Balancing the facts: reply to charity news item

Please note: SOS Children has reproduced this letter verbatim without endorsing its contents on the basis of right of reply. The language in our article reflected usage in the international press.

Dear SOS Children,

I am writing to you with regards your recent web story on the eviction of Dey Krahorm published on 28th January 2009. I appreciate that you have taken the time to post a story on the current situation, and I have been very pleased to see the level of wide support for the community in recent days. However, I must take issue with the language used in this article.

To begin with, this is merely a personal opinion, but I find the use of the term "slum" not only problematic but also misleading and inaccurate. Dey Krahorm was a strong community of musicians, sellers, comedians, NGO staff, shop owners, motodops, market stall holders, families, schoolchildren,and university students. They were not "mostly street vendors". As soon as the word "slum" is used, the image of a shanty town is conjured, when in actuality the community was made up of houses of varying quality, includingsome very large well-established concrete structures, some wooden buildings,and yes, some poor quality shacks. Dey Krahorm was not a slum, it was a village, it was a community.

Contrary to what is stated in your news story, the dwellings in Dey Krahorm were not on "government land". I can provide you with a full legal analysis drafted by both national and international lawyers and legal experts that explains why a huge number of residents had legal rights to their land. The Land Law of 2001 gives possessory rights to the land to all those meeting the requirements set out in the law. Over 150 of the remaining families were bona fide possessors, living on their land, not the living on their land, not the government's.

But my most serious concern with your news story is the use of the word "squatters" to refer to the families who lived in Dey Krahorm. I must say I am extremely disappointed with its pervasive use in both local and international news sources. In 1975, the Khmer Rouge forcibly evacuated the residents of Phnom Penh. After the fall of Democratic Kampuchea in 1979, the population moved back to the city and settled wherever they could. The entire population of Cambodia were "squatters", some were fortunate to find
an empty building to occupy, those less fortunate established communities like Dey Krahorm, which has stood since the early 1980s.

As already explained, over 150 families had legal rights to their land but their legitimate claims for full ownership of their property were ignored by a corrupt administration which has effectively supported the illegal acquisition by a private company of their land, including through the participation of police forces in the brutal eviction of the remaining families. The term "squatter" is used repeatedly by this government - and echoed by a compliant or negligent press - to justify illegal evictions and the other abuses that were witnessed and documented during last weekend's forced eviction and continue to occur time and time again in Cambodia.

The term "squatters" is purposely used to paint a misleading picture of these communities and conceal their legal rights, dismiss the concerns of lawyers and rights workers, and convince people that evictions are legitimate and in fact necessary for the development of Cambodia. The people of Dey Krahorm had every right to reject the offer made by the 7NG company. They had legal rights to their land, and neither the relocation to a remote site some 10 miles from the centre of the city or the $20,000 compensation represented adequate alternatives that would allow them to retain a similar quality of life to that they enjoyed before the traumatic loss of their land and property. The families' right to adequate compensation is guaranteed not only under Cambodian law but also under international human rights law binding upon the government of Cambodia.

International news media, local news media, NGOs and other observers have a responsibility to use words that describe the situation and stakeholders in an accurate and fair manner. Not doing so - whether out of intention or negligence - amounts to playing into the hands of those painting the deliberately deceptive picture which is used to justify their illegal actions. Not doing so contributes to weaken the legitimate claims of this community and other communities.

Thank you for your attention to the concerns raised in my letter.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Grimsditch