Monday, July 16, 2007By K. Nimol
Sralanh Khmer newspaper
Translated from Khmer by Heng Soy
Faced with the mounting criticisms from the national and international public opinion regarding the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn, the abbot of the Phnom Den North pagoda, at the end of June, the “07 January” supreme patriarch Tep Vong issued a clarification on 12 July 2007 No. 34/07 M.S.R.S.B. which is supposed to provide clarifications on this issue, but instead it is filled with malevolence and division of Buddhism.
The meaningless and baseless clarification uses the name of government lawmen as its shield to interfere inside Buddhism, as Sralanh Khmer showed in our former edition of the first part of this clarification given by the “07 January” supreme patriarch. In this edition, we continue our reporting on the essence of this clarification so that our readers and Buddhist followers can form your own opinion as to whether the “07 January” supreme patriarch serves the interest of the Vietnamese or not.
The clarification indicated: “Convict Tim Sakhorn and his gang never recognized Buddhism as the state religion at all, wherever they are, this gang considers the state Buddhism as a puppet religion.” On this issue, the clarification itself is confused because there is no monk, and not even Monk Tim Sakhorn, who rejected that Buddhism is not the state religion. On the contrary, it is the “07 January” supreme patriarch Tep Vong who used Buddhism, the state religion, to serve the interest of the communist Hanoi regime, as indicated in the following statement in the clarification: “For convict Tim Sakhorn, not only he does not recognize Buddhism as the state religion, he even took actions to destroy Buddhism … such as the formation of a movement to break the solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam, as exemplified by his participation in 2 demonstrations to oppose the friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam…” This type of clarification is like the “07 January” monk pointing finger on himself and showing that he is a puppet of the communist Vietnamese because friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnamese is a friendship between one state and another, and it is not a personal friendship of Tep Vong the monk. Under this meaning, we want to emphasize that the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn is based solely on suspicions planned by the Vietnamese and perpetrated by a group of Vietnamese lackeys, just like the case of the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn which has nothing to do with the Buddhist rule at all. This course of action is maybe taken by the “07 January” supreme patriarch to resolve the issue based on the “07 January” brand of Buddhism formed by the communist Vietnamese.
Regarding the two demonstrations held of Khmer Krom monks in Phnom Penh in the past, these actions are not done to disunite monks, as the “07 January” supreme patriarch clarified, these peaceful demonstrations were held according to the spirit of the state Constitution to demand that the communist Vietnamese thieves stop the oppressions, the killings, and the defrocking of Khmer Krom monks in Kampuchea Krom (south Vietnam) only. The demonstrations not only abide by the Constitution of Cambodia, but they are also in agreement with the Buddhist permission, just like when Lord Buddha fought against the Mara before he attained illumination. Therefore, Tep Vong’s clarification is a confused fiction, all jumbled up.
Tep Vong’s clarification claimed also that: “… lawmen and Buddhist law knowledgeable monks organized a meeting of monks and lawmen to discuss the actions taken by convict Tim Sakhorn to see how far he went against Buddhist law and state law, these monks and state lawmen agreed that (Monk Tim Sakhorn) is charged with breaking the solidarity among monks, this is a “parajika” case and a criminal case and he must leave monkhood.” This point shows the strong mixed up which took place when only two or three monks met each others in secret and made the decision to accuse another monk of being “parajika” as they wish. Furthermore, Tep Vong dared claim that Monk Tim Sakhorn’s case is a criminal case, such accusation is a clear case of violation on the justice system. Therefore, isn’t such clarification all mixed up with no head and tail?
In ending the clarification, the “07 January” supreme patriarch wrote a long sentence attempting to show some proofs which are nothing more than a repeat of what the police authority in the Phnom Den North pagoda accused Monk Tim Sakhorn with. In his clarification, Tep Vong wrote: “… A search found a weapon (a dagger knife) permanently stored in the hand sack (of Monk Tim Sakhorn), this is one proof. The government including the police force and monk officials went in to search in the personal room of convict Tim Sakhorn, and they found a large number of documents such as pornographic VCDs, and a woman was found sleeping the personal bed of convict Tim Sakhorn…” This statement is nothing more than a textual copy of the report made up by the police following the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn. How can we claim this? According to investigation of human rights groups and reports provided by Buddhist members of the Phnom Den pagoda, the alleged proofs in Monk Tim Sakhorn’s case were all made up: Monk Tim Sakhorn’s hand sack never hold a dagger, and in his room prior to the time he was taken out to be defrocked at the provincial pagoda, there was no woman there except for an old lady by the name of Kieng Mai who served the monk for several years now. Mrs. Kieng Mai said that it was later learned that a woman by the name of Srey Aun was brought over by a group of evil men from Boeng Tumpun, Stung Meanchey commune in Phnom Penh city, to act as the alleged lover of Monk Tim Sakhorn. As for the pornographic VCDs, they were added in by the powerful group of officials from the Kirivong district when they went into his room to confiscate items from Monk Tim Sakhorn’s room, one day after his defrocking. Therefore, these pornographic VCDs were added later to use as an excuse to accuse the faithful Monk Tim Sakhorn.
In summary, anyone can see and understand that the clarifications provided by the “07 January” supreme patriarch cannot be taken seriously at all, because it is far from the actual truth. Furthermore, the meaning of this clarification clearly shows that Tep Vong does not know anything about Buddhist rule, and that he is only a representative of the “07 January” (government-sanctioned) Buddhism. In addition, in Tep Vong’s clarification, at one point, he wanted to present himself as the “07 January” supreme patriarch, as the tribunal judge, and as a politician who serves the interest of Vietnam just as he claimed that “convict Tim Sakhorn does not respect the 07 January brand of Buddhism, convict Tim Sakhorn is charged with a criminal case, and convict Tim Sakhorn is the breaker of the friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam, etc…” Therefore, Tep Vong’s clarification has absolutely no value, and cannot be acceptable at all.
The meaningless and baseless clarification uses the name of government lawmen as its shield to interfere inside Buddhism, as Sralanh Khmer showed in our former edition of the first part of this clarification given by the “07 January” supreme patriarch. In this edition, we continue our reporting on the essence of this clarification so that our readers and Buddhist followers can form your own opinion as to whether the “07 January” supreme patriarch serves the interest of the Vietnamese or not.
The clarification indicated: “Convict Tim Sakhorn and his gang never recognized Buddhism as the state religion at all, wherever they are, this gang considers the state Buddhism as a puppet religion.” On this issue, the clarification itself is confused because there is no monk, and not even Monk Tim Sakhorn, who rejected that Buddhism is not the state religion. On the contrary, it is the “07 January” supreme patriarch Tep Vong who used Buddhism, the state religion, to serve the interest of the communist Hanoi regime, as indicated in the following statement in the clarification: “For convict Tim Sakhorn, not only he does not recognize Buddhism as the state religion, he even took actions to destroy Buddhism … such as the formation of a movement to break the solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam, as exemplified by his participation in 2 demonstrations to oppose the friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam…” This type of clarification is like the “07 January” monk pointing finger on himself and showing that he is a puppet of the communist Vietnamese because friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnamese is a friendship between one state and another, and it is not a personal friendship of Tep Vong the monk. Under this meaning, we want to emphasize that the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn is based solely on suspicions planned by the Vietnamese and perpetrated by a group of Vietnamese lackeys, just like the case of the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn which has nothing to do with the Buddhist rule at all. This course of action is maybe taken by the “07 January” supreme patriarch to resolve the issue based on the “07 January” brand of Buddhism formed by the communist Vietnamese.
Regarding the two demonstrations held of Khmer Krom monks in Phnom Penh in the past, these actions are not done to disunite monks, as the “07 January” supreme patriarch clarified, these peaceful demonstrations were held according to the spirit of the state Constitution to demand that the communist Vietnamese thieves stop the oppressions, the killings, and the defrocking of Khmer Krom monks in Kampuchea Krom (south Vietnam) only. The demonstrations not only abide by the Constitution of Cambodia, but they are also in agreement with the Buddhist permission, just like when Lord Buddha fought against the Mara before he attained illumination. Therefore, Tep Vong’s clarification is a confused fiction, all jumbled up.
Tep Vong’s clarification claimed also that: “… lawmen and Buddhist law knowledgeable monks organized a meeting of monks and lawmen to discuss the actions taken by convict Tim Sakhorn to see how far he went against Buddhist law and state law, these monks and state lawmen agreed that (Monk Tim Sakhorn) is charged with breaking the solidarity among monks, this is a “parajika” case and a criminal case and he must leave monkhood.” This point shows the strong mixed up which took place when only two or three monks met each others in secret and made the decision to accuse another monk of being “parajika” as they wish. Furthermore, Tep Vong dared claim that Monk Tim Sakhorn’s case is a criminal case, such accusation is a clear case of violation on the justice system. Therefore, isn’t such clarification all mixed up with no head and tail?
In ending the clarification, the “07 January” supreme patriarch wrote a long sentence attempting to show some proofs which are nothing more than a repeat of what the police authority in the Phnom Den North pagoda accused Monk Tim Sakhorn with. In his clarification, Tep Vong wrote: “… A search found a weapon (a dagger knife) permanently stored in the hand sack (of Monk Tim Sakhorn), this is one proof. The government including the police force and monk officials went in to search in the personal room of convict Tim Sakhorn, and they found a large number of documents such as pornographic VCDs, and a woman was found sleeping the personal bed of convict Tim Sakhorn…” This statement is nothing more than a textual copy of the report made up by the police following the defrocking of Monk Tim Sakhorn. How can we claim this? According to investigation of human rights groups and reports provided by Buddhist members of the Phnom Den pagoda, the alleged proofs in Monk Tim Sakhorn’s case were all made up: Monk Tim Sakhorn’s hand sack never hold a dagger, and in his room prior to the time he was taken out to be defrocked at the provincial pagoda, there was no woman there except for an old lady by the name of Kieng Mai who served the monk for several years now. Mrs. Kieng Mai said that it was later learned that a woman by the name of Srey Aun was brought over by a group of evil men from Boeng Tumpun, Stung Meanchey commune in Phnom Penh city, to act as the alleged lover of Monk Tim Sakhorn. As for the pornographic VCDs, they were added in by the powerful group of officials from the Kirivong district when they went into his room to confiscate items from Monk Tim Sakhorn’s room, one day after his defrocking. Therefore, these pornographic VCDs were added later to use as an excuse to accuse the faithful Monk Tim Sakhorn.
In summary, anyone can see and understand that the clarifications provided by the “07 January” supreme patriarch cannot be taken seriously at all, because it is far from the actual truth. Furthermore, the meaning of this clarification clearly shows that Tep Vong does not know anything about Buddhist rule, and that he is only a representative of the “07 January” (government-sanctioned) Buddhism. In addition, in Tep Vong’s clarification, at one point, he wanted to present himself as the “07 January” supreme patriarch, as the tribunal judge, and as a politician who serves the interest of Vietnam just as he claimed that “convict Tim Sakhorn does not respect the 07 January brand of Buddhism, convict Tim Sakhorn is charged with a criminal case, and convict Tim Sakhorn is the breaker of the friendship and solidarity between Cambodia and Vietnam, etc…” Therefore, Tep Vong’s clarification has absolutely no value, and cannot be acceptable at all.
1 comment:
WHEN ARE THESE CRAZIEST CLOWNS OF CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM GONNA MEET THEIR JUDGEMENT !!!! THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THAT DAY !!!
PLEASE COME SOON, ( O THAT DAY )
Post a Comment