Pech Chim on How the Revolution Was Run
Pech Chim’s third day on the witness stand began with questions by the Civil Party lawyers on forced marriages. Mr. Pech made clear that regulation of marriage during the regime existed as a form of “common practice,” not as law. Guidelines from the Zone were discussed at the district level. He admitted that “there were gaps in the practice because not everyone consented to the marriages…some couples were unhappy.” As they were “so busy” at the district level, authority for marriages was given to the unit chiefs. The witness did not know how marriage was controlled throughout the country or even in other sectors of the Southwest Zone.
Marriages were conducted mostly in 1975. Because of the “war raging on,” marriages had been held “in secret” from 1970-1973. They were “more open” and organized in groups “on rather a large scale,” after the liberation in 1975, and were allowed so as “to follow the tradition of marriage before consummation.” At that time, the situation was “more relaxed” and “proposals would normally be approved.” Pech Chim was somewhat less forthcoming on the issue of whether marriages were forced. He testified that enquiries as to acquiescence were made at both the unit and district levels. He stated that from his knowledge that “only a small number of parties were unclear about whether they agreed, it could be inferred that they were forced.” No one had ever told him directly that they did not consent, but, if he sensed he was not getting the truth, he would “sometimes postpone the wedding.”
Wedding ceremonies were the responsibility of the communes. They were not carried out according to Cambodian traditions inclusive of having sermons by monks and hair-cutting ceremonies. Instead, there were prayers for “dead souls,” and declarations of consent to taking partners. Although there was no band or music, a meal would be provided, and the event usually would end by 6:00PM or 7:00PM. Then, at the discretion of their unit chiefs, the new couples would have a week or two to start their married lives. If they had relatives nearby, they would go there; if not, they would be given a temporary house. Pech Chim “only heard later” that militia would eves drop on newlyweds. His understanding had been that this did not happen as the unit chief was considered “the mother” of the brides, and she would have wanted to know if the women wanted to consummate their marriages. Mr. Chim was not aware of any sanctions being applied if the marriages were not consummated.
In the witness’s “personal view,” he felt that some of the people had been upset. He knew that he would have been if he could not have attended his child’s wedding. And Khom, while she was chief, had asked why some spouses were upset “when the wedding had been organized by Angkar.” Although nobody had protested outright, some parties had made their feelings known at the unit level that they did not like their partners whom they later divorced despite being counselled against this.
Marie Guiraud, Civil Party Lead Co-Lawyer, re-focused the examination on the cooperatives.
Pech Chim said the coops were established on the orders of Ta Mok. They did not “understand what cooperatives were all about” at the lower levels. They simply concentrated on carrying out specific tasks. For example, if a village could do with only one kitchen, then it became a model. Because the orders came from Angkar, the people had to follow them.
“Discipline was strict” in the units as the district administrators “had to have control of the work force.” They “needed to know who worked and who was lazy so an assigned task would be done expeditiously.” Mr. Pech claimed “no hard measures” were taken against those “considered lazy;”some of them were sick. The harshest disciplinary measure imposed was to bring the person to him for counselling. Mr. Pech would then advise the worker directly on the performance before sending him or her back to the unit, or, if there was conflict there, to a different unit.
If Pech Chim did not believe the unit chiefs reports on working conditions, he would go out and see for himself “what was happening on the ground.” It was normal for the work output to vary. For example, some people could carry a bag of rice; some could not. His unit chiefs called him “Uncle,” and would agree with him when he advised those under him “to help one another.” He would supply accommodation and medicine to help improve work performance.
The witness had not actually visited the Children’s Units but had contented himself with just talking to the unit chiefs. Mr. Chim disclaimed any knowledge of the evidence of another witness that children had carried earth. He understood that children were tasked only with collecting wood and fertilizer, and producing writing chalk. He denied they did hard labor or worked before having breakfast, although he acknowledged “there were certain shortcomings in management by the unit chiefs,” which he had addressed as they came to his attention.
Mr. Chim evaded answering whether there had been adequate food stating that “a food ration was there…maybe not to eat to full contentment.” He had sometimes gone hungry himself when he was busy distributing food to the units. Pech Chim opined that “the population was distrustful” because, after returning from the forest, “we had to defend the revolution and be vigilant in doing so.”
Ms. Guiraud challenged Pech Chim that the issues regarding food and lodging showed that the regime was “going down the wrong path, that these principles would not work,” but he rejected this. He reported that 95 per cent of the “people were content with the front lines and any matters were resolved through mass meetings.” Those who were opposed were advised “to refashion themselves.” He rarely referred conflicts to the ‘upper level,’ but could seek Sector’s advice as to how to solve any. The witness digressed on reports he had made generally instead of responding to a request to give an example of a situation that warranted a report to the ‘higher echelon.’
After the break, Judge Lavergne questioned Pech Chim on his background. Mr. Chim is a “distant relative” on his mother’s side of Ta Mok. The men first got to know each other when a young Ta Mok entered the monkhood and would visit the family. Ta Mok called Mr. Pech “brother” and Mr. Pech’s mother, “Auntie,” although he was not a biological nephew.
Mr. Pech had a brother “Kou” who was accidentally shot while he was climbing a coconut tree. Pech Chim confirmed the evidence of Pech Chim’s brother-in-law that Kou had been beheaded and his head given to Samdech during an inauguration ceremony.
The witness identified Riel Son as having worked with Khom before taking on the position of Deputy Director of the Tram Kak District Hospital. Appointments of chiefs and hospital personnel were made at the district level and then reviewed by Sector (without consultation with the District Committee). Candidates for appointments as chiefs “had to strictly follow the party line of being based on ‘poor peasant’ and ‘pure pedigree.’” Additionally, cadre had to be “honest, obedient, friendly, self-disciplined peasants with ability.” Medical-field experience, not biography, was the most important factor for hospital appointments. As there was “a clear task division,” Pech Chim had not participated in choosing medical personnel.
Pech Chim averred that Riel Son had been mistaken when he testified that Chim had ordered purges of Lon Nol soldiers and civil servants. He had attended only one meeting (held three or four months after 17th April, 1975), which had been convened by Khom whom disseminated the plan from the ‘upper echelon’ on this matter. There had been no follow up “gathering” of victims as they had already been collected en route or on arrival in the provinces. In his “personal opinion,” …they had no future, their fate was a disaster.” When asked to elaborate on exactly what he had meant by this, Mr. Pech simply denied they had been purged. He evaded further answering claiming he “was not sure of the nature of the question,” although an exasperated judge iterated that “the question could not be clearer.”
The former District Secretary claimed that on hearing of Riel Son’s complaint that health issues were being caused by malnutrition, he had taken measure to provide supplementary rice to the communes. He admitted that he did not know the efficacy of his action “as there were many sick people at this time.”
Instructions on infrastructure construction were given during study sessions. Where land was appropriate for development, the District could make proposals to ‘the upper level,’ that “followed the party line.” Work plans were discussed by the district members and approved by the Sector. They had no engineers so had to do the work plans themselves. Pech Chim confirmed that there were 8,000 workers in one mobile unit alone.
Mr. Pech “categorically reject(ed) the story” that he had ordered 70 Khmer Krom living in the region under the direction of the Sector executed for stealing.
Pech Chim received a gold medal designating a model commune from Ta Mok on behalf of the Tram Kak committee. It was awarded for three reasons: (1.) for contributions to the military force and cadre ranks, (2.) loyalty to the revolution, and (3.) economic production that provided a surplus rice crop that was distributed to communes which were not so fortunate.
The District Secretary defined the principle of food distribution as being “one can of rice for three people.” After liberation, this dropped to one can for six people. The food ration was the same for all cooperatives and communes, but, if some areas needed more, the administrators would provide “a little more.” The decision to provide equal rations was made by the District Committee and approved by Sector. Pech Chim maintained that there was no rice shortage after the 1976 harvest (contradicting the testimony of various Civil Party witnesses who testified they were starving). Because of the surplus, a special food day was held once a month when the workers could eat as much as they wanted. Some would eat ten bowls of food and then collapse from over-eating.
Both pre and post 1975, Ta Mok issued an instruction to stop the executions. (Mr. Pech thought the leader was worried about revenge killings). In 1978, Ke Pauk, Secretary of the Central Zone, sent out a similar general direction to all the zones.
Pech Chim affirmed that there was no policy of discrimination against the ‘17th April people’ over food rations, education or medical care. He did acknowledge that, in certain cooperatives not in line with party directives, ‘base people’ received one can of rice for two people whereas ‘new people’ got one can for three people. Mr. Pech conceded that before 1975, when the food situation was resolved by the individual families, there had been sufficient to eat.
Stealing food was treated as a ‘light offense,’ and dealt with by reprimand and advice to correct the bad behavior. Pech Chim knew of no one who had ever been sent for re-education or execution over “stealing such a small thing” either in District 105 or at the Central Zone rubber plantation. Admittedly, the policy for minor offences “varied from one zone to another.”
Mr. Chim had raised in a meeting the point that the three-tonnes-per-hectare-rice-production quota that had come from Ta Mok and the Sector was too much, that two and a half tonnes was more realistic. Because of this, the cassava harvest was added into the overall goal. The witness said there were no adverse consequences for not reaching the agricultural objective so people were not forced to work extra hard in order to do so.
The witness was himself a teacher for eleven years, 1959-1970. The “ultimate purpose” for education in DK was to transform Cambodia “into a developed and prosperous country.” There had been a school system from 1971-1975, but there were no schools afterwards because of the war. The party built small huts in some locations, but there was no formal school structure and some villages had no classes at all. Still, it was “the good intention” of the regime to educate the populace as “it was the only way the country could develop.”
Healthcare varied from one place to another, but there was no discrimination in service between ’base people’ and ‘17th Avenue people.’ Medicine “was sufficient” so the party did not accept medicine from international aid when they were implementing the ‘Great Leap Forward.’
Although Mr. Pech did not attend the May 20-24, 1975, “way forward” meeting in Phnom Penh, Khom did. She updated the district cadres on such matters as the closing of markets and the abolition of money. Khom had also told Pech Chim about defrocking the monks, but he could not remember if that was at the same education session. Neither could he recollect any directions on that occasion about what was to happen to former Lon Nol personnel.
Mr. Lysak objected to Mr. Koppe referring to the disposition of the former government’s soldiers as being “put out of the framework, scattered rather than killed,” on the basis that it was leading. But he had no problem with his colleague using Ben Kiernan’s research on this. The President directed the lawyer to rephrase.
Defence Counsel then enquired as to the meaning of “komchat.” Pech Chim said it was a term used in party lines signifying “removal of personal ambition and building of a positive stance,” and/or “the removal of capitalists or officials” of the prior regime. Mr. Chim disclosed that, as implemented against Lon Not representatives, they had “to refashion themselves, conform to society and get rid of their negative aspects.” He had never witnessed or ordered any executions of Lon Nol soldiers but he “was aware” they had happened.
Pech Chim was well acquainted with Ta Soam, who was appointed by Ta Mok as Chief of Sector 13. He respected him for being well educated, particularly in Khmer literature. The man was also known for being “very strict and aggressive,” that is: “firm in his stance.” Mr. Chim knew of no personal connection between Ta Soam and Chu Chet, Soam’s superior along with Ta Mok. Soam’s name had been submitted for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but he was in hospital at the time and unable to take up an appointment. The last the witness saw of Ta Soam was when he visited him in hospital in Phnom Penh. He did not know what happened to the man after the Vietnamese invaded.
The witness identified Penh as Chief of Sector 43 until he was transferred to the Southwest Zone. Penh had been removed from his post because his brother had been arrested. He was killed along with one of Mr. Chim’s sons while fighting the Vietnamese in the jungle.
Pech Chim explained that the Southwest Zone had been split because of disputes between Ta Mok and Chu Chet. Ta Mok took the new Southwest Zone and Chu Chet the West Zone. Mr. Chim did not know why Chu Chet was arrested in March, 1978, or that he had implicated Son, Penh and Kith as his collaborators. He did understand that it was “the implication of one person by another” that had led to arguments between Ta Mok and Chu Chet. Eventually, even Pol Pot and Ta Mok, “the two giants,” fought each other. After a brief clash, Pol Pot had handed both political and military power to Ta Mok who controlled everything by the end of the period when the Khmer Rouge was dismantled.
By questioning Boeun and Ke Pauk, Pech Chim learned ‘the upper party’ structure and the descending order of rank of Pol Pot (Brother #1), Nuon Chea, Ta Mok, Ieng Sary and Son Sen.
But, he knew nothing about the important cadres Ruos Nhim, Sao Phim and Heng Samrin because “they lived far away on the other side of the country.”
Returning to the defrocking of the monks, it was Pech Chim’s declared “personal analysis” that “Buddhism had no impact on the revolution…it was so gentle.” He never ordered the people to cease practice of Buddhism, and all “were freely allowed to do so” without punishment. Mr. Chim had heard the general direction to demolish Buddhist statues, but he “maintained a silence” about this policy which Khom and District 105 cadre Kiev had been in charge of implementing on orders from ‘the upper echelon.’ The witness said the destruction was nationwide, and felt that “it impacted Buddhism in China and throughout the world.”
A visibly-tired Pech Chim was allowed to go home for the night after notification by President Nil Nonn that his testimony will conclude tomorrow morning.