AUSTRALIA: Foreign graduates push locals out of jobs

Geoff Maslen 06 February 2013 Issue No:258

 

 Young Australians are facing fierce and increasing competition from foreign-born graduates for a declining number of jobs, according to a new report.

The report says it is the Australians who are losing out, given that the 100,000 new jobs created since 2011 have been almost all taken up by migrants, many of whom are foreign students who graduated from Australian universities and have stayed on.

The study highlights the problems faced by Western countries – that have attracted high migrant numbers from Asia – when unemployment rates begin to rise.

The report says the slowdown in employment growth in Australia is starting to bite on the job situation for the local-born.

This effect is exacerbated by the federal government’s immigration policies to encourage large numbers of migrants into the country, since they have succeeded in taking up all of the net number of new jobs created in Australia over the past two years.

“This is occurring at a time when the potential workforce among young Australians continues to grow. The result is increasing unemployment, a declining level of labour force participation and, in less-skilled, entry-level occupations, ferocious competition for available jobs,” the report says.

Prepared by Dr Bob Birrell and Dr Ernest Healy of Monash University’s centre for population and urban research in Melbourne, the report says there is a strong case for the government to re-evaluate its migration policy.

“At present, the government appears to be operating on two assumptions: the first that employment growth will continue at pre-2011 rates and the second that migrants are filling important skill vacancies in the workforce.

“The recent slowdown in employment manifestly falsifies the first assumption and the poor record of recently arrived degree-qualified migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds in gaining professional and managerial positions belies the second.”

The report says the federal government is wrong in claiming that its migration programme is importing “a highly educated addition to the nation’s skilled workforce” to help fill skill vacancies.

In a study of more than 200,000 immigrants who arrived in Australia since 2011 and their workforce participation, Birrell and Healy found that most graduates from non-English-speaking countries were employed in occupations in sub-professional fields, mainly in community and personal service, and clerical and administrative fields.

The Monash researchers looked at the largest group of recently arrived skilled migrants, which included significant numbers of overseas students who graduated from Australian universities. They say that if the migrants held skills needed in Australia, this should show up in a strong record of employment in managerial and professional positions.

This group is of particular interest because of the government’s aim to boost the proportion of degree-qualified 25- to 34-year-old Australian residents to 40% by 2025.

Birrell and Healy say the government “has been in celebration mode on this issue recently” because it appears its policies of opening up opportunities for university training appear to be working, with the proportion rising from 31.8% in 2008 to 36.8% in 2012.

“In reality, this surge in the proportion of those aged 25 to 34 with degrees has little to do with recent increases in university enrolment levels.

“These will have an impact on the share of the 25- to 34-year-old cohort with degrees over the next decade whereas the recent rise is attributable to migration [because] 72% of the growth between 2006 and 2011 were overseas-born and include a mixture of persons who entered Australia with degrees, and those who trained here as overseas students and have stayed on either as permanent or temporary residents.”

The study found that nearly one in three degree-holding migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds had credentials in management and commerce – a direct result of the high proportion of overseas students who completed accounting courses in Australia and then sought to stay on.

Yet 31% of this group were unemployed compared with 9% of Australian-born graduates and 12% of those from mainly English-speaking countries.

“The bottom line [for the non-English-backgrounders] is that as well as the 31% not employed, only 4% of the total occupied managerial positions and just 26% held professional positions.

“By comparison, 58% of the Australian-born and 53% of those recently arrived from English-speaking countries with degree qualifications reported being employed in professional occupations.”

The report says that more than 672,000 Australians now need to rely on unemployment benefits – up by nearly 56,000 between November 2011 and November 2012 – and that this should be “ringing alarm bells in policy circles”.

Local analysis of youth unemployment also shows very high levels in lower-income areas of Melbourne’s north and west, in Sydney’s western suburbs, in parts of Adelaide and in Queensland. Youth unemployment in northern Adelaide was reported to be as high as 42% – a consequence of significant competition for low-skilled jobs advertised in the northern suburbs.

“Young people without post-school credentials face serious problems in obtaining work in the current labour market. Most have to begin their working life in relatively low-skilled, entry-level jobs, such as in the hospitality and retail areas,” Birrell and Healy write.

“Yet these are the very industries that have been hardest hit in the recent slowdown in employment growth [and] are also the industries in which temporary migrants are most likely to seek employment.”

UNITED STATES: Why higher education must be part of immigration reform

TIME 09 February 2013 Issue No:258

 

Last week, President Obama and a bipartisan group of senators outlined a plan for comprehensive immigration reform. Like the DREAM Act that has stalled for years in Congress, the proposal’s outline hints at an expedited pathway to citizenship for young people who came to the U.S. as children if they attend college or serve in the military. As the details are worked out in the coming weeks, it is critical that legislation include provisions that make it easier for undocumented high schoolers to go to college. Education is the gateway to the American Dream. But today our immigration laws make higher education — a virtual requirement for financial security — out of reach for more than one million undocumented students.

(MORE: Read this week’s TIME cover story, “Immigrant Son,” by Michael Grunwald)
Of the roughly 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from American high schools each year, only 5–10% will go to college, usually a community college, according to a 2009 report by The College Board. Many undocumented students don’t know if they’re allowed to apply for college (the law varies state by state), or are afraid that submitting applications will attract attention from the authorities. Those who do earn college acceptances are often forced to turn them down because they can’t afford it. Their immigration status bars them from taking advantage of in-state tuition and financial aid programs that are available to their peers.

Even students who beat the odds and graduate from college face yet another barrier: They can’t legally work in the U.S.and put their degrees to good use. ”Children don’t make the decision to cross the border, but they pay for it their whole lives,” says Liz Coffin-Karlin, one of our 10,000 Teach for America members who work with students in low-income communities across the country.
(MORE: Not Legal, Not Leaving)

Take Ramiro, an undocumented student in North Texas who came to the U.S. from Mexico with his parents and two siblings when he was 5. His family lived in daily terror of being discovered – a very real fear after Ramiro came home when he was 12 to an empty house and discovered his father had been deported. Although he excelled in school, Ramiro wouldn’t even tell his closest friends that he was undocumented, and was ashamed to tell his teachers. As graduation approached, he felt increasingly isolated and depressed as friends discussed what schools they were going to and post-graduation plans.

“I was paralyzed,” he says, “I didn’t know what I was going to do and worse, who I could ask for help. I was my only resource.” He finally worked up the nerve to enroll in community college, but even that was an ordeal. In the registrar’s office, he didn’t know what information he could give without exposing himself. Ramiro started working to save up money for classes, and did so well he was promoted to supervisor. But when his employer tried verifying his information for the new role and discovered a discrepancy with his paperwork, he was fired on the spot. Unable to keep a job because of his status, Ramiro poured over scholarship applications to find one that could help him – only to discover nearly all scholarships are for citizens or permanent residents only. “I read through so many applications and would get so excited because I seemed to meet every criteria,” he says. “But then in the very last line there would be that disclaimer. I finally gave up on college because I felt there were no options.”
 
(MORE: Does College Put Kids on a “Party Pathway”?)
Every time a child’s promise is cut short by their legal status, our country wastes precious resources and loses talent we need. Our laws guarantee all students the right to a K–12 education, regardless of their immigration status. Our teachers work tirelessly to give them the skills they need to make it to college. Why should we let an inconsistent system prevent them from fulfilling their potential and giving back to the country they call home?

MORE: Immigration Debate: The Problem with the Word ‘Illegal’

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/07/viewpoint-why-higher-education-must-be-part-of-immigration-reform/#ixzz2KfRzEvHS

 

AUSTRALIA: University 2060 – Brave new world of higher education

The Conversation 09 February 2013 Issue No:258

 

Higher education, 2060: academics are out of a job. All the brand name universities have made all their courses free online, easily doing away with one side of the teaching and learning equation.
Pretty soon all the universities realised how much money they could save.

Tutorials have been replaced by Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with the wisdom of the crowd sourcing all answers from the students themselves. Algorithms update the online course content in response to the question’s popularity – after all, “the customer is always right”.

Eventually no new information is taught, as it is too difficult to produce. There can be no FAQs for new material. So university courses have become useless. People need to find other ways to learn.
Universities took up the idea of the customer is always right earlier than 2012. Students became clients. So it became obvious that student evaluation of teaching results determined careers and promotion of lecturers.
 
That is, even when the students could not possibly be in a position to evaluate the teaching, as they were yet to be introduced to, grapple with and eventually understand, difficult and complex issues.
And yet they were asked by administrators to rate their teachers. Students assumed that because the material was hard, the teaching must be poor. So the complaints went: it should have been easier to engage with; the lecturer did not spend enough time explaining how to get a good mark; they did not answer my questions quickly enough (even if most were posed late at night, and answered by morning).

So the universities felt justified in getting rid of their lecturers: after all the student feedback was not good and the lecturers were difficult to deal with.

The Australian Research Council realised that they too could save themselves a great deal of time. All they had to do was run competitions. They only needed small groups of trusted researchers who met regularly to determine which questions would get funding and how much each question was worth.

Then as each new question was decided it was added to the competition database. This procedure had a great deal of merit. It assumed that the best researcher to answer any particular question was out there somewhere but asking them to apply for funding was a waste of everybody’s time.
Much better for the ARC to put up the questions, sit back and wait for the research teams to engage with the questions directly. No need to fund a good looking prospect. They only needed to fund results.

They took the website Kaggle.com as their model. Big questions (that is the ones that could earn the most money) attracted the biggest prizes.

At this point educational research stopped being funded completely, because everyone now knew how to educate en masse for free. Get a free degree from MIT, Stanford or Harvard. Within ten years software was developed that was sophisticated enough to be used to examine PhD theses, so no one had to actually read them any more.

Within 30 years, all the “great minds” currently living had gained their doctorate from an algorithm. No one had read their work, and none could find a job in the academy, because everyone had free degrees from MIT, Stanford or Harvard.

About 10 years later a group of about 12 people sat around together in a room. They had decided to hold a book group. There was no leader except that one person had rediscovered the old practice of a reading group and suggested to some friends that they try it out as a nostalgic reenactment, similar to the people who still recreated the American Civil War on a Sunday afternoon.

One of the group suggested the book, something they had found in a bookshop from the 1960s, On Becoming a Person by Carl Rogers.

They all enjoyed meeting together and talking about the book, particularly the funny ideas that could never take off now. Then someone suggested they read another book.

This happened and they all enjoyed that experience too, sharing and discussing ideas with no particular agenda. After the group had discussed five books they realised it was not just the book that was enjoyable, they brought food, talked about their days, discussed other topics unrelated to the books they had come together to read.

They were enjoying engaging with each other and learning together.
Pity, they thought, that we couldn’t do this more often.
 

GERMANY: Education minister stripped of doctoral title

Michael Gardner 07 February 2013 Issue No:258

 

The University of Düsseldorf has withdrawn the doctoral title of Annette Schavan, Germany’s education and research minister, claiming that she lifted material for her thesis. While Schavan is seeking to contest the university’s verdict, the opposition in parliament has called for her resignation.

The University of Düsseldorf stripped Schavan of her PhD on 5 February. The council of the university’s faculty of philosophy had found that “a considerable amount of texts written by other authors had been adopted word-for-word but had not been correspondingly referred to as citations,” the faculty dean, Bruno Bleckmann, explained.

The accumulation and structure of the text passages adopted and the omission of source titles in the footnotes and further reading list had convinced the faculty council that Schavan had “systematically and wilfully presented academic performance that she herself had, in reality, not delivered”.

Bleckmann said that “Schavan’s response could not weaken this impression, which is why, based on the facts before it, the faculty council has found that the issue concerned represents wilful deceit through plagiarism.”

The decision to withdraw the minister’s title was approved by 12 of the council’s 15 members.

Schavan, on a five-day tour of South Africa bringing her together with representatives of science, research, politics and business, commented on the new developments the following day. “I will not accept the University of Düsseldorf’s decision, and intend to lodge a complaint,” she said.

The minister now has four weeks to appeal to the administrative court.

Schavan recently stated that she could not rule out having made careless mistakes, but denied plagiarism.

Her lawyers announced that they would be taking legal action because the faculty of philosophy’s decision was based on a “faulty procedure” and was “disproportionate”. Violations of citation rules were “insignificant” and could not justify the withdrawal of a doctoral title.

The university’s move leaves Schavan without any professional title. The minister, who studied catholic theology, philosophy and education science at Bonn and Düsseldorf, did her doctorate 32 years ago. During her studies, she bypassed the usual ‘magister’ first degree in arts subjects and headed straight for her doctoral exams.

Responses

Politicians in the ruling Christian Democrat-Free Democrat coalition government have praised Schavan’s achievements as an education and research minister. Further developments are to be discussed on her return from South Africa.

There have been unanimous calls from the opposition for the minister to resign. Schavan now lacks credibility as a higher education minister, said the Social Democrats’ General Secretary Andrea Nahles, while Petra Sitte, spokesperson for Die Linke – the Left Party – stressed that whoever is responsible for education and research had to set an example to others.

Bernhard Kempen, president of the Hochschulverband – German Association of University Professors and Lecturers – maintained that “it could take months if not years for a court ruling to be reached. In these circumstances, Annette Schavan can no longer act as education minister.”

Kempen, a qualified jurist, also refuted criticism regarding how the decision to withdraw Schavan’s title came to be. “The University of Düsseldorf’s verdict is not manifestly unlawful,” he says. “It is not discernible why the withdrawal of the title should be based on a faulty procedure.”

Referring to last year's leaking of information indicating the possibility of plagiarism in Schavan’s thesis, Kempen commented that while indiscretion is unacceptable, it does not make the procedure, as such, defective.

However, he conceded that any withdrawal of an academic title also represented a setback for universities. “It is now up to institutions to take a closer look and exercise more control,” he said. “Higher education has to develop uniform regulations on academic conduct.”

Having issued a statement in support of Schavan just days ahead of Düsseldorf University's launching of formal proceedings, the Allianz der Wissenschaftsorganisationen, comprising Germany’s chief higher education and research bodies, has kept quiet about the institution’s verdict.

Membership of the alliance includes funding bodies such as the German Research Foundation and research heavyweights like the Fraunhofer Society, the Helmholtz Association and the Max Planck Society. As Bonn academic and law expert Wolfgang Löwer stressed, these organisations depend crucially on ministry funding.

The Schavan case may have damaged higher education as a whole in Germany, Löwer said.

Lawyers Instructed to Seek Approval Before Speaking to Media

By Chin Chan - February 11, 2013

Lawyers must now obtain permission from the Cambodian Bar Association before speaking to television and radio media in order to ensure that they do not speak out of turn, the association’s president said in a meeting on Friday.

“First, we want to ensure a high quality of law dissemination. Second, to ensure that explanations of the law to the public are correct, and third to ensure that lawyers adhere to high professional standards,” said Bun Honn, the association’s president.

The new rule does not mean that lawyers would not be allowed to speak to the press, nor is it an attempt to stifle media freedom, Mr. Honn maintained, addressing Bar Association members at the organization’s Phnom Penh headquarters.

“Lawyers can talk to the media, for example, about where a case is going but they can’t criticize a court’s judgment or say the verdict of the court is unfair,” he said when contacted by telephone later.
Penalties for violating the new rule would range from a formal warning to disbarment, he said.
At the association’s request, the Ministry of Information on January 31 also issued a statement advising all television and radio media organizations that wish to interview lawyers to go through the Bar Association first.

At the moment, the only lawyer entirely banned from giving media interviews is Kouy Thunna, who Mr. Honn explained had violated Article 15 in the Lawyer’s Code of Ethics. He declined to say exactly how Mr. Thunna had violated the code, but Article 15 stipulates that lawyers must not give false or deceitful information or engage in self-promotion.

Mr. Thunna declined to comment on the Bar Association’s ban.
Sok Sam Oeun, a lawyer and executive director of legal aid group the Cambodian Defenders Project, said lawyers should be able to serve their clients without being held back by such a rule and that the Constitution protected the right to express one’s opinion.

“Each lawyer is a professional and they know the law and they are also responsible for their clients. For example, if the client agrees for him to say it, he can say it,” Mr. Sam Oeun said, adding that he has never heard of such a rule in other democratic countries.

“If the Bar is concerned that maybe some lawyers do not know how to deal with this, I think it is better for the Bar to train lawyers to deal with journalists,” he said.
(Additional reporting by Dene-Hern Chen)

Bombing of Cambodia Cited to Defend US Drone Strikes

By Zsombor Peter - February 10, 2013

A U.S. Justice Department document that says America can le­gally order the killing of its citizens if they are believed to be al-Qaida leaders uses the devastating and illegal bombing of Cam­bo­dia in the 1960s and ’70s to help make its case. 

American broadcaster NBC News first reported on the “white pa­per”—a summary of classified mem­os by the U.S. Justice Depart­ment’s Of­fice of Legal Council—on Monday.

The 16-page paper makes a legal case for the U.S. government’s highly controversial use of un­manned drones to kill suspected terrorists, including some U.S. citizens. In making its argument, the docu­ment brings up the U.S.’ bombing of Cam­bodia—which claimed thousands of innocent lives in the pursuit of North Vietnamese forces—to ar­gue for the right to go after its enemies in neutral countries.

“The Department has not found any authority for the proposition that when one of the parties to an armed conflict plans and executes operations from a base in a new na­tion, an operation to engage the enemy in that location cannot be part of the original armed conflict,” the paper reads. “That does not appear to be the rule of the historical practice, for instance, even in a traditional international conflict.”

To help make its case, the Jus­tice Depart­ment cites an address then-U.S. State Depart­ment legal adviser John Stevenson delivered to the New York Bar Association in 1970 regarding the U.S.’ ongoing military activity in Cambodia.

Mr. Stevenson, the white paper summarizes, argued “that in an international armed conflict, if a neutral state has been unable for any reason to prevent violations of its neutrality by the troops of one belligerent using its territory as a base of operations, the other belligerent has historically been justified in attacking those enemy forces in that state.”

In other words, Mr. Stevenson, speaking on the U.S. bombing of Cambodia, said history gave the U.S. the right to bomb a country that could not keep the U.S.’ enemies out.

The Justice Department is now us­ing that argument to help make its case for killing suspected al-Qaida leaders of U.S. citizenship abroad.

The U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh declined to comment.

Beginning in 1965, the U.S. bombed North Vietnamese forces taking refuge in eastern Cambodia for years without congressional approval. By the time Congress put an end to the bombings in 1973, more than 230,000 sorties over the country had dropped some 2.75 million tons of ordnance on more than 113,000 sites, many of them inaccurate. Casualty estimates of that time range from 5,000 Cambo­dians to half a million, while bombs that failed to explode on impact continue to kill unwitting farmers and children today.

Some historians have also credited the U.S. bombing for driving large numbers of rural Cambo­dians into the arms of then-insurgent Khmer Rouge, whose brutal regime went on to claim another 1.7 million lives.

Council of Ministers spokes­man Phay Siphan main­tained the government’s position that the U.S. bombing of Cambo­dia was illegal.

“If you kill someone in another country, it’s illegal, unless you have their [the country’s] permission, that’s my opinion,” said Mr. Siphan.

But the U.S. military’s overwhelming force left Cambodia helpless to do anything about it, he added.

“They could do anything they like, legal or illegal; it is their interest,” Mr. Siphan said. “We [had] no ability to keep North Vietnamese out from the country because we were weak.”

He regretted the Justice De­part­ment’s decision to use the experience in its defense of U.S. drone strikes.

“I feel sorry that they use that argument,” he said.

Historian and Cambodia expert David Chandler questioned the Justice Department’s choice of years in the U.S.’ yearslong bomb­ing campaign.

“Interesting that the 1970 bombing approved by [the late king and then-head of state Norodom] Si­hanouk, and therefore perhaps ‘legal,’ are cited now rather than the hugely destructive 1973 bombings ceased by Congress, which were directed not against Vietnamese but against the Khmer Rouge with whom the U.S. was not at war,” he said by email.

“The point about the 1973 bombings is that they were what a U.S. gen­eral called the only war in town, as bombings of Vietnam had stopped following the agreement be­tween the U.S. and Vietnam,” he said. “They were horrible and inexcusable, or excusable only in the sense that they postponed the [Khmer Rouge] victory by at least a year.”

The Khmer Rouge finally overran the U.S.-backed Lon Nol re­gime in 1975.

Historian Ben Kiernan and others have partly blamed U.S. bomb­ings for what followed.

“Civilian casualties in Cambodia drove an enraged populace into the arms of an insurgency that had en­joyed relatively little support until the bombing began, setting in motion the expansion of the Viet­nam War deeper into Cambo­dia, a coup d’etat in 1970, the rapid rise of the Khmer Rouge, and ultimately the Cambodian genocide,” he wrote in a 2006 article for Toronto-based The Walrus magazine.

At his confirmation hearing for Sec­retary of State last month, John Kerry reconfirmed his opinion that the U.S.’ bombing of Cam­bodia was illegal.

Cambodia has also brought up the bombing in lobbying the U.S. to forgive $274 million in debt—since grown to $445 million with interest—wracked up by the Lon Nol regime, but yet to no avail.

Soon after NBC News released the white paper citing the bombing of Cambodia, the White House re­versed course by announcing that it would brief members of Con­gress on the classified memos.

Senator’s Wife Showers Police With New Year Cash

 By Aun Pheap and Dene-Hern Chen - February 12, 2013

At 9 a.m. on Sunday, more than 200 soldiers, police and military police officers were gathered outside a large mansion on Street 55 in Phnom Penh’s Daun Penh district. By 10 a.m., their numbers had swelled to about a thousand, now including members of the national bodyguard unit, turning the street into a sea of government uniforms. 

Hundreds of police, military police and RCAF soldiers on Sunday wait outside the Phnom Penh mansion of Choeung Sopheap, the owner of Pheapimex company and wife of CPP Senator Lao Meng Khin, to receive envelopes of money for the Chinese New Year. (Ben Woods/The Cambodia Daily)

All were waiting for their prom­ised “ang pao”—red enve­lopes containing cash usually handed out during Chinese New Year—from Choeung Sopheap, the powerful owner of controversial land development firm Pheapimex and the wife of CPP Senator Lao Meng Khin.

Pheapimex holds a number of economic land concessions around the country, most notably a 316,000-hectare site in Pursat province’s Krakor district where villagers have staged several protests alleging that their land was illegally cleared. Armed military police officers have been deployed to guard the concession.

Ms. Sopheap’s husband, Mr. Meng Khin, is also the owner of Shukaku Inc., which has used armed government security forc­es against protesters at its real estate project in Phnom Penh’s Boeng Kak neighborhood.

Rights groups have long ac­cused government security forc­es, especially the Royal Cambo­dian Armed Forces, of protecting the private land concessions of well-connected families in a clear conflict of interest.

But the grateful officers clogging the streets around the house of “Yeay Phou,” or Grandma Phou, on Sunday—picking up between 30,000 riel ($7.50) and 50,000 riel ($12.50) each—readily admitted to the special relationship.

“We help her when problems arise, not only in Phnom Penh but also in the provinces,” military police officer Sieng Radin said while waiting outside the gates. “She loves the armed forc­es because she knows we protect her and she is a high-ranking official. She may be a business wom­an, but she also works with the Cambodian Red Cross.”

“And it’s not only the Gen­dar­mer­ie [national military police], it’s also other joint forces that help her with strikes, and if the strikes affect her projects, like Boeng Kak,” Mr. Radin added.

Chan Dora, a military police officer who said his unit worked directly for the family, attributed Ms. Sopheap’s generosity to her gratitude for their services.

“I’m part of the unit that protects her family, so she gives us ang paos to thank us. I really appreciate it,” Mr. Dora said. “We are military forces and we are also assistants to her. We always help with whatever she needs help with.”

More than 5,000 ang paos were finally handed out, said Lao Van, Mr. Meng Khin’s son, though he did not know how much money it all added up to.

“This is our kindness, to distribute the ang paos to the armed forces because they work very hard. All of them, like the traffic police and other police, they not only work for my family but also for everyone’s families,” Mr. Van said, adding that his family had been making the annual mass donations for nearly a decade.

Chea Vannath, an independent political analyst, said this practice of private business owners providing money to state employees would inevitably raise questions.

“What you see now is the re­sult of the [informal] policy for the higher-ranking [officials],” she said. “So if there is any change, there needs to be a policy from the top that the military and the police have to be independent and not have…financial transaction whatsoever from the business or private sectors.”

Council of Ministers spokes­man Phay Siphan said the country’s armed forces exist for the benefit of the public, not private enterprises, adding that he could not comment on whether Ms. So­pheap’s tradition of giving the armed forc­es ang paos was appropriate.

“It’s hard for me to say if it’s proper or not proper because we don’t have any such law or regulations on what we call a conflict of interest,” he said.

Either way, Lon Saran, a military police officer who has re­ceived the ang paos five years in a row, summed up the deal with Khmer proverb.

“Mean tou mean mork,” Mr. Saran said, meaning roughly that when one provides a gift to another, help will come to the benefactor.

មេធាវី​ប្រតិកម្ម​ចំពោះ​ការ​ឲ្យ​​សុំ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មុន​និយាយ​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ

ដោយ កែវ និមល

2013-02-12

មេធាវី​មួយ​ចំនួន​មាន​ប្រតិកម្ម​តប​ចំពោះ​ការ​ទាមទារ​ឲ្យ​អនុវត្ត​ តាម​មាត្រា ១៥ របស់​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​មេធាវី ដែល​និយាយ​អំពី​ចំណុច​អន្តរាគមន៍​តាម​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ជា​សាធារណៈ​នៃ​ មេធាវី។

ខ្លឹមសារ​សំខាន់​នៃ​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​នោះ គឺ​មិន​បាន​ហាម​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ការ​និយាយ​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ឃោសនា មាន​វិទ្យុ កាសែត ទូរទស្សន៍ ទេ តែ​ត្រូវ​ជូន​ដំណឹង​ដល់​ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ជា​មុន កាល​ណា​និយាយ​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ឃោសនា។

ការ​រឹតត្បិត​សេរីភាព​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ការ​ធ្វើ​បទ​អន្តរាគមន៍ និយាយ​សម្ភាសន៍​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ គឺ​ជា​ការ​ខាត​បង់​មួយ​នៅ​ក្នុង​ពេល​ដែល​ប្រទេស​កម្ពុជា មិន​សូវ​មាន​អ្នក​ចេះ​ដឹង​ច្បាប់ និង​សៀវភៅ​ឯកសារ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ច្បាប់​នៅ​មាន​ចំនួន​តិច មិន​បាន​ចែក​ទូលំ​ទូលាយ​ទៅ​ដល់​ជនបទ​ដាច់​ស្រយាល។

មេធាវី​មួយ​ចំនួន​បាន​ឲ្យ​ដឹង​ថា មេធាវី​គឺ​ជា​អ្នក​ចេះ​ច្បាប់ និង​រស់​នៅ​រក​ស៊ី​ដោយ​ប្រើ​សមត្ថភាព​ចំណេះ​ដឹង​ខាង​ច្បាប់។ ដូច្នេះ​បើ​មេធាវី​រូប​ណា​និយាយ​ខុស គឺ​រូប​គេ​ជា​អ្នក​ទទួល​ខុស​ត្រូវ​តាម​ផ្លូវ​ច្បាប់​ដែល​កំពុង​អនុវត្ត​នៅ​ ក្នុង​ប្រទេស។

ការ​ទាមទារ​ឲ្យ​ប្រធាន​ស្ថាប័ន​ឃោសនា​នានា ត្រូវ​សុំ​ទៅ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មុន​ពេល​អញ្ជើញ​មេធាវី​មក​ជា​វាគ្មិន វា​ជា​របៀប​របប​រដ្ឋបាល​បែប​ការិយាល័យ​និយម​ផង​ដែរ។

លោក​មេធាវី សុក សំអឿន នាយក​អង្គការ​ក្រុម​អ្នក​ច្បាប់​ការពារ​សិទ្ធិ​កម្ពុជា មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​១១ កុម្ភៈ ថា មាត្រា ១៥ នៃ​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​មេធាវី​នេះ​មាន​ជា​យូរ​មក​ហើយ តែ​ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មុនៗ មិន​បាន​លើក​យក​ចំណុច​នេះ​មក​អនុវត្ត​ទេ ទើប​តែ​ជំនាន់​លោក ប៊ុន ហុន ឡើង​ធ្វើ​ជា​ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី បាន​ទាមទារ​ឲ្យ​អនុវត្ត​ចំណុច​នេះ។

លោក​មេធាវី សុក សំអឿន៖ «ប្រហែល​ជា​លោក​ប្រធាន​ទាំង​អស់​នោះ លោក​គិត​ថា ការ​អនុវត្ត​វា​ពិបាក​ធ្វើ។ ដូច្នេះ​ហើយ​ពួក​គាត់​អត់​បាន​មាត្រា​នោះ​មក​អនុវត្ត ហើយ​មួយ​ទៀត វា​មិន​មែន​ជា​ច្បាប់​ទេ ហើយ​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​នេះ​វា​អនុម័ត​ដោយ​ក្រុម​ប្រឹក្សា​គណៈ​មេធាវី​តែ​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ដូច្នេះ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​អាណត្តិ​ក្រោយៗ អាច​លើក​យក​ពិនិត្យ និង​កែ​វា​បាន»។

លោក​មេធាវី សុក សំអឿន មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​បន្ថែម​ថា ក្រម​សីលធម៌​មេធាវី​នេះ​រៀប​ចំ​តាក់តែង​ឡើង​កាល​ពី​ឆ្នាំ​១៩៩៥ តាំង​ពី​ចំនួន​មេធាវី​មាន​ប្រមាណ ៧០​នាក់​ប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ដូច្នេះ​ការ​សុំ​ជួប​មេធាវី​ឆ្លង​កាត់​គណៈ​មេធាវី វា​ជា​ការងារ​តិចតួច​មួយ តែ​បច្ចុប្បន្ន​ចំនួន​មេធាវី​មាន​ចំនួន​ច្រើន​ជាង ៨០០​នាក់​ទៅ​ហើយ បើ​គេ​ចង់​អនុវត្ត​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​នេះ​ឲ្យ​បាន​ត្រឹមត្រូវ គេ​គួរ​ពិនិត្យ និង​កែប្រែ​ក្រម​នោះ​ឲ្យ​ទាន់​សម័យ​តាម​ស្ថានភាព​រីក​ចំរើន​ជាក់​ស្ដែង។

លោក​មេធាវី សុក សំអឿន៖ «និយាយ​ទៅ កាល​នោះ​មាន​លោក សាយ បូរី ជា​ប្រធាន ហើយ​នៅ​ពេល​នោះ គណៈ​មេធាវី​ទើប​បង្កើត​ថ្មី។ អ៊ីចឹង​ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី​លោក​បារម្ភ​ថា មេធាវី​ចេញ​ថ្មី​និយាយ​ខុស»។

លោក​មេធាវី សុក សំអឿន មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា បើ​សិន​ជា​មាន​ការ​តឹងតែង​លើ​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​ឲ្យ​មេធាវី​សម្ភាសន៍ និង​និយាយ​អំពី​រឿង​ច្បាប់​តាម​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ឃោសនា​នោះ វា​ជា​ការ​ខាត​បង់​ធនធាន​មនុស្ស​មួយ​ធំ​ណាស់ ក្នុង​ការ​ចូល​រួម​អប់រំ​ច្បាប់​ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ​នៅ​ក្នុង​ស្ថានភាព​ដែល​ប្រទេស​ កម្ពុជា នៅ​មាន​ចំនួន​អ្នក​ចេះ​ច្បាប់​តិច​តួច​នៅ​ឡើយ​នោះ។

លោក សុក សំអឿន៖ «មិន​បាន​ចូល​រួម​តែម្ដង គឺ​បាន​ធ្វើ​តែ​រឿង​ក្ដី​នៅ​តុលាការ​តែ​មួយ​មុខ។ តែ​នេះ​វា​ជា​ក្រម​សីលធម៌ វា​អាស្រ័យ​ទៅ​លើ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​តែប៉ុណ្ណោះ។ ធម្មតា​វា​គ្រាន់​តែ​ជា​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​តែប៉ុណ្ណោះ»។

ចំណែក​លោក​មេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មេធាវី​ការិយាល័យ​សិលា មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា បើ​ចង់​និយាយ​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ឃោសនា ដូចជា កាសែត វិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍ ទាល់​តែ​សុំ​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​ពី​គណៈ​មេធាវី​នោះ វា​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​ការងារ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ច្បាប់​ជា​សាធារណៈ លែង​ទូលំទូលាយ​ហើយ។

លោក​មេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មាន​យោបល់​ថា ការ​រឹតត្បិត​លើ​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ការ​និយាយ​ស្តី​ជាមួយ​អ្នក​កាសែត​នោះ វា​មិន​បាន​ចូល​រួម​ពង្រឹង​ការងារ​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​តុលាការ​មាន​យុត្តិធម៌​នោះ​ឡើយ ពីព្រោះ​អ្នក​សម្រេច​ដាក់​ទោស ឬ​លើក​លែង​ទោស​នោះ គឺ​ចៅក្រម និង​ព្រះរាជអាជ្ញា​ទៅ​វិញ​ទេ​ដែល​មាន​សិទ្ធិ​មាន​ឆន្ទានុសិទ្ធិ​ក្នុង​ការ​ សម្រេច។ ម៉្យាង​ទៀត មេធាវី​មួយ​រូបៗ សុទ្ធតែ​ជា​អ្នក​ចេះ​ដឹង​ច្បាប់​ច្រើន​ជាង​ពលរដ្ឋ​ផ្សេង​ទៀត បើ​កាល​ណា​និយាយ​មិន​ត្រឹម​ត្រូវ​ខុស​ច្បាប់ គណៈ​មេធាវី​អាច​កោះ​ហៅ​មក​ព្រមាន ស្តី​បន្ទោស និង​បើ​ទោស​កើត​ឡើង​ពី​ការ​និយាយ​នោះ វា​រំលោភ​ច្បាប់​ធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ ទុក​ឲ្យ​ច្បាប់​កាត់​ទោស​ទៅ។

លោក​មេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មាន​យោបល់​ថា ដោយសារ​រូប​លោក​ជា​សមាជិក​ក្រុមប្រឹក្សា​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ផង​នោះ លោក​មាន​គម្រោង​សុំ​ឲ្យ​លុប​ចោល​មាត្រា ១៥ នៃ​ក្រមសីលធម៌​របស់​គណៈ​មេធាវី​នោះ​ចេញ ដើម្បី​ឲ្យ​សមាជិក​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មាន​សេរីភាព​ពេញ​លេញ​ក្នុង​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ ស្រប​ទៅ​តាម​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​របស់​រដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ​កម្ពុជា។៖ «ប៉ុន្តែ​ក្នុង​ ការ​អនុវត្ត វា​អាស្រ័យ​ទៅ​លើ​ភាព​ធ្ងន់​ស្រាល​នៃ​អំពើ​តែប៉ុណ្ណោះ ហើយ​បើ​ស្អី​បន្តិច​ក៏​ជូន​ដំណឹង​ដែរ​នោះ​វា​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​អកម្ម»។

មាត្រា ១៥ នៃ​ក្រម​សីលធម៌​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ចែង​អំពី​អន្តរាគមន៍​តាម​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ ព័ត៌មាន​ជា​សាធារណៈ​នៃ​មេធាវី។ គ្រប់​អន្តរាគមន៍​សាធារណៈ ឬ​តាម​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ផ្សាយ​ព័ត៌មាន​ជា​សាធារណៈ​របស់​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ឋានៈ​ខ្លួន​ជា​ មេធាវី និង​អាច​អនុញ្ញាត​ឲ្យ​ធ្វើ​បាន​តែ​ក្នុង​ក្របខ័ណ្ឌ​នៃ​ការ​គោរព​ដោយ​ ម៉ឺងម៉ាត់​នូវ​កាតព្វកិច្ច​នៃ​វិជ្ជាជីវៈ។ អន្តរាគមន៍​បែប​នេះ ទាមទារ​ឲ្យ​មាន​ការ​ប្រុង​ប្រយ័ត្ន​ជា​ទី​បំផុត។ ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ត្រូវ​តែ​បាន​ទទួល​ដំណឹង​ពិគ្រោះ​យោបល់​ជា​មុន​ក្នុង​រឿង ​នេះ លើក​លែង​តែ​ពុំ​មាន​លទ្ធភាព។

កាល​ពី​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​៨ កុម្ភៈ រដ្ឋមន្ត្រី​ក្រសួង​ព័ត៌មាន លោក ខៀវ កាញារីទ្ធ បាន​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​សេចក្តី​ជូន​ដំណឹង​មួយ​ដល់​អ្នក​កាសែត ជាពិសេស​នាយក​ស្ថានីយ​វិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍ ដែល​មាន​កម្មវិធី​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​ច្បាប់ និង​បក​ស្រាយ​ច្បាប់ ឲ្យ​ដាក់​ពាក្យ​អញ្ជើញ​អ្នក​ច្បាប់ មេធាវី ដើម្បី​ធ្វើ​ជា​វាគ្មិន ត្រូវ​ឆ្លង​កាត់​ការ​សុំ​អញ្ជើញ​នោះ តាម​គណៈ​មេធាវី។ ការ​ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​នេះ ធ្វើ​ឡើង​ក្រោយ​ពេល​គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​ធ្វើ​លិខិត​ណែនាំ​មួយ​ទាក់ទង​រឿង​ សម្ភាសន៍​មេធាវី​នេះ កាល​ពី​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​២២ មករា។

លោក យឹម សារី ជា​មេធាវី និង​ជា​អ្នក​នាំ​ពាក្យ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​កម្ពុជា មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​នៅ​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​១១ កុម្ភៈ ថា ការ​ណែនាំ​ឲ្យ​ពង្រឹង​វិន័យ​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ការ​និយាយ​ជាមួយ​ប្រព័ន្ធ​ ផ្សព្វផ្សាយ​នេះ ដើម្បី​ឲ្យ​ការ​បកស្រាយ​បំភ្លឺ​ច្បាប់​នានា បាន​ត្រឹមត្រូវ។

លោក យឹម សារី៖ «ដោយសារ​មេធាវី​ដែល​និយាយ​តាម​វិទ្យុ និង​ទូរទស្សន៍​មួយ​ចំនួន​នេះ គឺ​និយាយ​អត់​បាន​ព្រាង​ទុក។ អ៊ីចឹង​កាល​ណា​និយាយ​អត់​បាន​ព្រាង​ទុក គឺ​វា​មាន​ផល​វិបាក​ទៅ​ដល់​អ្នក​ស្ដាប់ អ្នក​មើល។ ទី​២ វា​ប៉ះពាល់​ទៅ​ដល់​អ្នក​ច្បាប់ ដែល​គេ​ដឹង​ដែរ ហើយ​គេ​ថា ការ​បក​ស្រាយ​ច្បាប់​នេះ​មិន​ត្រឹមត្រូវ។ ទី​៣ វិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍ ហៅ ដោយ​អត់​បាន​ព្រាង​ទុក។ ការ​អត់​បាន​ព្រាង​ទុក​នេះ ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ​មួយ​ចំនួន​យល់​ថា យើង​ដឹង​យើង​ផ្ដល់​ព័ត៌មាន​អត់​បាន​ត្រឹមត្រូវ»។

លោក​មេធាវី យឹម សារី បាន​ច្រាន​ចោល​ចំពោះ​អ្នក​ខ្លះ​ចោទ​ប្រកាន់​ថា ការ​សុំ​ជួប​មេធាវី​តាម​រយៈ​គណៈ​មេធាវី វា​ជា​បែប​បទ​ការិយាធិបតេយ្យ ថា​ជា​ការ​យល់​ខុស។

លោក​មេធាវី យឹម សារី ជា​អ្នក​នាំ​ពាក្យ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​ឲ្យ​ដឹង​ថា បើ​សិន​ជា​មេធាវី​រូប​ណា​មិន​គោរព​តាម​ការ​ណែនាំ​របស់​គណៈ​មេធាវី អ្នក​នោះ​ត្រូវ​ប្រឈម​ជាមួយ​ការ​ដាក់​វិន័យ​ជា​មិន​ខាន។

កាល​ពី​ថ្ងៃ​ទី​៣១ មករា កន្លង​ទៅ គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​ចេញ​ផ្សាយ​លិខិត​ព្រមាន​មួយ​ច្បាប់​ទៅ​លើ​លោក​មេធាវី គួយ ធុនណា ចំពោះ​សកម្មភាព​ផ្ដល់​បទសម្ភាសន៍ និង​ចុះ​ផ្សាយ​ព័ត៌មាន​ផ្សេងៗ នៅ​តាម​ទំព័រ​សារព័ត៌មាន ដែល​បាន​រំលោភ​លើ​មាត្រា ១៥ នៃ​ក្រមសីលធម៌​មេធាវី។

លិខិត​ដែល​ចុះ​ហត្ថលេខា​ដោយ​លោក ប៊ុន ហុន ប្រធាន​គណៈ​មេធាវី បាន​សង្កត់​ធ្ងន់​ថា ចាប់​ពី​ពេល​នេះ​ទៅ លោក​មេធាវី​មិន​ត្រូវ​ផ្ដល់​បទសម្ភាសន៍ និង​ចុះ​ផ្សាយ​ព័ត៌មាន​ផ្សេងៗ​ពាក់ព័ន្ធ​នឹង​វិជ្ជាជីវៈ​មេធាវី​នៅ​តាម​ បណ្ដាញ​សារព័ត៌មាន​នានា ដោយ​គ្មាន​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​ពី​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ឡើយ។

គណៈ ​មេធាវី​គឺ​ជា​ស្ថាប័ន​គ្រប់គ្រង​អ្នក​ប្រកប​វិជ្ជាជីវៈ​មេធាវី​នៅ​ប្រទេស​ កម្ពុជា។ មេធាវី​ដែល​អាច​បំពេញ​មុខ​ងារ​ក្នុង​ការ​ងារ​ការពារ​កូន​ក្ដី​ស្រប​ច្បាប់​ បាន ទាល់តែ​ជា​សមាជិក​គណៈ​មេធាវី៕

អ្នក​ឃ្លាំ​មើល​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​ប្រតិកម្ម​ទៅ​គោលការណ៍​ថ្មី​តម្រូវ​ឲ្យ​មេធាវី​សុំ​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​មុន​ធ្វើ​អធិប្បាយ

Tuesday, 12 February 2013

Abby Seiff & ឆាយ ច័ន្ទនីដា 

 

ភ្នំពេញៈ ក្រុម​អ្នក​ឃ្លាំ​មើល​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​រិះគន់​គោល​ការណ៍​ថ្មី​របស់ គណៈ​មេធាវី​កម្ពុជា​ដែល​តម្រូវ​ឲ្យ​មេធាវី​ទទួល​បាន​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​ជា​មុន​សិន មុន​ពេល​ធ្វើ​ការ​អត្ថាធិប្បាយ​ជា​សា​ធារ​ណៈ​​​​​​​​នៅ​តាម​ទូរទស្សន៍ ឬ​វិទ្យុ ដែល​អាច​ប្រាស​ចាក​នឹង​រដ្ឋ​ធម្មនុញ្ញ ក៏​ដូចជា​បិទ​សិទ្ធិ​ក្នុង​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ។

មន្ត្រីគណៈមេធាវី​កម្ពុជា​បាន​ថ្លែង​កាល​ពី​ថ្ងៃ​សុក្រ​ថា គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​ប្រកាស​នូវ​គោលការណ៍​ថ្មី​ដែល​មាន​វត្ថុ​បំណង​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​​ ប្រសើរ​ឡើង​នូវ​វិជ្ជាជីវៈ​មេធាវី។

លោក យីម សារី អ្នក​នាំពាក្យ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​លើក​ឡើង​ថា មេ ធាវី​ទាំង​ឡាយ​ណា​ដែល​ស្វែង​រក​ធ្វើ​អត្ថាធិប្បាយ​ស៊ីជម្រៅ​តាម​រយៈ ទូរទស្សន៍ ឬ​វិទ្យុ​ត្រូវ​តែ​ទទួល​បាន​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​ជាមុន​សិន ខណៈ ពេល​បណ្តាញ​សារព័ត៌មាន​ណា​មួយ​ចង់​ស្វែង​រក​វាគ្មិន​ទៅ​ពិភាក្សា អំពី​ច្បាប់​គួរ​ត្រូវ​ឆ្លង​កាត់​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ដែរ។ នេះ​បើ​យោង​តាម​សេចក្តី​ថ្លែង​ការណ៍​ដែល​បាន​ផ្ញើ​ទៅ​ក្រសួង​ព័ត៌មាន​នៅ​ ថ្ងៃ​សុក្រ។

អ្នកនាំ​ពាក្យ​រូប​នេះ​បាន​ពន្យល់​ថា៖​«បើ​ការ​អត្ថាធិប្បាយ​របស់​អ្នក​ ស្រាល ឬ​តូច​តាច អ្នក​មិន​ចាំ​បាច់​ឆ្លង​កាត់​ការ​អនុញ្ញាត​នោះ​ទេ។ ឧទាហរណ៍៖ «តុលាការ​បើក​សវនាការ​កាត់​ទោស​បុរស​ម្នាក់​ឲ្យ​ជាប់​គុក​៣​ឆ្នាំ ដូច្នេះ​អ្នក​សារ​ព័ត៌មាន​គួរ​សួរ​ថា អ្វី​ទៅ​ដែល​មេធាវី​គិត? មេធាវី​គួរ​ឆ្លើយ​ថា វា​អយុត្តិធម៌ ហើយ​ខ្ញុំ​នឹង​ប្តឹង​ឧទ្ធរណ៍។ យើង​មិន​អី​ទេ​ចំពោះ​សេចក្តី​ថ្លែង​ការណ៍​បែប​នេះ។ ប៉ុន្តែ​បើ​អ្នក​និយាយ ថា អូ! សាលក្រម​គឺ​អយុត្តិធម៌​ចំពោះ​កូន​ក្តី​ខ្ញុំ។ កូន​ក្តី​របស់​ខ្ញុំ​មិន​បាន​ប្រព្រឹត្ត​ខុស​ទេ ហើយ​និយាយ​ច្រើន​ជាង​អ្វី​ដែល​សាលក្រម​សម្រេច​នោះ វា​មាន​ន័យ​ថា អ្នក​រំលោភ​បំពាន​លើ​សាលក្រម​ហើយ​អាច​ជា​ការ​ប្រឈម​នឹង​ទណ្ឌកម្ម ឧក្រិដ្ឋ»។

លោក ប៊ុន ហ៊ុន ប្រធាន​គណៈ មេធាវី​កម្ពុជា​ដែល​បាន​ប្រកាស​ពី​វិធាន​ការ​នៅ​ក្នុង​កិច្ច​ប្រជុំ​កាល ពី​ថ្ងៃសុក្រ​បដិសេធ​ធ្វើ​អត្ថាធិប្បាយ​កាល​ពី​ម្សិល​មិញ​ដោយ​លោក​គ្រាន់​តែ ថ្លែង​ថា លោក​នឹង​និយាយ​ទៅ​កាន់​​អ្នក​សារព័ត៌មាន​អំឡុង​ពេល​សន្និសីទ​សារព័ត៌មាន។
អ្នកឃ្លាំ​មើល​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស និង អ្នក​ជំនាញ​ផ្នែក​ច្បាប់​បាន​ហៅ​គោលការណ៍​ថ្មី​នេះ​ថា ជា​ការ​រិតត្បិត​ព្រំដែន​សិទ្ធិ​មេធាវី​ក្នុង​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ។

លោក អ៊ូ វីរៈ ប្រធាន​មជ្ឈ​មណ្ឌល​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​កម្ពុជា បាន​និយាយ​ថា៖ «វា​មិន​ត្រឹម​តែ​មិន​ស្រប​តាម​​រដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ ប៉ុណ្ណោះ​ទេ ប៉ុន្តែ​ថែម​ទាំង​រំលោភ​លើ​កម្រង​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​ទាំង​មូល។ ការ​គ្រប់​គ្រង​ដោយ​អព្យាក្រឹត​របស់​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ឥឡូវ​កំពុង​តែ​ទន់​ខ្សោយ»។

គណៈមេធាវី​បាន​ដាក់​គំនាប់ លើ​មេធាវី​កន្លង​មក។ ជាក់​ស្តែង​ល្បី​រន្ទឺ​បំផុត​នោះ​គឺ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ត្រូវ​បាន​ចោទ​ប្រកាន់​ដោយ​ ក្រុម អ្នក​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​ថា បាន​គំរាម​កំហែង​បណ្តេញ​ចេញ​មេធាវី ដែល​ពាក់​ព័ន្ធ​នឹង​បណ្តឹង​បង្ខូច​កេរ្តិ៍​ឈ្មោះ​កាល​ពី​ឆ្នាំ​២០០៩​ ដោយ​សមាជិក​សភា​គណៈបក្ស​សម រង្ស៊ី លោក​ស្រី មូរ សុខ​ហួរ​ប្រឆាំង​នឹង​លោក​នាយក​រដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន។ ដោយ​ត្រូវ​បាន​បង្ខំ​ឲ្យ​ប្រឈម​នឹង​​អធិការ កិច្ច​​របស់​គណៈ​មេធាវី​ជា​ច្រើន​លើក​ មុន​ពេល​លោក​នាយក​រដ្ឋ​មន្ត្រី​ដាក់​បណ្តឹង​ប្រឆាំង​វិញលោក កង សំអ៊ុន មេធាវី​របស់​លោកស្រី មូរ សុខ​ហួរ បាន​​បោះ​បង់​ចោល​រឿង​ក្តី​រស៊ើប​ខ្លាំង​បំផុត​នោះ។

ទាំង​ពាក្យ​បណ្តឹង និង​អធិការ កិច្ច​ត្រូវ​បាន​បោះ​បង់​ចោល បន្ទាប់​ពី​លោក​សំ​អ៊ុន​បាន​ផ្ញើ​លិខិត​សុំ​ទោស​មួយ​ទៅ​នាយក​រដ្ឋ​ មន្ត្រីហ៊ុន សែន ហើយ​មិន​មាន​មេធាវី​ណា​ម្នាក់​បន្ត​កាន់​រឿង​ក្តី​ដ៏​តឹង​តែង​នេះ​ទេ។

អ្នកឃ្លាំ ​មើល​បាន​កត់​សម្គាល់​ថា គោលការណ៍​រឹត​បន្តឹង​នេះ​អាច​នឹង​មាន​ឥទ្ធិពល​ខ្លាំង​លើ​មេធាវី​ជា​អ្នក រិះ​គន់​ខ្លាំងៗ​ដោយ​ឥត​សំចៃ​អំពី​ករណី​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស និង​នយោបាយ​ជាមួយ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល។ កាល​ពី​មុន​គណៈ​មេធាវី​បាន​ស្វែង​រក​ឃើញ​រក្សា​នូវ​ការ​គ្រប់​គ្រង​ដ៏​តឹង​ តែង​។ ឧទាហរណ៍៖ កាលពី​ឆ្នាំ​២០០៧ គោល​ការណ៍​មួយ​បាន​ទាមទារ​ឲ្យ​អង្គការ​ក្រៅ​រដ្ឋាភិបាល​ចុះ​អនុស្សរណៈ​យោគ​ យល់​គ្នា​ជាមួយ​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មុន​ពេល​បម្រើ​សេវា ការងារ​មេធាវី​របស់​ពួកគេ។

ទន្ទឹម​ជា​មួយ​គ្នាលោក សារី បាន​ការ​ពារ​គោលការណ៍​ថ្មី​នេះ​ដោយ​និយាយ​ថា វា​ជាការ​ចាំ​បាច់​ណាស់​ដើម្បី​ការ​កម្រិត​នៃ​វិជ្ជាជីវៈ​ដោយ​លោក មឿន ឈាន​ណារិទ្ធ ប្រធាន​វិទ្យាស្ថាន​កម្ពុជា​ដើម្បី​ការ​សិក្សា​សារព័ត៌មាន​បាន​និយាយ​ថា គោលការណ៍​នេះ​គឺ​ខ្វះ​សមត្ថភាព។
លោក​ថា៖​ «ខ្ញុំ​គិត​ថា វា​មិន​គ្រប់​គ្រាន់​​ដើម្បី​ស្រាយ​បំភ្លឺ​ពីបម្រាម​ណា​មួយ​ចំពោះ​មេធាវី​ ណា​មួយ​ម្នាក់ ​ដែលមិន​បាន​និយាយ​ទៅ​កាន់​សារព័ត៌មាន​ ឬ​សាធារណៈ​នោះ។ ខ្ញុំ​គិត​ថា នេះ​ជា​គំរូ​ដ៏​ល្អ​មួយ​ដែល​យើង​ត្រូវ​ការ​​សេរីភាព​ច្បាប់​ព័ត៌​មាន ដើម្បី​បញ្ជាក់​ថា បុគ្គល​ម្នាក់​ទាំង​មេធាវី ឬ​សមាជិក​រដ្ឋាភិបា​ល​​ត្រូវ​តែ​អនុញ្ញាត​ឲ្យ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​របស់​​គេ​។ មេធាវី​គួរ​មាន​សេរីភាព​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ​របស់​គេ​ដោយ​ផ្អែក​លើ​មាត្រា​ទី​៣១ និង​៤១​នៃ​រដ្ឋ​ធម្មនុញ្ញ​កម្ពុជា»។

លោក Phil Robertson អនុប្រធាន​ផ្នែក​អ្នក​ឃ្លាំ​មើល​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស ​ប្រចាំ​អាស៊ី​បាន​ចង្អុល​បង្ហាញ​ថា ​គោលការណ៍​នេះ​ដូច​ជា​ការ​ប្រឈម​នឹង​អនុសញ្ញា​អន្តរជាតិ​ដែល កម្ពុជា​ជា​ប្រទេស​ហត្ថលេខី​មួយ​។ លោក​ថា៖​«គោលការណ៍​ថ្មី​របស់គណៈ​ មេធាវី​កម្ពុជា​ពិត​ជា​ប្រឆាំង​នឹង​អនុសញ្ញា​សិទ្ធិ​មនុស្ស​ដែល​កម្ពុជា​ជា​ ប្រទេស​ហត្ថលេខី​មួយ និង​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​មាន​កេរ្តិ៍​ឈ្មោះ​អន់​ថយ​ព្រម​ទាំង​បំពានលើ​នីតិវិធី​ច្បាប់​ »។

ទោះ​ជា​យ៉ាង​ណា​ទាំងគណៈ​មេធាវី និង​ក្រសួង​ព័ត៌មាន​បាន​​បក​ស្រាយ​ចំពោះ​ការ​រិះ​គន់​​ដោយ​​លើក​ឡើង​ថា វា​ជា​ការ​យល់​ច្រឡំ​​លើ​​គោល​ការណ៍​នេះ​។

លោក សារី បាន​និយាយ​ថា៖​«គណៈ​មេធាវី​គោរព​សេរីភាព​នៃ​ការ​បញ្ចេញ​មតិ ប៉ុន្តែ​វា​ត្រូវ​មាន​ដែន​កំណត់​ចំពោះ​ការ​ទទួល​ខុស ត្រូវ​​។ បម្រាម​​របស់យើង​មិន​មាន​ចេតនា​​កាត់​បន្ថយ​សេរីភាព​នៃ​ការ​និយាយ​​របស់​ មេធាវី​នោះ​ទេ​»។ លោក ខៀវ កាញារីទ្ធ​ រដ្ឋ​មន្ត្រី​ក្រសួង​ព័ត៌មាន​ច្រាន ចោល​ដែល​ថា​ ប្រាស​​ចាក​​ច្បាប់ នោះ​ ដោយ​លោក​និយាយ​ជា​សារមួយ​ថា ៖«​គណៈ​មេធាវី​មិន​បាន​ហាម​ឃាត​នោះ​ទេ​»៕ CC
 

Cambodia: Last days of a valley damned

May Titthara, David Boyle and Danson Cheong, Phnom Penh Post, Feb. 8 2013

Yong Yim’s voice rises to a high-pitched quiver when she talks about a planned dam in the Areng Valley that would inundate land her family has inhabited for hundreds of years to form what amounts to a giant battery.

“Sometimes I am crying, because I will miss my homeland and my ancestors’ farmland,” she says, spitting out chunks of betel nut.

The trees and shrubs that flourish in this haven between peaks of the Cardamom Mountains now bear an ominous token: red demarcation ribbons posted by Chinese engineers a few weeks ago.

Yim, 65, was born here among a cluster of villages populated by 380 families. Most say they are Chong and Phor ethnic minorities, who fall under the umbrella identity of the Khmer Daeum — literally “original Khmers”.

The Khmer Daeum are so isolated they still speak a dialect believed to have derived from ancient Khmer that has been preserved since their ancestors fled from Thai invaders to the isolated Cardamoms hundreds of years ago.

Now they are staring at forced relocation again, their ancestral homelands all but doomed to become yet another area on the fringes of the Central Cardamom Protected Forest (CCPF) to be devastated by the effects of hydropower dams. To date, there are three dam projects, some with multiple stations, under way on the boundaries of the CCPF.

Lee, an engineer working on one of those projects, the Stung Tatai, told the Post late last month plans to begin construction of the bitterly op­posed Cheay Areng dam were moving ahead rapidly.

“I spoke with the project leader of the Cheay Areng dam recently, and he said that next month [February] representatives from the company will meet with the Cambodian government to discuss the project,” Lee, who spoke on the condition his full name would not be printed, said.

“If all goes well, construction could start as soon as July.”

Lee said a feasibility study for the once-abandoned Cheay Areng dam had recently been completed by China Guodian Corporation, the huge, state-owned firm that took over the project after China Southern Power Grid pulled out of the project in 2010.

The details of that study, Lee said, were scarce, and he had not investigated too much because matters here with the government could be “complicated”.

Repeated requests for comment from China Guodian Corporation went unanswered and the company hung up on reporters when reached by phone.

Previous studies conducted for the firm China Southern Power Grid, which dumped the project because they deemed it unfeasible, suggest that a 109-megawatt dam would be fed by a 20,000-hectare reservoir.

Roughly 10,000 hectares of this reservoir would cover forest directly within the CCPF, the largest single encroachment to date on what is one of Cambodia’s last remaining well-protected conservation zones. The remaining 10,000 hectares of the reservoir would inundate the forest homelands of the Khmer Daeum.

But despite the massive impact, the energy output would be strikingly small.

Tracey Farrell, senior technical director for Conservation International-Cambodia, which supports conservation programs in the CCPF, said in an email that a previous environmental impact assessment had found that the dam “failed to meet the minimum power density ratio of more than 100 watts/m2 of surface area of the reservoir”.

This has led conservation groups to question why the government would allow the destruction of such precious remaining forest for a dam that the latest publicly available information suggests will not really work. There has been no answer.

Using satellite imagery analysis, Conservation International has found that only about two per cent of the 402,000-hectare CCPF lost vegetation between 2006 and 2012.

But with each new dam project – the Stung Atai, Stung Tatai and Stung Russey Chrum – comes a wave of opportunistic migrant loggers commissioned by powerful syndicates, as well as violence and corruption.

A land unparalleled

The loss of the Areng Valley would be particularly devastating. In its upper reaches, the 150-kilometre Areng River resembles that of a large low-land river despite being far from the ocean. The unique morphology likely explains why it boasts an extraordinary diversity of species, most of which are endangered.

Populations of clouded leopards, Asian elephants, Siamese crocodiles, dragon fish, Asiatic black bears and a raft of other reptiles, birds, fish and mammals thrive here.

Rare fish species flourish in the valley’s oxbow lakes – U-shaped stretches of water that have become detached from the river.

In his own visits to the Areng, the Chinese engineer Lee has borne witness to the rich diversity of wildlife that feed off of and seek shelter in the valley’s thriving flora.

“I’ve seen crocodiles, elephants and other animals in the area, but if you want to build a dam, you have to cut the trees down. Then the animals that live there will move away. It’s unavoidable,” he said.

The elephant population in particular is so robust that toward the end of every annual harvest, petrified migrant villagers find themselves with little choice but to shoot off fireworks at hungry elephants to save their crops from the marauding herds.

Just days before Post reporters arrived, almost three weeks ago, the elephants had been on a fresh gastronomic offensive, indulging on bananas, peanuts – anything ready for harvest.

The nearly 1,000 people who will be forcibly relocated if the dam is built have been offered six-by-eight-metre houses with zinc roofs on two-hectare plots of land smack dab in the middle of what conservationists loosely term an “elephant corridor”.

But that’s not their only concern with the relocation site.

Prom Rin, 43, believes he will be relocated to land that is just 100 metres from where the dam would discharge. He fears disaster would ensue if something went wrong with construction.

Thma Daun Pov commune is just one of many relocation sites that have been floated; and though no official word has been issued, villagers are convinced this is the likely option.

“I am worried that we will lose everything,” says Rin.

His fears are not unfounded. In December, an outlet pipe burst at the Stung Atai dam, which, like Areng, discharges just outside the perimeter of the CCPF.

The torrent that was unleashed swept away at least three men, possibly four, who are now presumed dead.

Of greatest importance to those facing forced eviction is that they will lose lands that are home to ancestral spirits and which they have harmoniously cultivated for generations. Some villagers are desperately suggesting eco-tourism could instead be developed as an alternative to the dam, drawing in tourists to experience the wonderful diversity of species in the area.

But no one is helping them to develop this foreign, relatively complex industry, and there is one rare species in Areng that actually threatens to entice the destruction of the forest rather than its protection – luxury rosewood.

If the experience of other dam projects on the boundaries of the CCPF is anything to go by, the peoples of the Areng Valley can expect huge social and environmental problems related to the clandestine trade in luxury timber that is likely to stretch far beyond the boundaries of the dam and its reservoir.

Lessons of the past

About 16 kilometres away in the town of Thma Bang, military police and soldiers infest the streets, patrolling the area like a small, privately owned fiefdom.

They are known to use intimidation and violence against anyone potentially jeopardising the interests of the corrupt businessmen and officials profiting from the illegal rosewood trade in nearby Tatai Leu commune – for whom they routinely moonlight. Repeatedly, this intimidation has been directed at reporters from the Post, who have been detained, threatened and forced to flee from military police.

In Areng, rosewood is still so abundant that on one farm the Post visited, the owner had simply tossed highly valuable small pieces of timber to the ground, only bothering to collect the more lucrative larger logs.

Tatai Leu was once home to abundant rosewood stocks, but in late 2011, after the Stung Tatai dam was approved in January of the same year, a wave of migrants arrived and began selectively logging the trees to sell on to powerful syndicates.

Today, the migrants collect only stumps left over from the more profitable days, and even these are becoming scare.

With a less reliable income stream from illegal logging, migrants are now seeking to clear land for farming so they can support their families.

Though rosewood can fetch more than a million dollars as finished pieces of luxury furniture sold in China, those who do the hard work of logging make just a few dollars per log.

There is no separating logging from land grabbing – the two issues are linked in a chain that starts with the selective logging of luxury timber (often, in the case of the CCPF, after a company is legally granted the right to clear a dam reservoir). It ends with migrants who are enticed to the area as manual labour vying with companies and powerful individuals to clear fell the remaining trees − the former seeking a livelihood, the latter seeking huge profits from large-scale agriculture.

The worst example is in Pursat’s O’Som commune in the northern CCPF, where vast tracks of once-pristine land are left looking like a bombsite after tycoon Try Pheap’s MDS Import & Export came in to clear the reservoir for the Stung Atai dam in 2009.

So it is becoming the case in Tatai Leu, where large tracts of clear-felled land lay still smouldering on either side of the road that intersects this once untouched stretch of evergreen forest three weeks ago.

Villagers told the Post they were clear felling the forest because Prime Minister Hun Sen’s volunteer land surveyors have been deployed directly inside the CCPF, and they need to prove they are cultivating the land to have any hope of receiving a title.

But the opportunistic logging rush extends to higher officials, and to have any hope of receiving a title, you have to be connected, they said.

Kim Ra, 36, and his family moved to Tatai Leu commune about  six months ago, after they heard about the national land-titling scheme.

“I think if the student did not measure the land for me, that’s fine. But I’ll still live here,” he told the Post.

Like all the villagers the Post spoke to in Tatai Leu, Ra said that the commune chief and district chief had been seeking to secure much larger plots of land under the national land-titling scheme, including one hill that has now been almost completely deforested on one side.

When contacted by the Post, Meas Chan, chief of Tatai Leu commune, refused to comment, saying only that he did not know about such rumours and had no involvement, while Tou Savuth, governor of Thma Bang district, could not be reached.

The issue of migrants clearing land in the CCPF to claim titles was “particularly problematic”, wrote Conservation International-Cambodia’s Tracy Farrell.

“Any land clearing that is taking place, whether it is inside or outside the CCPF in the buffer zone, is a major threat to biodiversity and the ecosystems that provide essential services that people depend upon,” she wrote.

As a result of this threat, documentation on eight cases of illegal land-clearing since 2012 involving 60 hectares of cleared forest were being investigated by the provincial court, Farrell wrote. In at least one case, a primary suspect had been named by the court.

Nevertheless, there is clearly friction between different government authorities and officials over whether or not to crack down on the illegal logging.

Even a military police officer in Tatai Leu, who declined to give his name, was clearly frustrated by what he said was clear-felling backed by corrupt local officials.

“If I was a volunteer student, I would not measure land for them, and I would file a complaint against those people to the court because they cut trees,” he said, going on to allege that senior local government officials were buying the land up off them.

Koh Kong provincial forestry administration chief Oum Makary acknowledged that illegal clearing had taken place inside the CCPF but said all he could do was send his report to the provincial governor and high-level officials.

“I have no duty to do [pursue] it besides [filing] the report,” he said.

A three-star general who tried to take action to stop the illegal logging had recently been fired, he said.

Just under two weeks ago, a large government entourage, including the prime minister and his entire politburo, took a trip to isolated Thma Bang town, arriving in a convoy of black SUVs.

As the premier lauded the final chapter in his national land-titling scheme, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Chan Sarun drove on to Tatai Leu, straight past the clear-felled smouldering tracks of what was meant to be a protected forest.

If Sarun was shocked by the destruction he witnessed on either side of the road, he uttered not a word publicly.