Cambodia’s opposition leader is not under fire, but is merely subjected to the principles of Rule of Law

Referring to an article, which was written by Carlyle A. Thayer (The beleaguered opposition leader is under threat again), posted in the newspaper, The WALL STREET JOURNAL, this week and it was republished in The Cambodia Daily on December 5, 2009; as a Cambodian citizen, I wish to express my own opinion as-follows:

Recently, there have been a number of national and international analysts who have misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted the factual situation in Cambodia and have discredited the Cambodian government for using the court as a political tool to silence its opponents. A case in point is that of Sam Rainsy. The Svay Rieng provincial court and the Ministry of Justice would have not bothered requesting the National Assembly to remove the immunity of the opposition leader, Sam Rainsy,  had he not uprooted the wooden markers planted for border demarcation by Cambodia-Vietnam’s technical teams.

In this regard, the lifting of Sam Rainsy’s immunity last month was not a threat to the opposition leader but rather a due process of applying the Rule of Law’s principle, which has been in place, and well known to Sam Rainsy himself who is a lawyer and a lawmaker.  

After all, Rainsy has been a fervent advocate for the application of this principle. Legally speaking, Rainsy’s unlawful action of removing the six wooden border poles was more for his self centered political interests which aimed at reviving his wavering popularity and importance, gaining his political mileage by calling the villagers to join him.

This act alone is contrary to the principle of law in which Rainsy violated the border treaty which was inked by the two Asian countries as well as provoking an international incident.

In doing so, he has encouraged others to join his unlawful activities of uprooting the border markers. Such a move by Rainsy, which was a calculated and malicious action, was clearly intended to harm the friendly relation and cooperation with Vietnam. These activities can not be accepted by the two countries in any circumstances.

As above-stated, it is thus logical for the local authorities to pursue the principle of the Rule of Law by initiating the legal action against Rainsy which led to the local court’s application to the National Assembly through the Ministry of Justice to strip his immunity on November 19, 2009. These are procedures set forth in the country’s legal system and something, which cannot be disputed as the Rule of Law must take its course. And this judicial system is one of the Government’s key reformances which have been encouraged by the foreign donors and stakeholders. 

The lawmakers have their rights to either support or reject the motion to revoke Rainsy’s immunity and this has nothing to do with the government, although the ruling party won 90 out of the total 123 parliamentary seats.

Like other cases of the opposition lawmakers in the past, the country’s legislative body has never threatened or restricted their freedom of expression and political movement.  However, this does not mean that the opposition leaders have a carte blanche to abuse the law, specially the Border Treaty which was ratified by the two countries’ legislature.

Evidently, the National Assembly had earlier lifted the immunity of lawmakers Mu Sochua and Ho Vann, both from the opposition, as requested by the court to charge them with defamation and disinformation affecting the dignity of Government’s leader and top brass military officers.

Consequently, what the Cambodian legislative body has been doing is only to stick to the rule of law, which some foreigners who are not well familiar with the reality on the ground, have wrongly interpreted it as a threat to the opponents. As a matter of fact, the two opposition lawmakers, whose freedom and movement have not been restricted, continue to travel overseas and frequently lambasting and discrediting the Government and its leaders.

The government’s policy of strengthening the Rule of Law and continuing to embark upon the road of democracy has been reaffirmed by the international donors over and over again. This is best evidenced by development partners who have injected up to US$1 billion last year into Cambodia, thus reflecting their satisfaction with Prime Minister Hun Sen-led government over the last three terms.

In reality and on close examination, one can or should realize that Rainsy’s action is not an expression of nationalism or patriotism. On the contrary, it is an act of demagogy and political exploitation by Rainsy, whose popularity has been waning as it goes. His activities rightful as it may seem to him, nevertheless could have provoked unnecessary border tension with Vietnam, given the tense situation with Thailand.

Sam Rainsy always advocates the rule of law and due process of law.  However, when it is applied on him, he claims that it is the government’s intimidation and manipulation of the judiciary. This is ludicrous as the rights of the silent majority who want peace, stability, social order and security is certainly more important than the cravings for public sympathy and support of the noisy minority. The latter wants nothing more than chaos and poisoning the social atmosphere so that he could take advantage from this sad situation which ultimately brings the Cambodian people doom and misery.

(Press and Quick Reaction Unit of the Office of the Council of Ministers)