Cambodia among 25 countries that showed significant declines in democracy last year

Global freedom 'slipped last year'

Jan 14, 2011
Today Online

WASHINGTON - Thailand and Cambodia were among 25 countries that showed significant declines in democracy last year, the Washington-based Freedom House reported yesterday. It was the fifth consecutive year the Freedom House has reported a decline in political rights and civil liberties worldwide - the longest period of continuous decline in the index's nearly 40-year history, according to American magazine Foreign Policy.

"Our adversaries are not just engaging in widespread repression, they are doing so with unprecedented aggressiveness and self-confidence," said Mr David J Kramer, executive director of Freedom House.

The report surveyed 194 countries and 14 territories around the world.

Freedom Plummets in Cambodia

Cambodia was amongst several Asian nations deemed to be "not free" in the Freedom House report. Credit: RFA

2011-01-13
Radio Free Asia

Cambodia became increasingly restricted in 2010, while several other Asian nations ranked at the bottom of a global freedom index.

Cambodia was among 25 countries whose freedom levels plunged in 2010 amid an erosion of civil rights and political liberties in the tightly-ruled Southeast Asian state, according to an annual survey released Thursday by global watchdog Freedom House.

North Korea and Burma were ranked among the nine “worst of the worst” countries by the Washington-based group while China was singled out for the continued imprisonment of Nobel laureate Liu Xiaobo, and harassment of his family and supporters in what was seen as the “most notorious case” of events challenging global freedom in 2010.

Freedom House designated Burma, Cambodia, China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam in a group of countries deemed to be “not free” in its Freedom in the World report.

Information leads to freedom

Friday, December 31, 2010
John Stroup
The Gisborner Herald (New Zealand)

WHAT is social engineering? Why is it important to know about it? Is it good, or is it bad?

Let’s start with a definition: (Sociology) the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society.

Another context is computer security, usually involving trickery or deception in order to gain access or information. Although this context is not significant to the point being made, please note deception is the tool being used.

Social engineering is all about change. It is a way to change people’s world view, attitudes, behaviour, opinions, actions and beliefs. A social conditioning or behaviour modification would be good synonyms.

How is this done? The most brutal methods have been employed by authoritative regimes such as the former Soviet Union. There were re-education programmes, dislocation of populations, imprisonment and execution of dissidents. Pol Pot in Cambodia relocated and executed millions of people to achieve his political objectives.

Granted, these are extreme examples. One noteworthy similarity is that these were both collectivist governmental systems. Most of the highly repressive regimes around the world today are collectivist governmental systems. So the natural conclusion would be that a collectivist governmental system is not one that you would want to be under.

Barring marching dissidents off to prison camps, how could a softer, friendlier and voluntary change be effected? The media is used to getting people to do things, just look at advertising. Telecom’s ad to try and remedy their reputation after XT’s dismal performance is a good example. These were clever and amusing, hoping to get you to forget failures in service.

Education is another means to change perceptions in a society. Notice that most repressive regimes use a re-education programme. All you have to do is teach the reality that you want to be believed, and raise a whole generation that knows only what they’ve been told.

Truth is the casualty, but objectives are achieved.

You may have noticed an example of this in some recently published sycophantic extolment of collectivism and excoriation of free market capitalism.

If people only know what they are told, the engineered change will occur. Again, objectivity is unilateral damage; subjectivity is the norm if only one side is taught.

Probably the most pervasive social engineering seen now is the proliferation of Unesco’s involvement in education worldwide. Unesco essentially writes the material that is distributed in schools, conditioning the next generation to accept collectivist governmental systems. The education arm of the UN has a vested interest in perpetuating the UN’s agenda, and can no longer be accepted as an objective source of information.

What if you don’t want to be socially engineered. How can you defend yourself?

Information is the best antidote. Despite what has been said, there are immutable truths. Seek out truth, and it becomes easier to see through to the motives of who is trying to alter your perception of reality. Be wary of your sources, seek out credible information. Know what you believe and why.

It’s not nice to think about how and who wants to manipulate public opinion to further a specific agenda. This is one of those immutable truths; there is an enemy seeking to ensnare you. Information leads to truth and truth leads to freedom.

Textbook ban ignites debate

Sovann Khema, 20
National University of Management
“The Information Ministry seizing the book makes me lack general knowledge that relates to Cambodian social issues. They have forbidden the students from knowing this vital information.”

Sal Som, 25
Royal University of Law and Economics
“People have the right to gain knowledge through books or media. The authors have the right to criticise all points about the reality of society, and literature is a mirror of society. If the state has done this, then it seems they have banned the right to know.”

Chheoun Lav, 22

Build Bright University
“In a democratic country, the right to get information is very important to every single person, because this information helps people understand what our society is.”

Thursday, 15 July 2010
Kim Yuthana and Cameron Wells
The Phnom Penh Post

OBSERVERS yesterday criticised Education Minister Im Sethy’s move to ban two study books he said featured unsuitable “political” content, describing it as evidence of the government’s unwillingness to permit discussion of sensitive topics.

Meanwhile, several vendors in Phnom Penh said police and officials had recently pulled the books from their shelves or purchased all the copies in stock, and that they had also warned against selling the volumes.

In a letter to Information Minister Khieu Kanharith dated July 5, Im Sethy requested that the two general knowledge textbooks, produced by Cambodian author Pen Puthsphea for exam preparation, be banned because of apparent criticisms of Prime Minister Hun Sen and the ruling Cambodian People’s Party.

He said the ministry had discovered “unsuitable” passages on pages 146 and 147 of one book and on pages 100 and 101 of the second.

According to photocopies of the offending paragraphs enclosed with the letter, the first textbook asks questions such as, “In the near future, will Cambodia be able to develop? Why?”, and “What do you think of the practice of human rights and freedom in Cambodian society?”

The book’s answer to the first question is: “The government which is currently led by Prime Minister Hun Sen will not be able to lead Cambodia towards progress in the near future because corruption occurs from the top level of the government down to the local level, and law enforcement and the practice of human rights are still below zero.”

Pen Puthsphea said Tuesday that he had intended to highlight “both pro and con ideas” rather than criticise the government.

Ly Neang, owner of a newsstand near the National Institute of Education, said local authorities last week purchased all the copies of the books in her stock, and warned her against selling any more volumes written by Pen Puthsphea. “The authorities told me that they will confiscate the books if I continue to sell them,” she said.

Im Sethy could not be reached for comment yesterday.

But Sam Rainsy Party spokesman Yim Sovann said yesterday that the banning of the books highlighted an authoritarian streak within the government.

“It is only two books, but it shows the government wants to limit the freedom of the Cambodian people to build democracy,” he said.

“It’s a totally communist country, a totally authoritarian country. Opinion is not tolerated in this society.”

Ouch Leng, a land programme officer for the rights group Adhoc, said students stood to learn a lot from such books.

“I think it is better that governments of all countries recognise their good and bad points that are collected and compiled by authors,” he said.

Moeun Chhean Nariddh, director of the Cambodian Institute for Media Studies, said the passages that make reference to corruption could prevent students from repeating “the same mistakes” in the future.

“The passages referring to corruption are a very important tool to learn, so that students can also contribute to fighting corruption,” he said.

“There are corruption cases involving teachers trying to demand money from students. The students need to learn about corruption. If teachers demand money from the students, how will the students know that this is corruption?”

But Hang Chhaya, executive director of the Khmer Institute for Democracy, questioned whether opinions about the government’s merits and deficiencies should be included in school materials.

“I’m not sure why [corruption] needs to be taught in this way,” he said.

“Students are much better learning about the history, and learning about corruption from that. If I was a student at that age, if someone has an opinion, it can take away from teacher’s teaching.”

'Culture of Fear' Pervades Assembly, Group Finds

Thida Win, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
04/07/2007

The Center for Social Development said Tuesday it was concerned over "deteriorating freedom speech" and "troubling self-censorship" in the National Assembly, following a month observing the nation's lawmaking body.

Six observers monitored the National Assembly between March 21 and June 26, finding that parliamentarians who spoke out over the country's ills were shouted down by ruling party representatives.

Members from Funcinpec and the Sam Rainsy Party who criticized the Assembly, the government or draft laws under debate were "effectively silenced" and reprimanded for "disrespecting internal regulations" and "wasting time," the Center said in a statement.

Some draft laws offered up by members not of the Cambodian People's Party were "completely rejected," the Center said.

"Due to the National Assembly's routine silencing and intimidation of parliamentarians who oppose the current government's agenda, it has stifled its own internal debate and imposed a culture of fear and self-censorship," the Center said.

National Assembly President Heng Samrin, from the ruling party, said the group's findings "cannot be accepted." "The National Assembly does not restrict anything," he said. "Having freedom and democracy means there is expression of opinion. But you speak on the subject and speak correctly according to the given time.

The National Assembly does not pressure [anyone], does not oppress freedom."

CPP legislator Chiem Yeap called the findings "destructive criticism."

But the Center's executive director, Seng Theary, said her monitors found that "courageous people" went unprotected in the Assembly.

Ruling party lawmakers "should not dismiss those opinions, and should not think that this is an opposition party, a royalist party, any party," she said.

Of the National Assembly's 123 seats, the CPP holds 73, Funcinpec 26 and SRP 24.