- Last Updated on 15 February 2013
- By Sarah Thust
-
Northbridge International School Cambodia (NISC) was originally founded in 1997 as a US school. Soon after, the management decided to develop the school to international standards and to offer a fully accredited Western curriculum. Northbridge school head Roy G Crawford talked to the Post’s Sarah Thust about the rapid growth in Cambodia’s education sector.
Roy G Crawford, school head at Northbridge International School Cambodia, poses for a portrait this week in Phnom Penh. Photograph: Ruth Keber
How big is the school at the moment?
Currently, we have 500 students that are between three and 18 years old, and 96 employees, including 53 teachers. For each student we charge US$10,000 to $18,000 per year, which is less than in other Southeast Asian countries. Those revenues we reinvest in renovation and extension, but mostly in personnel costs. We offer our teachers salaries between $30,000 and $41,000 per year. Additionally, NISC pays housing, shipping and administrative costs. However, it is a misconception that our owner, the Royal Group, takes profits from us.
Why do you pay such high salaries?
Our teachers are highly qualified and experienced international educators, so we need to offer them a worldwide competitive salary that could match Dubai or Singapore. I’ve been working for schools since 1975 and my staff has similar work experience. Many schools in Cambodia work with unqualified personnel that have no teaching experience, but NISC is authorised to deliver all three programs of the International Baccalaureate and needs to keep a high level.
The private education sector in Cambodia is growing fast. What is NISC’s experience?
We grow by about 15 to 20 per cent year-on-year. In five years, our school will have more than 900 students. However, we try to stay ahead of this growth concerning our capacity. We’ve just opened an up-to-date primary school building and want to add student housing, a performing arts centre, a bigger library and an Olympic swimming pool.
How do you explain the current boom in the private education sector?
Cambodia’s growing middle class is looking to provide their children with good education. Forty-five per cent of our students are Cambodian citizens. Some of them have lived abroad and some not. The reason why Phnom Penh has so many private schools is the low quality of public education, even though it has improved dramatically recently.
However, we don’t have many competitors. There are only four or five accredited schools in Phnom Penh, meaning that those schools are monitored and quality checked.
How long will this growth continue?
As long as the Kingdom’s economy is growing, the private education sector will grow as well. Thus, a school should not become too big. We don’t want to exceed more than 2,000 students, because we would lose our sense of community.
Friday 15 February 2013
Private schools on the rise in Cambodia
Tuesday 12 February 2013
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.”
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’
(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’
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.
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.
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)
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.
មេធាវីប្រតិកម្មចំពោះការឲ្យសុំគណៈមេធាវីមុននិយាយជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយ
ដោយ កែវ និមល
2013-02-12
មេធាវីមួយចំនួនមានប្រតិកម្មតបចំពោះការទាមទារឲ្យអនុវត្ត
តាមមាត្រា ១៥ របស់ក្រមសីលធម៌មេធាវី
ដែលនិយាយអំពីចំណុចអន្តរាគមន៍តាមប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយជាសាធារណៈនៃ
មេធាវី។
ខ្លឹមសារសំខាន់នៃក្រមសីលធម៌នោះ
គឺមិនបានហាមមេធាវីក្នុងការនិយាយជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធឃោសនា មានវិទ្យុ
កាសែត ទូរទស្សន៍ ទេ តែត្រូវជូនដំណឹងដល់ប្រធានគណៈមេធាវីជាមុន
កាលណានិយាយជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធឃោសនា។
ការរឹតត្បិតសេរីភាពមេធាវីក្នុងការធ្វើបទអន្តរាគមន៍
និយាយសម្ភាសន៍ជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយ
គឺជាការខាតបង់មួយនៅក្នុងពេលដែលប្រទេសកម្ពុជា
មិនសូវមានអ្នកចេះដឹងច្បាប់
និងសៀវភៅឯកសារផ្សព្វផ្សាយច្បាប់នៅមានចំនួនតិច
មិនបានចែកទូលំទូលាយទៅដល់ជនបទដាច់ស្រយាល។
មេធាវីមួយចំនួនបានឲ្យដឹងថា មេធាវីគឺជាអ្នកចេះច្បាប់
និងរស់នៅរកស៊ីដោយប្រើសមត្ថភាពចំណេះដឹងខាងច្បាប់។
ដូច្នេះបើមេធាវីរូបណានិយាយខុស
គឺរូបគេជាអ្នកទទួលខុសត្រូវតាមផ្លូវច្បាប់ដែលកំពុងអនុវត្តនៅ
ក្នុងប្រទេស។
ការទាមទារឲ្យប្រធានស្ថាប័នឃោសនានានា
ត្រូវសុំទៅគណៈមេធាវីមុនពេលអញ្ជើញមេធាវីមកជាវាគ្មិន
វាជារបៀបរបបរដ្ឋបាលបែបការិយាល័យនិយមផងដែរ។
លោកមេធាវី សុក សំអឿន
នាយកអង្គការក្រុមអ្នកច្បាប់ការពារសិទ្ធិកម្ពុជា
មានប្រសាសន៍នៅថ្ងៃទី១១ កុម្ភៈ ថា មាត្រា ១៥
នៃក្រមសីលធម៌មេធាវីនេះមានជាយូរមកហើយ តែប្រធានគណៈមេធាវីមុនៗ
មិនបានលើកយកចំណុចនេះមកអនុវត្តទេ ទើបតែជំនាន់លោក ប៊ុន ហុន
ឡើងធ្វើជាប្រធានគណៈមេធាវី បានទាមទារឲ្យអនុវត្តចំណុចនេះ។
លោកមេធាវី សុក សំអឿន៖ «ប្រហែលជាលោកប្រធានទាំងអស់នោះ
លោកគិតថា ការអនុវត្តវាពិបាកធ្វើ។
ដូច្នេះហើយពួកគាត់អត់បានមាត្រានោះមកអនុវត្ត ហើយមួយទៀត
វាមិនមែនជាច្បាប់ទេ
ហើយក្រមសីលធម៌នេះវាអនុម័តដោយក្រុមប្រឹក្សាគណៈមេធាវីតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ។
ដូច្នេះគណៈមេធាវីអាណត្តិក្រោយៗ អាចលើកយកពិនិត្យ និងកែវាបាន»។
លោកមេធាវី សុក សំអឿន មានប្រសាសន៍បន្ថែមថា
ក្រមសីលធម៌មេធាវីនេះរៀបចំតាក់តែងឡើងកាលពីឆ្នាំ១៩៩៥
តាំងពីចំនួនមេធាវីមានប្រមាណ ៧០នាក់ប៉ុណ្ណោះ។
ដូច្នេះការសុំជួបមេធាវីឆ្លងកាត់គណៈមេធាវី វាជាការងារតិចតួចមួយ
តែបច្ចុប្បន្នចំនួនមេធាវីមានចំនួនច្រើនជាង ៨០០នាក់ទៅហើយ
បើគេចង់អនុវត្តក្រមសីលធម៌នេះឲ្យបានត្រឹមត្រូវ គេគួរពិនិត្យ
និងកែប្រែក្រមនោះឲ្យទាន់សម័យតាមស្ថានភាពរីកចំរើនជាក់ស្ដែង។
លោកមេធាវី សុក សំអឿន៖ «និយាយទៅ កាលនោះមានលោក សាយ បូរី ជាប្រធាន
ហើយនៅពេលនោះ គណៈមេធាវីទើបបង្កើតថ្មី។
អ៊ីចឹងប្រធានគណៈមេធាវីលោកបារម្ភថា មេធាវីចេញថ្មីនិយាយខុស»។
លោកមេធាវី សុក សំអឿន មានប្រសាសន៍ថា
បើសិនជាមានការតឹងតែងលើការអនុញ្ញាតឲ្យមេធាវីសម្ភាសន៍
និងនិយាយអំពីរឿងច្បាប់តាមប្រព័ន្ធឃោសនានោះ
វាជាការខាតបង់ធនធានមនុស្សមួយធំណាស់
ក្នុងការចូលរួមអប់រំច្បាប់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋនៅក្នុងស្ថានភាពដែលប្រទេស
កម្ពុជា នៅមានចំនួនអ្នកចេះច្បាប់តិចតួចនៅឡើយនោះ។
លោក សុក សំអឿន៖ «មិនបានចូលរួមតែម្ដង
គឺបានធ្វើតែរឿងក្ដីនៅតុលាការតែមួយមុខ។ តែនេះវាជាក្រមសីលធម៌
វាអាស្រ័យទៅលើគណៈមេធាវីតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ។
ធម្មតាវាគ្រាន់តែជាក្រមសីលធម៌តែប៉ុណ្ណោះ»។
ចំណែកលោកមេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មេធាវីការិយាល័យសិលា មានប្រសាសន៍ថា
បើចង់និយាយជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធឃោសនា ដូចជា កាសែត វិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍
ទាល់តែសុំការអនុញ្ញាតពីគណៈមេធាវីនោះ
វាធ្វើឲ្យការងារផ្សព្វផ្សាយច្បាប់ជាសាធារណៈ លែងទូលំទូលាយហើយ។
លោកមេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មានយោបល់ថា
ការរឹតត្បិតលើមេធាវីក្នុងការនិយាយស្តីជាមួយអ្នកកាសែតនោះ
វាមិនបានចូលរួមពង្រឹងការងារធ្វើឲ្យតុលាការមានយុត្តិធម៌នោះឡើយ
ពីព្រោះអ្នកសម្រេចដាក់ទោស ឬលើកលែងទោសនោះ គឺចៅក្រម
និងព្រះរាជអាជ្ញាទៅវិញទេដែលមានសិទ្ធិមានឆន្ទានុសិទ្ធិក្នុងការ
សម្រេច។ ម៉្យាងទៀត មេធាវីមួយរូបៗ
សុទ្ធតែជាអ្នកចេះដឹងច្បាប់ច្រើនជាងពលរដ្ឋផ្សេងទៀត
បើកាលណានិយាយមិនត្រឹមត្រូវខុសច្បាប់
គណៈមេធាវីអាចកោះហៅមកព្រមាន ស្តីបន្ទោស
និងបើទោសកើតឡើងពីការនិយាយនោះ វារំលោភច្បាប់ធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ
ទុកឲ្យច្បាប់កាត់ទោសទៅ។
លោកមេធាវី ជូង ជូងី មានយោបល់ថា
ដោយសាររូបលោកជាសមាជិកក្រុមប្រឹក្សាគណៈមេធាវីផងនោះ
លោកមានគម្រោងសុំឲ្យលុបចោលមាត្រា ១៥
នៃក្រមសីលធម៌របស់គណៈមេធាវីនោះចេញ
ដើម្បីឲ្យសមាជិកគណៈមេធាវីមានសេរីភាពពេញលេញក្នុងការបញ្ចេញមតិ
ស្របទៅតាមការអនុញ្ញាតរបស់រដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញកម្ពុជា។៖ «ប៉ុន្តែក្នុង
ការអនុវត្ត វាអាស្រ័យទៅលើភាពធ្ងន់ស្រាលនៃអំពើតែប៉ុណ្ណោះ
ហើយបើស្អីបន្តិចក៏ជូនដំណឹងដែរនោះវាធ្វើឲ្យអកម្ម»។
មាត្រា ១៥
នៃក្រមសីលធម៌គណៈមេធាវីចែងអំពីអន្តរាគមន៍តាមប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយ
ព័ត៌មានជាសាធារណៈនៃមេធាវី។ គ្រប់អន្តរាគមន៍សាធារណៈ
ឬតាមប្រព័ន្ធផ្សាយព័ត៌មានជាសាធារណៈរបស់មេធាវីក្នុងឋានៈខ្លួនជា
មេធាវី
និងអាចអនុញ្ញាតឲ្យធ្វើបានតែក្នុងក្របខ័ណ្ឌនៃការគោរពដោយ
ម៉ឺងម៉ាត់នូវកាតព្វកិច្ចនៃវិជ្ជាជីវៈ។ អន្តរាគមន៍បែបនេះ
ទាមទារឲ្យមានការប្រុងប្រយ័ត្នជាទីបំផុត។
ប្រធានគណៈមេធាវីត្រូវតែបានទទួលដំណឹងពិគ្រោះយោបល់ជាមុនក្នុងរឿង
នេះ លើកលែងតែពុំមានលទ្ធភាព។
កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៨ កុម្ភៈ រដ្ឋមន្ត្រីក្រសួងព័ត៌មាន លោក ខៀវ កាញារីទ្ធ
បានផ្សព្វផ្សាយសេចក្តីជូនដំណឹងមួយដល់អ្នកកាសែត
ជាពិសេសនាយកស្ថានីយវិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍
ដែលមានកម្មវិធីផ្សព្វផ្សាយច្បាប់ និងបកស្រាយច្បាប់
ឲ្យដាក់ពាក្យអញ្ជើញអ្នកច្បាប់ មេធាវី ដើម្បីធ្វើជាវាគ្មិន
ត្រូវឆ្លងកាត់ការសុំអញ្ជើញនោះ តាមគណៈមេធាវី។ ការផ្សព្វផ្សាយនេះ
ធ្វើឡើងក្រោយពេលគណៈមេធាវីបានធ្វើលិខិតណែនាំមួយទាក់ទងរឿង
សម្ភាសន៍មេធាវីនេះ កាលពីថ្ងៃទី២២ មករា។
លោក យឹម សារី ជាមេធាវី និងជាអ្នកនាំពាក្យគណៈមេធាវីកម្ពុជា
មានប្រសាសន៍នៅថ្ងៃទី១១ កុម្ភៈ ថា
ការណែនាំឲ្យពង្រឹងវិន័យមេធាវីក្នុងការនិយាយជាមួយប្រព័ន្ធ
ផ្សព្វផ្សាយនេះ ដើម្បីឲ្យការបកស្រាយបំភ្លឺច្បាប់នានា
បានត្រឹមត្រូវ។
លោក យឹម សារី៖ «ដោយសារមេធាវីដែលនិយាយតាមវិទ្យុ
និងទូរទស្សន៍មួយចំនួននេះ គឺនិយាយអត់បានព្រាងទុក។
អ៊ីចឹងកាលណានិយាយអត់បានព្រាងទុក
គឺវាមានផលវិបាកទៅដល់អ្នកស្ដាប់ អ្នកមើល។ ទី២
វាប៉ះពាល់ទៅដល់អ្នកច្បាប់ ដែលគេដឹងដែរ ហើយគេថា
ការបកស្រាយច្បាប់នេះមិនត្រឹមត្រូវ។ ទី៣ វិទ្យុ ទូរទស្សន៍ ហៅ
ដោយអត់បានព្រាងទុក។ ការអត់បានព្រាងទុកនេះ
ធ្វើឲ្យប្រជាពលរដ្ឋមួយចំនួនយល់ថា
យើងដឹងយើងផ្ដល់ព័ត៌មានអត់បានត្រឹមត្រូវ»។
លោកមេធាវី យឹម សារី បានច្រានចោលចំពោះអ្នកខ្លះចោទប្រកាន់ថា
ការសុំជួបមេធាវីតាមរយៈគណៈមេធាវី វាជាបែបបទការិយាធិបតេយ្យ
ថាជាការយល់ខុស។
លោកមេធាវី យឹម សារី ជាអ្នកនាំពាក្យគណៈមេធាវីបានឲ្យដឹងថា
បើសិនជាមេធាវីរូបណាមិនគោរពតាមការណែនាំរបស់គណៈមេធាវី
អ្នកនោះត្រូវប្រឈមជាមួយការដាក់វិន័យជាមិនខាន។
កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៣១ មករា កន្លងទៅ
គណៈមេធាវីបានចេញផ្សាយលិខិតព្រមានមួយច្បាប់ទៅលើលោកមេធាវី គួយ
ធុនណា ចំពោះសកម្មភាពផ្ដល់បទសម្ភាសន៍ និងចុះផ្សាយព័ត៌មានផ្សេងៗ
នៅតាមទំព័រសារព័ត៌មាន ដែលបានរំលោភលើមាត្រា ១៥ នៃក្រមសីលធម៌មេធាវី។
លិខិតដែលចុះហត្ថលេខាដោយលោក ប៊ុន ហុន ប្រធានគណៈមេធាវី
បានសង្កត់ធ្ងន់ថា ចាប់ពីពេលនេះទៅ
លោកមេធាវីមិនត្រូវផ្ដល់បទសម្ភាសន៍
និងចុះផ្សាយព័ត៌មានផ្សេងៗពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងវិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវីនៅតាម
បណ្ដាញសារព័ត៌មាននានា ដោយគ្មានការអនុញ្ញាតពីគណៈមេធាវីឡើយ។
គណៈ មេធាវីគឺជាស្ថាប័នគ្រប់គ្រងអ្នកប្រកបវិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវីនៅប្រទេស កម្ពុជា។ មេធាវីដែលអាចបំពេញមុខងារក្នុងការងារការពារកូនក្ដីស្របច្បាប់ បាន ទាល់តែជាសមាជិកគណៈមេធាវី៕
គណៈ មេធាវីគឺជាស្ថាប័នគ្រប់គ្រងអ្នកប្រកបវិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវីនៅប្រទេស កម្ពុជា។ មេធាវីដែលអាចបំពេញមុខងារក្នុងការងារការពារកូនក្ដីស្របច្បាប់ បាន ទាល់តែជាសមាជិកគណៈមេធាវី៕
អ្នកឃ្លាំមើលសិទ្ធិមនុស្សប្រតិកម្មទៅគោលការណ៍ថ្មីតម្រូវឲ្យមេធាវីសុំការអនុញ្ញាតមុនធ្វើអធិប្បាយ
- Tuesday, 12 February 2013
- Abby Seiff & ឆាយ ច័ន្ទនីដា
- ភ្នំពេញៈ
ក្រុមអ្នកឃ្លាំមើលសិទ្ធិមនុស្សរិះគន់គោលការណ៍ថ្មីរបស់
គណៈមេធាវីកម្ពុជាដែលតម្រូវឲ្យមេធាវីទទួលបានការអនុញ្ញាតជាមុនសិន មុនពេលធ្វើការអត្ថាធិប្បាយជាសាធារណៈនៅតាមទូរទស្សន៍ ឬវិទ្យុ
ដែលអាចប្រាសចាកនឹងរដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ
ក៏ដូចជាបិទសិទ្ធិក្នុងការបញ្ចេញមតិ។
មន្ត្រីគណៈមេធាវីកម្ពុជាបានថ្លែងកាលពីថ្ងៃសុក្រថា គណៈមេធាវីបានប្រកាសនូវគោលការណ៍ថ្មីដែលមានវត្ថុបំណងធ្វើឲ្យ ប្រសើរឡើងនូវវិជ្ជាជីវៈមេធាវី។
លោក យីម សារី អ្នកនាំពាក្យគណៈមេធាវីបានលើកឡើងថា មេ ធាវីទាំងឡាយណាដែលស្វែងរកធ្វើអត្ថាធិប្បាយស៊ីជម្រៅតាមរយៈ ទូរទស្សន៍ ឬវិទ្យុត្រូវតែទទួលបានការអនុញ្ញាតជាមុនសិន ខណៈ ពេលបណ្តាញសារព័ត៌មានណាមួយចង់ស្វែងរកវាគ្មិនទៅពិភាក្សា អំពីច្បាប់គួរត្រូវឆ្លងកាត់គណៈមេធាវីដែរ។ នេះបើយោងតាមសេចក្តីថ្លែងការណ៍ដែលបានផ្ញើទៅក្រសួងព័ត៌មាននៅ ថ្ងៃសុក្រ។
អ្នកនាំពាក្យរូបនេះបានពន្យល់ថា៖«បើការអត្ថាធិប្បាយរបស់អ្នក ស្រាល ឬតូចតាច អ្នកមិនចាំបាច់ឆ្លងកាត់ការអនុញ្ញាតនោះទេ។ ឧទាហរណ៍៖ «តុលាការបើកសវនាការកាត់ទោសបុរសម្នាក់ឲ្យជាប់គុក៣ឆ្នាំ ដូច្នេះអ្នកសារព័ត៌មានគួរសួរថា អ្វីទៅដែលមេធាវីគិត? មេធាវីគួរឆ្លើយថា វាអយុត្តិធម៌ ហើយខ្ញុំនឹងប្តឹងឧទ្ធរណ៍។ យើងមិនអីទេចំពោះសេចក្តីថ្លែងការណ៍បែបនេះ។ ប៉ុន្តែបើអ្នកនិយាយ ថា អូ! សាលក្រមគឺអយុត្តិធម៌ចំពោះកូនក្តីខ្ញុំ។ កូនក្តីរបស់ខ្ញុំមិនបានប្រព្រឹត្តខុសទេ ហើយនិយាយច្រើនជាងអ្វីដែលសាលក្រមសម្រេចនោះ វាមានន័យថា អ្នករំលោភបំពានលើសាលក្រមហើយអាចជាការប្រឈមនឹងទណ្ឌកម្ម ឧក្រិដ្ឋ»។
លោក ប៊ុន ហ៊ុន ប្រធានគណៈ មេធាវីកម្ពុជាដែលបានប្រកាសពីវិធានការនៅក្នុងកិច្ចប្រជុំកាល ពីថ្ងៃសុក្របដិសេធធ្វើអត្ថាធិប្បាយកាលពីម្សិលមិញដោយលោកគ្រាន់តែ ថ្លែងថា លោកនឹងនិយាយទៅកាន់អ្នកសារព័ត៌មានអំឡុងពេលសន្និសីទសារព័ត៌មាន។
អ្នកឃ្លាំមើលសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស និង អ្នកជំនាញផ្នែកច្បាប់បានហៅគោលការណ៍ថ្មីនេះថា ជាការរិតត្បិតព្រំដែនសិទ្ធិមេធាវីក្នុងការបញ្ចេញមតិ។
លោក អ៊ូ វីរៈ ប្រធានមជ្ឈមណ្ឌលសិទ្ធិមនុស្សកម្ពុជា បាននិយាយថា៖ «វាមិនត្រឹមតែមិនស្របតាមរដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញ ប៉ុណ្ណោះទេ ប៉ុន្តែថែមទាំងរំលោភលើកម្រងសិទ្ធិមនុស្សទាំងមូល។ ការគ្រប់គ្រងដោយអព្យាក្រឹតរបស់គណៈមេធាវីឥឡូវកំពុងតែទន់ខ្សោយ»។
គណៈមេធាវីបានដាក់គំនាប់ លើមេធាវីកន្លងមក។ ជាក់ស្តែងល្បីរន្ទឺបំផុតនោះគឺគណៈមេធាវីត្រូវបានចោទប្រកាន់ដោយ ក្រុម អ្នកសិទ្ធិមនុស្សថា បានគំរាមកំហែងបណ្តេញចេញមេធាវី ដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងបណ្តឹងបង្ខូចកេរ្តិ៍ឈ្មោះកាលពីឆ្នាំ២០០៩ ដោយសមាជិកសភាគណៈបក្សសម រង្ស៊ី លោកស្រី មូរ សុខហួរប្រឆាំងនឹងលោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី ហ៊ុន សែន។ ដោយត្រូវបានបង្ខំឲ្យប្រឈមនឹងអធិការ កិច្ចរបស់គណៈមេធាវីជាច្រើនលើក មុនពេលលោកនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រីដាក់បណ្តឹងប្រឆាំងវិញលោក កង សំអ៊ុន មេធាវីរបស់លោកស្រី មូរ សុខហួរ បានបោះបង់ចោលរឿងក្តីរស៊ើបខ្លាំងបំផុតនោះ។
ទាំងពាក្យបណ្តឹង និងអធិការ កិច្ចត្រូវបានបោះបង់ចោល បន្ទាប់ពីលោកសំអ៊ុនបានផ្ញើលិខិតសុំទោសមួយទៅនាយករដ្ឋ មន្ត្រីហ៊ុន សែន ហើយមិនមានមេធាវីណាម្នាក់បន្តកាន់រឿងក្តីដ៏តឹងតែងនេះទេ។
អ្នកឃ្លាំ មើលបានកត់សម្គាល់ថា គោលការណ៍រឹតបន្តឹងនេះអាចនឹងមានឥទ្ធិពលខ្លាំងលើមេធាវីជាអ្នក រិះគន់ខ្លាំងៗដោយឥតសំចៃអំពីករណីសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស និងនយោបាយជាមួយរដ្ឋាភិបាល។ កាលពីមុនគណៈមេធាវីបានស្វែងរកឃើញរក្សានូវការគ្រប់គ្រងដ៏តឹង តែង។ ឧទាហរណ៍៖ កាលពីឆ្នាំ២០០៧ គោលការណ៍មួយបានទាមទារឲ្យអង្គការក្រៅរដ្ឋាភិបាលចុះអនុស្សរណៈយោគ យល់គ្នាជាមួយគណៈមេធាវីមុនពេលបម្រើសេវា ការងារមេធាវីរបស់ពួកគេ។
ទន្ទឹមជាមួយគ្នាលោក សារី បានការពារគោលការណ៍ថ្មីនេះដោយនិយាយថា វាជាការចាំបាច់ណាស់ដើម្បីការកម្រិតនៃវិជ្ជាជីវៈដោយលោក មឿន ឈានណារិទ្ធ ប្រធានវិទ្យាស្ថានកម្ពុជាដើម្បីការសិក្សាសារព័ត៌មានបាននិយាយថា គោលការណ៍នេះគឺខ្វះសមត្ថភាព។
លោកថា៖ «ខ្ញុំគិតថា វាមិនគ្រប់គ្រាន់ដើម្បីស្រាយបំភ្លឺពីបម្រាមណាមួយចំពោះមេធាវី ណាមួយម្នាក់ ដែលមិនបាននិយាយទៅកាន់សារព័ត៌មាន ឬសាធារណៈនោះ។ ខ្ញុំគិតថា នេះជាគំរូដ៏ល្អមួយដែលយើងត្រូវការសេរីភាពច្បាប់ព័ត៌មាន ដើម្បីបញ្ជាក់ថា បុគ្គលម្នាក់ទាំងមេធាវី ឬសមាជិករដ្ឋាភិបាលត្រូវតែអនុញ្ញាតឲ្យបញ្ចេញមតិរបស់គេ។ មេធាវីគួរមានសេរីភាពបញ្ចេញមតិរបស់គេដោយផ្អែកលើមាត្រាទី៣១ និង៤១នៃរដ្ឋធម្មនុញ្ញកម្ពុជា»។
លោក Phil Robertson អនុប្រធានផ្នែកអ្នកឃ្លាំមើលសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស ប្រចាំអាស៊ីបានចង្អុលបង្ហាញថា គោលការណ៍នេះដូចជាការប្រឈមនឹងអនុសញ្ញាអន្តរជាតិដែល កម្ពុជាជាប្រទេសហត្ថលេខីមួយ។ លោកថា៖«គោលការណ៍ថ្មីរបស់គណៈ មេធាវីកម្ពុជាពិតជាប្រឆាំងនឹងអនុសញ្ញាសិទ្ធិមនុស្សដែលកម្ពុជាជា ប្រទេសហត្ថលេខីមួយ និងធ្វើឲ្យមានកេរ្តិ៍ឈ្មោះអន់ថយព្រមទាំងបំពានលើនីតិវិធីច្បាប់ »។
ទោះជាយ៉ាងណាទាំងគណៈមេធាវី និងក្រសួងព័ត៌មានបានបកស្រាយចំពោះការរិះគន់ដោយលើកឡើងថា វាជាការយល់ច្រឡំលើគោលការណ៍នេះ។
លោក សារី បាននិយាយថា៖«គណៈមេធាវីគោរពសេរីភាពនៃការបញ្ចេញមតិ ប៉ុន្តែវាត្រូវមានដែនកំណត់ចំពោះការទទួលខុស ត្រូវ។ បម្រាមរបស់យើងមិនមានចេតនាកាត់បន្ថយសេរីភាពនៃការនិយាយរបស់ មេធាវីនោះទេ»។ លោក ខៀវ កាញារីទ្ធ រដ្ឋមន្ត្រីក្រសួងព័ត៌មានច្រាន ចោលដែលថា ប្រាសចាកច្បាប់ នោះ ដោយលោកនិយាយជាសារមួយថា ៖«គណៈមេធាវីមិនបានហាមឃាតនោះទេ»៕ CC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The 2024 Workshops for Foreign Confucius Institute Directors on June 13-21, 2024 at Sichuan Province, China
My sincere thanks and gratitude go to my respectful Rector, H.E. Sok Khorn , and the Chinese Confucius Institute Director, Prof. Yi Yongzhon...
-
Wachira Kigotho 09 May 2014 Issue No:319 Unequal access to university education is likely to persist in most countries globally ...
-
លោកនិពន្ធនាយកជាទីគោរពរាប់អាន! តាម ការពិនិត្យសង្កេតរបស់ខ្ញុំ មានប្រព័ន្ធផ្សព្វផ្សាយជាតិ និងអន្តរជាតិជាច្រើន បានច... -
ការពិនិត្យមើលផលអាក្រក់កើតចេញពីវប្បធម៌ប៉ែងជើង ឬក្ដិចត្រួយគ្នា ដោយ កែវពេជ្រ មេត្តា 2011-11-03 ទម្លាប់នៃការប...
-
Chambers and Partners - Home 1 Bun & Associates THE FIRM Sources single out this firm as a market leader, highlighting its inc...
-
Combat Journalism: CQR Is reporting on global conflict worth the risk? By Frank Greve Introduction Chr...
-
ព្រះករុណាព្រះបាទសម្តេចព្រះនរោត្តម សីហនុ « ព្រះបរមរតនកោដ្ឋ » បានស្ថាបនាសាកលវិទ្យាល័យភូមិន្ទបាត់ដំបងតាមរយៈ ព្រះរាជក្រឹត្យលេខ ៣៤/៦៨.ប.រ ចុះថ្... -
By Sam Rany 1. There is a jump in higher education in Cambodia, what do you see from this development? Actually, I o...
-
https://www.box.com/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255#/files/0/f/0/1/f_2876428255 International Journal of Higher Education ISSN 1927-... -
Academic Adjustment Issues in a Malaysian Research University: The Case of Cambodian, Laotian, Burmese, and Vietnamese Postgraduat...
-
https://www.box.com/profile#/profile/183918435/page/1/1/2876421805 International Journal of Learning & Development ISSN 216...
