November 30, 2009
As we watch the trial of former Khmer Rouge prison chief Duch coming to a conclusion, and impatiently wait for the verdict, several crucial questions still remain virtually unanswered. Was Duch forcefully a subservient follower in order to ensure his own survival as he claimed, or was he a merciless killer who would not hesitate to kill again if he could turn back the clock? Given his leadership role and authority within the Khmer Rouge structure, could he have done differently? Is he genuine or truthful about his sense of guilt?
At the beginning of the trial, Duch surprised the audience with his unreserved admission of guilt and willingness to assume full responsibility of his actions as well as those of his subordinates. It was unexpected to hear such a confession from a high ranking Khmer Rouge cadre, especially when none of his accused comrades had done so. For that reason, the audience and the media appeared to not only had certain sympathy with him but also believed to some extent in his sincerity and remorse. However as the trial progressed, Duch gradually shifted the responsibility to his superiors and made repeated attempts to absolve himself with the claim that he had no choice but to follow orders – to kill or be killed.
Having lived though the Khmer Rouge regime during my childhood, I fully understand Duch’s argument. The regime had an absolute control on everything throughout the country. It was constantly a life and death situation, and people were tortured and summarily executed for either fabricated or no apparent reasons. That being the case, however, does not exonerate Duch from what he did or chose not to do.
The Khmer Rouge regime operated behind an absolute veil of secrecy and deception – a culture full of terrors which Duch himself helped to mastermind, and personally oversaw and put into practice since his early days as a prison chief at M-13. Given his role, authority and involvement long before the Khmer Rouge came to power, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Duch, an authoritative and motivated figure at the core of the Khmer Rouge killing machine, was not just someone who had to follow orders for his own survival, but someone who willingly did his utmost to ascertain that the killing machine under his command operated at full capacity. The details of his work records clearly showed that he was a merciless and motivated executioner.
The Khmer Rouge was able to abort several pending coups d'état and made many unopposed arrests because their victims were either tricked or most importantly unaware of other related arrests before their own arrests. Had the victims known that their close associates and comrades, or direct superiors had already been arrested prior to their own arrests, they would unquestionably have rebelled openly and massively to overthrow the regime. As a prison chief at Toul Sleng, Duch had a complete and ultimate knowledge on the arrests of ministers, zone secretaries, as well as senior and powerful military commanders. Had he leaked those secret arrests or sent some kind of warning signals to the arrestees’ subordinates or associates, the entire Khmer Rouge power structure would have been compromised and possibly collapsed. Yet he chose to do just the opposite, and carried out the unspeakable atrocity without hesitation or the least regard for the lives of his victims – young or old.
As for his sense of guilt, Duch showed to have none. His initial admission of guilt was nothing more than a ploy or a deception to gain public sympathy for forgiveness or lighter sentence. This was evident by his subsequent shift of responsibility during the trial and his shocking request to be released made at his closing statement. After all, public deception was one of his trademarks.
We have witnessed an unprecedented trial for an unprecedented crime and suffering in our nation contemporary history, and we are grateful to see justice has been partly served. Nevertheless, the wound was too deep and painful for many of us to forgive, let alone forget.
This trial is much more than just a trial of the past wrongdoings. It explicitly serves as a reminder or warning to all present and future high ranking officials that they are not above the law, and that justice will always take its due course. Those who commit human rights violations or obstruction of justice will be personally held accountable for their misconducts. The classical argument of “I only follow or have to follow orders” will carry little or no weight in the court of law.
Last but not least, the true motives of the crime, which all defendants obstinately refuse to acknowledge, will continue to preoccupy the nation long after the judges hand out sentences and leave the courtroom.
As we watch the trial of former Khmer Rouge prison chief Duch coming to a conclusion, and impatiently wait for the verdict, several crucial questions still remain virtually unanswered. Was Duch forcefully a subservient follower in order to ensure his own survival as he claimed, or was he a merciless killer who would not hesitate to kill again if he could turn back the clock? Given his leadership role and authority within the Khmer Rouge structure, could he have done differently? Is he genuine or truthful about his sense of guilt?
At the beginning of the trial, Duch surprised the audience with his unreserved admission of guilt and willingness to assume full responsibility of his actions as well as those of his subordinates. It was unexpected to hear such a confession from a high ranking Khmer Rouge cadre, especially when none of his accused comrades had done so. For that reason, the audience and the media appeared to not only had certain sympathy with him but also believed to some extent in his sincerity and remorse. However as the trial progressed, Duch gradually shifted the responsibility to his superiors and made repeated attempts to absolve himself with the claim that he had no choice but to follow orders – to kill or be killed.
Having lived though the Khmer Rouge regime during my childhood, I fully understand Duch’s argument. The regime had an absolute control on everything throughout the country. It was constantly a life and death situation, and people were tortured and summarily executed for either fabricated or no apparent reasons. That being the case, however, does not exonerate Duch from what he did or chose not to do.
The Khmer Rouge regime operated behind an absolute veil of secrecy and deception – a culture full of terrors which Duch himself helped to mastermind, and personally oversaw and put into practice since his early days as a prison chief at M-13. Given his role, authority and involvement long before the Khmer Rouge came to power, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Duch, an authoritative and motivated figure at the core of the Khmer Rouge killing machine, was not just someone who had to follow orders for his own survival, but someone who willingly did his utmost to ascertain that the killing machine under his command operated at full capacity. The details of his work records clearly showed that he was a merciless and motivated executioner.
The Khmer Rouge was able to abort several pending coups d'état and made many unopposed arrests because their victims were either tricked or most importantly unaware of other related arrests before their own arrests. Had the victims known that their close associates and comrades, or direct superiors had already been arrested prior to their own arrests, they would unquestionably have rebelled openly and massively to overthrow the regime. As a prison chief at Toul Sleng, Duch had a complete and ultimate knowledge on the arrests of ministers, zone secretaries, as well as senior and powerful military commanders. Had he leaked those secret arrests or sent some kind of warning signals to the arrestees’ subordinates or associates, the entire Khmer Rouge power structure would have been compromised and possibly collapsed. Yet he chose to do just the opposite, and carried out the unspeakable atrocity without hesitation or the least regard for the lives of his victims – young or old.
As for his sense of guilt, Duch showed to have none. His initial admission of guilt was nothing more than a ploy or a deception to gain public sympathy for forgiveness or lighter sentence. This was evident by his subsequent shift of responsibility during the trial and his shocking request to be released made at his closing statement. After all, public deception was one of his trademarks.
We have witnessed an unprecedented trial for an unprecedented crime and suffering in our nation contemporary history, and we are grateful to see justice has been partly served. Nevertheless, the wound was too deep and painful for many of us to forgive, let alone forget.
This trial is much more than just a trial of the past wrongdoings. It explicitly serves as a reminder or warning to all present and future high ranking officials that they are not above the law, and that justice will always take its due course. Those who commit human rights violations or obstruction of justice will be personally held accountable for their misconducts. The classical argument of “I only follow or have to follow orders” will carry little or no weight in the court of law.
Last but not least, the true motives of the crime, which all defendants obstinately refuse to acknowledge, will continue to preoccupy the nation long after the judges hand out sentences and leave the courtroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment