Click on each page to zoom in
Poem by Yim Guechse (on the web at http://kamnapyimguechse.blogspot.com/)and Sam Vichea (on the web at http://kamnapkumnou.blogspot.com/)
Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Preah Vihear Ro-ngea Pruos UNESCO - Preah Vihear freezing due to UNESCO
Click on each page to zoom inPoem by Yim Guechse (on the web at http://kamnapyimguechse.blogspot.com/)and Sam Vichea (on the web at http://kamnapkumnou.blogspot.com/)
Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Thai historian Charnvit mentioned that Preah Vihear was given to France by Chulalongkorn in order to preserve the rest of Thailand from being a western colony!
I'm a real kol botr Khmer surin not a fake Thai (one who claimed to be Khmer-Issan) and I know that Charnvit is a respectable Thai historian currently a professor at Thammasat University in Bangkok.
I support 100% our brothers in Cambodia!
Phom pen chao Thai "Kamen jag jangwat Surin" phom kho rong hai chao Thai leuad Kamen tuk tuk kon samaki gub pinong khong rao tee prathet Kamphucha.
By: Charnvit Kasetsiri
The violence which culminated in the burning of the Royal Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh on January 29, 2003, was both shocking and unexpected. The rioting not only inflicted extensive damage to Thai-owned property (fortunately, no one was killed) but severely strained Thai-Cambodian relations. It also warrants study of the history of Thai-Cambodian relations to understand the deep-seated causes of what took place so that similar incidents can be avoided in the future.
Among the neighboring countries of Southeast Asia, none seems more similar to Thailand than Cambodia (perhaps not even excluding Laos and the �Tai� people scattered throughout such countries as Burma, Vietnam, and southern China). Both nations share similar customs, traditions, beliefs, and ways of life. This is especially true of royal customs, language, writing systems, vocabulary, literature, and the dramatic arts.
In light of these similarities, it seems surprising, therefore, that relations between Thailand and Cambodia should be characterized by deep-seated �ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice.� Indeed, the two countries have what can be termed �a love-hate relationship.�
This lack of understanding is reflected in the thinking of a considerable number of educated Thais and members of the ruling class, who distinguish between the Khom and the Khmer, considering them to be two separate ethnic groups. They assert that it was the Khom, not the Khmer, who built the majestic temple complexes at Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom and who founded one of the world�s truly magnificent ancient empires. They further claim that Khmer culture, for instance its various forms of masked dance drama, is merely a �derivative� of Thai culture. (This is despite the fact that the word �Khom� is derived from the old Thai �Khmer krom,� meaning �lowland Khmer.� In spoken Thai, �Khmer� was gradually dropped, leaving only �krom,� which over time became, first, �klom� or �kalom,� and then eventually �Khom.�)
The border between Thailand and Cambodia is approximately 800 kilometers long, stretching along the provinces of the lower Northeast from a point known as �Chong Bok� in Ubon Ratchathani (where the Thai, Laotian, and Cambodian borders meet and which some refer to as the �Emerald Triangle�) and ending in Had Lek sub-district of Klong Yai district, in Trat province.
This long border is symbolic of the long history of relations between the Thais and the Khom-Khmer, which date from before the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom in the thirteenth century, thus starting the �love-hate relationship.� A similar relationship exists between the Japanese and the Koreans. Much of what defines Japanese culture today has been influenced by and is part of the cultural heritage of Korea. Buddhism, silkmaking, lacquerware, architecture, and sculpture � the most refined aspects of culture which the Japanese identify with China � passed to them first through Korea. But because of Japan�s successful transformation into an industrial powerhouse, that country has overlooked its debt to Korea and, in fact, treats Korea as an inferior.
Those elements of Thai culture which are generally considered to have originated in India, such as Buddhism, architecture, artistic designs, and even a significant portion of the Thai lexicon, did not enter Thailand directly from India. Rather, they were all second-hand transmissions, so to speak, having first passed through the Sri Lankans (including the Tamil), the Mon, or the Khmer. Even the concept of divine kingship (devaraja) and much of the special vocabulary associated with the royal court were, as M.R. Kukrit Pramoj, a noted intellectual and former Thai prime minister, said, �derived from Cambodia.�
Thai leaders in the past were filled with tremendous admiration for anything Khom-Khmer. Khun Pha Muang, who ruled the city of Muang Rad, somewhere in present-day northern Thailand, and was instrumental in the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom, was given the title �Sri Intrabodintrathit� (before it was changed to �Sri Intrathit�). This is a name taken from the lord or phee fah of the city of �muang Sri Sothonpura.� Pha Muang�s royal regalia, known as �Pra Khan Jayasri,� the Jayasri sword, and his royal consort named �Sikara Maha Devi,� were all bestowed by the King of Angkor.
This is the message conveyed to us by a fourteenth-century stone inscription of Wat Srichum at Sukhothai (the authenticity of which has never been questioned, unlike that of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription). The Thai term �phee fah� (referring to a king) and the term �Sri Sothonpura� are direct references to a Khom-Khmer king and his royal capital. The king in question was probably King Jayavarman VIII (1243-1295) and the royal capital of Sri Sothonpura is certainly Angkor Thom.
In other words, the earliest royal Thai titles � King Sri Intrabodintrathit, the Pra Khan Jayasri sword, and the consort Sikara Maha Devi � were derived from the Khmer, one of the most highly advanced civilizations in Southeast Asia at the time and a source of knowledge and inspiration to the Thai people. It is possible that Sikara Maha Devi was a daughter of King Jayavarman VIII and thus the Thai leader Khun Pha Muang, one of the founders of Sukhothai, was a son-in-law of the Khmer King.
The early history of the Lao Lan Xang kingdom in Luang Prabang shares distinct similarities. Fah Ngum, the founder of the kingdom, had sought refuge at Angkor, where he was given a sacred Buddha image (Phra Bang) and where he took a Khmer consort (Mahesi) before establishing his supremacy over all the Lao people (A.D. 1353).
This respect and admiration for anything Khmer also characterized the Ayutthaya period from the mid-fourteenth century onward. Interestingly, the flourishing of Khmer art and culture at the Thai court was the result of war, a war in which the victors adopted elements of the superior civilization of the losing side.
The glorious Khom-Khmer civilization ultimately sank into decline, as Sri Sothonpura (Angkor Thom or Sri Yasodharapura), seat of the kingdom, fell three times to invading armies � first to King U-Thong in 1369, second to King Ramesuan in 1388/9, and finally in 1431 to King Sam Phraya. The sacking of Sri Sothonpura can be compared to the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, but Thai historians are reluctant to make this analogy as it casts Thais in the role of �villains,� a role more comfortably attributed to the Burmese.
However, the Thai conquest of Sri Sothonpura led to a burgeoning of Khmer art and culture in Ayutthaya, just as the Mongol conquest of China led to the Mongol adoption of Chinese customs and culture (the founding of the Yuan dynasty at Peking). As Professor David Wyatt of Cornell University once noted, in fact, �Ayutthaya is the successor of Angkor.�
Another example from the Ayutthaya period is the decision by King Prasat Thong (1630-1656) to build the principal prang at Wat Chaiyawatanaram in the Khmer style and to bestow on the Khmer-style palace he constructed on the banks of the Pasak River (located today in Nakhon Luang district of Ayutthaya province) the name �Nakhon Luang.� This is a name taken directly from Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom, as Thais at the time referred to the Khmer capital as (Phra) �Nakhon Luang� or in Pali-Sanskrit, Nagara, the City.
The admiration of the Thai ruling classes for things Khmer-Khom remained in evidence even into the Ratanakosin (Bangkok) period. King Rama IV, or King Mongkut (r.1851-1868), for instance, ordered a Khmer stone temple disassembled and reconstructed on Thai soil, but �Phra Suphanphisan, after a trip to the ancient Khmer capital at Angkor, informed the King that all the stone temples were too enormous to be taken apart and transported to Siam. Hearing this, the King ordered that Prasat Ta Prohm, a relatively smaller temple, be relocated instead. Four groups of 500 men each were dispatched�to deconstruct the prasat on the ninth day of the sixth lunar month.�
The account of this event, which appears in �The Royal Chronicles of King Rama IV� by Chao Phraya Thipakorawong, occurred in 1860, before the Siamese ceded �sovereignty� over Cambodia to the French in 1867.
It is unclear to us precisely why King Mongkut wished to have an enormous Khmer temple reconstructed in Siam at a time when the French were gradually extending their control over much of Indochina. What is interesting, however, is that the attempt to move the temple structure failed when �some 300 Khmers came out of the forest and attacked the men who had come to disassemble the temple, killing Phra Suphanphisan, Phra Wang and one of Phra Suphanphisan�s sons. Phra Mahatthai was stabbed, and Phra Yokkrabat was injured. The phrai commoners, however, escaped injury by fleeing into the forest.�
It was obvious that the Khmer were angered by the theft of their property and responded violently. The incident convinced King Mongkut to abandon the plan to �disassemble� the prasat and instead to construct a small model of the Angkor Wat temple complex. �Craftsmen constructed a model of Angkor Wat and installed it at Wat Phra Sri Ratanasasadaram (the Temple of the Emerald Buddha), where it remains to this very day.� (Prime Minister Hun Sen visited the model at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in early 1990s during an official visit to Thailand for discussions with then-Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan.)
Despite the Thai love and admiration for anything Khmer, the Thais have also felt considerable hatred for the Khmer, as evidenced by a ritual called the phithi pathomkam. While Ayutthaya was busy fending off Burmese incursions, the Khmer King Satha (Chetta I, r.1576-1596) took the opportunity to attack Ayutthaya from the east. In revenge, so the chronicles say, King Naresuan ordered the capture of Khmer ruler to be beheaded and washed his feet with the blood.
The phithi pathomkam ritual re-enacts this story of revenge. However, Professor Kajorn Sukhapanich, a noted Thai historian, did not believe that the ritual, as recorded in the royal chronicles, ever really occurred. He claimed that Khmer King Satha fled and took refuge in Laos.
In general, present-day Thai view Khmer leaders and kings as traitors and ingrates. This idea was probably started by King Vajiravudh, or Rama VI (r.1910-1925), in his official nationalism campaign. It was handed down and developed by Field Marshal Phinbun and Luang Wichit in the 1930s-1940s when Thailand, with Japanese help, seized Siemreap and Battambang from French Indochina. It was also heightened by the dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit when the International Court of Justice ruled that the great temple of Phra Viharn on the border belonged to Cambodia. The pro-Americanism of Thailand and the neutrality of Sihanouk Cambodia during the Cold War further encouraged mutual dislike between the two countries and peoples.
Thais are not particularly fond of Norodom Sihanouk, for example. A Thai riddle asks, �What color (si) do Thai people hate?� The answer is neither red (si daeng) nor black (si dam), but �Si-hanouk.�
This, of course, is the Thai perspective, but how do the Khmer view their kings, such as Satha and Sihanouk? Certainly as national heroes and saviors, as men who fought to preserve their country�s independence in the face of Thai aggressors intent on seizing control of Cambodia. Much the same could be said about King Anu of Laos, r.1805-1828, considered by Lao historians as a national hero, whereas to the Thais, he was a �rebel� against the Bangkok monarch King Rama III (r.1824-1851).
The history of Thailand and its neighbors, especially Cambodia, Laos, and Burma, is one with both positive and negative elements. Some events have bred hatred, for instance of the Burmese by the Thais; others have generated contempt and feelings of superiority or inferiority, as in the case of Thailand�s relations with Cambodia and Laos. These feelings have led to significant misunderstandings.
Clearly, then, there is a need for an earnest and systematic study of the history of relations between these countries. This study deserves support from national and regional organizations such as ASEAN. Unfortunately, however, once the smoke clears from the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh, all that is likely to matter is the extent of the financial damage and how and when compensation will be paid.
Or if any analysis of the incident does take place, it is likely to reach the facile conclusion that the Khmers are �the villains� � they burned down Thai Embassy, after all � and the Thais are �the good guys� � we did not burn the Cambodian Embassy. It is convenient for Thais to forget that Ayutthaya rulers sacked Angkor three times. It would be far preferable, however, to examine the violent events of January 29 in order to draw lessons for solving the problems that continue to affect the neighboring countries of the Southeast Asian region.
The only excuse that Ah monkey in Cambodia has for confiscating our temple and land from Khmer in Issan is that we are no longer Khmer because we married with Chinese rooted people Lao and Thai, but when they are married to everything on the planet (Korean, Malay, Japanese, African, Mexican, ..., ) they still called themselves Khmer, hahahaha....
Give our temple back, Ah Hypocrite, or you'll be on your way to hell again soon!
1:17 PM
Comment like yours nobody is reading it's kinda too long.
Da.
9:20 PM
Your story is so touching, it brings tear to my ears.
By the way don't call the other race "everything" they are smarter than the Siam and your so call Khmer hassan.
yes, cambodia, this is why the world has the international court of justice and the UN charters so thailand and others can not steal from us and must respect each other as sovereigned nation. again, this is not the dark ages when the world was colonized and invaded their neighbors and steal etc from each other. this is a new and modern world. again, i though thailand knew better than this. with icj and UN, cambodia don't have to argue with the siem thugs as we see it useless. instead, cambodia use the icj and the UN laws to protect our sovereignty. god bless cambodia.
For any Khmer people to claim anything and they must claim behind the Khmer government and not behind the Thaicong government!
Well the Khmer government is call the Thai, and we are claiming our temple through them. We are not going through any other fake Khmer government.
5:07 AM
You should read your comment before posting it.
You are going crazing, don't do drug man, it's bad for your brain.
Cambodia will enlist Preah Vihear anyway, because we need to preserve our national treasure from the effect of time, with the help of the UNESCO.
It is not your national treasure. The Khmer who built it doesn't belong to you but to Thailand.
7:50 AM
You are really a hopeless dumbass.
What is it that you don't agreed with? Tell me. Just because Thailand governed our province, that give you the right to take our temple from us? What?
2:32AM said
'1:17 PM Comment like yours nobody is reading it's kinda too long.
Da.'
Are you blind or dumb? That was a short history 1:17 PM tried to share so we Khmer and Thai could understand our roots. It is not a comment.
2:32AM you are and idiot.
Sure we call ourselves Khmers no matter whom we marry to, because Srok Khmer still exists, and you are no longer Khmers but Thai because your country is Thailand.
Post a Comment