FOR PUBLICATION
AHRC-ETC-006-2012
February 15, 2012
An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth published by
the Asian Human Rights Commission
CAMBODIA: "O
Khmer euy Khmer, chous ach knong
srae"
Something is changing within the Khmer nation.
Those storied Khmer characteristics – the broad
smile; the gentle, peaceful compassionate nature – and
the centuries-old traditions of "korup, bamreur,
karpier, smoh trang" -- "respect, serve, defend,
be loyal (to leaders)" -- passed down through
generations seem to be taking a new course.
A photo floating on the Internet shows Khmer
villagers--from youth to middle age--standing barefoot under
the hot sun as their colorful sandals are arranged in an
empty lot nearby to make up the Khmer word
"Aphivath," or "Development." Their
symbolic protest is directed at Khmer leaders and at those
around the world who are sympathetic to the
disenfranchisement of the poor in contemporary Cambodia.
Photos and videos of government abuse of citizens' rights
and of citizens' responses have inundated the Internet. Some
postings inform and educate. I recommend recent postings on
the Website of Radio Free Asia (February 1, "More
Arrests Follow Land Clash").
The beatings of women and children by riot police are
routine -- and are routinely condemned by international and
national rights groups. The too common sight of Khmer women
with clothes torn or ripped off by police during peaceful
protests is now replaced by the sight of women protesters
taking off their clothes to highlight their protests as they
face the police.
Going one step further, RFA posted on its website a
photograph of a half-naked Khmer woman protester facing
police in full riot gear. Her action was intended to
highlight the plight of Cambodian villagers from the Borei
Keila community, who were evicted by armed police from their
homes, which were dismantled and the co-opted land given to
Phan Imex Company for commercial development.
Khmer women taking off their clothes in public to protest
against authority is a new phenomenon. But, it shows
something else too: Submission to injustice has a limit, and
"fear," a conditioned behavior, is being
overcome.
This new behavior takes me back to an e-mail from Phnom
Penh from forty-something Sambath, a graduate in political
science from a University abroad, who told me unreservedly
several months ago that today's young Cambodians have become
"fearless" to confront what they perceive as
unjust. Sambath also said something I had not heard before:
Cambodians in their mid-fifties and older are too
conservative and too prudent to be helpful in the fight
against dictatorship.
Sambath's view was repeated by Teveakor, also in his
forties, who holds a master's degree from a Cambodian
university. He sees Cambodians in their mid-fifties and
older as a "conservative force" while young
democrats need a "push force." Teveakor claimed
that he and colleagues, young democracy advocates, are
struggling in the midst of their families' poor economic
situation to work on strategic planning, building and
strengthening a leadership circle among younger Cambodians,
and spreading political awareness amongst Cambodians they
know.
Meanwhile Makara, also in his forties, told me bluntly from
Phnom Penh that "writing, speaking, denouncing,
suing" don't bring down the current dictatorship. He
presented a rather imaginative Machiavellian "cool
technique" he thinks would shake the core of the
autocratic rule -- "smart thinking" if I may say
so, though I will not repeat his ideas here. As Burmese icon
Aung San Suu Kyi said, "Action comes out of
thought."
Their emails remind me of a former comrade-in-arms during
my service with the Khmer Non-Communist Resistance, a high
ranking royalist, who wrote about the "silent
majority" that is hard at work.
A reader in Phnom Penh whom I never met, answered my
question on the situation in Cambodia as he sees it by
sending me the link to the June 2007 Global Witness Report
titled, "Cambodia's Family Trees, Illegal logging and
the stripping of public assets by Cambodia's elite,"
and the link to a Human Rights Watch publication on forced
evictions, with his own comment: "This says it
all."
A collision course theory
An older Khmer, Lokta Mekso, is concerned that Cambodia
is headed toward a "bloody revolution" if there's
no change to the status quo. He theorizes that as
Cambodians, "distressed" by the economic situation
and the incessant violations of rights and freedom, release
their frustrations against the regime in power, the latter
will respond with increased repression. The
stress-repression process is likely to spiral into an
"explosion" a la Arab Spring -- with inevitable
bloodshed, he believes.
"There would be no change through a peaceful
way," Mekso thinks. He is frustrated that the regime
has declined to alter the policies and actions that
increasingly stress the population and propel them toward
confrontation with authorities.
I have tried to capture the stress-repression spiral
Lokta described. I selected photos available in the public
domain, made slideshows, and posted them on YouTube -- the
last one posted two weeks ago. Indeed, I can anticipate the
future bloodshed Mekso fears. In his analysis, this
continued stress-repression spiral shall cost the
"stressors" their hold to power in five to 10
years.
The most important weapon of the oppressors, repression,
shall do them in, should democrats think smart and act
smart.
But Mekso also worries about Cambodians' ability to
replace an autocratic regime with another one that is
different in name only, a worry shared by others, and a
topic for another time.
The "stomach and stability" theory
Mekso and some Cambodians suggest that political
stability, improved economic well-being, and universal
education comprise an environment in which a destructive
collision between the government and the governed might be
avoided.
The call for a "filled stomach" and for
"stability" is logical. After decades of living in
hellacious circumstances -- from the widening Vietnamese
War, the tumult of the Khmer Rouge regime, subsequent
Vietnamese military occupation and a war of national
resistance, and the land-grabbing actions of the Cambodian
government in place, who would not welcome stability and a
filled stomach?
Cambodia is no different from most of the world's
nation-states that give governments the tasks to provide for
the social and economic well-being of all citizens, and for
the independence and the stability of the country. The
trouble is Cambodia's current leadership does none of
these.
The current leadership was installed by the Vietnamese
invading troops in Phnom Penh in January 1979, and has been
in control of the country for 32 years. Through rigged
elections, intimidation and threats, the ruling party seeks
to legitimize its power.
But, many people are poor and hungry, people's rights and
freedom are violated, and Cambodians are unhappy to see
their government serving Vietnam with treaties ceding
territory and illegal immigration that has brought an
alleged "four million" Vietnamese to Cambodia.
This leadership is being judged by its citizens who are
dissatisfied with how it has fulfilled its obligations.
Surely, today's Cambodia has experienced a 10-percent
annual growth rate for the past decade, and has developed
physically and materially. The vast labor camp is no more;
cosmopolitan Cambodian cities attract tourists and
investments.
Just as the price of peace has been too high, so, too, is
the price of development.
So far, this small kingdom owes a debt between $3.3
billion and $7 billion (depending on which government source
gives the figure) to foreign countries and development
partners -- with China taking the lead. The country's
natural resources have been plundered and sold to foreigners
by members of the elite who uniquely profit. About one-third
of the population lives below the poverty level; many live
off the city dump grounds. Nearly half a million citizens
have been forcibly evicted from their homes, their land
confiscated for "economic development."
Challengers
Teveakor, who dismissed as low the government figure of
36 percent of the populace as living below the poverty level
-- the "living ghosts" -- argues that of the 80
percent of the population who live in the countryside, many
are barely able to make ends meet; he and his friends are
among them.
Makara's e-mail about his declining health lamented that
if in his more privileged economic position he is struggling
to find medicines and a clinic, how much suffering is the
multitude that has little or nothing forced to endure?
Teveakor theorizes that the current leadership -- whose
families are "filthy rich" -- is never interested
in pulling Cambodians out of poverty or in providing
Cambodians with a good education. His reasons? When the
people's stomachs are more full and they have the skills to
think and reason, the leadership's very survival is in
danger. Yet, how is education to be improved in a culture of
bribery that is pervasive even among the young, all the way
to the Ministry of Education? Furthermore, who wants to
study when a degree can be bought at a cheap price?
Teveakor and Makara (and Sambath) don't know one another.
Teveakor and Makara say the government has an interest in
keeping democracy advocates busy struggling to feed their
families so they will have no time to devote to the fight
for democracy and civil rights. Both are pessimistic about
"a filled stomach and stability" being catalysts
for change because the current status quo denies the poor
any possibility of improving their living conditions and
sustains the culture of corruption.
And they say, the regime successfully pulls malleable
democrats into the "corruption nest" with jobs and
privileges.
Both are blunt: Today's "god" is money. With
money people buy cars and big homes; since the
"god" is with Premier Hun Sen and those who are
his cronies, Cambodians who want cars and big homes,
government positions, power and prestige, love the regime
dearly.
The Buddha angle
Khmer expatriate Sophoan Seng, a master's degree holder
in political science from the University of Hawaii at Manoa,
currently Director of KEEN Investment Groups LTD and
president of the Khmer Youth Association of Alberta,
acknowledges that many people in Cambodia endorse the
"filled stomach and stability" theory for
different reasons.
"However," Seng, a former Buddhist monk in
Siemreap for more than a decade, writes, "Buddhists who
have learned and experienced deep understanding of Buddha's
teachings, see that the highest goal of Buddhism is
‘liberty', not the ‘four necessities',"
i.e., food, shelter, clothing, medicine.
His ideas are similar to those of another former monk,
Heng Monychenda, who holds a master's degree from Harvard
and heads the nonprofit group, Buddhism for Development.
Seng points to Buddha's teaching that "liberty" or
"Nama," -- referring to a person's mind or spirit
-- and the "four necessities," or
"Rupa," -- referring to body or physical
appearances -- must be equalized and balanced. As Monychenda
explains, "Nama-Rupa" means that mind and matter
must go together. "Mind affects matter and matter
affects the mind," i.e., spiritual and economic
development should not be separated into two separate
realms, he says.
Thus, in Buddha's teaching, you don't stop the struggle
for liberty because you want some stability and some food.
Of course, "Buddha teaches that all beings need food
(Rupa, the four necessities) to survive," Seng
explains, but "Buddha teaches that Nama or mind is the
leader, the master; and human beings are made by mind,
which, as developed positively, can master all things."
Yet, unless Nama and Rupa are brought into balance, a person
cannot enter the Dhmma stream to reach the highest level of
realization/enlightenment/liberty of the mind from the
bondage of greed, hatred, delusion.
Seng asked: Considering Cambodia's non-independent
judiciary, economic development through land grabbing and
forced evictions, coerced mass media, rampant corruption
from top to bottom, political autocracy, favoritism,
cronyism, among many other things, is Cambodia on the path
of engineering development and stability, or establishing
liberty, or balancing both, as Buddha teaches?
Change begins with each of us
An array of e-mails in my box contains similar thoughts,
as summarized in an e-mail from another former high ranking
member of the royalist FUNCINPEC: "The root of real
change and overall change is inside each and every one of
us."
A former Khmer monk, Bouawat Sithi, a graduate of
Thailand's Djittabhawan College, founded to help poor
students pursue higher education, lamented that because
Buddhism is not taught or understood correctly,
"egoism, anger, greed, delusion, desire, craving, hate
and aversion" overwhelm many Cambodians.
Buddha used the term "Nibbana" or Nirvana to
explain an image of freedom -- to "free" a burning
fire from its agitated, dependent, and entrapped state.
Sithi explained that Buddha teaches that everyone has the
capacity to attain Nibbana, and by extension has the
opportunity to become a leader if s/he puts effort into
becoming one. According to Sithi, Buddha teaches that
in order to change the world one has to change oneself as an
example for people to follow, and when they follow, one is
indeed a leader.
Sithi's commentary brings me back to a column I wrote
about an inscription on the tomb of an Anglican bishop in
Westminster Abbey. The inscription was actually circulated
by a group of Khmer Krom expatriates in the United States a
few years earlier. The description on the tomb is about a
man on his deathbed reflecting on his life's voyage: When he
was "young and free" with limitless imagination,
he dreamed of changing the world, but the world would not
change. So, he thought he would change the country; but the
country was immovable. In his "last desperate
attempt" he worked to change those closest to him, his
family; but the family "would have none of
it."
On his deathbed, the man realized: "If only I had
changed myself first, then by example I would have changed
my family. From their inspiration and encouragement, I would
then have been able to better my country, and who knows, I
might have changed the world."
"Chous Ach Knong Srae"
The most powerful statement in e-mails I have lately
received come from a septuagenarian, a former field
artillery officer and instructor at the Khmer Military
Academy, who instructed many well-known Khmer military
officers. He has gone through six regime changes in his
life: the first monarchist regime, the republican regime,
the Khmer Rouge regime, the Vietnamese-installed regime, a
coalition regime, and now the second monarchist regime
controlled by Vietnamese-propped Hun Sen.
"Since I was born until now," he writes,
"the same old thing remains: The leaders and their
families become richer and richer." Like others, he
calls on everyone to change -- from their way of thinking to
their everyday lifeways -- so that real change can occur.
But the septuagenarian sounded sad to affirm that what once
was and still is. There's "no change in Cambodian
attitude."
In many long e-mails that deal with the Khmer character
and culture, Khmer domestic and world politics, he expresses
deep frustration and hurt that while Cambodia's neighbors
look down on the Khmers as "Phnong" -- primitive
beings -- the Khmers themselves "bite one another but
fear them; insult one another but are afraid of them . . .
Khmers cannot be convinced easily except by foreigners whom
they like. They have hot tempers, and kill one another when
they are mad even over small little things. If a leader says
‘go', they go all the way serving him unconditionally
and blindly…" And he goes on and on.
He recited twice in his e-mails, a Khmer poem well known
to those in my generation. The poem deals with an ignoramus
who does private business in the ricefield and cleans
himself with an ivy leaf: "O Khmer euy Khmer, Chous ach
knong srae, Yok khgnae tov ket, Dol ach choab dai, Noam knea
mok het, Ae ach choab kdet, Ket lieang min chreas."
Ignorance of the person is one aspect of the short poem.
The other aspect is what Albert Einstein defined as insanity
-- doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result.
The septuagenarian lamented in his e-mail: It is "same
old, same old" through generations.
The Vietnamese angle
Whoever started the idea that the Khmer word,
"Yuon," is a pejorative for Vietnamese is ignorant
of the Khmer language. The Buddhist Institute's
"Dictionnaire Cambodgien" of 1968 defines
"Yuon" as people from Vietnam. In general, the
Yuon people from Tonking are called "Yuon Hanoi";
from Annam are called "Yuon Hue"; from
Conchinchina are called "Yuon Prey Nokor."
For my purpose, I use the English word Vietnamese. My
article, "Brief History of Vietnamese Expansionism
vis-à-vis Cambodia" -- a research paper -- was
posted on the website of the Khmer Institute in 2010.
When I did research for my doctoral dissertation, I read
a statement by a Khmer leader at the time who observed that
"destiny" has placed Cambodia and Vietnam as
neighbors until the end of time and it would be up to the
two peoples how to live with one another. Like the old
saying that you can choose your friend but not your family,
neither can we choose who should be our country's neighbors
-- who have called us "Phnong," a hurtful insult,
as the septuagenarian said above.
Conventional techniques a nation-state can use to promote
its foreign policy goals include communications, diplomacy,
economic and military tools, and subversion. Cambodians can
use any of these techniques intelligently -- a topic and an
issue for politicians to sort out (as a scholar, I can
comment and suggest).
A couple weeks ago I heard from Paula, 41. He is a native
of Battambang province and a former refugee at several camps
along the Khmer-Thai border after the Vietnamese takeover of
Phnom Penh in 1979, who has graduated from an American
university. He wrote, "The Vietnamese know Khmer tricks
(Khmer traits?) well. They said that Khmer like power,
women, and material things. If you have these things, Khmer
will do anything to hold on to power. So the Vietnamese put
Hun Sen on the tiger's back. To make his Vietnamese boss
happy, he'll hold on; if he falls, he's dead. I strongly
believe that no one dares to challenge Hun Sen's
authorities. The majority of opposition members can be
bought."
Believing that "change will not come easily"
because the Vietnamese run Hun Sen's dictatorship, Paula
wanted to know how any "new government" would be
able to replace Hun Sen without bloodshed and be independent
and fully in control of Cambodia.
I am reminded of earlier comments on Khmer blog KI-Media
by an anonymous blogger identified as Pissed off, who called
on Khmers to help educate every child in Cambodia as this
would help solve Cambodia's numerous problems as well as the
Vietnamese problem. Recently, Pissed off, again wrote:
"If you can take down Hun Sen and … his close
inner circle, you can deal with Vietnam in a reasonable way
later."
Vietnam has no business in Cambodia. Yet, Vietnam is in
Cambodia. Its presence is illegal from the standpoint of
international law and principles practiced by states. But
this presence is legitimized by the Cambodian leadership --
with Hun Sen as Prime Minister and the Cambodian People's
Party as the ruling party. Moreover, this leadership that
kotows to Vietnam is supported by the King Father and his
son the king of Cambodia.
For me, the nation's sovereignty and territorial
integrity -- the supreme national interests of Cambodia --
are two non-negotiables. Other things may be negotiated.
Armed resistance to Vietnamese incursions from the east and
Thai aggression from the west is tantamount to national
suicide. Cool heads must prevail.
I agree with democrats who contend that to remove
Vietnam's presence in Cambodia Cambodians need to remove
what gives "legitimacy" to it, i.e., those who are
the "legitimizers" of Vietnam's presence. Stripped
of its alleged "legitimacy," Vietnam has no
rationale to be in Cambodia, whose people can stand as one
to deal with Vietnam.
Understanding nonviolent action (people
power)
Ideas and concepts of nonviolent action about which I
write here are drawn from the work of Professor Gene Sharp,
"the Clausewitz of nonviolent warfare," and Srdja
Popovic, one of the Serbian Otpor leaders who brought down
dictator Milosevic in 2000.
As defined by foreign affairs and national security
professor Thomas C. Schelling, "political
violence" and "political nonviolence" have as
purposes "making somebody do something or not do
something or stop doing something. The aim is to influence
behavior." Their one main difference is, "violent
action often requires hot blood, while the nonviolent action
depends more on cool heads."
Nonviolent action -- people power, political defiance,
nonviolent struggle -- is a "technique of
struggle" that involves the use of social, economic,
and political power in a conflict by using "symbolic
protests, noncooperation, and defiance, but not physical
violence."
It is not "passive" and it is not
"inaction." Some 200 specific methods of
nonviolent action, or "nonviolent weapons,"
include methods of nonviolent protest and persuasion; of
social, economic, and political noncooperation; and methods
of nonviolent intervention. Nonviolent struggle is designed
to struggle against opponents who are able and willing to
use violence -- the oppressors.
Nonviolent action against violent repression creates what
Sharp called a "special, asymmetrical, conflict
situation," in which one side relies on violent action
-- arrest, imprisonment, physical harm -- and the other side
relies on nonviolent action, a technique which Popovic says,
requires "analytical skills in unity, planning, and
nonviolent discipline" (the last being the "game
changer"). These skills can be taught and learned.
As Sharp puts it: "An extensive, determined and
skillful application of nonviolent action will cause the
opponent very special problems, which will disturb or
frustrate the effective utilization of his own forces. The
actionists will then be able to apply something like
jiu-jitsu to their opponent, throwing him off balance
politically, causing his repression to rebound against his
position, and weakening his power."
Nonviolent action may involve "acts of
omission" -- people may refuse to perform acts that
they usually perform, or acts that are expected by custom or
required by law or regulation to perform; or "acts of
commission" -- people may perform acts that they do not
usually perform, or are not expected by custom, or are
forbidden to perform; and a combination of the two.
Clearly, the three "acts" above require quality
thinking, analytical thoughts and skills. It requires what
Khmers called "lbaeng denh prajgna" -- "
intelligence/brain skills."
This brings me to Khmers' Thnenh Chey, a hero in Khmer
folklore who seems to never run out of ideas. When the King
forbade Chey to show his face during a royal procession,
Chey drew a human face on his derriere and exposed it for
the King to see. Brought before the angry King, Chey swears
his undying respect, that he would never violate the King's
order not to show his face, nor would he be so disrespectful
and disloyal as not to be present at so revered a royal
procession.
In another episode, arrested and transported by boat by
the King's soldiers, Chey knew his day was coming to an end,
so he launched his own "psy-op": He explained to
the soldiers that he would be executed anyway so told them
to let him drown and die, why bother to transport him all
the way to the palace. He persuaded the soldiers to let him
fall into the water, and they should shout "A Chey
thleak toek" ("Chey falls into the water")
and then cheer "Hai eur, Hai eur!" (Hallelujah,
hallelujah!). Chey's psychological operation worked. He
dropped into the water and swam away as the King's soldiers
cheered.
Nonviolent action does not mean inciting the people to
rise up against the oppressors who spray bullets. As in
jiu-jitsu, a martial art that uses the attacker's
weapon against himself or herself, political
jiu-jitsu is a technique using the dictator's best
weapon, violent repression, against himself or herself.
Nonviolent action specialists remind us that just as the
dictator stays in power because he has pillars of support
and the people he governs obey him, the democracy
actionists' job is to pull away (not destroy) those pillars
of support (bureaucracy, police, military, etc.), and
persuade the people to withdraw their obedience. Cambodian
democracy activists can learn much from Thenh Chey, the
prince of thinking smart and acting smart.
In the final analysis, it is Cambodians who decide what
their country's destiny shall be. As I said time and again,
I write to share what I know, if it helps, that's good; if
not, you would at least have read and learned something from
what I write. As Confucius says, "You cannot open a
book without learning something." Of course, you can
open a book and not read.
The old adage, "We get the government we
deserve" means that it is citizens' action (Cambodians'
election) or inaction (Cambodians' large zone of
indifference) that brings to the seat of power the
leadership that rules over them. It is earned by the
citizens.
Nonviolent action is a technique for Cambodians to
consider. It is said one who does not risk anything gains
nothing. The alternative is continued oppression.
As we are 46 days into this New Year 2012, I wish all
Cambodian democracy activists and actionists success on
whatever road they take toward the country's future.
Remember Lord Gautama Buddha's words of 2,500 years ago:
"No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one
may"; "I do not believe in a fate that falls on
men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls
on them unless they act."
……………..
The views shared in this article do not necessarily
reflect those of the AHRC, and the AHRC takes no
responsibility for them.
About the Author:
Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from the University of
Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. He
currently lives in the United States. He can be contacted at
pean...@gmail.com.

Please consider the environment
before printing this email.