By T. Mohan
The draft law on “the governing of the Association and NGOs” has been
under attacks from national and foreign NGOs in the country.
Those battles were recently side lined by some foreign diplomats and one
even broke diplomatic protocol and launched a heads on attack against the
proposed law.
While the proposed law is set to be discussed in the Cabinet today,
key questions remained un-answered.
1) What is the reason behind
such fierce resistance?
2) While those people
consistently urging the Royal government to create numerous laws to govern the
country, and seek an end to impunity,
why are they seeking impunity and do not
want to see the light of day of a law which will govern their activities.
Obviously, there is no doubt that those NGOs want no one to govern
them. They conveniently forget or intent
to forget that while running their activities in the countries where they are
getting funds from, they should be living under strict scrutiny.
For instance, in the United States, all community based organizations
(CBO or NGOs), before enabling them to conduct activities and receive funding, should first “register”,
provide all information about their organizations and their intents to operate
and last but not least, to submit an
annual “report” to the government!
The current draft law has been dragging for so long since 2011 that so
many interventions occurred including Hillary Clinton then the US secretary of
state in July 2012 while visiting Cambodia, who
requested the Royal Government to drop the draft law.
And now the deputy assistant secretary of state, Mr. Scott Busby while
visiting Cambodia stirred some NGOs to continue to hold the present draft until
the opening of the debate.
Is this justified? Enactment of laws is a sovereign right of a country.
In Malaysia, when they had the dreaded Internal Security Act (ISA) which calls
for detention without trial, it was condemned by the “civilized world”,
especially the United States.
Yet the United States has its “Gitmo”, Guantanamo Bay to hold alleged
enemy combatants indefinitely.
Getting back to the proposed NGO Law, why the huffing and puffing and
resistance by CSOs, NGOs and diplomats so much so that a ranking United States
official has to fly down to voice his resistance, objections and on the
contrary, stir discontent and protests!
Is this becoming of a diplomat which champions democracy?
The proposed law will govern but not control the NGOs and CSOs which in
recent time have proven to be not so civil or not so impartial. If they condemn
the government and seek transparency and seek an end to impunity, they too
should be subjected to scrutiny and accountability and most of all, financial
transparency.
The absence of a clear and efficient administration of NGOs and CSOs over
the years, has resulted in a dearth of coherent and comprehensive information.
The development of NGOs and CSOs since the nineties and twenties was
phenomenal and have had a great impact on the country and its people, mostly
negative which overshadows the good which responsible NGOs and CSOs have
brought.
In Cambodia, some NGOs and CSOs were obviously and uncharacteristically
formed with an agenda of pushing for socio political change and soon evolved
into agents for regime change!
This political role is mainly evident in policy advocacy activities and
is often viewed by opposition parties as necessary tools in their political
campaign and unleash them or use them, through covert measures on
anti-government platforms in the guise of CSOs or NGOs.
This writer believes that the reasons that triggered the current law
governing NGOs are diverse and complex.
Suffice to say that a multiplicity of factors prevailing in the nineties
and the early twenties would have probably provided the context within which
the proposed law was drafted.
First, there are numerous reports, allegations and accusations of
unscrupulous NGOs and CSOs.
Second, there probably is a concern that some donor countries and
community, especially in the implementation of civil rights intervention was
now focussing on NGOs and CSOs, an example of this is the United States which
focuses more on NGOs and CSOs which are seemingly against the government.
Besides the foregoing factors which necessitates the need for NGOs and
CSOs legislation, there remains the undisputed role of the Government to
regulate.
The Government’s basis for regulation is the juridicial social contract –
individual rights are at times surrendered to the state in return for security,
peace and order. This is coupled with the new paradigm that the state is not
only the sole regulator but the main role of the state is that of a facilitator
in so far as the NGOs and CSOs are concerned.
Thus, regulation is a government function from which it cannot and must
not derogate. In exercising this function, the government must naturally
consider but not abuse practical reasons. For example, it has to ensure that
the very essence of government is not undermined.
Therefore, the government is obligated to guard against the misuse of
resources by NGOs and CCSOs, partly because of diverse funders and the sums of
money involved.
In addition, there is a need for safeguarding the public interest by
maintaining professionalism. There is also a critical need to guard against the
weakening of state legitimacy and the undesirable tendency of impinging of
national sovereignty by NGOs and CSOs.
Having said that, one would also concede that there is general acceptance
by the government of responsible NGOs and CSOs and the crucial role they play
in development and the government recognizes the importance of working closely
with this sector.
However, NGOs and CSOs cannot hide behind the broad definitions of NGOs
and CSOs as defined in Chapter 27, Agenda 21 of the United Nations:
Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations: Partners for
Sustainable Development.
