The Rights of Political Participation in Sangkum Reastr Niyum and Khmer Republic

Pannasastra University of Cambodia

The Rights of Political Participation in Sangkum Reastr Niyum and Khmer Republic

Course: The Human Rights and World Politics

Name: Im Meng

ID: 05418

Submit to Prof. Stan Staryging

Date: September 3, 2007

Content

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Right to participate in Politics in Sangkum Reastr Niyum

2.1. Case Study

2.2. Right to participate in Khmer Republic

2.3. Comparison

3. Conclusion

Abstract

After I learnt the course of Human Rights, this course made me interesting in the rights of the people in Cambodia and in the past this country that evolution from regime to regime until now. But, we can see the constitution of each regime has difference between the rights of human being such as: the right of life, the right to live, the right to educate, the right to believe in religion, the freedom of press and publication, the right to participate in community and right and duty of Khmer citizens in the both regime. In brief, there are many rights of human being, but here I would like to show the right political participation of people in Sangkum Reastr Niyum and Khmer Republic in this paper.

1. Introduction

In the constitution of Cambodia, they divided into sex regime after this country got the Independence from France in 1953, but Cambodian country has been prepared the constitution and cooperate to create this constitution since 1947.Then, for fifteen years, Prince Sihanouk and the Sangkum Reastr Niyum overshadowed Cambodian life. Because Sihanouk was removed from office by his own National Assembly in 1970, it is convenient, but misleading, to interpret this period in terms of his “decline,” a process that few observers noted at the time. Nonetheless, by 1966, Sihanouk had reached a turning point in his political career, and his grip on the political process had begun t weaken, along with his self-confidence. These changes can be linked to the intensification of the Vietnam War as well as to indigenous political factors. In any case, the Assembly elected in 1966, although allegedly made up of loyal Sangkum members, was the first since 1951 whose members the prince had not handpicked himself. In 1970 this Assembly voted Sihanouk out of office, and then General Lon Nol cover the government. Because of both regimes relate to each other, so I would like to compare the rights of people participate in politics in those societies.

2. Rights to participate in politics of Sangkum Reastr Niyum

As we know already, Sangkum Reastr Niyum created after France’s colonial; and got independence; this regime has the constitution by own self that divide into eleventh chapters and 121 articles. Now, we indicate the chapter two, article 3 that said about “Freedom, Right, and Duty of Khmer citizens”[1], article3: Freedom is the process to do everything, but not to affect other people rights. Conditions are used the freedom has been recorded in laws. And the article: 13 People can get the position in the government, that has good qualification and ability, and no reason that, this people can and other can not. By this, people can joint the participation in all activities in society. So, for understanding about the actions in political participation under managed by Sihanouk’ regime. Even constitution said that, but in the living source showed that only most high rank of people and parties which easy to joint in political participation in Cambodia at that time. I give any case about the Assembly Election.

2.1. Case study

“Shanouk’s principal opponents in 1955, the Democrats, were driven from politics before the 1958 elections took place. Sihanouk’s vindictiveness toward this group is curious because by 1956, the party had virtually ceased to exist and nearly all its members had joined the Sangkum. Nonetheless, in September 1957, claiming that the Democrats were endangering his policies, Sihanouk summoned five leaders of the party to a debate on the grounds of the royal palace in Phnom Penh. Large crowds were assembled nearby, and the proceedings were broadcast over loudspeakers. Intimidated by the crowds, the Democrats were unable to voice any clear opinions, and after three hours of bullying by Sihanouk and his associates, they were allowed to leave. On their way out of the palace enclosure the were beaten by soldiers and police, and one of them was hospitalized. Over the next few says, thirty or forty people suspected of Democrat leanings were beaten in Phnom Penh, and before going overseas for a vacation, Sihanouk secretly decorated some of the soldiers involved in the palace beatings.¹ Soon afterward, the Democratic Party dissolved itself and disappeared from the political scene.

In 1958, therefore, the only opposition to the Sangkum was the Pracheachon, which had gathered over twenty thousand votes in 1955.

In a foolhardy gesture, the group nominated a handful of candidates, but all but one withdrew before Election Day in the face of police repression. The remaining candidate, Keo Meas, earned 350 votes out several thousand casts in his electoral district. After the election he went underground to avoid arrest, and his candidacy marked the end of pluralistic electoral politics in Cambodia, except for a brief resurgence in the early 1970s.

And the other hand, the constitution and the history didn’t mention about the women rights participate in politics and in the government of Sihanouk’s regime. But, base on, David Chandler’s writing, we can see a positive point such as, Sihanouk also encouraged a certain amount of political participation and debate by means of so-call National Congresses, held twice a year outside the royal palace. In theory, any member of the Sangkum was welcome to attend these meetings and express political views. They dealt with uncontroversial issues, and like so much else in Cambodian life, they were stage-managed by the prince, whose policies were voted on by a show of hands. Moreover, in order to understand about the rights in political participation, let me to quote and describe in Khmer Republic’s to compare each other, whether which better than.”[2]

2.2. Rights to participate in politics of Khmer Republic

On 18 March 1970, under pressure from the Army, which was loyal to General Lon Nol and Prince Sirik Matak, who had prepared the Coup d’Etat, the two Houses of Parliament voted unanimously to dismiss Prince Norodom Sihanouk as Head of State. By the end of April, this country changed the leaders group, and then to promote the renaissance and renewed advancement of our national culture, to solemnly proclaim our steadfast devotion to the fundamental principles stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR], to promote both political and social democracy in which all exploitation of man by man, oppression, and intolerance shall be forbidden for the happiness and prosperity of all Khmers, to defend our republican system against any attempt to restore the monarchy and against any establishment of personal power, to preserve national territorial integrity, independence and unity. We, the Khmer people, always faithful to our ideals of peace, do hereby reaffirm:

Our aspirations for a lasting peace in the world, and our determination to co-operate actively with all nations, without distinction as to race, religion, or political system, for the purpose of progress and peace. For comparing above, I quote some articles to show, in chapter one, article 4 “Political parties may be freely organized. However, the State shall encourage every effort to reduce the number of political parties in order to achieve a two- party system”[3], American style and it’s seemed to be above, because of, not too much party to compete with these. And we can see in chapter 2, articles 8 and 9 said “The freedoms of association and assembly are acknowledged for all citizens. The exercise thereof shall not be restricted unless it is established that such exercise infringes upon the freedoms guaranteed by this Constitution”[4] and “The State shall ensure all citizens free exercise of their political rights, including those of protest and public opposition, provided that those rights are exercised without violence and in a legal manner.”[5], and we can see the another article in constitution said, all powers shall be derived from the people. The executive, legislative, and judicial powers shall be exercised in conformity with the provisions of this Constitution. Furthermore, the rights above, people really participate in political rights by free and fair. However, any point tells us about women rights in political participation. Therefore, we should be compared both of the rights here.

2.3. Comparisions

If we look back in the history of both societies, we see that, Sangkum Reastr Niyum or Sihanouk’s regime has the period longer than Khmer Republic, thus the standard of living of people and how to make law about the rights really better than Khmer Republic, but how to commit not really better than Khmer Republic, otherwise, why does coup d’etat happen in?. On the other hand, the old generations still like Sangkum Reastr Niyum. Even though, the constitutions of both societies to permit people to participate in politics, the same actions.

But, they only follow their leader, or association and community, especially both regimes did not talked about the rights of women participated in the politics and did not talked and did not talked gender as well, this is the fundamental of human being that has from their born, also rights to participate in politics, include, freedom of express in the public forum, and right to travel to everywhere, but in the history and constitutions in both societies no safe for Khmer citizens to participate in politics by free and fair, mean that every narrow for rights of people.

3. Conclusion

Rights to participate in politic is the purpose of the most people in the world, because of, we want to develop the country, we should be had good policy for practicing to influence. Also, we have to participate in public from people for adjusting or changes what not develop and make to progress in society, mean that , please make satisfy for all citizens in Cambodia.

In brief, rights to participate in politics in both Sangkum Reastr Niyum and Khmer Republic were not very broad for Khmer citizens to take chance enough to participate in politic, because of this country fall in civil war, since, got independence to civil war, so the leaders often busy with their enemy, they really lack the time to push and develop all field, especially rights to join in politic of Khmer citizens, but rights had been left at that time really give Cambodian people a good lesson, example, and experience to prepare in the presence time.

In my opinion, rights to political participation is very important of human being in Cambodia, because it’ll give people a chance to share with the main problem in society and manage their country by the democracy that most countries are committing in the world. And if we con not communicate or work to each other in our society, how can we contact with other countries or United Nations that respect the human rights.

Reference:

1/ Khim Y, Phd, Cambodian Constitution, (1947 – 1993) 1^st Ed, 1997

2/ Jennar Raoul M., Cambodian Constitutions (1953 – 1993), 1^st Ed, 1995

3/ CHANDLER DAVID, History of Cambodia, Assembly Election, pp 191-192, 2^nd, 1996

---

[1] Cambodian Const. Sangkum Reastr Nyum., Chap. 2, Art. 3, p 86, 1^st Ed, 1997

[2] (Quoted from: DAVID CHANDLER, History of Cambodia, pp 191-192, 2^nd, 1996

[3] Cambodian Const. Khmer Republic, Chap. I, Art. 4, p 59, White Lotus, Co., Ltd.; Bangkok, 1995

[4] Ibid, Chap II, Art. 8 & 9, p 60

[5] Ibid

Comparative and Analysis of UDHR and UDHRI

Pannasastra University of Cambodia
Course: Human Rights and World Politics
Prof: Stan Starygin,
Student: SE John, ID# 03839
Date: September 2, 2007

COMPARATIVE AND ANALYSIS OF UDHR AND UDHRI

ABSTRACT
My paper will talk about the background of UDHR and UDHRI. Why these
2 declarations have differences point of view and concepts? What do they have
in commons and the difference between these 2 importance principles? I am
going to illustrate point by point to detail of what in commons and the differences.
I will also share my point of view as I am a student for the 2 declarations, since
they are laws we can not define but interpret into varied situation anyhow. I am
also going to address one case, which was related with Lina Joy’s case who live
in Muslin country, she has no freedom to change her religion but only name
finally, which was completely contradict to the UDHR on Article 18. Since they
have ideas, concepts, ideologies, perspectives and philosophies that was why
war on terror because of discrimination of cultures, tradition and religion (Muslim
treated us of the discrimination).






CONTENT

I. Introduction
II. Overall Controversial and debate over UDHR and UDHRI
III. UDHR and UDHRI in common perspectives
IV. UDHR and UDHRI differences perspectives
V. Case Study – Lina Joy’s case
VI. Student Recommendation
VII. Conclusion

I. Introduction
Human Rights were respected and practiced almost of the countries around
the world, but it was not very much in a few Muslim countries as have been
seen for real. That was why we have the 2 declarations UDHR and UDHRI
has surely stated somewhat differences concepts and point of view. In this
context, UDHR has created and adopted in Western countries but UDHRI in
Muslim countries.
The main aim of UDHR is wanted to promote peace, common understanding
and justice thru out the world; yet, UDHRI has contradicted it and wanted to
revise on UDHR 1948 somehow. As has already stated by the president of
United States Mr. Roossevelt" freedom of want, freedom of hunger, freedom
from fear and war"
Since the 2 declaration had not been agreed each somehow because of
different cultures, tradition and religion, so Muslim countries appose to alter
some laws; yet, it was lead no result at the end in order to revise the UDHR.
The UDHRI establishes the hari’a law as "the only source of reference" for the
protection.

II. Overall Controversial and debate over UDHR and UDHRI
The UDHR is a Western secular concept of Judeco - Christian origin, in
compatible with the Sacred Islamic Shari’a.
For the past decades the United Nations have promote Human Rights and
prevention of discrimination and protect of Minorities.
Organization of Islamic Conference has spent a haft of million dollars to
conduct a seminar to talk about the REVISION of the 1948 UDHR, but it has
achieved no result since this law has already put into forced as well as
recognition by internationally.
The UDHR is among the best known and most widely cited, both by
government and civil society.

In this context, one should not forget the clear provisions contained in Article
29 of the UDHR:
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of security due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the justice requirement of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The corpus of international instruments of human rights adopted since 1948
constitutes a sufficiently flexible framework for their full implementation in all
religions and countries in the world, provided the political will exists.
The preamble of the UDHR begins with the words: "Whereas recognition of
the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the
world."
This idea is reiterated in Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal
indignity and rights."
Therefore, any future "compromises" on the UDHR – based upon the
proclaimed differences in culture, traditions, religion or socio-economic
customs – rather that leading to peaceful recognition could, however worthy
the intentions, insert uneven cobblestones, this paving new paths of
uncertainty in the coming century of the international community and all
peoples of the world.

III. UDHR and UDHRI in common perspectives
As long as I have read thru I have found a lot of articles have stated the same
words and somewhat different meaning. Since I am the student, I have no
obligation to define laws but interpret, so I just to decide to take words to
compare the 2 laws – UDHR and UDHRI hereafter.
In article 1 UDHR has stated the word equal and dignity, whereas in UDHRI
the same article 1 has also mention the same 2 words "All human beings are
born equal in dignity" and "All men are equal in term of basic human dignity".
To me, I have considered it is the same in meaning.
Article 1 under UDHRI has mention "All men are equal in term of basic human
dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination
on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religions belief, political
affiliation, social status, or other consideration. It is pretty much the same
meaning in Article 2 under UDHR "Every one is entitled to all the rights and
freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, social
origin".
All in all, I just would like to declare that even if UDHR and UDHRI were
established cultures, traditions and religions but somehow they do have
something in common. I do believe that both laws have been long wanted to
promote peace and justice in the same principles.

IV. UDHR and UDHRI differences perspectives
We have clearly seen that the UDHR and UDHRI are different words already
by adding letter I is meant ISLAM. UDHR has created and adopted in
Western countries; however, UDHRI had established and adopted in Muslim
countries. UDRH is Christian concepts and ideologies, but UDHRI is Islam
concepts and ideologies within Sharia Islamic law.
UDHR was created since 1948; yet, UDHRI was just established 1990.

Most of the countries around the world had adopted and rectified United
Nations Charter, Covenant, and International Bill of Human Rights and
UDHR.
However, UDHRI were applied and practiced only a few Islamic countries for
the sack of their own Islam countries interests only. The UDHRI was not as
broaden and meaningful as UDHR as I can tell.
As the matter of fact, there were 30 articles in UDHR whereas UDHRI had
consisted only 25 articles totally. This is the majority differences.
The huge different are article 24 and 25 in UDHRI. As you well know, UDHR
is English but HDHRI is Arabic versions so it is difference both meaning
concepts. Each conveying a somewhat different message; nonetheless,
Article 24 and 25 in the English version of the UDHRI are very precisely and
leave no doubt as to the overall meaning:
Article 24: All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are
subject to the Islamic Shari’a.
Article 25: The Islamic Shara is the only source of reference for the
explanation or clarification of any the article of this Declaration.
For these 2 articles, as I have already and clearly mention above that the
UDHRI has used only Muslim religion and/or Islamic countries, and we have
never seen in HDHRI because of the fact that they only stated Sharia which
are Islamic law.
Article 6: UDHRI
a. Woman is equal to man in human dignity, and has right to enjoy as well as duties to perform; she has her own civil entity and financial independence, and the right to retain her name and lineage.
b. The husband is responsible for the support and welfare of the family.
If we look at article 6 closely, we are able to see article 6 under UDHRI man and
woman are not finitely equal. As stated that the husband is responsible for he
support and welfare of the family, it is meant that husband has more burden and
responsibilities by responsible and support the family. What if the husband has
no or less education and for real the job market is really tight for man. Do they
still handle this obligation? .For example, there are a lot job for women and those
job make a lot of money – do they have no obligation to feed the family. This
concepts principle is totally different from UDHR. The UDHR don’t really care
who will responsible or support the family as long as married, they share thing
together regardless easy or hard job. For this article they put heavily
responsibility to the husband but not the wife.

Article 19: UDHRI
There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for the Shari’ah.
Look at this article 19 under UDHRI. It is ridiculer, if human commit crime and
this crime will be punished by criminal law, if GOD said no crime by Sharia, they
will not punish even if it was really crime act.

Article 5: UDHRI
The family is the foundation of society, and marriage is the basis of its formation. Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, color or nationality shall prevent them from enjoying this right.
For article 5 under UDHRI has prohibited to impose any restriction on marriage
stemming from "race, colour or nationality" it is meant that men and women may
be prevented from marrying on the basis of their religion.
In spite of the self-evident contradiction with the UDHR, the UDHRI was
published in December 1997 by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights in Volume II of International Instruments, which would seem to give it a
certain authority, even if the sub-title refers to Regional Instruments, whereas the
sub-title of Volume I (in two parts) is Universal Instruments.

V. Case Study – Lina Joy’s case
Lina Joy was born in Muslim family and her original name was Azalina Binti
Jailani. She applied to change her name at NRD on February 21, 1997 from
Islam name to Christian name in order to marry her boy friend was Christianity.
She was rejected by NRD without ground on August 11, 1997. She applied again
on March 15, 1999. She received no replied and she went to follow her
application on July, 1999. She was told that because her ID did not state religion.
They also confirmed that she should avoid problem. She should not be changed
her name and Muslim religion. They added that Muslim religion mush be stated in ID.
They advised her to submit further statutory declaration. She submitted another
application on March 15, 1999 with refer to a new statutory declaration shown on
February 8, 1999.
She finally approved to change her name to Lina Joy but not her religion on ID.
Her new ID with new name but Muslim religion remained the same. With her new
ID, it made her worse and worse than the original one which was hated by her
country, government and community.
The Malaysian government has established a legitimate interest to deny her by
not changing her ID. On article 18, UDHR has stated "Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and RELIGON; this right included freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance.
Based on Article 18, the Malaysian government has completely violated UDHR.
The Malaysian should amend or adopt any UN Charters, Covenant, ICCPR or
UDHR since those laws wanted to promoted peace and respect human rights
thru the globe.

VI. Student Recommendation
I personally think that traditions, cultures, and religions may not be the same, but
human being is definitely the same. Therefore, we should not discriminate each
other since UDHR in the aim of promoting peace and respect human right. The
reason we have war terror now because we misunderstand what GOD want in
this planate. I do think that we have only one GOD for us either you are Christian,
Muslim or Buddish, but we, each and every one of nation have considered your
GOD is superior and other inferior.

VII.Conclusion
There were some the same and some are different between the law of UDHR
and UDHRI as far as I confirmed thru out my study. However, UDHR has
broadened concepts than UDHRI as can be seen. I do know that we have the
same GOD but people just think differently so it is their choices anyway. All
religions regarding Jusus, Buddish, Christian, Muslim and so on, they have
taught us to be good person, to be love, to be peace in the world. The reason we
have the sophisticate conflict up to this day because of the fact that they do
misunderstanding of each other so the war on terror keep going. I firmly believe
and I have a dream that one day we will be in ONE as UDHR have tried very
hard nowadays to promote peace thru out the world.

Final Paper for Human Right and World Politics

Pannasastra University of Cambodia



Topic: Religious Freedom in Cambodia in Current Time



Submitted to: Prof. Stan Starygin
Course: Human Right and World Politic
Prepared by: Korm Sovannarith
ID: 03830

Dear Prof. Stan
Dear all classmates

How are you? I hope you all fine.
This below is my final paper on Religious Freedom in Cambodia in Current Time.
Take this opportunity I would like to thank you all for the best contribution in this term through Gmail system.


Abstract:

Cambodia, one particle of the world play as democratic state, is currently practicing constitutional monarchy, which has the King as the Head of State and Buddhism treat as the religion of the state.
So far, Cambodia country, yet, did not accept the Universal Declaration of the Human Right as the UN Charter stated all over the world. However, in 1992, Cambodia recognized the covenants and later on Cambodia’s Constitution made the Universal Declaration and the covenants as part of the Cambodian law and accept internationally on the human right such the right of freedom to religion as written in the constitutional law in article 43.
Freedom to religion is the part of human right; which is concerned seriously about the right to choose their own believe in religion to practice in their lives. This right is created and declared universally in the UDHR and ICCPR and other international convention. Accordingly to UDHR and ICCPR human right was produced to protect the right of people from being violated by the government institution or other. And these declaration on human right is to ensure that everyone will live peacefully, dignity, and without discrimination on religion but they will access their right to discuss their believe in public or private because of they have right of freedom to religion. However, in real situation do we believe that right of freedom to religion will practice without interfered or disturbed by the other or all those who believe in different religion will respect other?


CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. UN Declaration On Human Right
1. UDHR Declaration

III. Cambodia Constitution
1. Right & Obligation of Khmer Citizens
1.1 Function of religious right

IV. Case Study (Religious Conflict, Cambodia)
1. Observation
1.1 Analyzing

V. Conclusion

IV. References



I. Introduction

Undeniably, the human right in the idea of the UN who proposed to create, is the great component which established to seek for equality, peace, justice, social welfare, and dignity and equity, and morality throughout globalization which is declared by the United Nation that all right intent to universal in each state freely. And we can say that the United Nation is the founder of human right. The United Nation plays a very important role in response to horrors of the Second World War by emerging human rights in the Organizations Charter[1]. Indeed, at the San Francisco Conference, in which the Charter was adopted and there are 40 non-governmental organizations successfully lobbied delegates for relatively strong language on human rights. In this case, the United Nation does not play on human right alone to secure this but the UN interlinked and cooperates with other institutions and countries to spread and broadcast the declaration and mainstreaming human right all over the world.

II. UN Declaration On Human Rights

Foundationally, the idea of human rights was created after the end of World War II that proposed and sent to the United Nation by Eleanor Roosevelt (USA)[2] Than the UN try to decorate this human right for internationally to maintain everyone would not be interfere by the war and other situation anymore.. And there are four principles that Roosevelt established after the World War II ended and those four principles are:
1. Freedom from Want
2. Freedom from Hunger
3. Freedom from War
4. Freedom from Fear
Accordingly to these four principles the UN had decorated the UDHR to reply to the human right as the result.

1. UDHR Declaration

Internationally, UDHR was drawn in binding as the international instrument created by the UN in order to proclaims for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all people and all nations. No one will violate or infringe about human right, stated by UDHR article 18, but everyone has the right to freedom to religion, and expression, and right of thought. Back to the Freedom to religion UDHR clarify in the article 18 is that “Everyone has the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change this religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and public or private...” In this article, it states very obvious about human rights by using the wording such “Has and Change”[3] these two words intent to assert that everyone, generally, have the rights to have and to change one to another and they can quit the original religion that they see this religion is impossible to believe or this religion act very bad and could not encourage people to do thing right way so they have the legitimate right to change to another. And in this case, human rights in the UDHR prove and assert very exclusive on those rights without limitation of assuming rights. UDHR declared right of everyone to change their religion to another freely as stated in the second paragraph, Article 18, so the way to change their religion or belief without interfered or violated by the government institution or other institution. In additionally, the UN declare human right in the UDHR in purpose to protect the people from being violate from the government institution.

III. Cambodian Constitution

Fundamentally. Cambodian Constitution in the idea of the Khmer citizens consider as the supreme law of the state, which created to the serve the national society interest and to seek for peace, justice, social welfare, and respect human right, and to maintain social order in the country. As we already know Cambodian Constitution is binding by law so all Khmer citizens have the right and duties to respect and obey in order to make the country best.

1.Right and Obligation of Khmer Citizens

As this right and duties are very important to everyone and they conform as the basic rights and duties had written in Cambodian Constitution to guarantee Khmer citizens and legally protected from being violate and discrimination on right and duties the citizens are free and equal before law to use their right and have duty to respect other. So right and duties must be practicing together in order to ensure these two not overuse and feedback danger to society. In more detail about the right and duties please go through the Cambodian Constitution that right and duties of Khmer citizens are legally protected equally by the provision: Article 43 of the constitution: “Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the right to freedom of belief, freedom of religious belief and worship shall be guaranteed by the state on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious belief or violate public order and security. Buddhism shall be the State religion.”[4] And additionally, in more clarification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights presents the rights of everyone with no limitation of right. Moreover, on the article 18 of UDHR say that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right include freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Refer to this universal declaration on human right we that there is no limitation and there is no condition to violate the right of everyone around the world. Basically, Cambodia treat Buddhism as the State religion, of course, this religion seem more powerful than the other but what is the Cambodian Constitution say about the right and duties in article 43. Specifically, even if Cambodia practice Buddhism but Cambodia cannot use its own power to violate or discriminate other religion but Cambodia must respect and provide equal right of freedom to religion. However, a little bit discuss about the situation in reality what is it apply to Cambodian society. As I can say it is not apply for all condition.


1.1 Function of Religious Belief

Khmer citizens are freely to have their own belief to choose their religious belief and worship without violate or interfered by the other or government institution. For more evident according to this right of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right clarify very clear on human right about the right of freedom to religion in case the people wanted to adopt other religion or other belief of his choice. Much more than this, on the article 18 of the ICCPR provision say ”1. Everyone shall have the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall have included freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others…”[5] To this meaningful statement it asserts the condition that “Have or Adopt” It wanted to interpret if everyone who already have a religion, for example, and this man practiced or worship every his daily life but in case this man figure out that this religion made his life become worse and worse and develop nothing so he/she have the right to adopt other religion of his/her choice of religious belief by not infringe by other. In accordance to this, nowadays, there is usually happen in Cambodia on the adaptation of other religion to worship such Jesus Christ to instead Buddhism something like that. To this because this man, he/she, realize that Jesus Christ Religion will survive or seek right way for him/her to the heaven when this man pass away. Basically, this freedom to religion also includes the freedom of publishing which mean free to broadcast to publish religious belief through community, public, and private. However, back to the Cambodian Constitution article 43 written that, “… religious belief worship shall be guaranteed by the state on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious belief or violate public order and security…” Actually, everyone can access their freedom to publishing or printing their religious belief in the public, community, and private but they have to respect the other religious belief it means that everyone can not share their own belief to violate or discriminate the other religious belief. For example, in order to advertise the Buddhism doctrine to other people to believe in Buddhism the Buddha’s disciple cannot detail to that people to judge other religion is not good it is wrong because Cambodian Constitution write to deny this activities seriously. So may some questions rise that what is the real function of religious right? Surely, I can proclaim based on Cambodian Constitution, that the real function of religious right is that everyone are freely to have right of freedom of belief, religious belief and worship and these shall be protected by the State on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security so if they can avoid these condition under the rule of law that’s it.



IV. Case Study (Religious Conflict, Cambodia)

Cambodian people are about 90% believes in Buddhism and this religion adopt as the State religion. On the article 43 in Cambodian Constitution display that “Khmer citizen of either sex shall have the right to freedom of belief. Freedom of religious belief…freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security. Buddhism shall be the State religions.” And article 18 of the ICCPR describes that, ”1.Everyone shall the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice… 2.No one shall be subject to coercive would impair to freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public, order, health or morals or… 4. The State Parties to the parents Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal, guardians to ensure the religions and moral…” Based upon the Cambodian Constitution (Art 43) and ICCPR (Art18 (1, 2, 3, 4) I found that even though everyone have right and freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief there must be limited and they have to do thing under the rule of law. And the right of freedom to religion must be practiced by not affect or interfere the other religion. Anyway, one case happened between the conflict of religion, between Buddhism and Christian believer. One of my friend of mind, called Mr. Rethiya, reported me in the interview about the conflict with his uncle on religion case. Rethiya was borne in Kampong Chhnang Province and he and his parents believe in Jesus Christ. About year 2004, he decided to resident, in Phnom Penh, with his uncle in order to pursue his bachelor degree at RUPP University. When he lives with his uncle about 2 years he has never had the religious conflict with his uncle. Unfortunately, by the late 2007, the conflict was exploded this case happened while his uncle had a very bad dream on Mr. Rethiya that he will be in danger and cannot escape. This is what his uncle had a dream. In the early morning, his uncle had very worried about him so his uncle decided to call and ask him to blessing water at the pagoda. Please have a consideration as we know all Christian believers don not allow to blessing water as Buddhism practice. Rethiya aware about this obligation so he decided to reject and ask his uncle not blessing water but his uncle do not agree. Rethiya still stay in his position as Christian believer. Then his uncle get very angry until created this conflict become big issue. This argument pushed Rethiya’s uncle decided to disown him not to live him anymore because he thought that his nephew is very stubborn and did not respect or obey his speech. In this case I finalize that Rethiya’s uncle he may not know the right of freedom to religious belief and did not respect other belief as stated in the Cambodian Constitution (Art 43) [Reported by Mr. Rethiya on Monday 24 August, 2007][6]. Accordingly to this case I can say Cambodian citizens lack of constitutional law awareness that’s why the religious conflict happened.

1. Observation

As we know Cambodian State had signed on many treaties of convention and international human rights accordingly to the UN Charter. To this I would say Cambodian is the country in which strong development of human rights. However, after the end of my interview with my friend of mind it offered me negatively on human right of freedom to religion. Cambodian Constitution say clear in article 43 as well as the UDHR (Art.18) and ICCPR (Art. 18(1, 2, 3, 4) about the right of freedom to religion. Negatively, the result of my interview was shown me the religious belief in Cambodia practiced with discriminating from one to another. And may question will ask why Cambodian people still have the act of discrimination of religion belief either Cambodian Constitution say clearly about this right. And I finalize that Khmer citizens do not have mainstreamed the international human rights or the declaration of UDHR and ICCPR as well as Cambodian Constitution to their community so in the idea of Khmer citizens they are hard to recognize other religion as the story of Rethiya conflict between his uncle. Much more than this, Khmer citizens do not consider to the Cambodian Constitution on the article 43 and I personally think that he did not actually know or clear understanding about the Cambodian Constitution. Today, Cambodian society seem to very downward on practicing on the Constitution because Cambodian people are mostly do not mainly concern on the supreme law of the state, constitution, but they practice negatively. In short, as I can say Cambodian people are mostly not clear understandings about the Cambodian Constitution on the right of freedom to religion as stated in the stated in article 43.

1.1 Analyzing

Freedom to religion in Cambodia if we only have a short looking we may say there is full of right to practice the belief and religious belief without discrimination or violate. In fact, I analyze that even Cambodia have supreme law of the state and have signed many international law of human right and treaties convention Cambodia still carry out these adaptation very limited due to Khmer citizens are mostly do not familiar with that. Specifically, in the case of my friend of mind, Rethiya, he has his own belief and religious belief and I think in accordance to Jesus Christ when any disciple get in danger they will pray to their God to ask blessing so that they can escape this incident.
Moreover, I think Cambodian Constitution in practicing is still weak because the majority of the Khmer citizens do not have deep knowledge about the constitution or other international declaration on human right or other treaties as the Royal Government of Cambodia have signed. And the government itself does not respect his duty to mainstream the people to acknowledgement what the government have done with the UN Charter. On the other hand, Khmer citizens do not take responsibility on the rights and obligation of citizen as stated in Article 43. In short, I think Cambodian today is practicing constitution is still weak such freedom to religion people do not acknowledge but the feedback shown very limited after I did interview with Rethiya who had religious conflict with his uncle.

V. Conclusion

Freedom to religion is the part of human right; which is concerned seriously about to choose religious belief and belief. And Cambodia, in 1992, recognized the covenants and later on the Cambodian Constitution made the universal declaration and covenant as part of Cambodian law and accepts internationally on human right. Basically, Cambodian Constitution in the idea of Khmer citizens recognize as the supreme law of the state. Furthermore, Khmer citizens, refer to this supreme law, Khmer citizens are equal right of freedom to religion even have the duty to respect and ensure not to affect other religion and belief. Unfortunately, the Cambodian Constitution and other International Law of Human Right and other treaties convention did apply broader to the Khmer citizens. That’s why the religious conflict happened as a result. Hence, I assume that Cambodia practice the right of freedom to religion is not broader due to Cambodian Constitution, article 43, does not mainstream deeply to Khmer citizens sense even the UDHR and ICCPR and other international treaties convention.


VI. Reference:

3. Stan Starygin, Human Rights and World Politics, 2007
5. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia, 1993 and 2004
6. Interview Report, Mr. Rethiya, held on 24 August 2007, religious conflict

Footnote
[1] Human Rights and United Nation, 1945 Human rights For All
[2] Human Rights and United Nation, 1946 UN Commission on Human rights
[3] Stan Starygin , Human Rights and World Politics, UDHR, Article 18, p 160
[4] The Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia: Article 43 “Right and Obligations of Khmer Citizens, 1993 and 2004
[5] Stan Starygin , Human Rights and World Politics, ICCPR, Article 18, p 166
[6] Interview Report, Mr. Rethiya, held on 24 August, 2007, religious conflict, Phone # 016 800 483


Thank you very much

Korm Sovannarith

Getting a Head-Start on the Final Assignment

Hi All,

As term papers start trickling in, I suggest that those of you who want to alleviate the craziness of this term's last week get a head-start on this assignment and turn in their comments on the paper of choice written by another student. Please, bear in mind that comments can be anonymous (in which case you can email me privately and let me know which of the papers on the blog you chose to comment on and I will keep this information confidential), although there is no such requirement.

Will be looking forward to reading all your comments.

Have a good rest of the weekend,

Stan

Final paper for Human Rights and World Politics

Dear teacher and all!

This is my final paper for Human Rights and World Politics.

Topic: Freedom of Expression in Cambodia

Outline:

I. Introduction:

1. Basic needs of human rights
2. What is freedom of expression?
3. Function of freedom of expression
4. Objective: the study of the topic
5. Literature Review: Statement of Mr. Mark C. Storella US Charge d’Affairs on Freedom of Expression in Cambodia. Why Cambodia needs to strengthen freedom of expression?

II. Body:

1. Cambodia and Freedom of Expression
2. Cambodian Constitution, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression.
3. Cambodian Government’s Restriction on freedom of expression.
4. The arrests of Journalist, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists
5. Local and International Reaction of the arrests of Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists
6. The effect of the arrests of Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists.
7. Sum up each point.

III. Conclusion:
1. State the conclusion once again.
2. Give an own opinion on freedom of expression and make some suggestions to the royal government of Cambodia.

Freedom of Expression in Cambodia

I. Introduction

I. Basic needs of human beings.
Every nationality not only Cambodian people but also the other nationalities in the world are born free and every human being have body, soul or spirit and lives in a group. All human beings have the same basic needs such as physical life means body, spiritual life include political and religious believe, human relations, education, and living in a group of human beings include communication, association, and participation.[1]

2. What is Freedom of Expression?
Freedom of expression is a concept of being able to speak freely without fear of censorship. Freedom of expression is very important for democracy that is based upon public debate, open decision making and free exchange of ideas, free access to information[2].

3. Function of Freedom of Expression
Cambodia is a plural democratic country with 14 million people. The concept of pluralist society is based on the ideas in order to make society livelier and stronger when all people can distribute their ideas and points of problems of society like one proverb said: “Four eyes see more than just two eyes”. Function of freedom of expression divided into two: one is to get free information about their society and relevant problems for example: party program and government policy. The other problem is to express their opinion to the state, and contribute their opinions about the solution of the problems to the society.

4. The objective of the topic ( the study of the topic)
I decided to choose this topic because I saw that freedom of expression in Cambodia is still a hot issue in Cambodia, and freedom of expression is a fundamental factor to promote democracy and it is still a concern for civil society to state their political opinion, and the young democratic state like Cambodia needs freedom of expression to express their opinion in order to develop the country as soon as possible by promoting freedom of expression.

5. Literature Review
U.S. Charge d'Affairs in Phnom Penh, Mark C. Storella, said that the civil societies' work is very important in strengthening human rights in Cambodia, and that freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy in Cambodia[3]. Why Cambodian society needs to promote freedom of expression?

II. Body

1. Cambodia and Freedom of Expression
After election in 1993, Cambodia became the democratic country, based on the Cambodian Constitution Cambodia is a place where people can talk, access to the information, exchange ideas without fear in the public, school, café, internet café. Especially, people can talk about the politics everywhere with no concerns.
Freedom of Expression in Cambodia is quite low when we compare to other democratic states like in Europe or in the United Sates. Related to the education background of the Cambodian citizens, a lot of people still cannot read and write; especially, people in the rural areas, and there is no information about the state activities, and it is too hard to get the information about the government because of public medias such as radio station, TV station, press and any news in Cambodia is still limited and controlled by the government.

2. Cambodia Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on Freedom of expression
Cambodian people have the right to express their opinions, exchange ideas, access to information, and talk in the public without punishment. All of these rights guarantee by the Cambodian Constitution, the Universal Declaration and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In Cambodian Constitution article 41 said: “Khmer citizens shall have freedom of expression, press, publication and assembly. No one shall exercise this right to infringe upon the rights of others, to affect the good traditions of the society, to violate public law and other and national security.” [4]
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 19 said: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
And in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedom of others, and are consistent with the other right recognized in the present Covenant.”[5]

3. Cambodian Government’s Restriction on Freedom of Expression
The right to freedom of expression has been rejected by the Cambodian authorities since 2003, when a mob attacked the Royal Thai embassy and Thai businesses in the Phnom Penh city. The attack was sparked by reports of mocking remarks made by a Thai actress about Cambodia’s ancient temple of Angk Wat. In this incident, most public demonstrations in Phnom Penh have been prohibited. In 2005, un-authorized demonstrations against high petrol prices, the participants were beat with the electric batons. And then they were arrested and forced to sign a promise not to demonstrate again before being released.
The Cambodian government also started to restrict public forums in 2005 by instructing the Buddhist clergy to bar the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) from holding such forums within their premises. At the same time, the government has allowed for public demonstrations on corruption or to celebrate international women's day or international human rights day. On the other hand, during these demonstrations the Cambodian police have suppressed the slogans on banners and have dictated the way of the demonstration.[6]

4. The arrest of Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists
Mr. Mam Sonando, who is the owner and the director of Beehive Radio FM 105, was arrested without a court warrant at his house in the Kandal province on October 11, 2005. He was charged with defamation under article 63 of UNTAC criminal law which is punishable up to one year in prison. Other charges of disinformation and incitement of others were filled against Mr. Mam Sonando.
The charges relate to the broadcasting on September 20, 2005 of a radio interview between Mr Mam Sonando and Cambodian activist in France Mr Sean Pengse, president of the Paris-based Cambodia's Border Committee, criticizing a Cambodia-Vietnam border treaty that was signed by Prime Minister Hun Sen. The interview was broadcast before the Prime Minister was due to sign the controversial Supplemental Agreement to the 1985 Cambodia-Vietnam Border Treaty.
Mr. Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Independent Teachers, was arrested on October 15, 2005 in the charge of defamation and incitement of others. He was arrested in Bean Teay Meanchey province while he was trying to cross Thai border to seek the political asylum.
On December 31, 2005, Mr. Kem Sokha, president of Cambodian Center for Human Rights, on charges of defamation over a banner which display on the celebration of the International Human Rights Day on December 10, 2005.
At the same day, Mr. Yeng Virak, director of Community Legal Education Center and the chairman of the committee on December 10, 2005 arrested on charges of defamation as well.
Mr. Pa Ngoun Teang, the acting director of Cambodian Center for Human Rights, was arrested on January 04, 2006. He was charged by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court with defamation.[7]

5. Local and International Reaction of the arrest of Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists
After the arrests of Journalists Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists, there are a lot of local non-governmental organizations, and International non-governmental organization put pressure and condemn the royal government of Cambodia for example: the Cambodian Human Rights Action Committee (CHRAC), the Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (COMFREL), the Cambodian Committee of Women (CAMBOW), the Alliance for Freedom of Expression in Cambodia (AFEC) and the Neutral and Impartial Committee for Free and Fair Elections in Cambodia (NICFEC) are extremely concerned about the threat that made by the royal government of Cambodia (RGC) to force out the open society justice initiative. They criticize any decisions and actions made by the royal government of Cambodia to limit freedom of expression in Cambodia that is guaranteed by article 41 in the Cambodian Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Cambodia signed in May 1992. They also urge the royal government of Cambodia to promote and ensure freedom of expression in Cambodia.[8]
On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, the Cambodian Human Rights groups made a national wide campaign demand the royal government of Cambodia ends the restriction on freedom of expression. The groups also calls for the Cambodian Courts stop using criminal law to arrest, charge, convict people who criticize the government policy.[9]
On Monday, October 24, 2005, the Cambodian Center for Human Rights organized a conference at the Phnom Penh Hotel. This conference took place after arrest Mr. Mam Sonando, director of Beehive Radio FM 105 station and Mr. Rong Chhun, director of Cambodian Independent Teachers Association, the purposes of the conference are: needs the royal government of Cambodia withdraw the lawsuit and charges against its critics and needs the government to release Mr. Mam Sonando and Mr. Rong Chhun without any conditions. On that day, Mr. Mark C. Storella, US Charge d’ Affairs in Phnom Penh condemns the arrest and detention Mr. Mam Sonando and Mr. Rong Chhun and he also calls for the Cambodian people to stand up and express their opinion peacefully.
On December 10, 2005, the International Human Rights day, Mr. Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, said the freedom of expression is provided by the Cambodian Constitution and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so when people expression their opinion about the state policy there is no lawsuit against them or put them into the prison at all. The Amnesty International urges the Cambodian government to release Mr. Mam Sonando and Mr. Rong Chhun without delay and conditions and calls for the royal government of Cambodia to withdraw the criminal complaints against Mr. Mam Sonando, Mr. Rong Chhun, Mr. Ea Channa, Mr. Men Nath, Mr. Chea Mony and Prince Sisowath Thomico. The Amnesty International also appeals to the government of Cambodia to ensure all the practice of freedom of expression by the Cambodian people.
US Department of State Spokesman, Mr. Sean McComack that release on January 06, 2006, he urges the royal government of Cambodia to stop the arrest and prosecution of those who want to expression their opinion that recognized internationally and drop the charges against the Journalists, leaders of civil society, and human rights activists.
On January 18, 2006, the Committee to Protect Journalists, main office in New York condemns the royal of government of Cambodia used the criticism as the criminal defamation and calls on Prime Minister Hun Sen to drop all criminal defamation charges against Mom Sonando, Kem Sokha, and Pa Guon Tieng, Rong Chhun, and Yeng Virak.
On January 04, 2006, the Human Rights Watch calls for the royal government of Cambodia to drop the charges of criminal defamation and release the leading human activists and the Human Rights Watch also stated that the arrests of human rights activists violate the freedom of expression and contrary to right by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1998 and International Donors should warn the government to end the case of criticism is criminal defamation.[10]

6. The effect of the arrests of Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists
The Cambodian government has the right to act to ensure the security of their citizens, but in the case of freedom of expression, the Cambodian government not only ensures their security, but also charges them as criminal defamation and sent them to prison. These activities cause a lot of problems to the Cambodian society; for instance, the Cambodian government make the whole society move backward from the democratic country to the dictatorship, the Cambodian government violates the Cambodian Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Cambodian government weakens the civil society to exercise their rights of freedom of expression, and the Cambodian government also threatens the public opinion to be afraid to express their ideas that related to the state issues; especially, the public actors.

7. Sum up each point
Related to the Cambodian Constitution, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to freedom of expression and a lot of people; for example, Journalists, Trade Unions, Human Rights Activists were charged with criminal defamation and they were in jail because of claiming the freedom of expression and a lot of local and international civil society they tried to put pressure on the Cambodian government in order to urge the government to respect the right to freedom of expression and release the Journalists, Trade Unions, and Human Rights Activists. So freedom of expression is very essential for Cambodia to rehearse the democracy system throughout promoting freedom of expression.

II. Conclusion
1. State the conclusion once again
Freedom of Expression is one of the key to democracy. In order to become the democratic state, Cambodia requires freedom of expression which contains the free speech, free access to the information, and criticizes the public actors without punishment or censorship. The public opinion is fundamental for the society to share and give their opinion to the state policy. Furthermore when people can criticize any state policies, this civil society can move forward very quickly. For example, in modern society like the United States, almost all of American peoples, they can share ideas, get the information from the state and they also can criticize the state without fear ness.

2. Give an own idea on freedom of expression and make some suggestions to royal government of Cambodia
From my view point, Cambodia society absolutely desires freedom of express to promote democracy. The royal Cambodia shall make the law of freedom of expression clearly and doe not use UNTAC law to against the democracy activists. I also have some suggestions to the government. The Cambodia government shall encourage people to express their ideas, criticize to the state instead of threaten them from practicing their rights of freedom of express. In addition, the royal government of Cambodia shall encourage the civil society keep giving much more information from the local areas where they worked with because the local NGOs stay closer to people who live in that areas. We cannot rely only on the state agencies to promote freedom of expression, we also want the NGOs to work directly to people or educate them about the freedom of expression. Finally, when we become the democratic society, our people can have a better standard living includes housing, health care, education system, better infrastructures, food security, hygiene water, and better income of the people. As a result, freedom of expression is a solution to democracy and is only way we can get the new society with good governance, transparency, accountability, and separation of power is very independent between the government, the legislative, and the judiciary branch.


References:
1. Starygin Stan. (2007). Human Rights and World Politics. Pannasastra Universtiy. Phnom Penh, pp. 160-166.
2. Rendall Matthew. (1999). The Constitution and the government of Cambodia. Community Legal Education Center. Phnom Penh. p.221
3. Treiber, Wilhelm., & Belm, Andrea. (2004). Human Rights. Khmer Institution of Democracy. Phnom Penh. p. 12
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (2006, November). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, p. 12.
5. Khan, Irene. (2005, December 10). “Open Letter on the occasion of Human Rights Day 2005 raising concern about the state of Freedom of Expression in Kingdom of Cambodia.” Retrieved December 10, 2005 from http: // www. amnesty international.com
6. The Committer to Protect Journalists. (2006, January 18). “CPJ seeks halt to Cambodia’s media crackdown.” Retrieved January 18, 2006 from http: // www. cpj.org
7. McCormack, Sean. (2006. Jan 6). Cambodia: “Arrests of Activists and Opposition Leaders.” Retrieved January 18, 2006 from http: // www.usa.gov
8. The Human Rights Watch. (2006, Jan 17). “Cambodia: Hun Sen Systematically Silence Critics.” Retrieved January 17, 2006 from http: // www.hrw.org
9. Tith, Naranhkiri. (2005, July 22). “The International Federation of Journalists Protests crackdown on free speech in Cambodia.” Retrieved July 22, 2005 from http: // globalwitness.org/reports/show.php/en.0066.htm
10. Lee, Berthiaume., & Yun Samean. (2006, Jan 12). 4 men charged with defamation over Criticism of PM Hun Sen. the Cambodia Daily. pp. 1-2

Footnotes:

[1] Dr. Wilhelm Treiber, Belm Andrea, and Hout Sotheary. (2004). Human Righs. Phnom Penh. p12.
[2] WWW.freedom of expression in Cambodia.
[3] Tith Sothea. (2005, 24 Oct). CCHR’s Conference of Freedom of Expression. Phnom Penh.
[4] Matthew Rendall. (1999). The Constitution and Government of Cambodia. Community Legal Education Center.p221
[5] Stan Starygin. (Compiled by). (2007). Human Rights and World Politics. Phnom Penh. pp160-166
[6] WWW. freedom of expression in Cambodia, by the Asain Human Rights Commission. ( 2006, March 13)
[7] WWW. freedom of expression by LICADHO. Freedom of Expression Losing Ground. (2006)
[8]
[9] Russia Science and Health World Hot spots and Incidents Opinion.com>
[10] http: // www.hrw.org

Dear Professor

I have a question to ask, between the Malaysia constitution and the ICCPR. If the constitution of Malay does not give rights to people who intent to change their religion. And in the covention stated clearly that the people have rights to change the religion. As I earned from our class that after one country signed the convention (hard law), the govenment has to make it into domestic law. So I want to know why does the government still signed on the convention and not respect to that convention. Do the countries who adopted that law have authority to punish Malaysia. Thank for answering my Q.

MALASIA sifh on UDHR and Accept it

. Did Malaysia sign the UDHR and is it a state-party to the ICCPR?\
Yes Malaysia was sing the UDHR and it is a state-party fo teh ICCPR

Hi all,

Will we have class on Tuesday and Thursday next week?

Hi all,

Will we have class on Tuesday and Thursday next week?

Wrap-up Post

Dear All,

As time is going onto 8 PM, I would like to say thank-you for all your input. I hope this discussion helped you clear your thoughts about the Lina Joy case and possibilities of application of international law to its facts. Feel free to continue posting messages on this issue later tonight or tomorrow -- I will read all of them tomorrow night.

Have a good night,

Stan

Respond to Savoeun and Professor,

Evening Savoeun and Professor,

Sorry to post on a blog's screen because i can't reply withing underneath of comment sign:

Evening Savoeun and Professor,

Thanks for questions:

I’ll apply human rights to approach this Lyna’s case if the Malaysian state did not sign the ICCPR. Moreover, base on, Human Rights and Malaysian Constitution, point Human rights under the constitution, part 2 of the constitution part 2 of the constitution protected “fundamental liberties” including liberty of the person, equality before the law, freedom of movement and freedom of religion, therefore, above statement it’s likely help to this case.

1. A way the Malaysian’s Government protect Islam more than other religions is right it’s base on the Constitution – Islamic is state religion.
In generally, everyone have their own opinion, belief and violation to individual rights is protected and it’s consider again the fundamental rights. Instead, the Malaysian’s Governments have right to limit their belief.

2. I think:
- Right to “Have and Adopt” but not “Change” means government won’t allow people to give up with original religion. There is a stability in state, if APOSTASY is not happen.
To give up religion in Malaysia consider as a crime in Islamic.

3. I think, there’ll be a conflict between a state and citizens. People not trust with the government because they can’t exercise their right in freedom of belief. It’s also affect to International Law.

Please comments me more if it’s not answer to questions.

Thanks,
Da

The Issue of Ratification

I believe I have read all your posts by now. There seems to be a trend in answering Q1 -- and in some cases other questions in the same key -- by making references to the UDHR and the ICCPR and the ICCPR's derogation provisions in the Syracusa Principles. This normally would have been fine, except that Malaysia never signed the UDHR and never became a state-party to the ICCPR. For reference, please, take a look at the UNHCHR's ICCPR ratification web-page at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr-ratify.htm
Since Malaysia is clear not on the list of the states that ratified, acceeded or succeeded to the ICCPR, how would you argue whether the Malaysian government can establish a legitimate interest in Lina Joy's case?

Answer for stan's questions

Hi Stan

Thanks for your comments, that make me to find other concept to answer your questions:

1/ According to Lina Joy's case and International laws and you have mentioned in the class that Malaysian Govt never ratify with the international laws, this question I give example that, if the most countries follow and respect U.N laws, except Malaysian Govt, How can the countries respect the rights to relate with ?

2/- According to your mention "No".
-If not, Malaysia is not a State-party to which contain the right to freedom of religion. As we know that, over the half of people hold Muslim, some Buddhist, some Christian, especially the new generation are Christians. And the past people just follow each other.

3/ Yes, I think, if members of Human Rights often push Lina Joy's case to spread every where around the world, I'll hope that, it's really to affect to Malaysian Govt for taking into account.

Best Regard

Hello all where are you?

Today evening, Agu30, our discusion over Lina Joy case will be help, what happen?

Answer lina csee

hi all


Answer about Lina Joy case

1).Under international Law, as we know today, the Malaysia government can not establish a legitimate interest to deny Lina Joy a change of her identity.
International instruments are Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) and (ICCPA) in article 18 “Everyone has right to freedom, conscience, and religion, this right includes freedom to change his religion …..”But the government is not likely to invoke to justify this measure that send to Islamic Shariah courts.
2). Differently in Lina Joy’s position before filed first declaration I will decide to chose civil court because according to article 11 of the constitution “ Every person has right to profess and practice his religion” and article 8 “ all person are equal before law and prohibition discrimination on the ground of only religion, …….”
3). I believe the decision of the Federal Court in Lina Joy is likely to affect the future development of right in Malaysia by the Federal Court is reject Lina ‘s request to delete the word “Islam” from her IC that this action is violate the constitution of state.
The right that protect Lina Joy’s interest in this case are (UDHR) and International Convention of Civil and Political Right that according to article 18 “ Everyone shall have right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or believe of his choice, and freedom, either individual