Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Friday, June 10, 2011

Democracy roots spread in Southeast Asia

Jun 1, 2011
By Michael Vatikiotis
Asia Times Online

Fifteen years ago I published a book on political change in Southeast Asia. I gave it the title Trimming the Banyan Tree.

The book, rather controversially for the time, predicted no great wave of democracy sweeping across the region. "The prevailing political cultures of the region are proving resistant to change," I wrote. "Strong leadership, supported by an enduring culture of patronage remains a characteristic feature of the more economically successful states...."

For all the liberal triumphalism of the post-Cold War era, I saw no swift or linear progression towards greater pluralism and democracy in Southeast Asia; rather I predicted a slow, gradual pace of reform, subject to setbacks. "It is easier for ruling elites to trim the banyan tree at their convenience," I wrote at the time, "harder for activists to muster the strength to hack off whole limbs."

Looking at Southeast Asia today I would say I was partly wrong, but sadly also partly right. I was partly wrong in the sense that democracy has made significant advances in the region - notably in Indonesia. I was partly right because we have also seen parallel advances in political reform rolled back in countries like Malaysia, Thailand and also arguably in Cambodia and Myanmar - where even marginal openings since the 1990s have been closed. Some commentators have characterized surprising gains made by the opposition in the recent Singapore elections as a "tsunami", but half a dozen seats in parliament at the expense of a couple of senior ministers is more of an unusually high tide than a tsunami.

Monday, April 04, 2011

Commentary: Can we spread democracy?

Mon, Apr. 04, 2011
Ben Barber
Special to McClatchy Newspapers

The crowds screaming for the downfall of dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, etc. all shout out the same magical mantra: We want Democracy.

And the United States has been pushing — since the time of John F. Kennedy and before — to support similar aspirations for democracy — in Western Europe and Japan after World War II; in the failed but well-intentioned efforts to block communism from South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; in foreign aid to the former Socialist bloc after the collapse of communism; and in scores of Third World (Developing) countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Some of our democracy aid has worked well but some has failed.

In the Ukraine after 2000, U.S. aid programs brought Ukrainian journalists, judges, and young civil society leaders to visit America’s imperfect but still growing democracy or receive training at home. Then, when the old communist rulers tried to steal an election, independent pollsters named the real winner. TV journalists reported on the fraud, the Supreme Court declared the election invalid and thousands came to shiver in democracy protests in the Orange Revolution.

Monday, October 18, 2010

China's Democratic Conversation

Wen Jiabao (AP)
OCTOBER 13, 2010
The Wall Street Journal

Far from a Western conceit, talk of freedom surfaces at every opportunity

One of the worst conceits of modern Sinologists is that China is not like the West, that its people harbor different goals in life, and that freedom isn't one of them. According to that mindset, the Nobel Prize awarded last week to dissident Liu Xiaobo is a meaningless gesture made by foreigners and unreflective of the Chinese people's wishes. Yet when China's leadership signals a tolerance, however slight, for openness, debate about freedom blooms.

That may be what's happening now in the wake of Premier Wen Jiabao's recent statements extolling political reform. Taking the hint, 23 Communist Party elders Monday posted an open letter on the Internet calling for freedom of speech and press. Like the Nobel committee, they ask only for the rights already guaranteed in China's own constitution. They also noted the irony that even the statements of Chinese leaders are sometimes censored on the mainland, and that mainland Chinese don't enjoy the same rights as their peers in Hong Kong and Macau.

On Wednesday mainland newspapers took up the issue, publishing front-page articles on Premier Wen's calls for reform. On Thursday, one paper even ventured an article on the Nobel Prize. This kind of activism isn't as rare as you might think: As China's journalists hone their skills and communicate with each other via the Internet, they have become bolder. In March, 13 newspapers published an open letter calling for the reform of China's dysfunctional system of household registration for migrant workers.



Wednesday's articles are particularly well-timed, given that China's Central Committee starts a three-day meeting Friday and is expected to discuss the country's political and economic direction. The current generation of leadership is a cautious crowd, so no one—not even Premier Wen—is likely to discuss true democratic reform. All the more so given that the transition to the next generation of leaders is only two years away.

Yet if this week's events show anything, it is the increasing tension between one-party rule and the freer flow of information that is producing a better-informed public. The Party's "black hand" censors tried hard this week to block any mention of the Nobel Prize or Mr. Liu from television, print media, the Internet and mobile communication networks. Yet China's savvy citizens, especially its young people, have figured out ways around the firewall, not least by word of mouth.

Perhaps it's this tension that Premier Wen recognized when he said in a speech in Shenzhen in August that China stands at a "great new juncture in history" and "cannot stand still" nor "afford to step backward." If political reform is needed and China wants to chart its own path, then it has to start talking about it—a prospect that horrifies Party elites who have based their careers, personal wealth and family futures on a closed system that rewards cronyism, not competition and achievement.

This is a conversation that China and its people will eventually have, whether the Communist Party wants it or not. The Nobel Prize by itself won't change China, and neither will this week's open letter. What will change China is the common aspiration of its people for freedom.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

What derails democracy? [-The Nepal experience]

Thursday, September 09, 2010
PRANAV BHATTARAI
Republica
Opinion


What makes democracy functional? And what causes its downfall? Why has the world’s supposedly best system failed in many countries? Different studies worldwide have tried to explore the answers to these questions. Countries emerging out of ‘system transition’ have fallen to autocracy or some sort of despotism.

There are ample but painful lessons from other failed states. Freedom House, a US-based International Non-Governmental Organization, in its 2009 report noted declines of electoral democracies to 116, the lowest number since 1995. As Nepal is also in the most difficult transition in history, we must take caution that Nepal doesn’t rollback to any form of undemocratic regime because of our inability to institutionalize strong democratic institutions during transition to federalism.

Nepal is now emerging out from the ashes of the past conflict, and has miles to go before it projects itself as a stable, transparent and prosperous federal democracy in the world arena. Of the many challenges, pervasive corruption, bad governance, deteriorating rule of law and weak state institutions are impediments to Nepal’s successful transition to federal republic. A series of failed prime ministerial elections, deteriorating rule of law, fragile security, two-digit inflation, slumped economy, growing unemployment, rampant corruption, widening poverty, moribund development, rising trade deficit, unregulated market, politicized bureaucracy, poor service delivery, derelict public institutions and fractious politics are enough to choke up Nepal’s democratization process.

Democracy has not been able to deliver development and good governance as expected. Nepal is facing a Herculean challenge to promote good governance and control corruption to restore decreasing people’s trust in democratic system because of our bigoted political parties. We can fight this challenge only when democratic institutions are strengthened and made vibrant in prosecuting corruption in all forms. Everyone is equal under the law in democracy. But, this noble principle, however, does not apply in Nepal when corruption or organized crime suspects are political party cadres, businessmen, high-profile bureaucrats or prominent politicians.

ALARMING INDICATORS

The Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index-2009 ranks Nepal in the 143rd position. The country is the second-most corrupt in South Asia. Similarly, Global Integrity Report-2009 has rated Nepal’s integrity as “weak”. The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indictors for 2008 ranked Nepal as a country with a serious governance crisis. In yet another striking revelation, the Oxford University’s research for United Nations Development Program shows around 65 percent Nepali people live on less than $2 a day. Likewise, the Failed State Index of the International Peace Fund puts Nepal in the 26th position. It argues that political instability, bad governance, weak economy, fragile security and deteriorating rule of law are potential indicators of Nepal’s failed state status. These independent projections foresee a frightening situation for this young but besieged republic.

Nepal is indeed a fragile, though literally not a “failed state” yet. Fragile state encounters different challenges to address corruption than in normal development contexts. Weak state capacity hinders development and good governance, which is a pre-requisite to institutionalization of the democratic system. The experiences from countries such as Thailand, Pakistan, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Mozambique and beyond shows that neglecting corruption and bad governance from the outset undermines democracy and people’s trust toward it. As democracy thrives in strong institutions and policy settings, Nepal needs to grow strong and robust institutions for sustaining democracy.

However, a high probability of Nepal becoming a failed state cannot be ruled out if deteriorating rule of law, corruption and bad governance continue. Systemic failure to effectively control corruption and provide good governance to 28 million people may cause the downfall of our democratic system ultimately. The successful examples of democratic leadership worldwide have evidenced that long-term economic growth breeds stronger democratic institutions and make them less vulnerable to setbacks and conflict. Therefore, the focus of political leadership in new Nepal should be to create political stability and good governance for at least a decade to come to materialize the long-sought economic transformation.

A STRONG FLIPSIDE

The middle-class population has been a major strength behind all revolutions around the world. The middle-class people that helped oust autocrats from power once have now resorted back to undemocratic practices or means to shake the foundations of young democracies because of their failure to meet their expectations of a better life, employment opportunities, social security, good governance and effective rule of law.

Political parties in countries such as Nepal see democracy just as a ‘legitimate recourse’ to grab power. This narrow interpretation of democracy in countries from Thailand to Pakistan to the Philippines to Cambodia to Russia to Venezuela not only distorted the true meaning of the word but also alienated the general populace who became disgusted with these so-called democrats who seemed no more interested to the common cause for good governance, security, development, effective services and strong rule of law. Growing disenchantment of the middle-class people with newly-established democracies is due to incapacity of the early leaders of the young democracies to recognize that free societies require strong institutions for democratic consolidation.
The experiences from countries such as Thailand, Pakistan, Bosnia, Nicaragua, Mozambique and beyond shows that neglecting corruption and bad governance from the outset undermines democracy and people’s trust toward it.
In many countries where democracy has been recently rolled back, the middle class that once promoted political freedom has resorted to extralegal, undemocratic tactics—supposedly to save democracy itself. Many called for a military intervention or a kind of benevolent despotism to restore the rule of law and fight corruption. When former King, Gyanendra Shah, took executive powers on himself, the urban middle-class population welcomed the move expecting that he would put things on track. The hopes soon turned into frustration against him that caused his unopposed dethronement.

Disappointed with the elected autocrats and frustrated with the graft of young democracies, many middle-class activists in developing countries are now even longing for the old days of authoritarian rule. Coups in Mauritania and Niger in Africa were welcomed by the urban middle class, while data from the Asian Barometer surveys shows that many respondents have become disappointed with their democratic systems.

The middle-class people who ran amok in streets in hundreds of thousands during Janaandolan II are now frustrated with the political parties, which have miserably failed to fix things, further the peace process and give momentum to the deadlocked constitution-writing task. When trust in governance is questioned and public confidence in such institutions is hollow, public anger flourishes at the cost of democratic system itself. Political parties are losing their credibility, and gradual decay of their popular trust is detrimental to our democratic transition as well. The Asian Development Bank’s latest report has quantified Nepal’s middle-class population to be around 23 percent or 6.1 million. As this group is easily hit hard by any kind of instability, the flipside of this growing middle-class population is that it may fight against democracy for its failure to ensure them a better future.

In two decades of fragile democracy in Nepal, many institutions created since 1990s have been destroyed. We have destabilized social harmony, ruined bureaucracy, police, judiciary, local bodies and many other key institutions. It would take decades, if not years, for a committed leadership to rebuild these institutions. People pinned high hopes for good governance, corruption control, economic development, better life, strong rule of law, social security after the fall of monarchy but we have been witnessing the turmoil and political infighting only for partisan causes. The history of other young democracies has shown that democratic success in early years can be very fragile due to failure to sustain difficult democratization process.

Things as they unfold now don’t augur well for Nepal. People’s hopes for better governance have been ditched by none other than the political parties who promised prosperity for new Nepal. Nepal is now facing extraordinary political circumstances which need deft handling. The transition Nepal is making from a ‘feudal past to a federal future’ is being marred by a dangerous collusion of conflicting political ideologies, parties’ super-egos and geo-political interests. This is likely to shake the very foundations of our democratization process and may put the spanners in our smooth transition to a federal republic. When an autocracy fails, a despot is solely responsible for the downfall while when a democracy fails, all its actors—political parties, media, civil society, bureaucracy, private sector, citizenry, among others—are equally blamed for the failure. Can we afford to take the blame?

pbhattarai2001@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

How to deal with misunderstandings

I have no apologies for backing the people who opposed Vietnamese occupation of Khmer soil; nor any for joining the Non-Communist Resistance (1980-1989) to act against Vietnamese troops that installed a puppet regime in Cambodia and that controlled the country from 1979-1989.

My ideas of democracy, republican values and rule of law have never wavered.

Yet I served without complaint when Prince Sihanouk was president of the coalition that fought Vietnamese occupiers, and I served with Prince Sihanouk's son, Prince Ranariddh, in the joint military command, fighting the Vietnamese occupiers. My homeland's sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable.
August 18, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)


Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu said, "To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect."

To understand is to comprehend, to grasp the significance or the meaning of something intended or expressed by another. It requires an ability to imagine, relate, compare, identify, interpret and analyze the thinking of another.

An amusing remark attributed to Robert McCloskey of the U.S. State Department is relevant: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Everyone of us has misunderstood the intended meaning expressed by another -- who may not have expressed themselves well. Whatever causes it, misunderstanding creates friction, ends friendships, alienates people.

Lord knows, I have experienced both ends of misunderstanding. Thankfully there's usually less trouble when it is I who misunderstood! In my Asian culture, I was taught the adage "Silence is golden." I smiled to read Abraham Lincoln's advice, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

But it was my parents' upbringing of me that spared me much trouble when I misunderstood others. My mother, with an elementary school education, made sure I knew that humans argue and don't always accept each other's views; that I must learn to listen more than to speak, as maturity takes time. And my father, with a high school education, taught me only when different minds meet through humbly talking, listening and thinking does one's true vision emerge.

They both advised that I roll my tongue seven times before I speak; if I itched to argue, I should go eat a green sappy banana, which should spare me from fighting.

Both my parents died in 1975, when Pol Pot took over Cambodia. My mother passed away in my sister's arms . She could no longer endure the lack of food and demanding hard labor. My father was pulled away from the house and executed on the day Pol Pot's soldiers evacuated Phnom Penh city.

But their teachings have remained with me.

On the other hand, while I have learned enough how not to be unhappy and hurt as one who is sometimes misunderstood, I have found misunderstanding by others unnerving. Sometimes a failure to understand can be a symptom of ignorance or of a moral certainty of one's own view that is not supported by informed critical thinking. Such a tunnel view is not dissimilar to Pol Pot's uncompromising concept of what was "correct" thinking.

So, one misunderstands. Then one labels and brands. What follows is a categorization of the "we" and "they" groups and all that that entails.

Someone "anonymous" labeled me a Khmer "republican diehard" because of my criticism of Chief of State Norodom Sihanouk's foreign policy that resulted in 3,500 square kilometers of Khmer soil being occupied by Vietnamese Communist troops, who used the occupied land as a springboard for attacks against the Americans and their allies. As a result, the Vietnam War spilled into Cambodia, Pol Pot gained Sihanouk's support and succeeded in overturning the Khmer Republic, all of which was a prelude to Vietnam's invasion and occupation of Cambodia.

As a U.S.-trained political scientist, I studied U.S. history and learned from the U.S. forefathers' philosophies. It was from this foundation that I have embraced democracy, republican values and the rule of law. None of these are what Lon Nol's Khmer Republic experienced as it was thrown into the hell and fire of war.

I have no apologies for backing the people who opposed Vietnamese occupation of Khmer soil; nor any for joining the Non-Communist Resistance (1980-1989) to act against Vietnamese troops that installed a puppet regime in Cambodia and that controlled the country from 1979-1989.

My ideas of democracy, republican values and rule of law have never wavered.

Yet I served without complaint when Prince Sihanouk was president of the coalition that fought Vietnamese occupiers, and I served with Prince Sihanouk's son, Prince Ranariddh, in the joint military command, fighting the Vietnamese occupiers. My homeland's sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable.

When Khmer factions and their foreign backers spoke of "national reconciliation," I left the resistance for an academic career.

I continued my friendships with people I knew in the royalist movement, and people who worked with me in the resistance but who are now with the new regime, for one reason or another, and I debate only on public policies -- not on personalities.

I like what India's great political and spiritual leader, Mahatma Gandhi, said: "I look only to the good qualities of men. Not being faultless myself, I won't presume to probe into the faults of others."

I am not a Buddhist, but Buddha's words I cherish: "You should respect each other and refrain from disputes; you should not, like water and oil, repel each other, but should, like milk and water, mingle together."

And his other words: "Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so let us all be thankful."

Humility keeps our arrogance in check, and our understanding and misunderstanding in perspective.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

“In any nation, when people are demanding reform, this is a sign of prosperity. To ignore these demands is to invite instability”: Commie official

A Chinese Official Praises a Taboo: Democracy

July 23, 2010
By ANDREW JACOBS
The New York Times


ADVOCATING democracy in a single-party, authoritarian state would seem to be a fool’s errand.

Wei Jingsheng, one of China’s most ardent pro-democracy dissidents, spent over a decade in jail for demanding multiparty elections. Last year, the writer Liu Xiaobo was given an 11-year sentence after he wrote a manifesto calling for an end to the Chinese Communist Party’s hold on power.

Then there is Yu Keping, a mild-mannered policy wonk who has been singing the praises of democracy for years. In his most famous essay, “Democracy Is a Good Thing,” he made an impassioned argument for the inevitability of direct elections in China, describing democracy as “the best political system for humankind.”

In April, he published another treatise calling on the Communist Party to abide by the Constitution, not a small matter in a country where government leaders often argue that the law should be subservient to the party.

A cynical troublemaker playing with fire? Hardly.

Mr. Yu’s writings are sold in state-owned bookstores, and he is a ranking Communist Party official in charge of the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, an obscure agency dedicated to translating works by Chinese leaders and Marxist tracts from around the world. He also runs a policy research organization, China Center for Comparative Politics and Economics, that provides advice to China’s leadership.

Even China experts have a hard time determining whether Mr. Yu is a brave voice for change or simply a well-placed shill.

Mr. Yu, 51, a deceptively soft-spoken man who is fond of guns and off-road driving, does little to clarify his role. “I am only a scholar interested in academic research,” he said with a grin, surrounded by hundreds of books in his Beijing office.

A closer look at Mr. Yu provides a small window into the role of those few public intellectuals who have learned to navigate what would appear to be treacherous terrain. They tackle seemingly provocative subjects and can even function as a force for change, but in the end their writings rarely challenge the underpinnings of China’s single-party, authoritarian rule.

Even Mr. Yu’s use of the word “democracy” is not what it seems. China’s leaders frequently talk about it as a worthy goal, but in practice they have virtually no intention of ceding the Communist Party’s monopoly. In fact, Mr. Yu never advocates Western-style multiparty democracy.

What he writes might sound good, but he is misleading the Chinese people into thinking the government is moving toward democracy,” said Guo Tianguo, a former rights lawyer from Shanghai who was forced into exile five years ago and now lives in Canada. “He owes his job to President Hu Jintao, and if he ever pushed too hard he would lose everything. He’s a coward.”

YET to some who have followed his career, Mr. Yu’s role is far more nuanced. They say that he is a true believer in democracy, but that he walks a tightrope, trying to nudge China’s political elite toward reform without upsetting the apple cart.

Minxin Pei, a specialist in Chinese politics at Claremont McKenna College, said that Mr. Yu is a uniquely Chinese public figure who tries to influence the system through carefully choreographed words and well-placed obfuscation. “He’s flexible in the sense that if the atmosphere were more tolerant, he’d go further,” he said. “But he knows that going too far won’t do any good for him or the larger cause he’s promoting.”

During a series of recent interviews, Mr. Yu was relaxed and loquacious, but his responses hewed closely to his writings, which call for the incremental introduction of democracy “when conditions are right.” But he also stepped beyond the vague pronouncements on democracy that have been uttered by Mr. Hu, who has suggested that China already enjoys widespread political liberties.

Asked whether he thought the Chinese political system could be described as democratic, Mr. Yu offered up a few examples of reforms that have been tried in rural townships or small provincial cities but then added, “We have a long way to go.”

Like many of his peers, Mr. Yu grew up in the tumult of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the decade between 1966 and 1976 when concepts like universal rights and free speech were viewed as bourgeois contaminants from the West. Class struggle was the watchword of the day, and Mr. Yu, the son of rice farmers from coastal Zhejiang Province, was anointed the leader of his school’s Red Guard battalion. He was not quite 10 years old.

With a wooden revolver tucked into his pants, he recalled terrorizing landlords and merchants during so-called struggle sessions. “I was so small I had to stand on a chair,” he said.

In 1978, two years after the death of Mao, during the gradual return to normalcy and the reopening of schools, he was one of the first of his generation to go to college. “I literally crawled out of the paddies to take the entrance exam,” he said, smiling and shaking his head at the memory.

Mr. Yu was a teacher at Peking University during the spring of 1989, and he said he went to Tiananmen Square several times to look after his students, who were part of the throngs protesting corruption and inflation and demanding democratic reforms. “I was so worried about them,” he said, recalling the denouement — a bloody military crackdown in which hundreds died — as “a regrettable tragedy.”

But he said those events taught him that China must have legal avenues for its citizens to express their disdain for injustice, or their desire for change. “In any nation, when people are demanding reform, this is a sign of prosperity,” he said. “To ignore these demands is to invite instability.”

Mr. Yu said he was impressed by the United States, where he was a visiting scholar at Duke University. He relishes memories of the intellectual give-and-take in the classroom and the unencumbered vigor of the news media. “I really loved the American can-do spirit, the values of equality and justice, and the way people cared about the environment,” he said. For all the open-mindedness of Americans, he still winces when he recalls the barbed reactions of people when they learned he was a member of the Communist Party.

HIS most indelible experiences came after he left Duke to travel across 30 states on a Greyhound bus. He said he saw the chasm between the grotesquely rich and the abjectly poor, the lack of respect for the elderly, and the apathy on Election Day, especially among the “common people” who would seem to be the most invested in political change.

Mr. Yu also had a personal brush with a downside of abundant liberty. He said he was mugged twice, once by a man who put a knife to his back in a public restroom in Indianapolis. “I pretended I didn’t speak English; someone else came into the bathroom and the man ran away,” he said with a laugh.

That experience set off his interest in guns, and Mr. Yu sometimes lets off steam at a shooting range in Beijing. His other distraction from the esoteric is off-road driving. “She’s terrified of my driving,” he said of his wife, Xu Xiuli, a professor of Chinese economic history.

Before ending the interview, he had one parting thought. The story about his childhood, he said, contained a lesson, and it came back to his passion. “When I think about those days of the Cultural Revolution it reminds me of one truth,” he said. “It is only democracy and the rule of law that can save China from ever again falling into that kind of fate.”

Li Bibo contributed research.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Benigno Aquino III set for landslide Philippines election victory

Benigno Aquino is set to become the next Philippine president. Photograph: Ted Aljibe/AFP/Getty Images

Son of former president Corazon Aquino vows to fight corruption as count puts him ahead in presidential poll

Tuesday 11 May 2010

Associated Press in Manila
guardian.co.uk


Benigno Aquino III, the son of former Philippine president Corazon Aquino, promised today to fulfil his campaign promise to fight corruption as he headed for a landslide victory in the country's presidential elections. "I will not only not steal, but I'll have the corrupt arrested," Aquino, 50, said in his first comments since yesterday's poll. Massive corruption has long dogged the Philippines, tainting electoral politics and skimming billions of public funds in a country where a third of the population lives on $1 a day.

Aquino, whose father was assassinated while opposing Ferdinand Marcos' dictatorship and whose mother led the 1986 "people power" revolt that restored democracy, was leading the nine-candidate presidential race with 40.2% of the votes from about 78% of the precincts, while his closest rival, ousted President Joseph Estrada, had 25.5%.

There is no runoff in the Philippines, home to 90 million people, and whoever has the most votes is declared winner.

Despite glitches with new computerised counting machines and violence that has claimed at least 12 lives, election officials hailed yesterday's vote as a success in a country where poll fraud allegations have marred previous contests. Turnout was 75% among about 50 million eligible voters, the elections commission said.

Opposition leader Sam Rainsy's congratulation letter to the Philippines' president-elect

Benigno Aquino (Photograph: Ted Aljibe/AFP/Getty Images)

May 11, 2010

Mr. Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III
President-elect
Manila
Republic of the Philippines

Dear Noynoy,

I was so happy to learn today about your brilliant election as the new President of the Philippines. On this auspicious day, please accept my heartfelt congratulations and my very best wishes for the successful fulfilment of your historic mission at the helm of your country.

The tidal wave leading to your election as President of the Philippines brings an unprecedented hope not only to the Filipino people but to all the peoples in Asia who are longing for real democracy, better governance and social justice.

Among those peoples are the Cambodian people whom the Members of Parliament from the Sam Rainsy Party have the honour to represent.

My colleagues and I will remain always grateful to your regretted mother Corazon Aquino, to yourself, to all Congressmen, Senators, officials and members of the Liberal Party of the Philippines for your warm welcome to some twenty Members of Parliament from the Sam Rainsy Party in Manila, during my first exile from Cambodia in November 2005.

Thanks to the special relationship between the Liberal Party of the Philippines and the Sam Rainsy Party, in the framework of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats and through personal contacts, your friends in Cambodia consider the Philippines as their second home in Asia and are eager to work even more closely with likeminded people in your beautiful country.

At the invitation of the Liberal Party of the Philippines and along with many other members of CALD, I will be very happy to attend the official ceremony inaugurating you as President and Manuel "Mar" Roxas II as Vice-President of the Philippines, in Manila on June 27-July 1.

I look forward to having the honour of meeting you again on that great occasion.

With my highest regards,

Sam Rainsy
Cambodia’s opposition leader

Friday, April 23, 2010

Mobile technology gives Cambodians a voice [Dial 1-800-4Democracy?]

April 23, 2010
By Chak Sopheap
Guest Commentary
UPI Asia Online


Niigata, Japan — Cambodia: The Rise of Citizen Media via Mobile Phone

Mobile phones have gained in popularity since 2000, even at the bottom of the economic pyramid, due to their affordability and indispensability. This is especially true in Cambodia, the first country in the world in which the number of mobile phone users surpassed the number using fixed landlines.

There are nearly 4 million mobile users, representing 26 percent of the population, according to the United Nations Development Program’s 2009 report, “Cambodia Country Competitiveness.”

Even though the population size and penetration rate of mobile phones in Cambodia are much lower than in neighboring Thailand and Vietnam, which have penetration rates over 80 percent, the Cambodian market seems to be booming, with nine service providers to cover 14 million people.

Thailand, with a population of 67 million, has only seven providers, while Vietnam has eight operators for its 87 million people, according to a report in Economics Today.

Cambodia’s excess of service providers may not be viable in the long term, but the competition has lowered prices and brought greater customer satisfaction.

Thanks to low prices, mobile phones have become indispensable in Cambodia, preferred over traditional communications including landlines and the postal service. With poor transportation infrastructure and a shortage of electricity coverage, mobile phones are the most convenient appliance, offering a range of services including radio, music, videos, and even Internet access.

Interestingly, mobile banking service was recently introduced to Cambodia. Now rural Cambodians can make low-cost payments and money transfers from their mobile phones.

Beyond that, mobile phones have had a great impact on mobilizations and collective actions, during the election campaign for example. Political parties use SMS text messaging, the cheapest and most effective way of widely spreading their message, for their political campaigns. Also civil organizations that monitor elections use SMS to communicate among themselves.

Probably due to its accessibility and vast penetration, text messaging in Cambodia was banned during the last day of the Commune Council Election in 2007 by the National Election Committee. Though opposition parties and human rights groups claimed the ban would hamper the right to freedom of expression, the committee claimed the ban was justified by the law prohibiting campaigning on election day or the day before, and it would prevent parties from using text messaging to mobilize rallies, thereby ensuring a quiet environment for voters.

Surprisingly, SMS text messaging partly contributed to the 2008 election victory of the ruling party, which had supported the earlier ban of text messaging. This is because a nationalistic movement coincided with the election campaign, due to a border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand over the Preah Vihear temple. This generated political approval of the government, which publicly denounced any invasion of Cambodian territory. Mobile phone text messages circulated saying, “Khmers love Khmer and should boycott anything Thai or with Thai writing on it.”

Another side effect of mobile technology is that it mobilizes people for human rights activism and social causes through SMS text messaging. When human rights activists were being arrested in Cambodia in late 2005 and early 2006, for example, human rights activists used SMS text messaging to mobilize public support to demand the release of those arrested and freedom of expression.

In other Asian countries SMS text messaging has become an effective means of disseminating information and mobilizing people. The spread of information about the 2007 Saffron Revolution in Burma was possible thanks to mobile technology; it led to a global mobilization to free Burma from human rights abuses.

During that time, a group of Cambodians wearing red shirts gathered to protest in front of the Burmese Embassy in Phnom Penh. Thanks to the widespread use of mobile text messaging and blogs, people around the world could join the same cause at the same time.

This trend, the rise of citizen media, is especially important in countries like Cambodia, where people who otherwise would have no voice are encouraged to disseminate information, organize events, and join social causes through mobile phone communication.
--
(Chak Sopheap is a graduate student of peace studies at the International University of Japan. She runs a blog, www.sopheapfocus.com, in which she shares her impressions of both Japan and her homeland, Cambodia. She was previously advocacy officer of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights.)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

EU provides 1.2 million euros in aid … to human rights work in Cambodia

20 April 2010
By Kesor Ranya
Radio Free Asia
Translated from Khmer by Socheata
Click here to read the article in Khmer


The European Union announced that it will provide 1.2 million euros in aid to human rights and democracy works in Cambodia.

The announcement was made by the EU representative in Cambodia on 19 April. It indicated that the amount of aid is equivalent to about $1.6 million, and it was provided as part of the EU funding for democracy and human rights. This funding will be handed out to NGOs in order to raise and strengthen the rights of indigenous people in Cambodia and their communities, strengthen women’s role in society and on the political scene, etc…

This aid will also be distributed to civil society involved in the fight against human trafficking; in the prevention of torture and improving jail rules to guarantee the rights of the prisoners; in the raising of the security and land rights for groups of weak and vulnerable people. Request for funding from this human rights program should be made between 19 April and 12 July 2010.

The EU is accepting such funding request since 2004. Currently, it is dispensing funds to support 33 human rights programs led by 26 national and international NGOs.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Sam Rainsy in Jakarta to Attend International Conference

April 11, 2010

SAM RAINSY IN JAKARTA TO ATTEND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Opposition leader Sam Rainsy has been in Jakarta since yesterday to attend the Sixth Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy http://www.wmd.org

The Assembly, which brings together some 550 participants of various backgrounds and professions from all over the world from April 11 to 14, has the following objectives:
  • providing participants with a forum to exchange practical, hands-on knowledge that they can use in the countries and regions in which they work;
  • ensuring that the extent of repression exercised by regimes in closed societies will not pass unnoticed in the international community, and to devise new ways to enhance assistance to those inside those countries;
  • directing attention to the needs of democrats in transitional and authoritarian countries;
  • encouraging other established democracies, both old and new, to support democracy-promotion efforts; and
  • exploring ways in which participants can use new information and communication technologies (ICTs) in their work.
Sam Rainsy, who is travelling with his French passport, has been in touch with the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI).

SRP Cabinet

Monday, January 18, 2010

Deep interest in learning from Korea's experience in establishing a parliamentary representation system ... but not eager to put it to use

Youn Jung-suk, president of the Korean Legislative Studies Institute, speaks in an interview with The Korea Times at his office in Seoul, last Tuesday. He said that now is the time for the National Assembly to find its role in helping what he called the emerging democracies. (Korea Times Photo/Shim Hyun-chul)

Scholar Touts 'Made-in-Korea' Democracy for Emerging Nations

01-18-2010
By Kang Hyun-kyung
Staff Reporter
The Korea Times (South Korea)

Youn pointed out that strengthening parliaments to make them work better was one of the sustainable ways to help people live in better conditions.
Officials in some developing Asian countries, including Vietnam and Mongolia, have begun taking a closer look at the development of Korea's legislature as a model, said a political scientist.

Youn Jung-suk, president of the Korean Legislative Studies Institute (KLSI), said that now is the time for the National Assembly to define its role in helping emerging democracies.

"I think the Korean model of democracy-building works better in nations where top-down decision-making is predominant, such as former communist states, those under authoritarian governments or nations that have been under dictatorship," Youn said in an interview with The Korea Times last Tuesday.

Since 1945, when Korea was liberated from Japan, the pro-democracy movement here has survived turbulent periods of military dictatorship and authoritarian control.

The decades-long effort finally bore fruit in the late 1980s. The rising demand for democracy from the people led the government to give in and let the people choose a president through direct voting.

Youn hinted that the top-down style in managing the nation facilitated economic growth during the nation's industrialization.

He observed that in the political arena, the practice prompted bottom-up democracy, as activists stood up against the repressive regime in the post-industrialization era.

Youn argued that as Korea has achieved democracy and prosperity through this unique path, it can give informed guidance to nations facing similar challenges.

The professor emeritus, who majored in Japanese studies at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, now teaches at Sogang University.

Before assuming the KLSI presidency, Youn served as president of Chung Ang University.

Founded in 1981, the KLSI has performed mainly academic and research activities in the fields of the parliamentary system, comparative studies of foreign legislatures and major legislative agendas.

Permanent Good

Youn called on policymakers mapping out aid strategy and policies to consider the Korean model of building democracy as one of the major areas where the country can assist less developed nations.

"As a donor, I think, Korea should think seriously about how it can help poor nations achieve permanent positive change. We need to look beyond one-off assistance measures and try to focus on helping their systems work better," he said.

His observation was in line with the message that the recent crisis in Haiti is sending the world.

In the wake of the magnitude 7 earthquake that pounded Haiti ― the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere ― last week, local experts and government officials are forecasting that the death toll may rise to 200,000.

Help is on the way from all around the world. Rescue workers and medical teams rushed to Haiti to save the lives of as many of those trapped under rubble as they could. Donations of medical products, water and other necessary items followed.

Korea joined the international rescue efforts by sending a team consisting of medical experts and rescue workers last Friday.

Meanwhile, the crisis in Haiti sheds light on a lesser-known consequence of calamities on poor nations ― poor infrastructure makes it difficult for them to rise from the ashes as they have almost nothing to begin with.

An American television journalist who was dispatched to cover the crisis said that he was told many times by locals that they need better construction of housing and other infrastructures to move forward in a sustainable manner.

Haitians want the world to help them in a manner that promotes sustainability, instead of simply one-off relief assistance.

Role of National Assembly

Among others, Youn pointed out that strengthening parliaments to make them work better was one of the sustainable ways to help people live in better conditions.

He called on the National Assembly to play a role in helping developing nations that are based on the relatively poor legislative representation system.

He said officials from Vietnam, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar had expressed deep interest in learning from Korea's experience in establishing a parliamentary representation system.

"They do have parliaments but their legislative bodies do not work properly in the parliamentary oversight of executive bodies and legislative assistance," the scholar said.

"In particular, they want to know how standing committees here work and to explore parliamentary think tanks, such as the National Assembly Research Service, that help lawmakers with expertise and policy recommendations."

Youn argued that the balance of power between legislature and the executive body is one of the areas that strengthened in emerging Asian nations.

Last year, Youn sat down with Speaker Kim Hyong-o to address the need for exchange programs with those nations. Kim was quite moved by his presentation, and directed his staff to find a role that the legislature could play in this regard.

"As Kim's term at the key post ends in May, his hands are tied. But I will keep trying to address the matter with the incoming speaker after that," he said.

"I assume that we can draw up a road map for the plan by next year."

Parliamentary Strengthening

When it comes to aid policy, the strengthening of democracy and parliamentary systems has been one of the major focuses of major donors such as the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has had a program to help poor nations develop their democracies since the 1970s.

But the agency said it was not until the late '80s or early '90s that agency's program started in earnest.

Since the agency chose the promotion of democracy as one of its principal goals in 1994, it remains particularly active in Africa. USAID produced technical assistance guidelines to help nations establish systems for legislation, oversight and representation.

The Canadian Development Agency and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency have also worked with developing nations to make their parliaments work better.

International institutions, including the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program, and non-profit groups are also active in governance building in developing or poor nations to help them escape the past.

Dos and Don'ts

After Korea joined the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, a club of donors, intellectuals, such as former Prime Minister Lee Hong-koo, advised policymakers to follow a set of strict guidelines when charting aid strategy.

The guidelines warn not to try to use development assistance as a tool to show off Korea's standing in the world economy; not to try to lecture to other countries; and not to link aid to overseas business deals such as energy diplomacy.

"If Korea ignores the guidelines, the recipient governments will feel insulted. If this happens, Korea will end up a self-serving nation trying to take advantage of aid for its own sake," the former prime minister said.

Lee called on policymakers to keep their eyes on recipients' needs and then include their requests in aid packages.

"Recipient nations will come to expect Korea, the only recipient-turned-donor in the world, to become a donor that has a deeper understanding of their circumstances than other advanced nations, as it shares the experience of poverty in its past.

"They don't want us to feel pity for them but want us to be a thoughtful donor that has gone through similar experiences," Lee said.

Youn shared a similar view with Lee regarding the principles of Korea's aid policy, saying policymakers and aid workers need to take a close look at the unique circumstances facing recipients and come up with a country-specific aid strategy.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Indonesia to raise problem of press freedom at AICHR meetings

Saturday, October 24, 2009
Om Yentieng is a member of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)
Hua Hin (ANTARA News) - Indonesia`s representative in the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), Rafendi Djamin, said he would bring up the question of press freedom at the commission`s meetings.

"The problem of press freedom poses a great challenge in ASEAN despite it being one of the three pillars of democracy," Djamin said on the sidelines of the 15th ASEAN Summit in Hua Hin, Thailand, on Friday.

He said there was need for tangible steps to prevent the suppression of press freedom in ASEAN member countries and therefore Indonesia would try to bring up the matter at AICHR meetings.

The problem of press freedom must receive the same portion of attention in AICHR as other human rights issues in ASEAN member countries, he said.

The first meeting among the AICHR members would take place on Saturday (Oct 24) on the sidelines of the 15th ASEAN summit where they would introduce themselves to each other.

AICHR is an inter-governmental consultative group and an integral part of ASEAN`s organizational structure.

The commission`s task is to formulate efforts to promote and protect human rights in the region through education, monitoring, and dissemination of international human rights values and standards as laid down in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and other human rights instruments.

It is responsible for the advancement and protection of human rights in ASEAN and would cooperate with other ASEAN organs dealing with human rights for proper coordination and synergy in the field of human rights.

AICHR has 10 members, each representing one of ASEAN`s 10 member countries, with Dr Sriprapha Petcharamasree of Thailand as chairman.

The nine other commission members are Om Yentieng (Cambodia), Rafendi Djamin (Indonesia), Bounkeut Sangsomsak (Laos), Awang Abdul Hamid Bakal (Malaysia), Kyaw Tint Swe (Myanmar), Rosario G. Manalo (Philippines), Richard Magnus (Singapore) and Do Ngoc Son (Viet Nam).

Friday, September 11, 2009

Cambodian Parliamentarian and Vital Voices Global Leadership Award Honoree Mu Sochua Appears Before Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

Thu Sep 10, 2009

Cambodian Parliamentarian and Vital Voices Global Leadership Award Honoree Mu Sochua Appears Before Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

U.S. House of Representatives, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, 1 - 3 p.m.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Mu Sochua, Cambodian Parliamentarian, human rights advocate and Vital Voices Global Leadership Award Honoree appears before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission as a witness in a hearing entitled, 'Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Cambodia.'

As international governments, news agencies, and UN rights experts including the Special Rapporteur on the independence of lawyers and judges have recently reported, there is concern about Cambodia regarding attempts to curtail the rights and freedoms of lawyers, journalists, and members of the political opposition.

A 2008 U.S. State Department Human Rights Report indicates that Cambodian government enforcement of certain laws has been selective, and The Washington Post reported on July 29 that "a heightened crackdown on journalists and opposition activists ... has provoked new concern that the government is engaging in widespread abuse of the nation's legal system to muzzle its detractors." In addition, the June 2009 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report released by the U.S. Department of State, ranks Cambodia as a Tier 2 Watch List nation, marking a regression from the previous year's ranking that indicates efforts to combat human trafficking have not been adequate or proven effective. Cambodia is a source, transit and destination country for victims of human trafficking for the purpose of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation.

Parliamentarian and opposition party member Mu Sochua will present testimony on the condition of human rights and the rule of law in her native Cambodia from the perspective of a lawmaker and internationally recognized advocate for equal rights and democracy.

The hearing will take place in Room 2200 in the Rayburn House Office Building from 1-3 p.m. on September 10.
Mu Sochua

Mu Sochua returned to her native Cambodia in 1991 after 18 years in exile, and has worked tirelessly ever since as one of her country's leading advocates for human rights, working to stop human trafficking, domestic violence and worker exploitation. She joined the newly formed government, eventually becoming the Minister of Veterans and Women's Affairs -- and one of only two women serving in the Cabinet. While serving in the government, Mu negotiated two international agreements with neighboring countries to help curtail human trafficking in Southeast Asia and launched a campaign to bring NGOs, law enforcement officials and rural women into a national dialogue and education program to help protect women and girls victimized by trafficking and boost prevention efforts nationwide. In 2005, Mu Sochua was co-nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for her work against sex trafficking of women in Cambodia and neighboring Thailand.

Vital Voices honored Mu Sochua with the 2005 Human Rights Global Leadership Award for her efforts to stem the tide of human trafficking. To highlight her work, Mu Sochua, was profiled in Seven, a documentary play written by seven recognized women playwrights that tells the stories of 7 Vital Voices Global Leadership Network Members.

Vital Voices Global Partnership

Vital Voices Global Partnership is a leading NGO that identifies, trains, mentors and empowers emerging women leaders and social entrepreneurs around the globe, enabling them to create a better world. Vital Voices works with women defending human rights, expanding economic opportunities and strengthening government and civil society by equipping them with the capacity, connections, and credibility they need to unlock their leadership potential. Since 1997 the Vital Voices staff and team of over 1,000 partners and pro-bono experts and leaders, including senior government, corporate and NGO executives, have trained and mentored more than 7,000 emerging women leaders from 127 countries. Vital Voices has a four star Charity Navigator rating, awarded to charities that exceed industry standards and outperform other organizations in their field.

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

The mission of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission is to promote, defend and advocate internationally recognized human rights norms in a nonpartisan manner, both within and outside of Congress, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant human rights instruments. In particular, the Commission shall:
  • Develop congressional strategies to promote, defend and advocate internationally recognized human rights norms reflecting the role and responsibilities of the United States Congress.
  • Raise greater awareness of human rights issues among Members of Congress and their staff, as well as the public.
  • Provide expert human rights advice to Members of Congress and their staff.
  • Advocate on behalf of individuals or groups whose human rights are violated or are in danger of being violated.
  • Collaborate closely with professional staff of relevant congressional committees on human rights matters.
  • Collaborate closely with the President of the United States and the Executive Branch, as well as recognized national and international human rights entities, to promote human rights initiatives in the United States Congress.
  • Encourage Members of Congress to actively engage in human rights matters.

Contact:
Cindy Dyer, Vital Voices Senior Director of Human Rights CindyDyer@vitalvoices.org
202.446.0503
SOURCE Vital Voices Global Partnership

Cindy Dyer, Vital Voices Senior Director of Human Rights, +1-202-446-0503,
CindyDyer@vitalvoices.org

Monday, March 16, 2009

Meet Cambodia's social media elite - the Cloggers

After the tragedy and devastation of the civil war, a new young, tech savvy middle-class is emerging in Cambodia

Young motivated bloggers spearheading a web-led revolution

Monday, March 16, 2009
TechRadar.com

With its jagged, pot-holed streets and swarms of begging children, visitors are often shocked at the poverty in Cambodia, widely considered Asia's backwater behind Vietnam and China.

Shacks and slums are testament to a third of the population earning less than half a US dollar a day and Transparency International ranks the country, only recently freed from years of civil war, coups and rigged elections, as the 14th most corrupt in the world.

Yet tech-savvy youngsters are bringing a new voice to Phnom Penh's poverty-wrought landscape. Hanging out in cafes and clicking away on their laptops, they comprise a small but growing middle-class of baby-boomers born during the 1980s, after the Khmer Rouge genocide left 2million Cambodians – a quarter of the population – dead. Now they've come of age, and they're wiring Cambodia with it.

They're a tight-knit clique. Led by 26-year-old writer and photographer Bun Tharum, Cambodia's first blogger, a small group formed in 2006 to give workshops on social media. With their efforts, and Cambodia's King-Father Norodom Sihanouk starting his own blog, the group of 30 soon transformed into thousands. Now, they call themselves 'Cloggers' – Cambodian bloggers.

Tharum sees change on the horizon. "After all the hardship our country has experienced, we're trying to bring a new era of innovation," he says. "Blogs are helping break down barriers, get discussions going – something we need to move forward. It's the voice of the new generation."

Reaching the summit

The group reached a peak in popularity when it held the Cloggers' Summit in August 2007, attended by 200 international guests, including editors from Harvard Law School's Global Voices Online project. Attendees discussed social networking with a Cambodian twist, looking at how non-profits – which dominate Cambodia's economy – and students could use it, despite the country's low-bandwidth connectivity.

They hit another success in September with the first annual BarCamp Phnom Penh, an event that saw hundreds from around Southeast Asia attend, including Microsoft. "BarCamp was great for thinking outside the box," Tharum says. "We got Cambodians to start speaking their minds in that untraditional setting, the un-conference."

Much more can be attributed to the city's sudden blogging craze. While less than two per cent of Cambodians have web access on their own computers, Phnom Penh sports a huge mobile web culture. "It's amazing. Farmers are selling their land so they can buy a mobile phone and motorbike," says John Weeks, an American who heads Phnom Penh's popular House 32 web design firm. "You'll see Khmers [Cambodians] wearing sandals and eating street food while talking on their Blackberrys."

Phnom Penh has just been wired with 3G technology, far ahead of neighbouring countries Vietnam and Thailand, giving blogs explosive potential. Yet phones still haven't reached their peak, Weeks insists. "Users aren't afraid of technology. But phones aren't reaching their full potential," he says. "If ordinary Cambodians can overcome the language barrier and literacy barriers, phones have incredible gateway potential that would dwarf the current blog boom."

Huddled around in Phnom Penh's sparkling new KFC – Cambodia's first foreign franchise – the Cloggers whip out cutting-edge phones yet to catch on in the West. One begins texting in a frenzy – he's on Twitter and he's addicted. The others laugh, moving into a discussion of King-Father Norodom Sihanouk, the country's leader and highest profile blogger.

He's revered by older generations, but Cloggers don't share their zest for the monarch. "Young people don't care about the King when we blog," says Sreng Nearirath, a lawyer who blogs her thoughts in My World vs. Real Scary World. "We just blog because we want to talk about our lives and talk with each other." Cambodia, a conservative society, doesn't offer opportunities to open up and discuss your feelings, especially for women. That's what makes blogs so special here.

"Men have dominated technology fields, but we're seeing more and more women speaking their minds through blogs," says Chak Sopheap, a rising voice in Cambodia's women's empowerment movement. "They give us an outlet to gain selfesteem and be more informed about the world."

Sopheap is perhaps Cambodia's most controversial blogger, touching on subjects like trafficking, corruption, forced land evictions and women's rights. Her public profile is brave; most political bloggers in Cambodia, such as the popular "Details are Sketchy" and "KI Media" blogs, are anonymous. "If everyone keeps silent to intimidation, intimidation will gain its position.

"By making our voices heard, we can create change," she insists. She's pursuing a master's degree in international relations in Japan, which she credits for bringing new angles to her blog. "I've learned from a different cultural context about how crucial good governance is," she says, referring to Cambodia's corruption problem.

On the political power of blogs, Sopheap points to the reactions by Cloggers to Burma's 2007 Saffron Revolution. In a rare move, they co-ordinated demonstrations against the Burmese embassy and denounced Cambodia's support of the regime. Some also took part in International Bloggers' Day for Burma that same month, each dedicating a post to the protesting monks.

In nearby Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand, governments actively chase down and jail critical bloggers. Vietnam is also ramping up censorship, authorities announcing in December they are to ask Google and Yahoo to help 'regulate' the web. Yet no Cambodian blogger has been blocked or arrested.

"Politicians have either not noticed political blogs or they're deeply suspicious of them," says Preetam Rai, former Southeast Asia editor of Global Voices Online, a blog aggregation service. "I think Cambodia comes under the first category. Practically speaking, blogs reach a very small percentage of Cambodian people. The politicians might as well ignore them for now."

But politics aren't the Cloggers' main focus. Most don't bother and many don't care. "Most Cambodian bloggers don't directly attack the government so, I believe, they won't be on the bad side of any government," Rai says. "The hope is that some from the current crop of bloggers end up in government in couple of years' time."

Rai also notes that Cambodia is a very young country and many high-ranking officials are likewise youthful and tech-savvy. "These are the people who can be influenced by blogs," he adds, optimistically. "The Cloggers are doing the right thing by showing people technology in a neutral way. Cambodia needs a generation that can discriminate information, by showing people online tools that can help them verify things."

Children of government officials, likewise, have been studying at universities abroad, bringing back knowledge of blogs and English fluency that gives them access to the internet world. "We see a lot of foreign influences coming into blogging culture," says Prum Seila, a journalist who blogs about Cambodian popular culture. "Government kids are coming back to Cambodia and blogging like us. They're also bringing ideas about democracy."

Seila thinks foreigners and foreign-educated Cambodians bring an 'open-source culture' because they're commenting on Clogs, challenging young Cloggers. "You wouldn't see anything like it if we weren't talking to foreigners. They bring ideas and challenges, and make us think differently about new things," he says.

Is English elitist?

Unlike Vietnam or Thailand, where bloggers write in their native languages, Cambodians tend to blog in English, linking them, says Prum Seila, with a global audience. "It's a good thing we blog in English, because how else can we inform the world about our thoughts and our problems?" he adds. "We're putting Cambodia on the map."

But Cloggers have had a long-standing debate over whether to blog in English or Khmer. English, they claim, is the language of the internet; web proficiency means reading and writing in English. Others disagree, saying a country shouldn't have to change language just to use the web.

That's why the Phnom Penh-based Open Institute has been perfecting its Khmer language Unicode. With the project including popular comedy blogger Be Chantra, whose blog "TraJoke" is in Khmer, the font has certainly been catching on. "Cambodia's English-speaking population is an elite," he says. "With Khmer, we can reach a wider audience and have a bigger impact."

But some Cloggers aren't convinced. Tharum contends that anyone who can use the internet can also read English. Seila thinks English brings much-needed international attention to Phnom Penh. Plus other Cloggers mention the possibility of getting censored once their writings are available for all of Cambodia to read.

Chantra and the Open Institute maintain their optimism. "As more Cambodians get access to computers, which is happening, more of them will write in Khmer," he says. Cambodia's growing literate middle class could indeed solidify Khmer above English. But their taste for foreign knowledge and culture could also reverse that trend."

Friday, March 13, 2009

A Cambodian 'open society' [-Will Strongman Hun Sen accept an 'open society'?]

Friday, 13 March 2009
Written by Pou Sovachana
The Phnom Penh Post

"The strength of any government is gauged by its commitment to building up the most vulnerable among its citizens."
Today, Cambodia is still a country where an education is more often out of reach for thousands of children growing up in poverty and grime.

While complaining and blaming others will bring no solutions, I ask the politicians to do as they have promised and to look at the public policies that are affecting everyday life in Cambodia, such as endemic corruption, human rights abuses, poverty, land-grabbing and a rule of law that is not universally applied.

As a volunteer teacher, I am committed to the educational development of Cambodia with vigour and without fear of retribution. I want to do more for my country and my people as an individual free from political restraints. I make no apologies for standing up to speak out on any issue related to the basic rights that are in conflict with my understanding of common laws. Vulnerable children may be destitute but they needn't be illiterate and ignorant. They also have the right to get an education and to enjoy a better life in the future.

To move forward, Cambodia should adopt the "open society" concept as a main vehicle for lasting growth and sustainable development. The open society is a concept originally developed by Nobel Laureate in literature Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense. It is a nonauthoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Equality, political freedom, free speech and human rights are the foundation of an open society. Although still in the early stages, I have been working on establishing a Cambodia Open Society. I admit I still have a long way to go, but I dedicate myself to the promotion and implementation of democracy and open societies. After all, the ultimate goal of democracy is not to pursue material abundance but to nurture the dignities and values of each individual. Open society is always open to improvement because knowledge is never complete but always ongoing. Claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth by the party in power lead to the attempted imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought. In contrast, in an open society each citizen needs to engage in critical thinking, which requires freedom of thought and expression, and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this. Cambodian society must be open to alternative points of views and not rest on the imposition of any individual perspective.

To promote these values, I believe that, first and foremost, the people must have an understanding of their imperfections before they can learn. The majority of the people in Cambodia must learn to change from a closed or fixed mindset to an open or growth mindset. Positive and constructive change makes all things possible. I witness this deficiency every day by interacting with my students.
"LEADERS MUST USE ... POWER IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR PEOPLE INSTEAD OF ... IN RUTHLESS BATTLES FOR DOMINATION."
With their fixed mindsets, they spend a lot of time worrying about such questions as "Am I good enough?", and "How can I believe you?" Or they ask, "Why should I trust you?" and "Why should I follow the rule of law when most others don't?" They often lose motivation for any activity in which they don't immediately shine. They lack confidence. They are afraid to speak up. They have fear within themselves. They follow blind ritual and tradition. Mistakes are considered bad. Everything is difficult and impossible. Conversely, with a growth mindset, apparent setbacks only fuel drive and motivation. The result is a continual process of necessary risk-taking and self-discovery - an outgoing journey of learning, growth and development. Students eliminate barriers of learning by asking themselves "What can I do to get better at this?" or "What works?" or "What is not working?", or "What's missing?" And they conclude: "I follow the rule of law regardless of what others think and do."

Mistakes are part of learning. Everything is difficult but possible. Their dignity improves. Their sense of worth increases. They have confidence in themselves to deal with the pressures of daily life. They can do more for their own benefit and the benefit of others. They connect themselves to the real truth and the outside world. They are free to think critically, act conscientiously and express creatively. Famous American football coach Vince Lombardi once said: "A man can be as great as he wants to be. If you believe in yourself and have the courage, the determination, the dedication, the competitive drive, and if you are willing to sacrifice the little things in life and pay the price for the things that are worthwhile, it can be done."

To help nurture a Cambodia Open Society, good governance and transparency play a big role in the process. That spirit must inhabit us all.

Government officials must work towards achieving an acceptable level of openness by practicing what they preach. Powerful leaders must cultivate mutual respect and consideration, so as to create a feasible and reasonable balance of interest, instead of abusing unlimited power.

They don't have the right to rob or dispossess any other person or the commonwealth. They must have a sense of modesty and moderation instead of an unquenchable lust for power, wealth and status. In greed and in power, humans lose their souls, their freedom and their inner peace to serve others - and thereby, they lose what makes them human. Leaders must use their political and economic power in the service of their people instead of misusing it in ruthless battles for domination. They must develop and extend a spirit of metta (compassion) with those who suffer, with special care for the children, the aged, the poor and the disabled. Their policies and actions must be transparent because transparency would strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.

I find satisfaction in knowing that at least I have made a difference in the lives of the students I teach and the people I meet. An ideal Cambodia Open Society is a transparent country with good governance, competent leaders with shared vision, accountability, sound institutions, hardworking and rational citizens with growth mindsets, and is under sound progressive management where all the people would one day be healthy in mind and body.
------------
Pou Sovachana, 52, has worked as a volunteer teacher at the Buddhism for Peace Centre in Phnom Penh since 2008. He studied education in the United States, where he completed his MA.

Monday, January 19, 2009

The State of the Press in Southeast Asia in 2008

18 January 2009
Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)

Looking back, looking ahead: Press Freedom in Southeast Asia. The months ahead will hold much peril and uncertainty for members of the press in Southeast Asia.

The years 2009 and 2010 will be highly charged, for starters, anticipating national election seasons for most countries in the region. Even without the chaos and violence attendant to electoral exercises in countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma, the unpredictability of the contests and the inevitability of uncertainty will give the region's journalists not only compelling stories and issues to follow, but also dangerous times and situations to navigate.

The coming months will also be a crucial period for ASEAN itself—in particular with respect to how the regional body proves and demonstrates the value of a new charter that came into force in December 2008.

Beyond rules of membership and ASEAN's vision for single free trade area by 2015, the ASEAN Charter affirms that among others, one of ASEAN's purposes is "to strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms..." The Charter's outline of Principles emphasizes the need for "adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principles of democracy and constitutional government" as well as for the community's "respect for fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice."

Article 14 of the ASEAN Charter goes as far as to commit that "ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body."

The mechanisms of such a body, however, have yet to be spelt out and finalized. Indeed, analysts and critics of the Charter stress that the stated principles and purposes relating to human rights and democracy must be weighed against ASEAN's historical emphasis on "non-interference" and on its tradition of moving by consensus. The region's press, meanwhile, must note for itself: "press freedom" is not even mentioned in the Charter, nor, for that matter, "free expression".

How it all plays out for press freedom, therefore, is uncertain.

To be sure, 2008 saw a lot of promise for change on this front. Or "promises", at least. Singapore promised to relax its Films Act. Laos introduced a new media law that promised to allow more private sector participation in its state-dominated media landscape. East Timor promised to decriminalize defamation. The Philippine Supreme Court didn't quite decriminalize libel, but it essentially encouraged lower courts to ignore options to imprison journalists over defamation. Meanwhile, sea changes in the political environments of Malaysia and Thailand have caused people to assume that changes in the environments for media and press freedom.

But assumptions are one thing. How it all actually falls into place—or falls apart—must yet be seen. For all the above promises, after all, little has actually changed in the laws that govern the media in Southeast Asia.

Indeed, if anything defines the media situation in Southeast Asia, it is the larger political considerations of the region's governments and political powers. Upcoming elections are but one factor that pulls for the status quo. From East Timor to Thailand, the agenda of recapturing "stability" is overwhelming, and in 2008, it was often used to rationalize a low prioritization—and even a sacrifice of—the press freedom agenda.

Looking back on the year that was, therefore, is crucial to anticipating and understanding how much journalists will be allowed to do their job in 2009 and beyond.

For a more detailed country-by-country report, please click on the following link:
YEAREND REPORT 2008

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

One-party state cannot bring about democracy

Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Written by Mu Sochua, MP
Letter to The Phnom Penh Post


Dear Editor,

The Phnom Penh Post article published December 11, 2008, titled "Kingdom at crossroads as CPP extends control over government" is a good food for thought for all of us who are direct or indirect actors in the building of democracy in Cambodia.

We can have endless debates about what type of democracy Cambodia should enjoy or what is the path to democracy. But we cannot accept that a one-party state may be the foundation Cambodia needs for genuine democratic development, because the fundamental element of democracy is the existence of diversified ideas, voices and choices. A one-party state eliminates the environment for democracy to be rooted and to grow. The tight control of people's lives at the village level, and the culture of merits rather than rights for development and the "step-by-step" approach are all part of the carefully crafted democracy that the rulers will allow Cambodia to have.

The slow pace of reforms is not because of the lack of human resources, but it is rather a well-crafted pace to extend the power of the rulers. Corruption provides the means to control the power base and to even expand it. Stability comes at a high price for the poor, for the voiceless, for the human rights defenders and the activists.

Debates in parliament are controlled with rules and procedures that shut off the opposition. Mechanisms for checks and balances to control corruption, rule of law and reforms are weak, while donors continue to accept the same promises made.
How much longer will we let the elephants weep?

Mu Sochua, MP
Sam Rainsy Party

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Unrest a blow to democracy

Lawless protests that shuttered Thailand's airports caused massive economic damage, with police unable or unwilling to uproot them. (PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Dec 14, 2008

AFP
"Although Cambodia saw another round of successful elections in July, Prime Minister Hun Sen has largely cemented his 23-year iron-fist rule by intimidating and undercutting his rivals."
BANGKOK - LAWLESS protests that shuttered Thailand's airports will be seen by authoritarian regimes in an increasingly undemocratic Southeast Asia as a vindication of their own iron rule, analysts say.

For eight days, protesters determined to bring down a democratically-elected government blockaded Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi international airport causing massive economic damage, with police unable or unwilling to uproot them.

They only agreed to leave when a court dissolved the ruling party and forced the Thai prime minister from office in early December, leaving the kingdom scrambling to put together a new coalition government.

'There may be some people who are saying 'if this is what democracy leads to, then maybe we're better off without it',' said Mr John Virgoe, Southeast Asia director for global think-tank International Crisis Group.

Thailand's reputation as a beacon for democracy in the region was already tarnished after the army removed twice-elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup in September 2006 following massive street protests.

Elections in December 2007 notionally returned the kingdom to democracy, but two prime ministers aligned to Thaksin have been removed by court decisions which critics have labelled 'disguised coups'.

Mr Virgoe said that Indonesia's democracy was flourishing with elections due next year, but said there were few other shining lights in the region.

'Indonesia aside, it is hard to point to anything by way of democracy in Southeast Asia that you could feel particularly encouraged about,' he said.

'The Philippines is in a perpetual crisis and now Thailand, which always was the bell-wether for democracy in Southeast Asia, has allowed three prime ministers to get kicked aside by court action and action on the streets.'

Elsewhere in the region, Myanmar has been ruled by the military since 1962 and keeps pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi locked up.

The junta has promised elections in 2010, but pro-democracy groups say this is simply a ploy to legitimize their rule.

Although Cambodia saw another round of successful elections in July, Prime Minister Hun Sen has largely cemented his 23-year iron-fist rule by intimidating and undercutting his rivals.

Malaysia's own version of democracy has been sullied by suppression of the media, widespread corruption in politics and business, election-rigging and a lack of faith in the police and judiciary.

The departure in 2003 of premier Mahathir Mohamad, who ruled for two decades, lifted the lid a little and allowed a measure more freedom, but his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi failed to make good on his promise of reform.

Vietnam and its smaller neighbour Laos have been ruled by communist governments since their 1975 victories over US-backed forces that ended the Vietnam War.

Both have introduced market reforms, but politically they remain authoritarian states with a tight grip on all political activity and the media.

Mr Carlyle Thayer, a Southeast Asia specialist and visiting fellow at the Australian National University, said Thailand's recent turmoil received heavy media coverage in Vietnam.

'It's a good example to the Vietnamese what happens if you do try to adopt democratic norms,' he said.

Thayer said Thailand's troubles also weakened its position in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), which is in the process of adopting a common charter with a human rights bill.

Singapore, which has been dominated by one party since independence in 1965, 'would be absolutely shocked' by the Thai experience, he said.

'Even the opposition, I think, in Singapore would be shocked by that because of the violent aspect and the destruction to the economy,' Mr Thayer said.

Mr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political analyst at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, said Myanmar, Vietnam and even China would all be wary.

'They are very uneasy about this whole civil society movement and protests and the machinations and mechanics and dynamics of democratisation,' he said.

'Thailand will be used by the repressive regimes, less democratic regimes, as a justification for maintaining things the way they are.'

But Virgoe warns that although there may be short-term boons to authoritarian governments such as economic growth and relative stability, the long-term effects can be catastrophic.

'You can see from the history of a number of countries in Southeast Asia, that without democracy, social strains build up, problems build up, nepotism builds up and corruption builds up to the point that it can explode,' he said.

And the slide back from democracy does not bode well for Asean, which has tried to position itself as the European Union of Asia.

'I think the setbacks in Malaysia and Thailand are quiet but significant blows,' Mr Thitinan said.