20 Jan 14 | Asia and Pacific, News and features, Vietnam
Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy, of Cambodia National Rescue Party (Image: Kimlong Meng/Demotix)
Cambodia, a nation once traumatised by the ‘Killing Fields’ of the Pol Pot regime in the 1970s, has come a long way since then in rebuilding the nation from year zero, including the holding of elections and the creation of a multi-party system. But the recent flood of hate-mail and death-threats sent to Mr Ou Virak, the president of CCHR (The Cambodian Centre for Human Rights) in the capital Phnom Penh, points to a society still dangerously divided over ethnic and racial issues.
Attacks on human rights activists in Cambodia and around the world mostly come from the agents and the guardians of the status quo — the police, army, militias and private security companies deployed by major corporations seeking to block workers rights. But the death threats in this case, delivered by phone, email and Facebook to Ou Virak, did not come from government quarters, but from the virulent opponents of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), led by long-serving prime minister Hun Sen.
The hate-speech was triggered by a CCHR letter to opposition leaders representing the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), urging them to stop using racist language against the Vietnamese, the largest foreign community in Cambodia.
During one election rally long-time CNRP opposition leader Sam Rainsy told a crowd in Pray Lang Kompong Thom province: “The Yuon [The Vietnamese] are taking the Khmer land to kill the Khmer people. So the Yuon come to Cambodia to spread their relatives, to form their families and then spread out. There will be so many Yuon in Cambodia that the Khmers will be the ethnic minority. The Yuon are like thieves stealing from the Cambodian people.”
The group’s letter reads: ”CCHR is disappointed that the CNRP is once again using such harmful language, which can only encourage racism towards Cambodian citizens of Vietnamese origin, as well as Vietnamese people living in Cambodia.” This letter touched a raw and racist nerve among many opposition supporters who had been fired up by rabble-rousing speeches over the “Vietnamese threat” to their nation.
Opposition campaign speeches do not distinguish between the estimated 5% of Cambodia’s population who are ethnic Vietnamese but born in Cambodia, illegal immigrants, Vietnamese companies and citizens of the neighbouring state of Vietnam. Opposition leaders tend to lump them together as the collective “Yuon”, a pejorative word for all Vietnamese, and a convenient scapegoat for Cambodia’s ills.
Ou Virak drawing attention to the universal nature of human rights that covers all groups, including the Vietnamese minority living in Cambodia, should not provoke such rabidly violent reactions in the eyes of international human rights organisations.
Virak and the CCHR have received support from abroad, but little or no encouragement from other Cambodian human rights NGOs. Virak explained to Index: “ I think there is definitely a fear by the other NGOs that they will be attacked if they express concern regarding anti-Vietnamese rhetoric, and that they won’t be able to continue doing the work that they’re doing.”
Pung Chhiv Kek, president of local rights group Licadho, has stated “I don’t like to comment on the campaign against Mr Ou Virak. I’m not at all interested in this campaign against or for.” Yet back in the early 1990s Ms. Kek told this correspondent how she was bitterly disappointed that so many of her NGO staff at Licahdo harboured resentment towards any application of human rights principles to cover discrimination against Vietnamese residents in Cambodia.
“Sadly, many of these NGOs have shown themselves to be clearly aligned with the CNRP,” said Virak, and added “a lot of people are confused between fighting repression and just fighting the CPP”.
Thun Saray another well-known NGO leader was quoted in the Phnom Penh Post: ”I worry that if we damage one political leader, it could damage their reputation. Now it is a sensitive moment, we have to be careful.”
Cambodia, sandwiched between the two far bigger nations of Thailand and Vietnam, has suffered a substantial loss of territory during the past 600 years as a result of periodic invasions from their neighbours and the decline of the Angkorian Empire. There is a perennial fear among some Khmer people that Vietnam has evil designs to swallow Cambodia, based on a mixture of folklore, paranoia, political agitation and a jaundiced grasp of history.
The burgeoning anti-Vietnamese constituency is bolstered by their reading of Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia from 1979-1989, as proof of a Hanoi-orchestrated plot to colonise Cambodia. Vietnam is often depicted as the hidden power behind Hun Sen, the longest-serving prime minister in the region, who enjoys special historical links to Hanoi dating back 30 years.
On the other hand millions of Cambodians share a different memory of Vietnam’s intervention in 1979, which rescued them from the genocidal grip of the Khmer Rouge regime and the “Killing Fields” at a time when Sam Rainsy was living comfortably as a banker in Paris. An United Nations-backed special tribunal has been conducting trials in Phnom Penh since 2006 to hold the former Khmer Rouge leaders accountable for crimes against humanity and genocide.
Much older generation of Cambodians, who survived the “Killing Fields”, view Sam Rainsy’s vitriolic attacks as deeply divisive. Hun Sen and the CPP government have exploited these sentiments to the hilt in their electoral campaigns. Using the “Vietnamese card” did not mobilise votes for the opposition only — it can also be a double-edged sword.
In the first democratic election in 1993, under the auspices of the UN peacekeeping mission (UNTAC), Sam Rainsy was required to delete countless references to the “Yuon” in his prepared speech. Khmer-speaking UN official Tim Carney judged these to be inflammatory and offensive. In the 1998 election, however, Mr Rainsy was again criticised by UN experts for resorting to the same tactic. “Opposition leaders are inciting hatred and racism against the ethnic Vietnamese,” complained Thomas Hammarberg, the UN human rights envoy to Cambodia in 1998.
Rainsy, a former finance minister in the Cambodian coalition government in 1994 has always denied the many accusations of racism levelled at him, claiming that he is only expressing “legitimate patriotic concern that has nothing to do with stoking racial nationalist sentiment.”
Since the September 2013 election there has been major controversy over possible election irregularities and the opposition’s demand for a fresh election. The opposition has boycotted parliament, despite winning an impressive 55 seats, with the ruling CPP gaining 68 — a loss of 24 seats.
At the same time unrest has intensified with a nationwide strike of garment workers who are demanding a living wage and are also backing the political opposition calls for Hun Sen to resign.
Against this backdrop Ou Virak is deeply worried that “anti-Vietnamese sentiments are becoming more widespread as the population becomes increasingly frustrated with the political deadlock. “
During protests outside of the Canadia factory on Veng Sreng road on 3 January 2014, there were many reports of Vietnamese shops being targeted, looted and completely destroyed by protestors.
“These actions are being left un-condemned by the leadership of the CNRP,” says Virak “which brings up clear concerns as to what the CNRP would do if in power.”
But a deepening vein of racism tainting the opposition’s campaign to unseat the entrenched ruling elite around Hun Sen is likely to prove counter-productive in the long term. At a time when the opposition is buoyed by unprecedented popular support at the polls and is getting closer to achieving power, Vietnamese-bashing is not the best way for them to convince the sceptics and the international community that they could do a far better job than the CPP of running the country.
This article was posted on 20 January 2014 at indexoncensorship.org
18 Jun 13 | Asia and Pacific, News and features
Protesters — mostly women and children — called for the release of activist Yorm Bopha outside the Royal Palace before being victimised by the police. (Photos: Marek Marczynski / Index on Censorship)
In Phnom Penh, Cambodia, for the IFEX General Meeting and Strategy Conference 2013, Index Director of Campaigns and Policy Marek Marczynski reported back on the manhandling of protesters outside the Royal Palace.
“The use of violence against the demonstrators today was clearly disproportional and unlawful. The authorities instead of cracking down on people exercising their freedom of speech and assembly should listen to their legitimate concerns. It is disturbing that as the global civil society meets in Phnom Penh today to discuss challenges to free expression the authorities apply such brutal measures to suppress this basic right”, Marczynski said.
Here is Marczynski’s full account:
I am in Phnom Penh, where I am attending the 2013 General Meeting of IFEX (International Freedom of Expression Exchange) which is a global network of organisations working together to defend and promote freedom of expression world-wide. Today, following the morning discussions I decided to take a walk to see the Royal Palace, one of the many examples of the beautiful Khmer architecture.
As I approached the main entrance to the palace I saw a group of about 40 people chanting slogans and holding flowers. Some of them were kneeling. Most of them were women and young children. I soon realised that they were demanding release from prison of Yorm Bopha, a land rights activist.
Yorm has been detained since September 2012, allegedly in relation to planning of an assault on two men in August 2012. In December 2012, after a trial which Amnesty International described as unfair, Yorm was sentenced by the municipal court in Phnom Penh to three years in prison on charges of “international violence with aggravating circumstances”. The conviction was upheld on 14 June 2013 by the Cambodian Supreme Court but her prison sentence was reduced to two years.
Prior to her arrest, Bopha had been campaigning against forcible eviction of thousands of people from the area of Boeung Kak Lake in Phnom Penh which was leased to a private company in 2007.
Today’s protest was calling for her immediate release. The participants were holding placards with photos of Bopha who has been proclaimed a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.
Though the protest was peaceful, there was a large police presence on the street, which was closed to traffic. Around 100 policemen were waiting nearby.
At about 3:40pm the police began cordoning off the gathering. I could not actually understand why they were doing this as the group of women and children were not causing any problems. It was just a cheerful gathering chanting and holding flowers.
The atmosphere changed quickly. Although I don’t speak Khmer I could sense that it was tense. Soon after, the police started pushing the protesters, some of whom were still kneeling, away from the palace.
Initially the protesters did not react and stayed put. The police however quickly became violent. Some police officers started dragging the protesters and pulling their placards. One of the police officers wearing a mask was particularly violent, punching some of the women.
The violent confrontation lasted for another hour during which two women, after being pushed by the police, fainted.
For updates from #ifex13, follow @MarekMarczynski
04 Feb 13 | Uncategorized
Chinese communist party newspaper The People’s Daily has today denied allegations that China hacked into the computer systems of various US media outlets. The state-run newspaper denied that officials had hacked The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, also refuting claims from The Washington Post that it had been targeted. The People’s Daily said that the national security allegations from the US were a cover-up for imposing economic sanctions on China. The Obama administration will reportedly address the attacks as an economic threat in a National Intelligence Estimate report, meaning the US can impose sanctions in China in response. Concern has been mounting in America that China has been responsible for a series of sustained cyber attacks on government agencies, US companies and media outlets — a US congressional report last year named China “the most threatening actor in cyberspace”.
A french journalist researching prostitution and human trafficking in Cambodia has had a seven year jail sentence in absentia upheld under prostitution charges. Daniel Lainé was charged by Phnom Penh City Court on 29 January for soliciting prostitutes and issued with a “red notice” by Interpol following a request from the court, banning him from reporting anywhere outside of France. Lainé had originally been sentenced in 2010 after being caught secretly filming a prostitute without permission, a charge the journalist denies. The charges are thought to be linked to Lainé’s 2003 documentary exposing sex tourism in Cambodia and are allegedly supported by a written witness statement from someone who never appeared in court during the case. Lainé is a filmmaker for Tony Comiti Productions and was winner of a World Press Photo award in 1991.
These crisps have caused offence amongst the Catholic community
On 1 February, a film maker accused the Italian government of censorship for calling off the screening of his film for being too political. Bill Emmott, former editor of the Economist, was due to show his documentary Girlfriend in a Coma on 13 February at the National Museum of the 21st Century Arts, but the organisers were contacted on 1 February to say that the ministry of culture had ordered the event to be postponed ahead of the parliamentary elections on 24 February. Emmott, who’s film takes a critical look at Italy and the problems it faces, said there is a culture of denial in the country. The film has already been screened in several European countries and the US and is expected to remain postponed until the elections are over.
An appeals court in the Philippines has upheld a decision to pursue a libel case and issue of arrest warrants against a minor and five other people for online defamation charges made on 13 March 2012. A teenage blogger was accused of posting defamatory comments on Celine Quanico’s blog on 6 April 2008, along with Justine Dimaano, Francesa Vanessa Fugen, Anthony Jay Foronda, Roberto Armando Hidalgo and Danielle Vicaldo. Quanico said that Dimaano had posted a Yahoo messenger conversation titled “meet my backstabber friend”, but had changed the alleged victim’s name — who was 16 at the time of the alleged offence. Other insults posted on the site included “bitch”, “ugly”, “loser” and “liar”. The Cyber Crime Prevention Act went into effect on 3 October in the Philippines, after it was suspended following calls to remove the law from constitution.
Chain sandwich store Pret A Manger has withdrawn a new “Virgin Mary” brand of crisps from shelves following religious complaints. The bloody mary cocktail flavoured crisps had been introduced last week, but prompted complaints, including from Catholic groups that the brand was offensive to Jesus’ mother. The company said it removed the product to avoid further offence after noting the “strength of feeling” behind the few complaints they received. The unsold crisps will be donated to homeless charities across the country. Among the complainants was The Reverend Nick Donnelly, deacon of the Diocese of Lancaster, who said after Pret removed the product that the incident taught the Catholic community how to defend their faith in the future.
22 Nov 12 | Asia and Pacific, Southeast Asia
On Sunday, the world prepared for President Obama’s first-time visit to the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But underneath the press torrent was a lesser-known event: the leaders of the 10 member states of the regional bloc signed the much-lamented ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). Freedom of expression, internet privacy, and minority rights are all potential casualties of this document, which amounts to an assortment of titular but pleasant-sounding logorrhea — designed largely by dictators in a region where free expression is, in most countries, on the decline.
The first conundrum? In declaring its broader principles, the charter annuls itself when it states that human rights should be respected everywhere, except that they shouldn’t:
All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. All human rights and fundamental freedoms in this Declaration must be treated in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. At the same time, the realisation of human rights must be considered in the regional and national context bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds.
That’s a huge exception that governments can play with. The US State Department called out concerns of ASEAN’s cultural relativist approach to human rights, a term that labels individual liberties as culturally alien to Asians. It’s a common justification used to curtail expression, made famous when former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore argued at the end of the Cold War that liberal democracy was a Western value that should not be brought to certain countries.
The declaration also employs the obfuscating language of “national security,” “public order” and “public morality” as prerequisites to exercising basic freedoms. Narrowing that framework down to free speech, the declaration reads, for instance: “Every person has the right to be free from … attacks upon that person’s honour and reputation.” Though not legally binding, those phrases lend legitimacy to the wording that Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand typically use when jailing critics.
Mam Sonando, director of Cambodia’s independent Beehive Radio station, who was jailed for 20 years in October
“They can say that we banned such-and-such speech because it goes against our national context, or contravenes a vaguely defined notion such as ‘public morality’ or the ‘general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society’,” said Phil Robertson, deputy director of the Asia Division at Human Rights Watch, “or because those making the speech have their rights balanced by duties to the state to not do such a thing.”
In a region where online surveillance is, in most member states, on the rise, internet privacy gets no mention. The Cambodian Center for Human Rights also pointed out that indigenous and LGBT groups appear to have been left out of specific protections from discrimination and the principle of equality. In Southeast Asia, minorities such as the Rohingya, Wa and Shan in Myanmar, the Papuans in Indonesia, and the potpourri of highland groups often called “Montagnards” in Vietnam have all been persecuted in military and police campaigns, and denied cultural rights.
The triumph of local laws over international concepts of rights should not be surprising from a bloc that is sclerotic and, in the past, has been characterised as a “club of dictators.” ASEAN’s background shows why it straddles this non-interference line on its sovereigns: The organisation was born in 1967 out of the devastation of the Vietnam War, when five countries in Southeast Asia were hoping to tether in an anti-communist grouping that could stand on its own against the involvement of the US, the Soviet Union and China.
But its espousal of “territorial integrity” — of respecting a government’s right to rule without the Cold War-style interference from external powers — quickly became an excuse to back dictators in alliances of convenience. In the late 1970s, ASEAN supported the murderous Khmer Rouge forces at the Thai-Cambodia border, which had already overseen the deaths of 1.7 million people in Cambodia. They hoped the rag-tag army could be a buffer to prevent the powerful Vietnamese military from marching across Thailand — a fear that, in hindsight, was probably not justified, even though Vietnam had invaded Cambodia in 1978.
After the Cold War ended, the group switched its focus from security to trade and expanded its membership to include Cambodia, Burma, Brunei, and nominally communist Vietnam and Laos. But political openness has not accompanied economic growth in Southeast Asia. Rather, the group’s foundational peg of “non-interference” remains unchanged despite signing the 2008 ASEAN Charter, and its delegates continue to defer to national governments on questions of free expression.
With that said, does the human rights declaration even matter on free speech issues? Probably not, given the bloc’s chimera of consensus that, put bluntly, is indifference.
Free speech will come from inside the ASEAN member states themselves, rather than from the bureaucrats who exchange flowers, link their hands together in photo ops and call each other “Your Excellency” at summits.
Geoffrey Cain is an editor at New Mandala, the Southeast Asia blog at the Australian National University
More on Southeast Asia:
Former BBC reporter Bill Hayton on being banned from Vietnam
How Cambodia silences dissent
Webmaster avoids jail in Thai Thai lèse majesté case
