By Sam Sotha
“The United States is a champion of democracy and human rights.” That, at any
rate, is the opinion of Sam Rainsy Party parliamentarian Mu Sochua, as reported
in the 14 June Cambodia Daily. She has the rights to have her own opinion
about the USA. But to petition to the US President regarding her Cambodian
court case is a complete nonsense under the purview of the rules of international
relations between sovereign countries. Cambodia is not one of the states of the
USA. Cambodia is an independent and sovereign country.
This is not the first time Ms Mu Sochua made hue and cry in the U.S. for help
whenever she encountered the challenges in the course of her actions. Mu
Sochua should have learned from her past failures and her boss’ failures in their
pursuit of power. She can see for herself how base passions like greed, envy and
hatred prod her to various acts unmindful of other people’s rights and freedom.
Poor Mu Sochua ! For the thirst for power grows in strength if you follow it, but
dies away if you turn away from it and abstain.
Crying foul for US President help is indeed insulting Cambodian judiciary with
ignorance. Mr. Obama is a world top leader who is currently and personally
preoccupied with his domestic political agendas and his international policies.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the first major test for the leadership of Mr.
Obama. The prediction that the Democratic Party may lose the control of the
House in the following mid term elections in November and continued US
recession are among other domestic challenges the US President is currently
facing. Other tough global issues such as the US trade deficit against China;
The relationship with Japan on Futenma military base; immediate priority to
prevent North Korea from spreading its nuclear know-how around the world;
preventing Iran from its competition with the UN sanctions to complete its
suspect nuclear programme...and current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and
continued peace process between Israel and Palestine. Perhaps these issues are
too far for President Barack Obama to look into Mu Sochua personal case.
Ms. Sochua strange view of Cambodian and world events, as far as one can tell
from the Cambodia Daily article, seems designed to disguise the real character
of her petition to the US president regarding her Cambodian court case. After all, if the USA is really the world’s outstanding “champion of democracy and
human rights”, a sort of global Supreme Court with the moral standing to judge
all the governments of the world, then it makes sense to appeal to the US about a
Cambodian court case. But the US isn’t that, and so Ms. Sochua appeal is
nothing but a request for US interference in Cambodia’s internal affairs —
something that there has already been far too much of.
But Ms Mu Sochua knows very well that the US administration has very limited
options about her case. We should wonder what she hopes to gain by this kind of
spectacular initiative. And the answer is crystal clear. For the same reason
someone who used to blame the Cambodian Judiciary but nevertheless lodged a
complaint through this Judiciary. Ms Mu Sochua is a politician. She wants to be
seen as a political star. That’s why she needs to be the focus of the media hoping
to become a political leader. For that purpose, there is no better way than to try
to involve in her plan the President of the United States of America.
-------------------------------
About the Author
Sam Sotha is the Author of “In the Shade of A Quiet Killing Place”
His personal mémoire
About the book go to www.heavenlakepress
Friday, June 25, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The fight against corruption : give the law a chance !
Now that the law has been adopted and the institutional bodies created by this law are in place, it’s
time to deal with the most important criticism that has been expressed by the political opposition
and segments of the civil society: the critical issue of the independence of those in charge to fight
corruption from political or economical interferences.
But first of all, it must be recalled that the leaders of this country share a strong political will to fight
corruption. Why ? Because they want Cambodia leaving the poor status of least developed country.
The future is at stake and now that the country enjoys full peace and political stability, nothing is
more important than to increase the wealth for all the people. And such a goal requests significant
new steps on the way to development and modernity. The Royal Government of Cambodia perfectly
knows that graft is the most important brake on development and a direct threat to the rule of law.
The leaders are not proud when they read the World Economic Forum report on trade
competitiveness explaining that Cambodia reaches “one of the highest levels of corruption in the
world”. They are not proud when it comes to their knowledge that the Hong Kong based firm Political
and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, after questioning 2.147 company directors from 16 countries of
the Asia‐Pacific zone, ranks Cambodia as the second most corrupted country in this zone. There is a
need for dramatic changes. And the political will is there : both corrupters and corrupt people must
be punished.
A significant progress has been achieved with the adoption of the anticorruption law. It came at the
right time after the adoption of four extremely important legal codes : the penal and the civil codes
and the procedural codes for both. Cambodia is on her way to rebuild a comprehensive judicial
system.
The establishment of the National Council for Anti‐corruption (NCA) and the establishment of the
Anti‐corruption Unit give the opportunity to deal with the concern about the independence of these
two institutions. No doubt that effectiveness and efficiency of the Anti‐corruption body require that
the people in charge are truly independent.
The Government made an important choice. It refused the appointment of all the eleven members of
the NCA by the Executive. As everyone knows, in several democratic countries, it’s the Executive that
appoints members of extremely important institutions like, for instance, the US Supreme Court. The
Cambodian law stipulates that the members of the NCA are appointed by various institutions: the
King, the National Assembly, the Council of Magistracy, etc. This is another process that many
democratic countries share also.
Nevertheless, this process was criticized in Cambodia. It was said that most of the institutions
involved in the appointment of the members of the NCA are ruled by individuals affiliated with the
same political party, the CPP. Therefore, the independence of the NCA would be under threat. One
must remind the readers that this process is common in countries recognized as democratic where
there is no coalition government or when the partner in the coalition is too weak and unable to
negotiate a balanced power sharing. That’s the result of the will expressed by the people through theelection. That’s also the result of the ability of political parties to build a credible political reputation
and strength.
This situation drives us back to the core question : how to provide the strongest guarantees for such
independence ? There are people who think that the best way is the appointment of individuals with
no political affiliation or economical link. But how is it possible to be sure that someone, because he
has no connection with a political party or with a business group, will be protected from pressures ?
It is the same with the judiciary. If we would follow people who say “the judges are paid by the
Government, so they have to obey the Government”, it would mean that the independence of the
magistrates is impossible. It would mean that the separation of powers is just a joke. According to
the law, the Anti‐corruption Body is an institution with judicial powers. The need for independence is
the same.
How to get such independence ? Is there another guarantee than the oath each member of the Anti‐
corruption Body took when he was appointed ? At the core of the independence is the integrity and
professionalism of the person in charge and his or her will to implement the law. Suspicion finds
ground more in human usual behaviors than in any affiliation. Experts in the independence of the
Judiciary use to repeat that the absolute guarantee doesn’t exist. Neither in Cambodia, nor in
Western countries.
It’s by far too early to make an assessment of the implementation of the anti‐corruption law. That’s
why we should give this new law a chance.
Dr Raoul Marc Jennar
Advisor to the RGC
time to deal with the most important criticism that has been expressed by the political opposition
and segments of the civil society: the critical issue of the independence of those in charge to fight
corruption from political or economical interferences.
But first of all, it must be recalled that the leaders of this country share a strong political will to fight
corruption. Why ? Because they want Cambodia leaving the poor status of least developed country.
The future is at stake and now that the country enjoys full peace and political stability, nothing is
more important than to increase the wealth for all the people. And such a goal requests significant
new steps on the way to development and modernity. The Royal Government of Cambodia perfectly
knows that graft is the most important brake on development and a direct threat to the rule of law.
The leaders are not proud when they read the World Economic Forum report on trade
competitiveness explaining that Cambodia reaches “one of the highest levels of corruption in the
world”. They are not proud when it comes to their knowledge that the Hong Kong based firm Political
and Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd, after questioning 2.147 company directors from 16 countries of
the Asia‐Pacific zone, ranks Cambodia as the second most corrupted country in this zone. There is a
need for dramatic changes. And the political will is there : both corrupters and corrupt people must
be punished.
A significant progress has been achieved with the adoption of the anticorruption law. It came at the
right time after the adoption of four extremely important legal codes : the penal and the civil codes
and the procedural codes for both. Cambodia is on her way to rebuild a comprehensive judicial
system.
The establishment of the National Council for Anti‐corruption (NCA) and the establishment of the
Anti‐corruption Unit give the opportunity to deal with the concern about the independence of these
two institutions. No doubt that effectiveness and efficiency of the Anti‐corruption body require that
the people in charge are truly independent.
The Government made an important choice. It refused the appointment of all the eleven members of
the NCA by the Executive. As everyone knows, in several democratic countries, it’s the Executive that
appoints members of extremely important institutions like, for instance, the US Supreme Court. The
Cambodian law stipulates that the members of the NCA are appointed by various institutions: the
King, the National Assembly, the Council of Magistracy, etc. This is another process that many
democratic countries share also.
Nevertheless, this process was criticized in Cambodia. It was said that most of the institutions
involved in the appointment of the members of the NCA are ruled by individuals affiliated with the
same political party, the CPP. Therefore, the independence of the NCA would be under threat. One
must remind the readers that this process is common in countries recognized as democratic where
there is no coalition government or when the partner in the coalition is too weak and unable to
negotiate a balanced power sharing. That’s the result of the will expressed by the people through theelection. That’s also the result of the ability of political parties to build a credible political reputation
and strength.
This situation drives us back to the core question : how to provide the strongest guarantees for such
independence ? There are people who think that the best way is the appointment of individuals with
no political affiliation or economical link. But how is it possible to be sure that someone, because he
has no connection with a political party or with a business group, will be protected from pressures ?
It is the same with the judiciary. If we would follow people who say “the judges are paid by the
Government, so they have to obey the Government”, it would mean that the independence of the
magistrates is impossible. It would mean that the separation of powers is just a joke. According to
the law, the Anti‐corruption Body is an institution with judicial powers. The need for independence is
the same.
How to get such independence ? Is there another guarantee than the oath each member of the Anti‐
corruption Body took when he was appointed ? At the core of the independence is the integrity and
professionalism of the person in charge and his or her will to implement the law. Suspicion finds
ground more in human usual behaviors than in any affiliation. Experts in the independence of the
Judiciary use to repeat that the absolute guarantee doesn’t exist. Neither in Cambodia, nor in
Western countries.
It’s by far too early to make an assessment of the implementation of the anti‐corruption law. That’s
why we should give this new law a chance.
Dr Raoul Marc Jennar
Advisor to the RGC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)