LICADHO Condemns Censorship of Web Sites Critical of Government

Media Statement: LICADHO Condemns Censorship of Web Sites Critical of Government

February 16, 2011

“Customers deserve to know whether they are giving their money to a company that is helping to enable a government censorship campaign” - LICADHO Director Naly Pilorge

The Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO) condemns the ongoing censorship of the Internet in Cambodia, which has targeted news and opinion sites critical of the government.

“Until now, Cambodia’s Internet environment had been noticeably freer than in neighboring countries,” said LICADHO President Pung Chhiv Kek. “More importantly, the Internet was the only audio or visual media not fully controlled by the government. The censoring of controversial Web sites marks a significant milestone in the march toward a more oppressive media environment.”

The ongoing disruption of certain Web sites began for some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on January 19, 2011, with the blockage of the controversial Web site KI-Media (and initially all blogs hosted by the domain Blogspot). The problem affected ISPs Ezecom, Metfone, WiCAM and possibly others.

The day of the outage, customer service representatives at Ezecom, one of Cambodia’s largest ISPs, told several of its clients that the sites had been blocked on the request of the Ministry of Interior. Ezecom management later denied in writing that it received a directive from the government. Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith also denied involvement. Over the following days, service was restored for all providers except Metfone.

In early February a new wave of outages hit, affecting KI-Media and two other sites, Khmerization, a citizen-journalist blog often critical of the government, and the blog of Khmer political cartoonist Sacrava. The affected ISPs included Online, WiCam, Metfone and Ezecom.

Rights group condemns "online censorship" by Cambodian government

Feb 16, 2011
DPA

Phnom Penh - A human rights group on Wednesday condemned the apparent blocking of several websites critical of the Cambodian government, saying the move marked 'a significant milestone in the march toward a more oppressive media environment.'

Naly Pilorge, the director of the LICADHO rights group, said the denials by internet service providers that they were doing the government's bidding were 'not fooling anyone.'

The providers 'can play with words all they want, but at the end of the day, this still amounts to censorship,' she said.

The government has repeatedly said it has not ordered the providers to block access to websites, including KI-Media, a news aggregator and comment site that strongly favours the political opposition and is often critical of the ruling party.

But several websites critical of the government have gone offline in recent weeks. Service providers have officially denied blocking the sites or being asked to do so by the government.

Enforcing the law does not mean silencing the opposition (sic!): Tith Sothea

16 Sept 2010
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

In response to the criticisms leveled by human rights group indicating the Cambodian government had tightened the freedom of expression in Cambodia, Tith Sothea, mouthpiece of the Press and Quick Reaction Unit (PQRU) of the Council of Ministers, declared that in a number of cases, the civil society’s freedom of expression was not right (sic!), i.e. they only express their opinion to ask for financial aid from foreign countries only (sic!). Tith Sothea said: “I think that the enforcement of the law does not mean silencing the civil society or the opposition party, but it is a mean to put down illegal activities for the sake of strengthening the law and democracy.” Nevertheless, the report on freedom of expression in Cambodia which was published on Tuesday by the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) indicated that almost all the judges and the prosecutors have close ties with the ruling CPP party, and major players in the judicial system are no other than high-ranking CPP officials.

Deny it … even if the denial is a lie

Click here to read the civil society report on Freedom of Expression in Cambodia

Tith Sothea, the PQRU mouthpiece (Photo: The Phnom Penh Post)

Government official rejects Civil Society report

14 Sept 2010
By Eng Kim Cheang DAP news Translated from Khmer by Ko Theak

Phnom Penh – Tith Sothea, the government adviser and mouthpiece for the Press and Quick Reaction Unit (PQRU crew) of the Council of Ministers, rejected the report issued by a group of Civil Society organizations indicating that freedom of expression in Cambodia is being oppressed by the government and that opposition MPs are always being dealt with the law when there are problems between them and the government or government officials.

Tith Sothea said in the afternoon of 14 Sept 2010 that the group of civil society’s decision to issue the report is a wrong action that does not reflect democracy in Cambodia that the people are promoting (sic!), furthermore, this report does not have clear bases and it was issued by small group that is politically-oriented. Tith Sothea added that, for those who contravene the law, they will be dealt with the judicial system because the Cambodian tribunal is fair (sic!), therefore those who have problems [with the government], they will be dealt by the judicial system.

The civil society report raised the issue of freedom expression, the core of democracy, and it is viewed as telling the government that all the government actions seem to be aimed at eradicating freedom of expression and destroying democracy in Cambodia.

Tuol Sleng: Hill of the Poisonous Trees

Tuol Sleng (Photo: Tristan Clements)

Monday, May 10, 2010
Op-Ed by MP

There is a habit in most autocratic rules to invert conventional idioms and languages by hijacking their customary meanings and replacing those meanings with their exact opposite. Thus, we have ‘Democratic Kampuchea’, ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’, ‘State of Cambodia’ as well as ‘the Cambodian People’s Party’ just as we have ‘Security 21’ (S21 or Tuol Sleng), ‘Stupa’ of Choeung Ek, and now the excitingly named ‘Freedom Park’.

FROM a distance the Museum of Tuol Sleng looks much like most rundown building compounds in Phnom Penh. A former high school, the building was chosen by the Khmer Rouge to function as their foremost national security centre which they renamed S21 or Security 21 in 1975. It appeared where most prisons – referred to by the regime as ‘re-education centres’ – were spread throughout the country’s rural regions where virtually all of Cambodians were made to reside, Tuol Sleng was chosen for its physical proximity to the KR leadership as a soundboard for political activities being waged inside the regime in general, but more specifically, it provided the Pol Pot faction with a microcosm of what was at stake within the ranks of even this exclusive, tight band of close associates who had been together in one way or another since the 1950s. Among the thousands of victims who passed through the centre were also prominent figures and intellectuals such as Hu Nim who might have posed leadership contention threat to Pol Pot himself. Although, Pol Pot did lead a faction that decisively broke clear of the guidance and shadow of Hanoi and many commentators have since made references to ‘the Pol Pot faction’ as such, in reality, the man himself remained aloof and distrustful of most of his political colleagues and therefore the ascribed faction might well be – strictly speaking – misplaced.

There is something of a fateful coincidence that this aptly named location – Hill of the Poisonous Trees - was chosen as an incarceration site in the capital city otherwise emptied of its former inhabitants of 2 million plus. Yet there was certainly an irony in the fact that the leadership forcefully evacuated the city’s residents fearing espionage and enemies of the Revolution could be fermented and sheltered among the population, nevertheless, ensured that it had direct, personal command over its most feared dissidents by maintaining such an establishment in its own backyard. It was as if Pol Pot, himself used to a life of an incognito, could only feel ill at ease among the masses which had provided him what he most sought for his own personal security and protection: shelter and anonymity, yet at the same time dreading the same advantages that conceivably could be extended to his enemies, now that the table has been turned and he transformed from one of persecuted to Persecutor in Chief of the nation.

From this dialectic and pattern of thought beset by paranoia and fear that have underpinned Cambodian politics in the last 50 years; a perennial living condition that continues to shape present and foreseeable future political life, one discerns clear running parallels at work within the current leadership and its behavioural structure in terms of so-called national security decisions, notwithstanding its apparent relative openness and political inclusion. Where national leaders put in office through popular ballot in most genuine democracies have had to take up minimum precautions and means to protect their selves from possible assassination attempts or terrorist attacks, none to my knowledge has restricted public demonstrations to one confined single location, curiously named ‘Freedom Park’.

If the creation of the park is meant as a precursor of further reforms to come rather than a substitute for the citizens to bring their legitimate grievances to the notice of the government of the day by their preferred routes that could include marching in front of governing institutions like the National Assembly or the official residence of the PM, then it would be in line with democratic developments worldwide and accepted as within genuine national security and interest.

Many have pointed to the destabilising impact that on-going demonstrations in Thailand have exerted upon Thai society and well-being as an example to be avoided, but instances of violence apart, public protests and riots are the identifiable symptoms or indicators of a society in transition towards something far more substantive and wholesome than what it has hitherto been allowed to taste and enjoy: democratic freedom. In the 19th century the emergence of ‘Speakers’ Corners’ in a number of public parks and venues in England was also marked by public riots which led some observers to describe the event as the beginning of the English revolution, but if these observers were anticipating violence and bloodshed on the scale of the French Revolution, they would have been deeply disappointed.

There is a habit in most autocratic rules to invert conventional idioms and languages by hijacking their customary meanings and replacing those meanings with their exact opposite. Thus, we have ‘Democratic Kampuchea’, ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’, ‘State of Cambodia’ as well as ‘the Cambodian People’s Party’ just as we have ‘Security 21’ (S21 or Tuol Sleng), ‘Stupa’ of Choeung Ek, and now the excitingly named ‘Freedom Park’.

It is not comforting for individuals sympathetic to the current regime who otherwise feel they are nationalists or patriots, trying to do their bid to help the country advance socially to read this. However, overall reality presents them with a world far removed from their carefully inculcated dreams and indoctrinated visions. The country we know and love, the people and their smiles as well as their sorrows and tears are all real enough. But on the other hand, to suggest that the country is in their possession, that they have mastery over its destiny and fate, that the Party represents them nationally, that the Stupa is there to commemorate and honour the dead in the way traditional Khmer stupas do rather than exploiting their memory for political propaganda purposes, that Freedom Park denotes anything other than straight jacketing public expression of any kind deemed inimical to the stability of the regime, to assume all this is tantamount to taking a leap in imagination into the realm of pure make-belief.

This is far from implying that tyrants and autocrats lack conviction or belief in their own slogans - far from it. Belief can lead to conviction which could in turn harden into intolerance when confronted with contradiction or opposition where such a belief is held within, or derived from, narrow confines of temporal personal circumstances in combination with deep-seated insecurity and fear.

Take the issue being raised (legitimately, in my view) about the possibility of graffiti being applied inside the museum of Tuol Sleng itself. The man who brought his art to the museum is either being condemned for defacing this monument to human suffering or condoned for dramatising that tragedy by magnifying expressions of the dead on the walls of this former prison. The artist himself could have chosen a less sensitive place for showcasing his art, but whatever his motives, he would have found it exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to do the same in other countries with a similiar past. Indeed everyone could have their piece of Cambodia if they are willing to go by the rules – Indian archaeologists and experts ruined most of the bas relief work at Angkor Wat with their acid like chemical substance that they used to ‘clean’ up the surface of the delicately carved gallery walls (why could not experiment be carried out on sample sandstones prior to the wholesale application of the chemical on the gallery proper itself?). After all, the artist worked in full view of the authority and therefore the weight of judgement (if graffiti has indeed resulted from his work) or censure falls heaviest upon the local authority that has allowed narrow political self-interest or manipulation to override considerations of national sentiment and collective values.

Cambodia stands today - three decades after the fall of the Pol Pot regime - like the Hill of the Poisonous Trees that is Tuol Sleng, a shattered, haunted society in desperate need of healing, but has instead found only the known certainty of its ill-fated past through tortured memory like the curse of the museum’s ill-fated name itself.

MP

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.

No Chea Vichea Film in May Day Protest

Local authorities forcibly removing the screen

Heng Reaksmey, VOA Khmer
Phnom Penh Monday, 03 May 2010

Am Sam Ath, a rights investigator for Licadho, said the banning of the film in Cambodia demonstrated poor freedom of expression.

A May Day demonstration ended Saturday evening in a snarl of traffic and curious onlookers, as government authorities banned a film about slain unionist Chea Vichea from being shown.

Organizers had hoped to show the US film, “Who Killed Chea Vichea?,” which explores the 2004 murder and its subsequent investigation, but authorities said in the days leading to the demonstration they would not allow it.

Instead, protesters held up a small white screen attached to poles at the corner of Sihanouk Boulevard and Street 57, near the news kiosk outside Wat Langka pagoda where Chea Vichea was shot on the morning of Jan. 22, 2004.

Police allowed the screen to go up, briefly, before seizing it, as traffic clogged the intersection and curious bystanders watched.

Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Confederation of Unions, which organized the demonstration, said the banning of the film implicated the authorities in the murder. He had wanted to show the film in public to question the motive behind the killing and potential government involvement, he said.

Government officials have said they will not investigate the murder further until two suspects, Born Samnang and Sok Samoeun, are officially cleared by the courts.

Both men, who spent five years in prison on murder charges, are on provisional release, pending further hearings, following a Supreme Court decision last year. They are widely considered innocent.

Chor Kimchhorn, deputy governor of Chamkarmon district, said the screening was unlawful and had created a traffic problem. City officials had earlier said the film was unlicensed in the country and could not be shown in public.

The film, directed by American Bradley Cox, is currently touring festivals and is scheduled for wider release in the US later this year.

Am Sam Ath, a rights investigator for Licadho, said the banning of the film in Cambodia demonstrated poor freedom of expression.

The government should allow the film, he said, to show who the real killers of Chea Vichea were.

The small film demonstration followed a larger march on Saturday, where hundreds of workers and teachers demanded better salaries and working conditions.

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 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.

Hun Sen’s gov’t set up the “quick response team”

Freedom of expression role model used by the Hun Sen's regime

30 January 2008
By Sok Serey
Radio Free Asia
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

The Cambodian government has set up a special group dubbed the “quick response team” to counter opposition news media and foreign radio stations that publish information attacking the government. However, the government setup has been criticized by human rights group activists and opposition news media.

Khieu Kanharith, the minister of information and spokesman for the government, told RFA about the goal for the setup of this special group, saying that: “Right now, H.E. Sok An formed a new group for quick response, but it does not work yet. Now, there is a “quick response team” to counter the attacks (on the government) by news media and radio station on Cambodia, (for this,) there is an additional group belonging to the government.”

He indicated that the special “quick response team” will be chaired by Chum Bun Rong, the current spokesman of the National Authority for Resolution of Land Disputes (NARLD), and by Phay Siphan, the spokesman of the Council of Ministers, who will act as its vice-chairman. The team will be under the direct supervision of Sok An, the vice-prime minister and minister of the Council of Minsiters.

Mrs. Pung Chiv Kek, President of the Licadho human rights organization, said that she is concerned about the formation of this special group: “If the government is taking this action to improve democracy, so that there is freedom of expression rights, then it is a good thing, but if the government has the idea of creating this group to pressure and give hardship on journalists, then I am saying that the freedom of expression is taking a step backward instead.”

Pen Samithy, president of the Cambodia Journalists Club, said that he welcomes this action: “I believe that this action is a good thing, because we will be able to obtain immediate reaction from the government, and we will know the government’s standing in a number of issues.”

Dam Sith, director and editor of the Moneaksekar Khmer, who recognized that he supports the opposition party, said, in reaction to this news: “The elimination of the freedom of expression is tantamount to a threat, and this “quick response team” is only used to hide their bad activities.”

On 25 December of 2007, the Cambodian ministry of information issued a 6-point directive, including a number of important points, such as preventing newspaper and magazine editors from writing article criticizing the king, the security and the social order. They are prevented from using rude words, from scorning or drawing animal pictures to compare to the religion and to the leading institutions, such as the Senate, the National Assembly or the government.

However, some of the points in this directive are considered by human rights activist and civil society as a blocking of the freedom of expression.