shadow of a doubt. The same cannot be said for the 90 members-elect from the ruling CPP given the number and the seriousness of election irregularities that have not been properly addressed. Taking part in a swearing-in ceremony with them would mean that we would recognize their legitimate presence in the new Assembly, whereas we have serious arguments to prove that a number of them have actually stolen seats from us. Our arguments are exposed on our Web site, http://tinyurl.com/4eegak, which is updated on a daily basis.
- Opposition parliamentarians-elect will be sworn in and will become full-fledged Assembly members only after the first "plenary" session of the CPP-dominated Assembly has been held Sept 24 or 25. We want the ruling party to bear the full responsibility of its decision to ignore the opposition's electoral grievances and Assembly-related demands.
Everybody realizes that the new Assembly cannot validly convene without participation from the opposition. Article 76 of the Constitution states, "The National Assembly consists of al least 120 members."
At its first meeting after any legislative election, the Assembly has to first proclaim the validity of ail its members' mandate. Therefore, with only 94 sworn in members (CPP + Funcinpec + NRP) present at its first meeting on Sept 24 or 25, while 29 other members-elect (SRP+HRP) will have yet to be sworn in, the Assembly on that day will hold an illegitimate session and will not have the power to make any valid decisions, including the decision to proclaim the validity of ail its members. Because the Constitution is the country’s supreme law, no provisions from any other laws can supercede the above Article 76.
What's more, the CPP also intends, at that very first Assembly meeting, to proceed with the simultaneous election of the Assembly speaker and the prime minister through a single ballot called a "package vote." The tact that the legislative and executive branches of the government will have their respective leaderships elected at the same time, through the same single vote, clearly proves that there is no separation of powers and no system of checks and balances, which is the very essence of a functioning democracy.
The opposition does not want to legitimize Cambodia's crumbling façade of democracy or to appear in an irresponsible and ludicrous show that may lead to a dangerous political crisis.
Sam Rainsy,
SRP President
8 comments:
The arguement that the assembly consists of at least 120 members does not in itself mean that 120 members must be present at any given time including the constituting session. Article 76 only specifies that 120 members are to be elected. The opposition's position is a very broad interpretation that will not hold up in an international court, much less in a Cambodian court.
Fact from Wikipedia,
Lesson learned from Vice President Al Gore
Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000
In the 2000 election, Gore won the national popular vote, but lost the electoral college vote, after a bitter legal battle over disputed vote counts in the state of Florida...
Gore strongly disagreed with the Court’s decision, but said "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession."
You just wasted time on the stupid king Sam Rainsy.
You should ask Ah Hun Xen, you might get more change than that moron KING.
Article 18 - [constitution]
The King shall communicate with the Assembly by royal messages. These royal messages shall not be subjected to discussion by the National Assembly.
many peopleout there may think that Article 18 of the constitution is irrelevant to the subject discuss here.
In light of Mr. Sam Rainsy's letter to HRH King Norodom Sihamoni this particular Article may serve as the tool to bridge the 24 and 25 September swearing-in ceremony of the 4th mandate National Assembly.
Since the 3rd mandate National Assembly is yet to dissolve any royal message with national assembly is deemed to be legal and shall not be discussed by the National Assembly.
Indeed, Article 76 of the Constitution states, "The National Assembly consists of at least 120 members.", however, but failed short to stipulate that all 120 members shall be presented on the day [if to be interpreted in a broad and general term].
The hard choice now for HRH the King is to make 2 consecutive trips to the National Assembly on 24 and 25 September respectively, and in legal term wise it is still legitimate under a SPECIAL CIRCUSTANCE in which based on Mr. Sam Rainsy's letter - requesting to take oath on 25 September [We want the ruling party to bear the full responsibility of its decision to ignore the opposition's electoral grievances and Assembly-related demands].
By the way, to take oath on 25th September is to say that SRP & HRP so far recognize the results of the election despite on-going protest.
On the subject of "Responsibility" [referring to one of Mr. Sam Rainsy comment - We want the ruling party to bear the full responsibility of its decision to ignore the opposition's electoral grievances and Assembly-related demands]
Here below is the script on foot note of Mr. Sam rainsy letters' address to all countries described in http://tinyurl.com/4eegak, duly signed by Mr. Sam Rainsy and co-sign by Mr. Kem Sokha on the legitimate National Assembly letter head.
Sam Rainsy
President of the Sam Rainsy Party
MP elect following the July 27, 2008 election
Kem Sokha
President of the Human Rights Party
MP elect following the July 27, 2008 election.
The question here is relating and all about "Responsibility".
It's fair that Mr. Sam Rainsy to use the National Assembly letter as and since Mr. Sam Rainsy is and will be the Parlimentarian since the 3rd mandate is yet dissolved, but to have a co-signature of Mr. Kem Sokha who is MP elect following the 27th July 2008; is indeed FISHIE.
Mr. Kem Sokha is indeed MP elect following 27 July 2008 election, but Mr. Kem Sokha is still protesting the election result, is not legally swearing in as a Parliamentary yet does not constitute his right to co-sign on the legitimate National Assembly letter head.
It is necessary that the apprentice lawyer sam rainsy stops joking with words extracts outside his context.
The item 76 of the constitution is not written specially for the 1st meeting of benefit of oath. This same item is not written for the case where a part of the representatives voluntarily refuse to present itself in front of the national assembly.
This same item 76 of the constitution is not written with the intention of to block the institution functioning. And this is the constitutional counsel that will be judges and interprets of this item and not the joker sam rainsy.
The constitution's authors did not write this item 76 to give the means to the representatives beaten to the elections to block the institution functioning.
Sam rainsy and khem sokha stop being delirious and to relate idiocies!
The constitution's authors did not do to say to the item 76 that for the first meeting of benefit of the oaths, it is necessary at least 120 representatives for that the national assembly validly is combined!
The constitution authors did not do to say to the item 76 that the meeting of the national assembly is not valid if there is less than 120 present representatives and that the motives of their absence are without importance!
The constitutional counsel is the only qualified authority to interpret this item 76 and no one else.
Sam rainsy poorly understood the spirit and the deep meaning of this item 76.
Keep on trying, sir!
Democracy and Human Rights is important to maintain long term growth.
If Cambodians really have enjoyed the dictatorship, we would not have changed many regimes for the past 40 years.
Thai PM bought votes that's why it's not legitimate for long term staying and result in instability.
Post a Comment