A Reluctant ‘Daughter of Angkar’ Testifies to Forced Marriage
Through listening to harrowing testimony about forced a forced marriage, almost three-hundred students from Phnom Penh learned the disturbing details of how little control over one’s destiny the Khmer Rouge allowed. But first, President Nil Nonn quickly took care of the daily judicial ‘housekeeping’ duties of attendance of the parties and that the necessary alternatives arrangements had been made for Nuon Chea in recognition of his health status. Then International Co-Prosecutor Koumjian raised an issue of trial procedure that was of some concern to his office.
Mr. Koumjian explained to the Trial Chamber that the Co-Prosecutors wanted to know if the witnesses were being queried prior to their testimony to see if they would prefer, for privacy reasons, to testify in closed session. He pointed out that witnesses did not have legal representation as did civil parties so there was no one looking out for their interests. Therefore, he requested of the court that the party calling a witness be responsible to raise the issue with them, so, if necessary the Chamber could deal with it at that time.
Judge Fenz reminded Mr. Koumjian that the time limits for protective measures mandated under Rule 29 were passed. She agreed that if the witness raised the issue, the bench would deal with it then.
Mr. Koumjian wanted to know if the court knew if the witnesses were being told that they had the right to a private session and to decline to testify in public. He said that as the Co-Prosecutors do not deal with the witnesses, they cannot ensure such is done. Judge Fenz maintained that it is too late to implement protective measures because of the steps involved.
The President moved on to qualify the new witness, Cheang Sreimom, a past and present resident of Tram Kok. Ms. Cheang identified herself, her parents, her husband, and informed the court that she was a rice farmer with three children. During the period April 17, 1975 to January 6, 1979, she had lived in a commune in Tram Kok district. The witness confirmed she had no affiliation or connection with any of the civil parties and that an oath had been taken. She had been interviewed once by an investigator. Having reviewed her prior statement, she agreed that the record was consistent with the responses provided during the interview and that the responses she gave thenwere correct. The President explained her right against self-incrimination and her concomitant obligation to respond truthfully to the best of her personal knowledge to all other questions.
Co-Prosecutor Song Chorvoin began the examination with an overview of background conditions at the material time. Ms. Cheang told the court that the Khmer Rouge was in control of the area where her commune was located from 1970 to 1979, and that, within that period, they had abolished private ownership and she had lost her house. She said the Khmer Rouge categorized the people into “the full rights people group” and “the candidate peoples group.” She was put in the latter because her biography indicated that her family had been involved in the previous regime, her parents were small traders and because of her ethnic Chinese ancestry. Communal eating was instituted when the cooperative was established in 1970 and it lasted until 1979, “when the regime fell.”
Ms. Song asked Ms. Cheang to explain a comment in her statement that ‘some people died because they ate too much.’ Ms. Cheang said that, normally, their daily food rations were not sufficient. But “on the thirtieth day of the month, (they) were allowed to eat as much as (they) could. Some ate too much and died” from it. She recalled that people got sick almost daily. Those with a light illness continued going to work. Those with serious illnesses were afraid that their condition “could impact on the leadership so they went to work even when sick.”
Khieu Samphan Defence Counsel, Kong Sam Onn, objected to the Co-Prosecutor’s question about whether there was any medicine as being “hypothetical.” Ms. Song disagreed but rephrased and asked if there was any medicine when she was sick. Ms Cheang replied that there was treatment but it was not good enough. She related that the medics discriminated in their services. People related to the chiefs got much better care than her “ordinary people” group.
Her sister, a medic, told her of a case in which a person with a stomach ache was “accused of pretending disease” by other medics.
Many of Ms. Cheang’s relatives disappeared. “In particular,” her father was arrested and killed in 1977. She was living in the Women’s Unit of the pagoda, when her weeping younger sister came to tell her that the village chief had called their father out of the house at 7:00PM at night and then taken him away. She confirmed that her father had been killed when she saw his name listed in the records of the Kraing Ta Chan Security Office as executed, “killed because he was against the regime at that time.”
Two days after her father disappeared and, she feels, because of her father’s position in the Lon Nol era, Ms. Cheang’s personal story took a dramatic change. She was removed from her unit where she was tasked with looking after the children, and “matched to a husband” by “resolution.” Her marriage was “not voluntary” and she had been given no warning of it. At 6:30 PM one night, she received a letter from the commune chief to go to the commune office. She was upset about being summoned. She was afraid she had done something wrong and was going to be punished. When she got there, her unit chief told her that Angkar would tell her to make a marriage “resolution” that night. She replied that she had no objections as long as her parents agreed. She was asked:”Was she a daughter of Angkar or a daughter of her parents?” She knew she had to give the unit chief the answer she wanted and said she “was a daughter of Angkar.” Her husband told her that he had been summoned while eating and told to go to the office to collect some stray cows. When he got to the office, he sat next to her not knowing what was about to transpire.
There were about ten participants at the marriage ceremony: her mother and grandmother and other village chiefs. When asked to define what “making a resolution” meant, Ms. Cheang described a ceremony in which the presiding commune chief asked each spouse if it was their own will to be married. Again knowing what was expected of them, she and her prospective husband both answered “yes” and that they were not forced. They knew that if they did not state their agreement “then they would disappear so submitted to the request.” Then she was asked “to make a resolution that (she) would take this man to be (her) husband for life.” After studying their biographies, the commune chief had selected her mate on the basis of similar class. This qualification was met as her husband was also ethnic Chinese. As they both lived in the same commune, they knew each other “to some extent.” She “felt remorse” because she did not love him, “hated him, actually.” Ms. Cheang said she had to “force” herself because she was afraid of what the authorities would do to her if she refused.
When Ms. Song tried to confirm that the marriage was “forced,” that she did not know her husband well and that she hated him, Kong Sam Onn objected, arguing that the witness had not said she was “forced to get married.” Although Ms. Song countered that she had said that the marriage was not voluntary, the objection was sustained. Then Mr. Koppe objected to Ms. Song’s misstatement that Ms. Cheang married a man “she never knew.” The Co-Prosecutor rephrased and continued to elicit confirmation that Ms. Cheang did not want to marry her husband. She said she “was very sad, wept quietly and went to pray to Buddha at the temple asking him to intervene in the celebration but, if a true partner, to let the ceremony proceed.”
The witness said that she “dare not refuse…Because father had just died, (she) would be considered to be opposing the party.” This was the capital crime for which her father had been executed.
After the ceremony, Ms. Cheang was moved out of her unit to a house so she could be with her husband but she returned to her unit. Three days later, the authorities sent her a letter stating she was not living with her spouse as arranged by Angkar and she was asked by the commune chief to move into the house. She complied but she was not physically forced to live there.
Ms. Cheang defined “to live together” as “to live without quarrels”. A militia man eavesdropped on the newlyweds their first night together to see if there were marital issues. She felt she had no choice with a third party listening, that she could not change the situation and would be “in danger” if she did not consummate the marriage, so she “submitted (herself) to be a wife.” Ms. Cheang “prayed that if he was to be (her) destined partner that he would be good to her,” and then she started to love him when he was. She “adapted to the situation,” and they have lived as husband and wife until now.
The witness said she understood how her husband felt about the marriage. He had loved a lady with a different background which meant that they could not get married. He did not want to marry anyone else.“He did not have (her) in his heart and (she) did not have him in (her) heart as well.” But her husband accepted that the other lady was not “his destined partner.” Ms. Cheang said that, “in modern times,” she would have refused the marriage but, in the circumstances, she had had to accept the situation.
Co-Prosecutor Lysak returned to questions of what the consequences of her refusal to consummate the marriage would have been. Kong Sam Onn, Co-Lawyer for Khieu Samphan, objected on the basis that it was a hypothetical question. Mr. Lysak denied it was and the President allowed him to proceed. Ms. Cheang said it “was a really difficult decision,” but that she could find “nowhere to escape.” Mr. Lysak most graciously apologized for having to ask her “such difficult things,” and changed the topic to enquire if she had any children during the Khmer Rouge years. Her first daughter had been born early in 1979, she “had to flee” when the child was only 18 days old.
The treatment of Buddhists in Tram Kok was then explored. Ms. Cheang testified that District Leaders said in various meetings that “religion and pagodas would no longer exist.” They were instructed not to believe in Buddhism because it was “superstition,” that they were “being tricked by a Buddha (-shaped) concrete stone.” She said the monks at the pagodas eventually were all disrobed.
The Vietnamese and Khmer Cham suffered a worse fate. Ms. Cheang said that when the unit chiefs were taking down people’s biographies, they announced that the Vietnamese could choose to be repatriated. The witness said that some people, most were actually 17th April people and not Vietnamese, chose to go as they felt life would be less difficult there. But it was a lie; they were not sent to Vietnam. They “disappeared.”
Ms. Cheang related how hard it was to collect dung just three to four months after giving birth. When she could not carry enough although she was doing her best, she was criticised (“scolded psychologically”) for pretending to be sick, for being lazy at work and sent to carry dirt. Even with swollen feet, she had to work.
One night in 1978, Ms. Cheang was “shocked” to see a group of ten people, with their hands tied, walking along the road. She learned later that they were policemen, soldiers, teachers and students in the previous regime. They had given their professions in their biographies as they were hoping that they would be put to work doing them again. Mr. Lysak asked her about some documented names but Mr. Koppe objected to the claim that the names came from an original document when there were no original documents left. He asked the court for its advice on whether he should object every time this was done in questioning witnesses or could he be considered to have raised the issue every time such phrasing describing documents was used? The court adjourned for lunch without making a decision.
Judge Fenz opened the afternoon proceedings with the Trial Chamber’s ruling. She said that the court appreciated Mr. Koppe’s attempt at efficiency but that he need not repeat his objections on which the court has already ruled unless he has new grounds for doing so.
Civil Party Lawyer Chet Vanly asked Ms. Cheang to define a “moral offence.” She had seen two of them during the Khmer Rouge years. In the first case, a unit chief had made sexual advances to a widow. He was considered an offender, removed as a chief, and sanctioned to hard work. A Deputy Team Leader was carrying on with another man’s wife and was also punished.
Ms. Cheang fleshed out some of her prior responses. She had only discovered the notation about her father’s death at Kraing Ta Chan, about 10 kilometers from her village, in 2013, when she went to a ceremony there. It was in books made of photocopies of what looked like original documents created during the Khmer Rouge years. She was told that foreigners had compiled tens of thousands of names into book form. Kraing Ta Chan was the only mass “killing field” in Tram Kok although there were sites where one or two people would have been taken out to the forest and killed. She could not remember how many people attended the frequent district meetings but many. Members of the Angkar presided. Ms. Cheang could not remember the exact content of the meetings but she could name points: they talked about the front lines of the battlefields and about the forces involved in the attacks; they encouraged the participants in their work; they were told not to imagine that the old regime would ever return. In the future, there would be consultations (with the people), plentiful resources, roads everywhere, electricity; they were cautioned on morality: no romantic songs, no love affairs; and not to pay respect to a Buddha, “just a piece of concrete stone.” Ms. Cheang did not know or see Ta Mok at these meetings but her husband told her he had seen Ta Mok at the Industrial Section blacksmiths. The people of rank that Ms. Cheang saw were only referred to as Angkar. She did not know Ta Mok’s position but only that he was “upper level Angkar.”
Follow up questions were asked by International Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer, Marie Guiraud, who wanted to know if Ms. Cheang was told to get married so she could produce children for Angkar. Kong Sam Onn objected on the basis that it was a leading question. Ms. Guiraud objected to his objection stating that the question was “entirely appropriate as it was fundamental to why these people were forced to marry.” The objection was sustained. Ms. Guiraud rephrased, and Ms. Cheang said she was given no explanation of what she needed to do after she got married. When she saw the militia man she was frightened because she knew of other married couples reported as not getting on well who were punished. “Not getting on well” meant they were not having sex. They would be called before the criticism meetings, reprimanded and sanctioned to do hard labour. They were not killed.
Judge Fenz wanted to resolve why Ms. Cheang was so fearful for her life if other couples had not been killed. Ms. Cheang explained she was in a unique situation. Her father had just been executed for opposing the party. She was afraid that as she was family that Angkar would “take out the entire root”. As her father’s daughter, she had to be careful. She feared she, too, would be killed if she opposed the party.
Judge Lavergne clarified the real estate issues. The house they moved to as a couple initially was only temporary and for the purpose of consummating the marriage. The newlyweds were separated after a week. They would then meet on the 10th, 20th and 30th or each month, the days Angkar granted for rest. Sometimes they would sleep under palm leaf mats under a tree or in a field.
After the afternoon break, Suon Vital asked about classifications of the workers. Ms. Cheang could not remember how many people were in her women’s unit but there was a women’s unit for “candidate people” and another for “full rights people.” The groups worked together; there was no differentiation as to duties, rations or places to eat. Within those groups were sub-groups for those who could work “vigorously” and another for the “weak or inactive.” When the teacher was absent, she would fill in for her by following a curriculum provided by the Ministry of Education: reading, writing, to love the nation. It was only a temporary arrangement because she “had a bad biography for that purpose.” A teacher could not have a connection with a capitalist family.
Ms. Cheang said sometimes four to five couples were married in one ceremony. None refused. She had attended her younger sister’s marriage.
Mr. Suon summed up that before Ms. Cheang had married, “generally”, many couples had married, no one had refused and no one was punished. The Co-Prosecutor rose to point out
Ms. Cheang’s testimony was that only couples married before her were not punished, not “generally.” Nuon Chea’s defence counsel then wondered why she had been so fearful.
Ms. Cheang said that when she was summoned to go to the office, the messenger kept repeating that she must go “urgently.” As there was no indication of why she was told to go, it caused her to be worried. She was “shocked” on her arrival to be told by her unit chief that she had to prepare herself to be married that night. She “dared not oppose Angkar.”
Mr. Suon reviewed her statement that the people who thought they were to be sent to Vietnam were really Cambodians. Ms. Cheang corrected him and said some were Vietnamese. She knew they had not been sent to Vietnam because she saw them taken in the opposite direction, in the direction “of the mountain.” Others sent in that direction never returned. She later heard whispers that confirmed they were taken to Kraing Ta Chan.
Khieu Samphan counsel, Mr. Koppe, canvassed the state of her marriage presently. Ms. Cheang said it was “harmonious”, that there were “no issues between” them. Stating that he was interesting in whether her husband had felt there had been a forced consummation of the marriage, Ms. Cheang clarified that her husband did not force her. He had “advised (her) of the roles of a husband and a wife and made (her) feel comfortable”. Mr. Koppe asked her if her husband had used the presence of the militia to talk her into consummating the marriage but she did not answer. Counsel went on to ask her about six couples whom she could identify and knew that they were all still married. Ms. Cheang knew that they had been married by resolution but not if the marriages had been forced. She said that if the women disliked their chosen men, they still had to marry them as “Angkar organized (their) lives. They were expected “to sacrifice (their) lives to Angkar.” Ms. Cheang reiterated that she would not have dared to object. It was up to the parents to choose a mate for her and, as she was a child of Angkar, she had to marry whom Angkar chose. Her mother would not have said anything to anyone during the Khmer Rouge regime and afterward there was no point as the couple “had already been considered a family.” Not to be swayed, she ended the day’s testimony saying she felt “stuck” and that “there is no one who can say that (she) was forced except (herself).
Court adjourned until Monday, February 2, 2015.