UN Intimidated over Draft Anti-Corruption Law

A Cambodian-based UN representative was threatened to oust out of the nation on March 22, 2010 by the government after having earlier issued a release to show its concerns related to the Draft of Anti-Corruption Law, which was submitted to the National Assembly to debate on March 10, 2010, because the law was abruptly passed, and all of 57 articles were not changed, as well as the recommendations from civil organizations and legal experts were not taken into consideration.

For these reasons, Mr. Douglas Broderick, UN Resident Coordinator, was warned to exile from the country in case he issues such a statement next time. The warn was made by Mr. Hor Namhong, who sent a letter to Mr. Broderick and to news media in response to a country team statement on March 10, 2010.

In addition to the minister’s statement, Mr. Koy Kuong, spokesman at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the letter had just been aimed to inform Mr. Broderick that he should have performed his duties under his mandate’s limitations; and alleged that Mr. Broderick’s statements meant that he had been interfering in Cambodia’s internal affairs.

However, Mr. Sok Sam Oeun, Executive Director of Cambodian Defenders Project, commented on the issue that there was no need for the team to seek permission from its headquarters in New York only because they had released the statement at all. This was the procedure of only expressing opinion.

The above statement of the government has been seen as an attempt to restrict on freedom of expression. The act totally violated the country’s obligations on behalf of a signatory country to the United Nations, which guaranteed to abide by all the international instruments; especially the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

It came as evidence that whether or not the Cambodian government really implemented in accordance with the rule of law and democratic country.

It could be argued that if the government were willing to have this law passed in favor of people’s advantages, then the National Assembly should have given extra time for debate and NGOs and legal experts’ recommendations should have been taken into account to show perfection, transparency and the serve of the nation’s advantages for development.