NGOs Slam Cambodian Political Parties Over Workshop on Electoral Reform Draft Law

Chak Sopheap (2nd from L) and Koul Panh (2nd from R) speak to reporters at a press conference denouncing the new draft laws on electoral reform in Phnom Penh, March 9, 2015.

RFA

Representatives of more than 60 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and an electoral reform group on Monday boycotted a national workshop held Cambodia’s ruling and opposition parties on the electoral reform draft law, saying they did not have enough time to review the documents.

The NGOs and the Electoral Reform Alliance (ERA) held a press conference to denounce draft laws on the National Election Committee (NEC), the body that oversees the country’s polls, and the Law on the Election of Members of the National Assembly (LEMNA). The groups said the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) and the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) failed to give them adequate time to study the draft laws or even to see the workshop agenda in advance.

Speaking to RFA’s Khmer Service during a call-in show, Koul Panha, executive director of the civil society group Committee for Free and Fair Elections (Comfrel), called for a new national public consultation workshop where NGOs could express their views and recommendations.

He said that the two parties gave the NGOs the latest draft law on Saturday evening so they would not have time to review it.

“The two parties must schedule another workshop to discuss [the draft law] with NGOs,” he said “This morning’s workshop was a conference where the two parties displayed the law and only took questions and gave answers. It was not about a discussion.”

He said the next discussion should include other political parties, experts and NGOs.

About 500 lawmakers, government representatives, students and diplomats participated in the draft law workshop.

Chak Sopheap, executive director of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), also boycotted the meeting and echoed concerns that the political parties did not give NGOs enough time to study the draft law.

‘Awful in terms of freedom of expression’

Koul Panha called the draft law on elections “awful in terms of freedom of expression” and pointed out that article 84 violated the country’s constitution.

The article stipulates that local and international NGOs that operate in Cambodia must remain neutral in elections.

Furthermore, it forbids NGOs from directly or indirectly initiating or participating in political or private individual election campaigns. They also are forbidden to distribute election materials, issue statements supporting political parties, show a bias against any political party or candidate, and issue written statements or give media interviews to express support for political parties and candidates.

“This is an abuse of the constitution,” he said. “I don’t under why political parties’ leaders are drafting laws that abuse the constitution.”

The law also states that the NEC can fine NGOs 10-20 million riel (U.S. $2,436-$4,872) if they do not remain neutral during an election and lays out a penal punishment.

The NGOs requested that the two parties hold discussions with them before submitting the draft to parliament for approval and remove article 84 on draft law on elections, arguing that it affected their freedom.

Not all bad

Political representatives had different views of what the national consultation workshop accomplished.

Eng Chhay Eang, a CNRP representative who participated in the workshop, also said the two parties had spent a lot of time working on the complex draft laws.

“We didn’t spend only a few days to draft the two draft laws,” he said. “We have worked on the draft laws for four months.”

He dismissed the NGOs’ criticism of the draft laws.

“I have heard [from NGOs] that the new draft laws are worse than the current laws, but I think those who criticize us, they haven’t even read the current laws,” he said. “Those who didn’t spend time reading and yet criticized us, it shows they don’t care about our hard work.”

Koeut Rith, a CPP representative who participated in the workshop, also said the two teams worked hard to ensure the new draft law would make the NEC an independent body.

He said there were three principles in establishing a new NEC—ensuring the body was independent and transparent, proceeding according to democratic principles, and ensuring the body would not encounter any deadlocks.

“If we reach a deadlock in establishing an NEC, we can’t have elections, so there will be no democracy,” he said.

Bin Chhin, deputy prime minister who was a member of the CPP’s working team, said the two parties would collect questions and recommendations from participants and consider them before submitting the draft law to parliament.

‘Much-awaited’ but ‘regrettable’

The United Nation Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner issued a statement on Monday, praising the Cambodian parliament’s decision to hold a public consultation on the two draft laws, which it said were "much-awaited...critical steps for the future of Cambodian democracy."

But Surya P. Subedi, the U.N. special envoy on Cambodian human rights, said it was “regrettable” that the draft law was shared with civil society groups the night before the consultation, preventing them from studying it in depth and making a meaningful contribution to the workshop.

“The process of consultation must continue with sufficient time to enable all those with views to articulate them, so as to enable Parliament to embark on an informed debate prior to proceeding on the enactment of these important laws,” he said in the statement.

Electoral reforms were a key part of a July 22, 2014, deal that saw elected opposition lawmakers return to parliament following a 10-month boycott protesting the results of disputed national elections a year earlier in which the NEC declared the CPP victorious.

Under the deal, the new NEC was to consist of nine members—four from each party and one neutral member to serve as tiebreaker.

Last week, the CPP and CNRP finalized a draft national electoral reform law, prompting criticism from civil society groups and political commentators that the terms were nontransparent and served only the parties themselves.

Reported by RFA’s Khmer Service. Translated by Samean Yun. Written in English by Roseanne Gerin.