The Good It Does
editorial by soch
I have been at a loss lately, trying to wrap my mind around the Sok An controversy. Every time I think I've reconciled myself to the issue, something else pops up to blow me away.
First, I'm completely baffled as to how the invitation could have been issued in the first place. Going by parade entry rules, which the parade committee themselves seemed to have had the foresight to draft:
1. All entries should have a positive theme which respects diversity, is non-controversial, and does not advocate any political candidate
How is inviting a leading political figure in an election year (2008 Cambodian elections) not a political or controversial statement? How exactly does one parade a political candidate on a float without advocating them? After transgressing on their very own policies, we are then told by the parade committee to "put homeland politics aside." To be honest, I have never considered the current situation in our homeland to be a matter of politics. When a government violates its own laws, mistreats, exploits, and oppresses its people, it has gone far beyond politics; it becomes a criminal matter. In fact, it is called a crime against humanity, accountable to an international tribunal. These are the language and concepts of the world we live in, the world where we Cambodian-Americans have supposedly come to take refuge from the very ravages and atrocities of none other than our "homeland politics."
So far, the arguments for Sok An's participation in the parade have ranged from slightly absurd to downright incomprehensible. No, it is not likely that his participation will induce a change of heart in his governance. And on the slim chance it could, does it require a vantage point from atop a float for it to come about? A non-Cambodian American actually stated that "as a professional," she cannot take sides on the issue. Can you imagine if professionals the world over refrain from taking sides on issues for such stated reason? The political and social wheels of many a great nation would topple to a standstill. I respect people's opinions, but I find it insulting when they opt out of expressing one for such a nonsensical excuse. Had she said, "as a professional who is acquaintanted with the parties involved," she cannot take sides, I would by far respect her honesty. Last I check, Cambodians are at least able to look up "professional" in a dictionary.
Perhaps more distressing than the Sok An invite has been this mixed-bag response. I would have thought the presence of a prominent figure of a famously corrupt and criminal regime in an event meant to celebrate and honor would inspire unified outrage and disgust among a western community. Not so. In fact, the most unified response so far has been the usual laments upon Cambodian disunity, the go-to argument meant to stymie any opposition, when all else fails. Ladies and gentlemen, since when is unity suppose to be blind? Were you to herd a community of sheep, perhaps you can ask for united support for whatever hare-brained scheme you may come up with, but until then you might have to put up with a little pastime of the free world, called dissent. Interesting enough, Harvard University used to publish a literary magazine by this very name. Stanford has a magazine called "Chaparral," a reference to a fire-prone environment. What does it say that these premier American institutions give such weight and tribute to said dissent and differing sentiments in shaping the brightest minds of their generations? According to the unity argument, are we now to feel ashamed because we cannot unite under an act we find unconscionable?
Let's be clear: I do not hate Sok An. I haven't the honor to know this man from Adam. However, as a citizen of the free world, I deplore his administration's activities and policies. And as the man in a pivotal position of power, he is fully accountable for the atrocities under his watch. Sok An may be a wonderful father and a cozy friend and you may have him over for tea in your living room, but he is also a figurehead of brutal injustice and murder and to welcome such a figurehead in a public celebration of diversity, community and freedom is to willfully turn a blind eye to the injured, victims of an intolerably corrupt and morally depraved administration. A parade is not a symposium for change; rather it is a public event meant to celebrate and honor. In fact, if there is any other function of a parade, it could be said that it is a vehicle for propaganda. As such, it is morally reprehensible that this vehicle is to be used to honor an agent largely responsible for the suffering of thousands.
The last entreaty to the opposition is: why can't we just let things be? They suggest we stay home that day if we choose not to support Sok An's presence. What good does it do to cause a stir, make a ruckus? My dear friends and countrymen, the good it does is this: whatever happens, it is on record for the people depicted below that we do not in any way, implicit or otherwise, support their tormentors. To put it baldly: half a world away, our brothers and sisters cannot speak without getting maimed or killed. On their behalf, we can. It is the very least we can do. This is the good it does.
Police and military police stand guard over cowering villagers after setting fire to their homes. Sixty houses were burned down.
Thirteen villagers were arrested for allegedly resisting the unlawful
eviction, yet up until now there has been no investigation or
prosecution by the authorities into the excessive violence used by
police during the eviction.
A group of 48 Khmer Kampuchea Krom monks, ethnic Khmer originally from
southern Vietnam, had convened in front of the Vietnamese Embassy to
submit a petition
The anti-riot unit brutally charged the Khmer Krom monks with their shields and electric batons
. I'm certain that at "this point, you feel it's no longer necessary to make any other comment s", right?
