February 8, 2006Radio Singapore International
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy and lawmaker Cheam Channy received royal pardons in Cambodia this week for previous convictions relating to political criticism.
Human rights groups have welcomed the move, and hope that this will mark the end of what they regard as "politically-motivated trials to silence political dissent".
For some reasons why the convictions took place, Yvonne Gomez spoketo Mr Verghese Mathews, visiting research fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Singapore's former High Commissioner in Cambodia.
Human rights groups have welcomed the move, and hope that this will mark the end of what they regard as "politically-motivated trials to silence political dissent".
For some reasons why the convictions took place, Yvonne Gomez spoketo Mr Verghese Mathews, visiting research fellow at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies and Singapore's former High Commissioner in Cambodia.
VM: Both Sam Rainsy and Cheam Channy are members of the opposition Sam Rainsy Party and were charged for different crimes. Sam Rainsy was charged with criminal defamation for having accused Hun Sen of being responsible for a grenade attack against an opposition rally. He also accused Prince Ranariddh for having accepted a substantial bribe to join Prime Minister Hun Sen’s party in a coalition. Cheam Channy on the other hand, was charged for having recruited an illegal armed forces for the Sam Rainsy’s shadow government. Both denied the allegations but were stripped of their parliamentary immunity so that they could appear in court to answer these charges.
Their arrests caused some kind of outcry but in a recent article, you quoted an analyst in the United States as saying that Prime Minister Hun Sen could be concerned that anti-Vietnamese sentiment in the country had the “potential to unite not only the opposition, but to create dissent in his own ranks”.
VM: This argument certainly has merit. The border agreement between Vietnam and Cambodia is a very sensitive and a highly emotive issue. This is because the agreements in question were signed during the period when Vietnam was in occupation of Cambodia. This is a very important point. Many believe that the agreements were therefore overly in favour of Vietnam. Hence anti-Vietnamese emotions can be easily roused in Cambodia and this can, in turn, result in anti-government unhappiness or anti-government demonstrations.
So speaking of anti-government sentiment…there are hopes now that the royal pardon will increase political dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition in Cambodia. Do you think there will be greater democracy in the country from hereon?
VM: Cambodia has one of the freest presses in the world. There is hardly a day when one newspaper or radio station does not criticize either the government or the opposition, and quite often, very unfairly. Therefore, that is not the problem. Actually, I think the problem is the lack of political understanding and cooperation among the main players, among the two or three different parties. That is the problem. Sure, western concepts of power-sharing, loyal opposition and open dissent are not yet part of the Cambodian political culture but they are getting there. We must not forget that Cambodia is a post-conflict, post-genocidal country and they have been rebuilding their institutions from scratch from only about 1993. I think we should give them a chance. The new climate, if sustained, and this is a very big “if”, it’ll certainly be good for the country and will bring about better livelihoods for the people.
Another dimension to this is that the royal pardon is actually a bid to regain international support ahead of a foreign donor meeting next month. How much stock do you put into that argument?
VM: Actually, this is not a major consideration. Sure, donor funding is very necessary. Sure, the country cannot move ahead without donor funding which amounts to something like US$600 million a year. But what will come up next March – no doubt this will come up, the question of human rights and the question of their arrests – which will come up for discussions in March when the donors meet the government. But I think the focus will really be on Cambodia’s reform programmes, and how far they have progressed in these reform programmes and the fight against corruption. What happened to the anti-corruption bill which has been on the backburner for so long? When is it going to come to Parliament? How are they going to address the growing number of unemployed youth? These are the kinds of issues which both the government and the donors want to be discussed at the table. But unfortunately there is also this business of the arrests. So this will no doubt come up, and more importantly, I don’t think what has just happened in the last few weeks was just because of the donor meeting taking place in March. This is all part of a bigger strategy, I’m sure.
Their arrests caused some kind of outcry but in a recent article, you quoted an analyst in the United States as saying that Prime Minister Hun Sen could be concerned that anti-Vietnamese sentiment in the country had the “potential to unite not only the opposition, but to create dissent in his own ranks”.
VM: This argument certainly has merit. The border agreement between Vietnam and Cambodia is a very sensitive and a highly emotive issue. This is because the agreements in question were signed during the period when Vietnam was in occupation of Cambodia. This is a very important point. Many believe that the agreements were therefore overly in favour of Vietnam. Hence anti-Vietnamese emotions can be easily roused in Cambodia and this can, in turn, result in anti-government unhappiness or anti-government demonstrations.
So speaking of anti-government sentiment…there are hopes now that the royal pardon will increase political dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition in Cambodia. Do you think there will be greater democracy in the country from hereon?
VM: Cambodia has one of the freest presses in the world. There is hardly a day when one newspaper or radio station does not criticize either the government or the opposition, and quite often, very unfairly. Therefore, that is not the problem. Actually, I think the problem is the lack of political understanding and cooperation among the main players, among the two or three different parties. That is the problem. Sure, western concepts of power-sharing, loyal opposition and open dissent are not yet part of the Cambodian political culture but they are getting there. We must not forget that Cambodia is a post-conflict, post-genocidal country and they have been rebuilding their institutions from scratch from only about 1993. I think we should give them a chance. The new climate, if sustained, and this is a very big “if”, it’ll certainly be good for the country and will bring about better livelihoods for the people.
Another dimension to this is that the royal pardon is actually a bid to regain international support ahead of a foreign donor meeting next month. How much stock do you put into that argument?
VM: Actually, this is not a major consideration. Sure, donor funding is very necessary. Sure, the country cannot move ahead without donor funding which amounts to something like US$600 million a year. But what will come up next March – no doubt this will come up, the question of human rights and the question of their arrests – which will come up for discussions in March when the donors meet the government. But I think the focus will really be on Cambodia’s reform programmes, and how far they have progressed in these reform programmes and the fight against corruption. What happened to the anti-corruption bill which has been on the backburner for so long? When is it going to come to Parliament? How are they going to address the growing number of unemployed youth? These are the kinds of issues which both the government and the donors want to be discussed at the table. But unfortunately there is also this business of the arrests. So this will no doubt come up, and more importantly, I don’t think what has just happened in the last few weeks was just because of the donor meeting taking place in March. This is all part of a bigger strategy, I’m sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment