While attention has been focused on the international aspects of the Cambodia problem, equally interesting developments have been underway within the State of Cambodia.

An item in the Phnom Penh Kampuchea newspaper on 28 July 1988 may serve as an illustration. On page 11, well down on a list of 61 lawsuits reported as pending in the courts is the case of a lady - who was names - filing suit against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a certain ambassador - who was not named - for having dismissed her from employment.

Such an item in almost any country would excite curiosity about the precise circumstances, and a bit of questioning in Phnom Penh at the end of November 1988 revealed that it had indeed been a case in which "moral transgression" was involved - probably in a Cambodian embassy abroad - and the lady had been transferred to another state agency.

One of the traits that Cambodia has inherited from its immediate predecessor, but not one of those sometimes wrongfully ascribed to it by the propagandists who have tried to assimilate the current leadership to that of Democratic Kampuchea (DK), is a degree of puritanism much stronger than that prevalent before 1975.

Unlike punishment in such cases under Pol Pot, which was equivalent for both parties - and, so far as can be determined, usually death - in Cambodia today nothing more severe than transfer to a less desirable post is imposed, but apparently only on female cadres, with the males going free and not even named in the ensuing publicity.

Establishing Rule of Law

Such is standard practice in Southeast Asia's capitalist states - and an unanticipated example of Cambodia adhering to international norms. But I was informed by a former colleague of the woman that in meetings of their organizations Cambodian women are now protesting, and insisting that if such behavior is to be punished, both parties should be punished equally. Here is a new cause for Western feminists: equal punishment, or equal rights, for extramarital relationships in Cambodia.

The 61 cases listed by Kampuchea range from the trivial civil suits for libel and fraud to the very serious - murder and torture by police agents. Included are several cases of murder, rape, physical abuse, and nonpayment of debts. One was a complaint by an individual against the police and provincial court of Kandal for having released three alleged murderers. It is clear that courts in Cambodia are functioning according to laws and that individuals willingly enter into litigation, even bringing charges against state organs.

The mere fact of such suits being brought in court, and reported in the press, illustrates a firm intention by the State of Cambodia to establish rule of law. It also counters the charges made by certain organizations that human rights are widely abused and judicial procedures neglected. Moreover, the Kampuchea article was an implicit complaint against the authorities that the cases had been "stuck" in the courts too long, and an example itself of increasing openness in the society.

Improvement Occurs - Albeit Slowly

When the PRK (People's Republic of Kampuchea) came to power in 1979 there were severe objective impediments to realization of rule of law. These included penury of surviving legally trained personnel, destruction of archives and legal documentation, total absence of formal courts and legality under DK - preceded by neglect of such during the 1975-1979 war - and, even in the best of times before 1970, police traditions that ignored such niceties as rights of the accused. Added to this was the lack of any administrative infrastructure in 1979, a situation of anarchic population movement and disorganization, and increasing militarization to counter the threat of the rearmed DK and its allies on that Thai border.

This situation inevitably gave rise to instances of rough military justice for malefactors, real or suspected, and it provided welcome ammunition for organization ill-disposed to the PRK. In a series of publications, the New York-based Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights (1984 and 1985), followed by amnesty International (1986, 1987, 1988), have variously claimed that there was no law in Cambodia, that this was the fault of Vietnamese control, that there were hundreds of systematic violations of human rights (while listing few specifically), that few accused ever received trial, that complaints against abuses by authorities were not entertained, and that court cases were not reported in the media, indicating that trials were not being held.

As Cambodian officials willingly admit, legality in the first years was below the desired standard and police practices were not beyond reproach, but the promulgation of new laws, rapid training of new court officers and legal personnel, and police insistence on implementing the new regulations all lend credence to Cambodian authorities' claim that normal international legal standards are being reached. The last formal step was the promulgation in early 1986 of a new detailed Decree-Law No. 27, which establishes procedures to be followed in arrest, detention, indictment, and search of person or domicile, and on paper provides guarantees at least equivalent to those prevailing in those Southeast Asian capitalist countries that enjoy international recognition.

The list of cases published by Kampuchea shows that the provisions of Decree-Law No. 27 are being applied, and one plaintiff charged specifically that he had been arrested in circumstances that violated that law. Likewise in accordance with Decree-Law No. 27 three provincial or district police chiefs, I was informed, in Kompong Speu, Pursat, and Kandal have been dismissed and punished for physical abuse of prisoners. In the last case the accused was tried before an open court with loudspeakers outside for people who could not fit into the courtroom. He was found guilty of torturing nine prisoners and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.

Moreover, with each successive effort the Lawyers Committee and Amnesty have been forced to back away from parts of their previous accusations. By 1986 most of the specific instances of violations that could be cited dated to before 1985; and in its last effort, amnesty was forced to call people caught giving aid to the enemy in wartime "political prisoners," and through lack of sufficient new cases had to devote most of its attention to hypothetical situations in which human rights violations might occur, or to supposed defects in the organization of the PRK Judicial system - not in themselves matters of proper concern to Amnesty.

This improvement in confirmed by the files of another well-informed foreign group, which seem to indicate that recent defectors across the border to Thailand are in general only able to provide stories of human rights violations prior to 1985.

One legal area in which progress has been intriguingly slow is family and marriage, for which a law still has not been passed although one was said to be imminent on each of my last visits in 1984, 1986, and 1989. Unofficial comment holds that it is the very question raised by the dismissed Foreign Affairs lady - equality of the sexes - which is difficult to resolve. Before 1975, under the law women were subordinate to their husbands, for whom polygamy was permitted and who were favored in divorce proceedings. Some women refused to have their marriages registered, because in local custom, contrary to the French-imposed law followed by the Sihanouk and Lon Nol regimes, a woman could divorce her husband at will. Now that post-Pol Pot demographic pressure, as well as ideology, have pushed large numbers of women into responsible official and managerial positions, they are unlikely to accept again any of the pre-1975 legal disadvantages.

Another case among the 61 concerns the Sereipheap ("Liberty") restaurant, which started operation in 1981 as a private, or semi-private, enterprise and became very successful, in particular as the restaurant was favored by the foreign community of diplomatic and aid personnel.

Suddenly in 1985 it was closed by the authorities and soon reopened as a state enterprise. It still prospers and is still popular with the foreign community, but faces increasing competition. According to its present manager, conflict had arisen over demands for taxes from the Sereipheap, whose owner claimed his agreement with the state exempted him from taxation. His refusal to pay was answered with confiscation by the city government, but he no more accepted expropriation than would a businessperson in a capitalist country, and he has taken the Phnom Penh municipality to court.

Article copyright Cultural Survival, Inc.