Thursday August 20, 2009
BANGKOK, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen is facing pressure from rights groups and foreign donors while he battles to minimise the damage to the country's fragile economy from the global financial crisis.
Foreign governments, rights groups, non-governmental organisations and political rivals continue to hound the former Khmer Rouge soldier over his authoritarian leadership style and his attempts to muzzle critics.
However, analysts say neither the criticism of Hun Sen's government nor the effects of the slowing economy are likely create instability in the near future.
HOW DOES HUN SEN RESPOND TO CRITICS?
Hun Sen's government has filed a series of lawsuits against journalists and opposition lawmakers for defamation or "disinformation", which rights groups and foreign diplomats say are attempts to silence critics and strengthen his grip on power.
Two opposition MPs critical of Hun Sen and his party were recently stripped of parliamentary immunity, effectively unseating them from the national assembly. Other cases have included a young political activist jailed for painting anti-government slogans on his house and an advocate of cultural preservation who criticised lighting plans for the ancient Angkor Wat temple.
"Hun Sen does not know how to respond to criticism and the fear is he will respond with an iron fist through more suppression, which would undermine Cambodia's democratic progress," said Ou Vireak, president of the U.S-funded Cambodian Centre for Human Rights.
WHAT ABOUT FORCED EVICTIONS, CORRUPTION?
Tens of thousands of people have been evicted by force from prime land in the capital, Phnom Penh. Rights groups say as many as 250,000 people have been affected nationwide. The government says the dwellers are land-grabbers who refuse to accept their offers of compensation.
The World Bank and other donors say the evictions are hampering efforts to tackle poverty in a country where 35 percent of the population live on less than $1 a day. The ruling party's control over the police, military and the courts means those made homeless have limited power to fight the evictions.
The government has also come under fire for failing to deal with rampant corruption, which the United States says costs the country $500 million a year. Cambodia, which anti-graft watchdogs rank as one of the world's most corrupt countries, has dismissed the claims as foreign interference. An anti-corruption bill drafted in the 1990s is also yet to be approved.
Analysts say the failure to tackle graft will restrict the amount of foreign investment in the country.
IS ALL THIS ANY THREAT TO HUN SEN?
Hun Sen's Cambodian People's Party (CPP) enjoyed a landslide election victory in 2008 on the back of four years of double-digit growth driven by pro-investment policies, which helped create jobs and improve infrastructure and public services.
Analysts say that after decades of war and political strife, Cambodians are better off under Hun Sen. Although he is criticised for his authoritarian style, people are largely supportive of his nationalist and conservative approach to running the country.
"He has a desire to maintain Khmer traditions and morals and that maintains some strong fabric on which to base policy decisions. That's good for political stability," said Ian Bryson, a specialist on Cambodia at Control Risks in Singapore.
COULD A SLOWING ECONOMY AFFECT CAMBODIA'S STABILITY?
A boom in the garment manufacturing industry in the 1990s helped lift many rural people out of poverty, but the global financial crisis has hurt tourism and slashed demand for Cambodian-made clothes in countries like the United States.
Analysts believe victims of lay-offs are unlikely to blame the government or protest against factory closures. They say stability rests on the government's future handling of inflation, diversifying its economy and improving its investment climate.
"The government should invest more in agriculture and other industries and reduce its reliance on garments and tourism," said Pou Sothirak, a senior research fellow at Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies (ISEAS).
(Compiled by Martin Petty and Ek Madra in Phnom Penh; Editing by Alan Raybould and Bill Tarrant)
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Japan PM hopeful pledges bureaucrat crackdown
by Shingo Ito Shingo Ito – Thu Aug 20, 12:13 am ET
TOKYO (AFP) – They are highly educated, mostly male and almost always wear grey suits, and now they are in the cross-hairs of the man who hopes to become Japan's next prime minister: government bureaucrats.
People the world over may love to hate civil servants, often accusing them of slowing down business and everyday life with a thicket of red tape, unnecessary rules and incomprehensible jargon.
But Japan's state bureaucrats, all 360,000 of them, are a slightly different species -- they may just be too good at what they do. Critics charge that it is they, not politicians, who have been running the country.
For too long, says Japan's opposition leader Yukio Hatoyama, the mandarins have quietly steered the ship of state and asked the elected lawmakers to rubber-stamp their decisions.
Hatoyama wants to clip their wings, a goal that is a key plank of his campaign platform ahead of the August 30 election which, polls have indicated, may well make him Japan's next prime minister.
The election, Hatoyama has said, will be a "revolutionary vote to create a new Japan with politician-led politics."
"In contrast with the bureaucrat-led politics... we will produce politics in which the public plays a leading role."
Hatoyama's centre-left Democratic Party of Japan is headed for a landslide win in elections this month, according to a newspaper's telephone survey of more than 60,000 voters published on Thursday.
The mass-circulation Asahi Shimbun daily predicted that the DPJ was "gathering momentum to win more than 300 seats" in the 480-seat lower house in the August 30 vote.
The Asahi cautioned that the trend may change greatly in the final days before the election as at least one out of three voters were either undecided or declined to say which party or candidate they would vote for.
Political observers have long said Japan's officials wield far greater power than their counterparts in other democracies when it comes to steering policy, drawing up laws and carving up state budgets.
The heads of ministries, who carry the rank of vice minister, are often seen as more powerful than the politicians whom they ostensibly serve.
When the top bureaucrats retire, they tend to parachute into cushy jobs in the companies and agencies they formerly supervised.
Hatoyama has also vowed to put an end to that practice -- dubbed "amakudari" or descent from heaven -- which has been blamed for breeding conflicts of interest, collusion and bid-rigging.
The special status of Japan's government servants dates to the seventh century when Japan introduced a bureaucracy modelled on ancient China's merit-based mandarin system.
Japan's best and brightest became bureaucrats, who commanded respect, even awe, as they directly served the emperor.
After Japan's defeat in World War II, when the political elite was removed from power, the bureaucrats were credited with guiding the nation on its path from post-war gloom through its economic miracle.
The officials did so by working hand in hand with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has ruled almost without break since 1955, and with big business -- a cosy relationship often dubbed the "iron triangle."
The feats of Japan's bureaucrats are still revered and a popular TV drama celebrates the heroic efforts of 1960s-era trade ministry officials.
Critics charge that, in the process, the bureaucracy became an unstoppable force that, with very little accountability to the public, turned Japan into one of the world's most heavily regulated societies.
Author Alex Kerr argued in his book "Dogs and Demons" that ministries, bent on spending funds to maintain their annual budgets, have pursued wasteful 'pave-and-build' policies that have devastated Japan's countryside.
Bureaucrats have also drawn fire when graft, waste or mismanagement have been exposed, such as the loss of tens of thousands of state pension records.
The LDP's reformist former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi stared down a stronghold of the bureaucracy when he launched the break-up of the massive postal system, a behemoth with large banking and insurance arms.
Now Hatoyama wants to rein in the officials to a far greater extent, promising to deploy 100 lawmakers to supervise ministries and, crucially, wrest back control of the budget process from the finance ministry.
He has pledged to set up a national strategy office under the prime minister's direct control which would compile the budget, draft diplomatic statements and author other key government policies.
Hatoyama's proposed sweep of the officialdom is timely, say some experts.
"The bureaucracy worked well when Japan was trying to catch up with other countries," said Fusao Ushiro, a politics professor at Nagoya University.
"But since Japan has already achieved that goal, there is greater urgency for creative thinking, which is not common or encouraged among bureaucrats. The era of the bureaucrats may be coming to an end."
Some experts though warn that Japan's civil servants may die hard, and could even stall the Democratic Party of Japan's reformist plans.
"No matter who governs the country, they will need bureaucrats," said Tetsuro Kato, politics professor at Tokyo's Hitotsubashi University.
"The question is how effectively Japan can make use of the elite group."
TOKYO (AFP) – They are highly educated, mostly male and almost always wear grey suits, and now they are in the cross-hairs of the man who hopes to become Japan's next prime minister: government bureaucrats.
People the world over may love to hate civil servants, often accusing them of slowing down business and everyday life with a thicket of red tape, unnecessary rules and incomprehensible jargon.
But Japan's state bureaucrats, all 360,000 of them, are a slightly different species -- they may just be too good at what they do. Critics charge that it is they, not politicians, who have been running the country.
For too long, says Japan's opposition leader Yukio Hatoyama, the mandarins have quietly steered the ship of state and asked the elected lawmakers to rubber-stamp their decisions.
Hatoyama wants to clip their wings, a goal that is a key plank of his campaign platform ahead of the August 30 election which, polls have indicated, may well make him Japan's next prime minister.
The election, Hatoyama has said, will be a "revolutionary vote to create a new Japan with politician-led politics."
"In contrast with the bureaucrat-led politics... we will produce politics in which the public plays a leading role."
Hatoyama's centre-left Democratic Party of Japan is headed for a landslide win in elections this month, according to a newspaper's telephone survey of more than 60,000 voters published on Thursday.
The mass-circulation Asahi Shimbun daily predicted that the DPJ was "gathering momentum to win more than 300 seats" in the 480-seat lower house in the August 30 vote.
The Asahi cautioned that the trend may change greatly in the final days before the election as at least one out of three voters were either undecided or declined to say which party or candidate they would vote for.
Political observers have long said Japan's officials wield far greater power than their counterparts in other democracies when it comes to steering policy, drawing up laws and carving up state budgets.
The heads of ministries, who carry the rank of vice minister, are often seen as more powerful than the politicians whom they ostensibly serve.
When the top bureaucrats retire, they tend to parachute into cushy jobs in the companies and agencies they formerly supervised.
Hatoyama has also vowed to put an end to that practice -- dubbed "amakudari" or descent from heaven -- which has been blamed for breeding conflicts of interest, collusion and bid-rigging.
The special status of Japan's government servants dates to the seventh century when Japan introduced a bureaucracy modelled on ancient China's merit-based mandarin system.
Japan's best and brightest became bureaucrats, who commanded respect, even awe, as they directly served the emperor.
After Japan's defeat in World War II, when the political elite was removed from power, the bureaucrats were credited with guiding the nation on its path from post-war gloom through its economic miracle.
The officials did so by working hand in hand with the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has ruled almost without break since 1955, and with big business -- a cosy relationship often dubbed the "iron triangle."
The feats of Japan's bureaucrats are still revered and a popular TV drama celebrates the heroic efforts of 1960s-era trade ministry officials.
Critics charge that, in the process, the bureaucracy became an unstoppable force that, with very little accountability to the public, turned Japan into one of the world's most heavily regulated societies.
Author Alex Kerr argued in his book "Dogs and Demons" that ministries, bent on spending funds to maintain their annual budgets, have pursued wasteful 'pave-and-build' policies that have devastated Japan's countryside.
Bureaucrats have also drawn fire when graft, waste or mismanagement have been exposed, such as the loss of tens of thousands of state pension records.
The LDP's reformist former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi stared down a stronghold of the bureaucracy when he launched the break-up of the massive postal system, a behemoth with large banking and insurance arms.
Now Hatoyama wants to rein in the officials to a far greater extent, promising to deploy 100 lawmakers to supervise ministries and, crucially, wrest back control of the budget process from the finance ministry.
He has pledged to set up a national strategy office under the prime minister's direct control which would compile the budget, draft diplomatic statements and author other key government policies.
Hatoyama's proposed sweep of the officialdom is timely, say some experts.
"The bureaucracy worked well when Japan was trying to catch up with other countries," said Fusao Ushiro, a politics professor at Nagoya University.
"But since Japan has already achieved that goal, there is greater urgency for creative thinking, which is not common or encouraged among bureaucrats. The era of the bureaucrats may be coming to an end."
Some experts though warn that Japan's civil servants may die hard, and could even stall the Democratic Party of Japan's reformist plans.
"No matter who governs the country, they will need bureaucrats," said Tetsuro Kato, politics professor at Tokyo's Hitotsubashi University.
"The question is how effectively Japan can make use of the elite group."
Monday, August 17, 2009
Cambodia: Appointment Of Judges
Monday, 17 August 2009, 12:38 pm
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission
Cambodia: Appointment Of Judges And Prosecutors Is Unconstitutional
Lately there has been a hectic time within the Cambodian judiciary with the actual and planned retirement and appointments of many judges and prosecutors. The government has retired and replaced half of the members, two ex-officio and two appointed, of the Supreme Council of the Magistracy (SCM), the supreme judicial body responsible for the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors. A further 27 are also to be retired. In the meantime, some 32 judges and prosecutors, including four who are the de facto age of retirement of 60, have been appointed to new positions.
In a statement dated 7 August 2009 (see CAMBODIA: Law on the statute of judges, not their retirement, is the right end from which to tackle judicial reform), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has already pointed out the unconstitutionality of the government’s infringement upon the jurisdiction and independence of the SCM when it had bypassed it and retired and replaced those four SCM members. According to the country’s Constitution, the nomination, including appointment, retirement and transfer, as well as the discipline of judges and prosecutors are the responsibility of the SCM, and not that of the government. The SCM is the supreme body of the judiciary which is chaired by the country’s king and which also has the responsibility of ensuring judicial independence.
The AHRC has also urged the Cambodian government to enact two long-overdue laws which the country has specifically stipulated (Art.135 of the Constitution) and which would provide the legal background and framework for the judiciary as required under Art.14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to a fair trial by an independent, competent and impartial tribunal established by law. With the law on the statute of judges and prosecutors, the age of retirement would be officially fixed and known, and actual retirement could be set without arousing any suspicion of favouritism for those who wish to remain in active service.
The AHRC has further noticed that the appointment of judges and prosecutors, as shown in the king’s successive appointment decrees, has not respected the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as enshrined the country’s Constitutions (Arts 51 and 128). In these appointments, the Minister of Justice, a cabinet member and also a member of the SCM, has made nomination proposals, received the approval of the SCM and submitted them to the king for signing. For some appointments, the SCM has been bypassed altogether and the proposals directly submitted to the king for signature.
This practice contravenes Art 134 of the country’s Constitution which says, among other things, that “The Supreme Council of the Magistracy shall make proposals to the King on the appointment of judges and prosecutors to all courts.” It should be declared unconstitutional when, according Art. 150 of the same Constitution, “Laws and decisions by the State institutions shall have to be in strict conformity with the Constitution.”
The Cambodian government and its ministry of justice in particular seem to have exploited the absence of the constitutional review or any other forms of judicial review of their decisions and have tried to rule by decree, at least in appointment and retirement of judges and prosecutors. The constitutional review of laws seems clear cut when a specific number of public figures and even ordinary citizens may request for it. However, there is almost a complete silence over the constitutional review of decisions of state institutions, the government and its ministries included. Only a litigant who feels his or her rights are affected by such a decision could raise the issue of its unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Council through the Supreme Court. Unlike in the case of promulgated laws, neither any public figure mentioned above nor any concerned citizen may request for the constitutional review of decisions of state institutions. Nor is the Constitutional Council habilitated to do this constitutional
The AHRC strongly urges the Minister of Justice to respect the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary and the SCM, refrain from infringing upon the jurisdiction of the SCM, and let this supreme judicial body fully exercise its full constitutional authority over the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors. The Minister of Justice should relinquish its control of the SCM Secretariat and transfer it back where it belongs, that is, to the SCM. It should instead secure for the SCM adequate resources to enable it to fulfill its constitutional duties in the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors, and in the independence of the judiciary.
AHRC further urges that all decisions of state institutions, including those of the government and the Ministry of Justice regarding the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors as well as the independence of the judiciary, should be in strict conformity with the Constitution as specifically stipulated under its Art 150. The Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Constitutional Council should therefore be amended in order to subject such decisions to the same constitutional review as all laws.
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission
Cambodia: Appointment Of Judges And Prosecutors Is Unconstitutional
Lately there has been a hectic time within the Cambodian judiciary with the actual and planned retirement and appointments of many judges and prosecutors. The government has retired and replaced half of the members, two ex-officio and two appointed, of the Supreme Council of the Magistracy (SCM), the supreme judicial body responsible for the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors. A further 27 are also to be retired. In the meantime, some 32 judges and prosecutors, including four who are the de facto age of retirement of 60, have been appointed to new positions.
In a statement dated 7 August 2009 (see CAMBODIA: Law on the statute of judges, not their retirement, is the right end from which to tackle judicial reform), the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has already pointed out the unconstitutionality of the government’s infringement upon the jurisdiction and independence of the SCM when it had bypassed it and retired and replaced those four SCM members. According to the country’s Constitution, the nomination, including appointment, retirement and transfer, as well as the discipline of judges and prosecutors are the responsibility of the SCM, and not that of the government. The SCM is the supreme body of the judiciary which is chaired by the country’s king and which also has the responsibility of ensuring judicial independence.
The AHRC has also urged the Cambodian government to enact two long-overdue laws which the country has specifically stipulated (Art.135 of the Constitution) and which would provide the legal background and framework for the judiciary as required under Art.14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to a fair trial by an independent, competent and impartial tribunal established by law. With the law on the statute of judges and prosecutors, the age of retirement would be officially fixed and known, and actual retirement could be set without arousing any suspicion of favouritism for those who wish to remain in active service.
The AHRC has further noticed that the appointment of judges and prosecutors, as shown in the king’s successive appointment decrees, has not respected the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as enshrined the country’s Constitutions (Arts 51 and 128). In these appointments, the Minister of Justice, a cabinet member and also a member of the SCM, has made nomination proposals, received the approval of the SCM and submitted them to the king for signing. For some appointments, the SCM has been bypassed altogether and the proposals directly submitted to the king for signature.
This practice contravenes Art 134 of the country’s Constitution which says, among other things, that “The Supreme Council of the Magistracy shall make proposals to the King on the appointment of judges and prosecutors to all courts.” It should be declared unconstitutional when, according Art. 150 of the same Constitution, “Laws and decisions by the State institutions shall have to be in strict conformity with the Constitution.”
The Cambodian government and its ministry of justice in particular seem to have exploited the absence of the constitutional review or any other forms of judicial review of their decisions and have tried to rule by decree, at least in appointment and retirement of judges and prosecutors. The constitutional review of laws seems clear cut when a specific number of public figures and even ordinary citizens may request for it. However, there is almost a complete silence over the constitutional review of decisions of state institutions, the government and its ministries included. Only a litigant who feels his or her rights are affected by such a decision could raise the issue of its unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Council through the Supreme Court. Unlike in the case of promulgated laws, neither any public figure mentioned above nor any concerned citizen may request for the constitutional review of decisions of state institutions. Nor is the Constitutional Council habilitated to do this constitutional
The AHRC strongly urges the Minister of Justice to respect the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary and the SCM, refrain from infringing upon the jurisdiction of the SCM, and let this supreme judicial body fully exercise its full constitutional authority over the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors. The Minister of Justice should relinquish its control of the SCM Secretariat and transfer it back where it belongs, that is, to the SCM. It should instead secure for the SCM adequate resources to enable it to fulfill its constitutional duties in the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors, and in the independence of the judiciary.
AHRC further urges that all decisions of state institutions, including those of the government and the Ministry of Justice regarding the nomination and discipline of judges and prosecutors as well as the independence of the judiciary, should be in strict conformity with the Constitution as specifically stipulated under its Art 150. The Law on the Organization and Functioning of the Constitutional Council should therefore be amended in order to subject such decisions to the same constitutional review as all laws.
About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
