Food for Thought: ALL ABOUT THE LAWS

Sunday, June 14, 2009
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay
Originally posted at http://cambodianchildren.blogspot.com

As citizens, regardless to which country we belong, our lives and the laws are forever intertwined and inseparable. But, we rarely take the opportunity to learn and understand the laws which impact our lives on a daily basis. When we have any matter or issue of concerns involving the laws, we turn to lawyers and/or the legal institution to find resolution for us. The unfortunate thing about this practice is that lawyers and the legal institution are sometimes not what we expect them to be. When lawyers and the legal institution are incompetent, they complicate matter even further and make our lives more miserable.

Regardless of the country, or culture, or political structure under which the laws are written, all laws have two elements in common. One is called: The letter of the law; and the other is called: The spirit of the law. Just like our body and our soul, the letter and the spirit of the laws are inseparable. One could not properly exist without the other. I am not a law student, but I know that even the dumbest law student knew this fact by heart. I also know that most impartial jurists/judges always take the letter of the law and the spirit of the law into consideration when making legal decision, no matter how trivial the case is. Now that we have laid out some groundwork principles with respect to the laws, let us look at a recent legal case involving the Prime Minister of Cambodia, Mr. Hun Sen.

The case of Ms. Mu Sochuo versus Mr. Hun Sen, Prime Minister of Cambodia, stemming from a derogatory remark the latter made while giving a speech in Kompot Province certainly merits some learning and looking into the Cambodian legal system. Based on the recent outcome, for which the case was dismissed by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court as having no merit, it is painfully clear that the court has neglected to take the spirit of the law into consideration. Though it is within the purview of the court whether to take the spirit of the law into consideration while making a politically and potentially dangerous decision, it is not right for the court to neglect the spirit of the law. Just because we could not physically see, hear, or touch the spirit of the law, this does not mean that the jurists or judges could ignore it. To do so, it would be pretentious and make a mockery of the justice system as a whole.

Despite Mr. Hun Sen is, technically, not guilty of breaking any letter of the law, his speech in Kompot Province clearly violated the spirit of the law with regard to Ms. Mu Sochuo’s integrity, as a sole female member of parliament from Kompot Province and as a woman, who was the implied object of his innuendo. Upon making its decision to dismiss the case, the Phnom Penh Municipal Court should, in no uncertain term, inform Mr. Hun Sen of his guilt. And the least the court could do is to admonish and advise Mr. Hun Sen to take whatever appropriate corrective course of action to amend his guilt, be it intentional or unintentional. As a reprimand for his reckless speech, another least action the court could take is to make Mr. Hun Sen write a letter to Ms. Mu Sochuo to inform her of the real motive of his speech and inform her of his regret if his speech caused harms to her, emotionally or personally, and that such causes were unintentional, if that was the case.

(CASE CLOSED)

Chanda Chhay

Thailand: Stop Attempting to Rewrite History

Border closing at Preah Vihear (Photo: Koh Santepheap)

June 30, 2008
Op-ED by Chanda Chhay

The rancor in Thailand over the issue of Cambodia’s proposal to put Preah Vihear Temple as a world heritage site appears to get uglier every passing day. It is outright pathetic when Thai politicians, academics, and even judicial body (court) made preposterous claims that Thailand could lose territory as a result of Cambodia’s putting Preah Vihear Temple as a world heritage site.

Let’s face it, and be realistic and truthful to history, that the Issan region of Thailand formerly known as Surin, Kok Khan, and Nokor Reach were former Cambodian provinces. The Thais had annexed these provinces to their kingdom during the period when Cambodia was falling apart, politically.

It is a crooked politic or twisting the truth to the lowest point for Thai politicians or Thailand to cry foul about losing their appropriated territories to the victim of their thefts. If we were to let bygones be bygones, as a good neighbor, the least Thailand could do is to do the best it could to facilitate, in good faith, Cambodia’s effort to preserve Preah Vihear for posterity. The hard truth is that: It is Thai people who benefit the most from Preah Vihear being opened to tourists. Also, in the long run, it is still Thai people who will benefit the most from Preah Vihear as a world heritage site. If the muddled-head Thai politicians did not see this plain truth, it is time for Cambodia to say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and shut off access to Preah Vihear from Thailand for good, or until Thai politicians get their rational back on track.

Chanda Chhay
Washington, DC

An Institution of Injustice

Sunday, June 15, 2008
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay

If there were such a thing as an Institution of Injustice, the Cambodian Municipal Court in Phnom Penh would certainly fit into this dubious distinction. The way Judge Chhay Kong handled the case of Mr. Dam Sith, the editor of Moneasekar Khmer newspaper, was not only a miscarriage of justice but also a brazen abuse of the laws as well as the institution (court), which he represented. The issues of miscarriages of justice or judicial abuses could have happened anywhere, but Mr. Dam Sith’s case certainly merit some discussion, for it is so blatantly mediocre even a non-lawyer like me could see the flaws.

A few days ago, amidst local and international condemnations, Judge Chhay Kong issued a firm refusal to a request from a dozen or so Members of Parliament for the release of Mr. Dam Sith on the ground that they (MP’s) had no “rights” or jurisdiction to meddle in judicial procedures (See Judge Chhay Kong’s letter in Khmer at the end of this article). However, two days after denying those MP’s request, Judge Chhay Kong has turned the integrity of his court and his noble principle of keeping outside influences away from judicial procedures upside down, when he suddenly bent backward to accept a lone Member of Parliament and head of the executive branch, Mr. Hun Sen’s request to release Mr. Dam Sith. Unbelievable! It is certainly counterintuitive to see any person, let alone a judge whose decision could take a person’s liberty or life away, making such an irrational decision.

One simple premise: If those other members of parliament had no rights to intervene in the judicial procedures, neither could Mr. Hun Sen, who is also a member of parliament. Therefore, Judge Chhay Kong should also firmly and confidently tell Mr. Hun Sen that he has no rights to interfere in the judicial procedures.

I know I am being harsh on this poor Judge Chhay Kong, who has possibly been pressured by powerful politicians to act according to their wicked whim. In a dictatorial democracy like Cambodia, it is not unusual to see a judge stuck between a rock and a hard place. But, that said, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t confront our predicaments and rise up to the challenges. After all, judges could not and should not afford to make mistakes or be reckless about their decisions because a person’s liberty or life depends very much on them. When a judge could not see this simple moral imperative, it is best for him or her to give up the law books and find a different career.

Chanda Chhay
Washington, DC.

Click on Judge Chhay Kong's letter to zoom in

The Hor Nam Hong’s Affairs

Tue, Jun 10, 2008
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay

Watching the fallouts resulted from Mr. Hor Nam Hong’s (Cambodian foreign minister) lawsuits against people who made statements, quoted, or pointed out that he was the jailer at Boeung Trabek re-education camp during the Khmer Rouge’s era makes me both amused and appalled at how ignorance and misunderstanding could spiral out of hand. With due respects to all parties involved, I would like to point out that this is a classic case of talking pass each other, which stems from the neglect to correct each other’s mistakes.

According to Searching for the Truth Magazines, a publication of the Document Center of Cambodia, it appeared that Mr. Hor Nam Hong was part of the Khmer Rouge’s diplomatic corps being recalled to Cambodia to be re-trained in 1976-77. Boeung Trabek was the center or prison in which those diplomats and their families were held.

One must know that some jails have two tiers of jailers (people who were appointed to supervise and/or persecute the prisoners). The first tier jailer is someone whom the authority puts in charge of the overall prisoners. The second tier jailer is a prisoner or prisoners whom the authority, or first tier jailer, appointed to oversee his or her fellow prisoners. We should note that the second tier jailer is also A PRISONER. To the best of my knowledge, Boeung Trabek was this kind of jail, and Mr. Hor Nam Hong was the second tier jailer who had no real authority to determine who should be sent to Toul Sleng or to their death. From what I have learned so far through reading the sketchy history of Boeng Trabek, the first SECOND TIER jailers at Boeung Trabek were Chao Seng and Vann Piny. When Chao Seng and Vann Piny were sent to Toul Sleng and subsequently executed by Duch and company, Hor Nam Hong was appointed to take their place. Given the fact that, like Chao Seng and Vann Piny, Mr. Hor Nam Hong was also a member of the KR diplomatic corps, it was very likely that he would be next in line to go to Toul Sleng should the KR Angkar decide to eliminate the rest of the diplomatic corps at Boeung Trabek. One could perhaps make a plausible argument that Mr. Hor Nam Hong’s, along with about half of the prisoners at Boeung Trabek, survival to these days was a courtesy of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Without this critical event, Hor Nam Hong might not be around to sue everyone all over the world. Again, I think it is incumbent upon Mr. Hor Nam Hong, as a public figure and a survivor of Boeung Trabek, to clarify this mess so that this ambiguous issue is put to rest once and for all. Also, those other Boeung Trabek survivors should speak up so that we all could benefit from learning the truth. Believe it or not, nothing is harder than finding the truth.

And by the way, I think it is reflecting badly on your integrity, Mr. Foreign Minister, to sue journalist on the ground of defamation and disinformation. As a public figure and a veteran diplomat, you should know better that journalists only report what they learned and heard from their sources. If you think that the information, which affected your honor, is incorrect, tell them to correct it. Period! To take any action beyond that is despicable!!!

Chanda Chhay
Washington, D.C. (USA)

Portrait of a Hero

King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan

Wed, Mar 5, 2008
Op-Ed by Chanda Chhay

A hero could be simply defined as someone who sacrifices his/her own interests for the benefits of others. Last month, I received my subscribed issue of the National Geographic Magazine, which featured an article about a unique action taken by the king of Bhutan—abolish absolute monarchy in favor of democracy.

Without a drop of blood being spilled (which is usually the case for ushering in democracy), or a single voice of demand being heard, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan has made an unprecedented move to liberate his subjects from the grip of dictatorial leadership by giving them democracy and all the freedoms it espouses. In a world where political leaders would do anything to cling to power, King Wangchuk’s action is simply extraordinary. His rational for adapting democracy as a form of governance is based on a noble belief that people’s lives and their destiny are too precious to be left at the mercy of one man’s decisions. “What would happen…..if Bhutan fell into the hands of an evil or incompetent ruler?” he asked, rhetorically.

Never before in human history that a king willingly gives up his power to empower his subjects. This is a classic case of what Plato, a Greek philosopher, called philosopher king, or John Stuart Mills, an English political philosopher, referred to as an enlightened self-interest person—a person who put public interests before those of his/her own.

But King Wangchuk did not stop at enlightened self-interests; he went further to encourage Bhutanese politicians to form political parties and present to the people different political platforms or programs so that they (the people) could select which party or programs best represent their interests. The king also demanded that the state-control media be broken down so that freedom of the press and expression are maintained. And to top it off, King Wangchuk removed himself from politics by abdicating the throne in favor of his son, Oxford educated Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, who will be charged with creating a constitutional monarchy and ensuring that his father’s adopted son, Democracy, will survive and flourish.

Within a few months, Bhutanese people will go to the polls to cast their votes and, at the same time, celebrate the birth of their baby democracy. Whether this baby democracy will survive or not, only time can tell. But what is certain about Bhutan’s experiment with democracy is that a hero was born; and that his name, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, will be forever remembered by the people of Bhutan and the world.

Chanda Chhay

What a Republic is, and Who the Republicans are?

OpEd by Chanda Chhay

Recently, there have been talks on printed and broadcasting media about people, who are advocating republicanism, tend to have antimonarchy tendency. This kind of view or belief is gravely erroneous.

I am neither a republican, nor a democrat, nor a monarchist. Though I exercise my privilege of voting, I always vote according to my conscience, NOT according to political ideologies. With this disclaimer upfront, let me, if I may, humbly offer an explanation on what a republic is and who the republicans are.

Politically speaking, people who advocate republicanism could not and should not be branded as antimonarchy. If this were the case, all Cambodian people who cast their votes to elect their representatives are antimonarchy, for casting a vote in the ballot box is an act of republicanism.

The foundation of democracy or republic as a form of government could be traced back to the works of two men by the names of Plato and Aristotle. They both were teacher and student, respectively. They had laid down the formation of governments as follow:

1. Monarchy = A government ruled by one person.
2. Aristocracy = A government ruled by a few or several people.
3. Democracy = A government ruled by many, many people.

(For those who are politically well-educated, it should be noted that there are also 3 evil-twin forms of government associated with the 3 described above resulted from their degenerations. I omit them from the discussion here, for they are not relevant to the topic being discussed.)

Because some countries have many, many millions of people, the process of having them all participated in governmental decision making was impossible to do; thus a mechanism of having people elected their representatives to participate in governmental decision making and make decisions on their behalf was created as a modification to the principles of democracy. This modification was known as Representative Democracy. This representative democracy is also called a Republic—a term which is so frequently misused and misunderstood by so many politicians and ordinary citizens alike.

In its purest form, a republic is a representative democracy. By this token, people who cast their votes to elect their representatives in a democratic process could also be called republicans.

The problem with Cambodia is that unscrupulous politicians have been using and misusing political terms to deceive people for as long as anyone could remember. The best example of this is Democratic Kampuchea which had nothing to do with the principles or practice of democracy whatsoever. The same could also be said of other regimes which used and abused the terms republic or democratic to achieve their political ends.

I hope this helps set the record straight on what a republic is and who the republicans are.

Chanda Chhay
Washington, DC (USA)