Cambodia Opposition Rejects

Cambodia's main opposition party has rejected the results of a parliamentary election and has called for an investigation into allegations of widespread electoral fraud.Prime Minister Hun Sen's ruling Cambodian People's Party [CPP] claimed a narrow victory in Sunday's vote, admitting to its weakest showing since taking a dominant role in Cambodian politics almost three decades ago.Shortly after the polls closed, the CPP said it won 68 seats in the nation's 123-member parliament - a significant decline from the 90-seat majority it previously held. It said the opposition Cambodian National Rescue Party [CNRP] took the remaining 55 seats, almost doubling the 29 seats it held in the outgoing parliament.

The CPP appeared to base its claims on partial results released by the National Election Committee, which was not expected to disclose final election figures for several weeks.CNRP leader Sam Rainsy told reporters Monday the CNRP would not accept the results of the ballot because of what he characterized as widespread fraud.

"We ask local and international bodies to send experts now to be part of a joint committee to investigate all the irregularities, and to assess the implications of those irregularities on the Hands free access," said Rainsy.Cambodian government spokesman Phay Siphan told VOA the opposition's announcement was typical of its election behavior. "The opposition party uses this game after every election," he said.

"There were serious fraud allegations leading up to the elections," said Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch [HRW], who was in Cambodia observing the election campaign. "They included illegal behavior on behalf of government security authorities; things like 'ghost' voters, de-registration of opposition voters, biased behavior by the national election commission, unequal access to national media, the list goes on and on. It is a serious problem and it does deserve an independent investigation."

The non-profit Transparency International Cambodia echoed those concerns. The group, which sent 900 observers to about 400 of the nation's 19,000 polling stations, says it found a litany of breaches.
Chief among those was that in 60 percent of polling stations, some people who had the right identification papers could not find their names on the voting list. It also found that people who lacked the correct identification were allowed to vote in a quarter of the polling stations.

"The opposition does not have access to funds, weapons or patronage. So the financial power will continue to be in the hands of the CPP. Foreign aid will flow to the government, which is controlled by the CPP," he said. "I think politics will become more interesting and vibrant, but I do not think that will involve the transfer of power to any extent."

The CNRP appeared to get a boost in the election from the merger of two of its founding parties, who joined forces last year to challenge the long-ruling CPP. The united opposition party touted a populist platform calling for a sharp rise in civil servants' salaries, monthly payments to those over 65 years old, and an increase in the minimum wage. It also pledged to regulate government prices for agricultural products, lower gas costs and provide free health care for the poor.

Robertson of HRW said the promise of change made many voters more enthusiastic about participating in the election."It really propelled the opposition to make major gains. But, we should not confuse outcomes with processes and procedures," he said. "The processes and procedures of the election were not fair and favored one side. They were designed to deny the civil and political rights of the Cambodian people."

Last week a Kansas healthcare management company, Nueterra, cleared the first hurdle to open a privately-owned, third surgical hospital in Casper. What’s bothersome about the proposal is the possibility the project could jeopardize vital public health services while a few people get rich. But the company and their rumored local doctor investors aren’t talking about it. Period. No discussion. Their response was to file a site plan for the project with the city but without much comment. Apparently their strategy is to ram it down our throats, like it or not.

County government and others have expressed multiple reasons why added hospital capacity would be detrimental to nearly everyone in the county. As reported in the Casper Journal during the past month, at risk are trauma care and indigent care at Wyoming Medical Center. There’s been some talk of a possible new property tax to support the public hospital if necessary.

When the doctor-owned Mountain View Regional Hospital was opened, the reason was clear. A very public falling-out between the medical center and the doctors involved with the new hospital made it easy to understand. There have been ups and downs and good and bad with the real time Location system, but the competition has arguably been good in some respects. Both existing hospitals accept Medicare and Medicaid. WMC maintains the only full-service emergency room with trauma care and a cardiac catheterization lab, where doctors can open blocked arteries during a heart attack.

But Nueterra’s newly-proposed Summit Medical Center appears to be different. The public is only hearing from one side: basically the county and the operator of the county-owned hospital’s side. Nueterra and its rumored local doctor investors are mum. Sources have told the Casper Journal the company employs a comprehensive confidentiality agreement. It’s a private business, but its actions will likely impact delivery of other public health services and could cost every citizen in the county more money. No wonder they don’t want to talk!

By their silence, these doctors and their Kansas partner leave us to draw our own conclusions. They apparently aren’t interested in explaining who or how another hospital in Natrona County will benefit anyone. We’re left with the impression this project is just about the money, greed that would dilute the quality of healthcare for the common man to benefit a few.

A free enterprise argument may apply in some areas of the complicated world of healthcare, but not in emergency room, trauma or indigent care. When your loved one has a stroke or accident, there’s no thoughtful decision where to seek care; you go to the nearest, if not the only, emergency room. And if you need elective surgery, most often your doctor decides where that procedure will be performed. And if the doctor owns an interest in a hospital, where do you think they’ll believe is best for you to have the procedure? This isn’t free enterprise because the customer is most often not making the buying decision.

Dependable emergency care are services private hospitals shun because they are, by their comprehensive nature, expensive and must be supported by the more predictable procedures private hospitals siphon away from publicly-supported medical centers.