 |
| Portraits of the reigning monarch and his parents in Phnom Penh. |
by School of Vice
Well, the answer can be either a “Yes” or a “No” depending
on a number of considerations, namely:
-A] Whether one is in favour of the idea and the existence of
the Monarchy itself as a public institution rooted in traditions and history. Unless
others share the same belief [i.e. in preserving such an institution], there is
not much point asking everyone to spare the said individuals from perceived
insults or criticism. Such verbal attacks – constructive or otherwise – can be
said in turn to be contingent upon some of the following factors;
-B] A distinction must be drawn between a royal institution itself which has significance
and dimension that stretch beyond individuals that embody or symbolise it. In the
eyes of many a member of the public, the King or Queen is the institution, just as Prince Sihanouk having abdicated the
throne in favour of his father proceeded to exploit his association with the institution
by reinventing his personae anew with the self-styled ascription through the
title of “Prince Father” [“Samdach Euv”]
thereby elevating his royal person – despite the abdication - to position of Figurehead of the nation; a
status which must be accepted as being even above that of the King himself in
both his royal standing or capacity and as Sihanouk’s own biological father;
-C] Having drawn this basic distinction, one then needs to
ask questions regarding the practicality of or the manner in which the public functions
and duties of the royal institutions are being carried out in view of the wider
interests of the common subjects. Granted, Cambodia is endorsed with a “constitutional
monarchy”, however, this should not imply that the monarchy itself is free from
public responsibilities or duties towards the Nation as stipulated in the
national Constitution, and in the event of the King or the royals failing to
face up to their prescribed public functions, they should neither be spared
from public criticism nor be permitted to exist in limbo and at public expense.
After all, if nothing else, it is hardly cheap to keep the Monarchy running! Of
course, this specific consideration applies in equal measure to all public
officials who are there to perform similar duties in their roles as ‘servants
of the people’, with the technical distinction being that the latter are civil
functionaries rather than royal figures; and indeed as civil servants they
should learn to live with public criticism [or applause] instead of trying to
shut everyone else up just because they don’t like such scrutiny;
-D] What should happen when appointed royals fall short of
their duties mentioned above? Well, if the concept of liberty and democracy has
anything to do with how the “Royal
Government of Cambodia” should be run, then the citizens through their
public organs such as parliamentarians and civil associations as well as
various pressure or interest groups must decide as to what to do with the
Monarchy as such. If the citizenry actually wants the Monarchy to stay on in
its present decrepit state, so be it. However, if the Monarchy can be reformed
or saved by other personnel or constitutional adjustments, this option should
be considered too. If, moreover, the Monarchy has shown itself to have been
irretrievably damaged by the current line of Royals [the Norodoms who, after
all, have been on the throne for most of the second half of the twentieth century
from the end of the colonial era up to the present time] then they along with
the Monarchy, perhaps, should be let go, and the Khmer people could then start a
new life with a republic system of government or governance.
The institution of the monarchy, in my humble view, is only
as useful or relevant to the nation as the willingness and seriousness with
which the King as figure head and national symbol is prepared to execute his
royal duties and apply his conscience, and or sacrifice his private welfare or
place it second to that of the nation’s immediate and long-term interests. From
proactively steering the country into one major catastrophe or another in the
sixties and the seventies, this line of royals have since the early nineties
decided to beat a retreat into servile and obsequious non-responsibility. The frequent
public gesture of the King greeting his ministers and dignitaries without the
latter greeting back in kind may give over the impression of humility, but it
says above all to his subjects: “Look, here I am your King only in name, divested
of all temporal powers, and even as descendants of God-Kings I have to kowtow
to these imbeciles and common thugs!”.
Yet, the present Cambodian monarchy [i.e. Royalty] is far
from powerless as their projected public image might otherwise suggest. Their durability
and survival alone as representatives of this ancient institution would,
despite competing, brutal political competitions for the political throne,
indicate that there is plenty of fuel left in the tank for them with which to
deploy as bargaining chip in sustaining the Monarchy, albeit, one devoid of its
own intrinsic value or traditional raison d’être and more a front for
protecting and accentuating narrow, factional-clan motives. Even their frequent
trips to and fro between Beijing and Phnom Penh and their traditional personal
preference for cooler climates of North Korea [Sihanouk’s late friend, Kim Il-Sung,
had built him a palace just outside Pjung Yang as a gesture of reciprocated friendship]
and China tell us that when it matters they still have plenty of friends and
allies around to call upon for support or consultation and to act as intermediaries
in international diplomacy. The latest trip to China has been made in
contravention of Sihanouk’s own pledge to spend the rest of his twilight days
in the country of his birth; a u-turn decision that may have been made in
compliance of his Chinese hosts’ wishes, and in all likelihood, to be briefed
on ASEAN-US-China conundrum rather than the cited reason for another medical
check-up there. Surely, Sihanouk would have full knowledge of his own medical
condition [a long time malaise he has earned for himself as reward for a
lifetime of excesses in sensual pursuits of various kinds, including rich
cuisines] and his Chinese doctors would also have made clear to him what his
available options were. It is not a coincidence also that the current liberalising
trend taking place in Burma has come about hot on the heels of Secretary
Clinton’s visit to the country, and it is an indication that the US still has
much sway over Asean members such as Burma which has long been a client state
of Beijing.
At a time when the poorest of the poor at Borei Keila were
being evicted against their will right on the door-steps of the Royal Palace,
it appeared the royal family were far more concerned with the ailing health of
the father of one of the world’s wealthiest men. The Opposition “law-makers” -
like the Monarchy – has not been empowered sufficiently to remove even a comma
in the law, or uproot a single illegally planted wooden border stake without
facing hefty prison sentence or lengthy political-physical exile. Can we
imagine other constitutional monarchs around the world being so placid under
similar circumstances? In times of coups by the military in Thailand, King Bhumibol
is known to have summoned the main protagonists before him to explain their
actions and intentions and severely chided them for damaging the unity and
national good of his Kingdom. That would be the least any responsible public
figure in the same position is expected to do, is it not? In contrast, the Cambodian
monarchy is treated worse than an ill-kept mistress!
So to our question as to whether we should be offended when
the Cambodian monarch is insulted, the least we could do would be to say no. After
all, why should any of us be affronted by such insults – even if they come
crudely worded – when even they appear not to care about them or be offended by
their own complicit acts? So many innocent
Khmer lives had been lost; so many survivors remember their loved ones dying in
their arms from overwork, untreated illnesses, or execution for stealing a
coconut from extreme hunger under the regime he had helped to bring to power. Thus,
their condemnation of him is more than understandable. Of course, Sihanouk
himself has suffered the loss of his loved ones too, yet that fact aught not
exonerate the man of his crimes. And were any of those 18 or 19 children and
grand-children to come back to life tomorrow, who is to say they themselves
would not be tempted to strangle Sihanouk with their own hands? I suspect this
man will continue to be cursed from beyond the grave.
Recall, by way of contrast, also the action of Prince Sisowath
Sirik Matak [a cousin of Sihanouk] who might have been involved in human rights
abuses of his own, but at least, he was prepared to be accountable for his own
deeds and mistakes. See the note below:
On April 12, 1975, United States' Ambassador to Cambodia
John Gunther Dean, offered high officials of the Khmer Republic political
asylum in the United States, including Sirik Matak who declined the offer despite his name being in
the Khmer Rouge’s list of "Seven Traitors" marked down for execution.
Sirik Matak's curt but dignified response reads:
"I thank you very
sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I
cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you and in particular
for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this
sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us
your protection and we can do nothing about it. You leave us and it is my wish
that you and your country will find happiness under the sky. But mark it well
that, if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is too
bad because we are all born and must die one day. I have only committed the
mistake of believing in you, the Americans. Please accept, Excellency, my dear
friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments. Prince Sirik Matak.”
No comments:
Post a Comment