Home / News / Urgent Appeals / CAMBODIA: Forced eviction of 229 families in Sihanoukville

CAMBODIA: Forced eviction of 229 families in Sihanoukville

January 3, 2007

[NOTICE: The AHRC have developed a new automatic letter-sending system using the "button" below. However, in this appeal, we could not include e-mail addresses of some of the Cambodian authorities. We encourage you to send your appeal letters via fax or post to those people. Fax numbers and postal addresses of the Cambodian authorities are attached below with this appeal. Thank you.]


URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

3 January 2007
------------------------------------------------------
UA-003-2007: CAMBODIA:  Forced eviction of 229 families in Sihanoukville

CAMBODIA: Corruption; collapse of rule of law; illegal land grabbing
------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that on December 17, 2006, Say Hak, governor of the seaport municipality of Sihanoukville led a mixed police force of about 70 men armed with pistols, assault rifles and electric batons, together with a bulldozer, to evict 229 families from their homes and land of altogether 28 hectares in village No.1, commune No.1, Mittapheap district, Sihanoukville. About 300 villagers resisted the eviction and barred the entrance to their village. Say Hak allegedly ordered the police to forcibly evict the people who were on their way and the police beat many of villagers with electric batons and wooden sticks. It has been reported that there are more than 20 villagers who suffered from injures made by police assaults.


CASE DETAILS:

According to the information we have received, the governor of the seaport municipality of Sihanoukville had ordered police force of about 70 armed men with pistols, assault rifles and electric batons and a bulldozer to evict 229 families who reside in about 28 hectares of land in village No.1, commune No.1, Mittapheap district in Sihanoukville on December 17, 2006. The governor Say Hak allegedly ordered the police to force their way in, exhorting the driver of the bulldozer to crush those who tried to prevent them by saying, "Crush 2 or 3 of those who are in the way". This comment was heard by a 48-year old woman villager, Khat Thol, who was barred to enter into the village on that day.

The police forged ahead beating villagers who were in their way with electric batons and wooden sticks. One military officer repeatedly beat Hem Narin's wife on her left arm causing serious injuries when she tried to protect her husband who had already fallen to the ground when shocked by an electric baton and from receiving blows of a wooden stick. Another officer punched a 40-yeard old woman named Meas Neam in the temple three times. Four other officers assaulted a 57-year old woman named Sou Sarin. Three other villagers were also injured due to electric shocks. According to a human rights monitor over 20 villagers suffered various degrees of injuries in the police assault. Three of the injured needed hospital treatment.

Once the resistance had been broken the bulldozer set out to open a path leading to the land. Then on the following days the same bulldozer cleared the land around the villagers' houses and destroyed their fruit trees while their owners were urged to dismantle their houses. As of December 22, seven houses were demolished and flattened, and the clearance continued while the owners looked on, powerless, facing the armed police guarding the demolition site.

On December 20, 60 of the villagers, among them were 40 women, went to the Parliament in Phnom Penh, over 200 kilometers away from their village, to protest against this forced eviction and seek intervention from MPs, the Prime Minister and  other relevant authorities to stop the eviction and let them live on their land in peace. 

As a matter of fact, villagers have asserted that in 1986/87 they went to live on that land then uninhabited and owned by nobody when a communist regime still ruled Cambodia. They started to work their respective land as orchards. In 1988 the Sihanoukville municipality asked them to give their land to it for planting rubber. This plantation project ran into financial difficulties and the municipality could not pay the salaries of workers. In 1991 these workers then sold the respective plots of land they had planted rubber trees on to a private businessman named Sou Chong Hour in 1991. Realising that the land was no longer a public land as agreed upon when they have given it to the municipality, the original owners protested against Sou Chong Hour. This businessman did not take long to give up the ownership of it. The original owners then gave that land once again a public land to the municipality to plant acacia trees in 1993. But in 1995 and 1996 the chief of the commune cleared the young acacia plants and sold the land. The original owners protested against that sale and started to reoccupy their land and build houses on it in 1996 and 1997, despite the commune chief's objection.

There was then tension between those villagers and the commune chief. In 1998 at the instigation of this chief four of the villagers, Phan Chantha, 48, Pol Pong, 49, Phok Sophea, 24 and Net Marn. 50, were charged with causing damage to other people's property. The charge was apparently meant to put pressure on those villagers to vacate the land as the court offered to drop the charge against the four men if they agreed to leave the contested land. Two yielded to this coercion, but the other two defied the court and, thanks to their fellow villagers' protection, escaped the arrest and went into hiding.

In the same year those villagers took their case to the Parliament. They then secured a promise from the ministry of justice to look into their case. It took that ministry until 2000 before it could send a letter urging the court in Sihanoukville to hear their case. However, since then, their case has never been heard by that court.

The AHRC has learned that Sihanoukville governor Say Hak had neither had recourse to any due process of law and secured any eviction order from the court, nor served any eviction notice to those 229 families although he had previously had several meetings with them. He simply issued an administrative order since, he has claim, those families are living on public land. The AHRC has further learned that he took that land to give to 560 families who had been previously evicted from a land claimed by Tycoon Senator Kong Triv in the same city. He reportedly offered each of the 229 families an 8 meter X 20 meter plot of land which is simply a fraction of their respective current holdings and which is unacceptable to them.

The AHRC therefore urges the Cambodian government and Sihanoukville governor Say Hak to immediately stop the forced eviction of the 229 families and give them back their land. It is utterly unjust to force these families to bear the burden of housing the families who have been forcibly evicted to liberate land for Tycoon Senator Kong Triv.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The AHRC had reported numbers of cases of forced land eviction by state and local authorities occurring in throughout the whole country of Cambodia (for more details, please see UA-409-2006; UA-411-2006; UA-001-2007). In some of the cases, several villagers had been falsely charged by courts. And in the others, many of the villagers had been injured and not received any compensation for justice. The AHRC is deeply concerning about such practices conducted by state officials and urge that the cases should be resolved in accordance with law and justice. 


SUGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the authorities listed below to immediately stop that forced eviction and return the land to those 229 families.


SAMPLE LETTER

Dear____________


CAMBODIA:  Forced eviction of 229 families in Sihanoukville

Name of the victims: 229 families from village No.1, commune No.1, Mittapheap district, Sihanoukville, Cambodia
Alleged perpetrators: Say Hak, the governor of the seaport municipality Sihanoukville, and 70 armed police force mixed with ordinary people
Date of incident: at the land of 229 families which is about 28 hectares located in village No.1, commune No.1, Mittapheap district, Sihanoukville
Place of incident:  17 December 2006


I am writing to you to ask your immediate intervention to the forced eviction of 229 families live in a village of Sihanoukville municipality which was conducted by the governor of Sihanoukville. I have learned that on December 17, 2006 Say Hak, governor of the seaport municipality Sihanoukville led a mixed police force of about 70 men armed with pistols, assault rifles and electric batons, together with a bulldozer, to evict 229 families from their homes and land of altogether 28 hectares in village No.1, commune No.1, Mittapheap district, Sihanoukville. About 300 villagers resisted the eviction and barred the entrance to their village.

Say Hak is reported to have ordered the police to force their way to enter, exhorting the driver of the bulldozer to crush those who stopped their entrance: "Crush 2 or 3 of those who are in the way", he said. The police forged ahead assaulting villagers using their fists, their electric batons and wooden sticks. In this assault over 20 villagers are reported to have been injured, three of whom needed hospital treatment.

Once the resistance had been broken, the bulldozer set out to open a path leading to the land. Then on the following days the same bulldozer cleared the land around the villagers' houses and destroyed their fruit trees while their owners were urged to dismantle their houses. As of December 22 seven houses were demolished and flattened, and the clearance continued while the owners looked on, powerless, facing the armed police guarding this clearance. On December 20, 60 of those powerless villagers traveled a long journey to the Parliament in Phnom Penh to protest against this forced eviction and seek intervention from MPs, the Prime Minister and  other relevant authorities to stop the eviction and let them live on their land in peace. 

I have learned that in 1986/87 those villagers went to live on that land then uninhabited and owned by nobody when a communist regime still ruled Cambodia. They started to work their respective land as orchards. They agreed to give their land to the authorities to use as public land to plant rubber and acacia. But that public land was subsequently sold as private property. Sensing a breach of trust, in 1996/97 those villagers reoccupy their land, build houses on it and cultivate it. In 1998 the chief of that commune No.1 resorted to charging four of the villagers for causing damage to other people's property. But this charge was apparently meant to frighten all those villagers to vacate the land as the court offered not to punish the four men if they were to leave their land. Two of the four men accepted the deal while the other two did not. These two escaped the arrest and went into hiding.

I have learned that Say Hak had neither had recourse to any due process of law and secured any eviction order from the court, nor had served any eviction notice to those 229 families although he had previously had several meetings with them. He simply issued an administrative order and hurriedly executed it himself in order to take the land to give to 560 families who had been previously evicted from a land claimed by Tycoon Senator Kong Triv in the same city. He reportedly offered each of the 229 families an 8 meter X 20 meter plot of land which is simply a fraction of their respective current holdings and which is unacceptable to them. He has sacrificed the wellbeing of these families and forced them to bear the burden of housing the families that that rich and powerful tycoon himself or the state should have borne. By all standards, this is utterly unjust and definitely unacceptable.

I look to your immediate intervention to stop that forced eviction and return the land to those 229 families.

Yours sincerely,


Thank you

..........................................

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:


1. Mr. Samdech Hun Sen
Prime Minister
Cabinet of the Prime Minister
No. 38, Russian Federation Street
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-21 98 98
Fax: +855-23-36 06 66
E-mail: cabinet1b@camnet.com.kh

2. Mr. Sar Kheng
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister of Interior
275 Norodom Blvd.
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Fax/phone : +855 23 72 19 05/72 60 52/72 11 90
E-mail: info@interior.gov.kh or moi@interior.gov.kh
 
3. Mr. Ang Vong Vathna
Minster of Justice
No 240, Sothearos Blvd.
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Fax: + 855 23 36 41 19/21 66 22
E-mail: moj@cambodia.gov.kh

4. Mr. Henro Raken
Prosecutor General
Court of Appeal
No. 14, Boulevard Sothearos
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855 23 21 84 60

5. Mr. Touch Marim
Kompong Chnang provincial
Governor
Kompong Chnang Municipality Hall
Kompong Chnang province,
CAMBODIA

6. Mr. Ath Them
Kompong Chnang
Police Commissioner
Kompong Chnang Province,
CAMBODIA

7. Mr. Sun Soung
Kompong Chnang province justice
Kompong Chnang province,
CAMBODIA

8. Ms Margo Picken
Director
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - Cambodia
N¢X 10, Street 302
Sangkat Boeng Keng Kang I
Khan Chamcar Mon
Phnom Penh
CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-987 671 / 987 672, 993 590 / 993 591 or +855 23 216 342
Fax: +855-23-212 579, 213 587

9. Prof. Yash Ghai
Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia
Attn: Ms. Afarin Shahidzadeh
Room 3-080
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 91 79214
Fax: +41 22 91 79018 (ATTENTION: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE CAMBODIA)


Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-003-2007
Countries :
Issues :
Child rights, Enforced disappearances and abductions, Administration of justice, Right to food, Arbitrary arrest and detention, Military, Police violence, Refugees, IDPs and Asylum seekers, Caste-based discrimination, Sexual violence, Death penalty, Democracy, Poverty & adequate standard of living, Right to education, State of emergency and martial law, Judicial system, Right to fair trial, Extrajudicial killings, Labour rights, Land rights, Freedom of assembly, Freedom of association, Freedom of expression, Freedom of religion, Women's rights, Right to health, Impunity, Indigenous people, Inhuman and degrading treatment, International human rights mechanisms, Independence of judges and lawyers, Victims assistance & protection, Migrant workers, Minorities, Rule of law, Non-state actors, Prison conditions, Right to remedy, Torture, Violence against women, Transitional Justice, Death in custody, Legislation, Institutional reform, Human rights defenders, Human trafficking
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.