A Hundred Lotuses Blooming? - Hun Sen's Cambodia - page 202

of 4,000 garment workers belonging to a raft of pro-CPP unions. The prime minister
claimed credit for securing the wage increase and urged workers to vote for the CPP at
the upcoming election. “When Prime Minister Hun Sen asked, 'Who will vote for the
CPP?'” one union leader told the Cambodia Daily , “all the people raised their hands and
cheered for him.” 38
The Cambodian government's aim has never been to eliminate opposing voices entirely.
Faced with the constant scrutiny of donors and human rights groups, its aim has been in-
stead to create a mirage of freedom, keeping the country partway between outright free-
dom and outright repression. Maintaining the balance has naturally been a piecemeal pro-
cess. At times it appears as if Cambodia is moving in the right direction. The government
says the right things, loosens its restrictions on civil society, and passes nice-looking laws.
Then, very often in election season, the situation deteriorates: lawsuits fly, protestors are
hauled into court, and the cautious encouragement of donors and rights groups sours to
“strong concerns.” Eventually the government backs down and relaxes its controls. But
since UNTAC, the ebbs and flows of the democratic tide have concealed a steady drift
toward de facto one-party rule.
The mirage of apparent progress is everywhere. In 2006, after considerable lobbying,
US officials convinced the Cambodian government to drop jail terms for the crime of
defamation. In a diplomatic cable in May 2007, US officials hailed the move as an en-
couraging sign that reflected an increasingly free climate of expression, stating that the
government was “allowing unprecedented criticism of its policies.” 39 After the CPP's
landslide win in the 2008 election, however, the boundaries of free expression rapidly
converged. The mopping-up operations that followed the poll included legal attacks on
journalists and government critics and the passage of new laws intended—if not designed
outright—to curtail free expression.
The Law on Peaceful Assembly (2009) and the Law on Anti-Corruption (2010) would
both be used to target opponents. A new Penal Code, which came into effect in December
2010, replacing an old UNTAC-era code, contained an expanded arsenal of charges that
could be used to muzzle critics. Thanks partly to US efforts, the charge of defamation
still didn't carry jail terms, but it did carry fines of up to 10 million riels ($2,500), which
would transmute into jail-time for those lacking the money to pay. But forget defam-
ation—critics could be charged with insult; offense against state authorities; intimida-
tion of a public official; malicious denunciation; breach of professional secrecy; threats;
threats to cause damage; taking advantage of a vulnerable person; and instigation. Then
there was the one-size-fits-all, the masterpiece of legal fuzziness: “incitement.” This
charge included any speech that encouraged the commission of a felony, the disturbance