Should Khmer people be offended by insults and criticisms heaped upon individual figures representing the Cambodian monarchy?

Portraits of the reigning monarch and his parents in Phnom Penh.

 

by School of Vice

Well, the answer can be either a “Yes” or a “No” depending on a number of considerations, namely: 

-A] Whether one is in favour of the idea and the existence of the Monarchy itself as a public institution rooted in traditions and history. Unless others share the same belief [i.e. in preserving such an institution], there is not much point asking everyone to spare the said individuals from perceived insults or criticism. Such verbal attacks – constructive or otherwise – can be said in turn to be contingent upon some of the following factors;

-B] A distinction must be drawn between a royal institution itself which has significance and dimension that stretch beyond individuals that embody or symbolise it. In the eyes of many a member of the public, the King or Queen is the institution, just as Prince Sihanouk having abdicated the throne in favour of his father proceeded to exploit his association with the institution by reinventing his personae anew with the self-styled ascription through the title of “Prince Father” [“Samdach Euv”] thereby elevating his royal person – despite the abdication -  to position of Figurehead of the nation; a status which must be accepted as being even above that of the King himself in both his royal standing or capacity and as Sihanouk’s own biological father;

-C] Having drawn this basic distinction, one then needs to ask questions regarding the practicality of or the manner in which the public functions and duties of the royal institutions are being carried out in view of the wider interests of the common subjects. Granted, Cambodia is endorsed with a “constitutional monarchy”, however, this should not imply that the monarchy itself is free from public responsibilities or duties towards the Nation as stipulated in the national Constitution, and in the event of the King or the royals failing to face up to their prescribed public functions, they should neither be spared from public criticism nor be permitted to exist in limbo and at public expense. After all, if nothing else, it is hardly cheap to keep the Monarchy running! Of course, this specific consideration applies in equal measure to all public officials who are there to perform similar duties in their roles as ‘servants of the people’, with the technical distinction being that the latter are civil functionaries rather than royal figures; and indeed as civil servants they should learn to live with public criticism [or applause] instead of trying to shut everyone else up just because they don’t like such scrutiny;

-D] What should happen when appointed royals fall short of their duties mentioned above? Well, if the concept of liberty and democracy has anything to do with how the “Royal Government of Cambodia” should be run, then the citizens through their public organs such as parliamentarians and civil associations as well as various pressure or interest groups must decide as to what to do with the Monarchy as such. If the citizenry actually wants the Monarchy to stay on in its present decrepit state, so be it. However, if the Monarchy can be reformed or saved by other personnel or constitutional adjustments, this option should be considered too. If, moreover, the Monarchy has shown itself to have been irretrievably damaged by the current line of Royals [the Norodoms who, after all, have been on the throne for most of the second half of the twentieth century from the end of the colonial era up to the present time] then they along with the Monarchy, perhaps, should be let go, and the Khmer people could then start a new life with a republic system of government or governance.

The institution of the monarchy, in my humble view, is only as useful or relevant to the nation as the willingness and seriousness with which the King as figure head and national symbol is prepared to execute his royal duties and apply his conscience, and or sacrifice his private welfare or place it second to that of the nation’s immediate and long-term interests. From proactively steering the country into one major catastrophe or another in the sixties and the seventies, this line of royals have since the early nineties decided to beat a retreat into servile and obsequious non-responsibility. The frequent public gesture of the King greeting his ministers and dignitaries without the latter greeting back in kind may give over the impression of humility, but it says above all to his subjects: “Look, here I am your King only in name, divested of all temporal powers, and even as descendants of God-Kings I have to kowtow to these imbeciles and common thugs!”.

Yet, the present Cambodian monarchy [i.e. Royalty] is far from powerless as their projected public image might otherwise suggest. Their durability and survival alone as representatives of this ancient institution would, despite competing, brutal political competitions for the political throne, indicate that there is plenty of fuel left in the tank for them with which to deploy as bargaining chip in sustaining the Monarchy, albeit, one devoid of its own intrinsic value or traditional raison d’être and more a front for protecting and accentuating narrow, factional-clan motives. Even their frequent trips to and fro between Beijing and Phnom Penh and their traditional personal preference for cooler climates of North Korea [Sihanouk’s late friend, Kim Il-Sung, had built him a palace just outside Pjung Yang as a gesture of reciprocated friendship] and China tell us that when it matters they still have plenty of friends and allies around to call upon for support or consultation and to act as intermediaries in international diplomacy. 

The latest trip to China has been made in contravention of Sihanouk’s own pledge to spend the rest of his twilight days in the country of his birth; a u-turn decision that may have been made in compliance of his Chinese hosts’ wishes, and in all likelihood, to be briefed on ASEAN-US-China conundrum rather than the cited reason for another medical check-up there. Surely, Sihanouk would have full knowledge of his own medical condition [a long time malaise he has earned for himself as reward for a lifetime of excesses in sensual pursuits of various kinds, including rich cuisines] and his Chinese doctors would also have made clear to him what his available options were. It is not a coincidence also that the current liberalising trend taking place in Burma has come about hot on the heels of Secretary Clinton’s visit to the country, and it is an indication that the US still has much sway over Asean members such as Burma which has long been a client state of Beijing.

At a time when the poorest of the poor at Borei Keila were being evicted against their will right on the door-steps of the Royal Palace, it appeared the royal family were far more concerned with the ailing health of the father of one of the world’s wealthiest men. The Opposition “law-makers” - like the Monarchy – has not been empowered sufficiently to remove even a comma in the law, or uproot a single illegally planted wooden border stake without facing hefty prison sentence or lengthy political-physical exile. Can we imagine other constitutional monarchs around the world being so placid under similar circumstances? In times of coups by the military in Thailand, King Bhumibol is known to have summoned the main protagonists before him to explain their actions and intentions and severely chided them for damaging the unity and national good of his Kingdom. That would be the least any responsible public figure in the same position is expected to do, is it not? In contrast, the Cambodian monarchy is treated worse than an ill-kept mistress!

So to our question as to whether we should be offended when the Cambodian monarch is insulted, the least we could do would be to say no. After all, why should any of us be affronted by such insults – even if they come crudely worded – when even they appear not to care about them or be offended by their own complicit acts?  So many innocent Khmer lives had been lost; so many survivors remember their loved ones dying in their arms from overwork, untreated illnesses, or execution for stealing a coconut from extreme hunger under the regime he had helped to bring to power. Thus, their condemnation of him is more than understandable. Of course, Sihanouk himself has suffered the loss of his loved ones too, yet that fact aught not exonerate the man of his crimes. And were any of those 18 or 19 children and grand-children to come back to life tomorrow, who is to say they themselves would not be tempted to strangle Sihanouk with their own hands? I suspect this man will continue to be cursed from beyond the grave.

Recall, by way of contrast, also the action of Prince Sisowath Sirik Matak [a cousin of Sihanouk] who might have been involved in human rights abuses of his own, but at least, he was prepared to be accountable for his own deeds and mistakes. See the note below:

On April 12, 1975, United States' Ambassador to Cambodia John Gunther Dean, offered high officials of the Khmer Republic political asylum in the United States, including Sirik Matak  who declined the offer despite his name being in the Khmer Rouge’s list of "Seven Traitors" marked down for execution. Sirik Matak's curt but dignified response reads:

"I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave us and it is my wish that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. But mark it well that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed the mistake of believing in you, the Americans. Please accept, Excellency, my dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments. Prince Sirik Matak.”