San: Ta Ron Made Me Do It
On Day 2 of his appearance before the ECCC, Neang Ouch resorted to the Nuremberg Defence: He was only following orders and, if he had not done so, he would have suffered deadly consequences. Mr. Neang professed his role was simply as a scribe who had no culpability in the commission of atrocities done under his signature.
The morning formalities dispatched with all due haste, Co-Prosecutor Koumjian picked up the thread from yesterday, reminding Neang Ouch that he had not responded to the inquiry to define what “to sweep clean” meant during the DK period. The witness confirmed that it meant “to execute” but then ameliorated the personal import of the answer. Mr. Neang made it plain that, as he was just an assistant to the District Committee and to Ta Ron, he had to seek approval before he could carry out any task. “All decisions were made by Ta Ron of Sector 13.” Execution orders were decided at the sector and zone levels and were then sent to the District level where he “wrote down the decision.”
At study sessions for selected cadres at the Zone level held in Phnom Penh, presentations would be made on who the enemies were. Neang Ouch and Khith, the District Secretary of District 105, attended. Contradicting his earlier testimony, Mr. Neang admitted his work had been criticized in the “criticism meetings.” He could not recall the details but the gist was that he was “not being tough enough with the enemy.”
Mr. Neang claimed he had never heard the expression “to weed out the enemies, roots and all,” but quickly added that he considered himself also to be a victim as he had lost his elder brother to the regime. He did not know if it was party policy to suspect people just because of their family but that was his “personal experience.” Neither was he familiar with the saying “better to kill by mistake than to release by mistake.”
Mr. Koumjian showed the witness a photograph. Mr. Neang recognized himself and identified a foreigner as a Swedish journalist. When the Co-Prosecutor suggested that the man to the left of the frame was the DK Ambassador to North Korea, Victor Koppe, Nuon Chea Defence Counsel, objected as it was leading. Mr. Koumjian conceded declaring he would end his examination there.
Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer Marie Guiraud, after requesting that the Chamber be flexible with the time she was allotted, asked Neang Ouch to explain the working and living conditions on the worksites he had supervised. The witness related that the work hours were from 8:00-11:00 AM and 1:00 to 5:00 PM; there was a morning meal, lunch and dinner; and there was a medic stationed at the site to administer to workers who were ill. He could not remember the number of workers in the mobile units. There were both male units and female units; each unit was headed by a chief. Mr. Neang would discuss work progress with the unit chiefs and the commune level chiefs. He had never heard of anyone refusing to work but, if a worker was ill, s/ he could rest
in a building adjacent to the worksite.
The witness never saw any malnourished workers. Food for the workers came from the communes. If they ran out of food, people would be sent to fetch more supplies. In response to Ms. Guiraud’s reading from Sao Phim’s testimony about food being so insufficient that bodies were swollen, that some workers were sent to hospital and some disappeared, Mr. Neang said that that may have occurred before he arrived at Tram Kok in 1977. When he was there, “food rations were sufficient.” Counsel quoted from a second civil party’s statement that hungry people were afraid to complain for fear of being executed or invited to a study session. The witness admitted that sometimes the commune chiefs did not do a good job at coordinating food supplies amongst themselves with the result that some people may not have had sufficient food. He stated that the theory was that each commune would be self-sufficient in rice and livestock. Although food was not normally distributed between communes, the District Committee could arrange food supplies for some cooperatives which did not have enough. It helped, of course, but “not 100% of rations were provided to all workers in all cooperatives.”
Food systems were discussed in some of the meetings Nean Ouch had attended as assistant to the District Committee. Reports would be given on such matters as rice production and how many tonnes a village could produce. In the witness’s word, “propaganda” held that the expectation was for three tonnes per hectare. Before Mr. Neang could reply whether this was a realistic goal, Mr. Koppe objected on the ground that being a rice farmer does not qualify the witness as an expert. Ms. Guiraud reminded the court that a prior ruling held that experience as a rice farmer was adequate to qualify a witness to give this specific opinion. Mr. Koppe was overruled and Mr. Neang was directed to answer. The witness continued by saying that the reality was that some areas in Tram Kok like Leay Bor could achieve the given quota but others could not due to poor soil and lack of fertilizer. These problems were well recognized and there was no punishment for failure to meet the goal.
Neang Ouch “never encountered” incidents of people stealing food at Tram Kok. When Ms. Guiraud referred to Yeay Boeun by name, Kong Sam Onn, Khieu Samphan defence counsel, drew her attention to the proscription against using names when there are extant protective measures. Ms. Guiraud defended that there was no specific protection request outstanding but that she would “silence” (translation?) the name and use a reference number. Mr. Koppe asked (seconded by Ms. Guiraud) the court to rule on whether the lawyers were now allowed to use names of future witnesses. A bench consultation later, the President clarified that the Chamber “would like all parties to use pseudonyms or specific documents and reminded all parties to comply with confidentiality.” Judge Lavergne added that future witnesses were to be referred to by pseudonym. “If a new witness, refer to a person ‘heard in document so and so,’ and refer to the document’s index.”
Mr. Neang surmised that he and Yeay Boeun may have different memories of thievery because they lived in different places. Where he was, an individual who stole food would be reprimanded and not receive any “serious punishment.” Discussions were held between the District Committee and the village chiefs as to what measures would be taken against offenders. Mr. Koppe objected on basis that it was “speculative and beyond the realm of the witness” to ask whether stealing food was tied to lack of food. Ms. Guiraud countered that it was “a legitimate question,” but, after another bench consultation, the President ruled the objection was sustained as it relates to a presumption by the witness. Judge Lavergne suggested it would be acceptable for counsel to ask if, among reasons given to explain such thefts, was one that the workers were hungry. Ms. Guiraud concurred “absolutely,” and adopted the phrasing. Mr. Neang agreed that hunger was part of the issue. The District level’s proposed solution to the problem was that the areas with surplus would share with those less fortunate “however this could not go on forever and, even with sharing, it was still not sufficient but at least it would help.”
Although there was a shortage of food in some of the zones, Neang Ouch never spoke about this to visiting delegations and neither did they ask about the possibility. The witness said guests were more curious about if it was Cambodian cultural tradition for the women to ask the men to marry them. Mr. Neang maintained no high-level leaders came to Tram Kok district. After hearing the testimony of civil party Chou Koemlan that Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan had visited Leay Bor commune, the witness said it must have occurred prior to his arrival in the district in June or July, 1977.
After the morning break, there was a long discussion triggered by Mr. Koppe request to be informed of the background to a translation correction received on March 6th which had eradicated the word “San” and left just a signature on a much-used document. The clarification was reserved for over lunch so as not to impede the examination.
Ms. Guiraud moved on to investigate the purview of the militia. In Tram Kok, there were militia at both the commune and district levels. Each was tasked with providing security, deploying when there were “any issues or incidents.” They were “lightly armed.” On a commune, a ten-man militia might have only two to three rifles. A militia unit could have six members; a platoon, 30 members. The age rank was from 18-30. Neang Ouch denied that duties of the militia included supervising newlyweds (that is, spying to determine if they consummated their marriages), and he never saw them listening below houses.
Mr. Neang was very supportive of the wedding procedure. Four couples at a time would marry with each partner making a resolution. Then there would be “a speech of best wishes” from the commune chief followed by a music-less dinner party. The ceremony would last two hours. Some people chose their own partners and, in other cases, the head of the cooperative or commune would decide. Mr. Neang declared that he “never encountered” a refusal, and “after (he) could see that the newlyweds got on well with each other.”
The civil party lawyer questioned the lack of “upper level” involvement in Neang Ouch’s description of the nuptials. She read in from an anonymous witness’s testimony that the names of potential partners were sent to the Sector for a decision on who would marry whom. Mr. Koppe objected to her stopping there and wanted her to provide the complete answer and not just the one sentence. After Marie Guiraud remarked that she “doesn’t take orders from counsel,” Mr. Koppe directed the request to the court that she read the whole answer. Judge Fenz asked “why?” Succintly, tit for tat: because there have been objections made to Mr. Koppe’s partial readings. Ms. Guiraud argued that “it is not an established practice.” The bench huddled once again. Mr. Koppe was overruled and told that he could read in the complete answer during his cross-examination if he chose to do so. Ms. Guiraud repeated her inquiry. Mr. Neang explained lists of matched partners were sent to “the upper level” but sometimes approval could be made at the commune or district level, “it varied.” He could not recall any disapprovals handed down by the sector level.
At the conclusion of the civil party queries, Judge Fenz had a few of her own. In her inimitable, straight-forward way she asked Neang Ouch, “if ever in (his) life,” he had met or seen Pol Pot, Nuon Chea, or Khieu Samphan. He claimed that, from 1975-1979, he had met Nuon Chea “only once” during a daily study session (the date of which he could not recollect). He never met Khieu Samphan or Pol Pot during the three-year period. Surprisingly, the Judge did not pick up on the witness’s careful time parameters but moved on to his relationship with Ta Mok and how often the two of them had had contact of any kind. Mr. Neang had met with Ta Mok frequently in 1975 while he was supervising the building of a dam at Angkor Borei Lake that had been Ta Mok’s “set plan.” They met on various other occasions from a distance or briefly, but most often at the dam. In 1976, their meetings were more infrequent, “once a month or twice a month” when Ta Mok came to Takeo for study sessions or when the chiefs of the communes were called to meetings. In1977, they did not see each other much after Neang Ouch became an assistant in Tram Kok, and then not again after Ta Mok left to go to Battambang. There were no private get- togethers at weddings or funerals.
Judge Lavergne grilled the witness on the Ta Mok family involvement in politics, a complicated process. She started with Ta Mok’s siblings and their positions but was given those of his children instead (Judge Lavergne filled in the omissions later in the day).
Ta Mok only had daughters, and only the eldest, Khom, had had a position. She was Tram Kok District Chief. Her husband was Meas Muth. In 1970, post coup, he was in charge of Sector 13 Army. His main duty was to fight against the Lon Nol forces. Later on, circa 1973 or 1974, Meas Muth was promoted to zone level and then to Center and put in charge of the navy in Division 164. Ho’s husband was a former soldier who died in battle in 1979. Kou’s husband, Ran, was also a soldier (rank unknown) who died sometime after 1979. Hean’s husband, Boran died in the 1990’s. He was in a logistic transport unit in Takeo province. (Spelling for all names here?) Because Neang Ouch was from Kandal province and Ta Mok was from Takeo province, the witness did not know many of Ta Mok’s other relatives.
Mr. Neang could identify “Uncle Pol Pot” as Brother Number One as he had heard the term during the Khmer Rouge years. He had heard of other “brothers with numbers” but did not know to whom the numbers referred.
Next up was Judge Lavergne who wanted to know when the witness had met Nuon Chea.
It was at study session for District level assistants held in Phnom Penh in 1977. That Neang Ouch was allowed to travel sparked the jurist’s interest for more details of any such trips. There also had been a study session in 1978, and then Mr. Neang had spent three months in the Khmer-Soviet Friendship Hospital for treatment of his knee injury in 1977. Nuon Chea was the only trainer at the study sessions. Well, that story got the judge’s dander up, and he accused the witness of giving false testimony for saying that he had only met Nuon Chea once when that was in contradiction to his present testimony that he had met him at least twice. Mr. Neang could not call to mind the content of the study sessions except for the criticism meetings held at the end. He pled a bad memory when Judge Lavergne queried if the “aim was to provide political line of the CPK.” Mr. Neang outlined that he had problems with his memory that led him to make “to do” lists. After brusquely being told “to make some effort,” he came up with such subject matter as building the peasant class, the class struggle, and how to get rid of the capitalist class. He could recall getting rid of the capitalists because “it had happened to (him). He had had “to refashion” himself.
When the stalwart judge returned to the bench fortified by lunch, he adjured Neang Ouch to re-examine the handwriting in the documents that he had disowned yesterday. The first document the jurist resubmitted for the witness’s perusal was the “to sweep clean” request; the last was the note to send the police to arrest four victims. Before he would identify the writing in these missives, Mr. Neang felt some more exculpation was necessary and reiterated that he had to have approval from Ta Ron “for all his tasks.” But, yes, today both the handwriting and the signature in these two documents were his were his but not in the second or third documents presented to him. The fifth example he found too poor a copy on which to offer an opinion.
Judge Lavergne then turned his attention to practicalities: How had the witness liaised with Ta Ron? Neang Ouch would travel the six kilometers from his house in Leay Bor to Ta Ron’s by motorbike. He would report to Ta Ron and then write down his superior’s decisions. The judge pointed out that the last document Mr. Neang positively identified was written to Comrade Khith and not to Ta Ron. The ever-elastic scribe provided a convoluted explanation that Chaem (Chief of Ang Ta Saom commune) had “brought the information” to him. He had sent it to Ta Ron who then had made the decisions for the witness to write down for Ta Khith, the Secretary of Tram Kok District. He reported to Ta Ron not every day but “from time to time.” Mr. Neang said the police of District 105 carried out interrogations at a prison west of the District Office, west of Ang Roka Market. The re-education site for minor offenders was in Ang Roka. Light offenders were re-educated with labor and were not interrogated.
The Judge summarized that when someone was the subject of a report, Neang Ouch took instructions from Ta Ron and the person was sent to Office 105 for re-education. The witness agreed. After serious offenders were sent to the District 105 police, he did not know where they would go from there.
When asked to define the difference between light and serious offenders, Mr. Neang asked to consult with his counsel. It was too long a consultation for the President who told him to respond, that this sort of question would not incriminate him, that he should give examples of the types of offences. The witness said light offences were stealing rice or cassava, immoral misconduct and laziness. Being a CIA or KGB agent fell into the serious –offender category.
The District Office sent serious offenders to a re-education center. Mr. Neang claimed ignorance of its name or location but knew that Ta An was in charge of this center. He had heard of Kraing Ta Chan but did not know where it was during the regime years as he would not travel further than Ang Roka. He restated that all matters were decided by Ta Ron. Mr. Neang was the only one who reported to Ta Ron. Then Mr. Neang would ask the militia to implement Ta Ron’s orders.
Judge Lavergne closed in: Had Neang Ouch ordered “to sweep clean” prisoners? “Ta Ron had discussed with Sambath to write this but (he) did not make own decision to sweep them clean. If (he) had refused order following dictation of his words, (he) would have been in trouble.” The Judge pounced: “You just acknowledged you signed the documents seeking authorization ‘to sweep clean’… children and widows. That contradicts what you just told us. Yes or No? Did you receive instructions ‘to sweep clean?’ Did you forward instruction that mothers and very young children would be killed in order that orders were carried out?”
Mr. Neang protested that he did not convey orders of Sambath and Ta Ron “out of (his) own
willingness.” But the Judge was upset and decried killing toddlers and children in arms on the claim they had committed serious offences. The response was a pallid resort to memory loss: Mr. Neang could not “remember all the details now.” The Judge wanted to know if he obeyed orders out of loyalty as a member of the CPK or because he was “afraid of perilous consequences?” Neang Ouch had “done it for fear of (his) life,” his brother (who had disappeared) being his “example.” No Districts ever received instructions from Ta Ron or Ta Sambuth that Neang Ouch had not written. Ta Ron could not write well so he had ordered “San” to do it. Mr. Neang was called San or Ta San for the entire period of DK. He repeated that did not know of any other cadres named “San” at the District level but there had been in the communes.
And back to family history. Oung Khoeun, Neang Ouch’s wife, is Ta Mok’s younger sister. He has no further relationship with Ta Mok besides that of in-law. Ta Mok’s other siblings are:
Chuk, was in charge of a district but passed away in 1979 as did another brother by the name of Cham (who had been head of a commune). His sisters Poon and Kuob, both housewives, died. He had no information about the last sister On Kan. (Spelling for all names?)
Mr. Neang had heard the name Kai Pok (spelling?) but did not know him. And neither the witness’s wife or sister-in-law was head of the District 105 Hospital. Ta Keav (spelling?) was on the District 105 Committee starting in 1970 or 1971. Mr. Neang “did not know him well” after he was transferred.
After the break, Judge Laverne continued exploring relationships. Neang Ouch knew Pich Chhim since before 1970 as his native village was not far from Mr. Neang’s wife’s native village. He could not remember Pich Chhim being in “the front,” but, post coup, Chhim went to work on a rubber plantation. The witness disagreed with Pich Chhims testimony that he had taught in Tram Kok District.
In 1975, Ta Mok was Committee Chief of the Southwest Zone; Poon (spelling?) was secretary and Meas Mut was a Committee Member for the region. The Judge quizzed Mr. Neang on a long list of commune chiefs and assistants, most of whom are now dead many of whom he revealed he only knew by name because he was no longer there when the subject organizational “structure was established.”
Cadres Neang Ouch knew when he was in Tram Kok District included: Chorn (husband of Boeun); San (Chief of Kus); Khun (another commune chief), and Ta Som of Ang Ta Saom commune. Ta Khith was District Secretary; Mr. Neang did not know Ta Chhim’s responsibilities or if Ta Khith and Ta Chhim were brothers. Ta Chi replaced Ta Khith until he left for the Northwest Zone around late 1977. No one replaced Ta Chi but Ta Ron from Sector came to supervise Tram Kok directly. Yeay Boeun was the assistant until Mr. Neang arrived in June, 1977. Initially, Neang Ouch had been assistant to Tram Kok District. While the Sector controlled the office, he did not know his official position. Because his position had not been declared, he considered himself assistant to Tram Kok District. He never knew a Duch in District 105. He had heard of Phy who worked in the same office as Ta An but did not know “his functions.” Ta An was Chief of Kraing Ta Chan, but Mr. Neang suffered a memory lapse and could not recall receiving reports from him or recognize the names Ta Chhieng or Keo Chandara. Ta Prak worked in Sector 13 for two or three months before Ta Ron came. Then Ta Prak disappeared but Mr. Neang had never heard if he was purged. Ta Ron (who had broken his leg in a car accident coming back from a Northwest Zone meeting), stayed in Sector until the invasion by the Vietnamese troops. Ta Tith (spelling?) is his younger brother-in-law married to his wife’s sister. Som and Muth had charge of Sector level. Muth was in charge of the army. Som was Secretary. Phen (spelling?) was his deputy. When Neang Ouch had problems, he made direct contact with Sector office. Witness’s 809’s testimony that the center would send reports to the District to be sent to Sector corresponded with Mr. Neang’s work as assistant in the District Office. The witness was emphatic that he never received prisoner lists, or execution lists from Kraing Ta Chan.
Health care in District 105 was managed through the Tram Kok Hospital located at Trapeang Khuk pagoda. Both traditional and modern medicines were used in treatment. Neang Ouch doesn’t remember the staff numbers or the chief’s name but food was supplied by the District Office. Mr. Neang did not receive any information on patients suffering from malnutrition. If he had, he would have supplied food.
Mr. Neang did not know that Neery Nim (spelling?) was Ta Chhim and Ta Khith’s niece.
Regardless of the caption to the contrary on a photograph from Gunnar Bergstrom book, Neang Ouch denied being chief of Leay Bor cooperative but could not remember who the leader was.
He pointed out that Ta Khith is standing behind him in the photo but he was not chief of the coop either.
Judge Lavergne read in from a transcript of Phnom Penh National Radio, an official organ of the DK, that said he had described the history of the cooperative to visitors that included Pol Pot, Vorn Vet, Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea. Mr. Neang acknowledged making the address but said he saw only Chinese guests, surmising that the leaders already may have returned to Takeo. He agreed that his remarks as reported focused on the positive aspects of a workforce of 9,000 people and two rice harvests a year. The cooperative had met the plan of three tonnes or rice per hectare. He never welcomed any Japanese or American delegations, only the two from Sweden and China.
That satisfied Judge Lavergne quest for detail. It was 4:00 PM and court adjourned.