Khmer Grammar - Op-Ed by B. Boy
http://www.scribd.com/full/52867885?access_key=key-26ljpelxp65rlcyqmewp
Showing posts with label Keng Vannsak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keng Vannsak. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Exceprt of a video Interview with Prof. Keng Vannsak in 2006
Prof Keng Vannsak was interviewed by Perom Uch in February 2006 at his home in Montmorency, France
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Death of Keng Vannsak: an intellectual who left a deep imprint on Cambodians
Paris (France), 2005. Keng Vannsak (© Khing Hoc Dy)[KI-Media note: Behind Prof. Keng Vannsak is a portrait of his first wife, Suzanne Colleville]
31-12-2008
By Stéphanie Gée
Ka-set in English
Click here to read the article in French
Click here to read the article in Khmer
Professor Keng Vannsak died after a long illness on December 18th at the age of 83, at the Montmorency hospital in Paris, France. He influenced generations of Cambodian intellectuals and leaves behind him a legacy including two drama plays, many poems and his research work. A true admirer of Khmer civilisation, he stood up all his life for these values. Strongly opposed to the Cambodian monarchy, he was also well-known for his role as a mentor for young Saloth Sar, later to be known as the sanguinary Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot.
Keng Vannsak was born in 1925 in a village in the Kampong Chhnang province. After obtaining his baccalaureate in Philosophy in 1946 in Phnom Penh, he continued his studies in Paris with a scholarship and worked as a Khmer-language assistant at the National School of Modern Eastern Languages (Ecole Nationale des Langues Orientales). During the course of his studies, in the capital he took two years out to go to England and teach Khmer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
He married French national Suzanne Colleville, who shared with him a passion for Eastern languages: she held diplomas in the Cambodian, Lao and Thai languages but also obtained a degree in Physical Science at the University of Caen, as revealed by Khing Hoc Dy, a former student and friend of Keng Vannsak's, in an article soon to be published. In 1952, he returned to Cambodia with his wife and a brand new B.A. Degree which he obtained at the Faculty of Literature and Human Science University of Paris in 1951. He took up the position of teacher at the prestigious Lycée Sisowath in Phnom Penh and stayed there from 1952 to 1958.
A mentor for Cambodian students in Paris
Keng Vannsak became one of the key-figures of the Cambodian student community in Paris. As reminded by historian Philip Short in his book entitled Pol Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare[*], during the winter of 1950, more exclusive student meetings took place several times every month at Keng Vannsak's Paris flat “to discuss political issues and more precisely about the future of Cambodia, a country which, for the first time, was directly affected by the war in Vietnam”. The historian explains that these meetings “marked the beginning of [Saloth Sar's] political training”.
At that time, Philip Short details, communism was not their main worry. The historian recalls that “Keng Vannsak himself, however more aware of political reality than most of his fellow-students, involuntarily offended a young Frenchwoman of the high bourgeoisie by offering her, a year before, to go and spend the afternoon at the Fête de l'Humanité, organised by the French Communist Party. 'I had no idea it was a Communist do', he protested. 'I thought it was just a celebration for humanity, that's all'...” Keng Vannsak's studies Circle, as summarised by the historian, “stayed away from political labels”, since its members considered themselves more as part of a “progressist” trend.
Very quickly, however, the most radical of his friends began distancing themselves from him. He covered for the president of the Cambodian Students Association when the group was invited to attend “youngsters' world peace celebrations” in Berlin but was eventually asked not to go with the group just before they were due to leave. “Half a century later, Vannsak still fulminated” at the simple idea of it, Philip Short says. Keng Vannsak explained to him that the other ones wanted to get rid of him. He quotes him: “They knew that I was not the tough kind like them. I thought too much... I was not a stubborn person and did not act with fanaticism nor like an extremist. ..] Ieng Sary [a former high school classmate who later became Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Khmer Rouge government] himself told me later: 'You are too sensitive. You will never be a politician. In order to make politics, you have to be tough... You will not get there, brother. You are too sentimental'”.
A Khmer culture lover
In 1958, Keng Vannsak went to teach at the national Pedagogical Institute, and was in the meantime a member of the Secondary Education Khmer Language and Literature Programme. He then took up the position of Professor of Khmer Literature, Culture and Civilisation at the Buddhist University of Phnom Penh, where he worked until 1968 before being in charge of the Khmer inscriptions department at the University of Fine Arts from 1969 to 1970, applying himself to dedicating his work to the promotion and defence of the Khmer language and culture. In the 1960s, he campaigned for the simplification of the Khmer language, thus spurring a decisive will for reforms. The necessity for such change appeared to him in 1952 as he was developing the first typewriter keyboard with Khmer signs.
In April 1970, Keng Vannsak went back to France to prepare a PhD Thesis entitled “Recherche d'un fond culturel khmer” (Research on a Khmer cultural inventory), which he presented the following year in Paris. Like many other researchers, Khing Hoc Dy sees Keng Vannsak as a “great scholar, one of the rare intellectuals in Cambodia – if not the only one - who had a long-term, universal vision and concept of our Khmer culture and civilisation”.
A staunch anti-monarchist
In 1952, as he was in Paris, Keng Vannsak had strongly criticised Norodom Sihanouk who had just granted himself extraordinary powers and had launched a “Royal Crusade” as a response to troubles caused by Son Ngoc Than and his followers. The exiled teacher wrote a series of poems and published them in 1954 under the title “Coeur Vierge” (Virgin Heart), in which he “used Buddhist metaphors to launch encrypted attacks against the monarchy”, Philip Short observes, adding that the intellectual became, from then on, one of Norodom Sihanouk's “bêtes noires”. Under his regime, Keng Vannsak was sent twice to prison.
At the end of 1954, Kang Vannsak became a member of the Democratic Party, aiming at launching an internal reform of the Party. Being the leader of the Democratic Party and representing it in the 1955 legislative elections, “He was openly against the throne and especially and directly opposed Samdech Norodom Sihanouk, founder of the Sangkum Reastr Niyum Party”, Khing Hoc Dy details. After the the Democratic party failure in the elections, he was sent to prison by the Sangkum government from September 13th to October 10th 1955. After his release, he published poems he had written while in jail, which had a very strong influence on Khmer writers at the time.”
"Keng Vannsak never supported Communist ideas; however, he always opposed monarchical power. All the political currents which later opposed the Throne found their inspiration in Vannsak's ideas; and afterwards, each one of them reformulated them with their 'idealogical touch'. This goes for the Khmer Rouge but also the Republican anti-monarchical trend”, Nasir Abdoul-Carime writes in an article published in the AEFEK Bulletin (Association for Khmer Studies Exchanges and Training).
In 1968, after the Samlaut uprising, followed by severe reprisals, he was placed under house arrest with an interdiction to teach after being accused inciting sedition among his students. When his house was searched, Khing Hoc Dy reports, policemen found in his personal library books about Marx, Mao Tse Toung, Lenin and magazines about China... The discovery led to his arrest.
The Jayavarman VII controversy
In an interview given in early February 2007 with Radio Free Asia, Professor Keng Vannsak revisited the generally laudatory portrait of Jayavarman VII, and somehow darkened it. He is said to have declared that the great King at the origin of the building of many temples including the highly-revered Bayon temple, had Cham blood running in his veins, and that he had lent part of the Khmer territory to the Siamese... These assertions gave rise to a vigorous outcry and anger on the part of many.
Following the outcry, Keng Vannsak explained that he only aimed at re-establishing a certain historical truth, and certainly not destroying national unity by attacking one of its main symbols.
The intellectual retained a certain aura even in exile
Keng Vannsak was only rehabilitated after Lon Nol's military coup in March 1970 and took up the leadership of a Khmer-Mon Institute, founded by Lon Nol, “in order to make Khmer citizens proud of being Khmer and reunite all Khmer around this cultural inheritance serving as a weapon capable of opposing Vietnamese communist imperialism”, Khing Hoc Dy points out.
Appointed in 1971 as deputy representative of Cambodia's permanent delegation to UNESCO and chargé d'affaires of Lon Nol's Khmer Republic in France, Keng Vannsak never left Rfrance from then on. When the Khmer Rouge came to power, he instantly sensed, with amazing precision, the extent of the disaster befalling his country. In a long poem written in French, he was one of the first to denounce slaughters and purges, without however managing to break the silence on the situation of Cambodia. He tried to publish the poem in Paris, without success.
He lived on the outskirts of Paris until his death, and although he never returned to his homeland, he never forgot it.
In a last eulogy, Keng Vannsak's friend, Khing Hoc Dy described him as a person filled with kindness and always ready to answer all the questions of his Cambodian and foreign former students, colleagues and researchers about Cambodian history and civilisation [...], the memory of a welcoming man who spoke with energy and with a voice as pleasant as the sound of water running on rocks. A true linguist, he could speak for a whole day without ever stopping”.
* Philip Short, Pol Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare, Henry Holt & Co, 2005
Keng Vannsak was born in 1925 in a village in the Kampong Chhnang province. After obtaining his baccalaureate in Philosophy in 1946 in Phnom Penh, he continued his studies in Paris with a scholarship and worked as a Khmer-language assistant at the National School of Modern Eastern Languages (Ecole Nationale des Langues Orientales). During the course of his studies, in the capital he took two years out to go to England and teach Khmer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
He married French national Suzanne Colleville, who shared with him a passion for Eastern languages: she held diplomas in the Cambodian, Lao and Thai languages but also obtained a degree in Physical Science at the University of Caen, as revealed by Khing Hoc Dy, a former student and friend of Keng Vannsak's, in an article soon to be published. In 1952, he returned to Cambodia with his wife and a brand new B.A. Degree which he obtained at the Faculty of Literature and Human Science University of Paris in 1951. He took up the position of teacher at the prestigious Lycée Sisowath in Phnom Penh and stayed there from 1952 to 1958.
A mentor for Cambodian students in Paris
Keng Vannsak became one of the key-figures of the Cambodian student community in Paris. As reminded by historian Philip Short in his book entitled Pol Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare[*], during the winter of 1950, more exclusive student meetings took place several times every month at Keng Vannsak's Paris flat “to discuss political issues and more precisely about the future of Cambodia, a country which, for the first time, was directly affected by the war in Vietnam”. The historian explains that these meetings “marked the beginning of [Saloth Sar's] political training”.
At that time, Philip Short details, communism was not their main worry. The historian recalls that “Keng Vannsak himself, however more aware of political reality than most of his fellow-students, involuntarily offended a young Frenchwoman of the high bourgeoisie by offering her, a year before, to go and spend the afternoon at the Fête de l'Humanité, organised by the French Communist Party. 'I had no idea it was a Communist do', he protested. 'I thought it was just a celebration for humanity, that's all'...” Keng Vannsak's studies Circle, as summarised by the historian, “stayed away from political labels”, since its members considered themselves more as part of a “progressist” trend.
Very quickly, however, the most radical of his friends began distancing themselves from him. He covered for the president of the Cambodian Students Association when the group was invited to attend “youngsters' world peace celebrations” in Berlin but was eventually asked not to go with the group just before they were due to leave. “Half a century later, Vannsak still fulminated” at the simple idea of it, Philip Short says. Keng Vannsak explained to him that the other ones wanted to get rid of him. He quotes him: “They knew that I was not the tough kind like them. I thought too much... I was not a stubborn person and did not act with fanaticism nor like an extremist. ..] Ieng Sary [a former high school classmate who later became Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Khmer Rouge government] himself told me later: 'You are too sensitive. You will never be a politician. In order to make politics, you have to be tough... You will not get there, brother. You are too sentimental'”.
A Khmer culture lover
In 1958, Keng Vannsak went to teach at the national Pedagogical Institute, and was in the meantime a member of the Secondary Education Khmer Language and Literature Programme. He then took up the position of Professor of Khmer Literature, Culture and Civilisation at the Buddhist University of Phnom Penh, where he worked until 1968 before being in charge of the Khmer inscriptions department at the University of Fine Arts from 1969 to 1970, applying himself to dedicating his work to the promotion and defence of the Khmer language and culture. In the 1960s, he campaigned for the simplification of the Khmer language, thus spurring a decisive will for reforms. The necessity for such change appeared to him in 1952 as he was developing the first typewriter keyboard with Khmer signs.
In April 1970, Keng Vannsak went back to France to prepare a PhD Thesis entitled “Recherche d'un fond culturel khmer” (Research on a Khmer cultural inventory), which he presented the following year in Paris. Like many other researchers, Khing Hoc Dy sees Keng Vannsak as a “great scholar, one of the rare intellectuals in Cambodia – if not the only one - who had a long-term, universal vision and concept of our Khmer culture and civilisation”.
A staunch anti-monarchist
In 1952, as he was in Paris, Keng Vannsak had strongly criticised Norodom Sihanouk who had just granted himself extraordinary powers and had launched a “Royal Crusade” as a response to troubles caused by Son Ngoc Than and his followers. The exiled teacher wrote a series of poems and published them in 1954 under the title “Coeur Vierge” (Virgin Heart), in which he “used Buddhist metaphors to launch encrypted attacks against the monarchy”, Philip Short observes, adding that the intellectual became, from then on, one of Norodom Sihanouk's “bêtes noires”. Under his regime, Keng Vannsak was sent twice to prison.
At the end of 1954, Kang Vannsak became a member of the Democratic Party, aiming at launching an internal reform of the Party. Being the leader of the Democratic Party and representing it in the 1955 legislative elections, “He was openly against the throne and especially and directly opposed Samdech Norodom Sihanouk, founder of the Sangkum Reastr Niyum Party”, Khing Hoc Dy details. After the the Democratic party failure in the elections, he was sent to prison by the Sangkum government from September 13th to October 10th 1955. After his release, he published poems he had written while in jail, which had a very strong influence on Khmer writers at the time.”
"Keng Vannsak never supported Communist ideas; however, he always opposed monarchical power. All the political currents which later opposed the Throne found their inspiration in Vannsak's ideas; and afterwards, each one of them reformulated them with their 'idealogical touch'. This goes for the Khmer Rouge but also the Republican anti-monarchical trend”, Nasir Abdoul-Carime writes in an article published in the AEFEK Bulletin (Association for Khmer Studies Exchanges and Training).
In 1968, after the Samlaut uprising, followed by severe reprisals, he was placed under house arrest with an interdiction to teach after being accused inciting sedition among his students. When his house was searched, Khing Hoc Dy reports, policemen found in his personal library books about Marx, Mao Tse Toung, Lenin and magazines about China... The discovery led to his arrest.
The Jayavarman VII controversy
In an interview given in early February 2007 with Radio Free Asia, Professor Keng Vannsak revisited the generally laudatory portrait of Jayavarman VII, and somehow darkened it. He is said to have declared that the great King at the origin of the building of many temples including the highly-revered Bayon temple, had Cham blood running in his veins, and that he had lent part of the Khmer territory to the Siamese... These assertions gave rise to a vigorous outcry and anger on the part of many.
Following the outcry, Keng Vannsak explained that he only aimed at re-establishing a certain historical truth, and certainly not destroying national unity by attacking one of its main symbols.
The intellectual retained a certain aura even in exile
Keng Vannsak was only rehabilitated after Lon Nol's military coup in March 1970 and took up the leadership of a Khmer-Mon Institute, founded by Lon Nol, “in order to make Khmer citizens proud of being Khmer and reunite all Khmer around this cultural inheritance serving as a weapon capable of opposing Vietnamese communist imperialism”, Khing Hoc Dy points out.
Appointed in 1971 as deputy representative of Cambodia's permanent delegation to UNESCO and chargé d'affaires of Lon Nol's Khmer Republic in France, Keng Vannsak never left Rfrance from then on. When the Khmer Rouge came to power, he instantly sensed, with amazing precision, the extent of the disaster befalling his country. In a long poem written in French, he was one of the first to denounce slaughters and purges, without however managing to break the silence on the situation of Cambodia. He tried to publish the poem in Paris, without success.
He lived on the outskirts of Paris until his death, and although he never returned to his homeland, he never forgot it.
In a last eulogy, Keng Vannsak's friend, Khing Hoc Dy described him as a person filled with kindness and always ready to answer all the questions of his Cambodian and foreign former students, colleagues and researchers about Cambodian history and civilisation [...], the memory of a welcoming man who spoke with energy and with a voice as pleasant as the sound of water running on rocks. A true linguist, he could speak for a whole day without ever stopping”.
* Philip Short, Pol Pot – Anatomy of a Nightmare, Henry Holt & Co, 2005
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Keng Vannsak email scam
Some of you might have received the same email as me. Today, I just received an email from someone who purported and claimed to be Prof. Keng Vannsak. I knew that the email is not from Prof. Keng Vannsak as he had already passed away. And the language used in the text was not a language spoken/written by a learned man like Prof. Keng Vannsak. The person/persons who had written this email has only one intention, and that is to destroy his good reputation. Whatever disagreements people might have with him, I hope they will leave him and his soul to rest in peace. Please click to read to judge for yourself.
Note: This is the email address that was used to send the above email to me: kengvansak@yahoo.fr . Please note that even the spelling of his name is incorrect. Vannsak is spelled with double "n", not one "n".
Khmerization
Monday, December 22, 2008
Dedication to the memory of Prof. Keng Vannsak - A Poem in Khmer by Hin Sithan
Prof. Keng Vannsak (1925-2008)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Emeritus Professor Keng Vannsak has died
Radio Free Asia
By San Suwit
19th December, 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization
The famed emeritus professor of Khmer literature, Prof. Keng Vannsak (pictured), has passed away on Thursday (18th December) in a hospital in Montmorency, about 13 kilometres north of Paris.
Prof. Keng Vannsak, the former professor of Lycee Sisowath who was the inventor of Khmer typewriter and was the author of many books on Khmer culture, literature, Khmer theatre, poetry and short stories since the 1940s, has passed away age 84 at a hospital in Montmorency at 12:12pm.
One of his close associates told Radio Free Asia that he had died of lung failures. He said: “Yesterday he went to the hospital because he got a temperature and felt shiver for the past 4 days. The doctors admitted him to an intensive care unit. And this morning I telephoned him but the doctors told me that he is in a coma and they asked if I am his relative and if I wanted to see him I must see him now before his passed away. At 12:20 (pm) they called me and told me that he had already passed away.”
His closest friend said that Prof. Keng Vannsak wished to have his ashes buried in the same stupa as his mother’s ashes in Cambodia. He said that Prof. Keng Vannsak has no relatives or children to continue is surname. Prof. Keng Vannsak is survived by his wife, Sivorn, who is now living in France.
By San Suwit
19th December, 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization
The famed emeritus professor of Khmer literature, Prof. Keng Vannsak (pictured), has passed away on Thursday (18th December) in a hospital in Montmorency, about 13 kilometres north of Paris.
Prof. Keng Vannsak, the former professor of Lycee Sisowath who was the inventor of Khmer typewriter and was the author of many books on Khmer culture, literature, Khmer theatre, poetry and short stories since the 1940s, has passed away age 84 at a hospital in Montmorency at 12:12pm.
One of his close associates told Radio Free Asia that he had died of lung failures. He said: “Yesterday he went to the hospital because he got a temperature and felt shiver for the past 4 days. The doctors admitted him to an intensive care unit. And this morning I telephoned him but the doctors told me that he is in a coma and they asked if I am his relative and if I wanted to see him I must see him now before his passed away. At 12:20 (pm) they called me and told me that he had already passed away.”
His closest friend said that Prof. Keng Vannsak wished to have his ashes buried in the same stupa as his mother’s ashes in Cambodia. He said that Prof. Keng Vannsak has no relatives or children to continue is surname. Prof. Keng Vannsak is survived by his wife, Sivorn, who is now living in France.
Prof Keng Vannsak and Khmer Progressist
Op-Ed by BaphuonOriginally posted on the web on 21 Feb 2007
Mr. Vannsak and Suzanne, his wife, were my professors at Lycée Sisowath, classes Math Elem. They were loved and respected by their students. Vannsak teachings influenced the political thinking of my generation. Vannsak was a brilliant student at Sorbonne University in the 1950s.
Sometimes you agree with his theory, sometimes you don’t. But as scholar he was very prolific in ideas and created so many threads to keep the political debate alive and interesting.
In the US, 95% of the University professors, Harvard, Yale etc, well known as the generation of anti-Vietnam War, are liberal. They shaped the American thinking, the American foreign policy and financial, political and social policy. But the US policy was not necessary liberal. First of all, as any other country in the world, American defended American interests. It could be hawk, and it could be liberal.
So the professors might be liberal but their students could also be conservative.
In international policy, it needs the American leadership to get something done. The UN charter, the NATO Treaty, and the International Court of Justice etc… were all American concept. In any international conference, it needed American plan, American proposal, American structure of discussion to reach an agreement. Brief, it needs American leadership to achieve a common goal. This created jealousy.
In Cambodia, Vietnam ordered the CPP people to hate the American, and speak badly about the US policy and glorify Vietnam as the heroic country which defeated the first power in the world.
Sharp contrast between Vietnamese and Cambodian reception of former President Clinton
On December 4, 2006, former President Clinton visited officially Cambodia to sign a memorandum for the foundation to continue supporting and expand pediatric treatment of HIV/AIDS in Cambodia.
Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries, has an HIV infection rate of 1.9 percent for people aged 15-49, among the highest in Southeast Asia. The rate has been significantly reduced from 3 percent in 1997.
About 20,000 children under the age of 15 live with HIV or AIDS in Cambodia, out of a total 123,000 people who are either infected with the virus or have the full-blown disease.
It is noteworthy the sharp contrast between Cambodia and Vietnam reception of the former President Bill Clinton. It tends to convince that Vietnam is smart and Cambodia is dumb.
Indeed, Clinton was received by Om Yi Tieng, an insignificant minister at his arrival at Phnom Penh airport during his visit to Cambodia while he was received with great pomp and honor at Hanoi airport by Prime Minister of Vietnam off Clinton airplane.
Vietnam spoke sweetly peace but in the back Vietnam make war
Is Hun Sen. dumb for not seeing the importance of the courtesy we own to President Clinton for helping our HIV/AID infected people? Or Hun Sen. is afraid of Hanoi?
For the CPP, January 7th 1979 was the CPP Victory against the Khmer Rouge
Up to today, Vietnam celebrated publicly and officially every year the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. It was a public celebration. Vietnamese Public radio and TV and presses all together celebrated the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. Vietnam officials did not hide it under the friendship anymore.
January 7th, 1979 was: Ho Chi Minh dream comes true. Vietnam conquers Indochina. All the three countries, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos unified under Vietnam rule. Just read Vietnamese presses and listen to Vietnam radio and watch Vietnam TV on January 7th to convince that Vietnam intention was to swallow head to toe Cambodia, said Thach Chan.
Vannsak’s actions had always impact in the public conscience. He was courageous to speak out his mind. A dozen years ago, Hun Sen. warned Vannsak: Do not engage in political party. If you do, you will be assassinated.
Even now, after his recent Jayavarman VII statement, Vannsak was still popular in Cambodia. He attracted so much attention to the point that Kem Sos, the director of RFA, had to ask him to make a kind of apology to cool down the atmosphere. The CPP might use that particular scholar discussion to redo another sack in the style of the sack of Thailand Embassy on February 2, 2003.
In the US, some American scholars, specialists in Cambodia policy, would like to invite Vannsak to their department to make speeches. Some of my friends are working on this.
During the first years of 1950s, Indochina was in ebullition. Ho Chi Minh and Vietnamese movements fought aggressively against French colonialist.
In 1950, Cambodian students in Paris, France, started to discuss how to fight France for the independence of Cambodia. Their leaders were: Keng Vannsak, Phuong Ton, Ea Sichau, Hang Thun Hak, Sum Vaddhana You, Thioun Mom, Hou Yon etc.
When the majority of his peers kept quiet, Vannsak denounced the monarchy and King Sihanouk. King Sihanouk at that time did nothing for Cambodia independence. His spent his time in the movies and entertained his royal court, said Vannsak.
In 1953, the Vietminh derailed the train Phnom Penh-Battambang and slaughtered all the voyagers. Jump to the occasion, Vannsak wrote in the Union des Etudients Khmers magazine under a pen name: "The Khmer monarchy is a leech which sucked Khmer people blood. The King did nothing while the people suffered. The monarchy did nothing for the liberation of Cambodia."
King Sihanouk exploded angrily. Then he cut off all the funding of the scholarship of those Khmer students.
Khmer students acknowledged that Vietnam was much well organized for the liberation war. Vietnam was far better organized than Cambodia.
All Khmer student leaders agreed: If Cambodia was not organized to liberate Cambodia from France colonialism, Cambodia would fall under Vietnamese yoke when France was defeated and forced to leave Indochina. Then Vietnam would replace France to annex Cambodia under Vietnamese rule. Khmer students in Paris knew so well that extreme danger that Cambodia would face in the next decade.
But the question is: How to organize Cambodian armed resistance independent from Vietnam to fight for Cambodia independence? How to get the arms and ammunitions? What country would give Khmer resistance armament and finance to fight against France?
War for the independence from France and Vietnam…will be long, said Hang Thun Hak. We should learn how to fight and how to organize the guerilla warfare from other armed force struggle movements, added Hang Thun Hak. We should learn from the armed struggle in the Middle East. We should send our people to learn there, said Hang Thun Hak who was well known among leftist artists and well connected to the Middle East armed resistance. Those Khmer Student leaders including even the communist Khmers did never ever trust the Vietnamese.
The only countries that might provide armament to fight the imperialist (France and later the US) were Russia and China. But Russia and China had their own agenda. Russia would like to have the absolute control of the Kommintern. All armed resistance should be under her thumb. China had her own policy too.
When Ea Si Chau tried to get the arms directly from Russia through French communist party, he got no as answer. Indeed, you should cooperate with Ho, because everything should go trough Ho Chi Minh, the delegate of Kommintern for Indochina, said French communist leader.
Then Ea Si Chau made a last try with the Republic of China to get the armament for Cambodian armed resistance. Ea Si Chau was a Hautes Etudes Commerciales alumnus, the French equivalent to Harvard MBA, left Phnom Penh by boat to Hong Kong then to Beijing. The communist Chinese leaders told Si Chau that King Sihanouk is very popular. The moment is not yet propitious for popular war. Mao said to him, in popular war you have to suffer, endure the sacrifice to succeed. You have to wait, be patient, added Chou En Lai.
Ea Si Chau returned to Cambodia with empty hand
After several tries to get armament from communist countries, Vietnamese communists and Cambodian armed resistance arrived to the same conclusion: They ought to purchase armament for the armed resistance by their own means.
For this reason, Battambang and Siemreap provinces play a vital role in the purchase of arms and ammunitions from Thailand. This explained also, why a Battambang and Siemreap province was the cradle of all revolutionary movements, Vietminh, Khmer Issaraks, Dap Chhuon, Khmer Serey etc…
From the start, Vannsak did not fit in any armed struggle. He is a thinker, a philosopher but not an armed fighter whereas Hang Thun Hak and Ea Si Chau and Roth Samoeun and the communist believed that political change ought to be through an armed struggle. But the communist always talk sweetly peace while in the back make war.
Baphuon
Sometimes you agree with his theory, sometimes you don’t. But as scholar he was very prolific in ideas and created so many threads to keep the political debate alive and interesting.
In the US, 95% of the University professors, Harvard, Yale etc, well known as the generation of anti-Vietnam War, are liberal. They shaped the American thinking, the American foreign policy and financial, political and social policy. But the US policy was not necessary liberal. First of all, as any other country in the world, American defended American interests. It could be hawk, and it could be liberal.
So the professors might be liberal but their students could also be conservative.
In international policy, it needs the American leadership to get something done. The UN charter, the NATO Treaty, and the International Court of Justice etc… were all American concept. In any international conference, it needed American plan, American proposal, American structure of discussion to reach an agreement. Brief, it needs American leadership to achieve a common goal. This created jealousy.
In Cambodia, Vietnam ordered the CPP people to hate the American, and speak badly about the US policy and glorify Vietnam as the heroic country which defeated the first power in the world.
Sharp contrast between Vietnamese and Cambodian reception of former President Clinton
On December 4, 2006, former President Clinton visited officially Cambodia to sign a memorandum for the foundation to continue supporting and expand pediatric treatment of HIV/AIDS in Cambodia.
Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries, has an HIV infection rate of 1.9 percent for people aged 15-49, among the highest in Southeast Asia. The rate has been significantly reduced from 3 percent in 1997.
About 20,000 children under the age of 15 live with HIV or AIDS in Cambodia, out of a total 123,000 people who are either infected with the virus or have the full-blown disease.
It is noteworthy the sharp contrast between Cambodia and Vietnam reception of the former President Bill Clinton. It tends to convince that Vietnam is smart and Cambodia is dumb.
Indeed, Clinton was received by Om Yi Tieng, an insignificant minister at his arrival at Phnom Penh airport during his visit to Cambodia while he was received with great pomp and honor at Hanoi airport by Prime Minister of Vietnam off Clinton airplane.
Vietnam spoke sweetly peace but in the back Vietnam make war
Is Hun Sen. dumb for not seeing the importance of the courtesy we own to President Clinton for helping our HIV/AID infected people? Or Hun Sen. is afraid of Hanoi?
For the CPP, January 7th 1979 was the CPP Victory against the Khmer Rouge
Up to today, Vietnam celebrated publicly and officially every year the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. It was a public celebration. Vietnamese Public radio and TV and presses all together celebrated the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. Vietnam officials did not hide it under the friendship anymore.
January 7th, 1979 was: Ho Chi Minh dream comes true. Vietnam conquers Indochina. All the three countries, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos unified under Vietnam rule. Just read Vietnamese presses and listen to Vietnam radio and watch Vietnam TV on January 7th to convince that Vietnam intention was to swallow head to toe Cambodia, said Thach Chan.
Vannsak’s actions had always impact in the public conscience. He was courageous to speak out his mind. A dozen years ago, Hun Sen. warned Vannsak: Do not engage in political party. If you do, you will be assassinated.
Even now, after his recent Jayavarman VII statement, Vannsak was still popular in Cambodia. He attracted so much attention to the point that Kem Sos, the director of RFA, had to ask him to make a kind of apology to cool down the atmosphere. The CPP might use that particular scholar discussion to redo another sack in the style of the sack of Thailand Embassy on February 2, 2003.
In the US, some American scholars, specialists in Cambodia policy, would like to invite Vannsak to their department to make speeches. Some of my friends are working on this.
During the first years of 1950s, Indochina was in ebullition. Ho Chi Minh and Vietnamese movements fought aggressively against French colonialist.
In 1950, Cambodian students in Paris, France, started to discuss how to fight France for the independence of Cambodia. Their leaders were: Keng Vannsak, Phuong Ton, Ea Sichau, Hang Thun Hak, Sum Vaddhana You, Thioun Mom, Hou Yon etc.
When the majority of his peers kept quiet, Vannsak denounced the monarchy and King Sihanouk. King Sihanouk at that time did nothing for Cambodia independence. His spent his time in the movies and entertained his royal court, said Vannsak.
In 1953, the Vietminh derailed the train Phnom Penh-Battambang and slaughtered all the voyagers. Jump to the occasion, Vannsak wrote in the Union des Etudients Khmers magazine under a pen name: "The Khmer monarchy is a leech which sucked Khmer people blood. The King did nothing while the people suffered. The monarchy did nothing for the liberation of Cambodia."
King Sihanouk exploded angrily. Then he cut off all the funding of the scholarship of those Khmer students.
Khmer students acknowledged that Vietnam was much well organized for the liberation war. Vietnam was far better organized than Cambodia.
All Khmer student leaders agreed: If Cambodia was not organized to liberate Cambodia from France colonialism, Cambodia would fall under Vietnamese yoke when France was defeated and forced to leave Indochina. Then Vietnam would replace France to annex Cambodia under Vietnamese rule. Khmer students in Paris knew so well that extreme danger that Cambodia would face in the next decade.
But the question is: How to organize Cambodian armed resistance independent from Vietnam to fight for Cambodia independence? How to get the arms and ammunitions? What country would give Khmer resistance armament and finance to fight against France?
War for the independence from France and Vietnam…will be long, said Hang Thun Hak. We should learn how to fight and how to organize the guerilla warfare from other armed force struggle movements, added Hang Thun Hak. We should learn from the armed struggle in the Middle East. We should send our people to learn there, said Hang Thun Hak who was well known among leftist artists and well connected to the Middle East armed resistance. Those Khmer Student leaders including even the communist Khmers did never ever trust the Vietnamese.
The only countries that might provide armament to fight the imperialist (France and later the US) were Russia and China. But Russia and China had their own agenda. Russia would like to have the absolute control of the Kommintern. All armed resistance should be under her thumb. China had her own policy too.
When Ea Si Chau tried to get the arms directly from Russia through French communist party, he got no as answer. Indeed, you should cooperate with Ho, because everything should go trough Ho Chi Minh, the delegate of Kommintern for Indochina, said French communist leader.
Then Ea Si Chau made a last try with the Republic of China to get the armament for Cambodian armed resistance. Ea Si Chau was a Hautes Etudes Commerciales alumnus, the French equivalent to Harvard MBA, left Phnom Penh by boat to Hong Kong then to Beijing. The communist Chinese leaders told Si Chau that King Sihanouk is very popular. The moment is not yet propitious for popular war. Mao said to him, in popular war you have to suffer, endure the sacrifice to succeed. You have to wait, be patient, added Chou En Lai.
Ea Si Chau returned to Cambodia with empty hand
After several tries to get armament from communist countries, Vietnamese communists and Cambodian armed resistance arrived to the same conclusion: They ought to purchase armament for the armed resistance by their own means.
For this reason, Battambang and Siemreap provinces play a vital role in the purchase of arms and ammunitions from Thailand. This explained also, why a Battambang and Siemreap province was the cradle of all revolutionary movements, Vietminh, Khmer Issaraks, Dap Chhuon, Khmer Serey etc…
From the start, Vannsak did not fit in any armed struggle. He is a thinker, a philosopher but not an armed fighter whereas Hang Thun Hak and Ea Si Chau and Roth Samoeun and the communist believed that political change ought to be through an armed struggle. But the communist always talk sweetly peace while in the back make war.
Baphuon
Friday, December 19, 2008
Unconfirmed news: Prof. Keng Vannsak passed away on Thursday afternoon in France
Prof. Keng Vannsak (1925-2008?)Friday, December 19, 2008
CAUTION: NEWS TO BE CONFIRMED YET
KI-Media sadly learnt through Artist Sacrava that Prof. Keng Vannsak passed away on Thursday afternoon at a hospital in Paris, France. If the news is confirmed, Cambodia has lost an important Cambodian historian and literary scholar. KI-Media would like to present our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Prof. Keng Vannsak.
If any of our readers can confirm this news, please share the information. Thank you!
If any of our readers can confirm this news, please share the information. Thank you!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Kuk Kam Ti Pi - A Poem Dedicated to Prof. Keng Vannsak by one of his former student
Click on the poem to zoom inCartoonist Sacrava indicated that on April 29, 2008, some Cambodian friends of Prof. Keng Vannsak were invited for lunch at Prof. Keng Vannsak's home. But, as it turned out, the lunch was in fact a wedding reception between the professor, an 83-year old groom, and Yvonne, his 38-year-old Vietnamese bride. Shocked and unable to stand some of the scenes they witnessed, Prof. Keng Vannsak's Cambodian friends left his house. To their great surprise, when they left, they also found out that two boxes of Prof. Keng Vannsak's writing were lying in the garbage can. We suspect that this event may have inspired the Khmer poem above by Ms. Ulla Uma, a former student of Prof. Keng Vannsak, dedicated to her former teacher. It should be noted also that Prof. Keng Vannsak wrote a book titled: Kuk Kam Kek-less.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Prof Keng Vannsak and Khmer Progressist
21 Feb 2007
By Baphuon
Op-Ed posted online by one of
Prof Keng Vannsak's former student
By Baphuon
Op-Ed posted online by one of
Prof Keng Vannsak's former student
Mr. Vannsak and Suzanne, his wife, were my professors at Lycée Sisowath, classe Math Elem. They were loved and respected by their students. Vannsak teachings influenced the political thinking of my generation. Vannsak was a brilliant student at Sorbonne University in the 1950s .
Sometimes you agree with his theory, sometimes you don't. But as scholar he was very prolific in ideas and created so much threads to keep the political debate alive and interesting.
In the US , 95% of the University professors, Harvard, Yale etc, well known as the generation of anti-Vietnam War, are liberal. They shaped the American thinking, the American foreign policy and financial, political and social policy. But the US policy was not necessary liberal. First of all, as any other country in the world, American defended American interests. It could be hawk, and it could be liberal.
So the professors might be liberal but their students could also be conservative.
In international policy, it needs the American leadership to get something done. The UN charter, the NATO Treaty, and the International Court of Justice etc... were all American concept. In any international conference, it needed American plan, American proposal, American structure of discussion to reach an agreement. Brief, it needs American leadership to achieve a common goal. This created jealousy.
In Cambodia , Vietnam ordered the CPP people to hate the American, and speak bad about the US policy and glorify Vietnam as the heroic country which defeated the first power in the world.
Sharp contrast between Vietnamese and Cambodian reception of former President Clinton.
On December 4, 2006, former President Clinton visited officially Cambodia to sign a memorandum for the foundation to continue supporting and expand pediatric treatment of HIV/AIDS in Cambodia.
Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries, has an HIV infection rate of 1.9 percent for people aged 15-49, among the highest in Southeast Asia . The rate has been significantly reduced from 3 percent in 1997.
About 20,000 children under the age of 15 live with HIV or AIDS in Cambodia , out of a total 123,000 people who are either infected with the virus or have the full-blown disease.
It is noteworthy the sharp contrast between Cambodia and Vietnam reception of the former President Bill Clinton. It tends to convince that Vietnam is smart and Cambodia is dumb.
Indeed, Clinton was received by Om Yin Tieng, an insignificant minister at his arrival at Phnom Penh airport during his visit to Cambodia while he was received with great pomp and honor at Hanoi airport by Prime Minister of Vietnam off Clinton airplane.
Vietnam spoke sweetly peace but in the back Vietnam make war.
Is Hun Sen dumb for not seeing the importance of the courtesy we own to President Clinton for helping our HIV/AID infected people? Or Hun Sen is afraid of Hanoi ?
For the CPP, January 7th 1979 was the CPP Victory against the Khmer Rouge.
Up to today, Vietnam celebrated publicly and officially every year the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. It was a public celebration. Vietnamese Public radio and TV and presses all together celebrated the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. Vietnam officials did not hide it under the friendship anymore.
January 7th, 1979 was: Ho Chi Minh dream comes true. Vietnam conquers Indochina . All the three countries, Vietnam , Cambodia and Laos unified under Vietnam rule. Just read Vietnamese presses and listen to Vietnam radio and watch Vietnam TV on January 7th to convince that Vietnam intention was to swallow head to toe Cambodia, said Thach Chan.
Vannsak's actions had always impact in the public conscience. He was courageous to speak out his mind. A dozen years ago, Hun Sen warned Vannsak: Do not engage in political party. If you do, you will be assassinated.
Even now, after his recent Jayavarman VII statement, Vannsak was still popular in Cambodia . He attracted so much attention to the point that Kem Sos, the director of RFA, had to ask him to make a kind of apology to cool down the atmosphere. The CPP might use that particular scholar discussion to redo another sack in the style of the sack of Thailand Embassy on February 2, 2003.
In the US , some American scholars, specialists in Cambodia policy, would like to invite Vannsak to their department to make speeches. Some of my friends are working on this.
During the first years of 1950s, Indochina was in ebullition. Ho Chi Minh and Vietnamese movements fought aggressively against French colonialist.
In 1950, Cambodian students in Paris , France , started to discuss how to fight France for the independence of Cambodia . Their leaders were: Keng Vannsak, Phung Ton, Ea Sichau, Hang Thun Hak, Sum Vaddhana You, Thioun Mom, Hou Yon etc.
When the majority of his peers kept quiet, Vannsak denounced the monarchy and King Sihanouk. King Sihanouk at that time did nothing for Cambodia independence. He spent his time in the movies and entertained his royal court, said Vannsak.
In 1953, the Vietminh derailed the train Phnom Penh-Battambang and slaughtered all the voyagers. Jump to the occasion, Vannsak wrote in the Union des Etudients Khmers magazine under a pen name: "The Khmer monarchy is a leech which sucked Khmer people blood. The King did nothing while the people suffered. The monarchy did nothing for the liberation of Cambodia."
King Sihanouk exploded angrily. Then he cut off all the funding of the scholarship of those Khmer students.
Khmer students acknowledged that Vietnam was much well organized for the liberation war. Vietnam was far better organized than Cambodia .
All Khmer student leaders agreed: If Cambodia was not organized to liberate Cambodia from France colonialism, Cambodia would fall under Vietnamese yoke when France was defeated and forced to leave Indochina . Then Vietnam would replace France to annex Cambodia under Vietnamese rule. Khmer students in Paris knew so well that extreme danger that Cambodia would face in the next decade.
But the question is: How to organize Cambodian armed resistance independent from Vietnam to fight for Cambodia independence? How to get the arms and ammunitions? What country would give Khmer resistance armament and finance to fight against France ?
War for the independence from France and Vietnam will be long, said Hang Thun Hak. We should learn how to fight and how to organize the guerilla warfare from other armed force struggle movements, added Hang Thun Hak. We should learn from the armed struggle in the Middle East . We should send our people to learn there, said Hang Thun Hak who was well known among leftist artists and well connected to the Middle East armed resistance. Those Khmer Student leaders including even the communist Khmers did never ever trust the Vietnamese.
The only countries that might provide armament to fight the imperialist ( France and later the US ) were Russia and China . But Russia and China had their own agenda. Russia would like to have the absolute control of the Kommintern. All armed resistance should be under her thumb. China had her own policy too.
When Ea Si Chau tried to get the arms directly from Russia through French communist party, he got no as answer. Indeed, you should cooperate with Ho, because everything should go trough Ho Chi Minh, the delegate of Kommintern for Indochina , said French communist leader.
Then Ea Si Chau made a last try with the Republic of China to get the armament for Cambodian armed resistance. Ea Si Chau, was a Hautes Etudes Commerciales alumni, the French equivalent to Harvard MBA, left Phnom Penh by boat to Hong Kong then to Beijing . The communist Chinese leaders told Si Chau that King Sihanouk is very popular. The moment is not yet propitious for popular war. Mao said to him, in popular war you have to suffer, endure the sacrifice to succeed. You have to wait, be patient, added Chou En Lai.
Ea Si Chau returned to Cambodia with empty hand.
After several tries to get armament from communist countries, Vietnamese communists and Cambodian armed resistance arrived to the same conclusion: They ought to purchase armament for the armed resistance by their own means.
For this reason, Battambang and Siemreap provinces play a vital role in the purchase of arms and ammunitions from Thailand . This explained also, why Battambang and Siemreap provinces were the cradle of all revolutionary movements, Vietminh, Khmer Issaraks, Dap Chhuon, Khmer Serey etc...
From the start, Vannsak did not fit in any armed struggle. He is a thinker, a philosopher but not an armed fighter whereas Hang Thun Hak and Ea Si Chau and Roth Samoeun and the communist believed that political change ought to be through an armed struggle. But the communist always talk sweetly peace while in the back make war.
Baphuon
Sometimes you agree with his theory, sometimes you don't. But as scholar he was very prolific in ideas and created so much threads to keep the political debate alive and interesting.
In the US , 95% of the University professors, Harvard, Yale etc, well known as the generation of anti-Vietnam War, are liberal. They shaped the American thinking, the American foreign policy and financial, political and social policy. But the US policy was not necessary liberal. First of all, as any other country in the world, American defended American interests. It could be hawk, and it could be liberal.
So the professors might be liberal but their students could also be conservative.
In international policy, it needs the American leadership to get something done. The UN charter, the NATO Treaty, and the International Court of Justice etc... were all American concept. In any international conference, it needed American plan, American proposal, American structure of discussion to reach an agreement. Brief, it needs American leadership to achieve a common goal. This created jealousy.
In Cambodia , Vietnam ordered the CPP people to hate the American, and speak bad about the US policy and glorify Vietnam as the heroic country which defeated the first power in the world.
Sharp contrast between Vietnamese and Cambodian reception of former President Clinton.
On December 4, 2006, former President Clinton visited officially Cambodia to sign a memorandum for the foundation to continue supporting and expand pediatric treatment of HIV/AIDS in Cambodia.
Cambodia, one of the world's poorest countries, has an HIV infection rate of 1.9 percent for people aged 15-49, among the highest in Southeast Asia . The rate has been significantly reduced from 3 percent in 1997.
About 20,000 children under the age of 15 live with HIV or AIDS in Cambodia , out of a total 123,000 people who are either infected with the virus or have the full-blown disease.
It is noteworthy the sharp contrast between Cambodia and Vietnam reception of the former President Bill Clinton. It tends to convince that Vietnam is smart and Cambodia is dumb.
Indeed, Clinton was received by Om Yin Tieng, an insignificant minister at his arrival at Phnom Penh airport during his visit to Cambodia while he was received with great pomp and honor at Hanoi airport by Prime Minister of Vietnam off Clinton airplane.
Vietnam spoke sweetly peace but in the back Vietnam make war.
Is Hun Sen dumb for not seeing the importance of the courtesy we own to President Clinton for helping our HIV/AID infected people? Or Hun Sen is afraid of Hanoi ?
For the CPP, January 7th 1979 was the CPP Victory against the Khmer Rouge.
Up to today, Vietnam celebrated publicly and officially every year the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. It was a public celebration. Vietnamese Public radio and TV and presses all together celebrated the anniversary of January 7th, 1979 victory. Vietnam officials did not hide it under the friendship anymore.
January 7th, 1979 was: Ho Chi Minh dream comes true. Vietnam conquers Indochina . All the three countries, Vietnam , Cambodia and Laos unified under Vietnam rule. Just read Vietnamese presses and listen to Vietnam radio and watch Vietnam TV on January 7th to convince that Vietnam intention was to swallow head to toe Cambodia, said Thach Chan.
Vannsak's actions had always impact in the public conscience. He was courageous to speak out his mind. A dozen years ago, Hun Sen warned Vannsak: Do not engage in political party. If you do, you will be assassinated.
Even now, after his recent Jayavarman VII statement, Vannsak was still popular in Cambodia . He attracted so much attention to the point that Kem Sos, the director of RFA, had to ask him to make a kind of apology to cool down the atmosphere. The CPP might use that particular scholar discussion to redo another sack in the style of the sack of Thailand Embassy on February 2, 2003.
In the US , some American scholars, specialists in Cambodia policy, would like to invite Vannsak to their department to make speeches. Some of my friends are working on this.
During the first years of 1950s, Indochina was in ebullition. Ho Chi Minh and Vietnamese movements fought aggressively against French colonialist.
In 1950, Cambodian students in Paris , France , started to discuss how to fight France for the independence of Cambodia . Their leaders were: Keng Vannsak, Phung Ton, Ea Sichau, Hang Thun Hak, Sum Vaddhana You, Thioun Mom, Hou Yon etc.
When the majority of his peers kept quiet, Vannsak denounced the monarchy and King Sihanouk. King Sihanouk at that time did nothing for Cambodia independence. He spent his time in the movies and entertained his royal court, said Vannsak.
In 1953, the Vietminh derailed the train Phnom Penh-Battambang and slaughtered all the voyagers. Jump to the occasion, Vannsak wrote in the Union des Etudients Khmers magazine under a pen name: "The Khmer monarchy is a leech which sucked Khmer people blood. The King did nothing while the people suffered. The monarchy did nothing for the liberation of Cambodia."
King Sihanouk exploded angrily. Then he cut off all the funding of the scholarship of those Khmer students.
Khmer students acknowledged that Vietnam was much well organized for the liberation war. Vietnam was far better organized than Cambodia .
All Khmer student leaders agreed: If Cambodia was not organized to liberate Cambodia from France colonialism, Cambodia would fall under Vietnamese yoke when France was defeated and forced to leave Indochina . Then Vietnam would replace France to annex Cambodia under Vietnamese rule. Khmer students in Paris knew so well that extreme danger that Cambodia would face in the next decade.
But the question is: How to organize Cambodian armed resistance independent from Vietnam to fight for Cambodia independence? How to get the arms and ammunitions? What country would give Khmer resistance armament and finance to fight against France ?
War for the independence from France and Vietnam will be long, said Hang Thun Hak. We should learn how to fight and how to organize the guerilla warfare from other armed force struggle movements, added Hang Thun Hak. We should learn from the armed struggle in the Middle East . We should send our people to learn there, said Hang Thun Hak who was well known among leftist artists and well connected to the Middle East armed resistance. Those Khmer Student leaders including even the communist Khmers did never ever trust the Vietnamese.
The only countries that might provide armament to fight the imperialist ( France and later the US ) were Russia and China . But Russia and China had their own agenda. Russia would like to have the absolute control of the Kommintern. All armed resistance should be under her thumb. China had her own policy too.
When Ea Si Chau tried to get the arms directly from Russia through French communist party, he got no as answer. Indeed, you should cooperate with Ho, because everything should go trough Ho Chi Minh, the delegate of Kommintern for Indochina , said French communist leader.
Then Ea Si Chau made a last try with the Republic of China to get the armament for Cambodian armed resistance. Ea Si Chau, was a Hautes Etudes Commerciales alumni, the French equivalent to Harvard MBA, left Phnom Penh by boat to Hong Kong then to Beijing . The communist Chinese leaders told Si Chau that King Sihanouk is very popular. The moment is not yet propitious for popular war. Mao said to him, in popular war you have to suffer, endure the sacrifice to succeed. You have to wait, be patient, added Chou En Lai.
Ea Si Chau returned to Cambodia with empty hand.
After several tries to get armament from communist countries, Vietnamese communists and Cambodian armed resistance arrived to the same conclusion: They ought to purchase armament for the armed resistance by their own means.
For this reason, Battambang and Siemreap provinces play a vital role in the purchase of arms and ammunitions from Thailand . This explained also, why Battambang and Siemreap provinces were the cradle of all revolutionary movements, Vietminh, Khmer Issaraks, Dap Chhuon, Khmer Serey etc...
From the start, Vannsak did not fit in any armed struggle. He is a thinker, a philosopher but not an armed fighter whereas Hang Thun Hak and Ea Si Chau and Roth Samoeun and the communist believed that political change ought to be through an armed struggle. But the communist always talk sweetly peace while in the back make war.
Baphuon
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Professor Keng Vannsak expresses his regret
Prof Keng Vannsak (Photo: RFA)
Dr Long Siem (Photo: RFA)
Dr Michel Tranet (Photo: RFA)By Mayarith
Radio Free Asia
Translated from Khmer by Heng Soy
One historian, one literature specialist, along with Prof. Keng Vannsak have visited the diverging opinions regarding Jayavarman VII, the historical Khmer king.
The debate which took place on Saturday on RFA’s program “Listerners forum,” was organized after criticisms were leveled against Prof Keng Vannsak who raised the issue that King Jayavarman VII – whom most Cambodians consider as a strong and exemplary king for Cambodians of all generations – was of Cham origin, and that he forced people to perform hard labor, as well as giving away the Cambodian land of Sukothai to the former Siam.
The debate brought together the famous Dr Michel Tranet, and Dr Long Siem.
Prof Keng Vannsak expresses his regret when he learnt that the result of his research based on the documents he owns, causes a lot of angry reaction from people.
In clarifying his point on the people’s angry reaction, Prof Keng Vannsak said by telephone from France: “… I really regret it because I do not want to stir this. All the issues I have heard regarding the sculptures of Javarman VII, be they intact or mutilated, they all originated from my research…”
In an earlier interview with RFA, Prof Keng Vannsak claimed that he has an original copy of a document which he kept, that provides the story of King Jayavarman VII.
During the debate, Dr Michel Tranet, a social science expert, and Dr Long Siem, an expert in Cambodian stone inscriptions, said that their research did not turn up any of the claims made by Prof Keng Vannsak.
Michel Tranet said: “If we base ourselves on our history noted on the stone inscriptions we have, there are reports detailing the exceptional character of the king [Jayavarnan VII] who not only have all the Buddhist compassion towards the people of that time, but the king is also the builder of our Cambodia following the war, and bring back Cambodia’s glory.”
Long Siem added: “During his era, or shortly after his reign, people pay respect to him as an equal to Buddha. That is why we find a technical word: “Chey-puth” [Chey=Jaya=Victory, Puth=Buddha], that’s the first point. Secondly, the sculptures in Bayon are a permanent … exposition of extraordinary pictures representing the actual daily life of people…”
The debate which lasted 45 minutes, revisited the case of King Jayavarman VII, but it did not examine which view is right and which one is wrong because of technical phone line difficulties linking Cambodia, and the limited air time available.
The debate which took place on Saturday on RFA’s program “Listerners forum,” was organized after criticisms were leveled against Prof Keng Vannsak who raised the issue that King Jayavarman VII – whom most Cambodians consider as a strong and exemplary king for Cambodians of all generations – was of Cham origin, and that he forced people to perform hard labor, as well as giving away the Cambodian land of Sukothai to the former Siam.
The debate brought together the famous Dr Michel Tranet, and Dr Long Siem.
Prof Keng Vannsak expresses his regret when he learnt that the result of his research based on the documents he owns, causes a lot of angry reaction from people.
In clarifying his point on the people’s angry reaction, Prof Keng Vannsak said by telephone from France: “… I really regret it because I do not want to stir this. All the issues I have heard regarding the sculptures of Javarman VII, be they intact or mutilated, they all originated from my research…”
In an earlier interview with RFA, Prof Keng Vannsak claimed that he has an original copy of a document which he kept, that provides the story of King Jayavarman VII.
During the debate, Dr Michel Tranet, a social science expert, and Dr Long Siem, an expert in Cambodian stone inscriptions, said that their research did not turn up any of the claims made by Prof Keng Vannsak.
Michel Tranet said: “If we base ourselves on our history noted on the stone inscriptions we have, there are reports detailing the exceptional character of the king [Jayavarnan VII] who not only have all the Buddhist compassion towards the people of that time, but the king is also the builder of our Cambodia following the war, and bring back Cambodia’s glory.”
Long Siem added: “During his era, or shortly after his reign, people pay respect to him as an equal to Buddha. That is why we find a technical word: “Chey-puth” [Chey=Jaya=Victory, Puth=Buddha], that’s the first point. Secondly, the sculptures in Bayon are a permanent … exposition of extraordinary pictures representing the actual daily life of people…”
The debate which lasted 45 minutes, revisited the case of King Jayavarman VII, but it did not examine which view is right and which one is wrong because of technical phone line difficulties linking Cambodia, and the limited air time available.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Challenging Keng Vansak's version of history. (Installment I)
By Bora Touch
In a Radio Free Asia interview with Mr. Sam Borin of 26/1/07, Lok Keng Vansak (KVS) made the following assertions which he said were based on Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer (1969) by Eng Sot.
http://www.rfa.org/khmer/batyokka/2007/02/07/people_reactions_2kengvansak/
1. According to KVS, King Jayavarman VII ceded Sukhodaya to Pnhea Rong in 1220. Although the chronicles do not say that King Jayvarman VII was King Botum Soryavong who ceded Sukhadaya to Siam, according to KVS, Botum Soryavong was Jayavarman VII because Sukhodaya declared its independence in 1220 which was during the reign of Jayavarman VII who "died in 1220".
2. The year 1350 was not the year of the founding of the State of Siam, but according to Keng Vansak, it was the year the Siamese first attacked Angkor;
3. Having had enough of the former kings' unopposed caprice including treating Cambodia as their own and doing whatever they wanted with it, Ta Trasok Pha-em (Pnhea Chey, or the Sweet cucumber man) dared to oppose this and "eliminated all the Varman royals".
4. When pressed for sources for these assertions and other assertions about King Jayavarman VII being a Cham, a destroyer of Cambodia etc, he claimed that [the French scholar George Coedes'] documents critical of Jayavarman VII (which would have supported his assertions) were removed from the Buddhist Institute Library and destroyed by his former student Mr. Leang Ap An:
http://www.rfa.org/khmer/batyokka/2007/02/07/people_reactions_2kengvansak/
My comments are set out below.
I propose to reply to each of the above assertions in order.
1. The so-called Angkor period was A.D. 800-1400. In the preface of his Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer (AMK) , a Khmer chronicles compilation, Eng Sot advised his reader that his AMK (totaling 76 volumes) only covered post-Angkor period. Khmer Chronicles relating to pre-Angkor and Angkor periods are unreliable and "were largely mixed with reoung preng, legends." He is correct. However, the starting dates (AD 998) of the description of post-Angkor kings are incorrect (as this obviously was during the Angkor period) , but again Eng Sot warned his readers when he started his AMK with the legend of Ta Trasok Phaem, the sweet cucumber man legend which is incorrectly situated in the Angkor period .
February 2007.
http://www.rfa.org/khmer/batyokka/2007/02/07/people_reactions_2kengvansak/
1. According to KVS, King Jayavarman VII ceded Sukhodaya to Pnhea Rong in 1220. Although the chronicles do not say that King Jayvarman VII was King Botum Soryavong who ceded Sukhadaya to Siam, according to KVS, Botum Soryavong was Jayavarman VII because Sukhodaya declared its independence in 1220 which was during the reign of Jayavarman VII who "died in 1220".
2. The year 1350 was not the year of the founding of the State of Siam, but according to Keng Vansak, it was the year the Siamese first attacked Angkor;
3. Having had enough of the former kings' unopposed caprice including treating Cambodia as their own and doing whatever they wanted with it, Ta Trasok Pha-em (Pnhea Chey, or the Sweet cucumber man) dared to oppose this and "eliminated all the Varman royals".
4. When pressed for sources for these assertions and other assertions about King Jayavarman VII being a Cham, a destroyer of Cambodia etc, he claimed that [the French scholar George Coedes'] documents critical of Jayavarman VII (which would have supported his assertions) were removed from the Buddhist Institute Library and destroyed by his former student Mr. Leang Ap An:
http://www.rfa.org/khmer/batyokka/2007/02/07/people_reactions_2kengvansak/
My comments are set out below.
I propose to reply to each of the above assertions in order.
1. The so-called Angkor period was A.D. 800-1400. In the preface of his Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer (AMK) , a Khmer chronicles compilation, Eng Sot advised his reader that his AMK (totaling 76 volumes) only covered post-Angkor period. Khmer Chronicles relating to pre-Angkor and Angkor periods are unreliable and "were largely mixed with reoung preng, legends." He is correct. However, the starting dates (AD 998) of the description of post-Angkor kings are incorrect (as this obviously was during the Angkor period) , but again Eng Sot warned his readers when he started his AMK with the legend of Ta Trasok Phaem, the sweet cucumber man legend which is incorrectly situated in the Angkor period .
Did Eng Sot mention Butom Soryavong as having ceded Sukhodaya to Phnea Rong as Keng Vansak claimed.? The Answer is "yes". Eng Sot, while discussing the post-Angkorian reign of King Lompongraja (AD 1346-1351), briefly states that "because Pnhea Rong was [Buton Soryavong's] Cheastha (older brother), King Preah Bath Botum Soryavong allowed this vassal country to be independent and to have capital called Sukhodaya": (see Volume II of AMK, p.20). Nowhere in AMK did Eng Sot say who Botum Soryavong was and when he reigned. Eng Sot might have presumed that Botum Soryvong was an Angkorian king which is not covered by the AMK.2. Did "Siamese" attack Angkor in 1350?.
So, basing his assertions on AMK as he claims, can KVS assume that this Botum Soryavong was, in fact, Jayavarman VII who ceded Sukhodaya to Siam?. The answer is "no".
It is unclear where Eng Sot got his Botum Soryavong-Rong story from. There are a few slightly different legends relating to Butom Soryavong-Pnhea Rong story, one of which appears in King Norodom's Chronicle of 1903. According to this chronicle, Rong was hatched out of a dragon's egg with supernatural powers, enabling him to do wonderful things such as carrying water in baskets without leaking. Fearful of his supernatural powers, Botum Soryavong attempted to have him killed, but failed. Rong fled to Sukhadaya and became a monk. When the King of Sukhodaya died, he claimed the throne with the name of Sri Chandrthipadi. According to this legend, Sukhodaya was already independent by the time Rong became king. The Thais too have the same legend/fiction of Pra Ruang-Botum Soyravong: (see Manich Jumsai, History of Thailand & Cambodia, 1970, p18). According to the Thai version, Ruang, who was also identified as King Ramakamhaeng, became independent under the reign King Indravarman III (1295-1308), which is 77 years Jayavarman VII (1181-1218(?)) died. Other Thai legendary versions stated that King Ruang died in A.D. 956, (which was way before King Jayavarman VII came to power) and Sukhodaya became independent via overthrowing the "Khmer yoke": (See Charnit Kasetsirit, The Rise of Ayudhya, 1976)
That said, George Coedes believed that Sri Indradiya was the founder of Sukhodaya dynasty: (Coedses, "The Origins of the Sukhodaya Dynasty", JSS, 1921). According Wyatt, Ruang or Sri Indradiya reigned from about 1240-1270:( Wyatt, Thailand: A short History (1984), p.309). Most accounts, if not all, suggested Sukhodaya became independent long after the death of Jayavarman VII.
Therefore, Keng Vansak's assertion that Botum Soryavong was Jayavarman VII who ceded Sukhodaya to Siam is completely baseless.
Jayavarman VII reigned from 1181-1218 or 1220. However, no one knows when King Jayavarman VII actually died. The Khmer chronicles did not mention the year of his death or about the King at all. Working from inscriptions and Chinese Dynasty documents, Khmer and foreign scholars/historians accepted two alternative dates: 1218 or 1220: 1218 by Truong Ngai, Pravatisastr Khmaer (1973); Ian Mabbet, "Kingship in Angkor, (1978), and Miriam Stark, "Pre-Angkor and Angkorian Cambodia", (2003); and "1220(?)" by Michael Vickery, Cambodia and its Neighbors in 15 th Century, (2004); and according to George Coedes, Les peuples de la Peninsule Indochinoise, (1962), the Jayavarman died in "c.1218". There is no source to show that Sukhodaya declared independence in 1220. There is, however, a 15th century inscription (whose authenticity is still to be determined) of Sukhodaya which mentions its independence declaration of 1400 from Ayudya: (see Griswold & Nagara, "A Declaration of Independence and its Consequences" (JSS, 1968), p221). Ayudya was still under Khmer, see more below.
Keng Vansak therefore is wrong to say that Sukhodaya declared independence in 1220.
Perhaps relying on the traditional Thai and chronicle theories, KVS claimed that "Siamese," presumedly from Ayuthia, attacked on Angkor in 1350.Those attacked on Angkor were not Siamese.
In fact, there was no "Siamese"/Thai rule in Ayuthia by then, no Siamese attack in the Angkor in 1350. Taking the Thai chronicles at face value, Ayudya was founded in 1351, it thus could not have attacked Angkor before it was founded. However, strong evidence suggested that Angkor may have been attacked in 1430 or 1431 by a Khmer ruler from Ayuthia or Suphanburi, probably a combined forces of Khmer and Mon. If it is correct that the Thai ruled Ayuthia by this time, there would be some inscriptions in Thai or Thai words in those Khmer and Sanskrit inscriptions. None has been found: (see Michael Vickery, "A new Tamanan About Ayudya".( JSS, July 1979 P A review, p 143)
There are about 37 Khmer chronicles altogether and most, of not all, stories in them before 16 th century are legendary, if not fictional. The oldest one is the so-called King Ang Eng's chronicle of 1796 published in Asiatique Journal 1898. The second oldest one is of King Ang Chan 1813. It was composed/"rewritten" by his official Okha Samphea (Nong). The rest of them are of newer composition, such as the so-called Chuon Vang's (or Chuon of the royal palace's) fragments.
Ang Eng's fragment did not give a date of the "Siamese" attack, but it happened during King Lompong II, in about 1370. According to Ang Chan's chronicle, the attack took place in 1352 and according Udong Palace's fragment, the so called Chronological List of Khmer kings obtained by De Lagree in 1865, (published in Journal Asiatique, 1871), the attack took place in 1408.
In 1883, Jean Moura, the then French Resident-General in Cambodia, had all the khmer chronicles revised. The according to the revised version and Moura himself, Siam attacked Angkor in 1351: ( Le royaume du cambodge, 1883)
That said in 1904, two Khmer histories were written by French historians. According to E. Aymonier, Le Cambodge (1904), Siam first attacked Angkor in 1461, but according to G. Masparo (1904), Angkor was not attacked before 1420.
As mentioned above, Thai chronicles do not say "Siamese" attacked on Angkor in 1350. Most of them state that Ayuthia was founded in 1351. According the so-called Luong Praseot Chronicle (re-copied in 18 th century from Pali (Khmer scripts) text claiming in its Preface that it copied from the original of 1681), the Siamese attack occurred in 1431, and according to the three Ayuthyan chronicles "composed" during the 19 th century, the first attacks took place in 1352, 1354 and 1421, respectively.
It is not certain what KVS relied on as his source for his assertion of the Siam attack of 1350.
For Thai traditional historians, relying on Thai chronicles and legends have regarded A.D.1351 as the founding date for Ayudya by King U-Thong. For them, the date is, to use Michael Vickery's words, a "sacred dogma". From the Thai Ayudya, Angkor empire was attacked and subdued. For them, any new contradictory discoveries must be forced to fit into this Thai theme.How then did Ayudya become Thailand.?
Frank Vincent, who visited Angkor and was overwhelmed by the civilization and had been previously told of the Thai theme was curious. How could the timid "Lao and Siamese tribes" who "really have no fight in them at all" have swept away such a massive civilization?: (see Vincent, "The Wonderful Ruins of Cambodia, Journal of Am. Geogr. Soc, NY (1878, p. 231). Frank Vincent was right to be suspicious of the Thai theme. It was not, in fact, the Thai who attacked Angkor. It was Khmer royal family of Ayudya or Suphahburi who attacked Angkor. Up until the 16 th century, Ayudya was still under a Khmer royal family rule, not to mention that Khmer was still an official language in Phathalung region (near Malaysia) in 17th century: (M. Vickery, "The Khmer Inscriptions of Tenasserim. A Reinterpretation", JSS, 1973, p.51) Proof of this assertion is that all the Ayudyan inscriptions (corpus) are in Khmer. Additionally, Prince Damorng, a top Thai historian was forced to admit that Ayudya "was founded by the Khmer who were ruling at Lopburi": Damrong, Royal Autograph Chronicle, (1968 p.222).
Furthermore, if the famous King Narai of Ayudya was to be believed when he told the French envoy of King Louis XIV of France that the King was "a Prince of the Royal Blood of Camboya": (see, De La Louberse, Kingdom of Siam, 1688, p.102), and that, according to Louberse, the Ayudyan people's complexion was "gross, red and brown", then even in the 17th century, Ayudya was still quite Khmer, although the Khmer scripts had then been modified into basically what Thai scripts today are: ( Id, p170).
A final nail in the coffin against the Thai theme comes from a seasoned scholar/historian David Wyatt, whom Thai historians have called him "the most faithful defender of Thai history". Having defended the Thai theme for over 30 years, in an article in Nation 8/02/1990, Wyatt admitted that "the early Ayudya period (U-Thong [1351]) might have been ruled by Khmers". He hoped "one day, to see some Thai historians with courage enough to say". He was right, archaeological proof is solid on this. Ayudya was NOT founded by U-Thong/Ramathipadei in 1351 or ever.
It is worth mentioning about the U-Thong story in Thai chronicles. When he was a commander-in-chief of the Thai Army in 1870s, J. D'Abrian was given access to a Thai chronicle, Pongsavada-Muangau. From it, he learned that there were two versions of how U-Thong founded Ayudya. First, U-Thong was from Cambodia and having married into the Khmer royal house, he went west to govern Ayudya. In the second story, U-Thong was not from Cambodia but from the north of now Thailand: D'Brian, "Ruins of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Siam", J.A.G.S.NY (1875, p.22).
A strong possible scenario was that it happened the same way as a part of Kampuchea Krom became Vietnam under the Chinese migrant Mac Cuu family whom the Khmer king at Udong allowed to govern Banteymeas/Hatien, Basak. Kompong Som provinces. Mac Cuu late on in 1715 shifted his alliance from Udong to Hue annexing these provinces to Vietnam when Cambodia was too weak to defend itself. In return, the Vietnamese emperor allowed him to govern Hatien until 1818: (see Willmott, "History and Sociology of the Chinese in Cambodia Prior the French Protectorate" , Jnl. S.E.A Hist. 1966, p.26); and Cotter, "Toward a Social History of the Vietnamese Southward Movement", Jnl of S.E.A History, 1968.3. Phnea Chey or Ta Trasok Phaem's elimination of the Varman royals.
KVS is incorrect to say that the Thai or the "Siamese" who attacked Angkor .
Here Keng Vabsak either selectively used the Khmer Chronicles or Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer or did not read his literature carefully. As mentioned above, in Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer, Eng Sot warned that Ta Trasok Phaem story is a legend, roeung preng: (see the Preface, p. k. ). The warning also came from Venerable Chuon Nath, and Chea Oum etc, Praetisastr ney Prades Kampuchea (Feb 1970, note this book was still under Sangkum).4. Removal and the destruction of Coedes's critical documents by KVS' former student.
In Volume I, Sot provides two versions of Ta Trasok Phaem/Pnhea Chey. Version one pp1-9: a sweet cucumber gardener killed king Sinok when the King trespassed his cucumber farm at night, although he did not know it was the King. Ta Trasok phaem then was invited to become king at the age 450 years old. After a brief reluctance, he agreed. He then married one of the dead King's daughter.
(Of note, Burma too has a similar cucumber legend (10th century) in its chronicle, In the Burmese case, the cucumber man killed the Burmese king intentionally with a spade when the king took his cucumber with permission.: (see the Glass Palace Chronicle of the Kings of Burma, as translated by P. M Tin (1923, pp 58-60). In the Khmer case, the cucumber man killed the King with a spear.)
Version Two p. 9: King Sihanou reign was usurped by Dambang krabhuong. King Sihanou had a ascetic son, Preah Botum Taboh who fled to a mountain and remained as a hermit. Wanting to continue his royal dynasty, he left hermitage and married, had a son by the name of Chau Ta. When Chau Ta grew up, Botum Taboh told the son about their royal bone, gave him three cucumber seeds. Chau Ta left his father to become the sweat cucumber gardener. From here, the story is same as Version one.
In both versions in Aeksar Mahaboroh Khmaer , both Pnhea Chey and Chau Ta were of royal bone: (see p 4 Volume I). It is, therefore, wrong for Keng Vansak to claim that Pnhea Chey eliminated all Varman royals. In fact, there is nothing in the Khmer chronicles to allow to assert as such. He simply distorted the chronicles.
George Coedes wrote a lot of books on Cambodian history. He was the grand pioneer of Angkor studies. Among those books, in 1935 he wrote, Un Grand Roi du Cambodge. Jayavarman VII. In the same year, this book was officially translated by the Khmer Kongsei senapadei, the Council of Ministers, and was widely circulated. Copies were kept at various libraries including the Buddhist Institute Library. If Keng Vansak visited now the National Library, or National archives and the Buddhist Institute library, he would know Coedes's books, some of them, are still there. The Buddhist Institute Library still today holds an original translated copy of Un Grand Roi du Cambodge of 1935.Bora Touch.
Therefore KVS' assertion that his student destroyed documents critical of Jayavarman VII is irrelevant, if true, because the documents are widely held.
Furthermore, none of the Coedes' and other French scholars' state that Javarvarman VII was of Cham descent. According to Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (1964), Javarman VII was the son of Khmer King Dharanindravarman II (c1160) and Queen Jayarajachudamani. Jayavarman VII was the second cousin of the builder of Angkor Wat, Suryavarman II: (see id, p 169; and also Coedes, The Making of South East Asia, 1966, pp 106-109). However, Khmer inscriptions do say the King spent sometime in Vijaya, a Champa capital, which was probably under Khmer rule then. When the throne at Angkor was usurped and Chams invaded, Jayavarman VII returned home, expelled the Chams and eventually invaded Champa. No scholar ever mentioned that Jayavarman VII was somewhat a Cham or ceded Sokhodaya to Siam: (Coedes, Id)
It is also incorrect for KVS to claim that people were angry with King and destroyed his statues. According to him, none of them remained in intact—head and hand were smashed. Some of his statues remain intact in Laos: Michelle Tranet, Sangkum Khmaer knung Samay Preah Bat Jayavarman VII (2003, p 170). No one knows why and when majority of his statues were ruined. It may have been the work of King Mongkut or 19 th century. (More this late).
KVS also should know that massive construction did not end with the death of King Jayavarman VII. The reclining Buddha (biggest in the world) built on top the Preah Kant temple was a later work. Phnom broh and phnom srey mounts in Kampog Cham were built later too. Some of the long canals in Takeo were too were dug later. My point here is that the claim that Jayavarman VII overworked his people and as a revenge they destroyed his statues etc is a dated one.
Of note, the general claim that the post Jayavarman VII' introduction of Theravada/Hinayana Buddhism contributed to the downfall of the Khmer empire is also absolutely false. The Theravada Jataka sculptures, especially the Vassantara Jataka (Preah Vessondor cheadok) were carved on all important temples, including the famous Angkor wat, Bayon, Thoamanon, Chausay, Bati temples to name a few. It is a proof that Theravada Buddhism co-existed in Cambodia since at least "Funan" times. These Jataka sculptures are proof that Theravada was so popular during Angkor periods, as well as today in Cambodia.
February 2007.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Sihanouk versus Keng Vannsak: Same old feud, Same old foes, only the time and place are changed
Translated from French by Luc SârAfter dragging N. Sihanouk in the mud to his fill, “Professor” Keng Vansak starts his “destruction” work on the incomparable and immortal Glory of Preah Jayavarman VII (!!!)
By N. Sihanouk
By N. Sihanouk
Beijing, February 10, 2007
I thought that Mr. Keng Vansal was only 500% anti-Sihanouk and 100% 20th century anti-monarchy.
I did not know that he could have wanted to attack the Angkorian Monarchy which all Khmer generations (including the “Republicans” of the 20th and 21st centuries) are extremely proud of, and that for a good reason.
“Today,” it appears very clearly and incontestably that Mr. Keng Vansak is devoting himself to the “Sacred Mission: of destructing, demolishing, reducing to dust, the glorious Reputation of the entire Khmer monarchy, starting from the dawn of its (monarchy) birth.
This inveterate Republican, without any scruple, without any intellectual honesty, without moral, goes all the way to dirty the name and the reign of an Angkorian King whom the best Historians in the Word over and from all eras, recognize as one the greatest Kings, one the biggest Patriots, one of the bearers of human virtues in universal History.
It is to believe that Mr. Keng Vansak had an anti-Sihanouk “indigestion.”
In terms of gastronomy, one cannot satisfy oneself with the same dishes. The menus must be changed!
As far as I am concerned, I adore goose “foie gras”. But, I often leave “foie gras” to eat caviar, or bean and meat stew (“cassoulet”), or something else.
For “Professor” Keng Vansak, dirtying Sihanouk “in all type of fashions” is no longer “sufficient.” He must attack the “biggest piece”: H.M Preah Jayavarman VII !!!
According to this Mr. Keng Vansak, H.M Jayavarman VII had a lot of Cham blood in his veins.
And, last but not least, H.M. Jayavarman VII even ceded one portion of Kambuja to the Siamese (alias Thai!).
This very grotesque deformation of History by “Professor” Keng Vansak dishonors him, and proves that his objectivity is non existent and that his Patriotism is very limited.
(Signed) Norodom Sihanouk
I did not know that he could have wanted to attack the Angkorian Monarchy which all Khmer generations (including the “Republicans” of the 20th and 21st centuries) are extremely proud of, and that for a good reason.
“Today,” it appears very clearly and incontestably that Mr. Keng Vansak is devoting himself to the “Sacred Mission: of destructing, demolishing, reducing to dust, the glorious Reputation of the entire Khmer monarchy, starting from the dawn of its (monarchy) birth.
This inveterate Republican, without any scruple, without any intellectual honesty, without moral, goes all the way to dirty the name and the reign of an Angkorian King whom the best Historians in the Word over and from all eras, recognize as one the greatest Kings, one the biggest Patriots, one of the bearers of human virtues in universal History.
It is to believe that Mr. Keng Vansak had an anti-Sihanouk “indigestion.”
In terms of gastronomy, one cannot satisfy oneself with the same dishes. The menus must be changed!
As far as I am concerned, I adore goose “foie gras”. But, I often leave “foie gras” to eat caviar, or bean and meat stew (“cassoulet”), or something else.
For “Professor” Keng Vansak, dirtying Sihanouk “in all type of fashions” is no longer “sufficient.” He must attack the “biggest piece”: H.M Preah Jayavarman VII !!!
According to this Mr. Keng Vansak, H.M Jayavarman VII had a lot of Cham blood in his veins.
And, last but not least, H.M. Jayavarman VII even ceded one portion of Kambuja to the Siamese (alias Thai!).
This very grotesque deformation of History by “Professor” Keng Vansak dishonors him, and proves that his objectivity is non existent and that his Patriotism is very limited.
(Signed) Norodom Sihanouk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
