E lection monitoring NGOs and media organizations are protesting the National Election
Committee's (NEC) interpretation and enforcement of a commune election law that allows
the organization to vet all voter education material before its dissemination.
The commune election law's Chapter 8 (Clause 8.9) gives the NEC full approval power
over such material. But NGOs involved in voter education programs say that rather
than scrutinizing their productions for clarity and authenticity, the NEC is abusing
its mandate by raising "meaningless" objections to actors clothing and
the wording of scripts.
Those objections, they say, are derailing their voter education schedules while causing
needless expenditure in the run-up to the voter registration process that begins
on July 21 for the February 3, 2002 commune elections.
"Voter registration begins within a week and many such programs [and materials]
are focused on voter education. Any delay in clearing the materials could therefore
directly affect the education process," said Eric Kessler, Director of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI), which is providing assistance and technical expertise
to voter education programs. "Above all, how much is this review process costing
the NGOs or the media organizations and in turn the international donors? That kind
of donor money could be used to pay the EC staff, buy computers, print papers or
election materials."
The election law requires all NGOs and media organizations to obtain NEC's clearance
for all voter education materials. For the commune elections, the scope of the law
has been expanded to include leaflets, books, pictures or even slogans printed on
T-shirts and caps etc.
An NEC sub-commission has been set up that will examine each submission and theoretically
must give clearance within 36 working hours.
Chea Vannath, President of the Centre for Social Development (CSD), criticizes the
NEC evaluation process for its ambiguity.
"Nothing [in the regulations and procedures for media and the NGOs] is spelled
in black and white as to what exactly needs to be complied with and how exactly,"
Vannath said.
Kessler emphasizes that NGOs agree with the spirit and intent of the NEC's election
material supervisory role, but says that the NEC's handing of the issue is counterproductive.
"...NGOs will welcome the factual review of their materials... they will be
only too happy if the NEC can improve their materials to make them more effective,"
Kessler said. "After all, the objective is to be accurate, but [such] restrictions
can prove contrary to the environment of trust that all parties are attempting to
build."
Paon Phuong Bopha, Media Campaign Director of the Women's Media Center, also sought
to clarify how much time the NEC sub-committee will take to clear the materials submitted
for approval.
"The [36 working hours] time limit provided by the NEC for routine clearance
of materials itself will stretch up to three to four days," she said.
At a July 19 NDI organized meeting to discuss the issue, Prom Nhean Vicheat, President
of the NEC Sub-commission responsible for reviewing the materials, said the NEC was
striving to prevent the mistakes made by some media organizations during the run
up to the 1998 elections.
"[in 1998] in a video slot for voter education the producers failed to mention
the time frame for voter registration. As a result, a large number of voters thought
the registration was open only for a day and failed to register themselves,"
he said.
The discussions concluded with donor, NGO and media representatives recommending
that the process of NEC review of election materials be strictly voluntary.
However NEC Vice-Chairman Kassie Neou warned that if the process was made voluntary,
assigning responsibility for potential errors in election materials that have Kingdom-wide
implications would be difficult.
The NEC has pledged to make a ruling on the matter shortly.
