15/6/54
25/4/54
Thailand Going Rogue
Bangkok's political turmoil is damaging regional stability.
Fighting over the disputed territory surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple along the Thai-Cambodia border resumed last Friday, with both sides trading artillery fire and accusations of targeting civilian villages throughout the weekend. The Associated Press reports 12 soldiers confirmed dead.
The world may never know which side started the latest clash, since Thailand continues to resist allowing international observers to monitor the area. And both countries deserve some blame for stirring the pot at various times. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that the Thai military is doing nothing to ease the tension.
That much we know from the way that the military, and then Bangkok, vetoed initiatives to get the two sides talking. After the last major bout of fighting in February, Cambodia succeeded in bringing the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which promptly kicked it back to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Indonesia, the chair of Asean this year, has played shuttle diplomacy trying to bring the two sides together, but Bangkok continues to balk. That has allowed Cambodia to play the aggrieved and more reasonable party.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Thailand's unwillingness to even contemplate compromise may be due to the broader impasse in its domestic politics. In 2008, the royalist People's Alliance for Democracy, more commonly known as the yellow shirts, took up the temple issue as a cudgel against the government of Samak Sundaravej. The same group has now turned on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and is castigating him for not taking more aggressive action to recover the temple.
Meanwhile, the military is positioning itself as the main defender of the monarchy and Thai sovereignty. Tension between the military and the civilian government has been mounting since Mr. Abhisit announced elections would be held within the next few months. Bangkok is rife with rumors that a coup is imminent.
The military, palace and business elite all fear that supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will win their fourth straight general election. The last three results were annulled by a coup and court rulings, and the red shirt supporters of Mr. Thaksin have become increasingly restive as a result of their disenfranchisement. Even if their Puea Thai Party wins, there is a strong chance they will not be allowed to form a government. So further unrest later this year seems likely.
In this context, a fight with Cambodia might seem an appealing way out of the deadlock. A limited war with a much smaller neighbor could unify Thais, as the red shirts would feel pressure to get behind the military in a time of national crisis. Mr. Abhisit, who has never won an election and is widely regarded as a figurehead within Thailand, could be dispensed with, and elections pushed off until the glow of victory and massive public spending restore the Bangkok elite's popularity.
Perhaps the Thai military understands how much could go wrong with such a scenario and is only engaging in brinksmanship. But even this runs the risk of accidental escalation. And once a conflict starts, Asean nations would be put in the impossible position of having to choose sides, which might tear the organization apart.
Thailand's friends have a responsibility to dissuade the military from military adventures. It's also time they addressed the root cause of the problem. This conflict is a sign that the nation's internal political crisis is beginning to generate external costs, showing once again that Asean's credo of noninterference in domestic politics needs to be tempered with an awareness that promotion of democracy is part and parcel of regional stability.
As long as the military is allowed to play its pivotal role in national politics, Thailand will fail to play its rightful role as a stabilizing force in Southeast Asia.
Source: WSJ
Fighting over the disputed territory surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple along the Thai-Cambodia border resumed last Friday, with both sides trading artillery fire and accusations of targeting civilian villages throughout the weekend. The Associated Press reports 12 soldiers confirmed dead.
The world may never know which side started the latest clash, since Thailand continues to resist allowing international observers to monitor the area. And both countries deserve some blame for stirring the pot at various times. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly clear that the Thai military is doing nothing to ease the tension.
That much we know from the way that the military, and then Bangkok, vetoed initiatives to get the two sides talking. After the last major bout of fighting in February, Cambodia succeeded in bringing the matter to the United Nations Security Council, which promptly kicked it back to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Indonesia, the chair of Asean this year, has played shuttle diplomacy trying to bring the two sides together, but Bangkok continues to balk. That has allowed Cambodia to play the aggrieved and more reasonable party.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Thailand's unwillingness to even contemplate compromise may be due to the broader impasse in its domestic politics. In 2008, the royalist People's Alliance for Democracy, more commonly known as the yellow shirts, took up the temple issue as a cudgel against the government of Samak Sundaravej. The same group has now turned on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and is castigating him for not taking more aggressive action to recover the temple.
Meanwhile, the military is positioning itself as the main defender of the monarchy and Thai sovereignty. Tension between the military and the civilian government has been mounting since Mr. Abhisit announced elections would be held within the next few months. Bangkok is rife with rumors that a coup is imminent.
The military, palace and business elite all fear that supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will win their fourth straight general election. The last three results were annulled by a coup and court rulings, and the red shirt supporters of Mr. Thaksin have become increasingly restive as a result of their disenfranchisement. Even if their Puea Thai Party wins, there is a strong chance they will not be allowed to form a government. So further unrest later this year seems likely.
In this context, a fight with Cambodia might seem an appealing way out of the deadlock. A limited war with a much smaller neighbor could unify Thais, as the red shirts would feel pressure to get behind the military in a time of national crisis. Mr. Abhisit, who has never won an election and is widely regarded as a figurehead within Thailand, could be dispensed with, and elections pushed off until the glow of victory and massive public spending restore the Bangkok elite's popularity.
Perhaps the Thai military understands how much could go wrong with such a scenario and is only engaging in brinksmanship. But even this runs the risk of accidental escalation. And once a conflict starts, Asean nations would be put in the impossible position of having to choose sides, which might tear the organization apart.
Thailand's friends have a responsibility to dissuade the military from military adventures. It's also time they addressed the root cause of the problem. This conflict is a sign that the nation's internal political crisis is beginning to generate external costs, showing once again that Asean's credo of noninterference in domestic politics needs to be tempered with an awareness that promotion of democracy is part and parcel of regional stability.
As long as the military is allowed to play its pivotal role in national politics, Thailand will fail to play its rightful role as a stabilizing force in Southeast Asia.
Source: WSJ
25/3/54
ល្មមហើយណាស្រី
ហេតុអីរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរមិនព្រមពន្លឿនដំណើររឿងព្រំដែនតំបន់ព្រះវិហារដោយយន្តការអង្គកាសហប្រជាជាតិ? តើនៅជ្រកក្រោមកន្ទុយអាស៊ានដែលជាអាយ៉ងប្រទេថៃដល់ពេលណាទៀត?
ស្តាប់ហើយក្តៅភ្លាម៖ ចុចស្តាប់ ឬ http://www.rfa.org/khmer/indepth/kh_thai_border_issue-03242011232300.html ។
ស្តាប់ហើយក្តៅភ្លាម៖ ចុចស្តាប់ ឬ http://www.rfa.org/khmer/indepth/kh_thai_border_issue-03242011232300.html ។
3/3/54
វិបត្តិដីធ្លីរីកដុះដាលនៅកម្ពុជា
ដោយ សេក បណ្ឌិត
2011-03-03
អង្គការសង្គមស៊ីវិល និងប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ បានសម្ដែងក្ដីព្រួយបារម្ភលើវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ដែលនៅតែវិវឌ្ឍន៍ទៅរកភាពធ្ងន់ធ្ងរទៅៗ និងមានផលប៉ះពាល់កាន់តែខ្លាំងដល់ការរស់នៅរបស់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋស្ទើរគ្រប់មជ្ឈដ្ឋានក្នុងប្រទេស។
RFA/Ouk Savborey
អ្នកភូមិនៅតំបន់បឹងកក់ ដុតកង់ឡានតវ៉ាប្រឆាំងនឹងក្រុមហ៊ុនស៊ូកាគូ ដែលបានបូមដីលុបបឹង បណ្ដាលឲ្យទឹកជន់លិចផ្ទះពួកគាត់ កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៣០ ខែកញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ២០១០។
ពីមួយថ្ងៃទៅមួយថ្ងៃ ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋកម្ពុជា ដែលស្ថិតក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លីបានបាត់បង់ពេលវេលាស្ទើរតែទាំងស្រុង ក្នុងការប្រកបរបរអាជីវកម្មចិញ្ចឹមជីវិត ដោយសារតែរវល់នឹងដើរតវ៉ាស្វែងរកយុត្តិធម៌។
អង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សដែលធ្វើការឃ្លាំមើលការគោរពសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស បានកត់សម្គាល់ឃើញថា នៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ និងដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ ការរំលោភសិទ្ធិមនុស្សដែលផ្ដើមចេញពីជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងផលប៉ះពាល់ដោយសារវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនេះ មានចំនួនកើនឡើងគួរព្រួយបារម្ភ។
មន្រ្តីស៊ើបអង្កេតជាន់ខ្ពស់នៃសមាគមការពារសិទ្ធិមនុស្សអាហុក លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត មានប្រសាសន៍ប្រាប់វិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី នៅថ្ងៃពុធ ទី២ ខែមីនា ថា ចំនួនករណីជម្លោះដីធ្លីមិនជាកើនឡើងប៉ុន្មានទេ ប៉ុន្តែបើគេពិនិត្យមើលពីចំនួនប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដែលរងគ្រោះដោយសារជម្លោះដីធ្លីនៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមក មានចំនួនកើនឡើងជាបន្តបន្ទាប់មកដល់ដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ។
របាយការណ៍ជម្លោះដីធ្លីដែលអង្គការអាដហុក បានស្រង់នៅតាមបណ្ដាខេត្តមួយចំនួនក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា នៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមក មានចំនួន ១៩៨ករណី ក្នុងនោះមានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដែលរងផលប៉ះពាល់មានជិត ៤ម៉ឺនគ្រួសារ ហើយពលរដ្ឋដែលចេញមុខតវ៉ា ហើយត្រូវបានអាជ្ញាធរចាប់ខ្លួនមាន ចំនួន ១២៨នាក់ ក្នុងនោះត្រូវគេដោះលែងមកវិញបាន ៧នាក់។ នៅក្នុងដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ មានករណីជម្លោះដីធ្លីថ្មីៗចំនួនជាង ១០ករណីថែមទៀត។
លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត មានប្រសាសន៍ទៀតថា ៖ «ពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងជម្លោះដីធ្លីនៅក្នុងស្រុកខ្មែរបច្ចុប្បន្នឃើញថា មានភាពស្មុគស្មាញច្រើន ដោយសារថា អ្នកដែលប្រព្រឹត្តបទល្មើសរឿងដីធ្លីហ្នឹង គឺជាអ្នកជិតស្និទ្ធជាមួយនឹងមន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាល»។
លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត បន្តថា រាល់ជម្លោះដីធ្លីទាំងឡាយ ភាគច្រើនកើតចេញពីការផ្ដល់ដីសម្បទានសេដ្ឋកិច្ចរបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាលប្រគល់ឲ្យទៅក្រុមហ៊ុនឯកជន ដោយមិនបានសិក្សាពីផលប៉ះពាល់ឲ្យបានច្បាស់លាស់ក្នុងការដោះស្រាយសំណងផលប៉ះពាល់ មិនបានឆ្លើយតបនឹងតម្រូវការរបស់ជនរងគ្រោះ ឬសំណងជាទឹកប្រាក់នោះមានចំនួនតិចតួចមិនសមស្របតាមស្ថានភាពតម្លៃដីនៅលើទីផ្សារសេរីក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន។
លោកមានប្រសាសន៍បន្តថា ៖ «ការដោះស្រាយនេះមិនមែនជាការដោះស្រាយដោយចិរភាពទេ យន្តការនៃការដោះស្រាយនេះគ្រាន់តែបណ្ដោះអាសន្នទេ គ្រាន់តែទុកឱកាសឲ្យក្រុមហ៊ុន ឬក៏ឈ្មួញមានអំណាចហ្នឹងមានឱកាសធ្វើលើដីនោះតែម្ដង រីឯអ្នកក្រីក្ររងផលប៉ះពាល់នោះ ការដោះស្រាយមិនសមស្របមិនអាចឲ្យគាត់ទទួលយកបាន»។
មន្ត្រីស៊ើបអង្កេតជាន់ខ្ពស់នៃអង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សលីកាដូ លោក អំ សំអាត បានឲ្យដឹងដែរថា អង្គការលោកបានធ្វើរបាយការណ៍ស្ដីពីបញ្ហាជម្លោះដីធ្លីដែលស្រង់ពីខេត្តក្រុងចំនួន១២ នៅចុងឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមកមាន ១០០ករណី និងមានចំនួនប្រជាពលរដ្ឋជាង ៨.០០០គ្រួសារ ដែលកំពុងមានការជំពាក់ក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងមាន ៣៧នាក់ ដែលកំពុងជាប់ឃុំខ្លួន។ ក្រុមគ្រួសារអ្នកមានជម្លោះដីធ្លីទាំងនេះ ពួកគាត់កំពុងប្រឈមមុខនឹងវិបត្តិសេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារយ៉ាងធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ។
លោក អំ សំអាត បញ្ជាក់បន្ថែម ៖ «បានន័យថា ពួកគាត់ប្រឈមមុខនឹងបញ្ហាផ្សេងៗ ដូចជាគេអាចប្ដឹងផ្ដល់តាមផ្លូវពន្ធនាគារ ឬរងការគំរាមកំហែង ហើយទី២ ប៉ះពាល់ដល់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារដោយសារតែការពារផលប្រយោជន៍របស់ខ្លួនមិនបានប្រកបមុខរបរអី ហើយអ៊ីចឹងគាត់ត្រូវប្រឈមមុខនឹងវិបត្តិសេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារទៀត។ អ៊ីចឹងយើងឃើញថា បញ្ហានេះបានជះឥទ្ធិពលធ្ងន់ធ្ងរសម្រាប់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋក្នុងរឿងបញ្ហាដីធ្លីនេះ គឺអាចធ្វើឲ្យគាត់ហ្នឹងធ្លាក់ខ្លួនកាន់តែក្រីក្រទៅ ដោយសារការបាត់បង់នូវដីធ្លី និងមិនបានប្រកបមុខរបរ ហើយម្យ៉ាងទៀតដែលយើងឃើញកន្លងមក ប៉ះពាល់ដល់កូនចៅរបស់គាត់ដែលទៅសិក្សា»។
លោក អំ សំអាត បន្តថា វិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅកម្ពុជា ប្រៀបបាននឹងជំងឺមហារីកមួយដែលពិបាកនឹងព្យាបាល ឬដោះស្រាយ ហើយកំពុងតែទាញឲ្យប្រជាពលរដ្ឋធ្លាក់ក្នុងភាពក្រីក្ររើខ្លួនមិនរួច ហើយបញ្ហាវាកំពុងតែធ្វើដំណើរបញ្ច្រាសគ្នា និងគោលនយោបាយកាត់បន្ថយភាពក្រីក្ររបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាល។
អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ដែលកំពុងលង់ខ្លួនយ៉ាងជ្រៅក្នុងវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅពេលដែលមានក្រុមហ៊ុនមកអភិវឌ្ឍនៅតំបន់នោះថា បណ្ដាលឲ្យពួកគាត់បាត់បង់ដីធ្លី បាត់បង់ទីជម្រករស់នៅ និងបាត់បង់មុខរបរ។
អ្នកស្រី លី មុំ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ ប្រមាណជាង ៤.០០០គ្រួសារ ដែលបានខិតខំកសាងជីវភាពពីបាតដៃទទេអស់រយៈពេលជាច្រើនឆ្នាំមកហើយ រហូតមានគ្រួសារ មានផ្ទះរស់សមរម្យ ប៉ុន្តែពេលនេះពួកគាត់កំពុងប្រឈមមុខនឹងការបាត់បង់ទៅវិញគួរឲ្យឈឺចាប់ ដោយសារផែនការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍របស់រដ្ឋាភិបាល។
អ្នកស្រី លី មុំ បន្ថែមថា ៖ «យើងអត់បាននៅមើលថែកូនចៅនៅក្នុងផ្ទះ ផលលំបាកយើងចេះតែដើរ ដូចថា ស្វះស្វែងតវ៉ា ដែលយើងទៅតវ៉ា ឲ្យយើងដឹងពីការតស៊ូមតិហ្នឹង ខុស ឬត្រូវយ៉ាងម៉េចឲ្យគេសួរឲ្យយើង»។
អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ ក៏ដូចជាអ្នកមានជម្លោះដីធ្លីជាច្រើនកន្លែងទៀតក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា បានប្រឹងប្រែងស្វែងរកយុត្តិធម៌គ្រប់ច្រកល្ហកទាំងទឹកភ្នែក ដោយរងការវាយដំពីកម្លាំងសមត្ថកិច្ចបង្ក្រាបបាតុកម្មជាញឹកញាប់ ដោយសារតែចង់ការពារដីធ្លី និងទីជម្រករបស់ខ្លួន ៖ «ខ្ញុំឃើញថា វាមានភាពអយុត្តិធម៌ខ្លាំងណាស់ ពួកខ្ញុំមកទាមទារផ្ទះសម្បែងទេ តែត្រូវកងកម្លាំងប្រដាប់ដោយអាវុធដេញវ៉ៃដំប្រជាជន ហើយចាប់ប្រជាជនទៅទៀត គេដាក់កម្លាំងមកបង្ក្រាបដូចបង្ក្រាបចោរអ៊ីចឹង»។
តំណាងរាស្ត្រគណបក្សប្រឆាំង និងជាអ្នកនាំពាក្យ លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា ស្ថានភាពជម្លោះដីធ្លីមកដល់ឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ កាន់តែមានសភាពរំជើបរំជួលគួរឲ្យបារម្ភ។ ជម្លោះដីធ្លីភាគច្រើនពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការផ្ដល់ដីសម្បទានសេដ្ឋកិច្ច ដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលផ្ដល់ឲ្យទៅក្រុមហ៊ុនវៀតណាម និងក្រុមហ៊ុនបរទេសជាច្រើនផ្សេងៗទៀត។
លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍បន្ត ៖ «ពុំមានការដោះស្រាយអ្វីក្រៅពីការប្រើអំពើហិង្សា ប្រើប្រាស់កម្លាំងប្រដាប់អាវុធ បង្ខំឲ្យប្រជាពលរដ្ឋធ្វើតាមសេចក្ដីសម្រេចដោយគ្មានការយល់ព្រម គ្មានការចូលរួមពីប្រជាពលរដ្ឋទេ គឺសេចក្ដីសម្រេចដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលចាប់បង្ខំឲ្យធ្វើបែបនេះតែម្ដង»។
មន្ត្រីអ្នកនាំពាក្យអង្គភាពព័ត៌មាន និងប្រតិកម្មរហ័សនៃទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រី លោក ទិត សុធា មានប្រសាសន៍ថា ការអភិវឌ្ឍប្រទេសជាតិឲ្យរីកចម្រើនវាតែងតែមានការផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ និងវិវឌ្ឍន៍ទៅមុខ។ ប៉ុន្តែជាញឹកញយគណបក្សប្រឆាំង និងសង្គមស៊ីវិលមួយចំនួនតែងតែមិនទទួលស្គាល់សកម្មភាពជាវិជ្ជមានរបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាលនោះទេ។
លោក ទិត សុធា បន្តដូច្នេះ ៖ «យើងគួរតែមើលពីភាពវិជ្ជមាន ប្រសើរជាងនិយាយតែពីចំណុចអវិជ្ជមានតិចតួច ដែលទន្ទឹមនឹងនោះរដ្ឋាភិបាលកំពុងតែពង្រឹងកំណែទម្រង់ដីធ្លី ហើយកំពុងយកចិត្តទុកដាក់បំផុតទាក់ទាញអ្នកវិនិយោគមកបណ្ដាក់ទុននៅកម្ពុជា»។
លោកបន្តថា កន្លងមកដីសម្បទានជាច្រើនក្រុមហ៊ុនហើយដែលពុំមានការអភិវឌ្ឍ ត្រូវបានរដ្ឋាភិបាលដកហូតយកមកវិញ។
លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា តាមឯកសារដែលលោកទទួលបានបង្ហាញថា បច្ចុប្បន្នមានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋប្រមាណជាង ២០ម៉ឺនគ្រួសារ ក្នុងនោះមានពលរដ្ឋប្រហែលជាងមួយលាននាក់ កំពុងស្ថិតក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងប្រឈមនឹងការបាត់បង់ក្នុងការប្រកបមុខរបរបានឡើយ៕ដីធ្លីបង្កបង្កើនផល បាត់បង់ទីជម្រក និងមិនអាចមានពេលគ្រប់គ្រាន់
2011-03-03
អង្គការសង្គមស៊ីវិល និងប្រជាពលរដ្ឋ បានសម្ដែងក្ដីព្រួយបារម្ភលើវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា ដែលនៅតែវិវឌ្ឍន៍ទៅរកភាពធ្ងន់ធ្ងរទៅៗ និងមានផលប៉ះពាល់កាន់តែខ្លាំងដល់ការរស់នៅរបស់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋស្ទើរគ្រប់មជ្ឈដ្ឋានក្នុងប្រទេស។
RFA/Ouk Savborey
អ្នកភូមិនៅតំបន់បឹងកក់ ដុតកង់ឡានតវ៉ាប្រឆាំងនឹងក្រុមហ៊ុនស៊ូកាគូ ដែលបានបូមដីលុបបឹង បណ្ដាលឲ្យទឹកជន់លិចផ្ទះពួកគាត់ កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៣០ ខែកញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ២០១០។
ពីមួយថ្ងៃទៅមួយថ្ងៃ ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋកម្ពុជា ដែលស្ថិតក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លីបានបាត់បង់ពេលវេលាស្ទើរតែទាំងស្រុង ក្នុងការប្រកបរបរអាជីវកម្មចិញ្ចឹមជីវិត ដោយសារតែរវល់នឹងដើរតវ៉ាស្វែងរកយុត្តិធម៌។
អង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សដែលធ្វើការឃ្លាំមើលការគោរពសិទ្ធិមនុស្ស បានកត់សម្គាល់ឃើញថា នៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ និងដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ ការរំលោភសិទ្ធិមនុស្សដែលផ្ដើមចេញពីជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងផលប៉ះពាល់ដោយសារវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនេះ មានចំនួនកើនឡើងគួរព្រួយបារម្ភ។
មន្រ្តីស៊ើបអង្កេតជាន់ខ្ពស់នៃសមាគមការពារសិទ្ធិមនុស្សអាហុក លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត មានប្រសាសន៍ប្រាប់វិទ្យុអាស៊ីសេរី នៅថ្ងៃពុធ ទី២ ខែមីនា ថា ចំនួនករណីជម្លោះដីធ្លីមិនជាកើនឡើងប៉ុន្មានទេ ប៉ុន្តែបើគេពិនិត្យមើលពីចំនួនប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដែលរងគ្រោះដោយសារជម្លោះដីធ្លីនៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមក មានចំនួនកើនឡើងជាបន្តបន្ទាប់មកដល់ដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ។
របាយការណ៍ជម្លោះដីធ្លីដែលអង្គការអាដហុក បានស្រង់នៅតាមបណ្ដាខេត្តមួយចំនួនក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា នៅឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមក មានចំនួន ១៩៨ករណី ក្នុងនោះមានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋដែលរងផលប៉ះពាល់មានជិត ៤ម៉ឺនគ្រួសារ ហើយពលរដ្ឋដែលចេញមុខតវ៉ា ហើយត្រូវបានអាជ្ញាធរចាប់ខ្លួនមាន ចំនួន ១២៨នាក់ ក្នុងនោះត្រូវគេដោះលែងមកវិញបាន ៧នាក់។ នៅក្នុងដើមឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ មានករណីជម្លោះដីធ្លីថ្មីៗចំនួនជាង ១០ករណីថែមទៀត។
លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត មានប្រសាសន៍ទៀតថា ៖ «ពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងជម្លោះដីធ្លីនៅក្នុងស្រុកខ្មែរបច្ចុប្បន្នឃើញថា មានភាពស្មុគស្មាញច្រើន ដោយសារថា អ្នកដែលប្រព្រឹត្តបទល្មើសរឿងដីធ្លីហ្នឹង គឺជាអ្នកជិតស្និទ្ធជាមួយនឹងមន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាល»។
លោក ចាន់ សុវ៉េត បន្តថា រាល់ជម្លោះដីធ្លីទាំងឡាយ ភាគច្រើនកើតចេញពីការផ្ដល់ដីសម្បទានសេដ្ឋកិច្ចរបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាលប្រគល់ឲ្យទៅក្រុមហ៊ុនឯកជន ដោយមិនបានសិក្សាពីផលប៉ះពាល់ឲ្យបានច្បាស់លាស់ក្នុងការដោះស្រាយសំណងផលប៉ះពាល់ មិនបានឆ្លើយតបនឹងតម្រូវការរបស់ជនរងគ្រោះ ឬសំណងជាទឹកប្រាក់នោះមានចំនួនតិចតួចមិនសមស្របតាមស្ថានភាពតម្លៃដីនៅលើទីផ្សារសេរីក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបច្ចុប្បន្ន។
លោកមានប្រសាសន៍បន្តថា ៖ «ការដោះស្រាយនេះមិនមែនជាការដោះស្រាយដោយចិរភាពទេ យន្តការនៃការដោះស្រាយនេះគ្រាន់តែបណ្ដោះអាសន្នទេ គ្រាន់តែទុកឱកាសឲ្យក្រុមហ៊ុន ឬក៏ឈ្មួញមានអំណាចហ្នឹងមានឱកាសធ្វើលើដីនោះតែម្ដង រីឯអ្នកក្រីក្ររងផលប៉ះពាល់នោះ ការដោះស្រាយមិនសមស្របមិនអាចឲ្យគាត់ទទួលយកបាន»។
មន្ត្រីស៊ើបអង្កេតជាន់ខ្ពស់នៃអង្គការសិទ្ធិមនុស្សលីកាដូ លោក អំ សំអាត បានឲ្យដឹងដែរថា អង្គការលោកបានធ្វើរបាយការណ៍ស្ដីពីបញ្ហាជម្លោះដីធ្លីដែលស្រង់ពីខេត្តក្រុងចំនួន១២ នៅចុងឆ្នាំ២០១០ កន្លងមកមាន ១០០ករណី និងមានចំនួនប្រជាពលរដ្ឋជាង ៨.០០០គ្រួសារ ដែលកំពុងមានការជំពាក់ក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងមាន ៣៧នាក់ ដែលកំពុងជាប់ឃុំខ្លួន។ ក្រុមគ្រួសារអ្នកមានជម្លោះដីធ្លីទាំងនេះ ពួកគាត់កំពុងប្រឈមមុខនឹងវិបត្តិសេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារយ៉ាងធ្ងន់ធ្ងរ។
លោក អំ សំអាត បញ្ជាក់បន្ថែម ៖ «បានន័យថា ពួកគាត់ប្រឈមមុខនឹងបញ្ហាផ្សេងៗ ដូចជាគេអាចប្ដឹងផ្ដល់តាមផ្លូវពន្ធនាគារ ឬរងការគំរាមកំហែង ហើយទី២ ប៉ះពាល់ដល់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារដោយសារតែការពារផលប្រយោជន៍របស់ខ្លួនមិនបានប្រកបមុខរបរអី ហើយអ៊ីចឹងគាត់ត្រូវប្រឈមមុខនឹងវិបត្តិសេដ្ឋកិច្ចគ្រួសារទៀត។ អ៊ីចឹងយើងឃើញថា បញ្ហានេះបានជះឥទ្ធិពលធ្ងន់ធ្ងរសម្រាប់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋក្នុងរឿងបញ្ហាដីធ្លីនេះ គឺអាចធ្វើឲ្យគាត់ហ្នឹងធ្លាក់ខ្លួនកាន់តែក្រីក្រទៅ ដោយសារការបាត់បង់នូវដីធ្លី និងមិនបានប្រកបមុខរបរ ហើយម្យ៉ាងទៀតដែលយើងឃើញកន្លងមក ប៉ះពាល់ដល់កូនចៅរបស់គាត់ដែលទៅសិក្សា»។
លោក អំ សំអាត បន្តថា វិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅកម្ពុជា ប្រៀបបាននឹងជំងឺមហារីកមួយដែលពិបាកនឹងព្យាបាល ឬដោះស្រាយ ហើយកំពុងតែទាញឲ្យប្រជាពលរដ្ឋធ្លាក់ក្នុងភាពក្រីក្ររើខ្លួនមិនរួច ហើយបញ្ហាវាកំពុងតែធ្វើដំណើរបញ្ច្រាសគ្នា និងគោលនយោបាយកាត់បន្ថយភាពក្រីក្ររបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាល។
អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ដែលកំពុងលង់ខ្លួនយ៉ាងជ្រៅក្នុងវិបត្តិដីធ្លីនៅពេលដែលមានក្រុមហ៊ុនមកអភិវឌ្ឍនៅតំបន់នោះថា បណ្ដាលឲ្យពួកគាត់បាត់បង់ដីធ្លី បាត់បង់ទីជម្រករស់នៅ និងបាត់បង់មុខរបរ។
អ្នកស្រី លី មុំ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ ប្រមាណជាង ៤.០០០គ្រួសារ ដែលបានខិតខំកសាងជីវភាពពីបាតដៃទទេអស់រយៈពេលជាច្រើនឆ្នាំមកហើយ រហូតមានគ្រួសារ មានផ្ទះរស់សមរម្យ ប៉ុន្តែពេលនេះពួកគាត់កំពុងប្រឈមមុខនឹងការបាត់បង់ទៅវិញគួរឲ្យឈឺចាប់ ដោយសារផែនការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍របស់រដ្ឋាភិបាល។
អ្នកស្រី លី មុំ បន្ថែមថា ៖ «យើងអត់បាននៅមើលថែកូនចៅនៅក្នុងផ្ទះ ផលលំបាកយើងចេះតែដើរ ដូចថា ស្វះស្វែងតវ៉ា ដែលយើងទៅតវ៉ា ឲ្យយើងដឹងពីការតស៊ូមតិហ្នឹង ខុស ឬត្រូវយ៉ាងម៉េចឲ្យគេសួរឲ្យយើង»។
អ្នកភូមិបឹងកក់ ក៏ដូចជាអ្នកមានជម្លោះដីធ្លីជាច្រើនកន្លែងទៀតក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា បានប្រឹងប្រែងស្វែងរកយុត្តិធម៌គ្រប់ច្រកល្ហកទាំងទឹកភ្នែក ដោយរងការវាយដំពីកម្លាំងសមត្ថកិច្ចបង្ក្រាបបាតុកម្មជាញឹកញាប់ ដោយសារតែចង់ការពារដីធ្លី និងទីជម្រករបស់ខ្លួន ៖ «ខ្ញុំឃើញថា វាមានភាពអយុត្តិធម៌ខ្លាំងណាស់ ពួកខ្ញុំមកទាមទារផ្ទះសម្បែងទេ តែត្រូវកងកម្លាំងប្រដាប់ដោយអាវុធដេញវ៉ៃដំប្រជាជន ហើយចាប់ប្រជាជនទៅទៀត គេដាក់កម្លាំងមកបង្ក្រាបដូចបង្ក្រាបចោរអ៊ីចឹង»។
តំណាងរាស្ត្រគណបក្សប្រឆាំង និងជាអ្នកនាំពាក្យ លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា ស្ថានភាពជម្លោះដីធ្លីមកដល់ឆ្នាំ២០១១នេះ កាន់តែមានសភាពរំជើបរំជួលគួរឲ្យបារម្ភ។ ជម្លោះដីធ្លីភាគច្រើនពាក់ព័ន្ធនឹងការផ្ដល់ដីសម្បទានសេដ្ឋកិច្ច ដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលផ្ដល់ឲ្យទៅក្រុមហ៊ុនវៀតណាម និងក្រុមហ៊ុនបរទេសជាច្រើនផ្សេងៗទៀត។
លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍បន្ត ៖ «ពុំមានការដោះស្រាយអ្វីក្រៅពីការប្រើអំពើហិង្សា ប្រើប្រាស់កម្លាំងប្រដាប់អាវុធ បង្ខំឲ្យប្រជាពលរដ្ឋធ្វើតាមសេចក្ដីសម្រេចដោយគ្មានការយល់ព្រម គ្មានការចូលរួមពីប្រជាពលរដ្ឋទេ គឺសេចក្ដីសម្រេចដែលរដ្ឋាភិបាលចាប់បង្ខំឲ្យធ្វើបែបនេះតែម្ដង»។
មន្ត្រីអ្នកនាំពាក្យអង្គភាពព័ត៌មាន និងប្រតិកម្មរហ័សនៃទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រី លោក ទិត សុធា មានប្រសាសន៍ថា ការអភិវឌ្ឍប្រទេសជាតិឲ្យរីកចម្រើនវាតែងតែមានការផ្លាស់ប្ដូរ និងវិវឌ្ឍន៍ទៅមុខ។ ប៉ុន្តែជាញឹកញយគណបក្សប្រឆាំង និងសង្គមស៊ីវិលមួយចំនួនតែងតែមិនទទួលស្គាល់សកម្មភាពជាវិជ្ជមានរបស់រដ្ឋាភិបាលនោះទេ។
លោក ទិត សុធា បន្តដូច្នេះ ៖ «យើងគួរតែមើលពីភាពវិជ្ជមាន ប្រសើរជាងនិយាយតែពីចំណុចអវិជ្ជមានតិចតួច ដែលទន្ទឹមនឹងនោះរដ្ឋាភិបាលកំពុងតែពង្រឹងកំណែទម្រង់ដីធ្លី ហើយកំពុងយកចិត្តទុកដាក់បំផុតទាក់ទាញអ្នកវិនិយោគមកបណ្ដាក់ទុននៅកម្ពុជា»។
លោកបន្តថា កន្លងមកដីសម្បទានជាច្រើនក្រុមហ៊ុនហើយដែលពុំមានការអភិវឌ្ឍ ត្រូវបានរដ្ឋាភិបាលដកហូតយកមកវិញ។
លោក យឹម សុវណ្ណ មានប្រសាសន៍ថា តាមឯកសារដែលលោកទទួលបានបង្ហាញថា បច្ចុប្បន្នមានប្រជាពលរដ្ឋប្រមាណជាង ២០ម៉ឺនគ្រួសារ ក្នុងនោះមានពលរដ្ឋប្រហែលជាងមួយលាននាក់ កំពុងស្ថិតក្នុងជម្លោះដីធ្លី និងប្រឈមនឹងការបាត់បង់ក្នុងការប្រកបមុខរបរបានឡើយ៕ដីធ្លីបង្កបង្កើនផល បាត់បង់ទីជម្រក និងមិនអាចមានពេលគ្រប់គ្រាន់
1/3/54
26/2/54
UNESCO ទៅពិនិត្យប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនៅថ្ងៃទី១ ខែមិនា
ដោយ ហង្ស សាវយុត
2011-02-26
មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរបានរំពឹងទុកថាអង្គការយូណេស្កូ (UNESCO) នឹងអាចផ្ដល់ថវិកាបន្ទាន់មួយចំនួន ដើម្បីជួយស្រោចស្រង់លើដំណើរការជួសជុលដល់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារខ្មែរ ដែលបានទទួលរងការបែកបាក់ដោយសារសង្គ្រាមកាលពីពេលថ្មីៗ។
មន្ត្រីជាន់ខ្ពស់របស់អាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារបានឲ្យដឹងថាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ (UNESCO) និងតំណាងអង្គទូតនានានៃបណ្ដាប្រទេសដែលជាសមាជិកគណៈកម្មការអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍នៃអង្គការបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកមួយចំនួន គ្រោងនឹងធ្វើដំណើរតាមឧទ្ធម្ភាគចក្រទៅពិនិត្យមើលការខូចខាតនៃប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ នៅថ្ងៃទី១ ខែមិនា ខាងមុខនេះ។
គម្រោងគណៈប្រតិភូដែលនឹងទៅពិនិត្យមើលនោះ បន្ទាប់ពីប្រាសាទបូរាណដែលជាសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌នៃបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកមួយនេះ បានទទួលរងការខូចខាតជាច្រើនកន្លែង ដោយសារគ្រាប់កាំភ្លើងធំរបស់ទាហានថៃ នៅពេលប្រយុទ្ធគ្នាជាមួយទាហានខ្មែរក្នុងរឿងជម្លោះព្រំដែននៅតំបន់ក្បែរនោះមក។
លោក ជុច ភឿន ប្រធានអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារបានមានប្រសាសន៍កាលពីល្ងាចថ្ងៃសុក្រ ទី២៥ ខែកុម្ភៈថា លោកកូអីជិរ៉ូ ម៉ាតស៊ូយូរ៉ា (Koichiro Matsuura) ដែលជាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អគ្គនាយកអង្គការយូណេស្កូ និងតំណាងប្រទេសជាសមាជិកគណៈកម្មការរបស់អង្គការបេតិកភណ្ឌមួយចំនួនទៀត មានគម្រោងនឹងទៅពិនិត្យមើលការខូចខាតនៃប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារដោយផ្ទាល់ភ្នែក ៖ "តាមគម្រោងគឺថ្ងៃទី១ ខែមិនា ហ្នឹងគឺនឹងហោះហើរទៅមានទាំងតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ UNESCO ហ្នឹងហើយនិងអង្គទូតនានានៃបណ្ដាប្រទេសដែលជាសមាជិកអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍នៃគណៈកម្មការបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោក ត្រង់ចំនួនអង្គទូតនឹងអញ្ជើញទៅប៉ុន្មាននាក់យើងអត់ទាន់ដឹងទេ"។
ចំណែកលោក ផៃ ស៊ីផាន អ្នកនាំពាក្យទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រីនៃប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបានមានប្រសាសន៍ថាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ UNESCO ដែលមានគម្រោងអញ្ជើញទៅពិនិត្យមើលប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនោះគឺនឹងធ្វើការងារផ្នែកការទូតច្រើនជាងការងារផ្នែកបច្ចេកទេស ៖ "ដែលឯកឧត្ដមអញ្ជើញមកតំណាងលោកជំទាវអគ្គនាយក (UNESCO ) ហ្នឹងគឺការងារទូតច្រើនជាងបច្ចេកទេស ដូចជាយើងបានដឹងដែលលោកអញ្ជើញមកហ្នឹងដើម្បីស្ទាបស្ទង់ស្ថានការណ៍នយោបាយរបៀបយ៉ាងម៉េច នៅក្នុងការងារដែលជាកាតព្វកិច្ចចែងនៅក្នុងអនុសញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ១៩៥៤ ក៏ដូចជាអនុសញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ១៩៧២ ស្ដីអំពីប្រសិទ្ធភាពនៃការងារអភិរក្សការពារនៃសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌ ក៏ដូចជាសម្បត្តិបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកនេះឯង"។
មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជាបានឲ្យដឹងថា លោក Koichiro Matsuura នឹងមកដល់ទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញជារាជធានីនៃប្រទេសកម្ពុជា នៅរសៀលថ្ងៃទី២៧ ខែកុម្ភៈ។ ការមកដល់នោះត្រូវបានគេរំពឹងថា យ៉ាងហោចណាស់ លោកមានគម្រោងជួបជាមួយ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន នាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រីនៃរាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា និងលោក សុខ អាន ឧបនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី និងជារដ្ឋមន្ត្រីទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រីផងដែរ។
មន្ត្រីអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារទទួលបន្ទុកថែរក្សា និងការពារប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនៅលើកំពូលភ្នំដងរែក បានឲ្យដឹងថា នៅពេលដែលមានការប្រយុទ្ធគ្នារវាងទាហានខ្មែរ-ថៃ ចំនួន ៤ថ្ងៃជាប់ៗគ្នា កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៤ រហូតដល់ថ្ងៃទី៧ ខែកុម្ភៈ ដោយសាររឿងជម្លោះព្រំដែនជិតប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនោះ គឺទាហានថៃបានបាញ់កាំភ្លើងផ្លោងធុន១៥៥មីលីម៉ែត្រ ធុន១៣០មីលីម៉ែត្រ ១០៥មីលីម៉ែត្រ និងធុនគ្រាប់បែកចង្កោមផងចំនួនជាង ៤១០គ្រាប់ ចូលក្នុងតំបន់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ បណ្ដាលឲ្យធ្នឹម, ខឿន និងថ្មប្រាសាទខ្លះត្រូវបំណែកគ្រាប់ផ្លោងមានស្នាមបាក់បែកតូចធំ និងប្រេះស្រាំរាប់ពាន់កន្លែង។
មន្ត្រីអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហាររំពឹងថា អង្គការយូណេស្កូនឹងអាចផ្ដល់ថវិកាជាបន្ទាន់មួយ ដើម្បីជួយស្រោចស្រង់លើដំណើរការជួសជុលដល់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារខ្មែរ ដែលបានទទួលរងការបែកបាក់ដោយសារសង្គ្រាម កាលពីពេលថ្មីៗ បើយោងទៅលើអនុសញ្ញាឆ្នាំ១៩៧២ ស្ដីអំពីប្រសិទ្ធភាពនៃការងារអភិរក្ស និងការពារសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌ក៏ដូចជាសម្បត្តិបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោករបស់អង្គការ UNESCO នោះ៕
Source: RFA
2011-02-26
មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាលខ្មែរបានរំពឹងទុកថាអង្គការយូណេស្កូ (UNESCO) នឹងអាចផ្ដល់ថវិកាបន្ទាន់មួយចំនួន ដើម្បីជួយស្រោចស្រង់លើដំណើរការជួសជុលដល់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារខ្មែរ ដែលបានទទួលរងការបែកបាក់ដោយសារសង្គ្រាមកាលពីពេលថ្មីៗ។
មន្ត្រីជាន់ខ្ពស់របស់អាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារបានឲ្យដឹងថាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ (UNESCO) និងតំណាងអង្គទូតនានានៃបណ្ដាប្រទេសដែលជាសមាជិកគណៈកម្មការអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍នៃអង្គការបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកមួយចំនួន គ្រោងនឹងធ្វើដំណើរតាមឧទ្ធម្ភាគចក្រទៅពិនិត្យមើលការខូចខាតនៃប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ នៅថ្ងៃទី១ ខែមិនា ខាងមុខនេះ។
គម្រោងគណៈប្រតិភូដែលនឹងទៅពិនិត្យមើលនោះ បន្ទាប់ពីប្រាសាទបូរាណដែលជាសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌នៃបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកមួយនេះ បានទទួលរងការខូចខាតជាច្រើនកន្លែង ដោយសារគ្រាប់កាំភ្លើងធំរបស់ទាហានថៃ នៅពេលប្រយុទ្ធគ្នាជាមួយទាហានខ្មែរក្នុងរឿងជម្លោះព្រំដែននៅតំបន់ក្បែរនោះមក។
លោក ជុច ភឿន ប្រធានអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារបានមានប្រសាសន៍កាលពីល្ងាចថ្ងៃសុក្រ ទី២៥ ខែកុម្ភៈថា លោកកូអីជិរ៉ូ ម៉ាតស៊ូយូរ៉ា (Koichiro Matsuura) ដែលជាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អគ្គនាយកអង្គការយូណេស្កូ និងតំណាងប្រទេសជាសមាជិកគណៈកម្មការរបស់អង្គការបេតិកភណ្ឌមួយចំនួនទៀត មានគម្រោងនឹងទៅពិនិត្យមើលការខូចខាតនៃប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារដោយផ្ទាល់ភ្នែក ៖ "តាមគម្រោងគឺថ្ងៃទី១ ខែមិនា ហ្នឹងគឺនឹងហោះហើរទៅមានទាំងតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ UNESCO ហ្នឹងហើយនិងអង្គទូតនានានៃបណ្ដាប្រទេសដែលជាសមាជិកអចិន្ត្រៃយ៍នៃគណៈកម្មការបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោក ត្រង់ចំនួនអង្គទូតនឹងអញ្ជើញទៅប៉ុន្មាននាក់យើងអត់ទាន់ដឹងទេ"។
ចំណែកលោក ផៃ ស៊ីផាន អ្នកនាំពាក្យទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រីនៃប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបានមានប្រសាសន៍ថាតំណាងពិសេសរបស់អង្គការ UNESCO ដែលមានគម្រោងអញ្ជើញទៅពិនិត្យមើលប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនោះគឺនឹងធ្វើការងារផ្នែកការទូតច្រើនជាងការងារផ្នែកបច្ចេកទេស ៖ "ដែលឯកឧត្ដមអញ្ជើញមកតំណាងលោកជំទាវអគ្គនាយក (UNESCO ) ហ្នឹងគឺការងារទូតច្រើនជាងបច្ចេកទេស ដូចជាយើងបានដឹងដែលលោកអញ្ជើញមកហ្នឹងដើម្បីស្ទាបស្ទង់ស្ថានការណ៍នយោបាយរបៀបយ៉ាងម៉េច នៅក្នុងការងារដែលជាកាតព្វកិច្ចចែងនៅក្នុងអនុសញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ១៩៥៤ ក៏ដូចជាអនុសញ្ញា ឆ្នាំ១៩៧២ ស្ដីអំពីប្រសិទ្ធភាពនៃការងារអភិរក្សការពារនៃសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌ ក៏ដូចជាសម្បត្តិបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោកនេះឯង"។
មន្ត្រីរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជាបានឲ្យដឹងថា លោក Koichiro Matsuura នឹងមកដល់ទីក្រុងភ្នំពេញជារាជធានីនៃប្រទេសកម្ពុជា នៅរសៀលថ្ងៃទី២៧ ខែកុម្ភៈ។ ការមកដល់នោះត្រូវបានគេរំពឹងថា យ៉ាងហោចណាស់ លោកមានគម្រោងជួបជាមួយ លោក ហ៊ុន សែន នាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រីនៃរាជរដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជា និងលោក សុខ អាន ឧបនាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រី និងជារដ្ឋមន្ត្រីទីស្ដីការគណៈរដ្ឋមន្ត្រីផងដែរ។
មន្ត្រីអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហារទទួលបន្ទុកថែរក្សា និងការពារប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនៅលើកំពូលភ្នំដងរែក បានឲ្យដឹងថា នៅពេលដែលមានការប្រយុទ្ធគ្នារវាងទាហានខ្មែរ-ថៃ ចំនួន ៤ថ្ងៃជាប់ៗគ្នា កាលពីថ្ងៃទី៤ រហូតដល់ថ្ងៃទី៧ ខែកុម្ភៈ ដោយសាររឿងជម្លោះព្រំដែនជិតប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារនោះ គឺទាហានថៃបានបាញ់កាំភ្លើងផ្លោងធុន១៥៥មីលីម៉ែត្រ ធុន១៣០មីលីម៉ែត្រ ១០៥មីលីម៉ែត្រ និងធុនគ្រាប់បែកចង្កោមផងចំនួនជាង ៤១០គ្រាប់ ចូលក្នុងតំបន់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារ បណ្ដាលឲ្យធ្នឹម, ខឿន និងថ្មប្រាសាទខ្លះត្រូវបំណែកគ្រាប់ផ្លោងមានស្នាមបាក់បែកតូចធំ និងប្រេះស្រាំរាប់ពាន់កន្លែង។
មន្ត្រីអាជ្ញាធរជាតិព្រះវិហាររំពឹងថា អង្គការយូណេស្កូនឹងអាចផ្ដល់ថវិកាជាបន្ទាន់មួយ ដើម្បីជួយស្រោចស្រង់លើដំណើរការជួសជុលដល់ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារខ្មែរ ដែលបានទទួលរងការបែកបាក់ដោយសារសង្គ្រាម កាលពីពេលថ្មីៗ បើយោងទៅលើអនុសញ្ញាឆ្នាំ១៩៧២ ស្ដីអំពីប្រសិទ្ធភាពនៃការងារអភិរក្ស និងការពារសម្បត្តិវប្បធម៌ក៏ដូចជាសម្បត្តិបេតិកភណ្ឌពិភពលោករបស់អង្គការ UNESCO នោះ៕
Source: RFA
Abishit ordering UNESCO?
Published: 26/02/2011 at 12:00 AM
Unesco says it will be difficult to consider Cambodia's proposed world heritage management plan for the Preah Vihear temple given the current tense situation, the Thai Foreign Ministry says.
Unesco special envoy Koichiro Matsuura meets Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at Government House yesterday to discuss the border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia. CHANAT KATANYA
The Unesco special envoy on the Preah Vihear issue, Koichiro Matsuura, who is also a former Unesco director-general, yesterday met Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya at Government House to hear about the problems between Thailand and Cambodia.
Thailand was his first leg before he heads to Cambodia tomorrow.
Thani Thongphakdee, Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Mr Matsuura understood that the problems over the Preah Vihear temple stemmed from its listing as a world heritage site given that the border's demarcation was still pending. Mr Matsuura was quoted as saying that he also admitted that in the current situation, it was difficult to move forward with the Preah Vihear management plan proposed by Cambodia.
He would review what Unesco should do next in order to ease tensions, said Mr Thani, adding that any decision making will depend on the World Heritage Committee (WHC).
The management plan is scheduled to be placed for WHC consideration at its annual meeting in Bahrain in June.
Thailand is trying to explain to Unesco that as long as the border demarcation dispute has not been solved through the Joint Boundary Committee (JBC), the organisation should delay considering the matter.
Mr Kasit also explained the progress of mechanisms which would help resolve the border problems including the JBC, General Border Committee and Regional Border Committee.
"We also told the special envoy about our progress there and that Thailand stands ready to tackle all the pending problems with Cambodia," said the spokesman. The minister also told Mr Matsuura about the history of the Preah Vihear problem that stems from both countries using different maps. Thailand has stuck to an international principle of using a watershed as a border line but Cambodia has relied on a map made by France.
Mr Matsuura was quoted as saying that he understood what was happening as he had read Mr Kasit's statement delivered to the UN Security Council on Feb 14 as well as what happened at the meeting of Asean foreign ministers in Jakarta earlier this week, which will lead to observers from the Indonesian military being stationed at the Thai-Cambodian border.
"We also emphasised the matter that Cambodian soldiers used the temple as a military base," said Mr Thani, confirming that Mr Matsuura has no plans to visit the Preah Vihear temple as earlier indicated by Cambodia.
"Unesco also supported the Thai proposal to review the history [regarding the border issues] as this led to the conflict in the region because it involved too much from the colonial era," he said.
Mr Abhisit said after the talk with the Unesco special envoy that the organisation was likely to support the use of bilateral mechanisms to resolve the conflict. "The Unesco envoy expressed his intention that he doesn't want to build up more problems in a situation of tension," said Mr Abhisit. He said he would like to tackle the border problems before consideration of the management plan.
Unesco also supported Thailand's plan to invite Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to talk about the Preah Vihear world heritage problem.
Source: Nation
Title adapted from:KI
Unesco says it will be difficult to consider Cambodia's proposed world heritage management plan for the Preah Vihear temple given the current tense situation, the Thai Foreign Ministry says.
Unesco special envoy Koichiro Matsuura meets Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at Government House yesterday to discuss the border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia. CHANAT KATANYA
The Unesco special envoy on the Preah Vihear issue, Koichiro Matsuura, who is also a former Unesco director-general, yesterday met Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya at Government House to hear about the problems between Thailand and Cambodia.
Thailand was his first leg before he heads to Cambodia tomorrow.
Thani Thongphakdee, Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Mr Matsuura understood that the problems over the Preah Vihear temple stemmed from its listing as a world heritage site given that the border's demarcation was still pending. Mr Matsuura was quoted as saying that he also admitted that in the current situation, it was difficult to move forward with the Preah Vihear management plan proposed by Cambodia.
He would review what Unesco should do next in order to ease tensions, said Mr Thani, adding that any decision making will depend on the World Heritage Committee (WHC).
The management plan is scheduled to be placed for WHC consideration at its annual meeting in Bahrain in June.
Thailand is trying to explain to Unesco that as long as the border demarcation dispute has not been solved through the Joint Boundary Committee (JBC), the organisation should delay considering the matter.
Mr Kasit also explained the progress of mechanisms which would help resolve the border problems including the JBC, General Border Committee and Regional Border Committee.
"We also told the special envoy about our progress there and that Thailand stands ready to tackle all the pending problems with Cambodia," said the spokesman. The minister also told Mr Matsuura about the history of the Preah Vihear problem that stems from both countries using different maps. Thailand has stuck to an international principle of using a watershed as a border line but Cambodia has relied on a map made by France.
Mr Matsuura was quoted as saying that he understood what was happening as he had read Mr Kasit's statement delivered to the UN Security Council on Feb 14 as well as what happened at the meeting of Asean foreign ministers in Jakarta earlier this week, which will lead to observers from the Indonesian military being stationed at the Thai-Cambodian border.
"We also emphasised the matter that Cambodian soldiers used the temple as a military base," said Mr Thani, confirming that Mr Matsuura has no plans to visit the Preah Vihear temple as earlier indicated by Cambodia.
"Unesco also supported the Thai proposal to review the history [regarding the border issues] as this led to the conflict in the region because it involved too much from the colonial era," he said.
Mr Abhisit said after the talk with the Unesco special envoy that the organisation was likely to support the use of bilateral mechanisms to resolve the conflict. "The Unesco envoy expressed his intention that he doesn't want to build up more problems in a situation of tension," said Mr Abhisit. He said he would like to tackle the border problems before consideration of the management plan.
Unesco also supported Thailand's plan to invite Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to talk about the Preah Vihear world heritage problem.
Source: Nation
Title adapted from:KI
6/2/54
Hindus want disputed Thai-Cambodia Hindu Shiva temple be transferred to UN control
Nevada (US), Feb 06: Hindus have asked that landmark Preah Vihear Hindu temple complex, cause of border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, should be turned over to United Nations (UN) control.
Notable Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that 11th century Preah Vihar was a world heritage and it was moral duty of the world to keep it preserved and intact for the coming generations.
Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, argued that this Lord Shiva temple was sacred to the Hindus of the world and reported damage caused by recent military crossfire could be hurtful to the devotees.
Rajan Zed pointed out that frequent clashes between Cambodia and Thailand because of long-running feud might further damage the already fragile temple. UN presence would help in protecting the sacred site, development and upkeep of the area, allowing easy access and provision of needed facilities to devotees and other visitors, bringing more economic development and investment in the region, clearing of reported area landmines and saving the military and civilian lives which were usually lost in conflicts.
Known as Preah Vihear in Cambodia and Khao Phra Viharn in Thailand, this remote temple at the border between Thailand and Cambodia, which has reportedly not been clearly demarcated, has been a source of tension for generations. Preah Vihear was said to even predate Cambodia’s Angkor Wat temple complex by about 100 years and its stunning setting made it finest of all the ruins left from the mighty Khmer civilization, Zed added.
Rajan Zed further said that world could not let this sacred site dedicated to Lord Shiva (situated where Preah Vihear province of northern Cambodia touched Sisaket province of eastern Thailand) be further damaged to advance political agendas of some as there appeared to be a no clear solution to settle the long-standing territorial dispute surrounding the temple, which was already a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and whose history could be traced to 9th century when the hermitage was founded.
Moreover, Temple of Preah Vihear, an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture mostly created by Suryavarman I and Suryavarman II, was a unique architectural complex of a series of sanctuaries and was said to be exceptional for the quality of its architecture and carved stone ornamentation. It was reportedly dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva in his manifestations as Sikharesvara and Bhadresvara. It was also said to be marking representation of sacred Mount Meru, the abode of the gods, and showing a depiction of Churning of the Ocean, a Hindu scriptural episode, Zed indicated.
Source: Dailyindia.com
Notable Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that 11th century Preah Vihar was a world heritage and it was moral duty of the world to keep it preserved and intact for the coming generations.
Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, argued that this Lord Shiva temple was sacred to the Hindus of the world and reported damage caused by recent military crossfire could be hurtful to the devotees.
Rajan Zed pointed out that frequent clashes between Cambodia and Thailand because of long-running feud might further damage the already fragile temple. UN presence would help in protecting the sacred site, development and upkeep of the area, allowing easy access and provision of needed facilities to devotees and other visitors, bringing more economic development and investment in the region, clearing of reported area landmines and saving the military and civilian lives which were usually lost in conflicts.
Known as Preah Vihear in Cambodia and Khao Phra Viharn in Thailand, this remote temple at the border between Thailand and Cambodia, which has reportedly not been clearly demarcated, has been a source of tension for generations. Preah Vihear was said to even predate Cambodia’s Angkor Wat temple complex by about 100 years and its stunning setting made it finest of all the ruins left from the mighty Khmer civilization, Zed added.
Rajan Zed further said that world could not let this sacred site dedicated to Lord Shiva (situated where Preah Vihear province of northern Cambodia touched Sisaket province of eastern Thailand) be further damaged to advance political agendas of some as there appeared to be a no clear solution to settle the long-standing territorial dispute surrounding the temple, which was already a UNESCO World Heritage Site, and whose history could be traced to 9th century when the hermitage was founded.
Moreover, Temple of Preah Vihear, an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture mostly created by Suryavarman I and Suryavarman II, was a unique architectural complex of a series of sanctuaries and was said to be exceptional for the quality of its architecture and carved stone ornamentation. It was reportedly dedicated to the Hindu god Shiva in his manifestations as Sikharesvara and Bhadresvara. It was also said to be marking representation of sacred Mount Meru, the abode of the gods, and showing a depiction of Churning of the Ocean, a Hindu scriptural episode, Zed indicated.
Source: Dailyindia.com
5/2/54
មេទ័ពថៃខឹងអ្នកធ្វើបាតុកម្ម
หลังเหตุปะทะกันของทหารบริเวณชายแดนไทย-กัมพูชา จนมีผลให้ทหารไทยบาดเจ็บและชาวบ้านเสียชีวิต 1 ราย ขณะที่กลุ่มพันธมิตรก็ยังไม่หยุดประท้วง ในฐานะผบ.ทบ. จึงลุกขึ้นมาถามว่า ถ้าเป็นอยู่อย่างนี้ ชายแดนก็มีปัญหา กรุงเทพฯก็มีปัญหา การเมืองไม่มีเสถียรภาพ ตนไม่รู้ว่าท่านจะเอาอะไรกัน ท่านมาหาว่าทหารจะปฏิวัติ สรุปก็แตกกันให้หมดทั้งประเทศ ก็แบ่งข้างกันไป ตนขอเป็นทหารที่จะปกป้องประเทศชาติ สถาบันชาติ ศาสนา พระมหากษัตริย์ ใครจะมาอยู่กับทหารก็มา ใครจะไปอยู่กับพวกใครก็ไป เอาอย่างนั้นดีไหม ประชาชนทุกคนต้องช่วยกันแก้ไข ต้องไปพูดกับเขาว่าขอร้องได้ไหม ถ้าจะมาถามตนว่า ให้ตนหยุดพวกเขาได้ไหม แล้วตนจะไปหยุดเขาได้ไหม ตนไปห้ามเขาก็ไม่ได้ ตนยังถูกเขาด่าทุกวัน เขามาด่าตนเรื่องอะไรยังไม่รู้เลย ไปบอกเขาซิ พวกคุณเห็นผมบ้างไหม หรือหัวเราะตนอีก ให้กำลังใจกันดีเหลือเกิน...
ប្រភព៖ ថៃរ៉ាត់
ប្រភព៖ ថៃរ៉ាត់
29/1/54
ทหารไทยถูกทหารเขมรให้ถอนป้ายออก
កងទ័ពកម្ពុជាបង្ខំអោយទាហ៊ានថៃដកបាណូដែលរំលោភលើទឹកដីខ្មែរ នៅចំណុចសំបុកឃ្មុំ ប្រាសាទព្រះវិហារកាលពីថ្ងៃទី ២៦ មករា ២០១១
26/1/54
អាណិតចារឹកខ្មែរ
អភិសិទ្ធិមុខថ្លា ព្រោះខ្លួនបានទទួលជ័យជំនះលើខ្មែរមួយក្ឌាំង ។ ប៉ុន្តែជាកិច្ចកលនយោបាយក៏អាចថាបាន ។ ការចេញក្រឡាសាររបស់នាយករដ្ឋមន្ត្រីថៃបានលេចឡើងបន្ទាប់ពីបក្សពួកខ្លួនដែលដេកគុកខ្មែរបានរួចពីគុកខ្មែរ ។ ចំណែកអាអ្នកនៅសល់គេកំពុងដើរក្រឡា ។ មិនយូរទេឆាកថ្មីនឹងត្រដែតមកទៀត ។ មួយជើងថ្មីនេះមិនដឹងខាងយើងឬខាងគេទេដែលត្រូវស៊ី ។ អាត្រង់នេះវាស្រេចទៅលើអ្នកគូសវាសចង្អុលផ្លូវ ។ ឬត្រូវចាញ់ទៀតដឹងយើង ។ វាយចារឹកខ្មែរពីផ្ទាំងបានសម្រេច សំឡេងអាភីស៊ីតត្រូវតែបានទទួលគេចមិនបាន ។ ខាងយើងត្រូវស្រុតបន្តិច ប៉ុន្តែគេព្រាងថាមិនឲ្យខាតទេ គឺត្រូវបានស៊ីទាំងសងខាង បើមិនដូច្នេះ អាញ់ឈប់លេង ។ អារឿងខាងអ្នកធំយើងធើថោកគឺបណ្តោយឲ្យគេប្រមាថលើមរតកខ្មែរ ។ គាស់រំលើងទាំងអស់ម៉ោ ហើយយកទៅតម្កល់ទុកក្នុងវត្ថ ឬ ទិញប្រេងចាក់ឡានដឹកចុះមកទុកផុតពីកន្លែងជម្លោះទៅ ។ ម៉េចក៏មិនធ្វើ បែរទៅជាវាយកម្ចេច (demolish)។
17/1/54
Thailand-Cambodia: A Love-Hate Relationship
Charnvit Kasetsiri
The violence which culminated in the burning of the Royal Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh on January 29, 2003, was both shocking and unexpected. The rioting not only inflicted extensive damage to Thai-owned property (fortunately, no one was killed) but severely strained Thai-Cambodian relations. It also warrants study of the history of Thai-Cambodian relations to understand the deep-seated causes of what took place so that similar incidents can be avoided in the future.
Among the neighboring countries of Southeast Asia, none seems more similar to Thailand than Cambodia (perhaps not even excluding Laos and the “Tai” people scattered throughout such countries as Burma, Vietnam, and southern China). Both nations share similar customs, traditions, beliefs, and ways of life. This is especially true of royal customs, language, writing systems, vocabulary, literature, and the dramatic arts.
In light of these similarities, it seems surprising, therefore, that relations between Thailand and Cambodia should be characterized by deep-seated “ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice.” Indeed, the two countries have what can be termed “a love-hate relationship.”
This lack of understanding is reflected in the thinking of a considerable number of educated Thais and members of the ruling class, who distinguish between the Khom and the Khmer, considering them to be two separate ethnic groups. They assert that it was the Khom, not the Khmer, who built the majestic temple complexes at Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom and who founded one of the world’s truly magnificent ancient empires. They further claim that Khmer culture, for instance its various forms of masked dance drama, is merely a “derivative” of Thai culture. (This is despite the fact that the word “Khom” is derived from the old Thai “Khmer krom,” meaning “lowland Khmer.” In spoken Thai, “Khmer” was gradually dropped, leaving only “krom,” which over time became, first, “klom” or “kalom,” and then eventually “Khom.”)
The border between Thailand and Cambodia is approximately 800 kilometers long, stretching along the provinces of the lower Northeast from a point known as “Chong Bok” in Ubon Ratchathani (where the Thai, Laotian, and Cambodian borders meet and which some refer to as the “Emerald Triangle”) and ending in Had Lek sub-district of Klong Yai district, in Trat province.
This long border is symbolic of the long history of relations between the Thais and the Khom-Khmer, which date from before the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom in the thirteenth century, thus starting the “love-hate relationship.” A similar relationship exists between the Japanese and the Koreans. Much of what defines Japanese culture today has been influenced by and is part of the cultural heritage of Korea. Buddhism, silkmaking, lacquerware, architecture, and sculpture – the most refined aspects of culture which the Japanese identify with China – passed to them first through Korea. But because of Japan’s successful transformation into an industrial powerhouse, that country has overlooked its debt to Korea and, in fact, treats Korea as an inferior.
Those elements of Thai culture which are generally considered to have originated in India, such as Buddhism, architecture, artistic designs, and even a significant portion of the Thai lexicon, did not enter Thailand directly from India. Rather, they were all second-hand transmissions, so to speak, having first passed through the Sri Lankans (including the Tamil), the Mon, or the Khmer. Even the concept of divine kingship (devaraja) and much of the special vocabulary associated with the royal court were, as M.R. Kukrit Pramoj, a noted intellectual and former Thai prime minister, said, “derived from Cambodia.”
Thai leaders in the past were filled with tremendous admiration for anything Khom-Khmer. Khun Pha Muang, who ruled the city of Muang Rad, somewhere in present-day northern Thailand, and was instrumental in the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom, was given the title “Sri Intrabodintrathit” (before it was changed to “Sri Intrathit”). This is a name taken from the lord or phee fah of the city of “muang Sri Sothonpura.” Pha Muang’s royal regalia, known as “Pra Khan Jayasri,” the Jayasri sword, and his royal consort named “Sikara Maha Devi,” were all bestowed by the King of Angkor.
This is the message conveyed to us by a fourteenth-century stone inscription of Wat Srichum at Sukhothai (the authenticity of which has never been questioned, unlike that of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription). The Thai term “phee fah” (referring to a king) and the term “Sri Sothonpura” are direct references to a Khom-Khmer king and his royal capital. The king in question was probably King Jayavarman VIII (1243-1295) and the royal capital of Sri Sothonpura is certainly Angkor Thom.
In other words, the earliest royal Thai titles – King Sri Intrabodintrathit, the Pra Khan Jayasri sword, and the consort Sikara Maha Devi – were derived from the Khmer, one of the most highly advanced civilizations in Southeast Asia at the time and a source of knowledge and inspiration to the Thai people. It is possible that Sikara Maha Devi was a daughter of King Jayavarman VIII and thus the Thai leader Khun Pha Muang, one of the founders of Sukhothai, was a son-in-law of the Khmer King.
The early history of the Lao Lan Xang kingdom in Luang Prabang shares distinct similarities. Fah Ngum, the founder of the kingdom, had sought refuge at Angkor, where he was given a sacred Buddha image (Phra Bang) and where he took a Khmer consort (Mahesi) before establishing his supremacy over all the Lao people (A.D. 1353).
This respect and admiration for anything Khmer also characterized the Ayutthaya period from the mid-fourteenth century onward. Interestingly, the flourishing of Khmer art and culture at the Thai court was the result of war, a war in which the victors adopted elements of the superior civilization of the losing side.
The glorious Khom-Khmer civilization ultimately sank into decline, as Sri Sothonpura (Angkor Thom or Sri Yasodharapura), seat of the kingdom, fell three times to invading armies – first to King U-Thong in 1369, second to King Ramesuan in 1388/9, and finally in 1431 to King Sam Phraya. The sacking of Sri Sothonpura can be compared to the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, but Thai historians are reluctant to make this analogy as it casts Thais in the role of “villains,” a role more comfortably attributed to the Burmese.
However, the Thai conquest of Sri Sothonpura led to a burgeoning of Khmer art and culture in Ayutthaya, just as the Mongol conquest of China led to the Mongol adoption of Chinese customs and culture (the founding of the Yuan dynasty at Peking). As Professor David Wyatt of Cornell University once noted, in fact, “Ayutthaya is the successor of Angkor.”
Another example from the Ayutthaya period is the decision by King Prasat Thong (1630-1656) to build the principal prang at Wat Chaiyawatanaram in the Khmer style and to bestow on the Khmer-style palace he constructed on the banks of the Pasak River (located today in Nakhon Luang district of Ayutthaya province) the name “Nakhon Luang.” This is a name taken directly from Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom, as Thais at the time referred to the Khmer capital as (Phra) “Nakhon Luang” or in Pali-Sanskrit, Nagara, the City.
The admiration of the Thai ruling classes for things Khmer-Khom remained in evidence even into the Ratanakosin (Bangkok) period. King Rama IV, or King Mongkut (r.1851-1868), for instance, ordered a Khmer stone temple disassembled and reconstructed on Thai soil, but “Phra Suphanphisan, after a trip to the ancient Khmer capital at Angkor, informed the King that all the stone temples were too enormous to be taken apart and transported to Siam. Hearing this, the King ordered that Prasat Ta Prohm, a relatively smaller temple, be relocated instead. Four groups of 500 men each were dispatched…to deconstruct the prasat on the ninth day of the sixth lunar month.”
The account of this event, which appears in “The Royal Chronicles of King Rama IV” by Chao Phraya Thipakorawong, occurred in 1860, before the Siamese ceded “sovereignty” over Cambodia to the French in 1867.
It is unclear to us precisely why King Mongkut wished to have an enormous Khmer temple reconstructed in Siam at a time when the French were gradually extending their control over much of Indochina. What is interesting, however, is that the attempt to move the temple structure failed when “some 300 Khmers came out of the forest and attacked the men who had come to disassemble the temple, killing Phra Suphanphisan, Phra Wang and one of Phra Suphanphisan’s sons. Phra Mahatthai was stabbed, and Phra Yokkrabat was injured. The phrai commoners, however, escaped injury by fleeing into the forest.”
It was obvious that the Khmer were angered by the theft of their property and responded violently. The incident convinced King Mongkut to abandon the plan to “disassemble” the prasat and instead to construct a small model of the Angkor Wat temple complex. “Craftsmen constructed a model of Angkor Wat and installed it at Wat Phra Sri Ratanasasadaram (the Temple of the Emerald Buddha), where it remains to this very day.” (Prime Minister Hun Sen visited the model at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in early 1990s during an official visit to Thailand for discussions with then-Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan.)
Despite the Thai love and admiration for anything Khmer, the Thais have also felt considerable hatred for the Khmer, as evidenced by a ritual called the phithi pathomkam. While Ayutthaya was busy fending off Burmese incursions, the Khmer King Satha (Chetta I, r.1576-1596) took the opportunity to attack Ayutthaya from the east. In revenge, so the chronicles say, King Naresuan ordered the capture of Khmer ruler to be beheaded and washed his feet with the blood.
The phithi pathomkam ritual re-enacts this story of revenge. However, Professor Kajorn Sukhapanich, a noted Thai historian, did not believe that the ritual, as recorded in the royal chronicles, ever really occurred. He claimed that Khmer King Satha fled and took refuge in Laos.
In general, present-day Thai view Khmer leaders and kings as traitors and ingrates. This idea was probably started by King Vajiravudh, or Rama VI (r.1910-1925), in his official nationalism campaign. It was handed down and developed by Field Marshal Phinbun and Luang Wichit in the 1930s-1940s when Thailand, with Japanese help, seized Siemreap and Battambang from French Indochina. It was also heightened by the dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit when the International Court of Justice ruled that the great temple of Phra Viharn on the border belonged to Cambodia. The pro-Americanism of Thailand and the neutrality of Sihanouk Cambodia during the Cold War further encouraged mutual dislike between the two countries and peoples.
Thais are not particularly fond of Norodom Sihanouk, for example. A Thai riddle asks, “What color (si) do Thai people hate?” The answer is neither red (si daeng) nor black (si dam), but “Si-hanouk.”
This, of course, is the Thai perspective, but how do the Khmer view their kings, such as Satha and Sihanouk? Certainly as national heroes and saviors, as men who fought to preserve their country’s independence in the face of Thai aggressors intent on seizing control of Cambodia. Much the same could be said about King Anu of Laos, r.1805-1828, considered by Lao historians as a national hero, whereas to the Thais, he was a “rebel” against the Bangkok monarch King Rama III (r.1824-1851).
The history of Thailand and its neighbors, especially Cambodia, Laos, and Burma, is one with both positive and negative elements. Some events have bred hatred, for instance of the Burmese by the Thais; others have generated contempt and feelings of superiority or inferiority, as in the case of Thailand’s relations with Cambodia and Laos. These feelings have led to significant misunderstandings.
Clearly, then, there is a need for an earnest and systematic study of the history of relations between these countries. This study deserves support from national and regional organizations such as ASEAN. Unfortunately, however, once the smoke clears from the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh, all that is likely to matter is the extent of the financial damage and how and when compensation will be paid.
Or if any analysis of the incident does take place, it is likely to reach the facile conclusion that the Khmers are “the villains” – they burned down Thai Embassy, after all – and the Thais are “the good guys” – we did not burn the Cambodian Embassy. It is convenient for Thais to forget that Ayutthaya rulers sacked Angkor three times. It would be far preferable, however, to examine the violent events of January 29 in order to draw lessons for solving the problems that continue to affect the neighboring countries of the Southeast Asian region.
Select Bibliography
The following texts shed some light for a better understanding of our Southeast Asian neighbors, especially Cambodia, its history, and the question of the Khmer legacy.
Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. เขมรสามยก (Khamen sam yok / Cambodia: Three Times). 1993. A travel account of three trips made in 1992 and 1993, this book provides a day-by-day account of the Princess’s experiences in Cambodia, intending to give an understanding of the country and its customs. Filled with general information, the book is easy and pleasurable reading, and, importantly, contains beautiful photographs which help clarify the descriptions of modern day Cambodia (to 1992), as well as the historical sites at Angkor. 309 pages. 500 baht.
George Coedes. Angkor: An Introduction (translated into Thai by Pranee Wongthes as เมืองพระนคร นครวัด นครธม ). 1986. A popular book, currently in its seventh printing, written by an eminent French scholar from the Ecole Française d’Extrème Orient. Coedes once worked in Thailand and was the first man to read the Ramkhamhaeng Inscription Stone in its entirety. This text is a “must read” for anyone wishing to gain an understanding of the history of the ancient Khmer and the concept of divine kingship which informed the building of the great prasart. The book traces the development of the magnificent Khmer civilization and its eventual collapse. A smooth translation of the original, easy to read. 228 pages. 195 baht.
David Chandler. A History of Cambodia (translated into Thai by Phanngam Ngaothamasarn, Sodsai Khantiworapong, and Wongduen Narasajja as ประวัติศาสตร์กัมพูชา / Prawatsat Kamphucha). 1997 (second printing, 2000). Chandler, an eminent American scholar, is a former professor at Monash University, Australia. The book recounts the history of Cambodia, beginning from ancient times (before and after Angkor) and continuing to the present day (before and after the Khmer Rouge). It provides the “best background” to Cambodian history currently available in Thai. The book received an award for best translation of a work of non-fiction in 1999. A valuable reference book, suitable for reports, articles and advanced study. 412 pages. 250 baht.
Nikhom Musikakhama. ประวัติศาสตร์โบราณคดี กัมพูชา (Archeological History of Cambodia). 1993. A text published by the Fine Arts Department to mark the official opening of the National Museum at Phimai by Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn in 1993. The book is an attempt by the government to illustrate that: “Just as the two banks of the Mekhong River have not been able to separate the Thais from their Lao brothers and sisters, the Dongrak Hills have failed to separate Thailand from Cambodia.” This is a dense and fairly serious work, tracing the history of the Khmer people from before the founding of Angkor to the fall of the empire at the hands of Vietnamese and Thai invaders. The book serves as an excellent guide for determining what is “reliable” and what is “unreliable” in the study of historical “records.” Special attention should be paid to Chapter 5. 430 pages.
Jit Phumisak. ตำนานแห่งนครวัด (Prawatsat Borankhadi Kamphucha / The Legend of Angkor Wat). 1982 (second printing, 2002). This book, by an important Thai thinker and writer, is in the style of a cultural travel guide. It is an attempt to clear up misunderstandings and “overcome Thai prejudice and contempt for the Khmer.” Although it is somewhat romanticized, the book is full of insightful conversations between young men and women who ask questions and look for answers to the mystery of the rise and fall of the Khmer empire. First printing B.E. 2525 (1982), second printing B.E. 2545 (2002). Beautiful illustrations. 196+ pages. 175 baht.
Bernard Groslier. นี่ เสียมกุก (Syam Kuk). (Translated into English by Benedict Anderson from the French “Les Syam Kuk des bas-reliefs d’Angkor Vat” in Orients pour George-Condominas, Sud-est Asie/Privat, Paris, 1981; Thai version edited by Charnvit Kasetsiri). 2002. The book presents the debate over the identity of the figures known as “Syam” carved into the stone prasat at Angkor. “Were they Thai? Where they Siamese? Were they mercenaries? Were they primitive babarians? Precisely who were they?” The book also discusses a new theory which posits that these figures were none other than the Kuay or Kui, one of the oldest indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia, who are somewhat disparagingly referred to as the “Suay” in Thai or the “Kha”in Lao. These people inhabited remote areas between the Khmer and the ancient Champa kingdoms. (M. Groslier was the French curator who remained at Angkor until the very last moment during the Khmer Rouge period. He believed that the flourishing of the ancient Khmer civilization was due to its ability to harness waterpower. To him the Angkorian Empire was a hydraulic society.) 165 baht.
Sujit Wongthes, editor. พระนเรศวรตีเมืองละแวก แต่ไม่ได้ “ฆ่า” พระยาละแวก Phra Naresuan ti muang Lawaek dai tae maikai kha Phraya Lawaek / King Naresuan Captured the City of Lovek, But Did Not “Kill” its King). A history text consisting of dense but readable academic articles by Janchai Phakatimkom, Boonteun Srivorapong, and Santi Pakdeekham, which present new information, new perspectives, and new theories which contrast with long-standing readings of “historical records.” According to these articles, King Naresuan, in 1593, did in fact attack Lovek, the capital of the Khmer empire after the fall of Angkor, but he did not kill the Cambodian monarch, and the Pathomkam ritual, in which the blood of the Khmer king was used to wash King Naresuan’s feet, did not occur. These writers contend that the Khmer King of Lovek fled to Laos where he lived out the rest of his days. This book is recommended for the way in which it opens up new perspectives on the past and for its rejection of old-fashioned “fanatical nationalism.” (The editor is a national artist and cultural treasure; Janchai is a history professor at Ramkhamhaeng University, and Santi is an instructor at Srinakarintrawirot University – see his translation of the text on differences between Thai and Cambodian perspectives.) 184 pages. 155 baht.
Charnvit Kasetsiri. วิถีไทย (Withi Thai / The Thai Way). 1997. This is an historical and cultural guidebook intended to give Thai readers an understanding of and respect for their Southeast Asian neighbors. It takes the approach that by understanding “them,” we can better understand “ourselves.” The book attempts to break down the barriers imposed by borders, prejudice, and outdated nationalistic attitudes. For information on Cambodia, readers are directed to the chapters entitled “Across Cambodia from Atop Phra Viharn” and “Angkor Wat: Record of a Journey to the Celestial Palace of the Khom.” 321 pages. 230 baht.
Theeraphap Lohitakul. รัก ชื่น ขื่น ชัง อุษาคเนย์ (Rak, chun, khun, chang Usakhane / Love, Admiration, Resentment and Hatred in Southeast Asia). 2002. Written in a romantic style by one of the country’s most highly regarded travel writers, this book is a cultural guide to Southeast Asia with interesting historical asides. What is most noteworthy is the writer’s obvious respect and admiration for cultures and peoples different from the Thais. At the same time, however, the book’s title and chapter headings such as “Reassessing the Past: From Bang Rachan to Suranaree” and “To Whom Does Phra Viharn Belong? A Question We Should Perhaps Stop Asking” point to elements of love and hate in relations between neighboring countries in the region. Very easy to read, with beautiful illustrations, the book is an attack on ethnocentrism. 304 pages. 200 baht.
Apichart Kaweephokha. ปราสาทสด๊กก๊อกธม ประวัติศาสตร์และอารยธรรมขอม สระแก้ว บันเตีย เมียนจาย (Prasat Sdok Kok Thom prawatsat lae arayatham khom sra keo bantai mainchai / Prasat Sadok Kok Thom: Khom History and Civilization in Sra Kaew and Bantay Mian Jai). An admirable attempt to promote cross-cultural understanding at the local level. The book makes use of historical information, stone inscriptions, cultural travels, religious rituals, and other local activities to break down national barriers and promote cooperation between Sra Kaew province in Thailand (the location of the Prasat Sadok Kok Thom) and Bantia Mian Jai province in Cambodia (site of Prasat Bantay Chamar). The writer is the chief district officer in Khok Sung district, Sra Kaew. 190 pages. 100 baht.
Thai historian Charnvit Kasetsiri is senior advisor to the Southeast Asia Studies Program at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. This article was translated by Michael Crabtree, with assistance from Somjit Jirananthiporn.
Source: kyotoreview
The violence which culminated in the burning of the Royal Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh on January 29, 2003, was both shocking and unexpected. The rioting not only inflicted extensive damage to Thai-owned property (fortunately, no one was killed) but severely strained Thai-Cambodian relations. It also warrants study of the history of Thai-Cambodian relations to understand the deep-seated causes of what took place so that similar incidents can be avoided in the future.
Among the neighboring countries of Southeast Asia, none seems more similar to Thailand than Cambodia (perhaps not even excluding Laos and the “Tai” people scattered throughout such countries as Burma, Vietnam, and southern China). Both nations share similar customs, traditions, beliefs, and ways of life. This is especially true of royal customs, language, writing systems, vocabulary, literature, and the dramatic arts.
In light of these similarities, it seems surprising, therefore, that relations between Thailand and Cambodia should be characterized by deep-seated “ignorance, misunderstanding, and prejudice.” Indeed, the two countries have what can be termed “a love-hate relationship.”
This lack of understanding is reflected in the thinking of a considerable number of educated Thais and members of the ruling class, who distinguish between the Khom and the Khmer, considering them to be two separate ethnic groups. They assert that it was the Khom, not the Khmer, who built the majestic temple complexes at Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom and who founded one of the world’s truly magnificent ancient empires. They further claim that Khmer culture, for instance its various forms of masked dance drama, is merely a “derivative” of Thai culture. (This is despite the fact that the word “Khom” is derived from the old Thai “Khmer krom,” meaning “lowland Khmer.” In spoken Thai, “Khmer” was gradually dropped, leaving only “krom,” which over time became, first, “klom” or “kalom,” and then eventually “Khom.”)
The border between Thailand and Cambodia is approximately 800 kilometers long, stretching along the provinces of the lower Northeast from a point known as “Chong Bok” in Ubon Ratchathani (where the Thai, Laotian, and Cambodian borders meet and which some refer to as the “Emerald Triangle”) and ending in Had Lek sub-district of Klong Yai district, in Trat province.
This long border is symbolic of the long history of relations between the Thais and the Khom-Khmer, which date from before the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom in the thirteenth century, thus starting the “love-hate relationship.” A similar relationship exists between the Japanese and the Koreans. Much of what defines Japanese culture today has been influenced by and is part of the cultural heritage of Korea. Buddhism, silkmaking, lacquerware, architecture, and sculpture – the most refined aspects of culture which the Japanese identify with China – passed to them first through Korea. But because of Japan’s successful transformation into an industrial powerhouse, that country has overlooked its debt to Korea and, in fact, treats Korea as an inferior.
Those elements of Thai culture which are generally considered to have originated in India, such as Buddhism, architecture, artistic designs, and even a significant portion of the Thai lexicon, did not enter Thailand directly from India. Rather, they were all second-hand transmissions, so to speak, having first passed through the Sri Lankans (including the Tamil), the Mon, or the Khmer. Even the concept of divine kingship (devaraja) and much of the special vocabulary associated with the royal court were, as M.R. Kukrit Pramoj, a noted intellectual and former Thai prime minister, said, “derived from Cambodia.”
Thai leaders in the past were filled with tremendous admiration for anything Khom-Khmer. Khun Pha Muang, who ruled the city of Muang Rad, somewhere in present-day northern Thailand, and was instrumental in the founding of the Sukhothai kingdom, was given the title “Sri Intrabodintrathit” (before it was changed to “Sri Intrathit”). This is a name taken from the lord or phee fah of the city of “muang Sri Sothonpura.” Pha Muang’s royal regalia, known as “Pra Khan Jayasri,” the Jayasri sword, and his royal consort named “Sikara Maha Devi,” were all bestowed by the King of Angkor.
This is the message conveyed to us by a fourteenth-century stone inscription of Wat Srichum at Sukhothai (the authenticity of which has never been questioned, unlike that of the Ram Khamhaeng Inscription). The Thai term “phee fah” (referring to a king) and the term “Sri Sothonpura” are direct references to a Khom-Khmer king and his royal capital. The king in question was probably King Jayavarman VIII (1243-1295) and the royal capital of Sri Sothonpura is certainly Angkor Thom.
In other words, the earliest royal Thai titles – King Sri Intrabodintrathit, the Pra Khan Jayasri sword, and the consort Sikara Maha Devi – were derived from the Khmer, one of the most highly advanced civilizations in Southeast Asia at the time and a source of knowledge and inspiration to the Thai people. It is possible that Sikara Maha Devi was a daughter of King Jayavarman VIII and thus the Thai leader Khun Pha Muang, one of the founders of Sukhothai, was a son-in-law of the Khmer King.
The early history of the Lao Lan Xang kingdom in Luang Prabang shares distinct similarities. Fah Ngum, the founder of the kingdom, had sought refuge at Angkor, where he was given a sacred Buddha image (Phra Bang) and where he took a Khmer consort (Mahesi) before establishing his supremacy over all the Lao people (A.D. 1353).
This respect and admiration for anything Khmer also characterized the Ayutthaya period from the mid-fourteenth century onward. Interestingly, the flourishing of Khmer art and culture at the Thai court was the result of war, a war in which the victors adopted elements of the superior civilization of the losing side.
The glorious Khom-Khmer civilization ultimately sank into decline, as Sri Sothonpura (Angkor Thom or Sri Yasodharapura), seat of the kingdom, fell three times to invading armies – first to King U-Thong in 1369, second to King Ramesuan in 1388/9, and finally in 1431 to King Sam Phraya. The sacking of Sri Sothonpura can be compared to the fall of Ayutthaya in 1767, but Thai historians are reluctant to make this analogy as it casts Thais in the role of “villains,” a role more comfortably attributed to the Burmese.
However, the Thai conquest of Sri Sothonpura led to a burgeoning of Khmer art and culture in Ayutthaya, just as the Mongol conquest of China led to the Mongol adoption of Chinese customs and culture (the founding of the Yuan dynasty at Peking). As Professor David Wyatt of Cornell University once noted, in fact, “Ayutthaya is the successor of Angkor.”
Another example from the Ayutthaya period is the decision by King Prasat Thong (1630-1656) to build the principal prang at Wat Chaiyawatanaram in the Khmer style and to bestow on the Khmer-style palace he constructed on the banks of the Pasak River (located today in Nakhon Luang district of Ayutthaya province) the name “Nakhon Luang.” This is a name taken directly from Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom, as Thais at the time referred to the Khmer capital as (Phra) “Nakhon Luang” or in Pali-Sanskrit, Nagara, the City.
The admiration of the Thai ruling classes for things Khmer-Khom remained in evidence even into the Ratanakosin (Bangkok) period. King Rama IV, or King Mongkut (r.1851-1868), for instance, ordered a Khmer stone temple disassembled and reconstructed on Thai soil, but “Phra Suphanphisan, after a trip to the ancient Khmer capital at Angkor, informed the King that all the stone temples were too enormous to be taken apart and transported to Siam. Hearing this, the King ordered that Prasat Ta Prohm, a relatively smaller temple, be relocated instead. Four groups of 500 men each were dispatched…to deconstruct the prasat on the ninth day of the sixth lunar month.”
The account of this event, which appears in “The Royal Chronicles of King Rama IV” by Chao Phraya Thipakorawong, occurred in 1860, before the Siamese ceded “sovereignty” over Cambodia to the French in 1867.
It is unclear to us precisely why King Mongkut wished to have an enormous Khmer temple reconstructed in Siam at a time when the French were gradually extending their control over much of Indochina. What is interesting, however, is that the attempt to move the temple structure failed when “some 300 Khmers came out of the forest and attacked the men who had come to disassemble the temple, killing Phra Suphanphisan, Phra Wang and one of Phra Suphanphisan’s sons. Phra Mahatthai was stabbed, and Phra Yokkrabat was injured. The phrai commoners, however, escaped injury by fleeing into the forest.”
It was obvious that the Khmer were angered by the theft of their property and responded violently. The incident convinced King Mongkut to abandon the plan to “disassemble” the prasat and instead to construct a small model of the Angkor Wat temple complex. “Craftsmen constructed a model of Angkor Wat and installed it at Wat Phra Sri Ratanasasadaram (the Temple of the Emerald Buddha), where it remains to this very day.” (Prime Minister Hun Sen visited the model at the Temple of the Emerald Buddha in early 1990s during an official visit to Thailand for discussions with then-Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhavan.)
Despite the Thai love and admiration for anything Khmer, the Thais have also felt considerable hatred for the Khmer, as evidenced by a ritual called the phithi pathomkam. While Ayutthaya was busy fending off Burmese incursions, the Khmer King Satha (Chetta I, r.1576-1596) took the opportunity to attack Ayutthaya from the east. In revenge, so the chronicles say, King Naresuan ordered the capture of Khmer ruler to be beheaded and washed his feet with the blood.
The phithi pathomkam ritual re-enacts this story of revenge. However, Professor Kajorn Sukhapanich, a noted Thai historian, did not believe that the ritual, as recorded in the royal chronicles, ever really occurred. He claimed that Khmer King Satha fled and took refuge in Laos.
In general, present-day Thai view Khmer leaders and kings as traitors and ingrates. This idea was probably started by King Vajiravudh, or Rama VI (r.1910-1925), in his official nationalism campaign. It was handed down and developed by Field Marshal Phinbun and Luang Wichit in the 1930s-1940s when Thailand, with Japanese help, seized Siemreap and Battambang from French Indochina. It was also heightened by the dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit when the International Court of Justice ruled that the great temple of Phra Viharn on the border belonged to Cambodia. The pro-Americanism of Thailand and the neutrality of Sihanouk Cambodia during the Cold War further encouraged mutual dislike between the two countries and peoples.
Thais are not particularly fond of Norodom Sihanouk, for example. A Thai riddle asks, “What color (si) do Thai people hate?” The answer is neither red (si daeng) nor black (si dam), but “Si-hanouk.”
This, of course, is the Thai perspective, but how do the Khmer view their kings, such as Satha and Sihanouk? Certainly as national heroes and saviors, as men who fought to preserve their country’s independence in the face of Thai aggressors intent on seizing control of Cambodia. Much the same could be said about King Anu of Laos, r.1805-1828, considered by Lao historians as a national hero, whereas to the Thais, he was a “rebel” against the Bangkok monarch King Rama III (r.1824-1851).
The history of Thailand and its neighbors, especially Cambodia, Laos, and Burma, is one with both positive and negative elements. Some events have bred hatred, for instance of the Burmese by the Thais; others have generated contempt and feelings of superiority or inferiority, as in the case of Thailand’s relations with Cambodia and Laos. These feelings have led to significant misunderstandings.
Clearly, then, there is a need for an earnest and systematic study of the history of relations between these countries. This study deserves support from national and regional organizations such as ASEAN. Unfortunately, however, once the smoke clears from the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh, all that is likely to matter is the extent of the financial damage and how and when compensation will be paid.
Or if any analysis of the incident does take place, it is likely to reach the facile conclusion that the Khmers are “the villains” – they burned down Thai Embassy, after all – and the Thais are “the good guys” – we did not burn the Cambodian Embassy. It is convenient for Thais to forget that Ayutthaya rulers sacked Angkor three times. It would be far preferable, however, to examine the violent events of January 29 in order to draw lessons for solving the problems that continue to affect the neighboring countries of the Southeast Asian region.
Select Bibliography
The following texts shed some light for a better understanding of our Southeast Asian neighbors, especially Cambodia, its history, and the question of the Khmer legacy.
Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn. เขมรสามยก (Khamen sam yok / Cambodia: Three Times). 1993. A travel account of three trips made in 1992 and 1993, this book provides a day-by-day account of the Princess’s experiences in Cambodia, intending to give an understanding of the country and its customs. Filled with general information, the book is easy and pleasurable reading, and, importantly, contains beautiful photographs which help clarify the descriptions of modern day Cambodia (to 1992), as well as the historical sites at Angkor. 309 pages. 500 baht.
George Coedes. Angkor: An Introduction (translated into Thai by Pranee Wongthes as เมืองพระนคร นครวัด นครธม ). 1986. A popular book, currently in its seventh printing, written by an eminent French scholar from the Ecole Française d’Extrème Orient. Coedes once worked in Thailand and was the first man to read the Ramkhamhaeng Inscription Stone in its entirety. This text is a “must read” for anyone wishing to gain an understanding of the history of the ancient Khmer and the concept of divine kingship which informed the building of the great prasart. The book traces the development of the magnificent Khmer civilization and its eventual collapse. A smooth translation of the original, easy to read. 228 pages. 195 baht.
David Chandler. A History of Cambodia (translated into Thai by Phanngam Ngaothamasarn, Sodsai Khantiworapong, and Wongduen Narasajja as ประวัติศาสตร์กัมพูชา / Prawatsat Kamphucha). 1997 (second printing, 2000). Chandler, an eminent American scholar, is a former professor at Monash University, Australia. The book recounts the history of Cambodia, beginning from ancient times (before and after Angkor) and continuing to the present day (before and after the Khmer Rouge). It provides the “best background” to Cambodian history currently available in Thai. The book received an award for best translation of a work of non-fiction in 1999. A valuable reference book, suitable for reports, articles and advanced study. 412 pages. 250 baht.
Nikhom Musikakhama. ประวัติศาสตร์โบราณคดี กัมพูชา (Archeological History of Cambodia). 1993. A text published by the Fine Arts Department to mark the official opening of the National Museum at Phimai by Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn in 1993. The book is an attempt by the government to illustrate that: “Just as the two banks of the Mekhong River have not been able to separate the Thais from their Lao brothers and sisters, the Dongrak Hills have failed to separate Thailand from Cambodia.” This is a dense and fairly serious work, tracing the history of the Khmer people from before the founding of Angkor to the fall of the empire at the hands of Vietnamese and Thai invaders. The book serves as an excellent guide for determining what is “reliable” and what is “unreliable” in the study of historical “records.” Special attention should be paid to Chapter 5. 430 pages.
Jit Phumisak. ตำนานแห่งนครวัด (Prawatsat Borankhadi Kamphucha / The Legend of Angkor Wat). 1982 (second printing, 2002). This book, by an important Thai thinker and writer, is in the style of a cultural travel guide. It is an attempt to clear up misunderstandings and “overcome Thai prejudice and contempt for the Khmer.” Although it is somewhat romanticized, the book is full of insightful conversations between young men and women who ask questions and look for answers to the mystery of the rise and fall of the Khmer empire. First printing B.E. 2525 (1982), second printing B.E. 2545 (2002). Beautiful illustrations. 196+ pages. 175 baht.
Bernard Groslier. นี่ เสียมกุก (Syam Kuk). (Translated into English by Benedict Anderson from the French “Les Syam Kuk des bas-reliefs d’Angkor Vat” in Orients pour George-Condominas, Sud-est Asie/Privat, Paris, 1981; Thai version edited by Charnvit Kasetsiri). 2002. The book presents the debate over the identity of the figures known as “Syam” carved into the stone prasat at Angkor. “Were they Thai? Where they Siamese? Were they mercenaries? Were they primitive babarians? Precisely who were they?” The book also discusses a new theory which posits that these figures were none other than the Kuay or Kui, one of the oldest indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia, who are somewhat disparagingly referred to as the “Suay” in Thai or the “Kha”in Lao. These people inhabited remote areas between the Khmer and the ancient Champa kingdoms. (M. Groslier was the French curator who remained at Angkor until the very last moment during the Khmer Rouge period. He believed that the flourishing of the ancient Khmer civilization was due to its ability to harness waterpower. To him the Angkorian Empire was a hydraulic society.) 165 baht.
Sujit Wongthes, editor. พระนเรศวรตีเมืองละแวก แต่ไม่ได้ “ฆ่า” พระยาละแวก Phra Naresuan ti muang Lawaek dai tae maikai kha Phraya Lawaek / King Naresuan Captured the City of Lovek, But Did Not “Kill” its King). A history text consisting of dense but readable academic articles by Janchai Phakatimkom, Boonteun Srivorapong, and Santi Pakdeekham, which present new information, new perspectives, and new theories which contrast with long-standing readings of “historical records.” According to these articles, King Naresuan, in 1593, did in fact attack Lovek, the capital of the Khmer empire after the fall of Angkor, but he did not kill the Cambodian monarch, and the Pathomkam ritual, in which the blood of the Khmer king was used to wash King Naresuan’s feet, did not occur. These writers contend that the Khmer King of Lovek fled to Laos where he lived out the rest of his days. This book is recommended for the way in which it opens up new perspectives on the past and for its rejection of old-fashioned “fanatical nationalism.” (The editor is a national artist and cultural treasure; Janchai is a history professor at Ramkhamhaeng University, and Santi is an instructor at Srinakarintrawirot University – see his translation of the text on differences between Thai and Cambodian perspectives.) 184 pages. 155 baht.
Charnvit Kasetsiri. วิถีไทย (Withi Thai / The Thai Way). 1997. This is an historical and cultural guidebook intended to give Thai readers an understanding of and respect for their Southeast Asian neighbors. It takes the approach that by understanding “them,” we can better understand “ourselves.” The book attempts to break down the barriers imposed by borders, prejudice, and outdated nationalistic attitudes. For information on Cambodia, readers are directed to the chapters entitled “Across Cambodia from Atop Phra Viharn” and “Angkor Wat: Record of a Journey to the Celestial Palace of the Khom.” 321 pages. 230 baht.
Theeraphap Lohitakul. รัก ชื่น ขื่น ชัง อุษาคเนย์ (Rak, chun, khun, chang Usakhane / Love, Admiration, Resentment and Hatred in Southeast Asia). 2002. Written in a romantic style by one of the country’s most highly regarded travel writers, this book is a cultural guide to Southeast Asia with interesting historical asides. What is most noteworthy is the writer’s obvious respect and admiration for cultures and peoples different from the Thais. At the same time, however, the book’s title and chapter headings such as “Reassessing the Past: From Bang Rachan to Suranaree” and “To Whom Does Phra Viharn Belong? A Question We Should Perhaps Stop Asking” point to elements of love and hate in relations between neighboring countries in the region. Very easy to read, with beautiful illustrations, the book is an attack on ethnocentrism. 304 pages. 200 baht.
Apichart Kaweephokha. ปราสาทสด๊กก๊อกธม ประวัติศาสตร์และอารยธรรมขอม สระแก้ว บันเตีย เมียนจาย (Prasat Sdok Kok Thom prawatsat lae arayatham khom sra keo bantai mainchai / Prasat Sadok Kok Thom: Khom History and Civilization in Sra Kaew and Bantay Mian Jai). An admirable attempt to promote cross-cultural understanding at the local level. The book makes use of historical information, stone inscriptions, cultural travels, religious rituals, and other local activities to break down national barriers and promote cooperation between Sra Kaew province in Thailand (the location of the Prasat Sadok Kok Thom) and Bantia Mian Jai province in Cambodia (site of Prasat Bantay Chamar). The writer is the chief district officer in Khok Sung district, Sra Kaew. 190 pages. 100 baht.
Thai historian Charnvit Kasetsiri is senior advisor to the Southeast Asia Studies Program at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. This article was translated by Michael Crabtree, with assistance from Somjit Jirananthiporn.
Source: kyotoreview
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)
