(Photo: Reuters)By Phan Sophat
Radio Free Asia
Translated from Khmer by Socheata
Click here to read the article in Khmer
Opposition party and NGO officials, as well as some legal scholars were reacting to the recent lifting of opposition leader Sam Rainsy’s parliamentary immunity, saying that this action is illegal and could be construed as a threat to democracy in the future.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy saw his parliamentary immunity suspended the National Assembly (NA) permanent committee on 26 February.
The decision was made based on a request by the ministry of Justice stemming from a lawsuit case in which Sam Rainsy refused to pay the 10 million riels ($2,500) fine imposed on him the National Election Committee (NEC) for defaming CPP leaders during the past general election campaign.
Sok Sam Oeun, President of the Cambodian legal right defender organization, said that the lifting of Sam Rainsy’s immunity is contrary to the constitution.
Sok Sam Oeun said: “Even if it abides by the (NA) internal rule, it only means that it is the NA rule, the internal rule of the NA, but if they maintain such rule and gives such explanation, it is contrary to the constitution also.”
He added that such action will affect the progress of democracy: “Therefore, in the future, the way this NA acts, it can do anything it wants, so I say that this is against democratic principles.”
Article 80 of the constitution stipulates that “The deputies shall enjoy parliamentary immunity. No assembly member shall be prosecuted, detained or arrested because of opinions expressed during the exercise of his (her) duties.”
“The accusation, arrest, or detention of a member of assembly shall be made only with the permission of the assembly or by the Standing Committee of the Assembly between sessions, except in case of flagrante delicto. In that case, the competent authority shall immediately report to the assembly or to the Standing Committee for decision.”
The Constitution also stipulates that “The decision made by the Standing Committee of the assembly shall be submitted to the assembly at its next session for approval by a 2/3 majority vote of the assembly members. In any case, detention or prosecution of a deputy shall be suspended by a 3/4 majority vote of the Assembly members.”
Ou Virak, President of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), said that the decision taken by the NA permanent committee is a violation of the democratic process.
Ou Virak said: “We can see that (1) it is wrong, their action is not right, (2) as far as democracy is concerned in Cambodia, we can see that actions are not done according to the law or according to correct policy, they are conducted based on the circumstance, and decisions are made by the conviction of a small group or by an individual. This means that democracy is not stable at all.”
SRP MP Son Chhay said that the decision to lift Sam Rainsy’s immunity shines a bad light on the Cambodian parliament: “This is only a case involving money, it should not lead to a lifting of parliamentary immunity, this makes the MPs look valueless. It’s not just the opposition MPs who are valueless, but all the 123 MPs are cheap, that also includes Samdach Heng Samrin, his immunity is also valueless just like ours, because for such a case, they lift the parliamentary immunity just like a joke.”
Regarding this parliamentary immunity lifting case, CPP MP Cheam Yeap said: “The permanent committee only said it, but it did not make any decision yet. They only include the case in the agenda of the (NA) meeting, they ask to suspend the immunity, but there is no (NA) meeting yet, nothing was done yet, but H.E. Sam Rainsy was all afraid by himself.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Chhim Phal Vorun, director of the institute for Civil Education, said that the NA should resolve this issue for future cases.
At this point in time, the dispute between Sam Rainsy and the NEC has already ended. Following the payment of the fine by Sam Rainsy, the NEC dropped its lawsuit, but the question remains as to whether Sam Rainsy will recover his parliamentary immunity or not, and if he does, when?
Mrs. Chea Vannat, a Cambodian political commentator, said the return of the parliamentary immunity to the opposition leader is necessary so that it can show the positive side of the application of political plurality in Cambodia. Mrs. Chea Vannat said: “Because we keep on saying that Cambodia is a plural democracy that includes opposition parties, but if the opposition party cannot function properly, then we can no longer call it a plural democracy anymore.”
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy saw his parliamentary immunity suspended the National Assembly (NA) permanent committee on 26 February.
The decision was made based on a request by the ministry of Justice stemming from a lawsuit case in which Sam Rainsy refused to pay the 10 million riels ($2,500) fine imposed on him the National Election Committee (NEC) for defaming CPP leaders during the past general election campaign.
Sok Sam Oeun, President of the Cambodian legal right defender organization, said that the lifting of Sam Rainsy’s immunity is contrary to the constitution.
Sok Sam Oeun said: “Even if it abides by the (NA) internal rule, it only means that it is the NA rule, the internal rule of the NA, but if they maintain such rule and gives such explanation, it is contrary to the constitution also.”
He added that such action will affect the progress of democracy: “Therefore, in the future, the way this NA acts, it can do anything it wants, so I say that this is against democratic principles.”
Article 80 of the constitution stipulates that “The deputies shall enjoy parliamentary immunity. No assembly member shall be prosecuted, detained or arrested because of opinions expressed during the exercise of his (her) duties.”
“The accusation, arrest, or detention of a member of assembly shall be made only with the permission of the assembly or by the Standing Committee of the Assembly between sessions, except in case of flagrante delicto. In that case, the competent authority shall immediately report to the assembly or to the Standing Committee for decision.”
The Constitution also stipulates that “The decision made by the Standing Committee of the assembly shall be submitted to the assembly at its next session for approval by a 2/3 majority vote of the assembly members. In any case, detention or prosecution of a deputy shall be suspended by a 3/4 majority vote of the Assembly members.”
Ou Virak, President of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), said that the decision taken by the NA permanent committee is a violation of the democratic process.
Ou Virak said: “We can see that (1) it is wrong, their action is not right, (2) as far as democracy is concerned in Cambodia, we can see that actions are not done according to the law or according to correct policy, they are conducted based on the circumstance, and decisions are made by the conviction of a small group or by an individual. This means that democracy is not stable at all.”
SRP MP Son Chhay said that the decision to lift Sam Rainsy’s immunity shines a bad light on the Cambodian parliament: “This is only a case involving money, it should not lead to a lifting of parliamentary immunity, this makes the MPs look valueless. It’s not just the opposition MPs who are valueless, but all the 123 MPs are cheap, that also includes Samdach Heng Samrin, his immunity is also valueless just like ours, because for such a case, they lift the parliamentary immunity just like a joke.”
Regarding this parliamentary immunity lifting case, CPP MP Cheam Yeap said: “The permanent committee only said it, but it did not make any decision yet. They only include the case in the agenda of the (NA) meeting, they ask to suspend the immunity, but there is no (NA) meeting yet, nothing was done yet, but H.E. Sam Rainsy was all afraid by himself.”
Nevertheless, Dr. Chhim Phal Vorun, director of the institute for Civil Education, said that the NA should resolve this issue for future cases.
At this point in time, the dispute between Sam Rainsy and the NEC has already ended. Following the payment of the fine by Sam Rainsy, the NEC dropped its lawsuit, but the question remains as to whether Sam Rainsy will recover his parliamentary immunity or not, and if he does, when?
Mrs. Chea Vannat, a Cambodian political commentator, said the return of the parliamentary immunity to the opposition leader is necessary so that it can show the positive side of the application of political plurality in Cambodia. Mrs. Chea Vannat said: “Because we keep on saying that Cambodia is a plural democracy that includes opposition parties, but if the opposition party cannot function properly, then we can no longer call it a plural democracy anymore.”
5 comments:
LOL, what else is new? We already know nothing is ever legal when anyone prosecutes any member of pouk ah Scam Rainxy. It makes no difference whether it is done in the east or west.
i 1 2.. f ur dghter
You should blame on Sam Rainsy's if have no one stand up to fight for khmer people Right, all the curruption powver is still kill and destroy khmer Land. I'm not in any of party, but I'm khmer in blood, and don't you all want to see our country have a Freedom.
Stop hurting each other, we should work together as a Khmer.
I must laugh louder that all members of parliament whose cannot even understood the constitution laws which stated in article 80 said
'In any case detention or prosecution of deputy shall be suspended by a 3/4 majority votes of the assembly.
Therefore, it is noway that Hun Sen can get 3/4 majority votes of the assembly to vote to lift Mr Sam Ransy immunity.
So all CPP members must get shame. Areak Prey
50%+1=boss, ignorant (4:51).
Post a Comment