Showing posts with label Princess Monique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Princess Monique. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2012
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Sacrava's Political Cartoon: The Tourists
 |
| Cartoon by Sacrava (on the web at http://sacrava.blogspot.com) |
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Cambodia must unlearn, relearn
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not" - André Gide
September 1, 2010 By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
Pacific Daily News (Guam)
Fourteen million Cambodians, many with vivid memories of Pol Pot's atrocities, continue to endure the degradations imposed by a dictatorship that is legitimized by the international community, even though the government's existence is, itself, a violation of the 1991 Paris Peace Accords that ended the Cambodian conflict.
It's encouraging that some scholars and writers have opened a dialogue with me on whether Cambodians can get out of their current plight, considered bleak and, at this time, unchangeable. The world community has shown no willingness to pressure the current dictatorship to change. We disagree on certain points, but in our interactions respect each other's views.
It is, however, discouraging that the widely held perception of Cambodian social culture is negative, and with some justification. A common view is that the society continues to be characterized by promiscuous, divisive gossip that divides and alienates by: entrenched "reproductive" thinking that is lacking in creativity, innovation and criticality; and a pervasive victim complex that encourages the assigning of blame rather than the acceptance of responsibility.
The familiar image is of trapped Cambodians, unwilling, unable and unprepared to learn, unlearn and relearn.
Quality thinking determines the quality of the future. Cambodians' general practice of blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty blocks the road forward. I debate public policies; inherent in quality thinking is assessing and evaluating. Gentlemen can disagree; some detractors are simply disagreeable and quarrelsome.
The French writer and humanist Andre Gide once said, "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not."
I am unnerved when I am labeled by some as "anti-Sihanouk" or "anti-Khmer traditions." When I served under President Sihanouk, who led the fight against Vietnamese occupation troops, I found him, and Princess Monique, his wife, charming, gracious and likable. Today, at age 66, I still bow as I walk in front of Khmer elders, I clasp my hands under my chin or on my forehead to express gratitude; and I kneel for a Buddhist monk's prayer and blessing, etc. How to be more respectful of traditions?
Those who know me know political flexibility and political expediency are not unknown to me. Many also know the intellectual in me never allowed me to practice blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty, a factor that landed me in political hot water quite a few times.
I fear an authoritarianism lurking in Cambodians' behavior and attitudes. Not long ago, Pol Pot's mistrust of intellectuals led his Khmer Rouge to kill everyone wearing glasses; Pol Pot's uncompromising "correct thinking" resulted in "tbaung chawb" (hoe blade) -- used by his Khmer Rouge to strike the necks of those with "incorrect" thinking. "No gain to keep; no loss to take out," they said.
Last April, a Khmer New Year's message that made the rounds in cyberspace, from a Khmer physician in Australia, Dr. Kang Kem, prayed the Tevodas to guide the Khmers to unite, love one another and let go of the disastrous and painful past that split Khmers into "generational enemies."
Why? Because while the dictatorial regime consolidates its power, its critics, the Cambodian democrats and rights activists, are in disarray -- divided, fractious, riddled with victim complex and pointing fingers at others.
Cambodians of my generation had learned since elementary school that "l'union fait la force," or unity is strength. Today, "l'union" is with "me" or "my party" who lead; "you" and "your party" follow.
Recall Benjamin Franklin's words, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately," as he appealed to American rebels either to band together or find themselves hung individually at the British gallows. The 13 American colonies banded together as the United States of America.
And recall Irish statesman Edmund Burke, who warned in 1770, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Lord Buddha teaches: "Everything changes, nothing remains without change."
Cambodians, in general, like other peoples across cultures and national boundaries, rally behind cliched slogans. They talk the talk, but many don't walk the talk. "Yes, we can!" they say. But as a Khmer saying goes, "trokieak slab s'doak" -- "the hip joint lies dead."
Change is an inevitability. But it may not be the change they wanted to see; it can be worse. Let me repeat another slogan: "We are the change we want to see."
It may not be unreasonable to see Cambodians' future as bleak. Their traditional blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty must be abandoned, and they must start learning and using quality thinking, with its creative and critical components, to imagine and innovate, and to question and evaluate. This is a road to survival.
A respected Khmer-American academic reminds me of Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov's dog experiment in classical conditioning, associative learning, as an example of conditioning reflexes.
But wait. If blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty are conditioned, they also can be unconditioned or reconditioned, a challenge for democrats and rights activists!
The Phnom Penh regime and its foreign backers cannot be blind to the small but growing numbers of unhappy Cambodians, even in the regime's military and bureaucracy as well as abroad, who are dissatisfied with the status quo.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
It's encouraging that some scholars and writers have opened a dialogue with me on whether Cambodians can get out of their current plight, considered bleak and, at this time, unchangeable. The world community has shown no willingness to pressure the current dictatorship to change. We disagree on certain points, but in our interactions respect each other's views.
It is, however, discouraging that the widely held perception of Cambodian social culture is negative, and with some justification. A common view is that the society continues to be characterized by promiscuous, divisive gossip that divides and alienates by: entrenched "reproductive" thinking that is lacking in creativity, innovation and criticality; and a pervasive victim complex that encourages the assigning of blame rather than the acceptance of responsibility.
The familiar image is of trapped Cambodians, unwilling, unable and unprepared to learn, unlearn and relearn.
Quality thinking determines the quality of the future. Cambodians' general practice of blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty blocks the road forward. I debate public policies; inherent in quality thinking is assessing and evaluating. Gentlemen can disagree; some detractors are simply disagreeable and quarrelsome.
The French writer and humanist Andre Gide once said, "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not."
I am unnerved when I am labeled by some as "anti-Sihanouk" or "anti-Khmer traditions." When I served under President Sihanouk, who led the fight against Vietnamese occupation troops, I found him, and Princess Monique, his wife, charming, gracious and likable. Today, at age 66, I still bow as I walk in front of Khmer elders, I clasp my hands under my chin or on my forehead to express gratitude; and I kneel for a Buddhist monk's prayer and blessing, etc. How to be more respectful of traditions?
Those who know me know political flexibility and political expediency are not unknown to me. Many also know the intellectual in me never allowed me to practice blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty, a factor that landed me in political hot water quite a few times.
I fear an authoritarianism lurking in Cambodians' behavior and attitudes. Not long ago, Pol Pot's mistrust of intellectuals led his Khmer Rouge to kill everyone wearing glasses; Pol Pot's uncompromising "correct thinking" resulted in "tbaung chawb" (hoe blade) -- used by his Khmer Rouge to strike the necks of those with "incorrect" thinking. "No gain to keep; no loss to take out," they said.
Last April, a Khmer New Year's message that made the rounds in cyberspace, from a Khmer physician in Australia, Dr. Kang Kem, prayed the Tevodas to guide the Khmers to unite, love one another and let go of the disastrous and painful past that split Khmers into "generational enemies."
Why? Because while the dictatorial regime consolidates its power, its critics, the Cambodian democrats and rights activists, are in disarray -- divided, fractious, riddled with victim complex and pointing fingers at others.
Cambodians of my generation had learned since elementary school that "l'union fait la force," or unity is strength. Today, "l'union" is with "me" or "my party" who lead; "you" and "your party" follow.
Recall Benjamin Franklin's words, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately," as he appealed to American rebels either to band together or find themselves hung individually at the British gallows. The 13 American colonies banded together as the United States of America.
And recall Irish statesman Edmund Burke, who warned in 1770, "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
Lord Buddha teaches: "Everything changes, nothing remains without change."
Cambodians, in general, like other peoples across cultures and national boundaries, rally behind cliched slogans. They talk the talk, but many don't walk the talk. "Yes, we can!" they say. But as a Khmer saying goes, "trokieak slab s'doak" -- "the hip joint lies dead."
Change is an inevitability. But it may not be the change they wanted to see; it can be worse. Let me repeat another slogan: "We are the change we want to see."
It may not be unreasonable to see Cambodians' future as bleak. Their traditional blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty must be abandoned, and they must start learning and using quality thinking, with its creative and critical components, to imagine and innovate, and to question and evaluate. This is a road to survival.
A respected Khmer-American academic reminds me of Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov's dog experiment in classical conditioning, associative learning, as an example of conditioning reflexes.
But wait. If blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty are conditioned, they also can be unconditioned or reconditioned, a challenge for democrats and rights activists!
The Phnom Penh regime and its foreign backers cannot be blind to the small but growing numbers of unhappy Cambodians, even in the regime's military and bureaucracy as well as abroad, who are dissatisfied with the status quo.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Royal Pawns Between The Tiger and The Crocodile
Then-Prince Sihanouk and then-Princess MoniqueThursday, August 05, 2010
Op-Ed by MP
THOSE of us who have been keen observers of Cambodian politics within recent decades are more or less used to idiosyncratic reminiscences emanating from N. Sihanouk's camp. There's no real cause for doubting KI Media's sincerity in rendering this kind of anecdotes, which has been profusely produced by the former monarch himself and accumulated in abundance, no doubt, in his Royal Library.
What should interest any independent, fair-minded observer is to what extent and how much of an influence had our Royal Princess Monique who formed the other Half of the Khmer Royal pair been part of Sihanouk's decision-making throughout his long convoluted political career and, through that, her own personal involvement in the making of Cambodian history - its salvation and tragedies alike - in the course of the same period. In his own memoir, Sihanouk recalls how Monique was persistent in 'persuading' him - following his overthrow by Lon Nol - to join force with the Khmer Rouge who were then still under de facto influence of the North Vietnamese whose troops remained on Khmer soil even after April 1975 and would have remained there longer had it not been for Beijing's mounting pressure on Hanoi to withdraw.
Perhaps, China did exert pressure on the exiled Khmer royals to return to reinforce Sihanouk's erstwhile opponents (Red Khmers) whom he now described as ‘patriots’ or maybe the Royal Couple themselves were counting on the Vietminhs repaying them in gratitude for what the latter owed the former for that vital assistance provided prior to the 1970 coup. What is beyond debate is the fatal 'mistake' committed by Sihanouk in his decision to embrace the Red Khmers so soon after that coup; an error which he subsequently himself publicly acknowledged in an off-guard moment to a journalist. If Monique did sway this historical decision then she may have, even with her youth and legendary beauty in mind, reduced more than a couple of Soviet leaders to helpless victims by the power of her spells.
With the benefit of hindsight and with our bitter taste of what was to follow as a direct outcome of this course of action and gamble by Sihanouk one could not help but wonder what course history might have taken instead had he not allowed his Royal name and presence to be used by cold-hearted men and revolutionary groups whose ideology the US ambassador to Cambodia at the time described as ‘un-Cambodian’. And he was not simply referring to the North Vietnamese.
But even without the benefit of hindsight, it is plausible to take the view that there would have been no logical need for the Prince to plunge his small kingdom that had no real quarrel with the US into full blown armed conflict by embracing the Communists. Lon Nol might have grave difficulties holding out against the battle- hardened Vietminhs, but at least he would not have to dispense so much energy killing – or trying not to be killed by – his own compatriots in the Red Khmers who were now responding to Sihanouk’s call to bear arms against the ‘traitorous’ Khmer republicans with alarming fanaticism and zeal. The Vietnamese might also have eventually achieved their ultimate ambition of bringing the Indochina-coursing Mekong under their control by one means or another, but the most likely scenario that would have prevailed would have been the absence of executions and killings that had been a most salient and grim pattern in Cambodia’s ‘civil wars’ in recent decades. Even the systematic executions of between 40-60,000 defeated Lon Nol soldiers most of whom had once been Sihanouk’s ‘children’ and subjects – the part of that mass killings to only have been openly acknowledged by Pol Pot - would have been too much a price for Cambodia to have to pay. The survival of trained non-Communist military personnel would have provided the country with a much better material with which to resist outright foreign domination in later years. Even the North Vietnamese recognised the pragmatic benefit of incorporating former South Vietnamese soldiers and officers into their unified national military rank, some of whom were subsequently dispatched as ‘volunteers’ to Cambodia and Laos. This familiar mistake – committed again by the CPP in 1997 to neutralise Funcinpec’s military threat - should never be repeated. It is a senseless waste of human resource in the glaring face of the nation’s much lamented numerical handicap with relations to its neighbours, never mind the charge of rights violation against captured military personnel in time of war.
As a keen reader of world history, Sihanouk would have taken note with some personal trepidation of the massacre of the entire Russian royal family carried out by the Bolsheviks to ensure that the monarchy could never again re-emerge to reclaim the political throne in Russia. That he overlooked this personal risk and made a decision to throw in his lot with the Communist camp does seem to testify to his overall misplaced (and perhaps, reckless) optimism that the North Vietnamese and their Khmer Rouge allies would save his nation and people from any likely catastrophe - which they singularly failed, by force of their own respective motives and in line with their own ulterior agendas (and are arguably failing still) to do. Not only that. Once their common Foe – the US - had been overcome traditional distrust resurfaced between the North Vietnamese and their Pol Pot-led Communist allies leaving Sihanouk in a precarious position as he was now caught between the Tiger of the Khmer Rouge and the Crocodile of the Vietminhs in his Unholy Royal Alliance with them both, who by way of their own imperceptible metamorphoses and un-evolved predatory traits, continue to keep him through his ceremoniously enthroned royal heir firmly between their threatening jaws - a tragic fate and dilemma, furthermore, to which by way of perverted extension the Khmer people and nation are presently condemned.
What should interest any independent, fair-minded observer is to what extent and how much of an influence had our Royal Princess Monique who formed the other Half of the Khmer Royal pair been part of Sihanouk's decision-making throughout his long convoluted political career and, through that, her own personal involvement in the making of Cambodian history - its salvation and tragedies alike - in the course of the same period. In his own memoir, Sihanouk recalls how Monique was persistent in 'persuading' him - following his overthrow by Lon Nol - to join force with the Khmer Rouge who were then still under de facto influence of the North Vietnamese whose troops remained on Khmer soil even after April 1975 and would have remained there longer had it not been for Beijing's mounting pressure on Hanoi to withdraw.
Perhaps, China did exert pressure on the exiled Khmer royals to return to reinforce Sihanouk's erstwhile opponents (Red Khmers) whom he now described as ‘patriots’ or maybe the Royal Couple themselves were counting on the Vietminhs repaying them in gratitude for what the latter owed the former for that vital assistance provided prior to the 1970 coup. What is beyond debate is the fatal 'mistake' committed by Sihanouk in his decision to embrace the Red Khmers so soon after that coup; an error which he subsequently himself publicly acknowledged in an off-guard moment to a journalist. If Monique did sway this historical decision then she may have, even with her youth and legendary beauty in mind, reduced more than a couple of Soviet leaders to helpless victims by the power of her spells.
With the benefit of hindsight and with our bitter taste of what was to follow as a direct outcome of this course of action and gamble by Sihanouk one could not help but wonder what course history might have taken instead had he not allowed his Royal name and presence to be used by cold-hearted men and revolutionary groups whose ideology the US ambassador to Cambodia at the time described as ‘un-Cambodian’. And he was not simply referring to the North Vietnamese.
But even without the benefit of hindsight, it is plausible to take the view that there would have been no logical need for the Prince to plunge his small kingdom that had no real quarrel with the US into full blown armed conflict by embracing the Communists. Lon Nol might have grave difficulties holding out against the battle- hardened Vietminhs, but at least he would not have to dispense so much energy killing – or trying not to be killed by – his own compatriots in the Red Khmers who were now responding to Sihanouk’s call to bear arms against the ‘traitorous’ Khmer republicans with alarming fanaticism and zeal. The Vietnamese might also have eventually achieved their ultimate ambition of bringing the Indochina-coursing Mekong under their control by one means or another, but the most likely scenario that would have prevailed would have been the absence of executions and killings that had been a most salient and grim pattern in Cambodia’s ‘civil wars’ in recent decades. Even the systematic executions of between 40-60,000 defeated Lon Nol soldiers most of whom had once been Sihanouk’s ‘children’ and subjects – the part of that mass killings to only have been openly acknowledged by Pol Pot - would have been too much a price for Cambodia to have to pay. The survival of trained non-Communist military personnel would have provided the country with a much better material with which to resist outright foreign domination in later years. Even the North Vietnamese recognised the pragmatic benefit of incorporating former South Vietnamese soldiers and officers into their unified national military rank, some of whom were subsequently dispatched as ‘volunteers’ to Cambodia and Laos. This familiar mistake – committed again by the CPP in 1997 to neutralise Funcinpec’s military threat - should never be repeated. It is a senseless waste of human resource in the glaring face of the nation’s much lamented numerical handicap with relations to its neighbours, never mind the charge of rights violation against captured military personnel in time of war.
As a keen reader of world history, Sihanouk would have taken note with some personal trepidation of the massacre of the entire Russian royal family carried out by the Bolsheviks to ensure that the monarchy could never again re-emerge to reclaim the political throne in Russia. That he overlooked this personal risk and made a decision to throw in his lot with the Communist camp does seem to testify to his overall misplaced (and perhaps, reckless) optimism that the North Vietnamese and their Khmer Rouge allies would save his nation and people from any likely catastrophe - which they singularly failed, by force of their own respective motives and in line with their own ulterior agendas (and are arguably failing still) to do. Not only that. Once their common Foe – the US - had been overcome traditional distrust resurfaced between the North Vietnamese and their Pol Pot-led Communist allies leaving Sihanouk in a precarious position as he was now caught between the Tiger of the Khmer Rouge and the Crocodile of the Vietminhs in his Unholy Royal Alliance with them both, who by way of their own imperceptible metamorphoses and un-evolved predatory traits, continue to keep him through his ceremoniously enthroned royal heir firmly between their threatening jaws - a tragic fate and dilemma, furthermore, to which by way of perverted extension the Khmer people and nation are presently condemned.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
My young and beautiful Monique earned the lust of two Soviet bears: Sihanouk
Kruschev and Brezhnev: The two Soviet bears (bores?)
Then-Princess Monique
Now-Queen-Mother Monineath
Translated from French by Prince Lusty de LustHistory
1960 – N. Sihanouk, Head of State of the kingdom of Cambodia on official visit to the Soviet Union
H.E. Kruschev, fell very very much in love with my wife, Monique, then young and more beautiful than ever.
Day of the Soviet-Khmer negotiations: Mr. Kruschev, the master of Kremlin, let me know through a French-speaking Soviet diplomat, that Princess Monique should be present to these negotiations (!?)
As the negotiations time arrived, H.E. Kruschev placed himself in front of Monique and spent his time admiring her. He told his “lieutenant”, Mr. Brezhnev, to talk to me. I obtained from the Soviet Union the donation to Cambodia of a large hospital with 500 beds, as well as a large technological institute.
In fact, H.E. Brezhnev told his main French-speaking comrades to “negotiate” with me and he did not stop admiring the extraordinary beauty of Monique.
01 August 2010
(Signed) N. Sihanouk
H.E. Kruschev, fell very very much in love with my wife, Monique, then young and more beautiful than ever.
Day of the Soviet-Khmer negotiations: Mr. Kruschev, the master of Kremlin, let me know through a French-speaking Soviet diplomat, that Princess Monique should be present to these negotiations (!?)
As the negotiations time arrived, H.E. Kruschev placed himself in front of Monique and spent his time admiring her. He told his “lieutenant”, Mr. Brezhnev, to talk to me. I obtained from the Soviet Union the donation to Cambodia of a large hospital with 500 beds, as well as a large technological institute.
In fact, H.E. Brezhnev told his main French-speaking comrades to “negotiate” with me and he did not stop admiring the extraordinary beauty of Monique.
01 August 2010
(Signed) N. Sihanouk
Friday, January 04, 2008
Ahhh! .... Those happy days when the Vietnamese were not yet ungrateful crocodiles
Click on the photo to zoomTranslated from French by Luc Sâr
February 1973
On the eve of the great departure from North Vietnam to Kampuchea, along the Ho Chi Minh trail, General Vo Nguyen Giap and his wife paid a visit to Norodom Sihanouk and Princess Monique in their residence, located in a “discrete” place near Hanoi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
