Cambodians have a deep-seated disrespect of all laws and
regulations unless it involves their hallowed traditional rules of preserving
their daughters’ virginity and arranged marriages as well as the ceremonies on
all Buddhist holidays, which they celebrate with great aplomb, somber expressions
and humble demeanor, alas without great conviction (the elderly Khmer whom I
very much respect will hopefully excuse my cynicism).
Much has been written on forums and blogs, not to mention
the local newspapers both English-language and Khmer, and the social media,
foremost among them that huge advancement of Western civilization and now
world-wide culture, Facebook, about the new traffic law, as it is commonly
called in online parlance.
I do not want to repeat all those gripes written and
otherwise expressed both orally and electronically, but this law is symptomatic
of the state of the Cambodian mind in terms of how to live together within
certain boundaries and in a civilized manner. Man laid down rules of how to live
together in a group, tribe, or later in states since the beginning of time.
Without these rules or laws anarchy would rein.
Now to look at Cambodian roads one might get the impression
that this sector of Cambodian life is indeed somewhat anarchic, or perhaps only
chaotic. But not only there, in fact in most other cases they flout what
officialdom had prescribed. They build houses wherever and in any fashion they
want, they settle on land without asking who the owner is, they believe they
are due a share of something whether they earned it or not. Polygamy is
outlawed in Cambodia. Nevertheless, wealthy, mostly elderly, man have a young
and beautiful mistress, semi-officially called the second wife or small wife
(propuen chong).This attitude and self-righteousness is the cause of and fuels
many conflicts. And then, of course, if a law prohibits certain actions there
is always money that can pave the way around a law so officials may look the
other way or in direct violation of the law even sanction such illegal actions.
A good example is the former practice of granting concessions for large pieces
of land for rubber plantations. The designated concession may have been a
protected natural habitat or national park. But time and again one could find
that these old and environmentally valuable trees were cut down in exactly
those spots with official approval. The export of precious hardwoods is another
example. This has been going for decades
and the government is unable to stop it. The more egregious cases of clear
violations of the law at the highest level involve people who killed somebody,
whether in an accident or otherwise, just come to a settlement with the
survivors who then don’t press charges. The same system is ingrained for rapes.
The perpetrator simply pays some retribution to the victim and her family and
then the prosecutor does not see the need for any official action although a
myriad number of laws have been flagrantly ignored and broken. In fact, this constitutes
another criminal offense. There is a duty to prosecute, whether or not the civil
claim had been settled or not. A crime was committed and this requires a
punishment.
But let’s take the recent new traffic law as an example par
excellence how things work. The law was passed a year or so ago. One would
think plenty of time to educate the population about the new regulations. The
majority of traffic is motorcycles. The aim was to curb the many traffic
fatalities that afflict the county. The law to wear a helmet had been in place
already. Now both driver and pinion rider need to wear one. From now on there
are only two adults and one child under 6 (?) allowed on a bike. The government
convened a committee to hammer out a strategy on how to implement the new law.
They came up with the brilliant idea to use about 1750 policemen nationwide,
yes, nationwide, to man traffic posts. In Phnom Penh there are over 1 million
registered motorcycles but only approx. 90,000 people with a driver license. Countrywide
that number is probably unknown. So all unlicensed drivers would need to get a
license. Many of the motorcycles, especially in Sihanoukville, had not been
registered as the owner had not paid the import tax and duty for it, a
prerequisite for getting it registered. In order to get a license they would
all need to take a test and pass it. Those tests are a joke insofar as you
practically could not fail. The people supervising the test are there to help
you check the right answers if you pass them a little something. But, of course, there is also a fee for the
license itself involved.
Now come January 01 police began pulling over cars and
motorcycles for infractions of the new law. This being Cambodia it goes without
saying that the people who hadn’t had a license did not get one all these
months the previous year, notwithstanding the fact that TV had reported on the
subject many times. As for the registration, that probably was pretty much
unaffordable for most people. So they simply did nothing about it. The rural
people simply claimed not to know that a new law even existed – I am sure in
some cases that’s even true. According to newspaper reports the police pulled
over 80,000 vehicles the first 3 or 4 days and collected an almost similar
amount of money. The enforcement provoked a veritable shitstorm on Facebook. As the PM maintains a very active Facebook
page he was swamped with comments.
The Prime Minister, lately somewhat suffering from
statesman-like credibility because of the Sam Rainsy issue, took it to heart
and swiftly rendered some of the sections suspended, e. g. the driver licenses
– for motorcycles less than 125 cc none is needed, over 125 cc you need to get
one but won’t have to take a test and getting the license is free. So why not
have everybody get one? The registration requirement got a moratorium of I
believe 6 months. So here you have the parliament who passed a law – this why
it is called the legislature, one of the three pillars of democracy – and then
you the Prime Minister, part of the executive branch who without even as much
as a stroke of the pen but with an announcement on Facebook nixed part of a
law. Wouldn’t that have been a job for the parliament? Of course, he did issue
an executive order the next day and promised the assembly would later follow up
with a change in the law.
So one can now easily understand why the Cambodian
population, from the poor ignorant peasant to the well-heeled city dweller,
simply doesn’t respect laws. They see how it is simply ignored and has been for
decades at all levels of society so why should they comply with regulations that
are against their personal, possibly only momentary, interests. During the
Democratic Republic of Kampuchea there were strict laws that applied only to
the general population. The party hierarchy had always been exempt unless
somebody had rubbed somebody higher up the wrong way. After the 1993 elections,
the ruling party simply contested the outcome, threatened secession, and
managed to stay in power. Impunity is a widely practiced concept. When it
served their purpose the law could be interpreted to fit their needs.
How can compliance with the law be taught to the general
education – only in schools, right? This will, of course, only work if there is
an educational system in place that would know how to do that. But with absenteeism
and corruption as much part of a teacher’s life as everywhere else, this could
never reach the broader future generation. This has been going on to this day
and this is why even, perhaps especially, the younger ones just say, ‘Who
cares?’
So it is no wonder that you can hardly see anybody after January
01 on Cambodia’s rural roads wear helmets, let alone the person on the back
wearing one too. 3, 4 or even 5 people on one of those small rickety motorbikes
are no rarity either. I haven’t been to Phnom Penh lately; reportedly it is
slightly different there but in Sihanoukville one cannot see any noticeable
change on the streets. Now they are forming a committee to study how to change
the new traffic law to encompass the needs of all people. Who drew up the law
in the first place and did the members of the assembly deliberate on it at all?
Where was the opposition’s wisdom? Didn’t any of that go into the process at
all?
Posts
