Showing posts with label Soung Sophorn arrest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soung Sophorn arrest. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Reality off the rails in Phnom Penh [-Phnom Penh is in complete denial]

Muzzled opposition in front of the National Assembly (Photo: SRP)

Jun 26, 2009
By Sam Campbell
Asia Times (Hong Kong)


PHNOM PENH - Science fiction author Philip K Dick once explained reality as "that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". As sensible as this may sound, it is a definition unlikely to take hold in Cambodia, where recent events have shown the government's tendency to obstinately dismiss anything but the most convenient information.

The denials have come from the highest ranks of government to the lowest rungs of social entertainment and conscripted the judicial system to fend off criticism. Experts and economists say the government backlash risks driving away the vital foreign investment and international aid the country now desperately needs to keep the economy afloat.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both predicted a 0.5% contraction in Cambodia's 2009 gross domestic product (GDP), while the independent Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimated an even sharper 3% drop. The government sees things differently and announced last month a beaming 6% GDP growth projection, down only slightly from its 7% projection in April.

That optimistic spin, economists and experts say, is totally out of whack with Cambodia's on-the-ground economic realities, as well as regional and global trends. The crucial garment industry, usually the country's main export engine, saw exports plummet 25% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2009. The foreign revenue-generating tourism sector is equally troubled, with air arrivals in the first four months of 2009 down 16% over the same period last year.

The kingdom's rapid economic growth - GDP increases were measured in double digits for several years - seems to have made officials reluctant to concede that the downturn is having serious effects in Cambodia.

Indeed, Prime Minister Hun Sen's economic lieutenants have been slow to acknowledge the impact of the global crisis on Cambodia's until recently rising fortunes, opting instead to discredit or clamp down on critical news and assessments.

Minister of Economy and Finance Keat Chhon said in early June that a US$6.6 million training program and a $1 million micro-loans program would be adequate to mitigate the 60,000 garment factory workers who recently lost their jobs - a claim greeted with skepticism from economic analysts. Keat Chhon did not respond to an Asia Times Online request for an interview about the programs.

Hun Sen has responded to downcast projections with a characteristic sharp tongue. When the EIU this year rated Cambodia among global countries at high risk of political instability due to the economic crisis, the strongman leader questioned the report's "political orientation" and said the experts that compiled it wore "glasses with prescriptions too strong for their eyes".

In an April 6 speech, the premier went further, claiming that the report was "a political attempt to stop the flow of investments". Meanwhile, Cambodia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hor Nambora, dismissed the report as based on "sketchy and unconvincing" evidence. In a letter to the EIU, he called the report "perverse" and "insulting".

"Your scare-mongering allegations are highly dangerous, as they could be construed as actively inciting unrest," wrote Hor Nambora, son of Cambodia's veteran Foreign Minister Hor Namhong. "They also happen to be a gross distortion and misrepresentation of Cambodia's true position, and there can be no justification for these claims."

He also upbraided the EIU for having "arrogantly dismissed" Hun Sen's vow that Cambodia would maintain its economic growth this year: "You seem to have ignored this reassurance from the highest possible level, preferring to rely on your own evidence."

Comedic criticism

The government's protestations peaked in early June following a May 30 concert organized by rights organizations to bring attention to the thorny issue of corruption.

At the so-called "Clean Hands Concert", newly appointed United States ambassador Carol Rodley called corruption one of the main obstacles to socio-economic development in the country, claiming the scourge "costs Cambodia up to $500 million per year in terms of forgone state revenue that could otherwise be spent on public services in education and health care and jobs for Cambodian youth".

She claimed that the sum was "equivalent to the cost of constructing 20,000 six-room school buildings or the ability to pay every civil servant in Cambodia an additional US$260 per month". Her arithmetic, however, was not well received by the government.

"The Royal Government of Cambodia absolutely refutes the politically motivated and unsubstantiated allegation made by the United States diplomat in contradiction of the good relations between Cambodia and the United States Government," read a stern letter the Cambodian Foreign Ministry sent to the US Embassy.

Cambodia's UK ambassador Hor Nambora again entered the fray, saying Rodley seemed to have allied herself "with the discredited views of the international pressure group Global Witness which continually engages in virulent and malicious campaigns against the Royal Government of Cambodia". Global Witness has long been an irritating antagonist to Hun Sen's administration, once labeling its leaders as a "kleptocratic elite".

Pointing to a conspiracy to undermine the government is becoming a common theme when responding to critics of the government. The eventual aims of this unnamed group of conspirators - which encompasses such diverse organizations as environmental watchdogs like Global Witness, economic think-tanks such as the EIU and human-rights groups - is unclear.

One conspiracy theory was put forth publicly by Chy Koy, a performer with the popular Koy comedy troupe. Although Koy had performed at the Clean Hands anti-graft concert, he appeared on June 6 on a Cambodian People's Party-owned television station to ridicule anti-corruption NGOs (non-governmental organizations) as money hungry fabricators of non-existent corruption.

"Some NGOs accuse the government of being corrupt without thinking about its achievements," he explained to the local press after the parody. "You can say that the government is corrupt if nothing had developed in our country, but the government is working and everything is developing." Although Cambodia is officially one of the world's least-developed countries, the comedian claimed: "Now we have everything. Some families have two SUVs, some have three."

The Koy performance was followed - again on CPP-controlled TV - on June 13 by the Krem comedy troupe, which portrayed NGOs and journalists as conspiring to stage fake forced evictions - another bete noir of the Cambodian government. The well-documented and sometimes violent evictions of impoverished communities, according to Krem's sketch, are merely an invented tool to enable greedy foreigners to indulge their appetites for luxury hotels and local women.

With official denials and social satire fending off criticism on one front, another battle was playing out in a very different sphere: home decoration.

In what many viewed as one of the most peculiar assaults on free speech so far this year, Soung Sophorn, a 22-year-old law student, was fined $1,250 after being convicted of defamation. Oddly, the medium for the defamation was graffiti, and the slogans "Against dictatorial policy", "People suffer because the government bows down to the company", and "Stop Evictions" in English, had been sprayed on June 1 on the side of Soung Sophorn's own home.

Phnom Penh Municipal Police Chief Touch Naruth told local media that Soung Sophorn, a member of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) and a vocal critic of evictions, was convicted because, "He can insult any individual or company but not the government." Prior to the three-day arrest and conviction process, Soung Sophorn had been summoned to the headquarters of local developer Shukaku Inc, the company responsible for the looming eviction of Soung Sophorn's community, for his opinionated house painting.

Private developer Shukaku's 99-year, $79 million lease to develop 133 hectares of state land where 4,000 mainly poor families live, including the area adjacent to the Boeung Kak backpacker ghetto, has provoked a steady stream of censure from foreign diplomats and rights organizations. According to local reports, the company and its owner, CPP Senator Lao Meng Kim, have steadfastly refused to engage with civil society or the media.

Disorienting defamation

Meanwhile, an ongoing dispute between opposition Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) parliamentarian Mu Sochua and Hun Sen typifies a flurry of tit-for-tat lawsuits that also represents a clear threat to democratic debate. For years, the CPP has used out-dated defamation laws to muzzle critics, among then union leaders, journalists and opposition leaders.

According a lawsuit filed by Mu Sochua on April 27, the premier allegedly made defamatory comments in an April 4 speech; the only compensation sought was an apology. The lawsuit claims that Hun Sen defamed Mu Sochua by referring to a female parliamentarian from Kampot province who embraced a general and then later complained that the buttons of her shirt had come undone. Mu Sochua, the only female MP from Kampot province, had complained of voter irregularities and physical intimidation from CPP officials during the run-up to the 2008 national assembly elections.

Mu Sochua's case was dismissed on June 10, but the premier struck back with a counter defamation case against Mu Sochua that is ongoing. Kong Sam Onn, the lawyer representing Mu Sochua, is also being sued for having held a press conference where he had allegedly defamed the prime minister by claiming that the prime minister had defamed his client. The Cambodian Bar Association has begun an investigation into this alleged ethical misconduct of speaking publicly about a case.

The National Assembly voted on June 22 to lift Mu Sochua's parliamentary immunity, leaving her open to criminal prosecution. Hun Sen noted on June 17 that the two-thirds parliamentary majority required to strip immunity would also be needed to reinstate it. He also used the opportunity to threaten further lawsuits against interfering NGOs.

Even nationalists cannot safely criticize, as Moeung Sonn, a local tour operator and president of the Khmer Civilization Foundation, found out. Moeung Sonn was slapped with a $2,400 lawsuit by the government after he claimed at a press conference that the installation of new lights at Angkor Wat might have damaged the legendary temple. Moeung Sonn, a vocal supporter of the government on cultural and territorial issues, and a significant donor to Cambodian soldiers stationed around disputed zones near Preah Vihear, has fled to France to avoid arrest.

While later information suggests that the light installation has done no damage to the ancient structure, draconian reactions to well-meaning comments suggest that dissenting voices will no longer be allowed.

Opposition leader Sam Rainsy, SRP parliamentarian Ho Vann (also stripped of his parliamentary immunity) and Hang Chakra, editor-in-chief of Khmer Machas Srok newspaper, are also facing defamation suits.

Cambodia doth protest too much

The increasing trend toward intolerance has not gone unnoticed. A June 15 statement from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Cambodia cautioned, "Pursuing the current complaints may reverse the course of the still fragile democratic development process in Cambodia."

"This recent surge in the use of criminal defamation and disinformation lawsuits filed mostly against politicians, journalists and other persons expressing their views in a peaceful manner on matters of public interest threatens to inhibit what should be a free debate and exchange of ideas and views on these matters," the UNOHCHR wrote.

The group also warned that stifling freedom of expression through such means "is a serious threat to democratic development which may undermine the efforts of the past 16 years to rebuild a tolerant and pluralistic environment in Cambodia". The same day, US rights advocacy Human Rights Watch appealed for the CPP to halt "threats, harassment and spurious legal action against members of parliament and lawyers defending free expression".

The crackdown on political opposition is all the more perplexing, given that the CPP, with 90 of 123 seats, is in firm control of the National Assembly. A showing of 58% in the generally free and fair 2008 parliamentary elections, the biggest margin ever for a National Assembly election, shows widespread support for the CPP.

Some analysts believe that by persecuting a mostly fractured and generally powerless opposition, the government risks making martyrs of otherwise unremarkable politicians. Perhaps more significantly, Hun Sen risks further alienating the Western donor nations and the foreign business community that in recent years have contributed largely to Cambodia’s economic progress.

The US, a major donor and significant provider of aid and technical assistance, not to mention one of the kingdom's biggest export markets, has been critical of the recent turn of events.

"It appears that the courts are being used to silence critics of the government," US Embassy spokesman John Johnson told Asia Times Online. "Free speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in democracies throughout the world, and public figures and politicians should be prepared to receive both praise and criticism from the people they govern as part of the democratic process."

It's a democratic reality Hun Sen's government seems reluctant to face.

Sam Campbell is a reporter and editor based in Cambodia.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Judicial Independence Is The Key To Reducing Defamation Lawsuits[-Travesty of Justice is the norm under Hun Sen's Cambodia ... just like under the KR]

Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission

Cambodia: Judicial Independence Is The Key To Reducing Defamation Lawsuits Against Critics And Upholding Freedom Of Expression

Prime Minister Hun Sen is utilising much of the country’s electronic media to assert his leadership of the country and send out messages to his people through his public speeches at different functions. Now and again in such speeches he rebukes his critics and makes disparaging remarks and even or threats against them. At times, such threats have been accompanied by legal action. Such legal action has now become part of Cambodia’s political landscape as Hun Sen himself and other powerful people in his government have sued Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition, journalists and human rights defenders for defamation, disinformation and/or incitement. Over recent months, such lawsuits have multiplied.

Mu Sochua, an MP from the opposition Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), sued Hun Sen for defamation. Hun Sen then counter-sued Mu and her lawyer, Kong Sam Onn, for the same offence, following their remarks against him at a press conference. A total of 22 army officers have sued Ho Vann, another MP from the opposition SRP, also for defamation, after Ho had made remarks critical of the degrees they had obtained from a Vietnamese military institute, although the newspaper that had reported his remarks later published his correction. A number of officials working for a Deputy Prime Minister have sued the editor of a newspaper for its stories implicating them in corruption. A student living in Boeung Kak Lake area where residents are facing eviction has been charged and sentenced for writing slogans critical of the government and the company which are responsible for that eviction on the outside wall of his house. Moeung Son, the leader of an NGO called the Khmer Civilisation Foundation has sued a TV presenter, Soy Sopheap, who is very close to Hun Sen, for his remarks critical of him, only to be sued in turn by the government for his remarks critical of the installation of lighting in the country’s famous Angkor Wat temple.

Except for two, all these lawsuits have been filed by powerful figures in the government and by the government. All have used the authority of the government to get back at their critics. In the government’s lawsuits in the past, defendants have all been convicted or have been compelled to apologise to avoid conviction, unless there was strong pressure from inside and outside the country for their release. Some have even fled the country.

Over the last four years the leader of the opposition SRP, Sam Rainsy, was sentenced in absentia after fleeing abroad. He was granted amnesty only to be sued later in 2008 by a senior minister for defamation. Thanks to pressure, the latest lawsuit against him in the Cambodian court was dropped, but that minister has still sued him in a French court as Sam has a dual Cambodian - French citizenship. A broadcaster, Mam Sonando, was arrested twice. Three human rights activists were arrested and a number of others fled the country. Thanks to pressure and their apologies of sort, the broadcaster and human rights activists were released. Some journalists were sued and one was arrested in 2008. Among those journalists several have fed the country. A university teacher and two ordinary people were arrested and had to linger in jail. The teacher was released on bail in March 2009 pending an appeal. In their confrontation with the powerful, the fate of those weak people is no different from that of an egg hitting a rock.

This past experience does not bode well for the defendants in the recent lawsuits. Moeung Son, fearing imminent arrest fled the country. The court has now dropped the charge against Hun Sen in the opposition MP Mu Sochua’s lawsuit against him. In contrast the same court is laying charges against her in his counter-lawsuit against and is requesting the lifting of Mu’s parliamentary immunity for the purpose. Because of such outcomes favourable to the powerful, those lawsuits have further deepened fears that they are eroding freedom of expression and the courts are being used to muzzle government critics

According to the constitution of Cambodia, there is supposed to be a separation of powers and the judiciary is supposed to be independent. Yet in practice, because of various defects, there is no separation of powers and the judiciary is not independent. Almost all, the prosecutors and judges are members of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP). The President or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Dith Munty, is a member of its standing and central committees. Recently, the director of the court of Phnom Penh, Chiev Keng, has been appointed advisor to the president of the Council of Ministers’ Council of Jurists, Sok An, who is a deputy prime minister. The director of the court of Kandal province, Khieu Sameth, and the director of the court of Takeo, Sin Dim, have been appointed advisors to the President of the National Assembly, Heng Samrin, who is the Honorary President of the CPP.

Because of their lack of independence, their rulings in favour of the powerful in lawsuits against their critics, and other defects, courts are widely seen as being used to ‘prosecute political opponents and other critics of the government.’ Though it has denied the judiciary’s lack of independence, the government seems to have recognized, at least implicitly, this serious flaw when, in October 2008, Deputy Prime Minister Sok An announced he was to take action “to enforce discipline and make sure the courts are independent.

In its review in May 2009 of Cambodia’s implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a UN review committee, noted this lack of independence and effectiveness of the judicial system which, it said, “hinders the full enjoyment of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights.” The committee urged the Cambodian government, among other thongs, “to intensify its efforts to modernize and improve the work of the judiciary."

This assessment shows that little has been done to ensure judicial independence. The recent appointment of judges as advisors to the government and the National Assembly has not helped. The latest decisions of the Phnom Penh court to press the charge against opposition MP Mu Sochua and the lifting of her parliamentary immunity and to drop the charge against Prime Minister Hun Sen in their mutual defamation in their recent suit and counter-suit has only highlighted this lack of judicial independence.

This status of the judiciary is totally unacceptable in a country which is supposed to be a liberal democracy governed by the rule of law, and which has undertaken to guarantee and protect human rights, including freedom of expression, and establish an independent judiciary for the purpose. With an increase in the recourse to the due process of law, instead of violent means to suppress criticism, it is more imperative than ever that Cambodia establish an independent judiciary. All constitutional institutions, that is, the Government, the Parliament, the Judiciary itself, the Supreme Council of the Magistracy, the Constitutional Council, the King, and also the legal profession, should discharge their respective duties to bring about this independence.

This whole task would require a comprehensive plan. The following are but a few measures that should be taken as a matter of priority. The law on the statute of judges and prosecutors (altogether belonging to the same magistrate corps), which the country’s Constitution has specifically stipulated, should be enacted without any further delay. It is unacceptable that 16 years after the promulgation of that Constitution in 1993, this particular law has not yet seen the light of day, in contrast to the laws respectively on the statute of civil servants and the statute of members of the armed forces, which are not mentioned in the same Constitution, which were speedily enacted in the mid-1990s.

The judge’s act should clearly stipulate the independence of prosecutors and judges and secure their tenure. It should guarantee and protect their irremovability, and stipulate that they may not be transferred to another position or court without their consent. It should also prohibit their affiliation to political parties. There is no such guarantee for judges and prosecutors at the moment. Almost all of them are affiliated to the ruling CPP. They can be, and have actually been, transferred without their consent. Furthermore, their appointment by the King has shown a strong influence of the government when it has been made by the Minister of Justice and approved by the Supreme Council of the Magistracy (SCM) while it should have been made, as stipulated in the Constitution, by this SCM itself.

The King has a constitutional duty to ensure the independence of the judiciary and he has the SCM, which he chaired, to assist him in this task. The SCM should guarantee and protect this independence and respect the irremovability of judges and prosecutors. It should effectively enforce its Code of Conduct for Judges, and establish fair and transparent disciplinary measures and procedure against them, and also a complaint mechanism and procedure that are easily accessible to the public. It should also challenge any interference in the work of all courts of law and in the independence of judges and prosecutors at the Constitutional Council. At the moment, the SCM has not carried out this task and has shown no resistance to pressure from outside. It has failed to defend the independence of the judiciary.

The SCM has its own structural flaws. It is an integral part of the judiciary and should also be independent. Yet it is not, when most of its nine members are affiliated to the ruling CPP and one ex-officio member, the president of the Supreme Court, is a member of the standing and central committee of that party. The Minister of Justice, and not the SCM, is running the SCM secretariat, and in effect this minister runs this supreme judicial body. In addition the same minister, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, may order the prosecution of suspects. This order may be legal but it is interference in the work of the prosecution which, according the Constitution, belongs to the judiciary and is therefore independent, and which has exclusive prosecuting power. It is therefore unconstitutional. The SCM should now run its own secretariat and the Minister of Justice’s order to prosecutors should be ceased.

It would be a further help to the independence of the judiciary if training of judicial officers could be entrusted with the SCM. At the moment the Royal Academy for Judicial Professions which trains judges, prosecutors and court clerks is placed under the Council of Ministers and its leadership is composed of officials who are members of the ruling party. Furthermore, the academy’s trainees are urged to vote for that party and upon their graduation, they are also urged to be its members. All these practices should cease, and independence and impartiality, among other ethical values, should be well inculcated in them instead.

Furthermore, the SCM had not been properly formed when three of its members, who are judges, are appointed, and not elected by their peers as stipulated in the law on its organization and functioning. This appointment that has been made since the creation of the SCM in 1994 is supposed to be a temporary arrangement, pending the organisation of the required election .This election cannot be held before the enactment of the Law on the Statute of Judges, but this law has not been enacted yet. This prolonged delay of 16 years, and the continued holding up of the election of those three members is simply unreasonable and unacceptable. They have made the legitimacy of the SCM questionable. Yet this body with dubious legitimacy has appointed three members of the Constitutional Council. The Law on the Stature of Judges should be enacted and the subsequent election of those three SCM members should proceed without any further delay.

For its part, the Constitutional Council (CC) which is the guardian of the Constitution should uphold the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as stipulated in the Constitution. So far no case of violation of these constitutional provisions has been raised with the CC although there are instances of such violation. The recent appointment of judges as advisors to the government and to the National Assembly is the latest case of violation.

As the law on the CC stands now, only the King, the Prime Minister, the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, one tenth at least of Members of Parliament or one quarter at least of Senators may file a request for the constitutional review of acts of parliament before and after they come into force. Courts may also file such a request but for laws that have already come into force. Ordinary people may also file a constitutional complaint through the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, one tenth at least of Members of Parliament or one quarter at least of Senators. Regulations or acts of government and decisions of state institutions are outside the CC’s jurisdiction, except when they may affect the rights of litigants.

Litigants in court may file a request for the constitutional review of any provision of the law or any decision of state institutions that they claim affects their rights, through the concerned court and then the Supreme Court. So far, this particular procedure is not widely known, and no litigant has filed any constitutional complaint against decisions of state institutions though there are such decisions that affect their rights and also the independence of the judiciary. Eviction orders issued by different local authorities and courts have affected evictees’ rights to housing and just compensation and their constitutionality should have been challenged at the CC. Yet no constitutional complaint has been filed against such decisions even when eviction cases have been brought to court.

There is a need to raise the awareness of this procedure among the public at large and among the legal procession in particular, so that they can make use of it to protect litigants’ rights and contribute to strengthening the independence of the judiciary. The jurisdiction of the CC and the constitutional complaint procedure should be enlarged to cover not only acts of parliament but also decisions of state institutions. The President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, Members of Parliament and Senators, as well as the public, should have power to file constitutional complaints against not only acts of parliament, which is the case at the moment, but also decisions of state institutions.

The CC, like the SCM, suffers from lack of independence and has dubious legitimacy. It has nine members, three nominated by the King, three by the National Assembly and three by the SCM. Almost all its nine members are affiliated to the ruling party. The nomination of its three members by the SCM has dubious legitimacy when the legitimacy of the SCM itself is dubious since three of the SCM’s own members are not elected as they should be.

In order for the judiciary to be independent, it is imperative that these two top state institutions themselves, the SCM and the CC, be independent and have unquestionable legitimacy. Their respective members’ affiliation to political parties should be prohibited. The Constitutional Council should be more active and act on its own to defend the Constitution, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and human rights.

In order to ensure its own legitimacy and that of the SCM, the Constitutional Council should declare that the prolonged delay in enacting the law on the statute of judges is an omission, and this omission is unconstitutional. In this ruling it should set a deadline for the enactment of this law on the statute of judges and for the organisation of the election of three judges to serve as members of the SCM.

With independence and unquestionable legitimacy and enlarged jurisdiction, the Constitutional Council can effectively ensure the constitutionality of all acts of parliament and decisions of state institutions, uphold the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, including the independence of the Supreme Council of the Magistracy, courts of law and judges and prosecutors. With such independence, courts cannot be easily used to persecute members of the opposition and other government critics, contributing thereby to reducing the government’s defamation and other lawsuits against them and, in the end, to upholding freedom of expression.

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Defamation lawsuits: UN is concerned

Monday, June 15, 2009
By A.L.G.
Cambodge Soir Hebdo
Translated from French by Luc Sâr
Click here to read the article in French


The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rigths (OHCHR) in Cambodia indicated that lawsuits stemming from political debates “undermine the constitutional freedom of opinion and expression which everyone in Cambodia is entitled to.”

Eight defamation or disinformation lawsuits were brought up in Cambodia since April 2009, the UN OHCHR noted with concerns in a communiqué dated Monday 15 June.

The experience in other countries shows that limiting freedom of expression, instead of addressing issues and criticism through discussion and a reasonable debate, not only provokes self-censorship but nurtures fear, frustration and anger, with the risk of leading to further conflict and violence,” the communiqué stated.

The UN OHCHR also notes that, among the current legal cases, a lawsuit was brought up for defamation against the “government” rather than against a particular individual, as is in normal cases.

The lawsuits involve SRP MP Mu Sochua (who, along with Kong Sam Onn, her lawyer, are sued for defamation by Hun Xen); Hang Chakra, Editor-in-Chief of the Khmer Machas Srok newspaper; Meoung Sonn, President of the Khmer Civilization Foundation; Sam Rainsy who is sued by Kep Chuktema, the governor of Phnom Penh city; SRP MP Ho Vann, as well as Soung Sophon, an official of the SRP Youth Movement who is part of the 4,000 families in Boeung Kak Lake threatened with eviction by the Shukaku Co.).

Friday, June 12, 2009

Freedom of Expression in Cambodia is deteriorating: Civil Society

CCHR – CLEC – IDEA – KKKHRA – LICADHO
Joint Media Statement
For Immediate Release
Phnom Penh, June 11, 2009


Freedom of Expression in Cambodia is deteriorating

We, the undersigned organizations, are strongly concerned about the perilous state of freedom of expression in Cambodia. Since the end of April 2009, Cambodian government officials have filed complaints of defamation, disinformation or incitement against several Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) lawmakers as well as a lawyer, a journalist and an NGO president. In addition, Phnom Penh authorities have taken harsh action to suppress freedom of expression by residents of Boeung Kak lake. Such events have serious negative impacts on the freedom of expression in Cambodia.

On June 08, 2009, the Phnom Penh Municipality reportedly sent armed forces to close the Lazy Fish guesthouse in the Boeung Kak area after its owner agreed to rent the premises to the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) for a public forum on ‘Human Rights and Development’ on June 12, 2009. The intimidation culminating in the temporary closure of this guesthouse caused CCHR to decide to suspend its forum.

On Thursday June 4, 2009, Soung Sophorn, a law student, SRP activist and a resident of Boeung Kak, was arrested after he had painted ‘Absolutely fighting against communist policy,’ and ‘People Suffer due to Cheap Government and Company’ on the walls of home. Detained in police custody for two days, he was then taken to Phnom Penh Municipal Court on Saturday. Despite this being a non-working day for the court, he was hurriedly placed on trial, convicted of defamation and sentenced to pay 5 million riels compensation to the government.

These actions of the Phnom Penh Muncipality, police and court in the above two cases were clearly unjustified and aimed at suppressing the freedom of Boeung Kak residents to discuss and express opinions about the pending loss of their homes due to the government giving a private company a 99-year lease to the lake area.

In addition, recent months have seen a total of four defamation, disinformation or incitement complaints filed against three SRP lawmakers, Mu Sochua, Ho Vann and Sam Rainsy, by the government or individual high-ranking officials. Similar complaints were also filed against Mu Sochua’s lawyer, Kong Sam Onn, and Khmer Machas Srok newspaper director Hang Chakra.

Several other lawsuits have also been filed. A disinformation suit was lodged by a government lawyer against Mr. Moeung Sonn, the president of Khmer Civilisation Foundation, for comments he made about lights being installed at Angkor Wat. Mr. Moeung Sonn subsequently fled to France; his departure is understandable in the context of past cases of disinformation in which a non-independent judiciary decided the fate of defendants. It is also worth noting that Mr. Moeung Sonn himself had sued Mr. Soy Sopheap, the commentator of Cambodian Television Network (CTN), for defamation and disinformation as well.

The pattern of complaints of defamation, disinformation and incitement filed by high-ranking officials, and the intimidation of residents at Boeung Kak lake, poses a serious threat to the right to freedom of expression in Cambodia. In particular, Article 62 (Disinformation) and Article 63 (Defamation and Libel) of the UNTAC criminal code continue to be used to silence the voices of Cambodian people and to prevent public participation.

Given this concern and threat to human rights and freedom of expression in Cambodia, we urge the Cambodian government to:
  • Reconsider its lawsuits over defamation and disinformation, in the interests of ensuring that all Cambodian people have the opportunity to express their points of view and to freely participate in debate about government policies and practices.
  • Respect the principles of freedom of expression as stated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other international covenants, to which Cambodia is a party, and also in the Cambodian constitutional law.
  • Encourage high-ranking and elected officials to build stronger democratic institutions which guarantee a greater separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
  • Protect the constitutional rights of the Cambodian people and ensure the independence of the judiciary so that it respects the rights of all parties involved in litigation cases
For more information, please contact:
-Virak Ou, President,
Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), (855) 12 404051
-Virak Yeng, Executive Director,
Community Legal Education Center (CLEC), (855) 12 801235
-Pao Vorn, President,
Independent Democracy of Informal Economic Association (IDEA), (855) 12 534796
-Chanrith Ang, Executive Director,
Khmer Kampuchea Krom Human Rights Association (KKKHRA), (855)12 934802
-Naly Pilorge, Executive Director,
Cambodian League for the Protection and Defence of Human Rights (LICADHO), (855)12 803650