A Writer’s Journey - Blogging Reflections

The latest review of my book is by Malcolm R. Campbell for PODBRAM, which is posted on the PODBRAM blogspot and his own blog at Malcolm’s round table.
Below is a link to the round table blog:
http://knightofswords.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/book-review-reflections-of-a-khmer-soul/

In this blog, I like what he wrote as a prelude: “We all reflect upon who we are and where we came from, trying to understand ourselves. This book demonstrates the process of the inner journey in a compelling way.”

I particularly like this review because Malcolm has done research on the situation in Cambodia during the Pol Pot regime in order to introduce readers to my book.

This is the link to the review on PODBRAM: http://iuniversebookreviews.blogspot.com/2008/06/reflections-of-kher-soul.html

Navy Phim was born in Cambodia in April 1975 as the insurgent forces of Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge seized control of the country bringing to an end a brutal civil war against the US-backed government of Lon Nol. However, the brutalities did not end with the war’s end: two million Cambodians would die at the hands of the Khmer Rouge during the next 45 months through starvation, execution and torture.

Pol Pot proclaimed 1975 as Year Zero and began his “purification” of the country, ridding it of city dwellers, capitalists, westerners, banks, stores, hospitals, churches and other purportedly unnecessary organizations, while forcing mass numbers of people into agrarian work camps. Those who did not survive the work and the torture, those who were often forced to dig their own shallow graves, ended up in what Cambodian photojournalist Dith Pran called “the killing fields.”

Reflections of a Khmer Soul is a collection of stories, “snippets,” travels and contemplations representing Navy Phim’s inner and outer journey away from that Year Zero. Her outer journey began when her parents left Cambodia for Thailand for economic reasons in 1979. Swept up in a mass exodus of some 600,000 people, Phim’s life for the next four years was largely defined by refugee camps and the roads between them.

At six years of age, Phim helped the family earn a living in the camps by selling bread at a marketplace stall and nearby neighborhoods. “When I returned to Cambodia and saw young merchants touting their produces,” Phim writes, “I remembered my life as a peddler in the refugee camps and how much I hated walking around with my merchandise, being afraid of meeting Thai soldiers.”

Finally, after a year in the Philippines in a refugee status, her family was sponsored to the United States, ultimately settling within the large Cambodian population of Long Beach, California.

This beautiful, well-written book also explores Phim’s inner journey, one concerned to a large degree with identity. She asks questions and tries to understand how and why Khmer could kill Khmer. Phim lives within the very long shadow of the Killing Fields and the near-requisite negative connotations for the word “Khmer.” While that shadow is real and persistent, Phim did not see, much less know about, the Killing Fields as a child in the late 1970s.

“To think of myself as a survivor of the Killing Fields is strange,” writes Phim. “I did not live through the Killing Fields per se, but I am trying to understand the pain, loss, dehumanization and post-traumatic syndrome that lingered in the minds of many survivors.”

Some people assume that because she was born in Cambodia, Phim is Khmer Rouge or that her parents were Khmer Rouge. It’s as though an entire people have become tainted in some way or held to be complicit in the actions of Pol Pot’s political party. Phim’s inner journey brings her to the realization that while she does not carry shame for being born when and where she was, “being Cambodian requires a lot of explanation.”

Phim’s journey took her back to Srok Khmer, the country of Khmer, the motherland, four times. She writes that the “kind of love, heartache, and pain I feel for Srok Khmer is deeply imbedded within my soul; these feelings are suffused with glorious memories and stories that are real, even if they are stories and distant memories that may not even be mine.”

Reflections of a Khmer Soul is a rich tapestry of memories, dreams and reflections of the tragic yet wondrous Srok Khmer into which Phim was born on Year Zero and the America where she grew up and makes her home. Phim’s soul is “poetically Khmer,” and this book shows us that she has found joy and hope and peace in that ultimate reality of her world.

Last month, I went to Poly high school to do a presentation about my book. Last week, I went to Poly to listen to the students as they present their final project. I was asked to talk about my book and my writing experiences in the reading classes taught by Rita Marks as a catalyst for the students’ final project. Their projects consisted of a series of autobiographical essays discussing their journey to America (if they are immigrants), their family, their neighborhood and their high school experiences.

I enjoyed reading their essays and listening to their presentations. The classes have a lot of newly immigrants from Cambodia, Mexico and other countries. Many of the Cambodian students and the Mexican students have very common experience in their migration to the U.S. Most of them were left behind to live with grandparents or other family members while the parents come to the U.S. to establish themselves. Once they were established, they sponsored or sent for their children back home. Some were left behind as long as 5 years. When they left for the U.S., they talked about the sadness of leaving their friends behind. Some were hopeful that America was offering a better life.

The effort of the students varied. Some really enjoyed the project and put a lot of effort into their presentation creating power point slides with photos. Some didn’t even want to go up or talk about it. Overall, they seem to agree, even the one who didn’t want to do the presentation and was dragging their feet that they did learn something from this project, about themselves and their family.

I look forward to being part of this project again in the future.

I have neglected on updating and reflecting on my book presentations. Within the past few months, I had a few presentations at different colleges, i.e. UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, USC, and Cerritos community college. They all went well and I am glad for the opportunity to expose my book to the academic community.

On Tuesday, May 6, 2008, I did a presentation at Poly high school. It was interesting to be back at Poly since I graduated over 13 years ago. I enjoyed the presentation and interaction with the students even though it was a long day and I was presenting for three different classes. It was a wonderful experience because Vichet and Rita prepared the class for it. The students read two articles from my book, answered questions and come up with questions to ask me. Most of them were engaged in the process and asked thoughtful questions.

Rita and Vichet bought books to make available to the students and the librarian also bought five copies, but she will need to give a review to the review board first before it can be available in the library. We also discuss the possibility of me coming back and doing a presentation to a bigger group.

Below are photos from various book presentations over the past few months.

I was at Berkeley on Monday, February 4, 2008.

At Berkeley, I was presenting along with Stuart Isett and I really enjoy his slide presentation of “the Lost Boyz,” photos of Cambodian-Americans who have been deported back to Cambodia.

After the event, a few of us had dinner together:

I was at UCSB on Wednesday, March 5, 2008.

One of the attendees gave me a beautiful framed picture that he took at Angkor Wat:

On March 29, 2008, I was one of the panelists for the “Shared Suffering, Shared Resilience” Forum at CSULB.

This is an article posted on Khmer Witica: http://www.khmerwitica.com/blog/view/id_650/title_justice-for-whom/

Justice for Whom?

by Vichet Chhoun

I thank the editors of Khmer Witica for providing a space for Khmer people to share our thoughts on issues that matter to our community.

Tomorrow, April 17, will mark the 33rd anniversary of the Khmer Rouge’s evacuation of Phnom Penh. Many historians have marked this day as the beginning of the Killing Fields. As we enter the New Year, I urge each of us to reflect on the meaning of being part of the Cambodian diaspora and consider our people’s beautiful past, as well as our recent history that is inextricably connected to genocide.

Almost three weeks ago, a community forum was convened at California State University, Long Beach to collect testimonies from community members, academics, and professionals, for possible inclusion in the international criminal trial of former Khmer Rouge leaders. This “hybrid court” composed of both Cambodian and foreign judges will purportedly bring to justice those responsible for the Cambodian genocide. Unfortunately, there have been a number of reports that cite problems with this tribunal including allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and financial shortage. In this article however, I address a more fundamental issue and offer an alternative perspective to what was ostensibly an operating assumption of the community forum I attended. Here, I challenge the idea that these tribunals will achieve justice for the Cambodian people. As such, this court, as it seeks to convict former senior Khmer Rouge officials for their crimes against humanity, is likely on a misguided pursuit of justice for the Cambodian people.

The tragedy that befell the Cambodian people between 1975 and 1979 was a unique brand of mass violence that involved a number of parties beyond those presently charged. One would expect that for these proceedings to approach authentic justice, the court would attempt to hold all parties responsible for their obvious (and not so obvious) involvement in crimes against humanity. How might the conviction of a handful of elderly former Khmer Rouge leaders (and the life imprisonment that would follow) be qualified as justice for Cambodians? What about those lower level Khmer Rouge administrators whose energy and willingness to serve surely facilitated the work of the Khmer Rouge killing machine? What about those actors whose actions contributed to Cambodia’s political instability and helped ripen the country for the Khmer Rouge’s emergence? Historians have well documented the linkages between the Khmer Rouge’s succession to power with the Cold War politics of three decades ago including the United State’s illegal bombings of Cambodia. Moreover, the international community’s lack of response to the plight of Cambodian people in the late 1970s contributed an added dimension of complicity in this tragedy.

As well, have Cambodian people been given the opportunity to share their thoughts on how to achieve justice? What might justice look like for genocide survivors and their families? My candid talks with members of the Cambodian community in southern California and conversations with my own family members provides some, albeit anecdotal, evidence that Cambodian people believe that the hybrid court will likely accomplish very little. A deep distrust in contemporary Cambodian politics combined with the grim understanding that Cambodian lives are probably perceived as less valuable than others surely contribute to this skepticism. My own view is that this tribunal is fueled not so much by Cambodian people’s insistence on justice and accountability but more so by a Western guilt for their complicity in this tragedy. These proceedings have been assembled not because Cambodians are eager to see these elderly men judged as “guilty” but because Westerners and elites need yet another opportunity for after-the-fact, moral grandstanding.

Unfortunately, the type of justice that will emerge from the hybrid court is unlikely to reveal the truths that Cambodians require to turn the page on their tragic past. The court may accomplish a logical sense of justice in that those charged and found guilty are sentenced and imprisoned. But the justice that Cambodians want might be to understand the truth of what occurred and why it occurred (similar with the proceedings of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation years ago). This type of justice would help survivors better make sense of their experiences and more fully understand the circumstances in which they lost their loved ones. More immediate than punishment, individuals seek to create causal linkages in the events of their lives. However, this type of justice for Cambodians can only result if truth in all its messy forms is the objective.

I am sure that some victims will take comfort in the conviction and imprisonment of these men, all of whom are well into their 70s and 80s. This is their right and I honor their grief and anger. Most of my father’s side lost their lives during this period. However, this tribunal will not bring them back nor will it allow me to ever know my paternal grandparents. To be clear, my aim here is not to minimize the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge or divert attention from the responsibility of these individuals. My goal instead is to suggest that criminal proceedings alone are unlikely to achieve the sort of justice Cambodians deserve. However, it will likely be an either/or situation in this case. Time is running out on the opportunity to gather truth from these former Khmer Rouge leaders. It would be unfortunate if victims did not have ample opportunity to ask these men in person why these decisions were made. Hence, it looks to be a choice between justice in the punitive sense or justice as equated with truth and human understanding.

Ben Kiernan, a respected historian of Cambodia’s recent history, in applauding the decision to institute a hybrid court, noted that “a legal accounting of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge era cannot restore to Cambodians their lost loved ones, but it could give them back their history, if at least the tribunal goes ahead. Cambodian pupils may one day have textbooks to study the tragedy.” Professor Kiernan’s assessment overestimates the court’s impact on Cambodians. The genocide is already included in textbooks but with very little understanding of how these crimes against humanity had been permitted to unfold as they did. This information can be helpful for preventing this evil in the future. Will this tribunal achieve justice? I don’t know but it would be interesting to hear the voices of my community address this important topic. How we handle our tragic past ourselves will surely shape the future of our community. What I am certain of is that this tribunal will not bring back the over one million persons who lost their lives or give life to the countless unborn Cambodians.

After a mediation meeting with CAM-CC at the office of the California Conference of Equality and Justice (CCEJ) and a press release issued by Peter Long, Chairman of CAM-CC, we are no closer to understanding this invitation than a few months ago. This press release hopes “to settle misunderstandings,” but there has been no attempt to clarify or address contradicting information surrounding this invitation. This press release is essentially pushing everything under the rug because Sok An is not coming and any question concerning who issued it, what authority they have to do it, the approval process and in particular the violation of their own parade entry rule is being ignored. The disgruntled board members who disagreed with the invitation are not acknowledged and CAM-CC would like to pretend that they do not exist.

After CAM-CC ignored our emails, I contacted CCEJ to act as mediator. In our initial meeting with CAM-CC, where Borann Heam and Peter Long were present, we were told that Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach issued the invitation to the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An. This information contradicted the press release on the website of the Office of Council of Ministers, an office headed by the Deputy Prime Minister himself. The press release indicated that the invitation came from a few different organizations, including the Cambodian Chambers of Commerce, Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach, CAM-CC and Cambodia Town. This press release also asserted that Sok An was invited to participate in the parade and to officiate Cambodia Town in a ribbon cutting ceremony.

In the mediation meeting, Peter Long informed us that the information about the ribbon cutting ceremony is false and the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An was not invited to officiate Cambodia Town because Cambodia Town has already been officiated in October 2007. We did not expect the press release from the Office of Council of Ministers to be inaccurate or misleading. This press release has been translated and circulated world-wide and this is the misunderstanding that needs to be rectified. In this meeting, Peter Long offered to do what is right and ask the Deputy Prime Minister to retract the information concerning the ribbon cutting ceremony. To date, we have not seen a press release to clarify this misinformation.

At the mediation meeting, our main request was for the invitation to be revoked and both Peter Long and Borann Heam agreed to take our request to their boards, vote on it and get back to us within a week. Since the agreement took place on March 7, there should have been an answer by March 14. Not only did CAM-CC not have an answer for us by the week as promised but they did not show up to a scheduled meeting at CCEJ on March 14. Peter Long cancelled it at the last minute and CCEJ was not able to contact us in time. Despite the mediation, CAM-CC continued to provide contradicting information and did not follow through on their agreement with us. The board never voted to revoke the invitation and on Thursday, March 20, we finally heard from CAM-CC. They gave us a press release similar to the one posted on KI-Media indicating that since Sok An is not coming, this should be sufficient to settle any misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is created by the delegation who met with Sok An in Cambodia. The reason given behind this invitation was to engage the Cambodian government in a dialogue and for people who alleged that engagement and dialogue is their goal, they should be concerned with the misunderstanding they have created and put effort in resolving it.

Although the press release from Sok An also implied that the invitation came from the Mayor’s office with Evan Braude acting as an official representative, when we attended the city council meeting on March 4, Mayor Bob Foster made it clear that the invitation did not come from his office. Could the misunderstanding arise from the fact that Vice-Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal is an honorary board of Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach?

In my initial attempt to resolve this issue, the first person I emailed was a board member of Cambodia Town and she was adamant that the invitation was not issued by Cambodia Town. She even offered to act as a mediator between the community and Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach to resolve it. I also received an email from an acquaintance who is a board member of Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach and a board member of Cambodia Town verifying that the invitation is issued by Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach alone, not Cambodia Town.

When we met with CAM-CC on March 7, we were told that Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach issued the invitation, but through our correspondent on March 20, CAM-CC changed their story. They are now saying that the invitation was issued by Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach and Cambodia Town. This invitation has created misunderstanding with Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and among the board members of Cambodia Town who are not aware that the invitation came from them, and this could possibly be due to the fact that it was never brought to their attention prior to it being issued.

In the press release on the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An’s website, the names that appeared in it, which also appeared as the boards of the organizations that may have issued the invitation are Sithea San, Richer San and Peter Long. All three of them are board members of Phnom Penh Sister Cities of Long Beach and Cambodian Town. Both Peter Long and Richer San are also on the boards of CAM-CC and they are also business partner and co-founder of Golden Coast Bank.

There has been speculation within the community that the invitation was issued for personal gain and favor. In light of the contradicting information, inconsistency with the organizations that issued the invitation and the overlapping relationship between these names, I am also questioning these so-called misunderstandings. The first misunderstanding involves the role of Sok An in officiating Cambodia Town. Did the delegation that issued this invitation purposely misled Sok An into believing the importance of his role in the ribbon cutting ceremony or was it simply a misunderstanding? If it is an honest misunderstanding, does this delegation feel an obligation to correct it? The other possibility is that they did invite Sok An to participate in the ribbon cutting ceremony and now that the community is scrutinizing their actions, they deny it. In the end, it is the words of CAM-CC against that of the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, and so far, I have no reason to believe in either one.

KI Media has posted a press release from Peter Long, Chairman of CAM-CC.

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2008/03/cam-cc-lb-parade-organizer-now-blames-2.html

Message from Peter Long of Cam-CC
To Whom It May Concern:

Cambodian Coordinating Council (Cam-CC) is the organization that heads two main cultural events in celebration of Cambodian New Year - the parade and El Dorado Park festivities. We are planning our festivities to relay a positive theme that aligns with our current theme, “Cambodia Town for Diversity,” and we are saddened that there has been controversy within the community surrounding the New Year’s celebration events.

There has been confusion of an invitation that was made to the Office of Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, Royal Government of Cambodia. Cam-CC is made-up of 21 member organizations. Two of our member organizations invited the Deputy Minister Sok An to participate in the Cambodian New Year Parade this year. Cam-CC has been informed that the Deputy Prime Minister Sok An will not attend the Cambodian New Year Parade.

We hope this settles any misunderstanding. The Cambodian New Year Parade and El Dorado Park festivities are intended to be enjoyed by participants, spectators, and the community. We hope you will join us this year. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Peter Long, President
peterlongbeach@aol.com

http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_8483970?IADID=Search-www.presstelegram.com-www.presstelegram.com

Cambodian parade rift to get an airing
Moderators to meet with both sides in dispute over official’s invitation.
By Greg Mellen, Staff writer
Article Launched: 03/06/2008 10:05:44 PM PST

LONG BEACH - Community members on both sides of a controversial decision to invite the deputy prime minister of Cambodia to participate in the annual Cambodian New Year parade will meet today to discuss their differences.

About 30 members of the Cambodian community attended Tuesday’s City Council meeting. They presented the council with a petition comprising more than 1,000 signatures opposing a plan to have Cambodian leader Sok An ride in the April 6 parade.

There has been considerable confusion about who issued the invitation and whether it was properly made.

Mayor Bob Foster said at Tuesday’s meeting that he never invited anyone to the parade - period.

Although the city provides support for the parade in certain areas, the City Council has no official role in the decisions the parade committee makes.

“It’s not our parade,” said 6th District Councilman Dee Andrews, in whose district most of the parade is held.

Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal said she was distressed at the emotions the dispute has dredged up.

“People expressed outright fear and trauma,” Lowenthal said, adding that the city must do what it can to assuage that.

Melissa Morgan, the city’s human dignity officer and Rene Castro from the California Conference of Equality and Justice, will moderate the meeting between parade organizers, who support Sok An’s participation, and opponents.

Morgan and Castro said their roles are to facilitate dialogue but
it is up to two factions to resolve differences.

“I’d like to see them just listen to each other and find out where we go from here,” Morgan said. “They may not come to an agreement but I just hope they hear each other.”

“What I hope to achieve by bringing the parties together is the increased understanding,” Castro said. “There are no easy solutions.”

There is a possibility that the point will be moot. There is considerable speculation that Sok An has decided to forgo the parade.

Parade organizer Richer San said Sok An has not confirmed that he will attend but that the invitation remains.

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, a half-dozen opponents of Sok An’s participation spoke to the council.

They cited Cambodia’s dismal human rights record, corruption and other problems among their complaints.

Opponents also said the invitation violated the parade’s own entry rules, which say entrants must be noncontroversial and should not advocate a political candidate.

Each side has met with CCEJ separately.

greg.mellen@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1291

I had a presentation at Cerritos Community College on Tuesday and now there’s an article about it in the student’s newspaper. It seems hard to get people to understand what you are saying. There are many misinformations in this article. Below is a link to the article.

http://media.www.talonmarks.com/media/storage/paper327/news/2008/03/05/News/Cambodian.Immigrant.Shares.Hardships-3250710.shtml

First of all the quote that I posted up on my presentation was “I am an earth child rooted in Cambodia”. The word “rooted is missing from the quote.

I also did not say “a Khmer is a Cambodian citizen.” I said Khmer is another word for Cambodian, which is used to refer to the people and the language.

We were refugees living in refugee camps in Thailand, and were not refugees in Cambodia. There are no photos of my family in my book, but during my slide presentation, I showed photos of my family from the refugee camps and photos of my relatives in Cambodia…

The Cambodian New Year Parade objectives have seemed to change right before our eyes. Thanks to web archives, we are able to see what it used to be.

I looked at the parade objectives a month ago and it was the same as July 1, 2007, which was the last time it was archived:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070701232029/http://www.cambodiannewyearparade.com/Objectives.htm

Parade Objectives
• Highlight Cambodian Culture
• Focus on the Community and businesses on the Anaheim Corridor
• Spotlight on “Cambodia Town”, the largest Cambodian Community outside Cambodia
• Improve community relationships among people of different backgrounds
• End the isolation and begin the participation of Cambodian-Americans in mainstream events
• Show unity in Cambodian community

As of today, the parade objectives have been changed to coincide with the invitation that was given to Deputy Prime Minister Sok An. I am not sure when exactly that change took place, but it must be very recent.

http://www.cambodiannewyearparade.com/Objectives.htm

Objectives of the Cambodian New Year Parade
The New Year Parade committee maintains a strict policy of non-discrimination regarding participation in the parade. The parade’s main objectives are to promote Cambodian culture, harmony among diverse local communities, area businesses and neighborhoods, and particularly Cambodia Town USA. Political slogans and election campaigns are strickly prohibited.

In reference to the democratically-elected and internationally recognized Cambodian Government, we follow the official policy as defined by the U.S. Department of State. We believe past parade made positive impressions on participating Camboidan officials: they observed the joy and pride of the Long Beach Cambodian-Americans and the personal freedoms enjoyed by all citizens under the United States law.

Official Cambodian delegations participating in past parades and celebrations have included: H.E. Than Pok (Former-Secretary of State of Ministry of Education), H.E. Vora Kanthoul (Secretary of State of Ministry of Foreign Affairs), H.E. Sin Neung (Former-Parliament Member), H.E. Song Chhang (Former-Senator and current Advisor to the Royal Government), H.E. Dr. Widhya Chem (Former-Ambassador to UN and current Ambassador to Germany). Also participated from the economic and nongovernmental sectors, Mr. Sokha Kem (Former-Director of NGO Center for Human Rights), and Representatives from Cambodian Rice Miller Association and Small and Medium Size Enterprises.

While we acknowledge the current Cambodian government is not perfect, we follow the example demonstrated by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, promoting constructive dialogue and advocating change through peacefull means.

Regardless of the Cambodian government’s political party affiliation, we will continue to invite official Cambodian delegations to participate in the parade. We promote freedom, democracy, and free trade activity in Cambodia by presenting the best of the American value system in action.

We welcome all participants who believe in our objectives. We will not tolerate discrimination or harassment based on race, color, sex, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, religion or political affiliation. We also prohibit discrimination based on any other factor prohibited by federal, state or local law.

This is an interesting principle, the objectives existing as something that can be changed to fit their actions and whims. I supposed in a year or two, if the committee decides to showcase a herd of cows down Anaheim Street in the parade, they can change it to “We exist to parade cows in Cambodia Town.”

Just in case, it is changed again before it is archived. Here’s a screen shot of it:

There is an article about the parade controversy in the Downtown Gazettes: http://gazettes.com/airport2182008.html

Controversy Surrounds Cambodian Parade
published Feb. 25, 2008
By Carla M. Collado
Staff Writer

Plans for its largest annual celebration this April have Long Beach’s Cambodian community divided.

At issue is a scheduled appearance at the Cambodian New Year Parade by Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An, who some in the community say they feel represents (and works for) one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

“He’s representing a government that is very corrupt, that oppresses people and violates so many human rights,” said Navy Phim, a resident who is leading the charge to rescind Sok An’s invitation and is circulating a petition protesting his appearance. “I don’t think it’s appropriate to put this person in a celebration.”

According to Borann Heam — vice president of the Cambodian Coordinating Council (Cam-CC), which organizes the parade — the decision to invite Sok An was part of an effort to start an open dialogue with the Cambodian government. With the United States continuing to do business with Cambodia, and with Long Beach’s Cambodian community being the largest outside of Cambodia, it is beneficial to establish that kind of dialogue with the country’s leaders, Heam said.

The delegation of local groups that visited Phnom Penh in December 2007 — including members of Cam-CC, Long Beach/Phnom Penh Sister Cities, Cambodia Town, Inc. and some Long Beach City Council members — first met with U.S. Ambassador to Cambodia Joseph Mussomeli, Heam explained. At Mussomeli’s recommendation that Cambodian-Americans engage the Cambodian government more, the delegation extended invitations to all government leaders to attend the New Year Parade, he added.

“This is an open invitation to anyone in the Cambodian government,” Heam said. “We’re not excluding any one party.”

When delegation members ran into Sok An, they personally invited him to the Long Beach event and he accepted, he said.

Phim said that Sok An’s participation in the parade also makes Long Beach appear to be taking sides in Cambodian politics, as it is a parliamentary election year in Cambodia (July) and Sok An is running for reelection in the ruling Cambodian People’s Party. She is now pushing for Cam-CC to organize a town hall meeting so residents can express their opinions on Sok An’s visit.
“It’s very important for everyone to express their concerns, not only in Cambodia Town but in all of Long Beach,” Phim said. “It (his visit) reflects on everybody in the city.”

Phim said she has gathered about 1,000 signatures through her online petition protesting Sok An’s visit (the petition is addressed to Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster and Cam-CC), and that there are other Cambodian groups circulating petitions as well.

She said she voiced her concerns at a Jan. 31 meeting of Cam-CC’s parade planning committee, but that committee members told her she was simply trying to make Sok An seem controversial when he’s not. Phim later was invited to speak at Cam-CC’s Feb. 10 board meeting and allowed to bring four people total, but declined the invitation.

“Four people don’t represent the whole community,” she said.

Heam said Cam-CC has done its best to answer Phim’s questions and address her concerns, and added that he understands why some Cambodian residents are worried about Sok An’s participation in the parade.

“There are speculations of human rights violations, a lot of corruption is linked to his name,” Heam said. “I don’t think he is a controversial figure. It’s just very sad that a few people are taking this opportunity to label certain figures controversial.”

Heam said Cam-CC encourages residents to express their opinions, as long as it is in a peaceful and nonviolent manner.

“We respect everyone’s opinion in the community,” he said. “People have the right to freedom of speech and if they feel that he is a controversial figure, then that’s okay. We encourage the community to engage with us.”

However, Cam-CC currently does not feel that it needs to revoke Sok An’s (or anyone else’s) invitation to the parade, and the community needs to respect that decision, Heam added.

Heam explained that Cam-CC has public meetings every month to update the community on plans for the New Year Parade and celebration, as it is the community’s largest event of the year. He said if residents organize a town hall meeting, the group would gladly attend to hear concerns.
He stressed the fact that Cam-CC has not decided whether Sok An will do more than just ride in the parade, and assured that the Cambodian leader will not get any special treatment.

The Fourth Annual Cambodian New Year Parade will take place April 6 along Anaheim Street (from Junipero Avenue to Orange Avenue), and the Cambodian New Year Celebration will take place April 12 at El Dorado Regional Park. Each event draws about 15,000 visitors.
To voice concerns over Sok An’s participation in the parade, e-mail Cam-CC at board@cam-cc.org. To sign Phim’s petition, visit www.stopsokan.com.
I have written and submitted a letter to the editor on the article.

In response to the article, I have sent a letter to the editor:

Dear Editor,

I want to thank you for including an article about the controversy over Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister’s Sok An appearance in the upcoming Cambodian New Year Parade. I would like to respond to a few of the comments in it. First is a comment by Heam that “Cam-CC has done its best to answer Phim’s questions and address her concerns.” After CAM-CC invited us to a closed-door meeting, my colleague sent an email asking that the meeting be open to the community and that a town hall meeting would be more appropriate. I also responded to the email on February 5 and asked three basic questions, 1) What organization and/or person issued the invitation? 2) If it is Sister Cities of Long Beach, who within that organization issued the invitation and what is the requirement and procedure for approval? 3) Was there a discussion within the Board of Cam-CC and the New Year Parade committee before the invitation was issued?

CAM-CC never responded to or acknowledged our emails and to date, has not answered those questions. For Heam to say that they have done their best is very sad indeed when their best is to ignore and pretend that it is only a handful of people who are creating this controversy.

The controversy over this invitation was raised by members of the community even before I knew about it and a petition was already being circulated before I posted the online petition. Beside myself and a group of my colleagues, there are many different Cambodian organizations, such as the Cambodian Veterans and the Killing Fields Memorial Center, that are against it. Members from these organizations alone would surpass the few handfuls that Heam mentioned.

In addition, this invitation appears to be in direct violation of the parade committee’s own parade entry rules:
1. All entries should have a positive theme which respects diversity, is non-controversial, and does not advocate any political candidate

Mr. Sok An’s participation in the parade (in an election year—2008 Cambodian elections) is the very definition of a political and controversial entry, as evidenced by the community response.

The delegation that went to Cambodia took it upon themselves to issue this invitation without discussing it with the community first even though the New Year Parade is a community event. There are board members within CAM-CC who are against this invitation and are embarrassed by it.

One of the objectives of CAM-CC as stated in their bylaws is (b) To provide community leadership through consensus building activities, needs assessments, and effective programming. There was no consensus with this invitation at the board level or at the community level.

After violating their own parade entry rules and their objectives, they continue to disregard the community by refusing to rectify it.

Sincerely,
Navy Phim

When Lina Heng, the secretary of CAM-CC sent an email inviting us to their board meeting, the email included Richer San, Peter Long, Borann Heam, and Phylypo Tum. When we replied to the email, we replied to all the parties that were in this email. Below are the emails that we sent to CAM-CC which was ignored. The first one is by my colleague and the second one is from me.

Thank you for your kind invitation to speak at the CAM-CC meeting.

We had initially brought up concerns regarding Deputy Prime Minister Sok An’s appearance in the Cambodian New Year Parade in the last parade meeting, on Wednesday, January 29th. However, the discussion there did not get very far (it was not more than 12 minutes worth) since the meeting was abruptly adjourned after a few exchanges.

While we appreciate the opportunity you are giving us, we believe Deputy Prime Minister Sok An’s parade appearance is an issue of community-wide concern. As such, the format of discussion should be a town hall meeting open to all, where anyone interested is allowed to attend and where a reasonable number of people can be given sufficient time to speak and voice their opinions. For an issue of this much interest, it does not seem adequate to boil the community down to a party of 4, to be granted 10-15 minutes of discussion before being shuffled out of a closed-door vote.

If meeting room capacity is a problem, then we should work on meeting in another venue.

Sincerely,
Arun Thach

Dear All,

I agree that we need to have a community meeting to allow everyone to express their concerns. The people who showed up to the parade meeting last week are not the only one in our community who want to express their concerns. Let’s practice open dialogue within our community in Long Beach first and foremost before we move on to include the Cambodian government.

According to the article in the press telegram, the delegations that invited Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to the New Year parade included Cambodia Town, Long Beach Sister Cities, the Cambodian Coordinating Council and the Cambodian New Year Parade. I emailed a board member of Cambodia Town for a contact point to express concerns over the invitation and she informed me that the invitation was given by Sister Cities of
Long Beach, not Cambodia Town. Given the ambiguity surrounding the origins of the invitation, I have the following questions:

1) What organization and/or person issued the invitation?
2) If it is Sister Cities of Long Beach, who within that organization issued the invitation and what is the requirement and procedure for approval?
3) Was there a discussion within the Board of Cam-CC and the New Year Parade committee before the invitation was issued?

I believe this type of decision should be transparent as it affects everyone in the community. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
Navy

Since our emails have been ignored, how it is that they have done their best to answer our questions and address our concerns?

I have followed some of the discussions in CamDisc and KI-Media concerning the invitation given to Deputy Prime Minister Sok An. An exchange worth sharing is one between Jayakhmer and M. Preuk. There may be other notable exchange but I do not read everything and may have missed it. Because of my feeling on the issue, I have a bias toward one that I agree with as it expresses what I would have said and more, but both offers some interesting points.

Jayakhmer began this discussion with a piece called:
Cambodia Town Should be a Neutral Place for All Khmer

Jayakhmer wrote:

Energy has been wasted on an issue that should be a non-issue. I have listened to both sides of the arguments about whether or not Deputy Prime Minister Sok An should be invited to be part of the Khmer Town New Year celebration.

Let me first acknowledge that from an outsider’s perspective, I may be looking at the forest while community members in Long Beach look at the tree. I am looking at a broader picture as a Khmer Community while some in Long Beach look at individuals.

I understand that we, Khmer, are political creatures. This kind of events, it is expected that there will be people who are trying to score unnecessary political points. That would be a wrong thing to do on both sides.

Cambodia Town should be a neutral place for all Khmer. It means that all Khmer dignitaries should be welcomed because the town is a place where members of the community belong to diverse political groups. This means Cambodia Town should welcome not only the government members but also any political leader from any political parties.

Not all CPP members are corrupted. If we want change, we need to develop a dialogue between all political parties especially those who are in power. This does not mean you have to compromise on your principle. It simply means you are willing to engage in order to find common ground on issues that benefit Khmer people, a community and a nation.

Without knowing all the sensitive issues in Long Beach, my first impression of the spat is that the community is narrow minded and short sighted.

Why couldn’t Cambodia Town be a place where political inclusiveness is promoted? Why couldn’t Long Beach be a beacon of democracy where diverse members of the community are encouraged in vibrant debates that promote positive principles and policies that benefit member of the community here and benefit Khmer in Cambodia?

If Long Beach is indicative of a typical Cambodian Community, we are in bigger trouble than we thought. This tells me that the foreigners are not the predicament of Cambodia’s unity and its progress. It is our divisiveness that continues to weaken us a community and as a nation.
If we, Khmer, cannot find a common ground to resolve our issues in a civilized and effective manner, we are the worse enemy to ourselves.

M. Preuk wrote:

Dear Jay,

In short, all that I can reply to you now is: if only you knew what is behind the wheeling and dealing! It’s one thing to live by the book, it’s something else when it comes to dirty politics. When did you ever see the CPP play by the book?

Furthermore, if you think Cambodia Town should be neutral, then why welcome any politicians at all? Were there any neutral politicians in the world? They all fight for one cause or another.
Beacon of democracy with the CPP? I’m sorry, no such thing ever happened in reality yet. The CPP may talk about it, but when it comes to concrete realizations, it’s Z-E-R-O!

It’s fine that you tell the Cambodian community in Long Beach did not do this thing or that thing, these people will always listen to you, whether they agree or not is another issue. Did you even try to do the same to the CPP? Maybe, you may want to know their reactions, let alone if they acknowledge your comments to them.

If you think Long Beach, and Cambodia Town is not inclusive, you may want to learn also that Anaheim street is the only street in the US where the CPP flags fly in the USA. No other political party holds this privilege. In that sense, yes Long Beach is not inclusive, because only the CPP can do it.

Please wake up before it’s too late. Furthermore, unity does not necessarily foster democracy, if anything, it mainly fosters an agreement between a group of people, and thereby the imposition of their ideas and wills onto others. In every society, dissent is the only way to build a strong society, it would be very sad to see a society made out of a herd of sheeps. Therefore, I am wondering if you are mixing up disunity and dissent by any chance?

I apologize if I may sound harsh to you, but I couldn’t take it anymore this apologetic attitude, this acceptance to kowtow to one side. Elsewhere, I read with disgust, this morning, a Khmer saying that only, us, Khmer hate the Yuons and the Siems, not vice-versa. I am seething with outrage! Enough is enough!

Just my seething and disagreeing janitor observations,

MP

Jayakhmer wrote:

Dear M Preuk,

You do not sound harsh at all. You have raised legitimate issues. In fact, I am grateful that said what you said.

The fundamental issue here is not new. Similar issue has occurred at the national level. The debate here is whether to engage or not to engage. The U.S. asked this very same question in regard to communist countries such as China or Vietnam in the past.

I have admitted that I do not know all the sensitive issue in Long Beach. What the community decides is up to the community. I am simply offering an outsider perspective - a perspective from someone who has no stake in this.

The reality is none of us can change CPP only CPP can change CPP. My point is Long Beach is not Cambodia. Members of the community can vote and change thing is the city level. The community should establish a strong relationship with the City Council to make sure that no one political party can hijack the town.

This is why I advocated for neutrality.

To effect change political participation is needed. This is why I think it makes sense to engage.
Assuming that the community’s excluding or rejecting CPP’s present in New Year is successful.

One side may win a moral victory.

Do you think that this moral victory will effect any change in the future if change is our goal?
With highest respect,

Jay

M. Pruek wrote:

Dear Jay,

Thank you for the favor of your reply.

Regarding your question: “Do you think that this moral victory will effect any change in the future if change is our goal?”

Let me simply put it this way: “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step”. Unless, we are willing to take this single step, we are forever bound to the slavery mentality.

I admit: I don’t have a full view of the forest; I can barely see the grass that grows above my head, let alone the US-Chinese-Vietnamese relationship. But, I am willing to venture out and take the first step. When faced with an unsurmountable problem, we have two choices: (1) avoid it at all cost, or (2) solve it by dividing it into smaller problems where we can manage each issue (ie, divide and conquer). Since Meeng Ry would agree that I am no more than a chicken egg who would have to face a giant rock, I have no choice but to adopt the divide and conquer methodology.

But, more importantly, let me ask you back: “if you cannot secure a moral victory today, what will happen tomorrow? What else will they come up with? Yesteryear was the 17 April day parade, this year is the presence of Sok An, next year do we have to carry Hun Sen’s portrait along Anaheim street? Shall we also have a parade on 07 January as well?”
Best regards,
MP

Jayakhmer wrote:

Dear M Preuk,

Losing a battle does not mean losing a war. Those who appear to be winning now does not mean they are the victors in the future. For now, we should spend time building the foundation of democracy. Stick to the principles and concentrate on issues that impact the lives of our people. If they want to carry the prime minister’s picture on the street, let them do it. You know what kind of people they are already. As long as there is progress toward democracy even that change is incremental, we are winning already. There is a constitutional amendment to separate politics and administration right now. That stuff is much more important than the who ride on the car in the street in Long Beach in the parade.

We should be O.K.. Just be patient.

Jay

M. Preuk wrote:

Dear Jay,

I find your assertion below rather intriguing, if not incomprehensible to my poor mind. On one hand you claim: “we should spend time building the foundation of democracy”, and on the other hand, when you are presented with the opportunity of a case (opposition to Sok An’s visit to Cambodia Town) where you can showcase how democracy should work, yet you tell us, why bother?

As I admitted in all our previous conversations, my understanding of the world views is rather limited, if not completely dim, so to speak. But, do tell me, please, how are we going to build the foundation of democracy, merely by studying books, theories, and philosophies? Somewhere, I heard someone once said that the foundation of democracy must be built one block at a time, are you preaching that we shouldn’t do this? Should we just pour a truck load of concrete to build this foundation, while knowing full well that we don’t have a truckload of cement and all that we have in our hands are merely concrete blocks?

Just be patient you said? Sorry, I lost all my patience, and I also lost my country as well. When Sihanouk was in power, we were told: just stay quiet and don’t do anything. When Lon Nol was in power, we were told: things will work out, just wait and see. When Pol Pot came to power, we were told: for sure things will change, stay still and let them work. When the Vietnamese invaded and installed the puppet regime which remains until now, we were told: Hey it’s no longer your country, don’t do anything. When the 1991 Paris Accord was signed, we were told: Change is here, just wait and see. When Hun Sen couldn’t win the election, we were told: Let him have some power, and things will go back to normal, just sit tight. When Hun Sen cheated the election twice, he told us: you can say anything you want as long as you don’t do anything against me, just shut up. This is how bleak the situation is.

What is the foundation of democracy if you don’t allow people to express their feelings, their dissenting opinions? Where do we start? Do tell us!?!?

Remember “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” But what, me worry?

Puzzled in the cybernetic world,
MP

Jayakhmer wrote:

Dear M Preuk

I am sorry I mention that notion without clarifying it. Building the foundation of democracy, I am referring to a notion of mutual respect even with your opponents. Currently, as you already noticed here in America when candidates debate, they are passionate about their issues but at the end they always shake hands.

This notion is, in my mind, consistent with idea of inclusiveness and requires participation from all. Protesting against the visit of a high-ranking CPP member may be seen as an act of democracy.

Is this a mean to what end?

What is the true motivation behind the protest?

Well, from our discussion includes all our friends in this forum, thus far, let us say we don’t want be seen as condoning the regime that governs the country in such and such way. We all read the news, the issues but well known to all of us.

CPP knows that they have supporters and they also know that there are those that do not support them. That is a given. Protesting, in my thinking, only reinforces what they already knew.

If true representatives of the community (obviously not those who control the decision to invite Dep. PM Sok An) have an opportunity to have a heart to heart discussion on real issues with the visitor, we may achieve our goal of impact changes better than protesting. That is the kind of democracy I am talking about.

It is free in this country to protest. But not all protesting produces result. I used to be a protester myself. I know what I am talking about.

You need strategy to win and to produce result.

Again, I am sorry if I confused you.

Respect as always,
Jay

M. Preuk wrote:

Dear Jay,

No apologies accepted simply because you don’t owe me any apology.

To reply point by point on the issues you raised:

1- Currently, as you already noticed here in America when candidates debate, they are passionate about their issues but at the end they always shake hands.

It’s true that in the US and elsewhere in the world, candidates shake their hands after a debate. In Srok Khmer, the situation is not as such. For one thing, in the US, Europe, and major Asian democracies, after these politicians shake their hands and leave the stage, they don’t go around and try to kill their opponents, nor do they go around and kill the supporters of the opposing parties, as was and is the case in Cambodia. Furthermore, none of them go around telling their opponents to have coffins ready either.

2- idea of inclusiveness and requires participation from all Jay, on this issue, you are a dime short and more than 2 decades late. Since you read all the news also, you must have seen the photo of Sihanouk shaking hands with Hun Sen in Fères-en-Tardenois, right? When was it taken? 1987 to be exact. Sihanouk was the very first one to shake Hun Sen’s hand. I hope that he did so in order to bring peace and rebirth to Cambodia. In reality what happens? Since you said that you read the news and know the issues well, I wouldn’t waste your time anymore with my tirade on this topic. Suffice it to say that things did not turn out to be as rosy as Sihanouk would have thought, because if it is, we wouldn’t be discussing about we are discussing right now.

3- discussion on real issues with the visitor

Jay, let’s not delve into too complicated issues, take for example a basic case of salaries for teachers. Since you read all the news, you know full well how low their salaries are, and you must have heard how loudly they shouted on this issue. Anything happened yet? Now, more recently, when people want to protest about border agreements with Vietnam, you know what happened without me providing any details right? The bottom line, Jay, nobody will be able to tell anything to these former comrades.

4- It is free in this country to protest. But not all protesting produces result.
Unless, somewhere along the way you became blindsided, do you know why these commies want so much to be on the world stage? The short and simple answer to this question is simply: recognition and respectability. Remember, some of these thugs were involved in killings and such, by now, they want to gain a certain degree of respectability so they and their relatives can move freely anywhere they feel like doing so. To acknowledge them is to give them that degree of respectability that they so much desire.

5- You need strategy to win and to produce result.
After reading all the above, need I tell you more?

Faithfully yours,

MP

Jayakhmer wrote:

Dear M Preuk,

I truly thank you for sharing your perspective on this issue. Your perspective must be shared by a good segment of our society. I learned a great deal from this discussion.

This leads me to thinking about the challenges my generation will face. I have a profound respect for those who share your perspective. My challenge is still how do people of my generation effect changes for our nation to solve the problems that are
monumental to the survival of our nation.

How do we get people of different persuasions to sit at the same table and truly engage and come out with policies that are palatable to all?

To rid off any one group or is certainly unreal and is not an option.

The reality is there will be people who support CPP; there will be people who support the former monarch; there will be people who love to get of the monarchy all together; there will be people who want to move Cambodia toward democracy as quickly as possible; and there will be people who do not care as long as they have the opportunity to make money every is O.K. with them.

I have to work hard with my peers on this issue.

For now let us agree to disagree.

Thank you,
Jay

M. Preuk wrote:

Dear Jay,

In closing, if you may, let me say that if I made you think that I was trying to convince you to agree with me, then, I failed miserably my task.

All that I wanted to tell you is simply that: all that shine is not necessarily gold, all that glitter is not necessarily diamond. There is always 2 sides to a coin. But, please, when you decide to take the road you are taking, I urge you to look deeper into what happened in Vietnam, how the communists changed and twisted their stances, even if they signed on agreements that state otherwise. Why Vietnam? Simply because that’s exactly how the Hun Sen takes after. As Sihanouk confessed himself, he also was betrayed by his so-called former brother-in-arm: he thought he helped them so that he could get their help back, but his wish was not reciprocated.

As you have noted yourself, the situation in Cambodia is very difficult to come to a so-called grand “national reconciliation”. Sihanouk tried it, it didn’t work out. Will Hun Sen try it? If he wanted to, he could have done it long ago, but now that he is entrenched in power, there is no reason for him to let it slip out of his hand. He learned his lesson in 1993 once already.
I laud your effort to attempt what you have described, honestly speaking, I think you would be better off if all the older generations: those who survived the KR, those who saw the resistance war against the Viets, are all gone and start out fresh without any of these bad old memories. For otherwise, you will just be reinventing the same wheel all over again and again, in that case, why not test your ideas with others first, use them as your sounding board, you never know. Do keep in mind also, that our exchange is purely theoretical; the reality in the terrain is far remote from what we are discussing here.

It’s been a pleasure exchanging opinions with you, for once, I didn’t have to confront a barrage of curses. For that, I sincerely thank you for your civility.

Good luck to you in your endeavor,

M. Preuk

Jaykhmer wrote:

Der M Preuk,

Thank you sir for your kind advice. If the Khmer Rouge did murder my father, he probably tells me what you just said. I would take his advice to heart as I take yours. It has been wonderful discussing this issue with you.

Again, thank you.
Respect as always,
Jay

My blog “Pursuing Dialogue” is posted on KI-Media. I find a few of the comments interesting and worth noting so I am copying and pasting them here.

We have also sent another follow-up email to the boards of Cam-CC although they have not replied to our emails or acknowledged our request for a town hall meeting. I would think this is a great opportunity to practice open dialogue, answering questions that the community have and allowing us to voice our opinions.

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2008/02/pursuing-dialogue.html

These are some of the comments on KI-Media in response to my previous blog:

Akhara said…

I am curious to know the answer to these questions too. If this invitation was discussed among the boards of Cam-CC and the New Year Parade committee, I cannot imagine that it would be unanimously accepted. If the board members cannot agree, how did they think the rest of the community would react to this invitation?

Sister Cities of Long Beach appears to be a separate entity from Cam-CC. How could an invitation be issued by this organization? Would Sister Cities have a fill out a float entry form to request a float for Sok An and who would approve it? Was it Richer San of Sister Cities who filled out the float entry form, then turn it in to himself, Richer San who is co-chair of the New Year Parade committee for approval?

Anonymous said…

Based on my investigation, there was no discussion at the board meeting of any organizaation about the delegation to Cambodia and to invite somebody. No other board members were aware of the event. Everybody was surprised.

The invitation was made without any board of directors discussion.

I am 100% sure.

Anonymous said…

There are some members of the board of directors just resigned after the knowledge of the “undiscussed invitation”.

Some are speechless and avoid the meeting all together.

G.G. said…

I also heard about board members who were upset that they were not informed about the invitation before hand. Instead of resigning, keeping quiet or avoiding the meeting altogether, I wish they would speak up. This kind of actions should not be tolerated. Rules and regulation exists for a reason.

Tete said…

Please stop fighting. The invitation was given to Mr. Sok An by mistake. Richer San, Peter Long and the delegation did not go to Cambodia to invite Mr. Sok An. They went there to invite the King, but the King was not available that day. Since they were already there, they did not want to say that they came for no reason so they gave the invitation to Mr. Sok An. Richer San and Peter Long would never do anything to hurt the Cambodian people in Long Beach. This is invitation was given by accident. Please let it be and do not protest anymore.

Toad said…

None of the board members were informed of the invitation because the delegation never intent to issue an invitation. The delegation went to Cambodia as an ambassador of goodwill and they were visiting the U.S. embassy when the U.S. Ambassador lamented quite loudly that he wished some Cambodian community in America would reach out to the Cambodian government and build open dialogue, especially when they are being criticized by human rights activists and global witness for institutionalized corruption and human right violations. The Cambodian government needed a friend who would overlook their criminal acts.

When the delegation from Long Beach heard this pious lamenting, they were moved to tears and decided to be the bridge for building relationship with the Cambodian government. Now you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the truth and nothing but the truth.

Screw the idiots who would be ashamed of this courageous and selfless act. If these board members want to resign, let them. Who needs blind-sighted people who cannot see the long-term benefit of this action?

This email was sent this morning from Ratana to the boards of Cam-CC:

Dear Board Members:

I want to thank the CAM-CC Board for inviting Arun Thach and Navy Phim to present their case on why Deputy Prime Minister Sok An should not be at the Long Beach Cambodian New Year Parade celebration and their hard work and dedication.

I have a few questions. First, regarding the number of parties invited. Is Navy and Alex consider one party and therefore limited to 4 guests? How many parties have the honor and privileges to present their case to the CAM-CC Board Members? I understand there are about 25-30 Boarder Members at CAM-CC all of which may not be active since the information on the page is out-dated. I’m curious about the voting practice, does all active Board Members get a vote or only the members that attend the meeting? For example, If only 5 board members attend that particular meeting, the major of the 5 members will determine the outcome of the vote? In short does CAM-CC have a specific quorum to validate the Board Members vote especially when it comes to controversial issues within the community?

I also want to thank for clarifying that Mr. Sok An will not be presiding over the parade. There are certainly a lot of speculation and discussion on the internet concerning this invitation. We are grateful that you are practicing open dialog with us and putting these rumors to rest. More rumors are being posted on the internet and we would like to hear it from you directly whether it is the truth or merely rumor? Is it true that there was no discussion at the board meeting about sending the delegation to Cambodia to invite Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to be in the parade? Have some board members recently resigned after the knowledge of the “undiscussed invitation”? Are there board members who are speechless by this invitation that they are avoiding the invitation completely? I’ve also heard that this Sunday Board Meeting has no merit on whether Mr. Sok An will be in the parade or not—it has been decided and there is no “Ifs” about it?

I like to request for the CAM-CC ByLaw in electronic form. If one is not available, please advise me on how I may best get a hold of a hard copy. I encourage all Board Members to respond to the questions that I have and clarify the rumors or miss-information that have been circulating on the internet. By the way, does the cam-cc mailing list reach all Board Members? If not can the CAM-CC coordation or members forward to other Board Members. Thank you.

According to a press telegram article on December 26, 2007, the delegations that invited Deputy Prime Minister Sok An to participate in the Cambodian New Year parade included Cambodia Town, Sister Cities of Long Beach, the Cambodian Coordinating Council and the Cambodian New Year Parade Committee. I emailed a board member of Cambodia Town for a contact point to express concerns over the invitation and she informed me that the invitation was given by Sister Cities of Long Beach, not Cambodia Town.

I checked the website of Sister Cities, which shows Richer San as Vice-Chair and Cultural Liaison and the Chairperson representing Phnom Penh. He is also on the Advisory Council of Cambodia Town. According to the Cam-CC website, Richer San is the Vice-President and he is also the event co-chair for the Cambodian New Year Parade Committee.

It is unclear who has issued the invitation. At this point, regardless of who is responsible for the invitation, we are interested in talking to the committee that can listen to our concerns and revoke the invitation. We decided to contact the New Year Parade committee since they are responsible for putting the event together. On the Cambodian New Year Parade website, the person who was listed as a contact person is Nancy Prerk, Parade Coordinator.

On January 28th and January 29th, we sent email to Nancy, Richer San and a few other members of the community who may be interested in having a dialogue on the issue.

Below is the email that we sent:

We are writing to ask your reconsideration of Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An’s appearance at this year’s annual Long Beach Cambodian New Year Parade.

For over a decade, Cambodia has been under the administration of Prime Minister Hun Sen, a government that has violated an incalculable multitude of human rights with impunity since 1997, so much so that they have simply ceased to meet with the latest United Nations rights envoy this past December. Cambodia has one of the most corrupt governments in the world today, ranked 162nd out of 180 nations according to Transparency International (180 being most corrupt). This is as far from “perfect” a government as one can get.

We are deeply shocked and appalled that the right hand man of such a government has been invited to parade himself in an event purported to celebrate diversity, community, and personal freedom. How does one celebrate these values by welcoming the very figure that is a perpetrator against them? What community and freedom are our brothers and sisters celebrating in Cambodia , where Mr. Sok An and colleagues rule the people with forced evictions and rampant land grabs, where simple freedom of expression is met with incarceration and death?

In a press release on January 9, 2008, the parade committee stated: “[We] believe in open dialogs and making changes through peaceful means as taught by Dr. Martin Luther King.” We do not believe a parade is an appropriate venue for having such dialog. While Dr. Martin Luther King met with opposition figures to create open dialog and further understanding, we cannot imagine he would have invited members of the Ku Klux Klan to participate in a parade celebrating the African-American community as a means of opening this dialog.

In addition, the invitation appears to be in direct violation of parade entry rules:

1. All entries should have a positive theme which respects diversity, is non-controversial, and does not advocate any political candidate

Sok An’s participation in the parade (in an election year—2008 Cambodian elections) is the very definition of a political and controversial entry, as evidenced by the community response, which has been covered in the press.

Many Cambodians across the nation look forward to coming to Long Beach’s parade. Now many Cambodians all across the nation are deeply disturbed and dismayed by this turn of events. We understand and appreciate your work in bringing the community together. However, we simply ask that you do not tear asunder the very community that you are trying to serve.

We implore your understanding and compassion in this matter and fervently hope you will rescind Mr. Sok An’s unfortunate invitation.

Nancy Prerk replied to the email informing us that she was only the coordinator for the event and does not make decision concerning the issue. She said she would forward our email to the committee who make the decision. In the meantime, she invited us to attend the meeting on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008.

At this meeting, we stood up to make points based on the email that was already sent. We raised the issue of the human rights violations by the Cambodian government and their officials and the violation of the parade entry rule when the invitation was issued. The first point was sidestepped and the second was met with blatant denial. It is frustrating to say the least, when your opposition denies what is in front of them. The debate became heated and voices were raised. At first, we were too shocked to respond to the [equivocation] of what is common knowledge concerning the Cambodian government and their policy of abusing human rights. Richer San quickly adjourned the meeting and shut the door on the dialogue, but we continued to make our points as people filed out of the meeting and a few more responses were thrown at us before they exit the building in haste.

We were told that we should not use words like corruptions and violation of human rights unless we have proof of it. We included the statistic that was given by Transparency International (180 being most corrupt), which ranked Cambodia 162nd out of 180. Who is Transparency International? It is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption, brings people together in a powerful worldwide coalition to end the devastating impact of corruption on men, women and children around the world.

Global Witness has plenty of articles on the issue of corruptions in Cambodia: http://www.globalwitness.org/index.php

As for human right violations, refusing to meet with the human rights envoy is an act that reveals much about the administration of the Cambodian government and the lack of value placed on standards set by the international community on human rights issues.

In this article, the title “For Cambodians, fear is a way of life” speaks volume on the situation of human rights in Cambodia:

CAMBODIA: University lecturer is allegedly dismissed for writing a book that is critical of government
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1933/
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1958/

CAMBODIA: Government’s alleged attack on three labor union activists
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1845/
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1902/

CAMBODIA: A journalist convicted for exposing alleged corruption of the deputy prime minister
http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2006/1982/

This article discusses the unfair trial and police brutality of forced confession through torture: http://blogs.amnesty.org/blogs/write4rights/2006/10/31/1162303620000.html

What I have listed are just a few examples of injustices that is committed under the current government where Sok An is the Deputy Prime Minister, including one where the Deputy Prime Minister himself was directly named and involved. The current administration in Cambodia has continued to violate key human rights issues that make democracy function, especially free press.

The violation of the entry rule was also met with denial by the parade committee. We were able to furnish the entry form after a bout of heated exchange.

1. All entries should have a positive theme which respects diversity, is non-controversial, and does not advocate any political candidate

We emphasize that a figure of a corrupt government that violate human rights is controversial and since this is an election year in Cambodia, there is political implication in inviting him to a parade in a Cambodian community overseas. It may look as though Cambodians overseas support the government of Cambodia and all its injustices. Our position that Sok An is a controversial figure fell on deaf ears with demand for proofs.

I am aware that members of the Cambodian government have always been included in the parade. However, there is a big difference between inviting a member of the Cambodian government from different ministries versus inviting and parading the second man in power who is directly involved with making and effecting policy. For the last three parades, when a member of the Cambodian government come by in their float, my thoughts become sober as I think of the people in Cambodia and the oppression they live under. In last year’s parade, as one of the float was passing by with a member of the CPP government on it, people around me asked each other “Isn’t that the former president of UCC who embezzled money, ruined the organization’s credibility and ran off to Cambodia to become a minister?” I cannot verify this information, but if there is truth in it, I wonder why the committee saw it fitting to include him. Are we that lacking in inspirational figures to parade in our New Year celebration that we would include someone like that?

After the brief exchange we had with the parade committee, we received an invitation by the CAM-CC board to attend a close-door meeting with a request for us to bring only four people to their meeting. We do not believe this is the right venue for discussion. A town hall meeting that is open to the public is needed because we are not the only ones who want to express our feeling on the issue.

I sent an email to the board explaining this point and asked for clarification of the ambiguity surrounding the origins of the invitation. These are the questions I posted to the board:

1) What organization and/or person issued the invitation?
2) If it is Sister Cities of Long Beach, who within that organization issued the invitation and what is the requirement and procedure for approval?
3) Was there a discussion within the Board of Cam-CC and the New Year Parade committee before the invitation was issued?

I believe this type of decision should be transparent as it affects everyone in the community. I am awaiting the response from the committee(s).

I encourage anyone who has question concerning the invitation and the committee’s decision to email them directly. Their email can be found on their website under contact.

by Tiara Delgado for the Khmer Post

The article is on the Khmer Post website and can be found at the following links:
http://thekhmerpost.com/i8_vol2/tkpv2i8/page_21.htm
http://thekhmerpost.com/i8_vol2/tkpv2i8/page_24.htm
http://thekhmerpost.com/i8_vol2/tkpv2i8/page_14.htm

Born during the Killing Fields… with childhood memories of Thai refugee camps.

They are the fusion generation. A fusion of two cultures. They are the middle generation of Khmer-Americans now in their late-20’s to early 30’s. Unlike older siblings who have extensive memories of Cambodia before and during the genocide, the fusion generation has limited or no memory of Cambodia. Unlike younger siblings born into peace and privilege, the fusion generation struggled with their parents to survive as refugees in their new American society.

Two young Long Beach artists from the fusion generation have chosen to share their lives with the world. One artist through music. One artist through literature. Both have incredible tales to tell. Their messages connect not only with Khmer communities but will resonate with audiences worldwide.

PRACH LY – Rap Artist – Dalama 3: Memoirs of an Invisible War

Prach Ly was born in 1979 at the end of the Killing Fields. His family made their way across landmine infested jungles to a refugee camp at the Thai border. After being sponsored to the US he struggled to survive the mean streets of Long Beach, California. He blossomed into a talented rap artist, writing powerful lyrics about his family’s escape from Cambodia and the hardships of being a refugee youth.

Prach became a huge success in Khmer communities across the US and even caught attention of Newsweek and the LA Times. Although Prach had never been back to Cambodia his music made its way over to the Kingdom. Bootlegged copies sold like crazy bringing him to superstar status. His first album, Dalama- the Endin’ is just the Beginnin’ was released in 2001. His second album, Dalama 2 – the Lost Chapter was released in 2003. Since then he has been busy producing and developing new musical talent and creating music for film soundtracks. He also made two journeys back to Cambodia (his trip was the subject of an award-winning documentary.)

Dalama 3- Memoirs of an Invisible War is expected to be released no later then April 2008, in time for Cambodian New Year. His new album is highly anticipated because it is the last in the trilogy. “The music is more mature than the previous two albums. The lyrics are more fierce. I took off the gloves and put on brass knuckles,” says Prach. “The last two Dalamas were more about the Killing Fields and my past. This Dalama is more about the present and future… yet it doesn’t forget about the past or my roots.”

The new album is definitely harder and darker than the previous albums. Masterful lyrics draw the listener into a tortured past, a complex present and – ultimately - a hopeful future.
Prach explains, “This album is called Memoirs of an invisible war. Everyone’s got their own invisible war inside their mind. This album is about mine.” His music never contains lyrics degrading women, obscene language or glorified violence. While other rappers express their “invisible wars” about gang life, drugs and girls, Prach raps about the legacy of Pol Pot, contemporary Cambodian politics and the culture clash of his generation. “Hells Gate” is a powerful track on Dalama 3 that recalls his family’s experience in refugee camps at the Thai border:

“My sister waits in line to get us some food
while my brothers and others search for firewood.
Or water or whatever they could get.
While my mama watch me; I wasn’t even a year yet.
No blankets, I was wrapped in a Khmer sheet.
Turned into a hammock, I sleep while the family eats.”

The mesmerizing drumbeat and haunting melody of this track make it destined to be an audience favorite. The lyrics are merciless in detail, describing life inside the Thai border camps.

“Lucky for us we were all OK. Not like the others losing arms and legs.
Stepping on bombs, grenades…”

The upcoming album has 13 songs in Khmer and 13 songs in English compiled into a double-disc CD. Each song is different (not translated) with its own story and message. It will be available in Khmer music stores nation-wide and possibly Tower records. It can also be purchased online at Prach’s website www.mujestic.com. CD’s can also be purchased directly from Prach if you catch up with him on tour. (Check his website for 2008 tour dates.)

The anticipated album hasn’t been without controversy. Certain songs have caught negative attention with the government in Cambodia. There are rumors that if those songs are released on Dalama 3 that Prach himself will be banned from Cambodia. “I owe it to the people in Cambodia to let them hear the music. If I give in to the threats it’s a lost cause,” Prach states. “I’ve got to complete the album. The music’s gotta be heard.”

NAVY PHIM – Author – Reflections of a Khmer Soul

Navy Phim was born April 9, 1975 – a week before the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh and turned Cambodia into a bloodbath. From 1979 – 1983 Navy and her family lived in Thai refugee camps. At age six she sold French bread in the camps while dodging menacing Thai soldiers. In 1984 Navy and her family arrived in the USA. Navy accomplished what most would consider to be the American Dream. She excelled in academics earning a Bachelors in Anthropology and English and a Masters in Counseling from Cal State Long Beach. She traveled the world visiting exotic lands such as India, Nepal, Peru, Costa Rica and Scotland. She also traveled four times to Cambodia.

“The kind of love, heartache, and pain I feel for Srok Khmer is deeply embedded within my soul; these feelings are suffused with glorious memories and stories that are real, even if they are stories and distant memories that may not even be mine” (Phim, page 47).

In 2007 Navy published her memoirs in a passionate and intriguing autobiography titled Reflections of a Khmer Soul. The book accounts the timeline of her compelling life: beginning with her 9-months pregnant mother fleeing from encroaching Khmer Rouge, through her childhood in refugee camps, to her upbringing in Long Beach and self-discovery as a young adult.

“… my soul feels poetically Khmer. The past 20 years have been a process of assimilating, eliminating, and accepting different aspects of Khmer and American cultures” (Phim, page 64).

Snippets of endearing memories and interesting historical facts add depth to the book. The author reveals her personal opinions about the Khmer Rouge, Communism, racism, religion, ethnic cleansing and other sensitive topics with bold honesty.

“Cambodia is the home of memories, the taste and scent of tropical fruits, the call of childhood… California is a home that provides many reasons to disregard Cambodia, but Cambodia is not easily forgotten” (Phim page 49).

Reflections of a Khmer Soul can be purchased through many retailers:
1) Directly from the publisher www.wheatmark.com.
2) Through online bookstores like Amazon, Barnes and Noble or Borders.
3) autographed copy from www.khmerhut.com.
4) At local coffee shops in Long Beach: Portfoilo Coffee House and NuArt Café.
The book has already received rave reviews by many top academic scholars across the country. Even with the growing success of her book, the author has remained humble and even contributes a portion of book sales to charitable fundraisers.

On October 20, 2007 Navy sold and autographed copies of her book at a cultural event held at CSULB. The public event - Cambodia 30 years after the Killing Fields - was hosted by the Dr. Haing S. Ngor Foundation. Excerpts from Navy’s book were read aloud. The audience, comprised of Khmer and non-Khmer- listened… captivated… contemplative. This book is highly recommended for audience of any ethnicity because it is ultimately a story about humanity. For more information please visit the author’s personal website www.navyphim.com.

On Wednesday, January 9, 2008, the Cambodian New Year Parade Committee had a meeting to continue the parade planning. At this meeting, they passed out a press release entitled “Objectives of Cambodian New Year Parade.” Even though the press release does not acknowledge the expressed outraged against the invitation given to Sok An, the Deputy Prime Minister of Cambodia, the language and points made in the writing functions as a rebuttal and justification for the invitation. The press release begins by discussing a policy of non-discrimination and the final paragraph opens with the statement, “We know that the current Cambodian government is not perfect, but we believe in open dialogs and making changes through peaceful means as taught by Dr. Martin Luther King.” The statement that the Cambodian government is not perfect is an allusion to and an acknowledgement of the destructive practices of the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), a corrupt and oppressive government that is presently controlling Cambodia. To use the phrase “not perfect” to describe the CPP is an understatement. This is a government that has engaged in numerous violations of human rights and the oppression of the Cambodian nation including the murders of journalists who dared to speak against them. CPP polices have mistreated and used violence against villagers to evict them from their land. Having an official member of this government in the parade is tantamount to condoning their actions and turning a blind eye to the injustice that occurs in Cambodia, injustices that are committed by the current government.

A parade does not offer the opportunity to discuss or have “open dialog”. A discussion forum is needed for an open dialog to be possible and effective. If the Cambodian New Year Parade Committee and Cambodia Town is interested in creating an open dialog to encourage changes through peaceful means, they should create an event that is separate from the parade. In opening this dialog, they should invite CPP government officials, representatives from the Cambodian Center for Human Right (CCHR) (http://www.cchr-cambodia.org/en/), organizations that work to eliminate human right violations, and members of the community. The open dialog topics that need to be addressed with the government of Cambodia are human right issues and freedom of expression, to name a few. The CCHR has implemented many forums in Cambodia to engage in open dialogs and could provide recommendations on how to do this.

The parade is not a place for “open dialog” because it is not a forum discussion. The majority of the community is participating as spectator and the government official would be sitting on a float waving to spectators who are attending the parade to celebrate Cambodian New Year and culture. The people sitting in these floats should be inspirational figures who bring pride and joy to the community. A member of a corrupted government can only bring forth anger and resentment in a time for celebration.

The director of CCHR, Virak Ou received the 2007 Reeboks Human Rights Award for Young Activists for his human rights work in Cambodia. He was one of four recipients to receive the award worldwide. This is something that the Cambodian community is proud of and this is the person that should be invited to attend the Cambodian New Year Parade. He represents open dialog and change through peaceful mean. To learn more about his work, click on this link:

http://www.reebok.com/Static/global/initiatives/rights/awards/recipients/virak.html

I believe Dr. Martin Luther King would be willing to meet with oppositional figure to create open dialog and understanding, but I cannot imagine that he would invite members of the Ku Klux Klan to participate in a parade celebrating the African-American community as a mean of encouraging open dialog.

Below is the press release that the Cambodian New Year Committee passed out on January 9, 2008

Objectives of Cambodian New Year Parade

LONG BEACH, CA -The new Year Parade committee has a policy of non-discrimination for participation in the parade. The parade’s main objectives are to promote the Cambodian culture, area businesses, and particularly Cambodia Town. Political slogans and election campaigns are strictly prohibited.

We have followed the official US policy in dealing with the Cambodian government which is recognized by all nations in the world. We believe past parades have made major impacts on the participating Cambodian officials: to witness the joy and pride of Long Beach Cambodian-Americans, and the personal freedom that people enjoy under US laws. High Cambodian officials who have participated in the past parades and celebrations include: Sokha Kem (NGO Human Right Activists), H.E. Than Pok (former-secretary of state), H.E. Vora Khunthoul (Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs), H.E. Sin Neung (Parliament Member), H.E. Chang Song (Senator), H.E. Widhya Chem (Ambassador to UN), H.E. Sreywath Ek (Ambassador to USA), and Cambodian Rice Miller Association.

We know the current Cambodian government is not perfect, but we believe in open dialogs and making changes through peaceful means as taught by Dr. Martin Luther King. We will continue to invite the Cambodian government regardless of the officials’ political party to participate in the parade because the parade will help promote freedom and democracy in Cambodia.

A petition to protest the parade has been circulated online and within the community, but a group of my friends and colleagues have decided to create a shorter one. We also want to obtain the support of people outside of the Cambodian community and write the petition with them in mind as they may not know anything about Cambodia or the reasons for our protest. This is a human rights issues and it requires attention and support from all members of society.

Having more than one petition is acceptable. Even though, it serves the same purpose, people may want to express themselves differently. You can choose to sign either one or write your own. The existing petition can serve as a guideline.

Please download, sign the petition, and get as many signatures as possible:
http://navyphim.com/SokAnPetition.pdf

Please sign and mail petition to:

myP1T.com
PO Box 4129
Long Beach, CA 90804

or email a scanned copy with signature(s) to:

petition@myp1t.com

http://www.gazettes.com/khmersoul1072008.html

BOOK REVIEW
“Reflections of a Khmer Soul”
Published Jan. 7, 2008

By K. Joy Wood
my.style Contributor

“Dear World,” begins Navy Phim’s memoir-like exploration of experiences, thoughts and questions. “I cannot fight and die for you, but I can speak a little on your behalf, examining the sentiments of war and the wasted blood that has spilled over you. I am an earth child rooted in Cambodia. I have lived a life that requests expression and understanding.”

It is this Cambodian-American’s journey to find personal expression and understanding that is Phim’s primary and passionate mission in her autobiographical debut, “Reflections of a Khmer Soul.” From recollections of her childhood in Cambodia to revelations of her current life in Long Beach, the author poignantly reflects on what it means to be of two different cultures, half a world apart, and to find meaningful reconciliation with historical tragedy as well as with the demands of modern living.

“I’ve tried to make sense out of where I came from in terms of the stigma of the Killing Fields, the issue of identity and the process of assimilation here in the states,” shares Phim. “I believe that sharing myself helps me connect to others, and my hope is that this book offers to Cambodians living in Long Beach, and to the greater community, a better understanding of how we live and how we want to participate in and contribute to our community.”

In addition to providing insights to her personal journey, Phim also offers a window to past and current conflict among Cambodians both in their native land and here in Long Beach. Her recollections include the April 2005 dispute about the date for a New Year’s parade in what is now Cambodia Town in Long Beach.

The initial date had coincided with the date that Khmer Rouge had claimed victory in Cambodia, leaving about one million people dead.

While the conflict was resolved with a date change, it stirred many issues within Phim, including her focus on humans and their biases.

“We need to remember to evaluate our own biases and perspectives, not only politically but even about what our idea of beauty is,” Phim states.

Indeed, not only does Reflections of a Khmer Soul examine local and international bias across multiple cultures, but also rhetorically questions the existence of cruelty among humankind; ultimately, she finds that pity overrides anger after discovering the often frail, bewildered souls beneath the exteriors of those who have committed atrocities against fellow beings.

The author closes with honoring the need for dignity and respect for all humans, rather than allowing the filling of shallow graves.

To purchase a copy of the book or for more details, visit www.navyphim.com. Phim frequently offers a percentage of her book sales for Cambodian-related fundraising and educational events, and she is available for speaking engagements.

There is yet another controversy surrounding the Cambodian New Year parade in Long Beach. In 2005, it was because the chosen date happened to be April 17, which marked the 30th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge victory. People who opposed the date protested, held candle vigils and attended the city council meetings to request a date change. Even though, I did not protest the chosen date, I attended the meeting to listen to the opposition and tried to understand their views. The discussions that took place during the conflict were heated and many things could have been handled differently. The community was divided on the issue but the people who opposed the date organized themselves and made their point known. In the end, it was resolved and the community was able to come together to celebrate New Year and made the parade a success.

This year, the controversy is surrounding the invitation that was given to Sok An, the Deputy Prime Minister in the Hun Sen government, to attend the parade by a delegation from Long Beach visiting Phnom Penh recently. The delegation included representatives from Cambodia Town Inc., Long Beach Sister Cities, the Cambodian Coordinating Council and the Cambodia New Year Parade.

The article can be read on the Press Telegram Website:

http://www.presstelegram.com/search/ci_7817115?IADID=Search-www.presstelegram.com-www.presstelegram.com

It was also posted in KI-Media and you can also read the comment on it:

http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2007/12/cambodians-planned-visit-draws-protest.html

I first read about it on http://www.myp1t.com/forum/posts/id_913/page_last/ and it is also being discussed.

Some years ago, after I was over my initial shock that there are Cambodian-Americans who supported the Hun Sen government, I tried to understand why. One of the answers is that it was a lesser evil than the Khmer Rouge regime, but evil is evil whether something else is more evil than it. I also noticed that some of the supporters have relatives in Cambodia who are government officials or rich individuals who greatly benefit from a government that exploits the poor. There are also those who values power and wealth at all cost whether it was obtained through corruption or exploitation. They are opportunists who will turn a blind eye to the suffering of others as long as they benefit. They support high-ranking officials in Cambodia and brag about staying at five-star hotel and how they know people with big mansion who are driven around Cambodia in limousine with bodyguards surrounding them at all times. It never occurred to them that those individuals are the destroyers of Cambodia and many of us do not admire who they know and what they do in Cambodia when we see them as blood-sucking leech.

As for the present conflict in Long Beach, it is providing the Cambodian community an opportunity to voice their opinions and inform our so-called community leaders who they represent. As individuals, if they support the Hun Sen government and want to kowtow or kneel down in front of Hun Sen and their cronies, they have the right to do it. They should do it in the privacy of their own house or when they are visiting Cambodia. In term of inviting them to the parade, this should be a community decision. These representatives should have taken the time to understand the people they represent and know how many of us would appreciate (or not appreciate) seeing members of Hun Sen government at our event. The community leaders may know someone personally and think the person is an inspirational figure, but the greater community may not and in those instance, they should also refrain from forcing these so-called inspirational figure on us.

The invitation has been given but with the petitions being circulated, we will know too how many of us do not want Sok An to be at our event. After seeing the result of the petition, I hope these leaders will amend their actions and listen to the people they represent.

I would be surprised if there is a higher number of people who would condone having Sok An at the parade. We’ll find out. For those who oppose, please sign the petition.

I finished reading the Kite Runner a few days ago. I wanted to finish it before the movie came out so I can catch it but after I finished it, I decided against watching the movie. I didn’t want to relive the event of the book again, at least not so soon. It’s a wonderful book and story, but it is not one of those feel good type. The book is told in a very matter of fact way and the author does not sentimentalized the pain and suffering of the character or the country. There is historical information for the story to move along and if you want to know more, you have to do some research and learn about it on your own and it does make me want to learn more.

The similarity to Cambodia is uncanny. At some point, they even viewed the Taliban the way that people saw the Khmer Rouge when they won… They thought the country would see peace but instead they were under stricter and even crazier rules.

The last book I read was Nectar in a Sieve by Kamala Markandaya during Thanksgiving weekend. It is a simple book, packed with meaning and the subtlety of human struggle, hope and suffering. I see Cambodia in that book. The tannery can be replaced with sweat shops. People in Cambodia are losing their land and livelihood through land grabbing and it is worst than losing land to big corporation or because the land owner refused to lease it to you anymore. In Cambodia, people are being kicked off their land even though they have lived there for generations and they are the owner of the land. You can read about land grabbing in these links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7135827.stm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/10/2114923.htm?section=world

http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSBKK260227

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUfkVLDGqscni9JkCj2iA8OtTh3w

There is a passage in Nectar in a Sieve that really speaks to me concerning prostitution and sex, which is also a big problem in Cambodia, sex trade and child prostitution. I revel in the sentiment and portrayal of the issue by Kamala Markandaya. It was beautifully written through the concern of a mother who watched her daughter give birth to a child that was conceived through prostitution…

…A man takes his wife with passion, as is his nature, yet he is gentle with her; amid the fire of breast on breast and bared thigh on thigh he still can hold himself, and give as much as he takes, leaving the exultant flesh unbruised. The woman is his, his wife, not only now for this surging experience, but tomorrow and next year. She will carry and he will see her fruitful, watch while day by day his child grows within her. And so he is tender and careful, and comes to her clean that their fulfillment may be rich and blessed.

But a man who finds a woman in the street, raised an eyebrow and snaps his fingers so that she follows him, throws her a few coins that he may possess her, holds her unresisting whatever he does to her, for this is what he has paid for—what cares such a man for the woman who is his for a brief moment? He has gained his relief, she her payment, he merges carelessly into the human throng, consigning her back into the shadows where she worked or to the gaudy streets where she loitered.

Of the thousands of men in the village, in the town, perhaps another village, another town, one man unknown is the father: of the vast range of manhood, who is to say he was not of the unsound, the unclean? What care or safeguard is there when the consequences of one’s act are hidden from one’s thankful eyes, and the woman is one of many, soft, desired, lost, forgotten!

With many of the books I have read, I see Cambodia in it and I think a story about Cambodia can be written as Nectar in a Sieve and Memoir of a Geisha , a book that I also like very much. In reading these books, I have also associated different country and the plight connected to different group of people with that particular book, Nectar in a Sieve with India, Memoir of a Geisha with Japan and Across a Hundred Mountains by Reyna Grande with Mexico. Stories about Karaoke bar girls in Cambodia and the land grabbing needs to be written for Cambodia too… There is similarity and parallelism in the struggle of different people around the world.

I am presently reading Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. The servant-master friendship reminds me of the relationship portrayed in the movie, the Kama Sutra. I see parallelism between Afghanistan and Cambodia, especially with the coup de tat (1970 for Cambodia and 1973 for Afghanistan) and Communism (Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Russian in Afghanistan, which is different). I know nothing about Afghanistan and this is the first book that I am reading and everything that I will know about Afghanistan at this point is coming from this book. I cannot stress enough the importance of writing accurately for an audience like me who has no prior knowledge. Every people from every country deserve to have their story told by a person with a kind and gentle soul of a poet (like that of Chanrithy Him for the story of Cambodia)…

…Going off topic here, but during my second year at UCLA, for a whole year, I had a roommate who came from Afghanistan. I lived with her but I didn’t really know her. I went to class, come home, sleep and on the weekend, I drove down to Long Beach so I never really took the opportunity to know her. What I remembered is that she prayed twice a day, rolling out her prayer rug for it. We lived in a one bedroom apartment and the bathroom was inside the bedroom. Once or twice, while she was praying, I walked into the room to get to the bathroom. I probably shouldn’t but I had to… I am half way through Kite Runner. I want to finish it before catching the movie.

Narith gave me a great idea about making a suggestion for library to buy my book. She initially made the request for her university library in Madison, Wisconsin to buy it and they did. I requested CSULB and the Long Beach Public library to get one and they did. UCLA and SDSU also has it. If you don’t want to buy the book but you want to read it, make a request to your local library to buy it.

Generally, they will ask for:

Title: “Reflections of a Khmer Soul”
Author: Navy Phim
Publisher: Wheatmark book publishing
Publication Date: August 15, 2007
Trade Paperback ISBN: 978-1-58736-861-5
Price: $14.95

If you have done so or know of any other library that has it, please let me know. Here’s a list of library that already has my book:
http://navyphim.com/blog/?page_id=140

I really like the title translation for my book in Khmer, which the temple in San Jose did and included in the program for the Kathin celebration. I have been meaning to figure out how to translate it, but I’m glad they did it. It is exactly as I want it to mean—Reflections of a Khmer Soul.

Below was the speech I gave on that day… after I greeted the monks incorrectly… The introduction that the M.C. did for me was really nice. He complemented the work of a writer, which served to document our stories and history.

I am honored to be here today. Although I live in Long Beach, San Jose is also home to me. My family lived in San Jose from 1984-1990, then we moved to Long Beach and while I was in college, my parents came back to San Jose, but I decided to stay in Long Beach. I consider both Long Beach and San Jose home and I visit often.

I was born in Battambang in April 1975 when the Khmer Rouge took. I wrote this book for many reasons. I was trying to make sense of my life and experience—being born into the Killing Fields, being a refugee, living in America and my identity. I want to understand Cambodia and why something like the Killing Fields took place. I still do not have answers, but it has been an interesting journey and I have gained some insights about our country and people.

The Killing Fields is a tragic event for Cambodia, but this type of tragedy is no