Showing posts with label People Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label People Power. Show all posts

Thursday, February 16, 2012

CAMBODIA: "O Khmer euy Khmer, chous ach knong srae" - ឱខ្មែរអើយខ្មែរ! ជុះអាចម៏ក្នុងស្រែ





An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by the Asian Human Rights Commission

Something is changing within the Khmer nation.

Those storied Khmer characteristics – the broad smile; the gentle, peaceful compassionate nature – and the centuries-old traditions of "korup, bamreur, karpier, smoh trang" -- "respect, serve, defend, be loyal (to leaders)" -- passed down through generations seem to be taking a new course.

Protesters spell the word "Aphivath" or "Development" with their shoes (Photo: The Phnom Penh Post)
A photo floating on the Internet shows Khmer villagers--from youth to middle age--standing barefoot under the hot sun as their colorful sandals are arranged in an empty lot nearby to make up the Khmer word "Aphivath," or "Development." Their symbolic protest is directed at Khmer leaders and at those around the world who are sympathetic to the disenfranchisement of the poor in contemporary Cambodia.

Photos and videos of government abuse of citizens' rights and of citizens' responses have inundated the Internet. Some postings inform and educate. I recommend recent postings on the Website of Radio Free Asia (February 1, "More Arrests Follow Land Clash").

The beatings of women and children by riot police are routine -- and are routinely condemned by international and national rights groups. The too common sight of Khmer women with clothes torn or ripped off by police during peaceful protests is now replaced by the sight of women protesters taking off their clothes to highlight their protests as they face the police.

Cops ripping off shirt from a Boeung Kak Lake protester
A protester removes her clothing during a protest in Phnom Penh, Feb. 1, 2012. (RFA)
Going one step further, RFA posted on its website a photograph of a half-naked Khmer woman protester facing police in full riot gear. Her action was intended to highlight the plight of Cambodian villagers from the Borei Keila community, who were evicted by armed police from their homes, which were dismantled and the co-opted land given to Phan Imex Company for commercial development.

Khmer women taking off their clothes in public to protest against authority is a new phenomenon. But, it shows something else too: Submission to injustice has a limit, and "fear," a conditioned behavior, is being overcome.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Lessons for the Mideast from Asia's Revolutions

February 25, 2011
Author: Joshua Kurlantzick, Fellow for Southeast Asia
Council on Foreign Relations

As the anti-government demonstrations built into massive protests, hundreds of thousands of middle class men and women swarmed into the squares and long avenues of the capital's major business district. They were at times angry and joyful, hopeful but with little experience. And then, the army, which seemed like it might crack down, turned, with top commanders calling for the dictator's exit. The United States, the most important foreign power, eased his abdication.

The scene, so familiar today, occurred roughly twenty-five years ago in Manila, capital of the Philippines. The “People Power” movement eventually forced longtime dictator and close U.S. ally Ferdinand Marcos to flee to Hawaii. As in Egypt today, there was exuberance in the streets of Manila after Marcos fled, and concern among many in Washington; the Philippines housed important American bases, and many American policymakers worried that Marcos's exit would unleash instability and communist revolutions in parts of the Philippines, leading to rampant anti-Americanism in the former colony and treaty ally.

Few of those American worries came to pass. Though the Philippines still suffers from low-level insurgencies in the south, a communist takeover never occurred, and while post-Marcos governments eliminated America's rights to use bases in the Philippines, the United States eventually restored a visiting forces agreement. Today, Washington has a close military-to-military relationship with Manila.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Asian Experience

March 1986, Manila People power alone isn't enough (David H. Wells / Corbis)
Monday, Feb. 21, 2011
By Hannah Beech
Time Magazine

How, my overseas friends asked me, had I survived living in a battleground? Given that some of my journalistic colleagues were living in real war zones, the question was almost embarrassing. Life in Bangkok, with its gilded temples and hedonistic spas, shouldn't have been worthy of commiseration. And yet, it is true: last year, after months of antigovernment protests that paralyzed the business district, the Thai capital convulsed in violence. While my children napped at home, I drove 10 minutes to cover the clashes between security forces and so-called Red Shirt demonstrators. All told, the mayhem of April and May claimed around 90 lives, including those of a couple of foreign journalists. A motorcycle-taxi driver who worked near my home was among the dead. Friends complained of bullet holes pockmarking the facades of their office towers, while other buildings were reduced to burned-out carcasses.

I've been thinking about the Thai protests as civil unrest has flared halfway across the globe in Tunisia, Yemen and, most dramatically, Egypt. At first glance, the plotlines of Bangkok and Cairo seem similar: thousands of brave souls potentially sacrificing their lives to crusade against a rigid, out-of-touch government. But Thailand's political crisis — the result of a bloody deadlock between two bitterly opposed political camps that shows no sign of abating — is no model of democratic rebellion. It is a mockery of it. Back in 1992, protesters in Thailand did indeed overthrow a military regime. Since then, the country has failed to nurture its newfound democracy. Every few years, Thai ballots are cast; faith in this ritual is so stunted, however, that many dissenters prefer to unleash their anger on the streets.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Our children profit from our actions

The monkey eats the rice, then smears rice on the goat's mouth (A 2003 Cartoon by Sacrava)
November 3, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)

"People power" is not beyond reach in Cambodia. Skeptics misunderstand people power and equate it with bloody rebellion. Khmers are Buddhists -- gentle and placid, who don't rise against a ruthless dictatorship.

The Albert Einstein Institution, committed to the defense of freedom, says: "Nonviolent action (also sometimes referred to as people power, political defiance and nonviolent struggle) is a technique of action for applying power in a conflict by using symbolic protests, noncooperation and defiance, but not physical violence."

My nine years (1980-1989) in the Khmer resistance against Vietnam's military invasion and occupation took me near death's door many times, but I never believed we could defeat the Hanoi armies that brought the Americans to a negotiations table earlier. But we did believe that an effective Khmer resistance would bring Hanoi to the negotiations table. That, in fact, happened.


Except, the Khmer nationalists never prepared themselves for post-1991 Paris Peace Accords.

Adding to the detrimental lack of careful strategic planning with necessary "next steps," they were trapped in denial, blaming, as many simply realigned themselves for political positions.

The game of "svar pa'at bai loeu mo'at po-pe" (monkey smears rice on a goat's mouth) continued until today: The monkey ate the farmer's rice and smeared rice on a goat's mouth so the goat would be blamed for eating the rice; the farmer didn't know better and took out his anger on the goat, forgetting that goats don't eat rice.

Population has power

I stood before my introduction to political science classes for 13 years, driving home the same point every semester, that a government's "right to rule" is based on the people putting it in power.

In a democracy, an election is free, fair and secret. Having given the government the right to rule, the people feel morally responsible to respect it, obey its laws and commands and, as such, they bestow upon it its legitimacy.

Dr. Gene Sharp writes in "From Dictatorship to Democracy," that "Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones."

Culture, belief

Culture and belief do matter.

A culture that emphasizes obedience, loyalty and order produces citizens different from a culture that promotes creativity, independence and self-respect.

Thus lambs and lions emerge.

The lambs don't disturb the status quo -- societal norms demand resolute obedience and unquestioned loyalty. The lions use creative ways to be independent and free.

President Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Gettysburg address declared that America's representative democracy, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

A government of the people is one that comes from the people themselves, not from the ruling class; officials come from the citizenry. A government of the people that comes from the people operates for the good of the people, not for the good of the ruling class.

A government by the people is one in which the people are the ultimate decision-makers. They send representatives to make their wishes known in decision-making. But representatives can't change the U.S. Constitution, only "we, the people" can.

A government for the people is one that does things for the good of the people; the only purpose of government is to make their lives better. The world's peoples want basically the same thing: Food, clothes, a roof, security, decent health, a level of contentment, an ability to meet their basic needs -- in peace and security.

Dictatorships

Ironically, the population and the society are two necessary sources of dictators' political power. A democracy uses its political structure -- the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches, with power to regulate, extract and distribute -- to ensure the people's well-being.

A dictatorship uses its political structure, with the same regulatory, extractive and distributive power, to ensure the people's obedience, submission and cooperation, so dictators can stay in power.

With a culture of self-evident truths, the people fight when their equality and rights are compromised. But, in a culture that espouses leader-follower, superior-inferior, patron-client, master-servant relationships, the people obey, submit and cooperate.

Deny power sources

Dictators' feet are not made of immovable clay. Dictators don't stay powerful always. Likewise, democracy and rights fighters don't have to remain weak forever.

Sharp reasons: If dictators stay in power because they succeed in extracting the people's obedience, submission and cooperation, by denying the dictators their sources of power, they become powerless.

Dictators control state institutions. But institutions are made up of people who steer them. People of high principles and beliefs would find ways to steer the institutions -- including the feared courts and security police -- away from tyranny.

Sure, people are strongly politically and socially conditioned to obey and submit. But why can what is conditioned not be unconditioned? Is there anything unchangeable?

I wrote before that my refusal to submit to blind obedience landed me in hot political waters. So? A saying goes, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I don't pretend to have answers to everything; I don't. But people can learn what benefits all; unlearn what's detrimental. We know what those things are. Start, we must. The time to start was yesterday. Cry not for missed opportunities. We won't see the benefit of our actions. Our children and their children will!

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

From "El Condor Pasa" to "Power to the People"

El Condor Pasa - Simon and Garfunkel

People Power - By Cory Aquino

Power to the People - By Black Eyed Peas

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Recognize source of state's power

"Rise and rise again until lambs become lions." - Robin Hood's father
October 13, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

I had an uncle who liked to tell us kids, "To be interesting, you must be interested."

Years passed, and through college I began to make connections with things that had seemed incomprehensible before. Many of the thoughts I had been exposed to began to make sense.

I ignored my father's teaching for years: "Live with cow, sleep like cow; live with parrot, fly like parrot" -- until I learned about the political socialization process that molds man's behavior and his perceptions.

Learning, growing

Growing up can be not so simple. Some in their 50s and 60s are still struggling to grow up. Others have used life's experiences to chart new courses in life.

One can learn and grow. It can begin in small things.


Possessed, as my elementary school teacher told us, with one kilo of brain, I adopted my uncle's mantra: Learn and know about the world's simplicities and complexities and its many interdependent things and become interesting and relevant. Add your own capacity to analyze and evaluate and you can change yourself and your surroundings.

But you must have a bedrock belief that change is possible.

'Hyena and chicken'

Thanks to the freedoms we in the United States are guaranteed, we have opportunities to publicly disagree; many lands don't allow it. Disagreement is not a problem; being provocatively disagreeable and quarrelsome is.

Last week, I wrote that there is no "people power" -- a term en vogue -- until the people themselves understand -- and believe -- that the power is actually in their hands. I wrote that no power, force or barrier can withstand a people's determined efforts for rights and freedom.

Naturally, I expected anti-theses: A yin comes with a yang, just as day comes after night.

And so, one reader from Phnom Penh e-mailed, "Many thanks to you for having reminded people of their unalienable rights and power." Another reader wrote, "Hyena or chicken can't give birth to lion."

But we deal with humans. We know all human minds can be taught.

Power of the minds

Last June, I wrote about the movie "Invictus," about South Africa's black anti-apartheid activist-turned-president, Nelson Mandela, who condemned the white rugby team when he was in jail, then -- after he was released from prison -- successfully turned the white team into a national team for blacks and whites. The team won South Africa the third Rugby World Cup in 1995.

A recently released movie, "Robin Hood," tells the backstory of Robin Longstride, a veteran of the Third Crusade who traveled to 13th century England's Nottingham, where people suffered corruption, crippling taxation and the abuse of a tyrannical sheriff. Longstride became Robin the Hood, led an uprising against the crown and became the symbol of the people's freedom.

His father also led his people against tyranny when Robin was a boy. His father was executed by the royal sword. Hood's father's motto, inscribed on a hidden stone and on the handle of a sword, reads: "Rise and rise again until lambs become lions."

The words mean don't ever give up fighting for the cause of liberty -- persevere, rise and rise again, until lions are born out of docile lambs and liberty is achieved.

In the history of the Khmers, Khmer "lions" emerged and fought valiantly. As with the builders of Angkor, Khmer ingenuity is not unknown.

Nonviolent action

Political science professor emeritus Gene Sharp, holder of Oxford University's doctor of philosophy in political theory, founded the nonprofit Albert Einstein Institution in Boston in 1983 to promote research, policy studies and education on the strategic uses of nonviolent struggle in the face of dictatorship, war, genocide and oppression.

He wrote "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation" in 1993, providing "guidelines to assist thought and planning" in liberation movements against dictatorship, based on 40 years of research and writing. It was written at the request of the late exiled Burmese democrat U Tin Maung Win, editor of Khit Pyaing (The New Era Journal). It was supposed to be used by the Burmese.

But many freedom fighters in the world found it useful. The book has been translated into 30 languages.

In Spring 2000, the International Republican Institute tapped retired U.S. Army Col. Robert Helvey, who has past experience in Burma, to conduct a workshop in Budapest, Hungary, on the nature and potential of nonviolent struggle. Some 20 young Serbs attended. Copies of Sharp's best-known book, "The Politics of Nonviolent Action," were distributed.

These young Serbs later led the Otpor (Resistance) movement's nonviolent struggle that brought down Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

Sharp's Concepts

Political power is derived from the "subjects of the state." The state uses specific institutions (police, courts, regulatory bodies) to extract subjects' obedience, based on sanctions (jail, fines) and rewards (titles, wealth, fame).

Since any power structure is based on the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s), if subjects do not obey, then leaders have no power. If subjects recognize they are the source of the state's power, they can refuse to obey and their leader(s) will be left without power.

So says Sharp. And so say many who have understood and acted on his theses.

Khmers can learn from that, like the young Serbs did.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

People must know they have power

October 6, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)

The Khmer blog KI-Media recently has been publishing in sections Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation," by the Albert Einstein Institution, that provides significant guidelines to "assist thought and planning" in the fight against dictatorship.

Sharp hopes his study on "how a dictatorship can be disintegrated" would be useful "wherever people live under domination and desire to be free."

Sharp presupposes people who live under a dictatorship can distinguish between a dictatorship and a democracy, and there are those with a "desire to be free."

Enormous work and effort are required from fractious democrats and rights activists who fight powerful ruling tyrants. In Cambodia, deeply rooted old habits and thoughts stand opposite imaginative, creative and innovative thinking.


Some 70 percent of the people polled said Cambodia under autocracy is headed in "the right direction." Khmer and foreign partisans of political "stability" ignore civil rights violations, while opponents of autocracy speak of "people power."

Yet power doesn't exist until the people understand it is actually in their hands; until democrats and rights activists help them to believe the truth that no power, force or barrier can withstand their determined efforts for rights and freedom.

More than ever, Cambodians need democrats and rights activists to lead them. Through enlightened and efficient leadership, the citizens become aware of the parameters of oppression and develop the confidence that will bring down any dictator.

'Pigs don't fly'

Some readers complain that I write a lot about better thinking but don't tell them what and how it will help defeat Cambodia's autocracy and keep Khmers Khmer. In some ways, the complaint itself is evidence of a lack of analytical thought.

I don't normally read comments posted by anonymous bloggers, whose expletives, racial slurs or demonization of opponents affirm the bloggers' true values, but every now and then I peruse them.

Some people blog to relieve their frustration and unhappiness -- which is useful to detect the symptoms of a disease, if not the disease itself.

A blogger took offense at my remarks that all minds can be taught, and responded with "pigs don't fly" -- i.e., some minds simply cannot improve, just like a horse refuses to drink even if led to the water. There can't be change without a belief that it is possible. Are some unredeemable intellectually?

Pigs don't fly. We know that. But human minds do develop and grow. We know that, too.

Pol Pot decided that a people so "stupid" as to refuse his ways and thoughts must be destroyed and re-educated through forced labor and "tbaung chawb" (hoe blade) to strike the necks of those with "incorrect" thinking. There is no gain to keep them, no loss to eliminate them, the Khmer Rouge said. Thus, Pol Pot killed the nation.

When I was a child, my father often reminded me that if I didn't use my brain to read and reflect, the brain's lack of exercise would kill me, just as if I denied my stomach food, the stomach would contract and shrink and I would die.

Peasants, businessmen, the elite and those of royal heritage are human, each with "one kilo of brain" that can think. Royals may know much about the throne, but peasants know much about the rice that feeds the royals.

Pigs won't fly. But the human brain has taken man to the moon and back.

True stories

I had just passed my doctoral comprehensive examinations and defended my dissertation proposal at the University of Michigan when Cambodia's republican regime tapped me to take a post at the Khmer Republic Embassy in Washington, D.C.

Long Boret, the foreign minister, who examined a political bulletin I edited in Ann Arbor, called me to join his delegation to the United Nations, observed my work, and I agreed to serve the republican embassy under Ambassador Um Sim. Both Boret and Sim gave me enough room to apply my creativity, innovation and analytical thinking in my work. They saw some tangible change. Both were interested in results and not gossip and backbiting.

In his last words to me before the collapse of the republican government, Long Boret told me to prepare to join him in Phnom Penh. Boret was executed by Pol Pot's men on April 17, 1975.

The situation was different after I joined the Khmer People's National Liberation Front in the field in 1980. With a degree of freedom to think and act as a member of the front's executive committee, I applied my creativity, innovation and analytical thinking. Objective observers could affirm some positive change.

But those qualities also gained me enemies, even within our ranks. My problems mounted. But that is a story for another day, if ever I have the desire to share my perspective.

Better thinking

I subscribe to Edmund Burke's philosophy that traditions link the dead, the living and those to be born. But I distinguish those traditions that are barriers to surviving in an advancing world -- like blind obedience and unquestionable loyalty -- and those that uphold a people's culture and integrity -- like taking off shoes when entering home or clasping hands to say thank you.

It's anyone's prerogative to prefer one regime over another. But I think it's not good thinking to hate a monarchy or a republic. Professor Thomas Szasz once said, "A system is not stupid, the people in it are."

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.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Aug 20 incident in Siem Reap against Venerable Sovath and Chikreng villagers

In front of the Siem Reap provincial court, the villagers explained that Ven. Sovath did not break any law
Ven. Sovath (far right) explained that the cops shot his villagers
Balloons carrying messages calling for the release of Chikreng detainees
Villagers leaving the court
Siem Reap cops stopping the NGO's van carrying Ven. Sovath
A hochimonk can be seen illegally entering a private van in an attempt to physically remove Ven. Sovath
Elderly women villagers got on their knees to beg the hochimonks not to take away Ven. Sovath
Meanwhile the crowd of villagers kept on growing bigger and bigger
The villagers started to surround the van carrying Ven. Sovath to provide a shield protecting him against the cops and the hochimonks
The villagers provided an escort to the van as it crossed the city of Siem Reap
Providing their protection to Ven. Sovath is serious business for Chikreng villagers
Ven. Sovath walked the last 100-m through Siem Reap with his villagers
The villagers' convoy followed the van carrying Ven. Sovath out of town


On August 20, 200 people – including two communities and one union - gathered in front of the court waiting to hear two verdicts against Chi Kreng (CK) representative. Villagers held helium balloons holding messages calling for the release of Chi Kreng detainees and justice for Chi Kreng. Despite being threatened with defrocking, violence and arrest, Venerable Sovath insisted he go to the court to be with his community. Irish filmmaker and Canadian HRD (me) accompanied him by driving him to the court for safety.

Forty (40) monks and monk police showed up at the court to take Venerable Sovath. More than 20 police and military police were on scene, majority in civilian clothes. Villagers once again surrounded Venerable Sovath to protect him. Some villagers prayed and begged to monks/monk police to leave Venerable Sovath alone. Others tried negotiating with them, while a handful talked to the media.

After the verdicts were released (see Verdicts below) Venerable Sovath, the Irish filmmaker and I returned to the car and drove back into the city. Shortly after the van was in the city, we were stopped by traffic police. NGO workers who were following our van stopped and negotiated with police. After 5 minutes we were released only to be stopped a few minutes later by provincial police who forced our van to relocate to in front of a pagoda and escorted our van there.

Villagers heard about the problem and directed their trucks to the scene. Villagers arrived at the same time as the monks/monk police. One of the head monk police actually got into the vehicle and tried pulling Venerable Sovath out. My team and I then closed all the doors as the van was private property, and the villagers surrounded the van. The elder women sat on the road in front of the monks and prayed them to leave Venerable alone, some women lost complete emotional control and were screaming and wailing in desperation. Some monks and police were visibly moved by this display. Other police were intimidating villagers and NGO monitors by taking pictures of faces. One LC team member was threatened twice by police regarding her use of cameras at the scene.

The road started clogging with people stopping to check what was going on. Siem Reap is a tourist town so it was quite embarrassing for all authorities. After two hours like this, one policeman started yelling at me to move my van. Six Chi Kreng villagers and one NGO jumped in the van, and the other 200 villagers remained around the van. Together they walked the van through the town to where their trucks were waiting. The walk took an hour and blocked traffic that whole time. It was an amazing display of people power though I was too stressed to enjoy it. Once the crowed reached their trucks, the trucks escorted us outside of Siem Reap. We drove an hour with one truck filled with villagers in front of our van, two trucks behind, followed by two NGO cars, and one free-media car. After one hour, only one NGO remained behind our van to ensure no one was following us. After two hours, we carried on driving back to Phnom Penh on our own and and arrived safely.

On August 21, four Khmer newspapers and one English newspaper printed the story. One of the Siem Reaps main (pro-government) TV stations broadcast the incident and monk media conference held afterwards.

Please find attached photos from the incident on August 20th.

Please find below details of the verdicts and Buddhist Laws regarding defrocking of a monk.

Hope you are all well.

In Solidarity,
Lee
---------------
VERDICTS

Two Chi Kreng verdicts from Siem Reap court on August 20, 2010:
  1. Nine (9) CK representatives were convicted of three (3) years for ‘Organised Crime’ under Article 36/UNTAC, resulting in 17 months prison sentence and 19 months suspended prison sentence. Original charge was ‘Attempted Murder of Police Officers’. (Detainees have already served 17 months pre-trial)
  2. Three (3) CK reps (one in absentia) were convicted of a) three (3) years for ‘Illegal Confinement’ Article 35/UNTAC, resulting in three (3) years suspended sentence, and b) ‘Defamation’ Article 63/UNTAC, resulting in $120 fine.
  3. As most of these CK reps are facing additional charges/convictions, it is unclear if any CK reps will be released from CK prison. Also, prosecutor can appeal these verdicts.
-------------
DEFROCKING

According to Buddhist doctrine, discipline of monks is the internal affair of the Buddhist community of monks (Sangha) and Buddhist officials, and not the government. It is inappropriate for government authorities or police to facilitate the process of defrocking.

The decision to force a monk to defrock is not a secular affair. The decision is taken by the community of monks (the Sangha) and Buddhist officials, and not governmental officials.

Four Offenses

Upon entering the monkhood and donning the saffron or burgundy robes, Theravada Buddhist monks pledge to follow Buddhist precepts and discipline. Infraction of these rules is very serious, and can result in a monk being warned or put on probation. The more extreme step of forcibly defrocking a monk, dismissing him from the monkhood, and expelling him from the monastery is taken only for monks who have committed any of the four offenses (bap) that “defeat” a monk and require that he leave the monkhood: 1) engaging in sexual relations, 2) stealing, 3) killing, or 4) falsely claiming to possess superhuman powers.

Process

The Buddhist monastic code calls for such decisions to be made through a process called adhikarana-samatha, or the settlement of issues by a community of peers, which is analogous to due process and fair trial rights provided by secular justice systems. This means that prior to the decision to defrock, the accused monk may be allowed to answer questions, offer clarification, or defend himself. The most extreme disciplinary measure is defrocking; other measures include admitting a breach of discipline, pledging not to repeat the act, or placement under probation.

Defrocking as a human rights abuse:

When conducted by government officials backed up by police, rather than a religious organization, defrocking can constitute interference or limitation of the right to practice religion and religious belief. It can also be tantamount to a punishment imposed without any due process, and when conducted violently or in a particularly humiliating way, constitutes inhumane or degrading treatment.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Controversial Demonstration Law Passes

Sam Rainsy leading a garment worker demonstration

By Heng Reaksmey, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
21 October 2009

They don’t want large-scale demonstrations in Cambodia because the government fears people power ... The Cambodian government today thinks about destroying critics and [strengthening its] power” - Opposition leader Sam Rainsy
The National Assembly on Wednesday passed a controversial law on demonstrations that limits the number of people allowed to gather and gives wide authority for the government to ban a protest altogether.

The law passed with a vote of 76 to 25, with voting split between the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, in favor, and the Sam Rainsy and Human Rights parties against.

The opposition parties voiced strong criticism of the section of the law that limits demonstrations to 200 people.

“They don’t want large-scale demonstrations in Cambodia because the government fears people power,” opposition leader Sam Rainsy told reporters outside the National Assembly after the session. “The Cambodian government today thinks about destroying critics and [strengthening its] power.”

The new law will oppress freedom of speech and serves policies of the current administration, he said.

Kem Sokha, president of the Human Rights Party, said the government can now use the pretexts of national security and public order to bar demonstrations.

Nuth Sa An, secretary of state for the Ministry of Interior, told the Assembly the law was crucial to prevent unrest and act in the interest of the people.

Friday, August 07, 2009

Cory Aquino and the triumph of ‘People’s Power’

The Philippines during the "People Power" revolution

Friday, August 07, 2009
By Lynn Ockersz
The Island (Sri Lanka)


Late Philippine President Cory Aquino would be best remembered for being swept to power in a completely bloodless popular revolt against one of the most repressive of dictatorships in Asia. It was indeed a momentous moment in Third World political history in that the people had their say in the most decisive fashion with not ‘a shot being fired’.

It was Chinese communist icon Mao Tse Dong who famously stated that ’power comes from the barrel of a gun’ and this saying by the Chinese revolutionary had taken its place in the political ‘wisdom of the ages’, when the 1986 ‘People’s Power’ revolt in the Philippines stood the magisterial pronouncement on its head. The seemingly soundly entrenched Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship was eased out of office by the ordinary people of the Philippines who brought life to a halt for days on end in the archipelago by massing on the country’s highways in a show of phenomenal peaceful protest against their rulers, but power changed hands without a drop of blood being shed. The people wielded no violence to achieve their ends and the law enforcers largely refrained from coming down hard on the protesting public with a mailed fist. However, governance was not possible in a country which had ground to a halt and the people eventually had their say.

The ‘People’s Power’ revolt that brought Cory Aquino to the presidency was decisive proof that not all popular political revolts should be bloody in nature. Here was conclusive evidence that ‘right is might’. Until then, Asian political history, in particular, seemed to be proving just the opposite. Most states in the South-East and South Asian regions in the decade of the eighties, were home to repressive, undemocratic regimes with perhaps only India surviving as an exemplar of accountable, democratic governance.

Cambodia, for instance, at the time, was continuing to strive for political normalization following the ‘Reign of Terror’ unleashed by the despotic Pol Pot regime. ‘The Killing Fields’ of Cambodia were unsettlingly illustrative of the bloody extremes uncurbed dictatorial power could degenerate into. Hopes of positive change in Myanmar were to be soon undermined by a show of repressive force by the country’s military junta. Things came to a head in 1989, when the junta crushingly put an end to the democratic process and made Aung San Suu Kyi a veritable political prisoner.

Closer to home, Pakistan was writhing in the grip of the Zia ul-Haq military dictatorship following the ‘political assassination’ of former Premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In Bangladesh too, except for some short spells of civilian rule, undemocratic administrations were the order of the day. In most of these states, ethno- populism was combining with religious chauvinism to stall democratic development.

It is against this bleak political backdrop that the epochal ‘People’s Power’ revolution bloomed rapturously in the Philippines. Here was proof that popularly-backed, value-based politics, which are peaceful in intent, could change the face of a country’s governance in the direction of democracy.

It is to the Marcos dictatorship that political analysts are indebted for phrases, such as, ‘façade democracy’ and ‘crony capitalism’. The former phrase refers to the process of ‘doctoring’ or tampering with constitutional provisions, many repressive regimes in the Third World have recourse to, for staying in power, sometimes indefinitely. Coupled with this process is the misuse or manipulation of steamroller parliamentary majorities by political executives to pass batteries of repressive laws, which are undemocratic in spirit, but have an air of legality because they bear the stamp of parliamentary approval. All this and more is done to ensure longevity of political tenures and for the exercise of undemocratic control over publics and most such bizarre distortions in governance are traceable to a degree to the Marcos regime. It is only fair that it is mentioned here, that some Sri Lankan political heavyweights have been very assiduous pupils of Marcos. In fact Sri Lanka was also referred to as a ‘façade democracy’.

The dismantling and erosion of democracy through the adoption of these political sleights of hand by ruling political elites, were geared to facilitating the increasing integration of the Philippines with the global economy. For instance, throwing the economy open to MNCs was high on Marcos’ priority list and it was with the same end in view that Sri Lanka at that time sought to replicate within its shores a free market, Singapore-style political-economy. However, it was mainly the ruling class in the Philippines and its ‘cronies’ that gained mainly from this process of economic liberalization and it is on this basis that the phrase ‘crony capitalism’ gained currency. Needless to say, ‘crony capitalism’ is not an unfamiliar phenomenon even in Sri Lanka.

However, in the Philippines the yoke of dictatorship was thrown off with the gaining of a measure of political maturity by the public. The people’s disenchantment with the Marcos regime had grown to such a degree that they were prepared to take their sense of dissatisfaction into the streets, although in a peaceful manner, when the regime disputed the result of the presidential election of 1986, which pitted Marcos against Cory Aquino.

It is the degenerate nature of the Marcos regime that helped turn public opinion decisively against Marcos and filled in the people the yearning for exemplary governance. Cory was seen as fulfilling this need and it is for this reason that she was endowed with substantial moral authority.

The Catholic Church of the Philippines, in this crisis, proved a veritable conscience of the country and was very forthright in taking the Marcos regime to task for its numerous failures. The Church, in fact, proved a catalyst in galvanizing public opinion against the regime. Thus, the Church was ‘involved’ in politics but in a very positive and constructive fashion, which is how it should be. It chose not to take the line of least resistance by saying ‘yes’ to the ‘evils’ of the day. The Church was even perhaps instrumental in nurturing non-violent, popular resistance to Marcos.

The ‘People’s Power’ Revolution of 1986, therefore, helps the South Asian political commentator to place politico-economic developments in his region in the correct perspective. Political repression, we find, could only increase with the so-called opening –up of economies. However, courageous, peaceful, popular opposition to political repression could be an agent of positive change and should be tried out and backed by all progressive sections.

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Former Philippines President Corazon Aquino Dies

Corazon Aquino (1933 - 2009)
Corazon Aquino, the unassuming widow whose "people power" revolution toppled a dictator, restored Philippine democracy and inspired millions of people around the world, died Saturday morning (Friday afternoon Eastern time) after a battle with colon cancer. She was 76.

Friday, July 31, 2009

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer


Corazon Aquino, the unassuming widow whose "people power" revolution toppled a dictator, restored Philippine democracy and inspired millions of people around the world, died Saturday morning (Friday afternoon Eastern time) after a battle with colon cancer, her family announced. She was 76.

Widely known as "Cory," the slight, bespectacled daughter of a wealthy land-owning family served as president of the Philippines from 1986 to 1992, the first woman to hold that position.

She was widowed in 1983 when her husband, political opposition leader Benigno S. Aquino Jr., was assassinated upon his return from exile to lead a pro-democracy movement against authoritarian president Ferdinand E. Marcos. It was a popular revolt against Marcos following a disputed election that later enabled Corazon Aquino to assume power.

In her six tumultuous years in office in the fractious, strife-torn, disaster-prone archipelago, Aquino resisted seven coup attempts or military revolts, battled a persistent communist insurgency and grappled with the effects of typhoons, floods, droughts, a major earthquake and a devastating volcanic eruption. Her tribulations earned her the nickname "Calamity Cory."

As she dealt with those challenges, she took pride in restoring democratic institutions that had been gutted under Marcos's 20-year-rule. And she presided over a series of relatively free elections, the dismantling of monopolies and an initial spurt of economic growth.

Her administration failed to make much headway in alleviating poverty, stamping out corruption or delivering basic services. It bequeathed her successor an economic slump marked by protracted, costly power failures that reflected inattention to the country's energy needs.

Despite the turmoil that dogged her presidency, Aquino oversaw the first peaceful transfer of power in the Philippines in 26 years. She returned to private life with relief, although she remained politically active.

She played a role in popular protests that led to the ouster of President Joseph Estrada in January 2001. She initially supported his successor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, but increasingly turned against her in recent years, siding with opponents who accused Arroyo of vote-rigging and corruption.

Aquino's transition from housewife to president to respected elder stateswoman and democracy advocate represented a phenomenal metamorphosis for a self-effacing mother of five who, before being drafted to take on Marcos in 1986, had never before run for public office.

Born Jan. 25, 1933, in Tarlac Province, Maria Corazon Sumulong Cojuangco grew up as the sixth of eight children in a family of wealthy landowners in the province about 70 miles north of the capital. After attending exclusive grade schools, she went to the United States in 1946 to continue her secondary education at Ravenhill Academy in Philadelphia, Notre Dame convent school in New York and the College of Mount St. Vincent in New York.

There, in 1953, she earned a degree in French and mathematics. She returned to Manila to study law and met Benigno S. Aquino Jr., an aspiring politician whom she married in 1954. Survivors include their five children, Sen. Benigno S. Aquino III, Maria Elena A. Cruz, Aurora Corazon A. Abellada, Victoria Eliza A. Dee and Kristina Bernadette A. Yap; two brothers; three sisters; and a number of grandchildren.

For years she stayed in the background as the quiet, reserved, devoutly Catholic wife of the gregarious and ambitious Benigno Aquino, who was a governor and senator and seemed destined to become the Philippines' president until he was arrested in 1972 just hours after Marcos declared martial law.

He remained in prison until 1980, when Marcos allowed him to seek heart treatment in the United States. Corazon Aquino often described the next three years, when her husband was a fellow at Harvard and Massachusetts Institute of Technology and her family lived together in a Boston suburb, as the happiest in her life.

After Benigno Aquino returned to Manila in August 1983 and was assassinated by military men while being taken into custody at the airport -- a killing that Corazon Aquino maintained was ordered by Marcos -- the 50-year-old widow reluctantly became a public figure as she sought to keep her husband's ideals and memory alive. She gradually emerged as a unifying force for the splintered opposition, even as she repeatedly ruled herself out as a presidential candidate.

But when Marcos called a "snap election" for Feb. 7, 1986, in hopes of capitalizing on his foes' divisions and winning a new mandate, Aquino reluctantly agreed to run against him, acceding to the wishes of supporters who had gathered a million signatures on a petition for her candidacy.

In formally registering to run, she listed her occupation as "housewife." Indeed, her preparation for the post was probably best summarized by her comment to reporters several months earlier: "What do I know about being president?"

Clad in her trademark yellow -- evoking the yellow ribbons that had proliferated around Manila to mark her husband's return from exile -- Aquino proved to be a formidable, and fearless, campaigner. She vowed to "dismantle the dictatorial edifice" built by Marcos in his two decades in power, "eliminate the social cancer of graft and corruption" under his rule and hold him accountable for the murder of her husband.

In one hard-hitting speech shortly before the election, she warned Marcos, "Don't you dare frustrate the will of the Filipino people, because you will have an angry people on your hands."

Days before the vote, she told The Washington Post in an interview that many Filipinos were risking their fortunes and their lives to back her. "It's really a do-or-die situation now," she said. "So many have realized that this is our moment of truth, and they just have to give their all now or that chance may never come again."

Aquino fully expected Marcos to resort to election fraud if the vote did not go his way, but she relied on the axiom that, as one Marcos campaign official put it in a moment of candor, "mathematically, you can only cheat so much." And she vowed to lead massive demonstrations if the election was stolen from her.

Indeed, a rubber-stamp legislature officially proclaimed the reelection of Marcos to a new six-year term on Feb. 16, 1986, after a protracted vote-counting process marked by widespread fraud and violence. Aquino then launched a civil disobedience campaign to protest the result.

Six days later, a military mutiny led by followers of Marcos's defense minister, Juan Ponce Enrile, broke out in Manila. It was quickly joined by Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, a distant cousin of Marcos then serving as acting armed forces chief of staff. The mutineers declared support for Aquino, and the country's Roman Catholic primate, Cardinal Jaime Sin, called the faithful into the streets to block any attack on them by Marcos's forces. Millions of Filipinos responded, giving birth to "people power."

Three days after the revolt began, Marcos was forced to flee the Malacañang presidential palace, where he had lived since taking office in December 1965. He eventually landed in Hawaii, where he died in 1989. Aquino took over as president, declaring that "the long agony is over."

One of her first acts was to have Malacañang fumigated. But even then Aquino refused to live or work there, preferring to hold office in a nearby guest house and opting to live in a modest home a block away. Initially, she even insisted that her motorcades stop at red lights -- until her security guards put an end to that egalitarian gesture.

The ouster of a dictatorship through nonviolent popular demonstrations became the model for democracy movements all over the world, and Aquino was named Time magazine's "Woman of the Year" for 1986. She was also the toast of Washington when she visited in September of that year.

When she addressed a joint session of Congress, her path into the chamber was strewn with yellow roses, and lawmakers were smitten by her commitment to democracy as she delivered an emotional appeal for aid.

"You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant to receive it," Aquino told the standing-room-only audience. "And here you have a people who won it by themselves and need only the help to preserve it." Within hours, the House responded by unexpectedly bypassing normal procedures and voting to approve a $200 million emergency aid package for the Philippines.

When then-Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) told her after the speech, "You hit a home run," Aquino replied without hesitation, "I hope the bases were loaded."

But the honeymoon soon began to sour, and Aquino was beset at home by increasing unrest, including a series of military coup attempts. After one of them, in August 1987, she displayed her combative streak by filing an unprecedented libel suit against a Manila newspaper columnist who wrote that she "hid under her bed" during the abortive revolt. She even took a reporter into her bedroom to show that it would have been impossible to hide under the bed, which sat on a platform.

"I don't want the soldiers of the republic to ever doubt for an instant that their commander-in-chef is a woman of courage that they look upon and respect," she said in explaining the lawsuit.

When her presidential term came to an end on June 30, 1992, it was with unmistakable relief that she turned over the reins to her elected successor, Ramos, her former defense secretary. In a last bit of symbolism to show she was returning to private life as an ordinary citizen, she drove away from Ramos's inauguration in a white Toyota she had purchased, shunning the government Mercedes available to her.

In a speech at the U.S. State Department in October 1996 to accept the J. William Fulbright Prize for International Understanding, Aquino explained her role and motives with characteristic modesty.

"I am not a hero like [Nelson] Mandela," she said, referring to the South African leader who spent 27 years as a political prisoner before becoming president. "The best description for me might, after all, be that of my critics who said: 'She is just a plain housewife.' Indeed, as a housewife, I stood by my husband and never questioned his decision to stand alone in defense of a dead democracy against an arrogant dictatorship enjoying the support of the United States."

She said she ruled out sharing power with the Philippine military because she wanted to "rebuild democracy" and "there was just no room for a junta" in her country.

"Perhaps the military were also envious that in the first year of my term, I ruled by decree," Aquino said in her speech. "This was necessary to abolish the rubber-stamp parliament, sequester stolen wealth, annul the Marcos Constitution, pare down the powers of the president and sweep the judiciary clean. Each law I promulgated diminished my powers until, with the last decree, I stripped myself of the power to legislate. Could I have trusted the military to share so much power with me?"

Her departure from office as "one of the proudest moments of my life," Aquino recalled. "I was stepping down and handing the presidency to my duly elected successor. This was what my husband had died for; he had returned precisely to forestall an illegal political succession. This moment is democracy's glory: the peaceful transfer of power without bloodshed, in strict accordance with law."

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Hun Sen's people power nightmare?

Ukraine's Viktor Yanukovych (Top Left) and Viktor Yuschenko (Top Right)
Cambodia's Hun Sen (Bottom Left) and Sam Rainsy (Bottom Right)


Democracy a double edge sword

01 May 2008
Editorial by Pen Bona
Cambodge Soir Hebdo

Translated from French by Luc Sâr

Democracy is a double edge sword. This saying is particularly true in Cambodia. On 13 April, the first day of the Cambodian New Year, and 22 April, Hun Sen warned his opponents against descending on the streets (to demonstrate). Hun Sen affirmed that using such method to topple him will be severely repressed and the initiators will be condemned by the justice. Hun Sen’s words, three months away from the general election, were not pronounced without premeditation. Usually, at the announcement of the ballot results, tension rises. Notably, in 1998, a vast movement led by the opposition was harsh. The goal was to chase Hun Sen out of power, in spite of election victory.

This year, according to Hun Sen, such attempt will be used again, because “toppling Hun Sen by the election is now impossible,” Hun Sen claimed. According to Hun Sen, in order to achieve their goals, his opponents would attempt to use an ultimate maneuver: inciting a general protest in the streets. Such gathering is illegal, Hun Sen claimed. This type of movement reached its goal in Ukraine, where the “Orange Revolution” finally removed Viktor Yanukovych from power, in favor of Viktor Yuschenko, the opposition leader. An example that Hun Sen would not like to see happened in Cambodia. Hun Sen’s message is thus clear: according to him, a true democracy is justified by the election means and not by street protests.

Sam Rainsy does not share such opinion, the SRP leader believes that, to the contrary, street protests can ease an election process that is not “credible.” The opposition leader did not clearly mention that he wants to topple his main opponent by using the “people power,” but he didn’t deny taking such action either.

Of course, wrestling power by force is not new in Cambodia. Election defeat is rarely accepted, and the sharp protests following the last three general elections prove that. The amendment to the Constitution which eliminates the 2/3 majority in favor of the simple majority could appease the demands. Nevertheless, the protest against the election results could not be excluded. Ballot or street protests? Can violence be avoided? In the absence of the above, who will bear the largest share of responsibility?

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

People Power can change Cambodia

March 31, 2008
By SOURN SEREY RATHA
UPI Asia Online


Guest Commentary

CRANSTON CITY, R.I., United States - The ruling party of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, in another politically motivated ploy to weaken rivals prior to national elections in July, arrested Tuot Saron of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party on March 18. He is now awaiting trial on trumped-up charges.

The authorities were planning to arrest at least two other party officials, whom they accused of intimidating and mistreating members of their own party who want to defect to the ruling Cambodian People's Party.

Rights watchdog Human Rights Watch said that such dubious arrests of opposition officials months ahead of an election "should set alarm bells ringing." Brad Adams, the group's Asia director, said, "This divide-and-conquer strategy is a well-known tactic of Prime Minister Hun Sen to subdue his opponents." He said human rights had been violated in every election cycle in Cambodia.

The only way Cambodians can break Hun Sen's divide-and-rule plan is to unite and launch a People Power initiative. The term typically refers to the popular protest movements in the Philippines that led to the ouster of two presidents, most famously Ferdinand Marcos in 1986. Such a movement should unite all opposition parties and the people of Cambodia to end Hun Sen's authoritarian rule.

People Power is also a social movement that could challenge Cambodia's Constitution and seek greater freedoms and rights for its people. Such collective and united efforts would not only give opposition parties the power to fight the current communist rule, but also the strength to denounce any government that comes to power and fails to act on its election promises of creating social harmony and looking out for the people's welfare.

In the past, Hun Sen has rejected People Power as a possibility. However, the ability of monks to vote is a real concern to the ruling party. Monks form an integral part of Cambodia's social community. They influence the faith and political perceptions of the people, 95 percent of whom are Buddhist.

Holding elections is a good thing, but most government atrocities and human rights violations occur after the elections are over. People Power can police the actions of any party that comes to power. In the current scenario, the legislative and executive branches of the government are controlled by the ruling Cambodian People's Party, which is averse to People Power. There is growing concern within the party that a mass protest movement could arise and depose Hun Sen.

Cambodia's veneer of political pluralism grew thinner in 2007. Last year saw the recurring pillage of Cambodian people's land and other natural resources and the jailing of government critics, independent media, and political dissenters, all under the pretext that the groups were attempting to weaken civil society. The Cambodian authorities have never conducted any serious investigations into these matters. Instead, Hun Sen has continued to arrest officials from opposition parties that voice dissent and organizers who stage demonstrations.

Politics in Cambodia have never fully recovered from the events of 1997. On March 30 that year, a grisly grenade attack at an opposition party rally led by former Finance Minister Sam Rainsy left 16 dead and more than 150 injured. In July of the same year a coup -- described by Cambodians as an executive usurpation of power by Hun Sen against Prince Norodom Ranariddh -- cost hundreds of lives. What remained after the coup was a ruthless pattern of extrajudicial executions aimed at rooting out Ranariddh loyalists. General Ho Sok was fatally shot -- presumed executed within the perimeter of the Interior Ministry building. After elections in 1998, Hun Sen presumably ordered his bodyguards and special police force to open fire on over 10,000 demonstrators gathered in front of the National Assembly.

From 1992 until 2006, almost 4,000 activists and supporters of the FUNCINPEC party -- National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia -- Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party, Sam Rainsy Party, and other small parties have been killed. At least 130 families have sought refuge in other countries, while 56 families still await political asylum in sympathetic countries elsewhere.

In 2007, in Preah Vihea province, 317 innocent families were evicted and their houses burned. In Phnom Penh, Chhruoy Changva, and Tonle Basac, military police officers arrested, razed, and burned houses displacing thousands of families. The officers claimed that the land belonged to private companies that would utilize it for public projects. Later, thousands of displaced families were relocated -- or rather dumped at sites outside the capital. These sites lacked drinking water and proper sanitation facilities.

Authorities in Phnom Penh and Battambang province seized all 2,000 copies of the inaugural issue of the monthly "Free Press Magazine" when it was distributed on Nov. 2, 2007. Fearing arrest, the magazine's editor-in-chief, Lem Piseth, and distribution director, Heu Chantha, have been in hiding, according to the Phnom Penh-based Cambodian Center for Human Rights.

Hun Sen has been exemplary in demonstrating how a dictator should cope with the West. He has allowed the development of opposition parties, but murdered their activists. He has allowed opposition figures to emerge, but has not attempted to successfully co-opt them into his regime. He has allowed unions and human rights groups to exist, but prominent individuals within those groups have been killed. When critics or opposition parties increase their efforts to organize rallies and programs for the poor and victims of abuse, political oppression escalates as the elite dig in to defend their interests.

People Power is a challenge, not only to the ruling party but also for the people of Cambodia if they hope to change the leadership and the regime. It is time for Cambodians to conduct a countrywide survey on whether they want to keep the monarchy or become a republic.

Foreign aid, including from the United States, still makes up about 50 percent of Hun Sen's budget. While Hun Sen claims Cambodia is on its way to democracy, what is really happening is the Vietnamization of the country. It's a wake-up call for all Cambodians to gear up for People Power.
--
(Sourn Serey Ratha is chief of mission of the Action Committee for Justice and Equity for Cambodians Overseas, based in Rhode Island, United States. He was born to a farmer's family in Cambodia, earned B.A degrees in law and sociology in Phnom Penh and an M.A. in international policy from Mara University of Technology in Malaysia. He has been a social activist for his country on the national and international levels since 1997. ©Copyright Sourn Serey Ratha.)