Source:Southeast Asia Globe
Thursday, September 29, 2011 - by Laura J. Snook
The country's chief graft-buster on the fledgling effort to clean up the Kingdom.
Abuses of power and grand corruption have become synonymous with Cambodia, a nation still struggling to restore order after decades of political violence.
A network of tycoons, political figures and government officials is accused of reinforcing the culture of impunity and limiting progress on reforms (Transparency International, which measures perceptions of corruption, ranked Cambodia 154th out of 178 countries in 2010 – alongside states such as Russia and the Congo).
Last month, after more than 15 years in the making, Cambodia’s anti-corruption law finally came into force. A few months earlier, the government’s fledgling Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) had secured its first high-profile conviction, that of provincial prosecutor Top Chan Sereyvuth.
ACU President Om Yentieng personally led police to Sereyvuth’s door and the prosecutor was subsequently sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment (the sensational trial of four-star general and former anti-drug czar Moek Dara, accused of soliciting bribes from drug traffickers and even stealing their shipments, continues). The Southeast Asia Globe recently met with Om Yentieng to discuss one of the Kingdom’s greatest challenges.
How would you assess the ACU’s first 12 months of operation?
You must remember the ACU doesn’t yet have teeth, but it is important the public is aware of what we are doing. We are working with the courts to ensure that, once a case is concluded, the details of the investigation can be made public. People should have the right to ask for this information. It will help educate society and prevent acts of corruption, and we want the public to be aware of the kind of tricks that are used.
You say you want to change public attitudes. How much importance does the ACU attach to prosecutions?
The aim of the ACU is to arrest one person in order to change the attitude and behaviour of 1,000 people, not to arrest 1,000 people in order to make one person be good. The concern I have is the difficulties or obstacles caused by some judges, when the investigating judge is also the judge in the trial.
What has the public response to the unit’s work been so far?
I believe the public applauds the achievements we have made and they are also looking forward to the ACU being more active. We have received 200 complaints about corruption so far. That’s a good sign from the people.
What measures does the ACU take to protect whistle-blowers?
The ACU makes it a priority to protect informants by protecting their identities. We think about transparency and protection before we publicise the complaint. The suspect must not know who the complainant is. Then people will support us more and provide more information to us. Step by step, they will be able to show their faces a lot more. If we destroy our sources, we will not survive, but if we protect our sources, we can develop. If we think we can’t protect a witness, we cannot send the case to court.
When the deadline for asset declaration arrived earlier this year, several high-ranking officials resigned rather than fulfil their obligations. What was your reaction?
Even though there may be irregularities, the ACU is not able to catch or arrest them. It does not fall under our remit. Even checking the forms for mistakes is not our job. On the other hand, about 99% of officials came to declare their assets – a spiritual performance of good acts. We saw only one guy who was openly acting against this process, but, like a monkey, he cannot hide, even if he doesn’t respect us.
Critics have suggested the unit’s work is politically motivated. How would you respond?
We are trying to lead the ACU as one unit with no political factions, but outside the ACU there are probably factions in three or four political parties. We think we can cut across this by working together. The most important thing for us is proof: if you have strong proof, no one can convince us to abandon a case.
Organisations such as Amnesty International and Global Witness have, in the past, named senior government ministers in connection with corruption. Are you prepared to investigate the upper echelons?
Some of the articles are correct; some are not. We have to open ways of getting the information and proof provided by these media, rather than closing the door and receiving nothing.
What are your priorities for the next 12 months?
The most important thing is to get people to respect the law. We will focus on education and prevention. We have invited Cambodian artists to write songs or make movies about our work. We recently sent some people to Banteay Meanchey and they phoned to say they weren’t feeling comfortable, so we’re hoping to send weapons to them soon. We will face some problems, especially with drugs, because you can’t eliminate them. Even in jail, they continue
to sell drugs.
Thursday, September 29, 2011 - by Laura J. Snook
The country's chief graft-buster on the fledgling effort to clean up the Kingdom.
Om Yentieng, the head of the new Anti-Corruption Unit
A network of tycoons, political figures and government officials is accused of reinforcing the culture of impunity and limiting progress on reforms (Transparency International, which measures perceptions of corruption, ranked Cambodia 154th out of 178 countries in 2010 – alongside states such as Russia and the Congo).
Last month, after more than 15 years in the making, Cambodia’s anti-corruption law finally came into force. A few months earlier, the government’s fledgling Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) had secured its first high-profile conviction, that of provincial prosecutor Top Chan Sereyvuth.
ACU President Om Yentieng personally led police to Sereyvuth’s door and the prosecutor was subsequently sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment (the sensational trial of four-star general and former anti-drug czar Moek Dara, accused of soliciting bribes from drug traffickers and even stealing their shipments, continues). The Southeast Asia Globe recently met with Om Yentieng to discuss one of the Kingdom’s greatest challenges.
How would you assess the ACU’s first 12 months of operation?
You must remember the ACU doesn’t yet have teeth, but it is important the public is aware of what we are doing. We are working with the courts to ensure that, once a case is concluded, the details of the investigation can be made public. People should have the right to ask for this information. It will help educate society and prevent acts of corruption, and we want the public to be aware of the kind of tricks that are used.
You say you want to change public attitudes. How much importance does the ACU attach to prosecutions?
The aim of the ACU is to arrest one person in order to change the attitude and behaviour of 1,000 people, not to arrest 1,000 people in order to make one person be good. The concern I have is the difficulties or obstacles caused by some judges, when the investigating judge is also the judge in the trial.
What has the public response to the unit’s work been so far?
I believe the public applauds the achievements we have made and they are also looking forward to the ACU being more active. We have received 200 complaints about corruption so far. That’s a good sign from the people.
What measures does the ACU take to protect whistle-blowers?
The ACU makes it a priority to protect informants by protecting their identities. We think about transparency and protection before we publicise the complaint. The suspect must not know who the complainant is. Then people will support us more and provide more information to us. Step by step, they will be able to show their faces a lot more. If we destroy our sources, we will not survive, but if we protect our sources, we can develop. If we think we can’t protect a witness, we cannot send the case to court.
When the deadline for asset declaration arrived earlier this year, several high-ranking officials resigned rather than fulfil their obligations. What was your reaction?
Even though there may be irregularities, the ACU is not able to catch or arrest them. It does not fall under our remit. Even checking the forms for mistakes is not our job. On the other hand, about 99% of officials came to declare their assets – a spiritual performance of good acts. We saw only one guy who was openly acting against this process, but, like a monkey, he cannot hide, even if he doesn’t respect us.
Critics have suggested the unit’s work is politically motivated. How would you respond?
We are trying to lead the ACU as one unit with no political factions, but outside the ACU there are probably factions in three or four political parties. We think we can cut across this by working together. The most important thing for us is proof: if you have strong proof, no one can convince us to abandon a case.
Organisations such as Amnesty International and Global Witness have, in the past, named senior government ministers in connection with corruption. Are you prepared to investigate the upper echelons?
Some of the articles are correct; some are not. We have to open ways of getting the information and proof provided by these media, rather than closing the door and receiving nothing.
What are your priorities for the next 12 months?
The most important thing is to get people to respect the law. We will focus on education and prevention. We have invited Cambodian artists to write songs or make movies about our work. We recently sent some people to Banteay Meanchey and they phoned to say they weren’t feeling comfortable, so we’re hoping to send weapons to them soon. We will face some problems, especially with drugs, because you can’t eliminate them. Even in jail, they continue
to sell drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment