28 Apr, 2017 Ananth Baliga and Niem Chheng
P
The trouble for the “Adhoc 5” started after Khom Chandaraty walked into the human rights group’s office on the evening of March 9, 2016, where she informed staffers there that she had been falsely accused of being then-CNRP vice president Kem Sokha’s mistress.
A month later, Phnom Penh Municipal Court prosecutor Seang Sok questioned the hairdresser for around five hours, only to emerge from the courtroom to make a startling revelation.
“She answered in front of me and admitted that the voice in the conversation between her and Kem Sokha is really her voice,” he said, referring to purported audio recordings of Sokha and Chandaraty.
Little is known of what happened in the interim, but this single apparent reversal from Chandaraty unleashed a whirlwind of legal ramifications that not only saw the Adhoc 5 tossed in jail on what many consider trumped-up charges of bribery, but have also reverberated throughout the human rights community over the last year to chilling effect.
Yesterday, a Phnom Penh investigating judge ruled to extend the pre-trial detention of Adhoc staffers Lim Mony, Ny Sokha, Yi Soksan and Nay Vanda, and ex-staffer and National Election Committee deputy secretary-general Ny Charkya. As of today, the five have already been held without trial for a full year.
Explaining his decision to extend the group’s detention by up to six more months, investigating judge Theam Chanpiseth yesterday told the five and their lawyers that more time was needed to question witnesses and further investigate the case, despite the fact that only one witness has been interrogated by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court since last October.
Yesterday’s extension is the last one allowed under the law, and after the six months are up, the court must either take the case to trial or release the five.
But the case has grown beyond the five, exposing new risks for rights workers in the Kingdom, chief among them the apparent ubiquity of surveillance and even phone tapping that many rights workers believe played a part in the five’s arrest and prosecution. Dealing with increased surveillance and online hacking is now part and parcel of the daily functioning of the Kingdom’s NGOs.
For Adhoc, the four staffers in Prey Sar were senior members of the group’s human rights monitoring and investigative teams, and their continued detention has dealt a serious blow to the NGO’s functioning, said Adhoc president Thun Saray. “By removing these staffers from the organisation, unexpectedly and all at once, needless to say, had serious repercussions for ADHOC,” he said, via email.
Saray has been holed up in Canada ever since Anti-Corruption Unit head Om Yentieng, who spearheaded the investigation into the Adhoc 5 along with counter-terrorism police, threatened him with criminal proceedings if he attempted to “fight back”.
One of the oldest NGOs in Cambodia, Adhoc is known for its critical and poignant reports, statements and press briefings on illegal land grabs, human trafficking and natural resource exploitation.
But the arrests of their employees had collateral damage beyond the organisation.
But the arrests of their employees had collateral damage beyond the organisation.
NGO colleagues of the five – who have long worked closely with other human rights NGOs – have been softening their stances and muting their criticisms due to what Saray called a “chilling effect on civil society”.
“The consequence was an emergence of a culture of self-censorship, to which also ADHOC submitted,” he said. “ADHOC completely disappeared from the public eye, in hopes that this positively impacted the development of the case.”
While its provincial coordinators have continued their work unabated, the group has not released a major report in the last year and only recently started speaking to the media on the staffers’ legal struggle.
Saray’s concerns were shared by Wan Hea-Lee, representative of OHCHR in Cambodia, who said the arrests had created tension for civil society groups.
“NGOs are more cautious and very concerned, and those NGO leaders that have faced threats would be right to be fearful,” she said.
However, she pointed out that the wider Cambodian civil society was still strong and continued to engage citizens and ensure their human rights were upheld.
Before the Adhoc case, the Law on NGOs and Associations (LANGO), which passed in 2015, was viewed as the tool by which the government would most likely crack down on civil society.
But labour advocate Moeun Tola said the Adhoc case illustrated that a similar sense of anxiety can be created without even as much as a mention of LANGO.
The fear of imprisonment, Tola said, has forced NGOs to rely more on online awareness-raising campaigns rather than the on-the-ground demonstrations of the past.
“People know that there will be a violent crackdown on protests and they do not want to become victims,” he added.
Naly Pilorge, deputy director of advocacy at rights group Licadho, said the work of advocacy groups had never been easy in Cambodia, but the current situation represented something of a nadir for the community. However, she said she was hopeful that civil society is in a phase of evolution that will see them emerge just as resilient.
Pilorge said that fear of intrusive surveillance – be it digital or physical - was nothing new, but that the Adhoc case had necessitated a drastic change of course.
“The difference now, and last year, is the threats, accusations, the charges and arrests, the monitoring, the surveillance – it is on a daily basis,” she said in an interview. “You open the newspaper or hear the radio, it is happening every day.”
Pilorge said it was imperative that NGOs ensure that their employees understand the ramifications of increased surveillance and take pre-emptive measures to mitigate the situation – pointing out the trend was not unique to Cambodia, but a global trend.
She said Licadho had instructed senior employees to get malware detection software, use encrypted messaging and call applications, and set up a buddy system in which potentially vulnerable staffers are paired up, keeping each other informed of their whereabouts, movements and activities at all times. Other organisations, Pilorge said, would be smart to do the same.
“Our role as civil society organisations is to now keep up with this technology. And to normalise security, whether it is digital, physical or legal, and to integrate it in the normal operation of the NGO,” she said.
For the government’s part, the case was a straightforward implementation of – in the state’s well-worn phrasing – the “rule of law”. Government officials at all levels have consistently pushed back at any criticism relating to the case by insisting that the five had broken the law and the courts were only following their normal procedures.
Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan yesterday continued to hold that line, dismissing any claims that the case was political or that it had increased disquiet among NGOs. “Those who violate the law are afraid of the law. A normal individual who respects the law has nothing to be afraid of,” he said.
He reiterated that the government had no involvement in the criminal proceedings, instead blaming the detainees for playing politics to benefit themselves.
However, Human Rights Watch’s Phil Robertson said the Cambodian government had succeeded in getting NGOs to keep their “heads down and their mouths shut”, and were now fearful of being the next target of the administration’s ire.
“When an experienced, high profile organization like ADHOC, which has strong allies in Cambodia and overseas, is laid low by the government, the other groups all look around to see who might be next,” he said in an email.
“That has a particularly chilling effect on the willingness of groups to take risks, to investigate and expose wrong-doing by influential people, and to stand up for communities losing their rights.”
2 comments:
ក្រោយកើតរឿងករណីលោក ជុន ច័ន្ទបុត្រ បន្លំខ្លួនចូលពន្ធនាគារជាមួយគណបក្សសង្គ្រោះជាតិ មាន Facebook ជាបន្តបន្ទាប់របស់អតីតបុគ្គលិកវិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី (RFA) បានបង្ហោះសាច់រឿងផ្ទៃក្នុងវិទ្យុមួយនេះ ដែលយើងទាំងអស់គ្នានិងមនុស្សជាច្រើននាក់មិននឹកស្មានដល់។ ខ្លឹមសារហាក់បង្ហាញថា នៅទីនោះមានភាពអមនុស្សធម៌ ខ្លោចផ្សារយ៉ាងដំណំ និងមានសភាពដូចឋាននរកលោកីយ៍មួយ។ សូមបង្ហាញនូវសម្រង់សាច់រឿងខ្លះៗដែល អតីតបុគ្គលិកវិទ្យុនេះបានលាតត្រដាង ដើម្បីស្វែងយល់ទាំងអស់គ្នា៖
សាររបស់លោក ថៃ សុធា អតីតអ្នកគ្រប់គ្រងគេហទំព័រវិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី ហើយបច្ចុប្បន្នអ្នកបកប្រែភាសាអង់គ្លេស៖
សារទី១៖ «អាស៊ីសេរី អត់សមត្ថភាពស៊ើបអង្កេតរឿងខ្លួនឯងទេឬអី ទើបទៅជ្រកក្រោមក្លៀក បក្សសង្គ្រោះជាតិ ចូលទៅពន្ធនាគារ?»។
សារទី២៖ «១) បើចូលមិនលួចលាក់ គឺត្រូវបង្ហាញអត្តសញ្ញាណច្បាស់លាស់ក្នុងនាមស្ថាប័ន។ ក្រែងបង្រៀនអ្នកកាសែតឲ្យពាក់កាតកាសែត កាតស្ថាប័ន ដែរតើ!? ២) បើបន្លំ ចាំបាច់អីទៅបន្លំខ្លួនជាមួយបក្សសង្គ្រោះជាតិ បើខ្លួនឯងអព្យាក្រិត!?»។
* សាររបស់លោក អ៊ំ សារិន អតីតនិពន្ធនាយកវិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី បច្ចុប្បន្នជាប្រធានសមាគមការពារអ្នកកាសែត CAPJ៖
សារទី១៖ «អ្នកនៅបន្ទប់ម៉ាស៊ីនត្រជាក់ ១០០០០គីឡូ ពីភ្នំពេញ ចេញសេចក្តីថ្លែងការណ៍មួយ ដូចចាក់ប្រេងសាំងចូលភ្លើងថែម។ សួរដូចឆ្ងល់ តើអាជ្ញាធរអាមេរិក ឲ្យអ្នកកាសែតនៅស្រុកអាមេរិក ទៅមន្ទីរឃុំ អត់សំបុត្រស្នាមសុំចឹងដែរឬអី? ហើយអាស៊ីសេរី ហ៊ានចេញលិខិតដាក់អាជ្ញាធរ អាមេរិក ចឹងដែរឬអី?»។
* សាររបស់អ្នកស្រី គឹម ពៅសុតន្ត អតីតការីជាន់ខ្ពស់នៃវិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី ដែលសព្វថ្ងៃរស់នៅនិងធ្វើការនៅប្រទេសបារាំង៖
សារទី១៖ «វីរៈបុរស ជុន ច័ន្ទបុត្រ របស់លោកបានធ្វើឲ្យ សុខ សេរី ស្លាប់, សម បូរិន្ទ ស្លាប់។ ពួកយើងមិនថោកទាប ហើយមិនល្ងង់ខ្លៅ ដូចលោកថានោះទេ ។ សូមលោកឈរលើទស្សនៈ យុត្តិធម៌ និងការពិតខ្លះផងលោក!»។
សាររបស់លោក អ៊ុំ សារិន បច្ចុប្បន្នជាប្រធានសមាគមការពារអ្នកកាសែត CAPJ «បើជ្រុលរំលឹកហើយ និយាយមួយម៉ាត់ចុះ។ សេរី ជាមនុស្សល្អ មិនពុករលួយ មិនបក្ខពួក កាន់លុយមិនបាត់ ធ្វើឲ្យអាមេរិកកាំងទុកចិត្ត។ ក្រោយពេលបានឡើងតំណែង ដោយកម្ចាត់សត្រូវចោលហើយ លោក សម ប៉ូលី ហៅ នាយក្របី ដែលមិនចេះអី ចេះតែប្រើកម្លាំង ដូចក្រុម Gangster បានប្រមូលបក្ខពួក ដោយហៅ មាណព ជុន ច័ន្ទបុត្រ ដែលត្រូវគេដេញចោលកន្លងមក ដោយសារកិបកេង លុយបេសកកម្មនោះ មកធ្វើការវិញ ហើយមានតំណែងជានាយករង (ពិត)។ មកដល់វិញភ្លាម នាយ ប៉ូលី និង នាយ បុត្រ បានចាត់ចែងដកលោក សុខ សេរី ចេញពីមុខងារ ជា Office Manager RFA ភ្លាម ដើម្បីក្រុមខ្លួនងាយចាយលុយបន្លំ ដោយធ្វើបញ្ជីពីរ, មួយគឺ បញ្ជីចំណាយពិត មួយទៀតជាបញ្ជីចាយពន្លើស។ ក្រោយមកទៀតដោយលោក សេរី ចេះតែ រាយការណ៍ទៅអាមេរិកកាំងពេក គេបានហាម លោក សេរី មិនឲ្យផ្ញើរ Email ទៅអាមេរិកកាំងផ្ទាល់ទេ។ ក្រោយមកគេដេញចេញក្រៅបន្ទប់ ហើយរកមើលកំហុស ជាបន្តបន្ទាប់រហូតដេញ សេរី ចោល។ នៅពេលលោក សេរី ស្លាប់ (លោកបានទៅធ្វើការនៅ TV South East Asia) បុគ្គលិក អាស៊ីសេរី មួយចំនួនមិនហ៊ានទៅចូលរួមទេ។ ព្រោះគេចាត់ទុកថា អ្នកចេញពី អាស៊ីសេរី ភាគច្រើនជាខ្មាំងអង្គការ។ សុំសង្ខេបប៉ុណ្ណឹងចុះដើម្បីចែករំលែកដល់អ្នកមិនដឹងដើម្បីជ្រាបនិងសើមខ្លះ»។
សាររបស់អ្នកស្រី គឹម ពៅសុតន្ត ដែលសព្វថ្ងៃរស់នៅប្រទេសបារាំង៖
សារទី២៖ «មិត្តសំលាញ់! សេរី អើយ អើយ សេរី! អ្នកនៅក្នុងផ្នូរ តើឯងលឺយើងហៅទេ? យុត្តិធម៌ ដែលយើងរង់ចាំ បានមកដល់ហើយ ណាសំលាញ់! យើងចាំមិនភ្លេច ថ្ងៃឯងជួយរៀបចំអីវ៉ាន់ឲ្យយើង ជូនយើងចេញពីការិយាល័យ! គ្នាយើងបីនាក់កាន់ដៃគ្នា យើងជាជនទី១ ដែលគេកំទេច! ឯងស្រក់ទឹកភ្នែក ឯងប្រាប់យើងថា យុត្តធម៌ និងមាន! សំលាញ់ចិត្តអើយ ហេតុអី ឯងមិនចាំឲ្យបានដល់ថ្ងៃនោះ! យើងនិងអ្នកឯទៀត បានឃើញហើយនៃការដាក់ទណ្ឌកម្ម របស់ទេវតា! តើឯងនៅក្នុងផ្នូរបានដឹងទេ? មិត្តសំលាញ់»។
ក្នុង
អង្គភាពវិទ្យុមួយនេះ បុគ្គលិកសរុបទាំងនៅអាមេរិកនិងភ្នំពេញ គឺមានចំនួនប្រមាណ៣០នាក់ប៉ុណ្ណោះ ក៏ប៉ុន្តែបុគ្គលិកដែលបានលាឈប់ និងបញ្ឈប់យ៉ាងហោចមាន ២៧នាក់ដូចជា៖ អ្នកស្រី ទេព សុរ៉ាវី, អ្នកស្រី អ៊ុក សាវបូរី, លោក អ៊ំ សារិន, លោក អាន ស៊ីថាវ, លោក វ៉ាន់ វាចារ, លោក មុំ សុផុន, លោក សុខ សេរី, អ្នកស្រី គឹម ពៅសុតន្ត, លោក វោហារ ជាតិ, លោក ហាស់ សាន, អ្នកស្រី សៀង សោភ័ណ្ឌ, លោក សាន សុវិទ្ទ, លោក ផាន សុផាត, លោក មណ្ឌលកែវ, អ្នកស្រី មឿង ទុំ, លោក ថៃ សុធា, លោក ផាន់ អាណា, លោក ពេជ្រ ប៊ុនរ៉ា, អ្នកស្រី កែវ ពេជ្រមេត្តា, អ្នកស្រី ហិន យ៉ានី ហៅ កេស រន្និយ៉ា, អ្នកស្រី ខែ សុណង, លោក សួន សុផលមុនី, អ្នកស្រី ឃឹម សារ៉ង, លោក ពិន សំខុន, លោក ម៉ាយ៉ារិទ្ធ, លោក សំ បូរិន្ទ និងលោក កឹម សុស។ ក្នុងនោះអ្នកដែលស្លាប់ក្នុងការងារគឺសពលោក ឃឹម សារ៉ង។ អ្នកដែលឈឺចិត្តរួមទាំង ស្លាប់ដោយជំងឺទាំងក្មេងវ័យគឺសពលោក សំ បូរិន្ទ និងសពលោក សុខ សេរី។
បើនិយាយពីច្បាប់ការងារវិញ ចំពោះបុគ្គលិកខ្មែរនៅភ្នំពេញ គឺវិទ្យុនេះឲ្យកិច្ចសន្យាបែបស៊ីឈ្នួលម៉ៅការ ប៉ុន្តែរបៀបចាត់ចែងការងារជាបុគ្គលិកពេញសិទ្ធិផ្លូវការ។ ការដែល វិទ្យុនេះធ្វើកិច្ចសន្យាបែបនេះ គឺដើម្បីគេចចេញពីការទទួលខុសត្រូវចំពោះច្បាប់ការងារនៅកម្ពុជា។ មូលហេតុអ្វីបានជាគេឃើញអតីតបុគ្គលិកខ្មែរ ប្តឹងវិទ្យុនេះទៅតុលាការ ជាបន្តបន្ទាប់ គឺដោយសារតែកិច្ចសន្យាដែលចាត់ទុកបុគ្គលិក អ្នកសារព័ត៌ខ្មែរជាអ្នកស៊ីឈ្នួលម៉ៅការនេះឯង!
ទីបំផុត! នៅតែមានការពិតដែលមិនអាចបិទបាំងបាន។ សូមមេត្តាពិចារណាដោយឧត្តមគតិ និងសុភវិនិច្ឆ័យចំពោះសោកនាដកម្មក្នុងវិទ្យុមួយនេះ៕
Post a Comment