Dear Editor,
It is becoming very obvious now that these defamation lawsuits will have a great impact on freedom of expression in Cambodia.
Lok Chumteav Mu Sochua, a member of Parliament from Sam Rainsy Party, lodged a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Hun Sen on April 23, 2009.
Then Hun Sen's lawyer, Mr Ky Tech, former president of the Cambodian Bar Association, responded by countersuing her and then her lawyer for defamation.
On the positive side, it is great that Chumteav Mu Sochua dares to sue Hun Sen, who is considered by many as a powerful leader.
Such courage hopefully serves as a precedent for the general public in Cambodia that, legally, they can lodge a complaint against their leader if they find that their rights have been violated.
However, the longer-term effect of this case is very deleterious to the current situation of freedom of expression in Cambodia.
Mr Hun Sen does not bow down to anyone; nor does he bow to Mu Sochua's legal threat.
In response, he even sues her lawyer, who might be soon disbarred if the legal confrontation between the two parties continues.
As a matter of fact, freedom of expression in Cambodia, including that of the lawyer, is very much marred by the restrictive legal framework.
The case of Mu Sochua versus Hun Sen is another test of the court's competence and independence.
It has been observed that defamation charges provided for in the 1992 UNTAC law are mainly used by politicians to silence their critics and journalists, and the court's decision is very often made in favour of the powerful ones.
There is a consensus that criticising the government or high politicians in the government might risk defamation charges.
In December 2005, eight well-respected human rights advocates were arrested and detained for defamation, disinformation and/or incitement.
A few more are seeking asylum in the West, while journalists have also been charged of defamation.
Even though there is hope that defamation will be decriminalised in the newly drafted criminal code, the case of Mu Sochua versus Hun Sen poses a great threat to free expression in Cambodia.
Sreang Chheat
Cambodian Centre for Human Rights
(CCHR)
Even though there is hope that defamation will be decriminalised in the newly drafted criminal code, the case of Mu Sochua versus Hun Sen poses a great threat to free expression in Cambodia.The Phnom Penh Post
It is becoming very obvious now that these defamation lawsuits will have a great impact on freedom of expression in Cambodia.
Lok Chumteav Mu Sochua, a member of Parliament from Sam Rainsy Party, lodged a defamation lawsuit against Prime Minister Hun Sen on April 23, 2009.
Then Hun Sen's lawyer, Mr Ky Tech, former president of the Cambodian Bar Association, responded by countersuing her and then her lawyer for defamation.
On the positive side, it is great that Chumteav Mu Sochua dares to sue Hun Sen, who is considered by many as a powerful leader.
Such courage hopefully serves as a precedent for the general public in Cambodia that, legally, they can lodge a complaint against their leader if they find that their rights have been violated.
However, the longer-term effect of this case is very deleterious to the current situation of freedom of expression in Cambodia.
Mr Hun Sen does not bow down to anyone; nor does he bow to Mu Sochua's legal threat.
In response, he even sues her lawyer, who might be soon disbarred if the legal confrontation between the two parties continues.
As a matter of fact, freedom of expression in Cambodia, including that of the lawyer, is very much marred by the restrictive legal framework.
The case of Mu Sochua versus Hun Sen is another test of the court's competence and independence.
It has been observed that defamation charges provided for in the 1992 UNTAC law are mainly used by politicians to silence their critics and journalists, and the court's decision is very often made in favour of the powerful ones.
There is a consensus that criticising the government or high politicians in the government might risk defamation charges.
In December 2005, eight well-respected human rights advocates were arrested and detained for defamation, disinformation and/or incitement.
A few more are seeking asylum in the West, while journalists have also been charged of defamation.
Even though there is hope that defamation will be decriminalised in the newly drafted criminal code, the case of Mu Sochua versus Hun Sen poses a great threat to free expression in Cambodia.
Sreang Chheat
Cambodian Centre for Human Rights
(CCHR)
8 comments:
If a lawyer does not dare to represent a MP because of intimidation, who dare to represent the rest of us, especially the poor victims?
It's high time for everyone to reflect it in what regime are we living?
Freedom ain't come easily, at least you must bravely fight from one generation to the next as black folks did!
If Rainsi does not come out to express his support for Ms. Mu, the party should elect a new leader next time. It is sickening to see many non-sustained protests quickly succumbed to intimidation and fear. The more people fight back (peaceful and legal) the more they expose the weaknesses of the bullies. Bullying does not stop because the victims cooperate, it actually perpetuates if allowed to continue without resistence.
This is just a political stage fight. The outcome will amount to nothing.
The brave who dare to fight the brutal, arrogant and cocoky dictator like Hun Sen, who sells the country for his own families' and clique's benefit, deserve encouragement and praise, not insult. May gods bless them all.
If Sam Rainsy or others from SRP get pulled into this, or publicly offer their support as some would like, they then play into the hands of Hun Sen & CPP. CPP will use Sam Rainsy's support to then claim that the whole story has become "politicized". This will then become the story, deliberately distracting from the real story. Mu Sochua NEEDS to keep the story focused - not allow others to distract her & deliberately distract the media.
The PM should think more about quality of his advisors not quantity. Talk about playground bullies
Defamation under UNTAC was defined as criminal, however, now since the PM's call for decriminalization, lible and slander are a civil matter. However, it still continues to be used by those who feel that they were defamined. The good thing is that the courts are used to air these greavences. The question is whether or not the courts can make decisions following the rule of law. Cambodia follows the civil code system which has two underlying assumptions- that of having wise, well trained judges and judges that are not corrupt. Without these two foundational assumptions being met, this type of judicial system can't result in true justice. That is now the challenge for the Cambodian court system. A resent Supreme Court ruling upheld an Appeals Court ruling denying a charge of defamation, so there is hope that where charges of defamation are not properly founded, the cours will strike it down.
I think everyone ought to come out and support her because justice and freedom of speech is for everyone and our future children. If we don't do it now, when? Our time will be lost as long as HUN SEN will be there.
Post a Comment