In this preparatory blog
http://www.khmerwitica.com/blog/view/id_626/title_my-next-cambodia-column/
I shared the reflections of Soour Gov.
He was the only one in his family to survive the Killing Fields, probably because he was very reluctantly "saved" by his uncle who abused him physically and emotionally for many years.
Yet, Soour Gov eventually reconciled the constant reverence he held for his late father’s unbending qualities with a grudging acceptance of his uncle’s flexibility and ability to survive when he concluded.
I chose my path between the right principles of my own father and the shrewd resilience of my uncle, slowly gaining confidence that I might find a way to provide others with the gifts that both these men had given me.
We may be tempted to look at the two ends of the continuum as “idealism” and “opportunism” respectively.
Yet, if Soour’s father represents this paragon of integrity Soour almost worships, it is likely that it is an ideal that no one could live up to.
How many of us manage to live our lives in such a purist way that we would never exceed the speed limit, accelerate when the light is amber, buy pirate DVDs, “tip” an official in Cambodia to obtain documents, etc?
Realistically and pragmatically, aren’t all of us shades of grey, knowing full well that we could never be as pure as the driven snow?
Soour was eventually able to run away from his uncle’s house to start a new life as a self-supporting young adult because he lives in a country which, like the US, could provide such an opportunity.
What if Soour survived along his uncle’s family but they never left Cambodia and, like so many young men and women in Cambodia , what if Soour never got the chance to become independent mostly because he/she understood that his/her chances of survival as a street child were extremely low?
For every Cambodia-bound Soour who waited patiently for his/her chance to leave the abusive home, there may be another teenage Soour who fell into the wrong company and ran away to jump into the fire of juvenile delinquency, drug addiction, prostitution and ultimately, premature death.
In those increasingly common circumstances, in Cambodian society, the finger is often pointed at the Akatanho (ungrateful) run away and the wrong company (the peer influence) but almost never or at least never mostly at the emotionally (if not physically) abusive parents/guardians or at the country’s leadership for failing to alleviate the poverty that put the run-away in his/her position of servitude, to begin with.
Why not?
Because most Cambodians inside Cambodia and most people from abroad (Cambodians and foreigners) look at many issues through a different cultural frame.
Soour’s story was written with a Western frame of mind, especially since it was not written by Soour himself.
The Cambodian block buster movie of about 5 years ago “Katanho” about a daughter’s devotion to her mother was directed with a glorified Cambodian frame of mind that, like Soour’s father, represents an ideal from a distant Cambodian past. During the 120 minutes of this tear-jerking true story, there is no explicit or implicit word or criticism about Cambodian society or about the causes of poverty that put the heroine and her mother in the situation they are in. Is this because the screenplay writer and director exercised self-censorship? Or were they pandering to an audience that saw “Katanho” as a balance to the standard escapist fare of doomed romantic love, slapstick humor and horror movies? Maybe? Who knows?
In contrast, all of Cambodian-born and French-educated Rithy Panh’s movies and documentaries, many of which have been critically acclaimed abroad, are perceived as “foreign” by Cambodian audiences because they deal with subjects which are touchy and controversial and because the non-glamorous actors/actresses/interviewees speak in non Pirous everyday language.
Cambodian movies and Rithy Panh’s work appeal to different audiences with rather different mindsets and cultural frames.
Hun Sen dismisses criticisms from foreign observers and overseas Khmers in the name of Khmer Khnong Srok. In his mind, overseas Khmers who criticize the Phnom Penh regime are not different from Dr Ghai, i.e. at best, ignorant of the realities of the Cambodian situation or at worst, patronizing and incapable of having any objective opinion of Cambodia. In his interview with rfa, Var Kim Hong uses the same argument when he rejected the “activists”’ opposition to Sok An’s visit to Long Beach and resorts to the usual name-calling and reference to election outcomes as a vindication of their righteousness. Both privately and publicly, the CPP uses the culture frame argument to explain, in particular, the SRP’s limited appeal in the countryside.
Corruption is a dirty word for many visitors who come into contact with Cambodia for the first time but it is accepted as a fact/ part of everyday life for almost all Cambodians.
It is increasingly seen as “tipping”. Sam Rainsy attempts to reconcile the dilemma by distinguishing between corruption for the sake or survival (i.e. petty corruption in order to supplement meager salaries) and corruption due to greed. However, where does one draw the line?
Cambodians’ reluctance to speak up, to even have an opinion and especially to be in a conflict frustrates many people, including Cambodians from abroad, to no end who often thrive on debate and sometimes on the confrontation of ideas.
Who is right? Who is wrong? Right and wrong in whose eyes?
In these examples, are we dealing with different cultural frames, in which case “the twain may never meet” or are we only talking about shades of grey, in which case there could still be room for “rapprochement”?
