Cambodia builds small, distant Freedom Park, criticized as place 'where no one will be heard' [-The Freedom to Muffle Protesters' Voices Park?]

Thursday, August 26, 2010
By Sopheng Cheang (CP)

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — Cambodia is building a small park to accommodate demonstrators, but would-be protesters criticize the project as a means to throttle dissent by keeping them far from government offices.

Democracy Square is 70 per cent complete and should be finished by the end of September, said Sam Samuth, chief of Phnom Penh's Municipal garden bureau, on Thursday.

The 60-by-200 metre (200-by-650 foot) site is very close to the U.S. Embassy and Wat Phnom, a famous old Buddhist temple that historically marks the city's centre but is not near any major government offices, such as the seat of government and the National Assembly.

It is about a mile (1.6 kilometres) north of a park across from the old parliament building that has been the most popular venue for political and social protests, some of which authorities ended with force.

Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Confederation of Unions, who has been active in staging demonstrations, says the purpose of the site — also known as Freedom Park — is to muffle protesters' voices.

"I think the location of the Freedom Park is not the right place for demonstrators to show their concern. I — and other protesters — would not stage a demonstration at a place where no one will be heard," Rong Chhun said.

The park, built where the headquarters of the military police used to be, will have no special facilities except for eight public toilets.

The government of Prime Minister Hun Sen is democratically elected but tries to limit dissent, often through legal means such as lawsuits. Journalists, human rights activists, opposition lawmakers and other critics have been convicted or jailed for defaming Hun Sen and his allies.

In October 2009, Cambodia's parliament approved a bill banning demonstrations by more than 200 people. The law also requires protesters to seek official permission five days ahead of a planned rally.

During the debate, lawmakers from the country's main opposition party, the Sam Rainsy Party, described the law as a clear setback for Cambodia's democracy.

Cambodia: Freedom of Assembly in Freedom Park

9 May 2010
Written by Mong Palatino Global Voices Online

Good news: Cambodians can now organize a protest action against the government without a fear of being violently dispersed by the police.

Bad news: Protests are only allowed in the newly established Freedom Park. And protesters need a permit to use the Freedom Park.

The Freedom Park is located far from government buildings and the parliament. Assemblies that number more than 200 are allowed if the organizers are able to secure a permit. The Freedom Park can accommodate about 5,000 people. The government has announced that protests in other areas will be outlawed.

Cambodia's Freedom Park. Political cartoon by Sacravatoons

Some bloggers have described the Freedom Park as “Round-up Park” or “Deprived Freedom Park.” The Son of the Khmer Empire reacts:

In my point of view this so-called freedom park is usless and it will be constitutionally used as a suppressing instrument for Hun Xen (Prime Minister of Cambodia) government to successfully deprive the freedom of the assembly of the people of Cambodia if the Demonstration Law is not amended.

The blogger is referring to the Demonstration Law which was passed last June 2009 which critics cited as a repressive legal measure. The law allows protests to take place only between 6am to 6pm in a designated freedom park.

But some commenters are happy with the establishment of a Freedom Park. Here is an anonymous commenter:

These so-called critics sound more like cynics to me. The fact that the city hall decides to set up a proper place for demonstration and voicing concern and you call this silencing? What do these people want?

Before, they said they are oppressed to cast any voice, now they are given a platform, they call it silencing

…not to mention chaotic demonstration can block traffic make traffic jam, etc… good for authority to designate an area by law

A “Freedom Park” rejected by “Freedom Lovers”

Hun Xen's regime plans to ban all such street demonstration in the future (Photo: Reuters)

08 May 2010
By Pen Bona
Radio France Internationale
Translated from Khmer by Kanh-chanh Chek
Click here to read the article in Khmer

The Phnom Penh city hall plans to set up a “Freedom Park” where demonstrators can gather to protest there without having to hold a march along the many public streets as what had happened in the past. The city explained that the set up of the “Freedom Park” where people can express their opinions is aimed at eliminating anarchy during protest march, as well as strengthening the security for the demonstrators (sic!). However, groups of “Freedom Lovers” who have led numerous protests do not want to see such “Freedom Park” as they consider this park a restriction on their freedom.

Soon, those who want to express their opinions through demonstrations will be restricted to meet only at a place dubbed the “Freedom Park.” This park will be set up soon based on the stipulation of the demonstration law that was ratified by the National Assembly in October 2009.

The government explained that the goal of setting this “Freedom Park” is to respect the freedom of expression for the people in a democracy, as well as to preserve social order. However, for union representatives and opposition politicians, as well as representatives of the civil society organizations, such “Freedom Park” is nothing more than a “Freedom Restriction Park”.

It is true that such park holds both positive and negative aspects to it. The positive aspect stems from the fact that it is now easy for cops to provide security for the demonstrators. Furthermore, it also cuts down on the disturbances to the public due to traffic jams generated by demonstration march. In addition, meetings at such park could lessen clashes between cops and demonstrators as well. However, the question remains as to whether such park will be set up to preserve social order, or does it hide any other motives?

Two main observations are raised by critics to such park:

1. The selection of the park location does not please critics because it does not provide any benefit of the demonstration meeting.
2. The limitation on the maximum number of demonstrators is set to 200.

The two issues about are criticized as being a shortchange on the openness of freedom because, normally, demonstrators want to hold marching processions to express their opinions and defend their interests wherever they want. The demonstrators believe that by doing so, they can be heard by the leaders or they can apply pressure on the government. This is the normal goals for demonstration organizers.

However, criticisms remain just that: criticisms. The law was already ratified and the “Freedom Park” will see the daylight soon and nobody can stop it because this is what the ruling party dictates through its majority votes in the National Assembly. Therefore, from now on, any discussion on this issue is not very useful anymore. On the other hand, what is needed is for the government, from the national levels down to the grass root levels, to quickly and efficiently resolve the problems for the people, in order to avoid any demonstration to take place because it is “better to take caution than to cure the problems.” (Fix the small problem now before it becomes larger and harder to fix).

When demonstrations are taking place all the time, the government should listen to the people’s wishes. A demonstration is an opportunity for top level government leaders to receive direct information from the public so that they can dutifully take care of the matters. Furthermore, listening to the hardship of the people is after all the duty of each and every leader in the country.

As for the demonstrators, they should avoid mixing up with political issues because it would be very difficult to resolve any issues that are tainted with politics. If all parties can do as such, demonstrations will bring benefit to the general population. Otherwise, such “Freedom Park” will remain nothing more than a “Bad taste Park”.
-----
KI-Media note: Mr. Pen Bona seems to forget that a demonstration is in itself an expression of a “political” belief, therefore, it would be incongruous, if not ridiculous, for Mr. Pen Bona to call for “not mixing up politics” and demonstrations, unless of course Mr. Pen Bona is suggesting that politics should be banned from Cambodian streets.

Cambodia has 'Freedom park'

May 6, 2010
Reuters

PHNOM PENH - CAMBODIA has set up a 'Freedom Park' designated for political demonstrations in a move critics say is another attempt to protect the government and silence dissenting voices.

The site, which is located far from government buildings and parliament, will be the only space made available to any group wanting to stage a demonstration. Protests at other locations in the capital Phnom Penh will be outlawed.

'This is the place to express opinions,' said the city's police chief, Touch Naruth. 'I toured the site this morning. This is a public place where up to 5,000 people can gather,' he said, noting that the law only allows a maximum of 200 people to protest and larger gatherings required written permission from the authorities.

That law was passed in October last year, sparking condemnation from rights groups and opposition lawmakers, who accused the ruling Cambodian People's Party of abusing its parliamentary majority to curtail freedom of expression.

Cambodia's defamation laws were also tightened last year after a series of court cases brought against lawmakers and journalists critical of long-serving Prime Minister Hun Sen and his powerful associates.

The idea for the 'Freedom Park' appears to follow that of Singapore, where protests were made legal in 2008, but only in a designated 'Speakers' Corner'. The Singaporean idea is modelled on a similar place in London's Hyde Park, although Britain's laws do not restrict demonstrations to a single location.

Handbooks on "restricted" demonstation rights?

Government To Issue Demonstration Handbooks

By Chun Sakada, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
29 March 2010

The government on Monday announced the launch of public handbooks outlining the rights of demonstrators under a new law passed late last year.

The handbook, which was sponsored by USAID, seeks to prevent legal conflict for protesters following the December 2009 passage of a controversial demonstration law.

Demonstrations in Cambodia sometimes lead to injuries among participants, who clash with armed security forces over issues such as land rights and labor conditions.

Some 200 officials, including provincial leaders, police and military police, as well as non-governmental organizations, took part in the announcement Monday.

Critics say the demonstration law, which restricts non-sanctioned gatherings to under 200 people, is too strict and reduces basic constitutional freedoms and that it does not clarify what issues relate to “national security, public order, health and public morality,” key provisions in the law.

However, officials said Monday that in exercising their rights, people must stay within the law.

“If there are 200 demonstrators, the demonstration leader must inform the local authorities, but doesn’t have to wait for a response,” Interior Minister Sar Kheng told participants Monday. “If there are more than 200 demonstrators, the demonstration leader should inform the authorities of the road of the march and the time of the march.”

This is to ensure security officials can keep public safety, he said.

“We are not banning freedom of expression,” he said. “We are promoting democracy and respect the freedom of expression by the people. If the demonstration has 50,000 to 100,000 people without informing the local authorities and the government, Cambodia may not advance to that point yet.”

Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Independent Teachers’ Association, said Sar Kheng’s comments did not reflect the letter of the law. “I think continued discussion is meaningless,” he said.

Ou Virak, president of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, said the law must be explained to authorities because points on public order and security are unclear.

“If the authorities are strict in implementing the demonstration law, the demonstration and demonstration leaders will suffer from this law,” Chan Saveth, an investigator for the rights group Adhoc, said. “We are very worried for the restriction of the freedom of expression.”

The new Law on Demonstrations : A terrible setback for freedom of assembly

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)

Press Release

Cambodia

The new Law on Demonstrations : A terrible setback for freedom of assembly
http://www.fidh.org/The-new-Law-on-Demonstrations-A-terrible-setback

Paris – Phnom Penh, 29 October 2009 - The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organizations in Cambodia, the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC) and the Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO), express their deepest concern at the draft Law on Demonstrations adopted earlier this month by the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Freedom of assembly is currently regulated by the Law on Demonstrations of 1991, which requires the organizers of a peaceful protest to inform the authorities in advance. In practice, the authorities interpreted this law as requiring an express authorization before any demonstration can be organized.(1) In 2008, e.g., ADHOC reported that the authorities imposed restrictions on public demonstrations relating to land and natural resources conflicts, and workers’ rights. Of 155 peaceful strikes and demonstrations that took place last year, 108 (70%) were suppressed forcibly by the armed forces. In addition, the authorities often refused to authorize demonstrations, or delayed granting authorization for demonstrations shortly before they were due to take place. Unauthorized strikes and demonstrations were suppressed by force.

Against this background of abuse of the existing law, the replacement of current legislation by an even more restrictive law on demonstrations is worrying. The text has been adopted by the National Assembly without previous consultation with civil society, and the version submitted to Parliament for approval has not been made public or circulated beforehand. This opacity and lack of participatory and consultative mechanisms in the legislative process is in itself a cause of serious concern.

As regards the text of the law adopted this month, it represents a setback in relation to the existing legislation, which was already restrictively interpreted by the authorities.

Based on their analysis of the current text as adopted earlier this month by the National Assembly (the analysis is available at the following link: http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Analysis_assembly_law_Oct_09-2.pdf), FIDH, ADHOC and LICADHO call upon the Senate of the Kingdom of Cambodia to reject this text in its current form, and to propose amendments to the above-mentioned provisions so that the text be fully compliant with Cambodia's international human rights obligations.

Since Cambodia will be examined under the Universal Periodic Review conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, on 1st December 2009, we call upon UN member states to raise this issue as a matter of priority with the Cambodian authorities.

Based on the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, the European Union should express its deep concern at this draft legislation as it stands, and call upon the Senate of Cambodia to reject the text, or significantly amend it.
--
Notes :

[1] The 1991 Law on Demonstrations says demonstrations are “acceptable” provided they are not “detrimental to public tranquility, order or security”. The 1991 Law on Demonstrations states that “authorities in each commune or ward through which a group of demonstrators will march shall be informed at least three days beforehand in writing”. The authorities are obliged to issue a receipt for the gathering unless they believe it has “characteristics conducive to causing turmoil”, in which case they can ban the assembly within 48 hours. If the assembly organizers disagree, a final decision should be made by “higher authorities” within 24 hours. This law clearly sets out a process of notification and yet it was been willfully misinterpreted to mean assembly organizers must apply for permission to gather. In both the Constitution and the 1991 Law of Demonstrations, the justifications set by the Law for restricting the right to freedom of assembly have been widely misinterpreted, against the spirit of freedom of assembly. Since early 2003, permission has been routinely denied to peaceful protests on whimsical security grounds. See LICADHO, Freedom of Assembly in Cambodia, November 2006, p. 5 (http://licadho-cambodia.org/reports...).
--
Emmanouil Athanasiou
Responsable du Bureau Asie - Head of Asia Desk(FIDH) -
International Federation for Human Rights
Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme
17, Passage de la Main d'Or
75011 Paris, France
Tél.: 0033 1 43 55 25 18
Fax.: 0033 1 43 55 18 8

Asian rights body draws flak

October 25, 2009
BEN DOHERTY HUA HIN, THAILAND
The Age (Australia)

A NEW human rights body for Asia that counts Burma's repressive military dictatorship as a member, and has no power to sanction nations that abuse human rights, has been condemned as worthless by critics.

Unveiled to great fanfare this weekend at the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Thailand, the Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights is already under fire for its membership and mandate.

Burma, regarded as one of the world's most brutal regimes, is a commission member, but the body has no power to investigate governments, nor pull states into line for continued abuses.

Instead, it has a mandate to ''promote'' rather than protect rights. South-East Asia's record on human rights remains flawed.

Burma's military junta holds more than 2000 political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi who has spent 14 years under house arrest. Cambodia, under Prime Minister Hun Sen, last week banned demonstrations of more than 200 people. Malaysia's Government continues to detain without trial people it deems a threat to security.

Debbie Stothard, co-ordinator for civil rights group Altsean Burma, said the commission had been stacked by secretive governments, and ''had not been set up to be effective and impartial''.

The UN said establishing a commission alone would not improve rights abuses.

The commission ''will have to work hard to establish itself as a credible regional mechanism and help close the gap between human rights rhetoric and the reality on the ground,'' said Homayoun Alizadeh, regional representative for the UN human rights commission.

The commission membership has largely been appointed by governments, with no consultation with civil society groups.

''This confirms our worst fears, because an intergovernmental body has always been second best, but an intergovernmental body that won't even talk to its own citizens is a joke, and worthless,'' said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

Defenders of the commission say the body can be strengthened over time. They also point out the difficulty of setting human rights benchmarks in a disparate grouping of nations that includes democracies like Indonesia, communist regimes such as Vietnam and Laos, an absolute monarchy in Brunei, and Burma's dictatorship.

ASEAN would review the commission's terms of reference every five years to ''further develop and strengthen the mandate and function of the body'', Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said.

The human rights debate and the late attendance of several key leaders have cast a shadow over the weekend's ASEAN summit.

On the opening day, Burma, Singapore, Cambodia, Laos and the Philippines refused to meet with civil rights organisations anxious to raise human rights issues. And four of 10 leaders missed the start of the summit.

ASEAN concluded overnight but is abutted by the East Asia Summit, which involves ASEAN members plus Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who was due to arrive in Hua Hin last night, was expected to again push his proposal for an Asia-Pacific community at the meeting.

He will also have talks with leaders from China, Indonesia and Thailand.

Mr Rudd is expected to again discuss the issue of asylum seekers and a free trade agreement with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, but no formal announcement is expected.

Cambodian crackdown on public protest stirs human rights fears

October 22 2009
By Tim Johnston in Bangkok
The Financial Times (UK)

Free-speech advocates say that a law passed yes-ter-day by Cambodia's legislature limiting the size of demonstrations is the latest example of rising intolerance in the region.

The Cambodian parliament, which is dominated by the Cambodian People's party of Hun Sen, the prime inister, passed the law limiting public demonstrations to a maximum of 200 people with the aim of ensuring "public order and national security".

Public demonstrations are a popular form of protest in Cambodia. The opposition, comprehensively outnumbered in parliament, uses them to make political points but they are also a last resort for groups of impoverished farmers and slum-dwellers who say they are the victims in land -disputes with developers and powerful allies of the government. Mu Sochua, an opposition mem-ber of parliament, said: "It is limiting freedom of assembly and that will severely limit freedom of expression." Mu Sochua recently lost a libel case against Hun Sen in a highly controversial court decision.

Human rights advocates have long accused Hun Sen and his administration of using the country's courts to stifle opposition , an accusation the government denies, saying it is merely using universally available legal remedies to protect its -reputation.

Last week, the parliament altered the penal code to make it easier to bring libel actions.

United Nations human rights observers were not allowed to attend the debate, because of procedural problems in the admission of visitors, according to the ruling party, and a live television feed broke down because of technical problems.

Brad Adams, the Asia director for Human Rights Watch, says the Cambodian laws are only the latest in a worrying regional trend, something he says is paradoxical given that the 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations is to launch its intergovernmental commission on human rights this week.

"There is no country among Asean nations that has a positive human rights trend at the moment," he said. "There is lip service to free speech but the reality on the ground is very different."

Reporters Without Borders recently downgraded Thailand in its survey on freedom of the press to 130th in the world, from 124th, as the result of renewed use of the country's laws against insulting the royal family, which can carry a 15-year sentence.

Vietnam came under fire this month after nine democracy activists were given sentences of between two and six years for challenging the government.

Cambodia accused of stifling protests

Land dispute demonstration in Siem Reap (Photo: RFA)

October 21 2009
By Tim Johnston in Bangkok
Financial Times (UK)

“There is no country among Asean nations that has a positive human rights trend at the moment ... There is lip service to free speech but the reality on the ground is very different” - Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch

A law passed on Wednesday by Cambodia’s legislature limiting the size of demonstrations is the latest example of rising intolerance in south-east Asia, say advocates of free speech.

Cambodia’s parliament, which is dominated by the Cambodian People’s party of Hun Sen, prime minister, passed the law limiting public demonstrations to 200 people to ensure “public order and national security”.

Public demonstrations are popular in Cambodia. The opposition, outnumbered comprehensively in parliament, uses them but they are also a last resort for farmers and slum-dwellers who say they are victims in land ­disputes with developers and powerful allies of the government.

Mu Sochua, an opposition MP, said: “It is limiting freedom of assembly and that will severely limit freedom of expression.”

The MP recently lost a libel case against Mr Hun Sen in a contentious court decision.

Human rights advocates have long accused Mr Hun Sen and his administration of using the courts to stifle opposition, a charge that the government denies, saying it is using universally available legal remedies to protect its reputation.

The parliament in Phnom Penh altered the penal code last week to make it easier to bring libel actions.

UN human rights observers were not allowed to attend the debate because of procedural problems in the admission of visitors, according to the ruling party, and a live television feed broke down because of technical hitches.

Brad Adams, the Asia director for Human Rights Watch, said the Cambodian laws were only the latest in a worrying regional trend, something he said is paradoxical given that the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations is to launch its intergovernmental commission on human rights this week.

“There is no country among Asean nations that has a positive human rights trend at the moment,” he said. “There is lip service to free speech but the reality on the ground is very different.”

Reporters Without Borders has downgraded neighbouring Thailand in its survey on freedom of the press to 130th in the world, from 124th, as the result of renewed use of laws against insulting the royal family, which can carry a 15-year prison sentence.

Vietnam came under fire this month after nine democracy activists were given prison sentences of between two and six years for challenging the regime.

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.

Cambodia bill would ban protests of more than 200

2009-10-21
Associated Press

Several journalists, human rights activists, opposition lawmakers and other government critics have been convicted or sentenced to jail this year and last year after being found guilty of defaming Hun Sen and his allies.

Cambodia's parliament on Wednesday approved a bill banning demonstrations of more than 200 people, raising opposition concerns that it would further limit freedom of speech in the Southeast Asian nation.

The bill also would require protesters to seek permission five days ahead of a planned rally. The law will take effect if formally passed by the Senate and endorsed by King Norodom Sihamoni.

Cheam Yeap, a lawmaker from the ruling Cambodian People's Party, said the law would help ensure public order and maintain national security.

Lawmakers from the country's main opposition party, the Sam Rainsy Party, said it would stifle free speech.

"This is definitely a setback for Cambodia's democracy," party president Sam Rainsy said.

No opposition lawmakers voted for the bill, which was passed by 76 members of the ruling party out of 101 lawmakers in attendance in the lower house of parliament.

Prime Minister Hun Sen's government has often been accused by rights groups and opponents of curtailing Cambodians' rights to peaceful protests.

Several journalists, human rights activists, opposition lawmakers and other government critics have been convicted or sentenced to jail this year and last year after being found guilty of defaming Hun Sen and his allies.

Cambodia bans mass demonstrations

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Radio Australia

Cambodia's parliament has approved a new law banning demonstrations of more than 200 people.

Members of the ruling Cambodian People's Party say the law will ensure security and help maintain public order.

The main opposition Sam Rainsy Party says it is nothing more than a ban on anti-government protests.

The law also requires groups to seek permission five days in advance of planned demonstrations.

It follows recent tightening of Cambodia's defamation laws after a series of court cases brought against opponents of Prime Minister Hun Sen and associates.

Cambodia passes law banning big demonstrations

Wed Oct 21, 2009
By Ek Madra

PHNOM PENH (Reuters) - Cambodia's parliament approved a new law on Wednesday banning demonstrations of more than 200 people, sparking fresh concerns the government is trying to silence dissenting voices.

Lawmakers from the ruling Cambodian People's Party (CPP) said the new legislation would ensure security and help maintain public order, but the opposition dismissed the law as another attempt to stifle freedom of expression.

"This law is nothing more than just a ban on protests against this government," said Yim Sovann, spokesman for the Sam Rainsy Party, the main opposition.

"How does this law provide freedom for the people, when you have thousands of protestors who want to hold demonstrations but are not allowed?" he added.

The law also requires groups to seek permission five days in advance of planned demonstrations.

Mass rallies in Cambodia have been harshly dealt with in the past but are now rare as the country enjoys an unprecedented period of political and economic stability after decades of brutal civil war.

In contrast, mass protests since 2006 in neighbouring Thailand have helped topple two elected governments, triggering street riots, security crackdowns, a coup and an airport seizure, which has spooked investors and prompted credit ratings downgrades.

LAWS TIGHTENED

The new law on protests follows recent tightening of Cambodia's defamation laws after a series of court cases brought against opponents of long-serving Prime Minister Hun Sen and his powerful associates.

Parliamentarians from the CPP have defended the defamation laws, which it said "protected the dignity and reputation" of the country's leaders.

Analysts say there is currently little threat to Hun Sen or his party, which won 73 percent of the vote in elections last year as a result of double-digit economic growth, increased public spending and better unemployment opportunities.

However, opponents and rights groups accuse the CPP of trying to tighten their grip by using legal means to muzzle detractors.

"You cannot criticise government institutions because you could be held accountable for defaming them," said Ou Vireak, head of the U.S.-funded Cambodian Centre for Human Rights.

"Because of that, it will create a lot of fear among the general public."

(Editing by Martin Petty and Bill Tarrant)

Cambodia's parliament passes controversial demonstration law

PHNOM PENH, Oct 21 (AFP) - Cambodia's parliament on Wednesday passed a controversial law restricting the size of demonstrations, a measure the opposition said would be used by authorities to stifle free speech.

The "peaceful demonstrations law" passed with 76 of the 101 lawmakers in attendance at Cambodia's National Assembly voting in favour of the new measures. No opposition lawmakers voted in favour of the bill.

A copy of the draft law said it would restrict the size of protests to 200 people, and was aimed at ensuring "public order and national security".

The law will also ban any gathering inside or outside the gates of factories or government buildings, according to the draft.

Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said the law was an "excuse to ban people from holding demonstrations" and a move by the ruling Cambodian People's Party to curb free speech.

"The law (will) ban the people's freedom of expression," he said, warning that in the near future he would hold a large protest against Cambodians being illegally evicted from their land.

"The government is trying to eliminate demonstrations and people's rights," Sam Rainsy added.

Kem Sokha, leader of opposition Human Rights Party, echoed Sam Rainsy's remarks, saying the law would allow authorities to "crack down on protesters".

The law will take effect after receiving approval from Cambodia's Senate and promulgation from King Norodom Sihamoni, which are both considered formalities.

Opposition criticizes demonstration draft law

Friday, February 1, 2008
Kampuchea Thmei newspaper
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

Opposition MPs raised the issue of the draft law on peaceful demonstration, which will be debated and ratified in the near future, saying that it is in fact a law restricting the demonstration organizers. However, CPP MPs rejected this claim and said that the law is not drafted for (the benefit of) any particular party, but that it was drafted to serve the interest of the people.

SRP MP Yim Sovann told reporters at the National Assembly, in the afternoon of 30 January 2008, that the draft law on peaceful demonstration imposes severe restrictions on demonstration organizers, such as the one stipulated in Article 26. In this article, the demonstration organizers are responsible for the damages and any violence which would occur during the demonstration. Yim Sovann pointed this article out to show that, during a demonstration, there could be unscrupulous people who would take this opportunity to create problems in order to blame the demonstration organizers. Yim Sovann added that if there is no change on this issue, nobody would dare demonstrate.

At the same time, Yim Sovann also criticized some wordings used in the draft law, such as: “social order and national security”. He said that in the past, the authority tend to use the excuse of “affecting social order and national security” as an excuse to prevent demonstrators from protesting.

CPP MP Chiem Yeap said that this law existed earlier, but because it was too restrictive, the government then decided to review it, and prepared this new draft law, in order to be up to date for the Nation. He added that the “law” does not set a limit on its use, and even the king is under the law also. Therefore, this is not a further restriction, he said that those who raised this issue only do so to accuse the CPP only. However, the CPP will not hold on to power forever, and that only this law will still be in use as long as there is no amendment to it.

He said that even though the CPP is now winning the election, in the future, when another party wins the election, it will still put this law into practice as well. This law will become into effect in cities as well as in rural areas. This means that everybody must abide by this law. Chiem Yeap indicated that this law was dutifully reviewed by experts before it was sent to the National Assembly for debate and ratification. Furthermore, he said that NGOs also were called to participate in its review, evaluation, and to provide their input also. It was not prepared haphazardly.

He added that, anything that is backed up by a law is very good, there is nothing bad to it, because the law can defend and lead the country to one with the rule of law. This law will provide an application with clear goals.

The draft law on peaceful demonstration includes 6 sections and 30 articles. According to a MP, this law will be presented to the National Assembly for ratification in the near future.