Trudy Jacobsen's article (PPPost, March 10, 2006) generally distorts the historical facts.
I disagree with her assertion that "explanations of Cambodian ill-will toward the Vietnamese are vague and unsatisfactory." The "ill-will" is, in fact, well documented even back in the 17th century.
First of all, according to a Khmer chronicle, the Collection of the Council of Kingdom (1951) and Vietnamese sources, King Suryapeur (1603-1618) did not marry his son (King Jaya Cheastha II 1613-1628) to a Vietnamese lady Chov, or Ngoc Van, a daughter of Lord/Viceroy Nguyen Phuc (or Vuong Sai, 1613-1635) before he died, as Jacobsen claims. King Suryapeur died in 1619 and Cheastha II married Chov in 1620 for the reasons of mutual defense and trade interests (Vuong Sai needed him because of Champa's threat in the south and Emperor Le's threat to the North. Cheastha II needed Vuong Sai because of the constant threat from Siam).
Contrary to the general misunderstanding being also compounded by Jacobsen, Cheastha II was not "young and inexperienced." Like his successor son, he was a nationalist, a scholar and was 42 years of age by the time he married Chov. He already had had four wives, having been married since the age of 26. Chov was his last wife, after a Laotian wife, Bous.
In 1623, Cheastha II gave permission for five years only to let the Vietnamese build commercial centers in "Prey Nokor" and Kampong Krabey and to collect tax from Vietnamese-Chinese traders in addition to building military training camps to prepare for wars with Champa and Emperor Le of then Dai Viet (now Vietnam).
He did not give permission to allow Vietnamese to settle in Cambodia. Additionally, the 1623 permission might not have been as a result of an invasion, but it was smart coercion by the Vietnamese at a time when the King/Cambodia was engaging in wars defending against Siamese aggressions on two fronts: Siamese naval attacks in the south by the sea on Banteay Meas (Ha Tien) and on land from the west. A Vietnamese envoy showed up at the Royal Palace at Udong presenting a letter from Lord Vuong Sai seeking the above permission. Fearing what might come if he rejected it, the King agreed.
Five years later, the year he was supposed to get the land back, the King died. In 1638, his successor, King Angtong Rajathirajthipadey (1635-1639), asked for the return of the territories, but he was asked to delay for a while.
When King Ramathipadey (Ang Chant) in 1641 demanded the return of the land, the former Queen of Cheastha II intervened again seeking a delay. Perhaps to divert the King's attention, in 1658 the Queen openly supported the pretenders (young princes Angton and Utey) to the throne. To the Queen's disbelief, after their victory, Angton and Utey attacked the Vietnamese and demanded the return of the land.
Wars and rebellion broke out again in 1699, 1731, 1739 and up until the French arrived in 19th century. Sensing the French were about to invade Vietnam, King Ang Duong dispatched a letter dated November 25, 1856, to Napoleon III warning him that the territories from Dong Nai down to the islands of Koh Tralach (Con Dao) and Koh Trol (Phu Quoc) belong to Cambodia. "If by chance", the King stated, "Anam [Vietnam] would offer any of these lands to Your Majesty, I beg Him not to accept them for they belong to Cambodia." In 1859, the King sent troops to retake the lands. The King died in 1860 and his mission failed.
Prey Nokor's proper name was Preah Reach Nokor which, according to a Khmer Chronicle means a "Royal City"; later became locally "Preykor" meaning "kapok forest" (from which "Saigon" was derived). It was not a "Wild City" or sparsely populated as Jacobsen claims. Jacobsen ignores the fact that there were two other Khmer provinces, Kampong Srakartrei (Dong Nai) and Baria, to the north bordering Champa state. A part of the pre-Angkor capital Vyadhpura, it was a main Khmer seaport city, a center of trade for many years.
The Vinh Te canal event occurred during the reign of King Angt Chan (1797-1835), and was one of the most horrific examples of the Vietnamese treatment of the Khmer. I am appalled that Jacobsen trivializes the magnitude of the suffering. It was not just "two Vietnamese overseers" who picked out three Khmer "from the Cambodian contingents" and used their heads to cook the Yuon masters' tea. In fact, it was a national humiliation.
The K5 Plan (1979-1990) is not a valid comparison. The Vinh Te Canal Plan (which lasted four years) saw 10,000 people perish in awful circumstances, according to a British Envoy John Crawfurd's report (1830).
In 1820, the King, being an absolute hostage of the Vietnamese army, managed to engineer a rebellion led by the Venerable Kae Kong and two of the King's top officials. The rebellion failed. To avoid death, Ang Chant was forced to cede three districts of Chau Doc province to Vietnam. While in Kampuchea Krom Father Le Fevre noted the suppression: about 3 million were "subjected Cambodians" (1847).
Like the appellation of "Kling" for the Indians and "Seam" for the Thai, "Yuon" has been traditionally used by Khmer to mean "Vietnamese" for the past 2000 years. During this time "Vietnam" changed its name constantly. The term "Yuon" appears in Khmer traditional songs, poems, laws, historical texts etc.
Before its invasion, in 1978, in its campaign to demonize the KR, Vietnam politicized the terms "Yuon" and "Anam" as being pejorative. Pre-war Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia knew the term was not pejorative, but the new Vietnamese settlers who came to Cambodia in 1979 got caught up in this political nonsense. With Vietnam's foreign cronies' assistance, the Khmer are now trashed for using a traditional term that was made negative by the Vietnamese themselves. Further, "Yuon," which appears in Khmer ancient inscriptions (inscription K105 of King Suryavarman I) refers to what is recently known as "Vietnamese" and certainly not "Javanese" as Jacobsen claims: (Post 10/2/06). The term "Javanese" is Anglicized. The Khmer have always used the term, "Chvea," or Java. "Chvea" appears in three Angkorian inscriptions mentioning Jayavarman II from Java.
Jacobsen is also wrong to say past Khmer kings supported by Vietnamese "are loathed," but kings placed on the throne by Thais are "lauded". The truth is Cheastha II's father King Suryapeur was forced to abdicate because people thought he was too influenced by the Siamese (for instance, wearing Siamese royal costumes). King Suryapeur's predecessor was ousted because his mother was Laotian.
Bora Touch - Sydney
Truong Mealy - former Cambodian Ambassador to Japan
Kampuchea Krom: facts behind the friction
By Trudy Jacobsen
Many Cambodians harbor a deepseated cultural aversion towards their neighbors to the east, the Vietnamese. Yuon, a term denoting Vietnamese ethnicity, is one of the most derogatory insults Cambodians can hurl at each other during arguments. Prostitutes are popularly believed to be of Vietnamese descent, as no Cambodian girl - the model of propriety and virtue - would allow herself to be compromised in such a fashion. Past sovereigns of Cambodia supported by the Vietnamese are loathed, whereas those placed on the throne and maintained there by the Thais are lauded.
Explanations for Cambodian ill-will toward the Vietnamese are vague and unsatisfactory, usually referring to a time in the distant past when the Vietnamese are alleged to have killed hundreds of Cambodians in the course of constructing a canal between the two countries, or elucidated in terms of Vietnamese invasions of Cambodian territory and culture over the past 150 years. More recently, politicians have manipulated old concerns in this regard to garner support for their own party platforms. Yet these "justifications", always implied to have been based upon historical facts, appear to be unfounded by the very sources that would reasonably seek to demonstrate their veracity - the Cambodian Chronicles.
Let us first consider the issue of a Vietnamese "invasion" of Cambodia in the 17th century. It is true that Cambodia shrank to one-fifth its original size between the 14th and 19th centuries; but constant skirmishes with the Thais, Chams and multiple Viet dynasties were to blame rather than a wholesale invasion. The loss of Prey Nokor, the Cambodian name for what is now Ho Chi Minh City, and the area [broadly all the territory to its west] known as Kampuchea Krom in southern Vietnam, are particularly lamented. However, far from documenting any invasion, the Cambodian Chronicles reveal that the decision to part with these territories was made by a Cambodian king.
King Paramaraja IV (reigned 1603-1618) married his son and heir to a Vietnamese princess just before he died, in the hopes that the alliance would prevent the Thais from attacking. It was this Cambodian prince, who ruled as King Jai Jettha II (reigned 1618-1627), who made over the Cambodian lands along the east coast to Vietnamese hegemony.
In 1623, Jai Jettha II received a request from his father-in-law's court at Hue, asking that the territories of Prey Nokor and Kampong Krabei be handed over to Vietnamese administration. Fearing reprisal from the Vietnamese queen if they did not acquiesce, Jai Jettha II and his officials agreed, and Vietnamese settlers began moving into the area now known as Kampuchea Krom.
At the same time, Vietnamese officials began collecting the import taxes paid by merchant ships seeking entrance upriver.
On the surface this could be dismissed as a bad decision on the part of a young and inexperienced king concerned at potentially alienating his powerful in-laws. Yet it is possible that the administration of these territories had simply passed beyond the control of the Cambodian state by this point. Armies were constantly being faced to the northwest and northeast in order to stave off Thai offensives; there was no standing army available to maintain a presence on the east coast. The very name "Prey Nokor" is telling - it translates to "Wild City," implying that it was at the very least sparsely populated and ill-maintained, if not completely abandoned.
Whether the decision to part with Prey Nokor and its surrounds was made out of relief or in fear, there seems little doubt that this was a decision made by a Cambodian king, and not as a result of an invasion.
Another story exists in contemporary Cambodia to explain why the Vietnamese are dangerous and not to be trusted. The story goes that in the beginning of the 19th century, the Vietnamese wanted to build a canal between Phnom Penh and Chau Doc to facilitate transport. They conscripted a large number of both Cambodians and Vietnamese to do the work, although the foremen of the labor groups were solely Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese were very cruel toward the Cambodians, beating them with sticks to make them work faster. One day, two Vietnamese overseers were angry that the Cambodians were not fulfilling the quota of work despite repeated beatings. They selected three workers from the Cambodian contingent and buried them up to their necks in a triangular formation. Then they lit a fire in the middle and used the Cambodians' heads as cooking stones for their kettle.
The Vinh Te canal - which runs from Chau Doc to Ha Tien - itself is a historical fact; construction was begun in 1810 and continued into the 1820s, at a time when the king of Cambodia, Ang Chan (reigned 1797-1835) had turned to the Vietnamese for protection and assistance against the Thais. In return, Ang Chan was forced to embrace Vietnamese customs and language, and appoint Vietnamese officials to administrative positions. No doubt many Vietnamese abused their powers over what they saw as "backward" and "uncivilized" Cambodians. Yet this is hardly different from how Cambodians had in the past treated Chams, or Mons, or their own countrypeople from lower social classes conscripted to participate in the grandiose public works programs of Udong or Angkor.
Indeed, it is the enforced cultural changes that seem to have resonated most strongly with witnesses from the time. The Chronicles speak of enclaves of noble Cambodians taking to the forest rather than adopt Vietnamese customs, including a more "rational" taxation system, and the humiliations meted out to Ang Chan's daughters by their Vietnamese protectors.
It is hardly surprising that the almost total loss of Cambodian identity [from the former Kampuchea Krom] causes strong emotion today. Yet it is important to note that this occurred not as a result of marauding Vietnamese intent upon world domination, but as a result of policies adopted by Cambodian kings in the best interests of their people. These kings could not have foreseen how their decisions would impact upon later events; but it is imprudent to misrepresent the part that they have had in shaping relations between Cambodia and Vietnam.
The chronicles
There are 35 complete and fragmentary documents in Khmer that make up the Cambodian chronicles, found by the French in various wats, the Royal Palace, and in the possession of elite families. None date earlier than 1796.
They incorporate earlier oral histories and texts that have since been lost to the climate and upheaval of civil wars. Together these 35 documents make up eight different versions of Cambodian history.
Two Khmer scholars working in France, Khin Sok and Mak Phoeun, have translated the most comprehensive account of the chronicles into French, also offering commentaries upon dates and events, and supplying in appendices the different or missing accounts.
About the author
· Dr Trudy Jacobsen is an ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University and the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at the Monash Asia Institute. Her current project, Intersections of Desire, Duty and Debt, explores historical and contemporary concepts of sexual contracts in Myanmar and Cambodia.
Phnom Penh Post, Issue 15 / 05, March 10 - 23, 2006
I disagree with her assertion that "explanations of Cambodian ill-will toward the Vietnamese are vague and unsatisfactory." The "ill-will" is, in fact, well documented even back in the 17th century.
First of all, according to a Khmer chronicle, the Collection of the Council of Kingdom (1951) and Vietnamese sources, King Suryapeur (1603-1618) did not marry his son (King Jaya Cheastha II 1613-1628) to a Vietnamese lady Chov, or Ngoc Van, a daughter of Lord/Viceroy Nguyen Phuc (or Vuong Sai, 1613-1635) before he died, as Jacobsen claims. King Suryapeur died in 1619 and Cheastha II married Chov in 1620 for the reasons of mutual defense and trade interests (Vuong Sai needed him because of Champa's threat in the south and Emperor Le's threat to the North. Cheastha II needed Vuong Sai because of the constant threat from Siam).
Contrary to the general misunderstanding being also compounded by Jacobsen, Cheastha II was not "young and inexperienced." Like his successor son, he was a nationalist, a scholar and was 42 years of age by the time he married Chov. He already had had four wives, having been married since the age of 26. Chov was his last wife, after a Laotian wife, Bous.
In 1623, Cheastha II gave permission for five years only to let the Vietnamese build commercial centers in "Prey Nokor" and Kampong Krabey and to collect tax from Vietnamese-Chinese traders in addition to building military training camps to prepare for wars with Champa and Emperor Le of then Dai Viet (now Vietnam).
He did not give permission to allow Vietnamese to settle in Cambodia. Additionally, the 1623 permission might not have been as a result of an invasion, but it was smart coercion by the Vietnamese at a time when the King/Cambodia was engaging in wars defending against Siamese aggressions on two fronts: Siamese naval attacks in the south by the sea on Banteay Meas (Ha Tien) and on land from the west. A Vietnamese envoy showed up at the Royal Palace at Udong presenting a letter from Lord Vuong Sai seeking the above permission. Fearing what might come if he rejected it, the King agreed.
Five years later, the year he was supposed to get the land back, the King died. In 1638, his successor, King Angtong Rajathirajthipadey (1635-1639), asked for the return of the territories, but he was asked to delay for a while.
When King Ramathipadey (Ang Chant) in 1641 demanded the return of the land, the former Queen of Cheastha II intervened again seeking a delay. Perhaps to divert the King's attention, in 1658 the Queen openly supported the pretenders (young princes Angton and Utey) to the throne. To the Queen's disbelief, after their victory, Angton and Utey attacked the Vietnamese and demanded the return of the land.
Wars and rebellion broke out again in 1699, 1731, 1739 and up until the French arrived in 19th century. Sensing the French were about to invade Vietnam, King Ang Duong dispatched a letter dated November 25, 1856, to Napoleon III warning him that the territories from Dong Nai down to the islands of Koh Tralach (Con Dao) and Koh Trol (Phu Quoc) belong to Cambodia. "If by chance", the King stated, "Anam [Vietnam] would offer any of these lands to Your Majesty, I beg Him not to accept them for they belong to Cambodia." In 1859, the King sent troops to retake the lands. The King died in 1860 and his mission failed.
Prey Nokor's proper name was Preah Reach Nokor which, according to a Khmer Chronicle means a "Royal City"; later became locally "Preykor" meaning "kapok forest" (from which "Saigon" was derived). It was not a "Wild City" or sparsely populated as Jacobsen claims. Jacobsen ignores the fact that there were two other Khmer provinces, Kampong Srakartrei (Dong Nai) and Baria, to the north bordering Champa state. A part of the pre-Angkor capital Vyadhpura, it was a main Khmer seaport city, a center of trade for many years.
The Vinh Te canal event occurred during the reign of King Angt Chan (1797-1835), and was one of the most horrific examples of the Vietnamese treatment of the Khmer. I am appalled that Jacobsen trivializes the magnitude of the suffering. It was not just "two Vietnamese overseers" who picked out three Khmer "from the Cambodian contingents" and used their heads to cook the Yuon masters' tea. In fact, it was a national humiliation.
The K5 Plan (1979-1990) is not a valid comparison. The Vinh Te Canal Plan (which lasted four years) saw 10,000 people perish in awful circumstances, according to a British Envoy John Crawfurd's report (1830).
In 1820, the King, being an absolute hostage of the Vietnamese army, managed to engineer a rebellion led by the Venerable Kae Kong and two of the King's top officials. The rebellion failed. To avoid death, Ang Chant was forced to cede three districts of Chau Doc province to Vietnam. While in Kampuchea Krom Father Le Fevre noted the suppression: about 3 million were "subjected Cambodians" (1847).
Like the appellation of "Kling" for the Indians and "Seam" for the Thai, "Yuon" has been traditionally used by Khmer to mean "Vietnamese" for the past 2000 years. During this time "Vietnam" changed its name constantly. The term "Yuon" appears in Khmer traditional songs, poems, laws, historical texts etc.
Before its invasion, in 1978, in its campaign to demonize the KR, Vietnam politicized the terms "Yuon" and "Anam" as being pejorative. Pre-war Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia knew the term was not pejorative, but the new Vietnamese settlers who came to Cambodia in 1979 got caught up in this political nonsense. With Vietnam's foreign cronies' assistance, the Khmer are now trashed for using a traditional term that was made negative by the Vietnamese themselves. Further, "Yuon," which appears in Khmer ancient inscriptions (inscription K105 of King Suryavarman I) refers to what is recently known as "Vietnamese" and certainly not "Javanese" as Jacobsen claims: (Post 10/2/06). The term "Javanese" is Anglicized. The Khmer have always used the term, "Chvea," or Java. "Chvea" appears in three Angkorian inscriptions mentioning Jayavarman II from Java.
Jacobsen is also wrong to say past Khmer kings supported by Vietnamese "are loathed," but kings placed on the throne by Thais are "lauded". The truth is Cheastha II's father King Suryapeur was forced to abdicate because people thought he was too influenced by the Siamese (for instance, wearing Siamese royal costumes). King Suryapeur's predecessor was ousted because his mother was Laotian.
Bora Touch - Sydney
Truong Mealy - former Cambodian Ambassador to Japan
# # #
Trudy Jaconsen's Article Published in the Phnom Penh Post (March 10, 2006)
Kampuchea Krom: facts behind the friction
By Trudy Jacobsen
Many Cambodians harbor a deepseated cultural aversion towards their neighbors to the east, the Vietnamese. Yuon, a term denoting Vietnamese ethnicity, is one of the most derogatory insults Cambodians can hurl at each other during arguments. Prostitutes are popularly believed to be of Vietnamese descent, as no Cambodian girl - the model of propriety and virtue - would allow herself to be compromised in such a fashion. Past sovereigns of Cambodia supported by the Vietnamese are loathed, whereas those placed on the throne and maintained there by the Thais are lauded.
Explanations for Cambodian ill-will toward the Vietnamese are vague and unsatisfactory, usually referring to a time in the distant past when the Vietnamese are alleged to have killed hundreds of Cambodians in the course of constructing a canal between the two countries, or elucidated in terms of Vietnamese invasions of Cambodian territory and culture over the past 150 years. More recently, politicians have manipulated old concerns in this regard to garner support for their own party platforms. Yet these "justifications", always implied to have been based upon historical facts, appear to be unfounded by the very sources that would reasonably seek to demonstrate their veracity - the Cambodian Chronicles.
Let us first consider the issue of a Vietnamese "invasion" of Cambodia in the 17th century. It is true that Cambodia shrank to one-fifth its original size between the 14th and 19th centuries; but constant skirmishes with the Thais, Chams and multiple Viet dynasties were to blame rather than a wholesale invasion. The loss of Prey Nokor, the Cambodian name for what is now Ho Chi Minh City, and the area [broadly all the territory to its west] known as Kampuchea Krom in southern Vietnam, are particularly lamented. However, far from documenting any invasion, the Cambodian Chronicles reveal that the decision to part with these territories was made by a Cambodian king.
King Paramaraja IV (reigned 1603-1618) married his son and heir to a Vietnamese princess just before he died, in the hopes that the alliance would prevent the Thais from attacking. It was this Cambodian prince, who ruled as King Jai Jettha II (reigned 1618-1627), who made over the Cambodian lands along the east coast to Vietnamese hegemony.
In 1623, Jai Jettha II received a request from his father-in-law's court at Hue, asking that the territories of Prey Nokor and Kampong Krabei be handed over to Vietnamese administration. Fearing reprisal from the Vietnamese queen if they did not acquiesce, Jai Jettha II and his officials agreed, and Vietnamese settlers began moving into the area now known as Kampuchea Krom.
At the same time, Vietnamese officials began collecting the import taxes paid by merchant ships seeking entrance upriver.
On the surface this could be dismissed as a bad decision on the part of a young and inexperienced king concerned at potentially alienating his powerful in-laws. Yet it is possible that the administration of these territories had simply passed beyond the control of the Cambodian state by this point. Armies were constantly being faced to the northwest and northeast in order to stave off Thai offensives; there was no standing army available to maintain a presence on the east coast. The very name "Prey Nokor" is telling - it translates to "Wild City," implying that it was at the very least sparsely populated and ill-maintained, if not completely abandoned.
Whether the decision to part with Prey Nokor and its surrounds was made out of relief or in fear, there seems little doubt that this was a decision made by a Cambodian king, and not as a result of an invasion.
Another story exists in contemporary Cambodia to explain why the Vietnamese are dangerous and not to be trusted. The story goes that in the beginning of the 19th century, the Vietnamese wanted to build a canal between Phnom Penh and Chau Doc to facilitate transport. They conscripted a large number of both Cambodians and Vietnamese to do the work, although the foremen of the labor groups were solely Vietnamese.
The Vietnamese were very cruel toward the Cambodians, beating them with sticks to make them work faster. One day, two Vietnamese overseers were angry that the Cambodians were not fulfilling the quota of work despite repeated beatings. They selected three workers from the Cambodian contingent and buried them up to their necks in a triangular formation. Then they lit a fire in the middle and used the Cambodians' heads as cooking stones for their kettle.
The Vinh Te canal - which runs from Chau Doc to Ha Tien - itself is a historical fact; construction was begun in 1810 and continued into the 1820s, at a time when the king of Cambodia, Ang Chan (reigned 1797-1835) had turned to the Vietnamese for protection and assistance against the Thais. In return, Ang Chan was forced to embrace Vietnamese customs and language, and appoint Vietnamese officials to administrative positions. No doubt many Vietnamese abused their powers over what they saw as "backward" and "uncivilized" Cambodians. Yet this is hardly different from how Cambodians had in the past treated Chams, or Mons, or their own countrypeople from lower social classes conscripted to participate in the grandiose public works programs of Udong or Angkor.
Indeed, it is the enforced cultural changes that seem to have resonated most strongly with witnesses from the time. The Chronicles speak of enclaves of noble Cambodians taking to the forest rather than adopt Vietnamese customs, including a more "rational" taxation system, and the humiliations meted out to Ang Chan's daughters by their Vietnamese protectors.
It is hardly surprising that the almost total loss of Cambodian identity [from the former Kampuchea Krom] causes strong emotion today. Yet it is important to note that this occurred not as a result of marauding Vietnamese intent upon world domination, but as a result of policies adopted by Cambodian kings in the best interests of their people. These kings could not have foreseen how their decisions would impact upon later events; but it is imprudent to misrepresent the part that they have had in shaping relations between Cambodia and Vietnam.
The chronicles
There are 35 complete and fragmentary documents in Khmer that make up the Cambodian chronicles, found by the French in various wats, the Royal Palace, and in the possession of elite families. None date earlier than 1796.
They incorporate earlier oral histories and texts that have since been lost to the climate and upheaval of civil wars. Together these 35 documents make up eight different versions of Cambodian history.
Two Khmer scholars working in France, Khin Sok and Mak Phoeun, have translated the most comprehensive account of the chronicles into French, also offering commentaries upon dates and events, and supplying in appendices the different or missing accounts.
About the author
· Dr Trudy Jacobsen is an ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University and the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at the Monash Asia Institute. Her current project, Intersections of Desire, Duty and Debt, explores historical and contemporary concepts of sexual contracts in Myanmar and Cambodia.
Phnom Penh Post, Issue 15 / 05, March 10 - 23, 2006
2 comments:
Ms.Jacobson,
Stop putting words in Khmer mouths.Enough done by yuon toward Khmerland and people.Aborigines don't appreciate Anglo ruling but gun barrel is white supreme laws of the occupied land.Pointing is not polite in white culture and please don't do it to Khmers.Remember Yuon is no saint or savior,it gained every time it stepped in Khmer land.Have some decency woman!
Who paid her to do this article before 2008 election? Smear and insult Khmer intelligence.Never changed, she bled old sore...
Post a Comment