| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Thailand detains Cambodian politician |
| 2003-02-02 |
| Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy has been detained by Thai immigration authorities at Bangkok airport amid continuing tension between the neighbouring countries. Police say Mr Rainsy is being held for his own safety after rioting in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh, on Wednesday in which the Thai embassy was destroyed. Foreign Minister Hor Namm Hong is to visit Thailand on Tuesday in an effort to repair relations. This has zilch to do with terrorism, so we didn't cover it here. But it's something to keep an eye on, because somewhere there's an Islamist trying to figure if he can turn it to his advantage. Besides, riots are always interesting... The Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, has blamed the trouble on Cambodian politicians making outspoken comments in the run-up to July's general election. "The riots were caused by politicians fighting in Cambodia in order to gain popularity for their own parties. It was a very bad thing to do," he said in his weekly radio address. But that was last July... "Diplomatic relations between Thailand and Cambodia can only return to normal when Cambodia gives us answers about what happened," he added. That's what you might call a truism... The violence started after rumours circulated that a Thai actress had suggested the ancient temple complex at Angkor Wat - a Cambodian national symbol - really belonged to Thailand. The actress has denied Even if she had made such a statement, it's so demonstrably untrue — meaningless, in fact — as to be laughable. It would be like claiming the Brandenburg Gate, or the Kremlin belonged to the Americans. Angkor Wat, Cambodia's national symbol, was the funerary temple of the Khmer king Suryavarman II, who probably died around 1150 A.D. The statue of Vishnu at the temple, named Paramavisnuloka, is said to represent him. When Angkor Wat was started, the Thais and Laos were still in the process of migrating from what's today southern China. What is today Thailand was occupied — sparsely — by Mons (first cousins to the Khmers) and Malay aboriginals, who are Melanesians related distantly to the tribesmen of Borneo and New Guinea. Rama Khamhaeng wasn't to impose some sort of unity on the Thai tribes, founding the Kingdom of Sukhothai, for another 150 years. Mr Rainsy has blamed the Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen for triggering the violence. Hun Sen described the Thai actress as no more important than a blade of grass at Angkor Wat and banned her soap opera from national television. The first statement is probably true, except for her suiters and/or husband. The second statement probably causes a certain amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth, since soap operas were much favored as TV fare in that part of the world last time I was there. Cambodian police on Saturday charged In Chansivutha, editor of Rasmei Angkor (Light of Angkor) newspaper, with inciting the riots by publishing false information. Mr In Chansivutha has admitted publishing rumours without verifying them, but said his aim had been to allow the government to investigate. "We report. You confirm." |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #4 Were you to review the resume of Hun Sen, the leader of Campuchea you would not find this crass manipulation too far fetched. Once a KR always a KR. |
| Posted by: Condor 7 2003-02-02 19:58:01 |
| #3 Good point Joe, but even more frightening is that it could stir the Cambodians to the point of rioting. I had hoped that, outside of Pakland, Nigeria, and other Islamic nutlands, that most were more societally progressed than that. It's enough to make me (more) cynical |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-02-02 16:38:48 |
| #2 A colonel in the Royal Thai Army is one of the moderators of another message board that I frequent. She explained that the rumor that started this chain of events started with a line (delivered by the actress in question, who did not in fact say any such thing offstage) in a Thai historical epic released two or three years ago. This movie, in turn, was based on the events surrounding the war between the Khmer Empire and the Thai kingdoms of Ayutthaya and Sukhothai in the 14th century. It seems that the consort of the Thai king at the time, Rama Thibodi, advised him that in order to force an end to the war with the Khmers, Angkor Wat (at that time the Khmer capital) should be taken and occupied until the Khmers cried uncle. This was done in 1369, the Khmers threw in the towel, and the Thais withdrew and went home. So, what was at issue here was that scene from the movie reproducing that conversation, and the lines that actress was speaking. I have to say that I find this kind of suspicious. Why would somebody recycle some lines from a three-year-old movie to make it look like the actress who spoke them was in fact calling for Thai conquest of Angkor? Could it be that somebody was trying to stir up fresh trouble between Cambodia and Thailand, which have been, as we have seen, at loggerheads and often literally at sword's point for centuries? |
| Posted by: Joe 2003-02-02 15:23:11 |
| #1 Good point Joe, but even more frightening is that it could stir the Cambodians to the point of rioting. I had hoped that, outside of Pakland, Nigeria, and other Islamic nutlands, that most were more societally progressed than that. It's enough to make me (more) cynical |
| Posted by: Frank G 2/2/2003 4:38:48 PM |