Mr. Yim Sovann, a lawmaker from Sam Rainsy Party, said that those 76 parliamentarians were from CPP, FUNCENPEC and Norodom Ranarith party; whereas his party [and Human Rights Party] did not vote for the law because it is likely to violate freedom of expression.
The law defines the demonstration as the meetings, gatherings or marches by a group of people to demand or express in public their ideas and the will of their group by utilizing posters or other means of nonviolence. It can be done in case there is a request in writing to authority. The law also restricts the protests to crowds of fewer than 200 people, and requires at least 3 representatives of the demonstrators to register their identification cards with local authorities at least 5 days before the due date of the demonstration. Demonstrations will only be permitted in precise locations chosen by officials, and won’t be allowed between 6 pm and 6 am.
In relation to the law, it has been as the means to put restriction on freedom of assembly leading up to freedom of expression violation among politicians, rights defenders and civil society.
During the debate on October 21, Mr. Sam Rainsy, the president of the opposition party clarified that his party did not support the law because it harshly holds back freedom of assembly. It has the will for the authorities to prohibit the Cambodian citizens from doing non-violent demonstrations.
He added that, “We should not eradicate demonstrations; we have to liquidate what drives the people to demonstrate.”
Human Rights Party President Mr. Kim Sokha commented on the issue that the law showed just how frightened the ruling Cambodian People’s Party was of people power. He explained that in a democracy, the government should allow people to protest when the leaders did not work on a fair way. However, if the protests could not be dealt, people power would take place.
Whereas rights groups and civil society also evaluated the law that it was willing to hold back the freedom of expression, which has be strived for the last two decades. Approval of the law without wide public distribution of the draft or substantial input from members of the NGO section, this term of the Assembly has seen a decrease in transparency.
Mr. Rong Chhun, the president of the Cambodian Independent Teacher’s Association uttered the new law threatens freedom of expression in Cambodia. He said they [the government] would use police to break up demonstrations if they [demonstrators] gathered more than 200 people; then the freedom of expression here was nothing.
The essences of the law were just as worrying as the large-scale implications, said Mr. Ou Virak, the president of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights. He added when people wanted to protest on private property, they had to inform the authorities 12 hours in advance; then it was going to be such a major danger. He also mentioned that the requirement of seeking permission with provincial authorities before any protest could be a serious restriction for activists in rural area; for instance, in the case of Ratanakiri, [the provincial office] was very far. Although the idea of a “freedom park” set aside specifically for demonstrations holds some appeal, Mr. Virak said, “The time is going to undermine the effect … I think the authorities should be responsible to have police on standby for spontaneous protests.”
Mr. Moeung Tola, head of the labor program at the Community Legal Education Center said, “That should be a law, but the law should protect people.” If the workers or the people wanted to express their opinion, the law should be developed to protect them, not to limit their freedom of expression.
Director of rights group of Licadho Naly Pilorge said, “I can only say that contrary to our Constitution and what is said in Cambodia, this law has not been made public and there has been no time to get input from civil society.” She said the lack of consultation is a trend she’s noticed since the ruling CPP was given a strengthened mandate in the July 2008 election. “For the past year, most laws have been very secretive,” she said. “Even at the National Assembly, there are restrictions from anyone even observing discussion about laws.”
The Assembly recently put in place restrictions that require potential visitors to Parliament to submit official requests before being allowed into the public gallery; [for instance, two UN representatives were dismissed from the meeting].
No comments:
Post a Comment