INDIA: Ban corruption, not banish the cartoonist

Aseem Trivedi

September 10, 2012
Avinash Pandey
Source: Asian Human Rights Commission

The arrest of Aseem Trivedi, a cartoonist and a member of India against Corruption, is not only ridiculous but also a telling comment on the paranoia that has set in the government circles and deserves all the outrage it has caused. In fact, the only thing more ludicrous than the arrest itself is the reason cited by the Mumbai Police for the arrest. Mr Trivedi has been booked for nothing less than sedition and showing disrespect to national emblem on a private complaint filed by an advocate who, incidentally, also happens to be a member of a political party in the line of fire for many of its leaders being charged with corruption charges.

On being asked about the reason behind the arrest, Mumbai Police attributed it to 'procedural formality' on a complaint filed under section 124 A charging Mr. Trivedi with 'showing disrespect to the National Emblem' and putting up 'ugly and objectionable content' on his website. The facts of the case, however, tell a very different story. The cartoons in question include one where he replaced four lions of India's national emblem with wolves and a caption 'Bhrshtmev Jayate'(Corruption wins) instead of official 'Satyamev Jayate'(truth wins). The message oozing out of the cartoon was loud and clear, that corruption is devouring the nation. Does Mumbai Police think it is not?

Similar was another cartoon of his where he depicted the Parliament building as a toilet. Hard hitting it was, but with more than one third of India's parliamentarians charged with grave offenses including murder and rape, this is what an average Indian thinks of it. It is such parliamentarians and the system that refuses to cleanse itself of them, and not Aseem, that insults the parliament. He was just telling a truth, however bitter, but still a truth. All other cartoons of his tell the tales of miseries inflicted on the body politic of Indian nation by the very same people who are constitutionally obligated to protect it. If someone needed to be charged with sedition, it should had been those in such authority for making a mockery of India, its people and citizenry included.

At Harvard, Room To Write Uncensored

Kho Tararith, a Cambodian fellow with the Harvard Scholars at Risk program, says Cambodian writers and researchers still face strong censorship. (Photo: VOA Khmer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGgqQfrrZ6Y

Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Sophat Soeung, VOA Khmer | Massachusetts

“[In the US] we can write about anything. They even give us money to write. They say, ‘All you need is to submit a proposal,’ and they never bar us from any topics.”

Although violence against writers and academics in Cambodia has decreased in recent years, many say they still face strong censorship. A literary program at Harvard University, in Massachusetts, provides a place for writers from countries like Cambodia to work uncensored.

Harvard’s Scholars at Risk program put on the “Living Magazine” in April, where written works were performed for an audience, and where writers like Keo Chanbo, who is originally from Battambang, told their stories.

“I had to flee the country for my life, but I can’t stop writing,” Keo Chanbo, who now lives in Minnesota, told the audience of about 100 students, professors and local Cambodian-Americans. She wept as she spoke. “Writing is my life.”

Demonstrators Are Not Political Opposition: Analyst

Lao Monghay, an independent analyst, who is a regular guest on “Hello VOA.” (Photo: VOA Khmer)

Monday, 13 February 2012
Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer | Washington, DC

“They should look at the constitution in terms of the obligation of people.”

A leading political analyst says the ruling party has confused the rights of free speech and expression with political opposition, especially as people gather to protest policies or injustices.

“As long as people use the rights and freedoms stipulated in the constitution and other agreements of human rights in the world…there should be the application and use of those rights and freedoms,” said Lao Monghay, who is a regular guest on “Hello VOA.”

Government officials have begun to equate criticism with opposition, he said. “I think this is a stereotype that is wrong according to the meaning and practical application of many liberal and democratic countries.”

At US University, a Writer Seeks His Own Path

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzs9mKYznUQ&feature=player_embedded

Poch Reasey, VOA Khmer
Washington, DC Thursday, 24 March 2011

“I don’t belong to any political party, because if I did, I would lose my independence.”

Kho Tararith used to be a moto taxi driver and construction worker in Phnom Penh. Today, he’s a writer enrolled with the prestigious literary program at Brown University, in Providence, R.I.

Kho Tararith, who is participating in a one-year fellowship at the university, says he loves to write short stories and poems that examine social issues in Cambodia. He has his own way of doing things.

“I’ve had to pave the way for myself,” he told VOA Khmer. “That’s what I’m doing. I have my own style, and I write about social issues that I see. I’m an independent writer.”

Kho Tararith said he wants to maintain his independence, while at the same time promoting Khmer-language literature.

Myanmar's Suu Kyi urges 'freedom of speech'

YANGON Nov 14 (Reuters) - Myanmar pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi told thousands of cheering supporters on Sunday in her first major speech since being freed from house arrest that she understands "what they want".

"If we want to get what we want, we have to do it in the right way," she said, adding that the "basis of democratic freedom is freedom of speech."

She added that she had been listening to media broadcasts for up to six hours a day and "thought she knew what the people wanted to a certain extent".

The Nobel peace laureate had spent 15 of the past 21 years either under house arrest or in prison. She was speaking at the headquarters of her National League for Democracy party, where thousands had gathered.

(Reporting by Aung Hla Tun; Writing by Jason Szep; Editing by Martin Petty)

Civility lacking in political debate

February 17, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)

Apologies are in order to some readers who may feel I repeated some points in my columns in the Pacific Daily News. As these columns online also are read by non-English speakers, some secretly in Cambodia, a rehash drives some points home.

Rote learning is not without its usefulness. Not everyone understands something encountered only once.

The pages of the PDN are not for my propaganda. An educator, I thank the editors and the publisher for the opportunity they provide me to share information and opinions and to provoke discussion. The newspaper is a wall-less classroom where I can describe, explain, analyze and suggest.

As those making up the loose organization calling itself Professional Cambodian Voices in the northwest United States examine the concept of freedom, they might include in their discussion the "four essential human freedoms" described by President Franklin Roosevelt: Freedom to speak and express, freedom to worship; and freedoms from want, and from fear.

The first two freedoms are positive. They give citizens the right to do something. The last two are negative. Citizens have the rights not to be hungry, and not to live in fear. It's the government's duty and responsibility to ensure that this be so.

The rights to hold opinions and to free expression are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the covenant, a state party "undertakes to respect and to ensure (those rights) to all individuals within its territory."

The exercise of the right to hold, and respectfully and responsibly express opinions on public policies, is healthy for democratic society. It allows a multitude of options for citizens to choose. As a market of ideas and thoughts, the U.S. lets them grow and bloom. China's Chairman Mao also encouraged "a hundred flowers (to) bloom," but he mowed them down as fast as they bloomed wildly.

Indeed, freedom is not absolute -- a point that's hard for some to swallow. Article 29.2 of the Universal Declaration cites "limitations" as determined by law "solely for ... due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others" and for "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." Article 19.3 of the International Covenant cites "special duties and responsibilities" for those rights, and "certain restrictions" as "provided by law."

Freedoms that lack moral and legal restraints breed licentiousness that borders on a state of nature, in which English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw life as "nasty, brutish, and short."

I have written about how human beings across national boundaries and cultures have appeared to be entrenched on a destructive course of intolerance, characterized by a lack of civility. Individuals of strong political and ideological views have come into conflict; the level of insult and demonizing has increased.

Early this month, as the nation's capital faced its "snowmageddon," President Obama left the White House to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast about "erosion of civility" in America's political debate.

"At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate," he said. "We can take different approaches to ending inequalities, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty."

According to a study, in a debate on hot political and ideological issues, one's rational brain shuts down and the non-thinking emotional part takes over and the debate deteriorates. Is one's belief so strong and one's ego so big that this "other guy" has to be demonized? Is respectful dialogue possible anymore?

A specialist in critical thinking says some people tend to lose track of the matter examined, disregard what's relevant, necessary and indispensable to the matter at hand. He coined the term "monkey brain" to describe those whose brains wander everywhere, like monkeys that jump from branch to branch. The specialist begged, "Stay within the question"!

In a recent Internet posting, an academic's deceased father's name and reputation were mauled by a blogger, upset with the academic's political comments. Just how relevant, necessary and indispensable the deceased father's name and reputation was to the academic's comments escaped me completely.

Last week, my column, "Disagree, don't be disagreeable," brought a reader's "open letter" on the Internet, saying nobody would disagree with what I wrote, but asked me since in "a decade from now" the Khmer land will be Vietnamese, "Can you help Khmer in any other way? Or is it that you don't know how?"

So I re-read and appreciated what The Washington Post wrote about Obama bemoaning America's political culture in which disagreement on approaches "quickly morphs into questioning one another's motives."

I was reminded of Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti: Humans' focus on the "me" in their relationships, actions and thoughts, leads to pettiness, narrowness and shallowness. He urged: end the "me," meditate, transform the mind, and instill compassion, love, and energy.

American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who sees people in all cultures obsessed with a "natural self-righteousness" that includes their "excessive ... tendency to see the world in terms of good versus evil," or "moralism" that "blinds people to the truth." Haidt focuses his research on the "moral foundations of politics ... to transcend the 'culture wars'" to find ways to overcome moralism.

"When political opponents are demonized rather than debated, compromise and cooperation become moral failings and people begin to believe that their righteous ends justify the use of any means," he states on his Web site, CivilPolitics.org.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Cambodia: Mixed Views on Freedom of Expression

Thursday, February 11th, 2010
By Sopheap Chak
Global Voices Online

Author Sopheap Chak writes about the human rights situation in Cambodia focusing on the state of freedom of expression in the country.

Surya Subedi, the human rights envoy of the United Nations to Cambodia noted the progress of human rights issues in the country during his second visit in January 2010. Asked by reporters following his talk with Prime Minister Hun Sen, Subedi highlighted the general picture of human rights situation in Cambodia:

“We discussed a wide range of human rights issues. We have been making progress on freedom of expression and the NGO law, land evictions and the cooperation between civil society and the government.”

Unlike his predecessors who were harshly criticized by the Cambodian government, Subedi is apparently more acceptable to government officials including Om Yentieng, a top adviser to Hun Sen and the chief of government's human rights committee, who urged UN officials not to continue the “old way” of criticizing the Cambodian government on human rights issue. Om Yentieng reportedly claimed that the government is working hard to solve and improve the human rights situation in Cambodia. He offered an interesting notion on human rights situation in Cambodia by saying:

ប្រទេស​កម្ពុជា​មិន​មែន​ជា​ឋាននរក​ ហើយ​កម្ពុជា​ក៏​មិន​ទាន់​ក្លាយ​ជា​ឋាន​សួគ៌​មួយ​នៃ​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​នោះ​ដែរ។
“We are not a hell [like UN reports have mentioned] and we have not yet become a heaven of human rights.”

However, a human rights organization, ADHOC, recently released its 2009 report on “Human Rights Situation” by marking the year 2009 as the year when restriction on the freedom of expression increased. The usual targets were politicians and activists who are critical to the government. The report noted that the sorry state of freedom of expression in 2009 is comparable to 2005 when a number of human rights activists were arrested.

“At least twenty-two complaints were filed by government officials against dissident politicians and civil organization representatives, with an additional twenty-five complaints against journalists. This year, the situation can be compared to 2005; although there has been a slight improvement in relation to sentencing in defamation cases. No one who has been accused of defamation charges has been jailed and the accused of other charges have been given more chances to escape overseas comparing to 2005. Notably, it has become a tendency to restrict this freedom right after the general elections and the formation of a new government. With new elections looming, the situation has been loosen. We expect, this time, similar tendency would be repeated.”

The report raised the alarm on the increasing number of threats against human rights defenders over the past three years. Compared to 2008 when 164 prosecutions were conducted, the figure jumped dramatically in 2009 when 235 human rights defenders were charged. Of this 2009 figure, 147 were arrested with 89 granted bails and 58 remained in custody while the remaining 88 have managed to escape questionable arrest warrants. ADHOC also raised additional concern given the fact that many threats against human rights defenders are channeled through the courts. This trend is similar to the charges against journalists who were sued for defamation, misinformation and related issues.

Coincidentally, on the same day of the news release of ADHOC's report, an activist from the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights reportedly appealed for intervention against an alleged death threat issued by members of an army unit after he took a photograph of soldiers cutting down fruit trees on a disputed land in Chumkiri district of Kampot Province.

This concern is not only raised by human rights institutions and activists, but also discussed in the blogosphere. Morn Vutha, following the chat with a student journalist, was asked an ordinary but crucial question: Are you afraid of threat warning?

“It is because that I talked more about corruption, bribery and extortion. Therefore, she asked me if I am afraid of writing articles about these issues.”

Vutha , who proclaimed his dream to own a personal blog where he can voice his opinion and disseminate news to friends, posted his reply to the question by highlighting the importance of freedom of expression through blogging.

“What I wrote about is the true things happening in the current society. I cannot shut up my mouth. I just want to share the real issues to all of you and other readers over the world […] The truth is the truth. We cannot hide it forever. In general, those who criticize the government are always getting life threat from unidentified people, especially human rights workers and politicians[…] Blog created is a good tool for sharing my own thoughts and opinions with all of you.

This sentiment is also shared by Kounila, in her post on “Politics You View in this World,”. She declared that Cambodian society might continually stay under suppression. It is just like domino effect where the old generation living in the dark period of genocide were traumatized to stay in silence and this had great impact on the younger generation who were told to follow only instructions without questioning.

“They [the old generation] are afraid to tell their real feelings. They are scared to be asked to give judgments about anything. Later, their children are taught to follow authority without questions, and after all they learn to do the same. No politics is blurted out at school or at home since their parents can blame or shoo them about any topic related to politics they talk about anywhere,” wrote Kounila.

Without letting this effect continue, Kounila started arguing with a friend and teacher about politics. Acknowledging that people perceive politics as dangerous and no ordinary person wants to be involved with politics, Kounila wonders why politicians dare to kill each other. Regardless of the threat in the political stage, Kounila still perceives that people need to act out in order that politicians will not be controlled by only a so-called elite group. She emphasizes that politics is for the people's welfare, it is therefore necessary for people to get out of political trap.

“Don’t let politics control you. You control it! Power is intoxicating but it doesn’t last long, just a blink if you think hard,” urged Kounila.

While there are mixed views on the state of freedom of expression in Cambodia, there is a subsequent tendency of internet censorship. The government plans to have a state-run exchange point to control all local internet service providers in order that internet security including pornography, theft and cyber crime can be censured. This has sparked another fear about the declining state of freedom of expression and access to information in Cambodia.

Disagree, don't be disagreeable

"Although I wouldn't go so far as to repeat what the French Enlightenment writer and advocate of civil liberties, Voltaire, said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I respect the "right" of others to be different."

February 10, 2010
By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)

To a thesis, there are antitheses; to the Chinese yin, there's a yang; Buddhists who see war also see peace, and peace pairs with war. After day there's night; after birth, there's death.

The concept of journeying is spoken as "samsara" in Sanskrit -- a cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth. The cycle continues, as Buddhists, Hindus and adherents to Jainism believe. The interactions between thesis and antitheses bring a synthesis, the yang finds the yin, and the wheel of life turns. In common parlance, "your turn will come."

My mother, who died of starvation under the Khmer Rouge, taught me as a child that humans argue and don't always accept each other's views. But she insisted I would learn maturity if I disciplined myself to listen to what others have to say. She called the process, "learning to live a human being's life."

My father was taken away and executed on the day the Khmer Rouge entered Phnom Penh. The man I thought had failed to comprehend a child's incapacity to absorb so much recited in his after-dinner evening teaching that only when different minds meet through humbly talking, listening and thinking does a man's true vision emerge.

Through trial and error, I grew up. Many years later, I read a Chinese proverb: "A teacher opens the door, but you must enter by yourself."

And I read French-born educator Jacques Barzun's words: "In teaching you cannot see the fruit of a day's work. It is invisible and remains so, maybe for 20 years."

Many years later, after I finished teaching my politics classes and held my office hours at the University of Guam, I drove my old, black, smoke-spitting Mazda to Asan Beach. The sky was blue and the afternoon breeze was heavenly. The ocean waters were green and clear; the waves slammed the reefs and washed ashore feet away. I pulled out reading materials from my backpack, rested my back on the trunk of a coconut tree, and became submerged in Nobel Laureate Elie Weisel's words in his speech to the graduates of Boston University in 1992.

He told them that he walked in the footsteps of those who lived before him, that he is "the sum total of their experiences, their quests. And so are you."

A Holocaust survivor at Auschwitz, now an American citizen, this Jew from Romania said: "The knowledge that I have must not remain imprisoned in my brain. ... I need to pay back what was given to me. Call it gratitude."

And so I read and read, to learn what Weisel had to share with the world.

As I stared at the horizon where the sky and sea become one, I thought of what I had told my politics students about Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said, "All men by nature desire knowledge."

Do they, really?

I remembered some forced smiles on some faces, and I remembered telling them that a few weeks after I arrived in the United States for college I learned the saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink."

A student scratched his head, asked permission to speak: "Ecclesiastes 3:1-8! In due time, the light bulb in a person's brain will light up."

Ah, touché!

Patience is very much needed in education. It takes time to see the fruit. When a push on the button brings results, time and patience are in short supply. Yet the Chinese say, "One generation plants the trees, and another generation gets the shade." Someone presented an antithesis: What makes us think that the next generation would want the shade with all the problems the trees will bring?

Back to my mother and father. She taught me that people argue, people disagree and no one wants to be wrong. I must learn to listen to what others have to say. She called that "living." My father taught me to have humility, to be considerate and respectful of those with different views.

Now that some strands of my hair have turned grey, and with a doctorate degree I keep somewhere in the loft of my shed, the "light bulb" in my brain has lit up. I am reflecting on the words of those who raised me, as I had many doubts about their wisdom at the time.

Indeed, people disagree. But disagreements are healthy in a democracy where ideas and thoughts are allowed to bloom, providing opportunities for learning and picking what's best for development and progress and for the human species to survive.

Where disagreements are forbidden and a uniformity of thought is required, totalitarianism thrives. Modern autocrats love "unity" in thoughts and in actions. One who adheres to one's individualism becomes a "traitor" to the autocrats' dictates.

In the words of President John F. Kennedy, "The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion."

Although I wouldn't go so far as to repeat what the French Enlightenment writer and advocate of civil liberties, Voltaire, said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I respect the "right" of others to be different.

Disagreements are not a problem. Gentlemen disagree -- they agree to disagree. But men of superior minds don't stop dialoguing, don't stop posing more questions and don't stop looking for more answers, until a multitude of options emerge before them to choose.

The problem lies in being disagreeable. To be disagreeable puts up a roadblock to knowledge. Nothing can get in. Period.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.

Hor 5 Hong's MFA rejects US criticisms on human rights issues, however, the wording used sounds strangely like those of Hor 5 Bora

Demolition workers for the 7NG company are obligated "to negotiate with the squatters in order to make appropriate resettlement arrangement," Hor 5 Hong's ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed -sic!-

The ministry of Foreign Affairs rejects US criticisms on human rights issues

15 March 2009
By Ky Soklim Cambodge Soir Hebdo Translated from French by Luc Sâr Click here to read the article in Khmer

The ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a press communiqué on Friday 13 March, i.e. exactly two weeks to the date after the US Department of State issued a scathing report on human rights conditions in Cambodia. Like every year, the US thrashed the lack of human rights respect by the Cambodian government. The US singled out forced evictions, lynching scenes, endemic corruption and regular threats issued to human rights defenders in Cambodia. The MFA called these criticisms “baseless”. The MFA denies all attacks on freedom of expression in Cambodia by citing as example the existence of opposition newspapers published in Khmer, as well as foreign-language periodicals that “do not hesitate to harshly criticize the government.” The MFA also denies the alleged abuses exacted by the police forces. Regarding the forced evictions, the MFA declared: “Which country in the world is forced like us to negotiate with squatters who occupy public land? We strive to find the best possible solution.”
------

Statement of the Spokesman of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Kingdom of Cambodia

13/03/2009

The “2008 Country Report on Human Rights Practices” on Cambodia issued by the US State Department seems to be a routine that has nothing to do with human rights reality in Cambodia, and appears to be almost a carbon copy of the reports of the previous years with a few cosmetic changes here and there.

The report contains a number of unsubstantiated assertions which appear to be relied on misleading information supplied by certain organizations, which are monitored and financially supported by certain foreign countries.

In this connection, the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation wishes to make clarifications on some issues raised in the report as follows:

• First, it is very normal in democratic countries that political party which wins landslide victory in democratic elections has to lead the country; and there is nothing unusual about such democratic practice everywhere in the world.
• Second, there is simply never “extrajudicial killing” by security forces in Cambodia as mentioned in the report. This is only vulgar lie.
• Third, with regard to the freedom of speech and press in Cambodia, one only need to read and see how the ubiquitous opposition newspapers attack the Royal Government of Cambodia. Even the newspapers written in foreign languages, financed and managed by foreigners do not have the slightest reservation or hesitation in criticizing the Royal Government of Cambodia.
• Fourth, for the so-called “unlawful forced eviction”, one must ponder whether there is any country in the world which allows squatters to takeover possession of or occupy permanently private properties or public areas such as public gardens, sidewalk and streets. Nonetheless, in the recent cases in Cambodia, the owners of the occupied private properties were always obligated to negotiate with the squatters in order to make appropriate resettlement arrangement. At the same time, notice had always been given well in advance in order to facilitate a smooth process of resettlement. For instance, as reported by the Phnom Penh Post news paper on 11 March 2009, an overwhelming majority of families from the Dey Kramham community has accepted housing at a relocation site. Furthermore, the RGC has put in place a “Social Land Concession Policy”, providing poor and landless people with access to plots of land which they can now own. Presently, approximately 4000 hectares of land in Kratie province and 870 hectares in Kampong Cham Province have been registered as state private land and allocated to the landless poor for housing and family farming. At the same time, around 10,118 hectares of land in Kampog Thom province have been proposed for the same purpose. The implementation of this policy will be expanded all over the country, in order improve the livelihood of the poor and alleviate poverty reduction as set out in the Rectangular Strategy of the Royal Government of Cambodia.

Finally, if enforcing rules to maintain public order is construed as human rights violation, then what does one have to say in terms of human rights respect on the condition in the secret prisons of a certain country where torture of prisoners is practiced as reported in the media such as the Nation on 4 and 10 March 2009 and the Bangkok Post on 4 March 2009?

A burning question from a KI-Media reader: What do you, a KI-Media reader, think? Please post your comment here

Some Khmers think they can write and start to flood the internet with garbage opinion pieces that are just embarrassing, annoying, and give bad image to Khmer.

On top of that they think they are doing Khmer a service and claim to represent Khmer. I'm just speechless.

Just look at this writing by Khmerization:
http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2008/10/thailand-has-been-taught-good-lesson.html

How can Khmer gain any sympathy or support for our cause, our movement if they keep such garbage view out to the world?

Khmerization, Ki-media, Sacrava toons and all of you...what is your opinion on this?

Author's name and email address withheld
----
The following is Artist Sacrava's reply:

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

----

KI-Media note: We will not remove the comment format. We believe in freedom of speech, however, we still insist on the use of a polite language (i.e., no vulgarity). Thank you for your understanding! KI-Media team

Political Cartoon: Freedom of Speech in Cambodia

Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)

A Fraction of the Whole

February 2008
Op-Ed by Justin C. Sok

The news regarding the invitation of Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to participate in the upcoming annual Cambodian New Year Cultural parade and the ribbon cutting for Cambodia Town has caused great concern in the Cambodian and Cambodian American communities across the United States, Cambodian people living abroad, as well as, the Cambodian people in Cambodia. For the past few weeks, the news has continued to spread like wild fire. This invitation issue can result in deep resentment in the Cambodian community if the so-called the Cambodian Community Congress delegates do not call off the invitation.

It is with great honor to learn that the Honorable Mr. Joseph Mussomeli, U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia, has made recommendations to have the “Cambodian-Americans engage the Cambodian government more, the delegation extended invitations to all government leaders to attend the New Year Parade”. The Cambodian public owes an enormous debt of gratitude to you for your dedication and continues support in helping push for democracy, respect for human rights, and to pass anti-corruption laws in Cambodia. The Cambodian and Cambodian American people have raised the inivitation issue not because we wanted to create any controversy nor we would like to cause any friction among our Cambodian people. It is mainly to express what we feel is fair and just for our Cambodian and Cambodian Americans in general.

The logical points for the argument, however, is that the “decision about the invitation had already made by the Cam-CC representatives without giving the Cambodian community an opportunity to express their opinions on this issue”. The Cambodian public would like to make a public request to those so-called claimed representatives of Cambodian community to be more sensitive, accountable, and transparent in the way they are handling issues regarding the annual Cambodian New Year Cultural parade and the Cambodia Town, Inc., especially, any issue that deals with the public should require that the people to have a say.

The fundamental rule of democracy, simply put, is the “rule of the majority”. It is clearly understood that there are certain decisions on the particular issues, which the Cam-CC and its representatives have executed without having sought for public opinion. But again, the issue of the invitation is of great concern for the Cambodian people. It is with our heartfelt concern that the so-called Cambodian Community Congress delegates finalized their decision without asking for public inputs. Thus, it is certainly a grave error. The judge cannot obtain justice without the skill of lawyers who present him with the facts; the parent cannot form a successful child without the love of the child; and the boss is powerless to achieve production without the respect and aid of his employees. Likewise, the annual Cambodian New Year Cultural parade and the Cambodia Town, Inc. would not be born without the “collective efforts” from the Cambodian public, local Hispanic community, the African American community, local businesses, and the community organizations.

I would also like to take this opportunity to share my political point of view, which I thought is worth noting for the Cambodian public to carefully examine this invitation issue. First, Long Beach has the largest Cambodian populations in the world outside Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The Cambodian people are the survivors of the “Killing Fields”. We were here not because we had chosen to but because of our so-called leaders, which had sworn to us to be the almighty, godlike, omnipotent had miserably failed to protect us. Like prison, where bad things happened, the whole country was shut out from the world and kept its secrets buried within. We were oppressed, tortured, starved to death, persecuted, executed, enslaved, forced to do hard labor, faced sadistic guards, and were cheated and lied to, and the list was endless and pathetic. They had left us at the bottom of a hill with a long climb to recover. They had crushed our souls and spirits. Psychologically, emotionally, and physically, we are still traumatized by the holocaust. We, the survivors are the living voices of the dead and ourselves. We are here to rebuild our lives, to educate ourselves, and to teach our children about our past mistakes. At the same time, we want our younger generations to learn the importance of their constitutional rights and to worship democratic principles. We don’t want any of those so-called claimed leaders represent the way the past leaders had led our parents’ lives to hell.

Second, any event we hold, such as our annual Cambodian New Year Cultural parade, for instance, is always reflection on us of who and what we are as people, nation, religion, and culture, etc. The Global Witness, as well as, the international community have vehemently uncovered the Phnom Penh government in their corruption, environment abuse, government squandering of money on their hobnobs, human rights violations, land grabbing, and the injustice suffered by the weak and oppressed. If the Cambodian and Cambodian-Americans living in Long Beach and across the United States, and abroad were to allow Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to participate in the parade, the world’s largest magnifying glass will be focused on us as being a hypocrite. We embrace the regime, in which the international community has relentlessly condemned the Phnom Penh government for committing gross human rights violations upon our innocent Cambodian citizens. More importantly, we would give false hope to our people in Cambodia and dishonor the millions innocent Cambodian people who were killed during the Black-Clad Order, Inc.

Third, the Cambodian general election is coming up in July 2008. If we were to allow Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to participate in the parade, will it show to the world that we are also supporting him and his political party (CPP)?

Thank you for reading and wishing you all have a wonderful day.