The National Assembly on Monday restarted debate on a demonstrations law that critics charge will erode freedoms of speech and assembly.
Seventy-six of 103 lawmakers, all of them from the dominant Cambodian People’s Party, approved the second chapter of the draft law, with members of the Sam Rainsy and Human Rights parties voting against.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said the law would allow the government to oppress “democrats.”
Proponents of the law, which sets rules on when demonstrations can and can’t be held, say it is necessary for preventing unrest.
“This law is important, important for us to follow the law and carry it out for people who do not respect the law,” Heng Samrin, president of the National Assembly, told reporters after Monday’s session.
Critics find faults in places like Chapter 2, Article 7, which requires the announcement of peaceful demonstrations five days ahead of its scheduled date, and Article 14, which limits the number of demonstrators in any gathering to 200 people.
“This law closes democracy for those who want peaceful demonstrations,” Sam Rainsy said.
Kem Sokha, president of the Human Rights Party, said the law remained unclear on the precepts of national security and public disorder that would be used by authorities to allow or prevent demonstrations.
Debate on the demonstration law follows the passage earlier this month of a modern penal code.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, rights group and opposition members urged the passage of two laws that would strengthen the judiciary.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said the law would allow the government to oppress “democrats.”
Proponents of the law, which sets rules on when demonstrations can and can’t be held, say it is necessary for preventing unrest.
“This law is important, important for us to follow the law and carry it out for people who do not respect the law,” Heng Samrin, president of the National Assembly, told reporters after Monday’s session.
Critics find faults in places like Chapter 2, Article 7, which requires the announcement of peaceful demonstrations five days ahead of its scheduled date, and Article 14, which limits the number of demonstrators in any gathering to 200 people.
“This law closes democracy for those who want peaceful demonstrations,” Sam Rainsy said.
Kem Sokha, president of the Human Rights Party, said the law remained unclear on the precepts of national security and public disorder that would be used by authorities to allow or prevent demonstrations.
Debate on the demonstration law follows the passage earlier this month of a modern penal code.
Meanwhile, on Sunday, rights group and opposition members urged the passage of two laws that would strengthen the judiciary.
Hun Xen's replying to the taxes proposed by CPP MP Chheang Vun (R)Recently, Chheang Vun, the CPP chairman of the National Assembly’s committee for foreign affairs and international cooperation, broadcasting and information, said that he wanted the population to pay a tax to the government for using radio and TV sets, and he is also pushing the ministry of Information to make the request to Hun Xen again about this issue. In response to this proposal, on 19 October, Hun Xen declared: “the population must not be concerned that they will be forced to pay taxes for watching TV and listening to radio. I will take all actions so that the people will have TV to watch and radio to listen to. Therefore, I ask for a suspension, but it’s like answering that there must not be taxes.”
Hun Xen’s declaration was strongly supported by the opposition SRP party. Mrs. Ke Sovannaroth, SRP Secretary-general indicated: “I support this because we know that our people need information. If taxes are imposed for watching TV and listening to the radio, then our people will not care about social and national issues. For Cambodia which is a country that is stepping toward democracy, our people must receive complete information about national affairs.”
During the same speech, Hun Xen also declared: “We will not tax the TV watching and the listening of radio, how can we tax them? Even for the land taxes, this is not the time yet.”
Mrs. Ke Sovannaroth also supports the ban on land taxation. She also added: “I believe that there should be not just ban of land taxation, but also the people must have sufficient land. Not taxing lands is a good thing because the majority of the population are farmers, but it would also be better if sufficient lands are provided to the people so that they can produce large amount of crops.”
Hun Xen’s declaration was strongly supported by the opposition SRP party. Mrs. Ke Sovannaroth, SRP Secretary-general indicated: “I support this because we know that our people need information. If taxes are imposed for watching TV and listening to the radio, then our people will not care about social and national issues. For Cambodia which is a country that is stepping toward democracy, our people must receive complete information about national affairs.”
During the same speech, Hun Xen also declared: “We will not tax the TV watching and the listening of radio, how can we tax them? Even for the land taxes, this is not the time yet.”
Mrs. Ke Sovannaroth also supports the ban on land taxation. She also added: “I believe that there should be not just ban of land taxation, but also the people must have sufficient land. Not taxing lands is a good thing because the majority of the population are farmers, but it would also be better if sufficient lands are provided to the people so that they can produce large amount of crops.”
CPP MP Som Chin (L) and Opposition leader Sam Rainsy (R)The National Assembly (NA) debated on the draft law on peaceful demonstration on 19 October. MPs from all political parties – CPP, SRP, HRP and Funcinpec – were present during the session.
Diverging arguments were advanced by CPP MPs, SRP MPs and by government representatives.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said that he recognized the positive points that bring in comfort: “I recognize them and I praise those who drafted this law and who included the points that I talked about. The law is very good, but its application must be upheld properly.”
Sam Rainsy believes that the final decision [for the authorization for demonstrations] to be given to the minister of Interior is not proper because the latter is a representative of the government, and therefore the latter is involved with politics. If during a demonstration, demands are made that could affect the political outcome or political demands are made, and if the ruling party is allowed to, then it will clearly direct the ministry of Information to prevent such demonstration from taking place.
Sam Rainsy added that he listened to the comments from both sides and they are proper for the circumstances, but for his goals, he also wants to have peace, everybody wants to have peace in the society, but that such peace is not one that is found in a cemetery. “We want peace in a lively society where people have a decent life, a decent livelihood, that is the peace we want, not the kind found in a cemetery. We want security for those who live in peace, security for the people who have full rights, we do not want to live as slaves.”
Sam Rainsy’s statement earned a sharp rebuke from a CPP MP. Kampot CPP MP Som Chin, the deputy chairman of the NA 9th commission, reacted by saying: “Up to today, the [opposition] leader talked bad, we cannot accept that, you [Sam Rainsy] listen to your words, are they good? They hurt us, you cursed us as being dictatorial, as selling the nation, as betraying the nation. The betrayers of the nation are the ones who liberated the nation. And [the accusation of] selling the nation is very severe, then you [went on to] call the security of the dead as well.”
Som Chin stressed that Sam Rainsy looked down on the king and the people of Cambodia, and Som Chin is announcing to all the Cambodian people that “the SRP leader is insulting [the CPP], if [the CPP] betrays the nation, sells the nation, why would people vote for the CPP. [The SRP] cursed [the CPP] for several years already, they never have enough of it, at even at this hour, you insult and curse us of security for the dead, of slavery.”
Diverging arguments were advanced by CPP MPs, SRP MPs and by government representatives.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said that he recognized the positive points that bring in comfort: “I recognize them and I praise those who drafted this law and who included the points that I talked about. The law is very good, but its application must be upheld properly.”
Sam Rainsy believes that the final decision [for the authorization for demonstrations] to be given to the minister of Interior is not proper because the latter is a representative of the government, and therefore the latter is involved with politics. If during a demonstration, demands are made that could affect the political outcome or political demands are made, and if the ruling party is allowed to, then it will clearly direct the ministry of Information to prevent such demonstration from taking place.
Sam Rainsy added that he listened to the comments from both sides and they are proper for the circumstances, but for his goals, he also wants to have peace, everybody wants to have peace in the society, but that such peace is not one that is found in a cemetery. “We want peace in a lively society where people have a decent life, a decent livelihood, that is the peace we want, not the kind found in a cemetery. We want security for those who live in peace, security for the people who have full rights, we do not want to live as slaves.”
Sam Rainsy’s statement earned a sharp rebuke from a CPP MP. Kampot CPP MP Som Chin, the deputy chairman of the NA 9th commission, reacted by saying: “Up to today, the [opposition] leader talked bad, we cannot accept that, you [Sam Rainsy] listen to your words, are they good? They hurt us, you cursed us as being dictatorial, as selling the nation, as betraying the nation. The betrayers of the nation are the ones who liberated the nation. And [the accusation of] selling the nation is very severe, then you [went on to] call the security of the dead as well.”
Som Chin stressed that Sam Rainsy looked down on the king and the people of Cambodia, and Som Chin is announcing to all the Cambodian people that “the SRP leader is insulting [the CPP], if [the CPP] betrays the nation, sells the nation, why would people vote for the CPP. [The SRP] cursed [the CPP] for several years already, they never have enough of it, at even at this hour, you insult and curse us of security for the dead, of slavery.”
A Cambodian boy rows a boat to transport children from the neighborhoods to a school as it rains in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009. RUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
Cambodian children row a boat to transport other children from the neighborhoods to a school as it rains in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009, after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea (CAAI News Media)
Residents live in a flooded house in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009, after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
Houses stand in floodwaters in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009, after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
Residents pass flooded houses in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009, after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
Cambodian children go to school by boat in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh, October 19, 2009 after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
School children arrive at school after they were transported from the neighbourhoods by a boat rowed by a Cambodian boy in Kamdal province, 25 km (15 miles) east of Phnom Penh October 19, 2009, after a deadly typhoon hit the country last month. REUTERS/Chor Sokunthea
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark. -- PHOTO: APPHNOM PENH - CAMBODIAN Prime Minister Hun Sen on Monday urged rich countries to take more responsibility for causing climate change, saying poorer nations were the ones to suffer the fall-out.
'All of us poor countries do not cause climate change. (We) would like rich countries to take a bit more responsibility than before,' Hun Sen said, branding it a 'sin'.
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark.
He said it was difficult to expect a deal at the UN climate conference because countries disagreed on many points.
'But we hope that all countries will agree on some common points regarding the obligation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,' he said.
The December 7-18 UN climate summit in the Danish capital will see nations attempt to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
'All of us poor countries do not cause climate change. (We) would like rich countries to take a bit more responsibility than before,' Hun Sen said, branding it a 'sin'.
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark.
He said it was difficult to expect a deal at the UN climate conference because countries disagreed on many points.
'But we hope that all countries will agree on some common points regarding the obligation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,' he said.
The December 7-18 UN climate summit in the Danish capital will see nations attempt to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Nin Khuom, 52, prepares food for the spirit of her dead son, who was reportedly burned alive by Thai soldiers. Inset: A family photo. (Photo by: Robbie Corey-Boulet)Cambodian parents describe efforts to cope with their 16-year-old son’s death.
Oddar Meanchey Province
THE Thai embassy in Phnom Penh has rejected a report finding that a Cambodian teenager from Oddar Meanchey province was shot and burned alive by Thai soldiers last month, condemning it as provocative and not rooted in evidence.
“I oppose this accusation that Thai soldiers burned the Cambodian teenager alive and killed him,” Thai embassy First Secretary Kamrob Palawatwichai said in the embassy’s first public response to the charges. “It is not true at all, and the Thais are not happy with this report. It makes us look fierce.”
He added that the embassy would launch its own investigation into the incident, which has triggered outrage and condemnation from senior government officials this side of the border.
Meanwhile, the parents of 16-year-old Yon Rith stood by their original version of events when reached by phone Sunday, adding that they had not yet heard from local officials about how the dispute would be resolved and whether they would receive compensation.
In an interview last week at the family’s home in Kroch Sakhorn village, located in Samrong district’s Kon Kreal commune, Saing Yon, the boy’s father, said he was afraid to return to the illegal logging site, adding that he did not know how he would support his family without money earned from selling wood.
Nin Khuom, Yon Rith’s 52-year-old mother, said that despite her husband’s fears, she wanted to bring food to the spirit of her dead son and to retrieve his ashes. During a visit to the site shortly after the September 11 killing, she said, the family retrieved only the top half of his body, which was not burned, and held a funeral ceremony for him near their home.
“I took only half of my son’s body then to celebrate the ceremony for him,” she said. “His foot is still at the scene of the attack because I am afraid that the Thai soldiers will come and arrest us if we go back.”
Kang Mao, a 39-year-old neighbour who was with the illegal logging group when it was attacked, said Yon Rith had just sat down to lunch when the shooting began.
The Thai government has said that his body was burned only after he died of gunshot wounds, but Kang Mao said he believed the boy was burned alive.
Saing Yon said the ill-fated excursion, in which another teenager was also shot and seriously injured, had been his son’s first across the Thai border.
“He was too young. He didn’t know any better,” he said.
Harsh punishment
Though he acknowledged that the villagers had been logging illegally, he said they were not able to make as much money cutting down Cambodian trees.
“The reason that people cross to that area is because there is the best-quality wood there,” he said.
He and Kang Mao both said the soldiers should have merely arrested Yong Rith and sent him back to Cambodia.
“Please don’t shoot loggers and burn them alive when you catch them in Thailand,” Kong Mao said. If you cut down a tree, you can just plant a new one. But a logger is not a plant. When you shoot a logger, he is just dead.”
Oddar Meanchey Province
THE Thai embassy in Phnom Penh has rejected a report finding that a Cambodian teenager from Oddar Meanchey province was shot and burned alive by Thai soldiers last month, condemning it as provocative and not rooted in evidence.
“I oppose this accusation that Thai soldiers burned the Cambodian teenager alive and killed him,” Thai embassy First Secretary Kamrob Palawatwichai said in the embassy’s first public response to the charges. “It is not true at all, and the Thais are not happy with this report. It makes us look fierce.”
He added that the embassy would launch its own investigation into the incident, which has triggered outrage and condemnation from senior government officials this side of the border.
Meanwhile, the parents of 16-year-old Yon Rith stood by their original version of events when reached by phone Sunday, adding that they had not yet heard from local officials about how the dispute would be resolved and whether they would receive compensation.
In an interview last week at the family’s home in Kroch Sakhorn village, located in Samrong district’s Kon Kreal commune, Saing Yon, the boy’s father, said he was afraid to return to the illegal logging site, adding that he did not know how he would support his family without money earned from selling wood.
Nin Khuom, Yon Rith’s 52-year-old mother, said that despite her husband’s fears, she wanted to bring food to the spirit of her dead son and to retrieve his ashes. During a visit to the site shortly after the September 11 killing, she said, the family retrieved only the top half of his body, which was not burned, and held a funeral ceremony for him near their home.
“I took only half of my son’s body then to celebrate the ceremony for him,” she said. “His foot is still at the scene of the attack because I am afraid that the Thai soldiers will come and arrest us if we go back.”
Kang Mao, a 39-year-old neighbour who was with the illegal logging group when it was attacked, said Yon Rith had just sat down to lunch when the shooting began.
The Thai government has said that his body was burned only after he died of gunshot wounds, but Kang Mao said he believed the boy was burned alive.
Saing Yon said the ill-fated excursion, in which another teenager was also shot and seriously injured, had been his son’s first across the Thai border.
“He was too young. He didn’t know any better,” he said.
Harsh punishment
Though he acknowledged that the villagers had been logging illegally, he said they were not able to make as much money cutting down Cambodian trees.
“The reason that people cross to that area is because there is the best-quality wood there,” he said.
He and Kang Mao both said the soldiers should have merely arrested Yong Rith and sent him back to Cambodia.
“Please don’t shoot loggers and burn them alive when you catch them in Thailand,” Kong Mao said. If you cut down a tree, you can just plant a new one. But a logger is not a plant. When you shoot a logger, he is just dead.”
"A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule."
New criminal libel laws put a serious dent in press freedom
After escorting United Nations officials out of the National Assembly, Cambodia's ruling party last week pushed through a draft criminal code that is regarded as yet another barrier to freedom of speech in a country becoming infamous for silencing opposition members and journalists.
Cambodia is thus in danger of going down the same road as other Southeast Asian countries in making it easier to file bring criminal libel charges designed to stifle dissent, both from the opposition and the press although its English-language newspapers remain relatively free today.
None of the members of the UN Human Rights team were allowed back into the Assembly during the debate on the code, and the television feed conveniently broke down during discussions on the code's most contentious issues regarding defamation. Ruling party members blamed the UN altercation on a change in visiting procedure paperwork and the television interruption on external feed problems.
"We did not throw them out," said Chheang Vun, Cambodia's former ambassador to Geneva. "The secretary-general for the National Assembly banned them from getting in." He warned that the situation should not be used for political gain by opposition lawmakers.
Since April 2009 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that Cambodia's government has lodged eight separate criminal defamation and disinformation complaints against opposition lawmakers, protesting civilians and newspaper editors. Two Khmer language newspapers have been forced to close after their editors were sued, and separately a student was arrested for spraying anti-government slogans on his house.
Under the new draft criminal code, media defamation cannot be considered a criminal offense and will instead be covered by Cambodia's press law. Anyone other than journalists may face fines of between $25 and $2,500 for public defamation, which the code describes as "all exaggerated declarations, or those that intentionally put the blame for any actions, which affect the dignity or reputation of a person or an institution."
Individual interpretation of these words could well lead to further curtailing of critics' remarks.
"It is a shame that the authorities did not take advantage of the drafting of the new Penal Code to remove defamation," said Brittis Edman, Amnesty International's Cambodian Researcher. "We have long called for a decriminalization of defamation; the criminal justice system is not the appropriate channel for resolving defamation cases; they are better settled under civil law and should not violate the freedom of expression."
"[The code] currently includes a number of provisions which unduly restrict freedom of expression," said the British human rights group Article 19, which lobbies for freedom of speech. It also pointed out that the broad defamation statute also appears to leave out truth as a defense against defamation charges.
"These rules should apply only to incorrect factual statements made without reasonable grounds. It should not be an offence to make a defamatory statement which is true or which is a reasonable opinion," it said.
The Washington, DC-based Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission convened a meeting last month in Phnom Penh to discuss Cambodia's situation regarding freedom of expression. Testimony by three prominent Cambodians — opposition SRP lawmaker Mu Sochua, labour advocate Moeun Tola and Kek Pung, founder of Licadho, a domestic NGO — detailed a litany of lawsuits filed by members of the ruling party curbing free speech similar to the methodology of Malaysia and Singapore's previous use of defamation.
Hun Sen's ruling CPP party rejected any accusation put forth at the hearing regarding the abuse of human rights in the country, condemning Sochua particularly for giving ‘false testimony' in a biased and misleading manner. They also highlighted Cambodia's free press.
Sochua was convicted for defaming Prime Minister Hun Sen in a ‘he said, she said' battle of lawsuits, which she faced without a lawyer after her representative was threatened with the loss of his career. Hun Sen famously insulted a strong and prominent woman widely believed to have been Sochua with the colloquial insult "cheung klang" — strong leg — in a nationally broadcast speech on April 4 2009.
She filed a defamation suit soon after. Hun Sen however, countersued on the basis that her filing against him was itself defamation and countersued. Her case was dismissed and she lost her defense, leaving her to appeal against the conviction fine of 16.5 million riels (US$3,971).
Sochua has embarked upon a battle for freedom of speech with considerable fire and PR savvy more often seen in the West. Such has been her success in bringing attention to what she calls Cambodia's "sham democracy" that delegations from the EU, a new and more forthright UN human rights rapporteur and countless damnations from NGOs and human rights groups have questioned her treatment. The US embassy in Phnom Penh has been ordered to monitor her safety and report back. But will it make a difference? History says not.
While Cambodia's Asean neighbors Singapore and Malaysia have a long history of using similar methodologies to curtail criticism and Indonesia's criminal defamation laws have the potential to bring editors to bear, according to Human Rights Watch, compared to their Asean neighbors governmental critics in Cambodia face greater penalties and actual fear of violence.
Brad Adams, HRW's Asia Director said: "Sadly, democracy is not a term I would apply to Cambodia. Aside from having elections every five years, almost all the other elements are missing. The trend is negative and with the continuing consolidation of power by Hun Sen, not least in the military, it is hard to see the trend reversing. Hun Sen has shown little ability to change over the years, to become more tolerant of criticism, less autocratic and work to create enduring, competent and independent institutions. Massive corruption and greed among those in power is at the heart of the problem, yet no steps are being taken to address it. It is depressingly similar to what has happened in Malaysia and Singapore over the years."
In an Amnesty International report concerning the actions of the Singaporean government during the period, the NGO highlighted the very same concerns that are repeated in Cambodia today. "The intended [and expected] effect of these suits, it is believed, has been to inhibit the public activities of opposition politicians."
There is very little difference between this and the ongoing actions in Cambodia, Mu Sochua says. "When [the] government of a non or semi-democratic regime is in control of the judiciary, their opponents will continue to be victims of such a lack of independence in the judiciary. However, by continuing to pursue this practice, the leaders in power will discredit themselves at the end. I believe that there will be a break point but it has to be worse before it can be better." She added that while total judicial forms were unlikely without a change in leadership, she hoped aid donors would only provide further help on a conditional basis tied to freedom of speech.
A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule.
After escorting United Nations officials out of the National Assembly, Cambodia's ruling party last week pushed through a draft criminal code that is regarded as yet another barrier to freedom of speech in a country becoming infamous for silencing opposition members and journalists.
Cambodia is thus in danger of going down the same road as other Southeast Asian countries in making it easier to file bring criminal libel charges designed to stifle dissent, both from the opposition and the press although its English-language newspapers remain relatively free today.
None of the members of the UN Human Rights team were allowed back into the Assembly during the debate on the code, and the television feed conveniently broke down during discussions on the code's most contentious issues regarding defamation. Ruling party members blamed the UN altercation on a change in visiting procedure paperwork and the television interruption on external feed problems.
"We did not throw them out," said Chheang Vun, Cambodia's former ambassador to Geneva. "The secretary-general for the National Assembly banned them from getting in." He warned that the situation should not be used for political gain by opposition lawmakers.
Since April 2009 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that Cambodia's government has lodged eight separate criminal defamation and disinformation complaints against opposition lawmakers, protesting civilians and newspaper editors. Two Khmer language newspapers have been forced to close after their editors were sued, and separately a student was arrested for spraying anti-government slogans on his house.
Under the new draft criminal code, media defamation cannot be considered a criminal offense and will instead be covered by Cambodia's press law. Anyone other than journalists may face fines of between $25 and $2,500 for public defamation, which the code describes as "all exaggerated declarations, or those that intentionally put the blame for any actions, which affect the dignity or reputation of a person or an institution."
Individual interpretation of these words could well lead to further curtailing of critics' remarks.
"It is a shame that the authorities did not take advantage of the drafting of the new Penal Code to remove defamation," said Brittis Edman, Amnesty International's Cambodian Researcher. "We have long called for a decriminalization of defamation; the criminal justice system is not the appropriate channel for resolving defamation cases; they are better settled under civil law and should not violate the freedom of expression."
"[The code] currently includes a number of provisions which unduly restrict freedom of expression," said the British human rights group Article 19, which lobbies for freedom of speech. It also pointed out that the broad defamation statute also appears to leave out truth as a defense against defamation charges.
"These rules should apply only to incorrect factual statements made without reasonable grounds. It should not be an offence to make a defamatory statement which is true or which is a reasonable opinion," it said.
The Washington, DC-based Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission convened a meeting last month in Phnom Penh to discuss Cambodia's situation regarding freedom of expression. Testimony by three prominent Cambodians — opposition SRP lawmaker Mu Sochua, labour advocate Moeun Tola and Kek Pung, founder of Licadho, a domestic NGO — detailed a litany of lawsuits filed by members of the ruling party curbing free speech similar to the methodology of Malaysia and Singapore's previous use of defamation.
Hun Sen's ruling CPP party rejected any accusation put forth at the hearing regarding the abuse of human rights in the country, condemning Sochua particularly for giving ‘false testimony' in a biased and misleading manner. They also highlighted Cambodia's free press.
Sochua was convicted for defaming Prime Minister Hun Sen in a ‘he said, she said' battle of lawsuits, which she faced without a lawyer after her representative was threatened with the loss of his career. Hun Sen famously insulted a strong and prominent woman widely believed to have been Sochua with the colloquial insult "cheung klang" — strong leg — in a nationally broadcast speech on April 4 2009.
She filed a defamation suit soon after. Hun Sen however, countersued on the basis that her filing against him was itself defamation and countersued. Her case was dismissed and she lost her defense, leaving her to appeal against the conviction fine of 16.5 million riels (US$3,971).
Sochua has embarked upon a battle for freedom of speech with considerable fire and PR savvy more often seen in the West. Such has been her success in bringing attention to what she calls Cambodia's "sham democracy" that delegations from the EU, a new and more forthright UN human rights rapporteur and countless damnations from NGOs and human rights groups have questioned her treatment. The US embassy in Phnom Penh has been ordered to monitor her safety and report back. But will it make a difference? History says not.
While Cambodia's Asean neighbors Singapore and Malaysia have a long history of using similar methodologies to curtail criticism and Indonesia's criminal defamation laws have the potential to bring editors to bear, according to Human Rights Watch, compared to their Asean neighbors governmental critics in Cambodia face greater penalties and actual fear of violence.
Brad Adams, HRW's Asia Director said: "Sadly, democracy is not a term I would apply to Cambodia. Aside from having elections every five years, almost all the other elements are missing. The trend is negative and with the continuing consolidation of power by Hun Sen, not least in the military, it is hard to see the trend reversing. Hun Sen has shown little ability to change over the years, to become more tolerant of criticism, less autocratic and work to create enduring, competent and independent institutions. Massive corruption and greed among those in power is at the heart of the problem, yet no steps are being taken to address it. It is depressingly similar to what has happened in Malaysia and Singapore over the years."
In an Amnesty International report concerning the actions of the Singaporean government during the period, the NGO highlighted the very same concerns that are repeated in Cambodia today. "The intended [and expected] effect of these suits, it is believed, has been to inhibit the public activities of opposition politicians."
There is very little difference between this and the ongoing actions in Cambodia, Mu Sochua says. "When [the] government of a non or semi-democratic regime is in control of the judiciary, their opponents will continue to be victims of such a lack of independence in the judiciary. However, by continuing to pursue this practice, the leaders in power will discredit themselves at the end. I believe that there will be a break point but it has to be worse before it can be better." She added that while total judicial forms were unlikely without a change in leadership, she hoped aid donors would only provide further help on a conditional basis tied to freedom of speech.
A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule.
"A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule."
New criminal libel laws put a serious dent in press freedom
After escorting United Nations officials out of the National Assembly, Cambodia's ruling party last week pushed through a draft criminal code that is regarded as yet another barrier to freedom of speech in a country becoming infamous for silencing opposition members and journalists.
Cambodia is thus in danger of going down the same road as other Southeast Asian countries in making it easier to file bring criminal libel charges designed to stifle dissent, both from the opposition and the press although its English-language newspapers remain relatively free today.
None of the members of the UN Human Rights team were allowed back into the Assembly during the debate on the code, and the television feed conveniently broke down during discussions on the code's most contentious issues regarding defamation. Ruling party members blamed the UN altercation on a change in visiting procedure paperwork and the television interruption on external feed problems.
"We did not throw them out," said Chheang Vun, Cambodia's former ambassador to Geneva. "The secretary-general for the National Assembly banned them from getting in." He warned that the situation should not be used for political gain by opposition lawmakers.
Since April 2009 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that Cambodia's government has lodged eight separate criminal defamation and disinformation complaints against opposition lawmakers, protesting civilians and newspaper editors. Two Khmer language newspapers have been forced to close after their editors were sued, and separately a student was arrested for spraying anti-government slogans on his house.
Under the new draft criminal code, media defamation cannot be considered a criminal offense and will instead be covered by Cambodia's press law. Anyone other than journalists may face fines of between $25 and $2,500 for public defamation, which the code describes as "all exaggerated declarations, or those that intentionally put the blame for any actions, which affect the dignity or reputation of a person or an institution."
Individual interpretation of these words could well lead to further curtailing of critics' remarks.
"It is a shame that the authorities did not take advantage of the drafting of the new Penal Code to remove defamation," said Brittis Edman, Amnesty International's Cambodian Researcher. "We have long called for a decriminalization of defamation; the criminal justice system is not the appropriate channel for resolving defamation cases; they are better settled under civil law and should not violate the freedom of expression."
"[The code] currently includes a number of provisions which unduly restrict freedom of expression," said the British human rights group Article 19, which lobbies for freedom of speech. It also pointed out that the broad defamation statute also appears to leave out truth as a defense against defamation charges.
"These rules should apply only to incorrect factual statements made without reasonable grounds. It should not be an offence to make a defamatory statement which is true or which is a reasonable opinion," it said.
The Washington, DC-based Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission convened a meeting last month in Phnom Penh to discuss Cambodia's situation regarding freedom of expression. Testimony by three prominent Cambodians — opposition SRP lawmaker Mu Sochua, labour advocate Moeun Tola and Kek Pung, founder of Licadho, a domestic NGO — detailed a litany of lawsuits filed by members of the ruling party curbing free speech similar to the methodology of Malaysia and Singapore's previous use of defamation.
Hun Sen's ruling CPP party rejected any accusation put forth at the hearing regarding the abuse of human rights in the country, condemning Sochua particularly for giving ‘false testimony' in a biased and misleading manner. They also highlighted Cambodia's free press.
Sochua was convicted for defaming Prime Minister Hun Sen in a ‘he said, she said' battle of lawsuits, which she faced without a lawyer after her representative was threatened with the loss of his career. Hun Sen famously insulted a strong and prominent woman widely believed to have been Sochua with the colloquial insult "cheung klang" — strong leg — in a nationally broadcast speech on April 4 2009.
She filed a defamation suit soon after. Hun Sen however, countersued on the basis that her filing against him was itself defamation and countersued. Her case was dismissed and she lost her defense, leaving her to appeal against the conviction fine of 16.5 million riels (US$3,971).
Sochua has embarked upon a battle for freedom of speech with considerable fire and PR savvy more often seen in the West. Such has been her success in bringing attention to what she calls Cambodia's "sham democracy" that delegations from the EU, a new and more forthright UN human rights rapporteur and countless damnations from NGOs and human rights groups have questioned her treatment. The US embassy in Phnom Penh has been ordered to monitor her safety and report back. But will it make a difference? History says not.
While Cambodia's Asean neighbors Singapore and Malaysia have a long history of using similar methodologies to curtail criticism and Indonesia's criminal defamation laws have the potential to bring editors to bear, according to Human Rights Watch, compared to their Asean neighbors governmental critics in Cambodia face greater penalties and actual fear of violence.
Brad Adams, HRW's Asia Director said: "Sadly, democracy is not a term I would apply to Cambodia. Aside from having elections every five years, almost all the other elements are missing. The trend is negative and with the continuing consolidation of power by Hun Sen, not least in the military, it is hard to see the trend reversing. Hun Sen has shown little ability to change over the years, to become more tolerant of criticism, less autocratic and work to create enduring, competent and independent institutions. Massive corruption and greed among those in power is at the heart of the problem, yet no steps are being taken to address it. It is depressingly similar to what has happened in Malaysia and Singapore over the years."
In an Amnesty International report concerning the actions of the Singaporean government during the period, the NGO highlighted the very same concerns that are repeated in Cambodia today. "The intended [and expected] effect of these suits, it is believed, has been to inhibit the public activities of opposition politicians."
There is very little difference between this and the ongoing actions in Cambodia, Mu Sochua says. "When [the] government of a non or semi-democratic regime is in control of the judiciary, their opponents will continue to be victims of such a lack of independence in the judiciary. However, by continuing to pursue this practice, the leaders in power will discredit themselves at the end. I believe that there will be a break point but it has to be worse before it can be better." She added that while total judicial forms were unlikely without a change in leadership, she hoped aid donors would only provide further help on a conditional basis tied to freedom of speech.
A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule.
After escorting United Nations officials out of the National Assembly, Cambodia's ruling party last week pushed through a draft criminal code that is regarded as yet another barrier to freedom of speech in a country becoming infamous for silencing opposition members and journalists.
Cambodia is thus in danger of going down the same road as other Southeast Asian countries in making it easier to file bring criminal libel charges designed to stifle dissent, both from the opposition and the press although its English-language newspapers remain relatively free today.
None of the members of the UN Human Rights team were allowed back into the Assembly during the debate on the code, and the television feed conveniently broke down during discussions on the code's most contentious issues regarding defamation. Ruling party members blamed the UN altercation on a change in visiting procedure paperwork and the television interruption on external feed problems.
"We did not throw them out," said Chheang Vun, Cambodia's former ambassador to Geneva. "The secretary-general for the National Assembly banned them from getting in." He warned that the situation should not be used for political gain by opposition lawmakers.
Since April 2009 the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that Cambodia's government has lodged eight separate criminal defamation and disinformation complaints against opposition lawmakers, protesting civilians and newspaper editors. Two Khmer language newspapers have been forced to close after their editors were sued, and separately a student was arrested for spraying anti-government slogans on his house.
Under the new draft criminal code, media defamation cannot be considered a criminal offense and will instead be covered by Cambodia's press law. Anyone other than journalists may face fines of between $25 and $2,500 for public defamation, which the code describes as "all exaggerated declarations, or those that intentionally put the blame for any actions, which affect the dignity or reputation of a person or an institution."
Individual interpretation of these words could well lead to further curtailing of critics' remarks.
"It is a shame that the authorities did not take advantage of the drafting of the new Penal Code to remove defamation," said Brittis Edman, Amnesty International's Cambodian Researcher. "We have long called for a decriminalization of defamation; the criminal justice system is not the appropriate channel for resolving defamation cases; they are better settled under civil law and should not violate the freedom of expression."
"[The code] currently includes a number of provisions which unduly restrict freedom of expression," said the British human rights group Article 19, which lobbies for freedom of speech. It also pointed out that the broad defamation statute also appears to leave out truth as a defense against defamation charges.
"These rules should apply only to incorrect factual statements made without reasonable grounds. It should not be an offence to make a defamatory statement which is true or which is a reasonable opinion," it said.
The Washington, DC-based Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission convened a meeting last month in Phnom Penh to discuss Cambodia's situation regarding freedom of expression. Testimony by three prominent Cambodians — opposition SRP lawmaker Mu Sochua, labour advocate Moeun Tola and Kek Pung, founder of Licadho, a domestic NGO — detailed a litany of lawsuits filed by members of the ruling party curbing free speech similar to the methodology of Malaysia and Singapore's previous use of defamation.
Hun Sen's ruling CPP party rejected any accusation put forth at the hearing regarding the abuse of human rights in the country, condemning Sochua particularly for giving ‘false testimony' in a biased and misleading manner. They also highlighted Cambodia's free press.
Sochua was convicted for defaming Prime Minister Hun Sen in a ‘he said, she said' battle of lawsuits, which she faced without a lawyer after her representative was threatened with the loss of his career. Hun Sen famously insulted a strong and prominent woman widely believed to have been Sochua with the colloquial insult "cheung klang" — strong leg — in a nationally broadcast speech on April 4 2009.
She filed a defamation suit soon after. Hun Sen however, countersued on the basis that her filing against him was itself defamation and countersued. Her case was dismissed and she lost her defense, leaving her to appeal against the conviction fine of 16.5 million riels (US$3,971).
Sochua has embarked upon a battle for freedom of speech with considerable fire and PR savvy more often seen in the West. Such has been her success in bringing attention to what she calls Cambodia's "sham democracy" that delegations from the EU, a new and more forthright UN human rights rapporteur and countless damnations from NGOs and human rights groups have questioned her treatment. The US embassy in Phnom Penh has been ordered to monitor her safety and report back. But will it make a difference? History says not.
While Cambodia's Asean neighbors Singapore and Malaysia have a long history of using similar methodologies to curtail criticism and Indonesia's criminal defamation laws have the potential to bring editors to bear, according to Human Rights Watch, compared to their Asean neighbors governmental critics in Cambodia face greater penalties and actual fear of violence.
Brad Adams, HRW's Asia Director said: "Sadly, democracy is not a term I would apply to Cambodia. Aside from having elections every five years, almost all the other elements are missing. The trend is negative and with the continuing consolidation of power by Hun Sen, not least in the military, it is hard to see the trend reversing. Hun Sen has shown little ability to change over the years, to become more tolerant of criticism, less autocratic and work to create enduring, competent and independent institutions. Massive corruption and greed among those in power is at the heart of the problem, yet no steps are being taken to address it. It is depressingly similar to what has happened in Malaysia and Singapore over the years."
In an Amnesty International report concerning the actions of the Singaporean government during the period, the NGO highlighted the very same concerns that are repeated in Cambodia today. "The intended [and expected] effect of these suits, it is believed, has been to inhibit the public activities of opposition politicians."
There is very little difference between this and the ongoing actions in Cambodia, Mu Sochua says. "When [the] government of a non or semi-democratic regime is in control of the judiciary, their opponents will continue to be victims of such a lack of independence in the judiciary. However, by continuing to pursue this practice, the leaders in power will discredit themselves at the end. I believe that there will be a break point but it has to be worse before it can be better." She added that while total judicial forms were unlikely without a change in leadership, she hoped aid donors would only provide further help on a conditional basis tied to freedom of speech.
A disproportionate use of civil defamation suits by any government has the chilling effect of silencing a political life that for progress must thrive. While Singapore is an economic success, Cambodia is far from it and is yet to be considered an attractive destination for foreign direct investment. A decoupling of defamation from criminal law must coincide with a government taking lessons in constructive criticism. Without this, it is the Cambodia people who continue to lose out with a legislature, executive and judiciary, neither of which are accountable to those they rule.
62 year-old Var Savoeun, 41 year-old Meas Nary and 62 year-old Thoeng Reth were handcuffed a long with brooms, electric cords and pliers Meas Nary used to beat and twist Sreyneang's flesh.
41 year-old Meas Nary, who was arrested for cruelty against 11 year-old Sreyneang, who is her goddaughter, had confessed to torturing the girl for the period of 7 months, reports Deum Ampil.
On 16th October, Meas Nary, her 62 year-old husband, Var Savoeun, who were supposed to be Sreyneang's godparents, along with 62 year-old Thoeng Reth, who was supposed to be Sreyneang's adopted mother, were arrested for cruelty against the girl, including beatings and torturing her with sticks, electric cords and pinching her with pliers, leaving horrific scars on her body. (Read previous report and see the girl's body scars here).
According to police documents, Sreyneang was an orphan who had been put in the care of 62 year-old Thoeng Reth when she was one year old. Thoeng Reth said that at that time, her mother promised to pay her 60,000 riels ($15) per months for looking after the girl. But she never received the 60,000 riels promised to her. Later, the girl's mother died of a car accident.
In 2008, Thoeng Reth met Meas Nary and her husband who were both teachers. Thoeng Reth gave the girl to Meas Nary and her husband and in exchange the couple paid her $400.
Sreyneang said that she was beaten, tortured and abused 2 months after she arrived at the couple's house. She said that Var Savoeun, who is a teacher at Western Private School, had slapped her face several times and his wife, Meas Nary, who is a teacher at Santhor Mok High School, had confessed to beating the girl with sticks, brooms, electric cords and twisting her flesh with pliers. But she said she'd done that because she wanted to teach the girl to be a good person. "I know I've done the wrong things, but the reason I've beaten her was because I was angry with her and I wanted her to be a good girl", said Meas Nary.
On Saturday 17th, Haggar Ha, a child protection NGO, has taken Sreyneang under its care permanently. Ms. Sue Hanna, director of Haggar Ha, promised to care for Sreyneang and provides her with a good future and a good education.
41 year-old Meas Nary, who was arrested for cruelty against 11 year-old Sreyneang, who is her goddaughter, had confessed to torturing the girl for the period of 7 months, reports Deum Ampil.
On 16th October, Meas Nary, her 62 year-old husband, Var Savoeun, who were supposed to be Sreyneang's godparents, along with 62 year-old Thoeng Reth, who was supposed to be Sreyneang's adopted mother, were arrested for cruelty against the girl, including beatings and torturing her with sticks, electric cords and pinching her with pliers, leaving horrific scars on her body. (Read previous report and see the girl's body scars here).
According to police documents, Sreyneang was an orphan who had been put in the care of 62 year-old Thoeng Reth when she was one year old. Thoeng Reth said that at that time, her mother promised to pay her 60,000 riels ($15) per months for looking after the girl. But she never received the 60,000 riels promised to her. Later, the girl's mother died of a car accident.
In 2008, Thoeng Reth met Meas Nary and her husband who were both teachers. Thoeng Reth gave the girl to Meas Nary and her husband and in exchange the couple paid her $400.
Sreyneang said that she was beaten, tortured and abused 2 months after she arrived at the couple's house. She said that Var Savoeun, who is a teacher at Western Private School, had slapped her face several times and his wife, Meas Nary, who is a teacher at Santhor Mok High School, had confessed to beating the girl with sticks, brooms, electric cords and twisting her flesh with pliers. But she said she'd done that because she wanted to teach the girl to be a good person. "I know I've done the wrong things, but the reason I've beaten her was because I was angry with her and I wanted her to be a good girl", said Meas Nary.
On Saturday 17th, Haggar Ha, a child protection NGO, has taken Sreyneang under its care permanently. Ms. Sue Hanna, director of Haggar Ha, promised to care for Sreyneang and provides her with a good future and a good education.
Top: Haggar Ha representatives met with police and 11 year-old Sreyneang (in green). Below: Sue Hanna and other good Samaritans gave the girl some gifts.
After the publicity, Phnom Penh Governor, Mr. Kep Chutema had donated $300 to the girl and Mr. Khuong Sreng, governor of Sok San district where the girl has lived, has promised to help the girl to overcome her difficulties.
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark. -- PHOTO: APPHNOM PENH - CAMBODIAN Prime Minister Hun Sen on Monday urged rich countries to take more responsibility for causing climate change, saying poorer nations were the ones to suffer the fall-out.
'All of us poor countries do not cause climate change. (We) would like rich countries to take a bit more responsibility than before,' Hun Sen said, branding it a 'sin'.
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark.
He said it was difficult to expect a deal at the UN climate conference because countries disagreed on many points.
'But we hope that all countries will agree on some common points regarding the obligation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,' he said.
The December 7-18 UN climate summit in the Danish capital will see nations attempt to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
'All of us poor countries do not cause climate change. (We) would like rich countries to take a bit more responsibility than before,' Hun Sen said, branding it a 'sin'.
Hun Sen made his remarks at the first national forum to promote understanding of climate change in Cambodia, ahead of a key global summit on the issue this December in Copenhagen, Denmark.
He said it was difficult to expect a deal at the UN climate conference because countries disagreed on many points.
'But we hope that all countries will agree on some common points regarding the obligation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,' he said.
The December 7-18 UN climate summit in the Danish capital will see nations attempt to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Nin Khuom, 52, prepares food for the spirit of her dead son, who was reportedly burned alive by Thai soldiers. Inset: A family photo. (Photo by: Robbie Corey-Boulet)Cambodian parents describe efforts to cope with their 16-year-old son’s death.
Oddar Meanchey Province
THE Thai embassy in Phnom Penh has rejected a report finding that a Cambodian teenager from Oddar Meanchey province was shot and burned alive by Thai soldiers last month, condemning it as provocative and not rooted in evidence.
“I oppose this accusation that Thai soldiers burned the Cambodian teenager alive and killed him,” Thai embassy First Secretary Kamrob Palawatwichai said in the embassy’s first public response to the charges. “It is not true at all, and the Thais are not happy with this report. It makes us look fierce.”
He added that the embassy would launch its own investigation into the incident, which has triggered outrage and condemnation from senior government officials this side of the border.
Meanwhile, the parents of 16-year-old Yon Rith stood by their original version of events when reached by phone Sunday, adding that they had not yet heard from local officials about how the dispute would be resolved and whether they would receive compensation.
In an interview last week at the family’s home in Kroch Sakhorn village, located in Samrong district’s Kon Kreal commune, Saing Yon, the boy’s father, said he was afraid to return to the illegal logging site, adding that he did not know how he would support his family without money earned from selling wood.
Nin Khuom, Yon Rith’s 52-year-old mother, said that despite her husband’s fears, she wanted to bring food to the spirit of her dead son and to retrieve his ashes. During a visit to the site shortly after the September 11 killing, she said, the family retrieved only the top half of his body, which was not burned, and held a funeral ceremony for him near their home.
“I took only half of my son’s body then to celebrate the ceremony for him,” she said. “His foot is still at the scene of the attack because I am afraid that the Thai soldiers will come and arrest us if we go back.”
Kang Mao, a 39-year-old neighbour who was with the illegal logging group when it was attacked, said Yon Rith had just sat down to lunch when the shooting began.
The Thai government has said that his body was burned only after he died of gunshot wounds, but Kang Mao said he believed the boy was burned alive.
Saing Yon said the ill-fated excursion, in which another teenager was also shot and seriously injured, had been his son’s first across the Thai border.
“He was too young. He didn’t know any better,” he said.
Harsh punishment
Though he acknowledged that the villagers had been logging illegally, he said they were not able to make as much money cutting down Cambodian trees.
“The reason that people cross to that area is because there is the best-quality wood there,” he said.
He and Kang Mao both said the soldiers should have merely arrested Yong Rith and sent him back to Cambodia.
“Please don’t shoot loggers and burn them alive when you catch them in Thailand,” Kong Mao said. If you cut down a tree, you can just plant a new one. But a logger is not a plant. When you shoot a logger, he is just dead.”
Oddar Meanchey Province
THE Thai embassy in Phnom Penh has rejected a report finding that a Cambodian teenager from Oddar Meanchey province was shot and burned alive by Thai soldiers last month, condemning it as provocative and not rooted in evidence.
“I oppose this accusation that Thai soldiers burned the Cambodian teenager alive and killed him,” Thai embassy First Secretary Kamrob Palawatwichai said in the embassy’s first public response to the charges. “It is not true at all, and the Thais are not happy with this report. It makes us look fierce.”
He added that the embassy would launch its own investigation into the incident, which has triggered outrage and condemnation from senior government officials this side of the border.
Meanwhile, the parents of 16-year-old Yon Rith stood by their original version of events when reached by phone Sunday, adding that they had not yet heard from local officials about how the dispute would be resolved and whether they would receive compensation.
In an interview last week at the family’s home in Kroch Sakhorn village, located in Samrong district’s Kon Kreal commune, Saing Yon, the boy’s father, said he was afraid to return to the illegal logging site, adding that he did not know how he would support his family without money earned from selling wood.
Nin Khuom, Yon Rith’s 52-year-old mother, said that despite her husband’s fears, she wanted to bring food to the spirit of her dead son and to retrieve his ashes. During a visit to the site shortly after the September 11 killing, she said, the family retrieved only the top half of his body, which was not burned, and held a funeral ceremony for him near their home.
“I took only half of my son’s body then to celebrate the ceremony for him,” she said. “His foot is still at the scene of the attack because I am afraid that the Thai soldiers will come and arrest us if we go back.”
Kang Mao, a 39-year-old neighbour who was with the illegal logging group when it was attacked, said Yon Rith had just sat down to lunch when the shooting began.
The Thai government has said that his body was burned only after he died of gunshot wounds, but Kang Mao said he believed the boy was burned alive.
Saing Yon said the ill-fated excursion, in which another teenager was also shot and seriously injured, had been his son’s first across the Thai border.
“He was too young. He didn’t know any better,” he said.
Harsh punishment
Though he acknowledged that the villagers had been logging illegally, he said they were not able to make as much money cutting down Cambodian trees.
“The reason that people cross to that area is because there is the best-quality wood there,” he said.
He and Kang Mao both said the soldiers should have merely arrested Yong Rith and sent him back to Cambodia.
“Please don’t shoot loggers and burn them alive when you catch them in Thailand,” Kong Mao said. If you cut down a tree, you can just plant a new one. But a logger is not a plant. When you shoot a logger, he is just dead.”