Norodom Sihanouk pays an official visit to the
Sihanoukian National Army (ANS) in 1988
ANS base No. 1, Cambodia
Friday, July 1, 1988
Sihanoukian National Army (ANS) in 1988
ANS base No. 1, Cambodia
Friday, July 1, 1988
Photo: NorodomSihanouk.info
Cambodian official warns UN-backed tribunal as country marks overthrow of Khmer Rouge
6/01/2010
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia - A Cambodian official warned a U.N.-backed genocide tribunal on Thursday not to interfere in the country's internal affairs as the Southeast Asian nation marked the overthrow of the brutal Khmer Rouge regime 31 years ago.
Speaking to some 7,000 supporters, Chea Sim, president of the ruling Cambodian People's Party, said it would not allow the court to destroy the country's peace and national reconciliation. He said the tribunal must try only the most senior Khmer Rouge leaders.
The ultra-communist Khmer Rouge regime was overthrown by invading Vietnamese forces on Jan. 7, 1979.
The tribunal is seeking justice for an estimated 1.7 million people who died from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition as a result of the group's policies during its 1975-79 rule.
The tribunal, which includes both foreign and Cambodian lawyers, has charged five senior Khmer Rouge leaders with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
"We oppose attempts to use the chamber for ill intentions which would have an impact on peace, national reconciliation and development, which have been our hard-won achievements," Chea Sim, who is also senate president, said in a speech at party headquarters in Phnom Penh.
Some foreign prosecutors have attempted to bring more former Khmer Rouge members before the tribunal, but the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen has so far blocked such moves.
Hun Sen and a number of other senior government leaders held positions in the Khmer Rouge, and China, now Cambodia's No. 1 ally, backed the Khmer Rouge regime.
Casting a wider net might ignite tensions and problems for Hun Sen's government and offend the Chinese.
The tribunal tried its first defendant, prison chief Kaing Guek Eav, last year on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder and torture.
Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch, commanded S-21 prison in Phnom Penh, where up to 16,000 people were tortured and taken away to be killed. A verdict is expected early this year, and he faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if found guilty. Cambodia has no death penalty.
Speaking to some 7,000 supporters, Chea Sim, president of the ruling Cambodian People's Party, said it would not allow the court to destroy the country's peace and national reconciliation. He said the tribunal must try only the most senior Khmer Rouge leaders.
The ultra-communist Khmer Rouge regime was overthrown by invading Vietnamese forces on Jan. 7, 1979.
The tribunal is seeking justice for an estimated 1.7 million people who died from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition as a result of the group's policies during its 1975-79 rule.
The tribunal, which includes both foreign and Cambodian lawyers, has charged five senior Khmer Rouge leaders with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
"We oppose attempts to use the chamber for ill intentions which would have an impact on peace, national reconciliation and development, which have been our hard-won achievements," Chea Sim, who is also senate president, said in a speech at party headquarters in Phnom Penh.
Some foreign prosecutors have attempted to bring more former Khmer Rouge members before the tribunal, but the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen has so far blocked such moves.
Hun Sen and a number of other senior government leaders held positions in the Khmer Rouge, and China, now Cambodia's No. 1 ally, backed the Khmer Rouge regime.
Casting a wider net might ignite tensions and problems for Hun Sen's government and offend the Chinese.
The tribunal tried its first defendant, prison chief Kaing Guek Eav, last year on charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder and torture.
Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch, commanded S-21 prison in Phnom Penh, where up to 16,000 people were tortured and taken away to be killed. A verdict is expected early this year, and he faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment if found guilty. Cambodia has no death penalty.
US Congressman Eni Faleomavaega rewarded by Hun Xen to attend the CPP's celebration for blasting the Tom Lantos Commisstion hearing?
US Congressman Eni Faleomaveaga (D-American Samoa) in front row can be seen attending the celebration of Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Mr. Faleomaveaga issued a scathing remark against the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on Cambodia in 2009. He indicated that "I do not believe that holding a hearing that gives voice to the opposition party and excludes the ruling party is the way for us to proceed in affecting change in 
Hun Xen and Bun Rany Hun Xen presiding over the celebration (Photo: Khmer Sovanna)
Cambodia's stooges (Photo: Khem Sovannara)Cambodia: Bloggers promote Khmer Literature
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
By Sopheap Chak
Global Voices Online
អក្សររលត់ ជាតិរលាយ អក្សរពណ្ណរាយ ជាតិថ្កើងថ្កានThis is one of the prominent Cambodian proverbs used mostly in Cambodian literature classes from primary to higher education level. It is the most influential message that inspires the young generation to promote Khmer literature. Strikingly, young Cambodian bloggers have transformed this proverb into action by promoting the achievement of past generation authors as well as creating their own literature and developing talents through the publication of digital and hard-copy materials.
Aksar roluat jeat roleay Aksar ponnareay jeat thkeung thkan.
“If letters disappear, the nation will disappear, if letters are brilliant, the nation is excellent.”
Established in 2007, Khmer Youth Writers is initiated by young authors who are talented in Cambodian literature with the purpose of promoting and improving Khmer literature and its market. Many of the young team members have won in the National Khmer Literature Competition, which is annually organized by the Ministry of Education.
Also, they were further trained by literature associations like the Nou Hach Literary Association whose motto is to strengthen and promote Cambodian literature. Their publications have gained admiration from readers who are curious to know more about how to become talented authors.
Asked about his interest in writing and becoming a literature author, 26 year-old Chanphal Sok, who claims to be the oldest in the team (the average age in the group is between 19 to 22), replied in Khmer language:
ខ្ញុំ!ចាប់អារម្មណ៍ព្រោះយល់ថាជាសិល្បៈដែលមិនងាយនឹង
ធ្វើបានទាល់តែមនុស្សពូកែទើបអាចសរសេរស្នាដៃបាន
ចង់ក្លាយជាមនុស្សពូកែក៏ចង់ក្លាយជាអ្នកនិពន្ធគិតថា
មិនមែនមនុស្សគ្រប់គ្នាអាចអ្វើការងារនេះបានទេ
បើខ្លួនឯងមាននិស្ស័យអាចទៅរួចគួរតែខំប្រឹង
I am interested in this work for the fact that literature is a difficult artistic task. Only few talented people can do so. With special talent in literature, I therefore want to become an author.
Sophal also expresses the significance of his team’s literature work on Khmer reader and the whole society:
ទីមួយ ខ្មែរមានអក្សរសិល្បអាន។Some members who live in the provinces could not join the team meetings regularly. The internet facilitates instant communication in the group. Sophal considers blogs as great communication tools. “A blog is like our officewhich we can share and make our works widely visible,” said Sophal.
អប់រំតាមស្នាដៃនិពន្ធ។មនុស្សអាចសិក្សាពីសង្គម
មួយតាមស្នាដៃអក្សរសិល្ប៍ ។ខ្ញុំសង្កេតឃើញថា
បើប្រទេសណា មានអ្នកនិពន្ធពូកែច្រើនប្រទេសនោះ
ក៏រីកចម្រើនដែរ ។ មនុស្សរៀនតាមសៀវភៅ
បើមានសៀវភៅល្អច្រើនប្រាកដជាល្អ។
Firstly, Khmer readers can benefit from Cambodian literature. It can be used for educational purposes. People can understand a society through literature. I observe that a country is prosperous when there are many talented authors. People learn by reading books; therefore, it is great if there are many books published.
One of the initiators of this Khmer Youth Authors, Archphkai or Asteroid, in his profile gave a brief history of the group as the following:
«ក្រុមអ្នកនិពន្ធវ័យក្មេង»
ត្រូវបានបង្កើតឡើងដោយក្រុមសិស្សនិស្សិតមួយក្រុម
ក្រោយពីបាន ឆ្លងកាត់វគ្គសិក្សារឿងខ្លីនៅសមាគម
អក្សរសិល្ប៍នូហាចរួចមក។ ក្រោយមកក្រុមនេះត្រូវ
បានដូរឈ្មោះជា «ក្រុមយុវអ្នកនិពន្ធខ្មែរ»
វិញម្តង ដោយបានទទួលការផ្តល់យោបល់ពី
អ្នកស្រីប៉ិចសង្វាវ៉ាន អ្នកនិពន្ធខ្មែរនៅប្រទេសបារាំង។
“Young Authors Group” is established by a group of students who took literature training course at Nou Hach Literary Association. This group later changed its name to “Khmer Youth Authors” with the advice of Khmer author, Mrs. Pich Sanvavan.
Here are the links to the blogs of these young team members as well as literature authors who have written various short stories and poems: Archphkai, Boran, Chanphal Sok, Chetra, Khmeng Toch , Narath , Nimol
Notably, Cambodia is fortunate to have many scholars and authors who are talented in literature. These writers employ chbap, or didactic codes, Reuang Preng, or folktales, and novels, for example, in order to educate and reflect the reality of society during their lifetime. For instance, the most popular novels published during late 1930s, which have been used as main school texts are Phka Srapon or Faded Flower by Nou Hach, Sophat by Rim Gin [KI-Media note: Rim Kin] and Koulap Pailin or Pailin Rose, by Nuk Thiem [KI-Media note: Nhok Them]. These novels have film adaptations. Also within the period of 1950s to 1975, about 50 books per year were published (Nepote, Jacques and Khing Hoc Dy, “Literature and Society in Modern Cambodia,” 1981: 64).
However, much of Cambodian literary heritage was destroyed during the rule of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) when the National Library was maintained to raise pigs instead. It was estimated that about 80 percent of written works in Khmer were destroyed (read “A Building Full of Books” by Ledgerwood in Cultural Survival).
Cambodia lacks its own text materials, especially since the fall of the Khmer Rouge Regime. Hopefully, the inspiring works of young Cambodian authors will help reawaken the past golden era of Khmer literature.
7th January: A Liberation Through Invasion or a Day of Infamy and Deliverance?
7th January, 2010
Op-Ed by Khmerization
“7th January, 1979 is both a combination of a liberation and an invasion. Miss Theary Seng, former executive director of Centre for Social Development, called it a liberation through invasion, while Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, former professor of the University of Guam, called it a day of infamy and deliverance.”
The controversy surrounding the glorification or the celebration of January 7, 1979 has been hotly debated between the proponents of the Vietnamese intervention and its opponents since day one. Today marks the 31st anniversary of the invasion of Cambodia by the Vietnamese forces and debates are again raging, as happened every year, as to whether this date should be celebrated as a liberation day or an invasion day.
Proponents of the Vietnamese intervention in 1979 celebrate 7th January as a liberation day. They believe that without the Vietnamese intervention of 1979, the whole population of Cambodia would have been wiped out by the Khmer Rouge genocide, while opponents of the Vietnamese intervention believe that it should be remembered as an invasion day.
Opponents of the Vietnamese intervention have instead called for the celebration of the Paris Peace Accords of 23rd of October 1991 instead of 7th January, 1979. On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the Vietnamese intervention of last year, Mr. Khieu Kanharith, Minister of Information and government spokesman, was adamant that 7th January was a more important date than the Paris Peace Accords. He said and I quote: “if there were no 07 January 1979, there wouldn’t be 23 October 1991 either.” By saying this, he seems to believe that 7th January, 1979 is the cornerstone that has laid a foundation for the Paris Peace Accords of 23rd October, 1991.
Mr. Kanharith statement seems to resonate an admission of 7th January as an invasion day. By saying that without 7th January, the day of the Vietnamese invasion, and that there wouldn’t be 23 October 1991, the day that Cambodia achieved peace, Mr. Kanharith is unconsciously admitting that 7th January, 1979 is an invasion day because if there wasn’t any invasion, there wouldn’t be a need for any peace accords.
Opponents of the Vietnamese intervention, on the other hand, are adamantly and vehemently insisting that 7th January is an invasion day. They have accused Vietnam of abetting the Khmer Rouge to take powers in Cambodia on 17th April, 1975 and aiding the massacres of 1.7 million Cambodians. They believe that Vietnam did not voluntarily invade Cambodia solely for the purpose of liberating the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge genocide, but rather Vietnam invaded Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge has turned down its overtures of subordination to Vietnam and because of border clashes due to Vietnamese border encroachments. They also accused that, after the 1979 invasion, the killings of the Cambodian people continued unabated through the so-called “K-5 Plan” and that the Vietnamese army had plundered the Cambodian wealth and resources by transporting them back to their country.
Opposition parties also insisted that 7th January is an invasion day. They consider that it is a product of the 17th April, 1975, the date of the Khmer Rouge takeover and the beginning of the Cambodian genocide, aided and abetted by the present leaders of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), because the majority of them, like PM Hun Sen, Senate President Chea Sim and National Assembly Chairman Heng Samrin, are important ex-leaders of the Khmer Rouge.
Mr. Sam Rainsy, an arch-opponent of the 7th January, in a letter to The Cambodia Daily in January 2009, said and I quote: “But it is worth realizing that without April 17, 1975, there would be no need for January 7, 1979.” Mr. Sam Rainsy’s statement seem to concur the above statements which consider that both dates (7th January, 1979 and 17th April, 1975) as the by-products of the Vietnamese creations, aided and abetted by the present CPP leaders who were important ex-leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime.
In conclusion, for me personally, 7th January, 1979 is both a combination of a liberation and an invasion. Miss Theary Seng, former executive director of Centre for Social Development, called it a liberation through invasion, while Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, former professor of the University of Guam, called it a day of infamy and deliverance.
I believe it is a liberation day in the sense that, whether it was an intention of Vietnam or not, millions of Cambodian lives have been saved from the Khmer Rouge regime. I also consider it as an invasion day because it was an invasion: pure and simple, because I believe that Vietnam had helped the Khmer Rouge to take powers in 1975 and aided and abetted in the subsequent massacres of 1.7 million Cambodian lives. I also believe that the Vietnamese intervention in 1979 was not born out of any sympathy for the Cambodian people, but rather Vietnam had taken that course of actions because of a breakdown of relations with the Khmer Rouge and because of border clashes resulting from border encroachments by Vietnam.
So, is 7th of January, 1979 a liberation day or is it an invasion day? The answer is both, depending on who we are talking to. Or, as Miss Theary Seng puts it, it is a liberation through invasion.
Op-Ed by Khmerization
“7th January, 1979 is both a combination of a liberation and an invasion. Miss Theary Seng, former executive director of Centre for Social Development, called it a liberation through invasion, while Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, former professor of the University of Guam, called it a day of infamy and deliverance.”
The controversy surrounding the glorification or the celebration of January 7, 1979 has been hotly debated between the proponents of the Vietnamese intervention and its opponents since day one. Today marks the 31st anniversary of the invasion of Cambodia by the Vietnamese forces and debates are again raging, as happened every year, as to whether this date should be celebrated as a liberation day or an invasion day.
Proponents of the Vietnamese intervention in 1979 celebrate 7th January as a liberation day. They believe that without the Vietnamese intervention of 1979, the whole population of Cambodia would have been wiped out by the Khmer Rouge genocide, while opponents of the Vietnamese intervention believe that it should be remembered as an invasion day.
Opponents of the Vietnamese intervention have instead called for the celebration of the Paris Peace Accords of 23rd of October 1991 instead of 7th January, 1979. On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the Vietnamese intervention of last year, Mr. Khieu Kanharith, Minister of Information and government spokesman, was adamant that 7th January was a more important date than the Paris Peace Accords. He said and I quote: “if there were no 07 January 1979, there wouldn’t be 23 October 1991 either.” By saying this, he seems to believe that 7th January, 1979 is the cornerstone that has laid a foundation for the Paris Peace Accords of 23rd October, 1991.
Mr. Kanharith statement seems to resonate an admission of 7th January as an invasion day. By saying that without 7th January, the day of the Vietnamese invasion, and that there wouldn’t be 23 October 1991, the day that Cambodia achieved peace, Mr. Kanharith is unconsciously admitting that 7th January, 1979 is an invasion day because if there wasn’t any invasion, there wouldn’t be a need for any peace accords.
Opponents of the Vietnamese intervention, on the other hand, are adamantly and vehemently insisting that 7th January is an invasion day. They have accused Vietnam of abetting the Khmer Rouge to take powers in Cambodia on 17th April, 1975 and aiding the massacres of 1.7 million Cambodians. They believe that Vietnam did not voluntarily invade Cambodia solely for the purpose of liberating the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge genocide, but rather Vietnam invaded Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge has turned down its overtures of subordination to Vietnam and because of border clashes due to Vietnamese border encroachments. They also accused that, after the 1979 invasion, the killings of the Cambodian people continued unabated through the so-called “K-5 Plan” and that the Vietnamese army had plundered the Cambodian wealth and resources by transporting them back to their country.
Opposition parties also insisted that 7th January is an invasion day. They consider that it is a product of the 17th April, 1975, the date of the Khmer Rouge takeover and the beginning of the Cambodian genocide, aided and abetted by the present leaders of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), because the majority of them, like PM Hun Sen, Senate President Chea Sim and National Assembly Chairman Heng Samrin, are important ex-leaders of the Khmer Rouge.
Mr. Sam Rainsy, an arch-opponent of the 7th January, in a letter to The Cambodia Daily in January 2009, said and I quote: “But it is worth realizing that without April 17, 1975, there would be no need for January 7, 1979.” Mr. Sam Rainsy’s statement seem to concur the above statements which consider that both dates (7th January, 1979 and 17th April, 1975) as the by-products of the Vietnamese creations, aided and abetted by the present CPP leaders who were important ex-leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime.
In conclusion, for me personally, 7th January, 1979 is both a combination of a liberation and an invasion. Miss Theary Seng, former executive director of Centre for Social Development, called it a liberation through invasion, while Dr. A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, former professor of the University of Guam, called it a day of infamy and deliverance.
I believe it is a liberation day in the sense that, whether it was an intention of Vietnam or not, millions of Cambodian lives have been saved from the Khmer Rouge regime. I also consider it as an invasion day because it was an invasion: pure and simple, because I believe that Vietnam had helped the Khmer Rouge to take powers in 1975 and aided and abetted in the subsequent massacres of 1.7 million Cambodian lives. I also believe that the Vietnamese intervention in 1979 was not born out of any sympathy for the Cambodian people, but rather Vietnam had taken that course of actions because of a breakdown of relations with the Khmer Rouge and because of border clashes resulting from border encroachments by Vietnam.
So, is 7th of January, 1979 a liberation day or is it an invasion day? The answer is both, depending on who we are talking to. Or, as Miss Theary Seng puts it, it is a liberation through invasion.
Shakespeare Was a Producer and Actor and, Oh Yes, a Writer
| Download (MP3) | |
| 06 January 2010 |
VOICE ONE:
I'm Steve Ember.
VOICE TWO:
 |
| William Shakespeare |
JULIET: "Ay me!"
ROMEO: "She speaks:
O, speak again, bright angel!"
JULIET: "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet."
VOICE ONE:
You just heard part of a famous scene from a movie version of "Romeo and Juliet." This tragic play remains one of the greatest, and perhaps most famous, love stories ever told. It tells about two young people who meet and fall deeply in love. But their families, the Capulets and the Montagues, are enemies and will not allow them to be together. Romeo and Juliet are surrounded by violent fighting and generational conflict. The young lovers secretly marry, but their story has a tragic ending.
"Romeo and Juliet" shows how William Shakespeare's plays shine with extraordinarily rich and imaginative language. He invented thousands of words to color his works. They have become part of the English language. Shakespeare's universal stories show all the human emotions and conflicts. His works are as fresh today as they were four hundred years ago.
(MUSIC)
VOICE TWO:
William Shakespeare was born in fifteen sixty-four in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon. He married Anne Hathaway at the age of eighteen. The couple had three children, two daughters and a son who died very young. Shakespeare moved to London in the late fifteen eighties to be at the center of the city's busy theater life.
Most people think of Shakespeare as a writer. But he was also a theater producer, a part owner of an acting company and an actor. For most of his career, he was a producer and main writer for an acting company called the King's Men.
VOICE ONE:
In fifteen ninety-nine Shakespeare's company was successful enough to build its own theater called the Globe. Public theaters during this time were usually three floor levels high and were built around a stage area where the actors performed. The Globe could hold as many as three thousand people. People from all levels of society would attend performances.
The poorer people could buy tickets for a small amount of money to stand near the stage. Wealthier people could buy more costly tickets to sit in other areas.
Often it was not very important if wealthy people could see the stage well. It was more important that they be in a seat where everyone could see them.
VOICE TWO:
It was difficult to light large indoor spaces during this time. The Globe was an outdoor theater with no roof on top so that sunlight could stream in. Because of the open-air stage, actors had to shout very loudly and make big motions to be heard and seen by all. This acting style is quite different from play-acting today. It might also surprise you that all actors during this period were men. Young boys in women's clothing played the roles of female characters. This is because it was against the law in England for women to act onstage.
Shakespeare's theater group also performed in other places such as the smaller indoor Blackfriars Theater. Or, they would travel around the countryside to perform. Sometimes they were asked to perform at the palace of the English ruler Queen Elizabeth, or later, King James the First.
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE:
Shakespeare is best known for the thirty-nine plays that he wrote, although only thirty-eight exist today. His plays are usually divided into three groups: comedies, histories and tragedies. The comedies are playful and funny. They usually deal with marriage and the funny activities of people in love. These comedies often tell many stories at the same time, like plays within plays.
VOICE TWO:
"Much Ado About Nothing" is a good example of a Shakespearian comedy. It tells the story of two couples. Benedick and Beatrice each claim they will never marry. They enjoy attacking each other with funny insults. Their friends work out a plan to make the two secretly fall in love.
Claudio and Hero are the other couple. They fall in love at once and plan to marry. But Claudio wrongly accuses Hero of being with another man and refuses to marry her. Hero's family decides to make Claudio believe that she is dead until her innocence can be proved. Claudio soon realizes his mistake and mourns for Hero. By the end of the play, love wins over everyone and there is a marriage ceremony for the four lovers.
VOICE ONE:
Shakespeare's histories are intense explorations of actual English rulers. This was a newer kind of play that developed during Shakespeare's time. Other writers may have written historical plays, but no one could match Shakespeare's skill. Plays about rulers like Henry the Fourth and Richard the Third explore Britain's history during a time when the country was going through tense political struggles.
VOICE TWO:
Many Shakespearian tragedies are about conflicting family loyalties or a character seeking to punish others for the wrongful death of a loved one. "Hamlet" tells the story of the son of the king of Denmark. When Hamlet's father unexpectedly dies, his uncle Claudius becomes ruler and marries Hamlet's mother. One night a ghostly spirit visits Hamlet and tells him that Claudius killed his father.
Hamlet decides to pretend that he is crazy to learn if this is true. This intense play captures the conflicted inner life of Hamlet. This young man must struggle between his moral beliefs and his desire to seek punishment for his father's death. Here is a famous speech from a movie version of "Hamlet." The actor Laurence Olivier shines in this difficult role.
HAMLET: "To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?"
VOICE ONE:
Shakespeare also wrote one of greatest collections of poems in English literature. He wrote several long poems, but is best known for his one hundred and fifty-four short poems, or sonnets. The English sonnet has a very exact structure. It must have fourteen lines, with three groups of four lines that set up the subject or problem of the poem. The sonnet is resolved in the last two lines of the poem.
If that requirement seems demanding, Shakespeare's sonnets are also written in iambic pentameter. This is a kind of structure in which each line has ten syllables or beats with a stress on every second beat.
VOICE TWO:
Even with these restrictive rules, the sonnets seem effortless. They have the most creative language and imaginative comparisons of any other poems. Most of the sonnets are love poems. Some of them are attacks while others are celebrations. The sonnets express everything from pain and death to desire, wisdom, and happiness.
Here is one of Shakespeare's most famous poems. Sonnet Eighteen tells about the lasting nature of poetry. The speaker describes how the person he loves will remain forever young and beautiful in the lines of this poem.
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometimes declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE
Next week, we will explore the many ways that Shakespeare's work has influenced world culture over time. This program was written and produced by Dana Demange. I'm Steve Ember.
VOICE TWO:
And I'm Barbara Klein. You can read and listen to this program on our Web site, voaspecialenglish.com. Join us again next week for EXPLORATIONS in VOA Special English.
John Dewey, 1859-1952: Educator and 'America's Philosopher'
| Download (MP3) | |
| 06 January 2010 |
This is the VOA Special English Education Report.
We have a question from China. Feng Tianqiang says "I want to know something about John Dewey."
 |
| John Dewey |
Larry Hickman is director of the Center for Dewey Studies at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. He was not surprised that the question came from China.
LARRY HICKMAN: "I just returned from two weeks of meetings in Beijing in December. And among the conversations I had with my Chinese colleagues was the very close relationship between Dewey's ideas and those of Confucius. I also worked with a group of lay Buddhists who like Dewey's work very much because it is very comfortable with some of the ideas of Mahayana Buddhism."
Dewey described his ideas in books including "Democracy and Education," "The School and Society" and "How We Think."
 |
| Larry Hickman |
He was also influential in the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, though he himself was white.
John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont, in eighteen fifty-nine. He was influenced by the scientific work of Charles Darwin. He was also influenced by the work done with immigrant English learners in Chicago by Jane Addams. She was a social worker and the first American woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And Dewey was influenced by observing his own children.
At the University of Chicago, he founded the Laboratory School. Chemistry courses have labs. Why not a place to experiment with education? But Dewey would likely have disagreed with many current practices in American education, like the wide use of standardized testing.
LARRY HICKMAN: "He thought that testing had its place, but that testing should be more like medical tests. That is, they should be testing for individual needs, interests, abilities, and not to compare one student to another. As Dewey put it, the relation of the abilities of one student to another is none of the teacher's business."
John Dewey died in nineteen fifty-two. But Dewey scholar Larry Hickman says his ideas are still being taught in education schools.
In fact, last year was his one hundred fiftieth birthday, so it was a busy year for Dewey studies. Celebrations took place not only in the United States, but also at two universities in Beijing and in Croatia, Italy and Poland.
And that's the VOA Special English Education Report, written by Nancy Steinbach. For a link to more on John Dewey, go to voaspecialenglish.com. I'm Steve Ember.
American History Series: After Lincoln's Murder
| Listen to Show (Tip: Left-click, or right-click and choose "Save...") Download (MP3) | |
| 06 January 2010 |
 |
| Abraham Lincoln |
President Abraham Lincoln led the Union of northern states in four years of civil war against the southern Confederacy. But he did not live to see the end of the war. He did not live to see the nation re-united. He was assassinated in April of eighteen sixty-five.
This week in our series, Shep O'Neal and Maurice Joyce tell what happened after Lincoln died.
VOICE ONE:
 |
| Mary Todd Lincoln |
Then she said the Capitol building in Washington. A tomb had been built there for America's first President, George Washington. But it had never been used.
Finally, she remembered a country cemetery they had visited. At the time, her husband had said: "When I am gone, lay my remains in some quiet place like this." So Missus Lincoln decided that the president's final resting place would be in the quiet, beautiful Oak Ridge Cemetery outside their home town of Springfield, Illinois.
VOICE TWO:
 |
| President Lincoln's funeral procession in Washington |
Four years earlier, President-elect Lincoln had traveled by train from Illinois to Washington. He stopped to make speeches in cities along the way. Now, on this sad return trip, the train stopped at those same cities: Baltimore. Philadelphia. New York. Cleveland. Indianapolis. Chicago.
VOICE ONE:
In every town, people lined the railroad. They stood silently, with tears in their eyes, as the train moved slowly past. Farmers working in the fields saw the train and dropped to their knees in prayer. For the wise man who had led the Union through four years of bloody civil war -- Father Abraham -- was dead.
Churches throughout the country held memorial services. Ministers told their people that God had taken Lincoln because the president had completed the job God had given him. He had brought peace to the Union, and freedom to all men.
VOICE TWO:
The final service was at the cemetery outside Springfield. It ended with the words from Lincoln's second inaugural speech.
"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right -- as God gives us to see the right -- let us strive on to finish the work we are in. Let us heal the nation's wounds. Let us do all possible to get and keep a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
VOICE ONE:
 |
| John Wilkes Booth |
The investigation produced the names of several people who were friends of Booth. One was John Surratt. Like Booth, he supported the southern Confederacy during the Civil War. Another was David Herold, a young man who worked in a store in Washington. Others were George Atzerodt, Lewis Paine, Sam Arnold, and Michael O'Laughlin.
Most of these men had stayed at a house owned by John Surratt's mother, Mary.
VOICE TWO:
 |
| A poster offering money for the capture of those involved in Lincoln's killing |
At the end of a week, only two of the plotters were still free: David Herold and John Wilkes Booth.
Booth broke his leg when he jumped from the presidential box to the stage at Ford's Theater. A few hours later, he and Herold stopped at the home of a Doctor Samuel Mudd. They reportedly gave the doctor false names. They asked him to fix Booth's broken leg.
Doctor Mudd agreed. And he let the two men sleep at his home. Federal troops chasing the assassins arrested the doctor. They accused him of being part of the plot.
VOICE ONE:
John Wilkes Booth and David Herold ran and hid for six days. They crossed the Potomac River from Maryland into Virginia. Finally, twelve days after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, soldiers found the two men. They were hiding in a tobacco barn near the town of Port Royal.
Herold agreed to surrender. He came out of the barn with his hands in the air. He shouted again and again that he was innocent.
Booth refused to come out. The soldiers set fire to the barn.
VOICE TWO:
The fire forced Booth to move close to the door. The soldiers could see him now. He was aiming a gun at them. The soldiers had been ordered to capture Booth alive. But one of them raised his gun and shot Booth in the neck.
The actor fell. Some of the soldiers ran to the burning barn and pulled him out. They carried him to a nearby house. He died two hours later.
VOICE ONE:
John Wilkes Booth carried a notebook. He wrote in it every day. On the day Lincoln was killed, he wrote: "For six months we had worked to kidnap Lincoln. But with the Confederacy being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done. I struck boldly."
Booth described how and why he had shot the president. "Our country," Booth wrote, "owed all her troubles to him. And God simply made me the instrument of his punishment."
Booth's body was returned to Washington. Men who knew him confirmed that it was the body of John Wilkes Booth. The body was buried under the stone floor of the Washington prison. A few years later, his family received permission to move the body to a cemetery in the city of Baltimore.
VOICE TWO:
Evidence showed that only a few people were actually involved in the plot against the president. Most had agreed to work with Booth because they believed he planned to kidnap Lincoln, not kill him.
Of the hundreds of persons arrested, only eight were brought to trial. The secretary of war decided that they would be tried by a military court. He argued that Lincoln had been commander-in-chief of all military forces and had been murdered during wartime.
VOICE ONE:
 |
| The military commission that tried the case. From left, Judge Joseph Holt, General Robert Foster, Colonel H. L. Burnett, and Colonel C. R. Clendemin |
The secretary of war announced that the prisoners could not meet privately with their defense lawyers. They could meet only in the courtroom. Guards could hear everything they said.
One of the defense lawyers recognized that the job was hopeless. He said the trial was a contest between the defense lawyers and the whole United States. There was no question, he said, what the military court's decision would be.
VOICE TWO:
The government tried to prove that Lincoln's assassination was a Confederate plot. Witnesses told how Confederate supporters reportedly planned to cause trouble in the North. But none could prove that Confederate President Jefferson Davis -- or any other southern leader -- played a part in Booth's plot to kill Lincoln.
Four hundred witnesses appeared. Many of the important ones had been arrested as suspects. They agreed to give evidence if the government dropped the charges against them.
For six weeks, the court heard evidence against the eight prisoners. The prisoners themselves could say nothing. They could only listen.
VOICE ONE:
 |
| Officials prepare to hang the plotters in Washington |
All eight prisoners were found guilty. One received a prison sentence of six years. Three were sentenced to life in prison. Four were sentenced to die.
Defense lawyers appealed for mercy. The appeal was rejected. On July seventh, David Herold, Lewis Paine, George Atzerodt and Mary Surratt were hanged for the murder of Abraham Lincoln.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER:
Our program was written by Frank Beardsley. The narrators were Shep O'Neal and Maurice Joyce. You can find transcripts, MP3s and podcasts of our programs, along with historical images, at voaspecialenglish.com. And you can follow us on Twitter at VOA Learning English. Join us again next week for THE MAKING OF A NATION -- an American history series in VOA Special English.
Khmer M'Chas Srok communique regarding January 7th, 2010
Dear Compatriots
Please find the following Khmer M'Chas Srok communique regarding January 7th, 2010.
Khmer Mchas Srok
Click on the statement in Khmer to zoom in
FBI Reports Cites Uncooperative Police in ‘97
By Men Kimseng, VOA Khmer
Original report from Washington
06 January 2010
Investigating a deadly grenade attack 13 years ago, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation found Cambodian authorities uncooperative, in a case that remains untouched yet unclosed.
The FBI was brought in to investigate the March 30, 1997, attack on an opposition rally that killed 16 Cambodians and wounded more than 100 others, along with an American citizen.
The FBI produced sketches of nine suspects, but agents faced difficulty interviewing police and other officials affiliated with the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, according to the English-language Cambodia Daily, which ran a series in December based on FBI documents released under a Freedom of Information request.
The FBI reported at the time it received doctored evidence, while Cambodian authorities seemed to have little interest in identifying the attackers, forcing agents to find information from outside sources, the Cambodia Daily reported, quoting the FBI’s case file.
The FBI also said some police may have had advanced knowledge of the attack, a claim an Interior Ministry spokesman called “baseless.”
“Police are very happy when each demonstration ends successfully,” the spokesman, Khieu Sopheak, told VOA Khmer. “We are the Cambodian police. We have no intention to provide access to grenade-throwers to attack our people.”
Khieu Sopheak refuted claims that police did not cooperate with the FBI; the suspect sketches were a result of police collaboration, he said.
In the event, the FBI investigation yielded few tangible results, and its final report has been kept from the public eye. Both the FBI and Cambodian police say the case remains open to new leads.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said he was dubious of the enthusiasm of local police to bring the case to a close.
“Even though I was the target of the attack, I waited a few weeks before the police came to talk to me,” Sam Rainsy, who is in France, told VOA Khmer recently. “But the way they asked me questions was not in depth. They were like political questions.”
“Those who really wanted to know the truth were the American [agents],” he said. “I met with them and saw that they had high technique, with conscience, and the way they worked was professional and produced valuable results.”
According to a US congressional report on the attack, Om Yentieng, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen, told a congressional delegation in 1999 he was conducting his own investigation. No results from that investigation have been published.
Contacted recently, Om Yentieng said he could not discuss the investigation.
Sam Rainsy said Om Yentieng never contacted him, and the opposition leader vowed to bring the case to a foreign country like the US at the appropriate time.
“When the case reaches a court in the US, based on information that we have newly acquired, [the court] will have its procedures and modern techniques to continue an investigation and reveal more identities of the grenade-throwers and those behind them,” he said.
Rights groups meanwhile say the FBI should finish its investigation.
“They always say that it’s not closed, but actually it’s been inactive since 1998,” said Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch. “They haven’t enough evidence to proceed. The lead investigator outlined the case, [claiming] that clearly the bodyguard unit of Hun Sen was involved. This was clear at the time, of course, but that was his conclusion more than 10 years ago. It would be really simple to complete the investigation…so it’s time for the FBI to do something.”
The Cambodian government has no intention of finding justice in the attack, he said, adding that these days the victims are thought of as opposition supporters, when in fact some were journalists, vendors and bystanders.
Meanwhile, the international community has not done enough to put Cambodia on the course to democracy, he said, saying the attack and subsequent coup in July 1997, “changed Cambodia’s course and made it certain that Hun Sen would remain in power for as long as he has and marginalized the opposition.”
The FBI was brought in to investigate the March 30, 1997, attack on an opposition rally that killed 16 Cambodians and wounded more than 100 others, along with an American citizen.
The FBI produced sketches of nine suspects, but agents faced difficulty interviewing police and other officials affiliated with the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, according to the English-language Cambodia Daily, which ran a series in December based on FBI documents released under a Freedom of Information request.
The FBI reported at the time it received doctored evidence, while Cambodian authorities seemed to have little interest in identifying the attackers, forcing agents to find information from outside sources, the Cambodia Daily reported, quoting the FBI’s case file.
The FBI also said some police may have had advanced knowledge of the attack, a claim an Interior Ministry spokesman called “baseless.”
“Police are very happy when each demonstration ends successfully,” the spokesman, Khieu Sopheak, told VOA Khmer. “We are the Cambodian police. We have no intention to provide access to grenade-throwers to attack our people.”
Khieu Sopheak refuted claims that police did not cooperate with the FBI; the suspect sketches were a result of police collaboration, he said.
In the event, the FBI investigation yielded few tangible results, and its final report has been kept from the public eye. Both the FBI and Cambodian police say the case remains open to new leads.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy said he was dubious of the enthusiasm of local police to bring the case to a close.
“Even though I was the target of the attack, I waited a few weeks before the police came to talk to me,” Sam Rainsy, who is in France, told VOA Khmer recently. “But the way they asked me questions was not in depth. They were like political questions.”
“Those who really wanted to know the truth were the American [agents],” he said. “I met with them and saw that they had high technique, with conscience, and the way they worked was professional and produced valuable results.”
According to a US congressional report on the attack, Om Yentieng, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Hun Sen, told a congressional delegation in 1999 he was conducting his own investigation. No results from that investigation have been published.
Contacted recently, Om Yentieng said he could not discuss the investigation.
Sam Rainsy said Om Yentieng never contacted him, and the opposition leader vowed to bring the case to a foreign country like the US at the appropriate time.
“When the case reaches a court in the US, based on information that we have newly acquired, [the court] will have its procedures and modern techniques to continue an investigation and reveal more identities of the grenade-throwers and those behind them,” he said.
Rights groups meanwhile say the FBI should finish its investigation.
“They always say that it’s not closed, but actually it’s been inactive since 1998,” said Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch. “They haven’t enough evidence to proceed. The lead investigator outlined the case, [claiming] that clearly the bodyguard unit of Hun Sen was involved. This was clear at the time, of course, but that was his conclusion more than 10 years ago. It would be really simple to complete the investigation…so it’s time for the FBI to do something.”
The Cambodian government has no intention of finding justice in the attack, he said, adding that these days the victims are thought of as opposition supporters, when in fact some were journalists, vendors and bystanders.
Meanwhile, the international community has not done enough to put Cambodia on the course to democracy, he said, saying the attack and subsequent coup in July 1997, “changed Cambodia’s course and made it certain that Hun Sen would remain in power for as long as he has and marginalized the opposition.”
Civil Party Number Spike at Tribunal
By Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer
Original report from Phnom Penh
06 January 2010
The number of civil party applicants at the Khmer Rouge tribunal has seen a significant spike as the UN-backed court heads toward the trial of the regime’s senior-most leaders, officials said Wednesday.
The number of civil party applications exceeded 3,500 for Case No. 002, while the total number of victim complaints reached 7,200, officials said.
Judges are expected to announce a close to investigations in the second case, which seeks to try Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Kaing Kek Iev for atrocity crimes.
Victims have two weeks following the close to file complaints.
“It seems that people are away that they need to file now if they want to be a civil party,” tribunal spokesman Lars Olsen said, adding that one third of applicants had applied in the last three months alone.
Latt Ky, a tribunal observer for the rights group Adhoc, said the number wasn’t especially large, but the increase could signal a rise in awareness about the trial among the public.
It is unclear when the next trial will be held. Olsen said it may not be until the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011, depending on the number of requests and appeals filed by prosecutors, defense and civil parties.
The number of civil party applications exceeded 3,500 for Case No. 002, while the total number of victim complaints reached 7,200, officials said.
Judges are expected to announce a close to investigations in the second case, which seeks to try Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Kaing Kek Iev for atrocity crimes.
Victims have two weeks following the close to file complaints.
“It seems that people are away that they need to file now if they want to be a civil party,” tribunal spokesman Lars Olsen said, adding that one third of applicants had applied in the last three months alone.
Latt Ky, a tribunal observer for the rights group Adhoc, said the number wasn’t especially large, but the increase could signal a rise in awareness about the trial among the public.
It is unclear when the next trial will be held. Olsen said it may not be until the end of 2010 or the beginning of 2011, depending on the number of requests and appeals filed by prosecutors, defense and civil parties.
Border Expert Derides Vietnam Marker Case
By Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer
Washington
06 January 2010
Cambodia has fallen into a “dictatorship” over a recent case involving the alleged destruction of Vietnamese border markers in Svay Rieng province, a border expert in France said Monday.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy is facing criminal charges for incitement and destruction of property for allegedly leading villagers to uproot border markers in Chantrea district in October.
But Sean Pengse, president of the Cambodia Border Committee in France, said the border demarcation was illegal in the first place, as it had encroached on Cambodian farmers’ land.
Instead, he said, authorities laid down markers in the middle of fields.
“Such things as this are done only by communists and dictatorships,” he said, as a guest on “Hello VOA.”
Cambodia law provides protection for people who have lived on a plot of land for more than five years, granting them ownership, he said.
Chantrea villagers say their land was being encroached on by the Vietnamese, which led to the October incident.
Sam Rainsy, who is now in France, has had his parliamentarian immunity suspended and is facing an arrest warrant for failing to appear at an arraignment in December.
Cambodia has been in negotiations over its porous borders for years, but alleged encroachment by neighboring countries remains a political lightning rod.
Opposition leader Sam Rainsy is facing criminal charges for incitement and destruction of property for allegedly leading villagers to uproot border markers in Chantrea district in October.
But Sean Pengse, president of the Cambodia Border Committee in France, said the border demarcation was illegal in the first place, as it had encroached on Cambodian farmers’ land.
Instead, he said, authorities laid down markers in the middle of fields.
“Such things as this are done only by communists and dictatorships,” he said, as a guest on “Hello VOA.”
Cambodia law provides protection for people who have lived on a plot of land for more than five years, granting them ownership, he said.
Chantrea villagers say their land was being encroached on by the Vietnamese, which led to the October incident.
Sam Rainsy, who is now in France, has had his parliamentarian immunity suspended and is facing an arrest warrant for failing to appear at an arraignment in December.
Cambodia has been in negotiations over its porous borders for years, but alleged encroachment by neighboring countries remains a political lightning rod.
Limits of Tribunal Stir Worries in Victims
By Sok Khemara, VOA Khmer
Original report from Washington
06 January 2010
The failure of the Khmer Rouge tribunal to investigate many atrocity sites across the country could lead to dissatisfaction among victims, thousands of whom have signed up to be a part of an upcoming trial, court monitors say.
Tribunal judges have said they will investigate 50 sites in 16 provinces, including 13 detention centers for an upcoming case—locations that fall well short of the number of sites where atrocities are documented, and where victims have come forward to complain.
Investigating judges are preparing Case No. 002, pursuing a trial for Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Kaing Kek Iev, or Duch, for atrocity crimes.
Thousands of victims have come forward as witnesses and civil party complainants for a case that promises to be much more complicated than the single trial against Duch, which wrapped up in October.
Tribunal monitors say the decision to investigate only 50 sites will leave many of the complainants out of the process, potentially harming the UN-backed court’s mandate to help the country reconcile with its brutal past.
The Documentation Center has identified 388 atrocity cites containing 19,733 mass graves, as well as 196 prisons. A court that fails to investigation many of the sites will fail to find the kind of truth some Cambodians expect out of the tribunal, observers say.
“So we question: in the other four or five provinces and towns [not to be investigated], the regime didn’t occur?” said Latt Ky, who monitors the tribunal for the rights group Adhoc. “People in those areas were not disappointed, have not suffered from torture or killing, or what?”
Adhoc has spent a lot of resources educating people across the country on the court and its processes and encouraging them to participate, he said. If the court is slow to recognize their testimony or statuses as civil party complainants, that could pose a problem, he said.
Long Panhavuth, a court monitor for the Cambodian Justice Initiative, said some complainants will be turned down when an investigation is not conducted in their area.
“The reason that they will not be recognized as civil party complainants must be clearly explained, publicly, in language that is understandable and acceptable,” he said, adding that such victims could still have a role to play and receive services from the court’s Victims Unit.
The tribunal considers a victim to be anyone who has suffered physical, psychological or material harm as a direct consequence of crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge when it was in power. Civil parties have the right to choose legal representation, to request the investigation of alleged crimes, to question witnesses and the accused, and to request the court to takes measures to address their safety, dignity and privacy.
Still, the nature of compensation and redress for the victims has yet to be decided, even as the tribunal approaches Case No. 002, expected early this year.
“The tribunal is the court of the Cambodian people,” court spokesman Reach Sambath said. “No other court in the world can do like we are doing.”
Nou Kassie, an officer of the Victims Unit, said even victims who don’t become a civil party can file a complaint and participate in the historic process. With judges expected to close investigations in Case No. 002 in coming days, a deadline for such complaints is fast approaching.
For now, people like Sum Rithy, 57, who repaired motorcycles for the Khmer Rouge, await their chance to participate.
Sum Rithy said he saw many crimes enacted by cadre of the regime, seeing with his own eyes thousands killed. He would regret, he said, being unable to act as a witness in the upcoming case.
“No matter who you are, a PhD, an intellectual, a professor—I must confront them,” he said. “I will not be afraid.”
“First, I question, when you held power, why did you kill Khmer? Your own nation?” he said. “Second, if you are part of mankind, why did you arrest and starve people and kill them and make them live in suffering?”
Tribunal judges have said they will investigate 50 sites in 16 provinces, including 13 detention centers for an upcoming case—locations that fall well short of the number of sites where atrocities are documented, and where victims have come forward to complain.
Investigating judges are preparing Case No. 002, pursuing a trial for Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith and Kaing Kek Iev, or Duch, for atrocity crimes.
Thousands of victims have come forward as witnesses and civil party complainants for a case that promises to be much more complicated than the single trial against Duch, which wrapped up in October.
Tribunal monitors say the decision to investigate only 50 sites will leave many of the complainants out of the process, potentially harming the UN-backed court’s mandate to help the country reconcile with its brutal past.
The Documentation Center has identified 388 atrocity cites containing 19,733 mass graves, as well as 196 prisons. A court that fails to investigation many of the sites will fail to find the kind of truth some Cambodians expect out of the tribunal, observers say.
“So we question: in the other four or five provinces and towns [not to be investigated], the regime didn’t occur?” said Latt Ky, who monitors the tribunal for the rights group Adhoc. “People in those areas were not disappointed, have not suffered from torture or killing, or what?”
Adhoc has spent a lot of resources educating people across the country on the court and its processes and encouraging them to participate, he said. If the court is slow to recognize their testimony or statuses as civil party complainants, that could pose a problem, he said.
Long Panhavuth, a court monitor for the Cambodian Justice Initiative, said some complainants will be turned down when an investigation is not conducted in their area.
“The reason that they will not be recognized as civil party complainants must be clearly explained, publicly, in language that is understandable and acceptable,” he said, adding that such victims could still have a role to play and receive services from the court’s Victims Unit.
The tribunal considers a victim to be anyone who has suffered physical, psychological or material harm as a direct consequence of crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge when it was in power. Civil parties have the right to choose legal representation, to request the investigation of alleged crimes, to question witnesses and the accused, and to request the court to takes measures to address their safety, dignity and privacy.
Still, the nature of compensation and redress for the victims has yet to be decided, even as the tribunal approaches Case No. 002, expected early this year.
“The tribunal is the court of the Cambodian people,” court spokesman Reach Sambath said. “No other court in the world can do like we are doing.”
Nou Kassie, an officer of the Victims Unit, said even victims who don’t become a civil party can file a complaint and participate in the historic process. With judges expected to close investigations in Case No. 002 in coming days, a deadline for such complaints is fast approaching.
For now, people like Sum Rithy, 57, who repaired motorcycles for the Khmer Rouge, await their chance to participate.
Sum Rithy said he saw many crimes enacted by cadre of the regime, seeing with his own eyes thousands killed. He would regret, he said, being unable to act as a witness in the upcoming case.
“No matter who you are, a PhD, an intellectual, a professor—I must confront them,” he said. “I will not be afraid.”
“First, I question, when you held power, why did you kill Khmer? Your own nation?” he said. “Second, if you are part of mankind, why did you arrest and starve people and kill them and make them live in suffering?”
"The People's Republic of Kampuchea 1979 - 1989: A Draconian Savior?" - M.A. Thesis by Deth, Sok Udom
Author: Deth, Sok Udom
Degree: Master of Arts, Southeast Asian Studies , 2009.
Source: Ohio University, School of International Studies
Committee / Advisors:
- William H. Frederick, PhD (Committee Chair)
- Carlyle A. Thayer, PhD (Committee Member)
- Haley Duschinski, PhD (Committee Member)
Abstract
Arguably, January 7, 1979 has been the most controversial date in Cambodian history for Cambodian politicians and civilians alike. To some, the date signifies the liberation of Cambodian people from the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime which had killed approximately 2 million people between 1975 and 1979. To others, however, the date marks the invasion of Vietnamese army into Cambodia, after which the country was to be under Vietnamese occupation for a whole decade before their final withdrawal in September 1989. This thesis joins this debate, but it does so by going beyond the simplified political rhetoric of "liberation" vs. "invasion," and exploring the complexities of Cambodian society under the Vietnamese-backed People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK). Chapter 1 of the thesis deals with the historiography of the PRK. Chapter 2 looks at the re-emergence of urban life, market economy, as well as social and political rights under the PRK. Chapter 3 examines the people’s lives in the rural areas, collectivization efforts by the PRK, military and labor conscription, and their impacts on Cambodian society during the 1980s, as well as their legacy for contemporary Cambodia.
Click here to read the entire thesis (PDF)
Venerable Por Vinh from Angkor Chum pagoda, it's fine for you to thank the Viets, but don't preach us to ignore their occupation
Translated from Khmer by Heng Soy
Opinion from Khmers who were saved from death
By Venerable Por Vinh
Abbot of Angkor Chum Pagoda, Texas, USA
By Venerable Por Vinh
Abbot of Angkor Chum Pagoda, Texas, USA
All human beings must accept the truth,
Those who know the truth are the ones who experienced it.
Those who know the truth are the ones who experienced it.
For the majority of Cambodians who knew life under the Khmer Rouge regime, they clearly know how miserable it was. Can you all remember that at the end of 1978, Cambodians were almost all dead? Furthermore, in some areas, the Khmer Rouge were planning to kill Cambodians, they ordered the digging of ditches, ponds, then they call in people for a meeting in large forums where they closed all doors, then they exploded mines to kill them. All those who suffered, they all raise their hands to pray so that they would survive during that period.
Those who were killed, nobody saved them from death, those who saved us, be they savage people, ogres, tigers, snakes, ghosts or anything else, those are the ones whom we owe our gratitude.
Therefore, all Cambodians should not misconstrue the celebration of 07 January, at least we celebrate it to commemorate the day we escape death. For any other problems, we should not criticize them, they are not useful for the development of our country, they only bring in dispute, upheaval, worries to the people so that they are concerned and cannot sleep because of the politicians…
Those who were killed, nobody saved them from death, those who saved us, be they savage people, ogres, tigers, snakes, ghosts or anything else, those are the ones whom we owe our gratitude.
Therefore, all Cambodians should not misconstrue the celebration of 07 January, at least we celebrate it to commemorate the day we escape death. For any other problems, we should not criticize them, they are not useful for the development of our country, they only bring in dispute, upheaval, worries to the people so that they are concerned and cannot sleep because of the politicians…
0 O 0
KI-Media Note: Lest Venerable Por Vinh forgets, may we remind him the following quote from Lord Buddha's Teaching:
“Three things cannot be long hidden:the sun, the moon, and the truth.”
May the venerable be able to forever sleep in peace every night and not be concerned about the worries of Khmers who are currently suffering from injustice, forced evictions, land-grabbing, lawlessness, impunity in the name of the same "development" that the venerable is preaching!
Our sincere thanks for the Reader who forwarded this article!
A plea from afar
Wednesday, 06 January 2010
By Sophan Seng Letter to The Phnom Penh Post
Dear Editor,
Reading your article “Three more sought in removal of post at Svay Rieng border” (January 4) broke my heart.
The villagers should be congratulated and taken care of by the government for their courage in publicly claiming their ownership of the rice paddies and denouncing the violation of their territory by Vietnamese authorities who have mismanaged the process of demarcating the border. Instead, as unbelievable as it may sound, these five farmers face a terrifying fate and the loss of their status as “good” citizens.
There have been different interpretations of this story within the media, but at the end of the day, no one can deny the truth: Cambodian people living along the borders with Thailand, Laos and Vietnam no longer dare voice their concerns about neighbouring countries encroaching on their territory and stealing their land for fear of reprisals.
On one hand, the government may have good reason to accuse opposition leader Sam Rainsy of acting as a provocateur in bringing news of Vietnam’s mismanagement of border posts to the public. But on the other hand, the government is following a course of action that could rob Cambodia of its strength as a nation and destroy the immunity of every parliamentarian.
At the grassroots level, Cambodian people living along the border will no longer dare to stand up and protest against the theft of their land by neighbouring countries. At the national level, parliamentarians – both government and opposition – will lose confidence in their abilities to serve the genuine interests of the people.
The government must evaluate the situation fairly if it is to effecctively represent the nation’s interests. I would like to appeal to the government to restore the prowess of elected parliamentarians and allow them to fulfil their duties, which are more important than those of the lower court of Svay Rieng. I would also like to appeal to the government to drop all charges against the five farmers – Prak Chea, Neang Phally, Prak Koeun, Meas Srey and Prom Chea – and release them without condition.
Sophan Seng
University of Hawaii
Full link: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2010010630653/National-news/a-plea-from-afar.html
Reading your article “Three more sought in removal of post at Svay Rieng border” (January 4) broke my heart.
The villagers should be congratulated and taken care of by the government for their courage in publicly claiming their ownership of the rice paddies and denouncing the violation of their territory by Vietnamese authorities who have mismanaged the process of demarcating the border. Instead, as unbelievable as it may sound, these five farmers face a terrifying fate and the loss of their status as “good” citizens.
There have been different interpretations of this story within the media, but at the end of the day, no one can deny the truth: Cambodian people living along the borders with Thailand, Laos and Vietnam no longer dare voice their concerns about neighbouring countries encroaching on their territory and stealing their land for fear of reprisals.
On one hand, the government may have good reason to accuse opposition leader Sam Rainsy of acting as a provocateur in bringing news of Vietnam’s mismanagement of border posts to the public. But on the other hand, the government is following a course of action that could rob Cambodia of its strength as a nation and destroy the immunity of every parliamentarian.
At the grassroots level, Cambodian people living along the border will no longer dare to stand up and protest against the theft of their land by neighbouring countries. At the national level, parliamentarians – both government and opposition – will lose confidence in their abilities to serve the genuine interests of the people.
The government must evaluate the situation fairly if it is to effecctively represent the nation’s interests. I would like to appeal to the government to restore the prowess of elected parliamentarians and allow them to fulfil their duties, which are more important than those of the lower court of Svay Rieng. I would also like to appeal to the government to drop all charges against the five farmers – Prak Chea, Neang Phally, Prak Koeun, Meas Srey and Prom Chea – and release them without condition.
Sophan Seng
University of Hawaii
Full link: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2010010630653/National-news/a-plea-from-afar.html
Sacrava's Political Cartoon: Nom Benh Wall
Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)CWCI statement regarding 07 January 1979, the date of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
Dear Compatriots,
Tomorrow is the 31st anniversary of the Vietnam invasion on Cambodia which consequently ruled over our country for 10 years and still continues its influence until today through its installed puppet leaders-Hun Sen, Heng Samrin, and Chea Sim whose role is to implement new Vietnamization politics over Cambodia. They are subjected to implementing all the illegal treaties, 1979, 1982, 1983, and 1985 and the Border Supplemental Treaty 2005 and the recognition of the invasion day 7 January 1979 as the Liberation Day.
With this, The Cambodia Watchdog Council International (CWCI) strongtly condemns such an act of the Cambodian leaders, esp. CPP leaders who they themselves are the puppets of Vietnam.
With this, The Cambodia Watchdog Council International (CWCI) strongtly condemns such an act of the Cambodian leaders, esp. CPP leaders who they themselves are the puppets of Vietnam.
Best regards,
CWCI Secretariat
Kristiansand City, Norway
Tel: +4790818257/+4799489347
E-mail: cwci_secretariat@yahoo.com/ cwci@start.no
http://cwcinternational.wordpress.com/
Click on the statement in Khmer to zoom in
PM dismisses possible pardon for Sam Rainsy over VN border charges
Wednesday, 06 January 2010“Sam Rainsy just pulled out six wooden border poles and they accused him of destroying public property, but when Khmer and Vietnamese authorities came to pull out the others nearby, that was not illegal” - Pov Pheap, second deputy chief of Samrong commune in Chantrea district
Meas Sokchea
The Phnom Penh Post
In his keynote speech, the premier called for opposition leader Sam Rainsy’s arrest.
“This time I would like to declare … there is no [pardon]. After the court convicts, let it be,” Hun Sen said during an inauguration ceremony for a stretch of National Road 1 in Kandal province.
“There are no more chances [for Sam Rainsy] to write a letter of apology to me. This time, there is no more [chance for pardon], sorry. Prepare yourself. We don’t regard him as guilty yet – [we] just say that if he is, do not rely on Hun Sen.”
The premier also defended the current demarcation of the Cambodian-Vietnamese border, and noted that foreign embassies and international organisations have not sprung to Sam Rainsy’s defence.
“Now who are the foreigners and embassies that support such an action?” Hun Sen asked the audience.
Sam Rainsy was charged last week with racial incitement and destruction of property by the Svay Rieng provincial court after he led villagers in the province’s Chantrea district in a protest last year.
During the rally they uprooted wooden posts on the Vietnamese frontier at border marker 185.
The court issued an arrest warrant for Sam Rainsy, who is currently in Europe, after he failed to appear for questioning at a hearing last week. Two Svay Rieng farmers have already been arrested in connection with the protest, while warrants have been issued for three more.
Sam Rainsy Party spokesman Yim Sovann on Tuesday defended Sam Rainsy’s actions in the protest, saying that Hun Sen should focus on other problems facing Cambodia.
“As I listen to [Hun Sen], it seems that he is influencing the court,” Yim Sovann said.
The SRP released a statement on Tuesday alleging that Cambodian and Vietnamese authorities had conspired to remove other border posts placed near the site of Sam Rainsy’s October protest. In the statement, the opposition party claimed that the posts’ removal proved they had been installed illegally.
“Sam Rainsy pulled out six wooden poles at border marker 185, but subsequently similar wooden poles at nearby border marker 184, 186 and 187 have also been removed by the authorities themselves,” the statement read. “At marker 184 even the concrete foundations under the wooden poles have been dug out, put into a tractor and taken back to Vietnam.”
This action, the SRP claimed, demonstrated that officials from both countries knew that the border posts had been illegitimately placed on Cambodian farmland.
“Now realising they are on weak legal ground in the prosecution of Sam Rainsy and the concerned farmers, the authorities have surreptitiously resorted to do the same thing as Sam Rainsy did, ie removing illegally-imposed border markers, which is leading to a judicial imbroglio illustrating the political nature of the charges levied against Sam Rainsy,” the statement said.
Pov Pheap, second deputy chief of Samrong commune in Chantrea district, said Tuesday that the border markers in question had in fact been removed by Vietnamese authorities on November 16, the same day that Sam Rainsy’s parliamentary immunity was lifted, paving the way for the charges against him.
“Sam Rainsy just pulled out six wooden border poles and they accused him of destroying public property, but when Khmer and Vietnamese authorities came to pull out the others nearby, that was not illegal,” Pov Pheap said.
Var Kimhong, senior minister in charge of border affairs, rejected the claims made by SRP authorities but declined to comment further.
"Now who are the foreigners and embassies that support such an action?"PRIME Minister Hun Sen warned Tuesday that he will not request a pardon for Sam Rainsy if the opposition leader is found guilty in a pending criminal trial stemming from an October protest against alleged Vietnamese encroachment on Cambodian territory.
“This time I would like to declare … there is no [pardon]. After the court convicts, let it be,” Hun Sen said during an inauguration ceremony for a stretch of National Road 1 in Kandal province.
“There are no more chances [for Sam Rainsy] to write a letter of apology to me. This time, there is no more [chance for pardon], sorry. Prepare yourself. We don’t regard him as guilty yet – [we] just say that if he is, do not rely on Hun Sen.”
The premier also defended the current demarcation of the Cambodian-Vietnamese border, and noted that foreign embassies and international organisations have not sprung to Sam Rainsy’s defence.
“Now who are the foreigners and embassies that support such an action?” Hun Sen asked the audience.
Sam Rainsy was charged last week with racial incitement and destruction of property by the Svay Rieng provincial court after he led villagers in the province’s Chantrea district in a protest last year.
During the rally they uprooted wooden posts on the Vietnamese frontier at border marker 185.
The court issued an arrest warrant for Sam Rainsy, who is currently in Europe, after he failed to appear for questioning at a hearing last week. Two Svay Rieng farmers have already been arrested in connection with the protest, while warrants have been issued for three more.
Sam Rainsy Party spokesman Yim Sovann on Tuesday defended Sam Rainsy’s actions in the protest, saying that Hun Sen should focus on other problems facing Cambodia.
“As I listen to [Hun Sen], it seems that he is influencing the court,” Yim Sovann said.
The SRP released a statement on Tuesday alleging that Cambodian and Vietnamese authorities had conspired to remove other border posts placed near the site of Sam Rainsy’s October protest. In the statement, the opposition party claimed that the posts’ removal proved they had been installed illegally.
“Sam Rainsy pulled out six wooden poles at border marker 185, but subsequently similar wooden poles at nearby border marker 184, 186 and 187 have also been removed by the authorities themselves,” the statement read. “At marker 184 even the concrete foundations under the wooden poles have been dug out, put into a tractor and taken back to Vietnam.”
This action, the SRP claimed, demonstrated that officials from both countries knew that the border posts had been illegitimately placed on Cambodian farmland.
“Now realising they are on weak legal ground in the prosecution of Sam Rainsy and the concerned farmers, the authorities have surreptitiously resorted to do the same thing as Sam Rainsy did, ie removing illegally-imposed border markers, which is leading to a judicial imbroglio illustrating the political nature of the charges levied against Sam Rainsy,” the statement said.
Pov Pheap, second deputy chief of Samrong commune in Chantrea district, said Tuesday that the border markers in question had in fact been removed by Vietnamese authorities on November 16, the same day that Sam Rainsy’s parliamentary immunity was lifted, paving the way for the charges against him.
“Sam Rainsy just pulled out six wooden border poles and they accused him of destroying public property, but when Khmer and Vietnamese authorities came to pull out the others nearby, that was not illegal,” Pov Pheap said.
Var Kimhong, senior minister in charge of border affairs, rejected the claims made by SRP authorities but declined to comment further.
Online Petition to End Cambodian Government's Human Rights Violation In Cambodia
PETITION TO END CAMBODIAN GOVERNMENT'S
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN CAMBODIA
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IN CAMBODIA
January 4, 2010
The Honorable Ann Syauta, Human Rights Officer
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations
Room DC1-640
New York, NY 10017
Dear Her Excellency Syauta:
We, as American Cambodian origin, citizens of the United States, Cambodia, and other nationalities undersigned writing to ask for your support and intervention with respect to the declining state of human rights in Cambodia.
Cambodia has no real separation of powers; only on paper and in theory. Because the executive branch has total control over the legislative and judiciary bodies, people are extremely fearful to be on the wrong side of the government. The control runs deep, through a highly sophisticated patronage system, through reward and punishment. Almost all judges and legal practitioners are members of the ruling party. Justices of the Cambodian Supreme Court come from the elite ranks of the ruling party as well. The highest court will not strike down any unlawful passage of law contravening the Constitution, particularly when it comes to placing limit on freedoms of its people.
On November 16, 2009, the National Assembly voted to lift the parliamentary immunity of Mr. Sam Rainsy, Members of Parliament (MP), without any regard for his rights or the people he represented, not to mention the integrity of the institution, itself–something which is excessively abusive and ridiculous by any democratic standard.
The revoking of MP Sam Rainsy's parliamentary immunity is a result of the abuse of power by the Cambodian government. We demands an end to the selective and undemocratic stripping of parliamentary immunity from Members of Parliament, whose duty is to represent the people and to act in their interest, particularly the MPs who speak for people who are deprived of their rights and abused by those in power. Two other opposition lawmakers, MP Mu Sochua and MP Ho Vann, were also stripped of parliamentary immunity after the government filed separate defamation lawsuits in June, 2009. This action is among several others recently taken by the Cambodian authorities aiming to silence dissents and intimidate the opposition.
The immunity-stripping of MPs is indicative to what lies ahead for a country which has become less and less tolerant on freedom of speech and expression by its people. Anything anyone says or does could be viewed as an act of incitement, a risk to the national interests or security of the nation. One can be easily jailed for asking the wrong question or simply disseminating information considered to be critical of those in power. The government is determined to send a clear threatening message to other elected MPs and the public of its zero-tolerance policy on any dissent vis-à-vis its own interests. Allow criminal charges to be brought against them for exercising their freedom of speech regarding matters of public concern.
We ask you to remain aware of the erosion of civil liberties in Cambodia, and to take any possible action to put the Cambodian government on notice that such abuse of power will not be tolerated by the international community. We are truly thankful for your concern about our issues of human rights and democracy in Cambodia. We hope that you and your colleagues will continue to play a vital role in re-directing Cambodia to be a nation with strong independent institutions.
We the undersigned, thank you for the opportunity to bring to your attention the key issues regarding the ongoing violation of human rights and democracy in Cambodia. The United Nations was established for precisely this purpose, the sharing of information and coordinated response to international failures in law, security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and conflict resolution.
Petition:
As Cambodian/American, citizens of the United States, Cambodia, and other nationalities adhering to this petition, we invite and recall United Nations to liaise with the Cambodian ruling parties, local and international media, local NGOs, and the civil society for securing the political crisis, which had already proven severe consequences on human rights abuses.
We request the United Nations to unwaveringly endeavor to the social development of Cambodia: We ask the United Nations to concretely commit to:
- Defend the human rights of the Cambodian population from government abuses
- Steadfastly restore and guarantee the freedom of speech and freedom of expression
- Guarantee the freedom for the protesters and human rights defenders
- Ensure the release of all villagers who jailed for protesting to defend their farm land
- Solidly demand to restore immunity for MP Sam Rainsy, MP Mu Sochua and MP Ho Vann
- Condemn Cambodian government to withdraw the arrest warrant for MP Sam Rainsy
- Increase the basic rights of freedom for Cambodian citizens from fear
- Decrease of the harassment on the civil society in Cambodia and Human Rights defenders
- End land confiscation and forced eviction in Cambodia
- Continue to mediate Cambodian government
Respectfully Yours,
Undersigned, Cambodian/American Community
Cambodia and other nationalities adhering to this petition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)