Khoem Boeun’s Bad Day

 

Khoem Boeun, former chief of Cheang Tomg commune and Deputy Chief of Tram Kak District, was having a confusing day—or at least others who heard her testimony were. On the second day of her testimony, the witness could not keep her story straight. The prior day, she had contradicted her OCIJ statement. Now, there were contradictions to what she had said at the ECCC as well as with her interview. Her story seemed to vary according to whom it was asking the questions.

 

Judge Jean-Marc Lavergne was mainly unsuccessful in obtaining particulars from Khoem Boeun. She could not remember exactly when she was appointed chief of Cheang Tomg commune but it was sometime in 1973. There had been no ceremony; she had just been informed of the posting. “Sao Van” (alias “Sao Pok”) was also in authority at the same time as she but she claimed not know his position in the commune. They worked together for a long time but she did not know when Sao Van’s duties ended. Nor had Ms. Khoem known “Sambith” well, and had never attended any meetings chaired by him. “Don” worked with her in the District Office for “a long period,” but does not know where he went afterwards. She knew “Dan” had been at Kraing Ta Chan but little else about him including whether or not he had been subsequently detained at the prison.

 

Khoem Boeun identified the signature on a document as hers but then professed general ignorance about the contents of the exhibit or an annotation thereon. She said “Huot” (spelling?) mentioned on the paper was the chief of Unit Four, a Men’s Unit that included militia, but all of whose members worked in the fields. Ms. Khoem could not clarify the meaning of an annotation on the “Summary of Biographies of Prisoners.” The first name on the list, entered July 20, 1977, was “Neang Dan.” She said she knew nothing about the tabulation as she was still in the commune on that date and implying she would not have seen a Kraing Ta Chan record at that level. Judge Lavergne challenged her on this saying that her signature dated to the same period that Dan was at Kraing Ta Chan, but she was no more forthcoming.

 

An obviously dissatisfied jurist moved on to determining whether Khoem Boeun may not have always obeyed the instructions she had received from “the Upper Echelon.” Ms. Khoem agreed. She had hidden rice in a pagoda in order “to feed (her) people” when there were shortages.

The witness admitted there had been periods of insufficient rations, but qualified that they “were not serious and no one had died in Cheang Tomg commune because of starvation.” She did not know what happened in other areas. They had discussed “rice production, rice cultivation, growing vegetables and finding supplementary food for the people,” in district meetings.

 

Khoem Boeun defined “kam tick” (“to smash”) as used in a document annotation about a prisoner as meaning “to arrest or cleanse.” In turn, “to cleanse” had various meanings: “to arrest or to get rid of old ideas and concepts and build a new one.” She did not know what “to smash” meant in the context of Kraing Ta Chan as she “was not involved in ‘cleansing.’” When Judge Laverge pointed out to her that this was contradictory to her answer in her OCIJ interview in which she had used “smash,” she said she used the term as above and as defined to her by Prak, (from the Sector level).

 

Victor Koppe, Nuon Chea Defense Counsel, endeavoured to have Khoem Boeun confirm a rosy view of Khmer Rouge administration policies. Ms. Khoem affirmed for him that there was no distinction made between how “new people” and “old people” were treated in access to hospitals, medicines, education. Nor was there any discrimination in who was disciplined or in how they were disciplined. The witness reiterated her often made assertion that she had never “sent people away.” She only reported incidences to “the Upper Level” who decided whether the person would be sent on to the District. There was no case in her commune of someone being sent for re-education just for being a “new person.”

 

Khoem Boeun knew Ta Mok “personally.” Ms. Khoem had concluded that Ta Mok was concerned about the food situation because, when he visited the commune, he would ask the commune residents directly about rations. And she had seen the leader redistribute food to other areas that had needed it. The witness qualified that she could only speak about her area, but she felt that an objective of the DK was to ensure everyone had enough to eat even though there were shortages at times. Instructions had been received from “the Upper Echelon” that the commune administration was “to try hard to resolve the living conditions of the people.”

 

Stealing was “a minor offence” for which the punishment was re-education. “Everyone was in the same situation.” No one from Cheang Tomg had ever been executed for “stealing a coconut or a cassava,” on Khoem Boeun’s commune. Her instructions had been to not sanction people for stealing when there were food shortages. She would just re-educate them by lecturing them that she, too, was hungry and that they were to stop stealing. Ms. Khoem was not aware of any cases where Cham had been forced to eat pork against their will. There were no Cham in her area.

 

In direct contradiction to her testimony yesterday, Khoem Boeun denied that any people in her commune were forcibly married. If the parties objected to the marriage, then they did not have to be married. She said there were divorces during the DK period of 1975 to 1979, when she was still commune chief, but she could not recall specific instances. Even if, as commune chief, she had not given her permission for the divorce (she said she tried to mediate and keep the couples together), some were still divorced.

 

Khoem Boeun could describe Khom’s mental problems in only the vague terms that she was “not normal” and had “a psychiatric problem on some occasions.” She had no specifics of what exactly had been wrong with the District Secretary. In her opinion whatever was wrong with the leader had influenced her decisions in the District.

 

Mr. Koppe asked the witness to comment on the phrase: “Yeay Boeun is white and Im Chaem is black,” referring to being kind and unkind. Ms. Khoem said it was put to her by the OCIJ investigator. “Personally, (she) wanted everything good…and (she) thought she was good.” For example, she said she had “talked to people directly to resolve issues and provided chicken, beef, and pork when (she) could afford it…out of generosity and pity for (her) people.” She refused to engage in a discussion of “the perceptions of other people.” There were several instances in which she had had to remove the cooperative chiefs but she could not recall the specifics of why this had been necessary other than their failure to be “a good person.” Generally, she said, they would be removed for such things as hiding food from the people.

 

Khoem Boeun knew Pech Chim, but could not recall “any particular dealings with him.” He was “a humble person and not a mean one,” in her estimation. She had “no particular recollections” about “Saom,” as it had been “a long time.”

 

Predictably, when the Defense counsel attempted to read from the confession of Chou Chet (“probably from S-21”), he was cut off by an objection from the Co-Prosecutor. (Ed. note: Chou Chet was a Western Zone commander purged at Toul Sleng, in 1978). Mr. de Wilde repeated the advice that it was a quote from a statement produced under alleged torture. Further, as he had not been able to find the document on the interface or any mention of it in the witness document list, he argued its use was against the “question of principle of an adversarial proceeding (which is) supposed to be respectful of all parties.” Mr. Koppe was taken aback by the Co-Prosecutors position and quickly apologized. He had thought the document was on the interface, and suggested deferring on it until after lunch when all parties would have had a chance to study it. Judge Lavergne wanted to know if the counsel intended to read out the content of Chou Chet’s confession or from the annotations thereon, and the relevance of the testimony in any event. Mr. Koppe replied that the excerpt was to be Chou Chet’s statement on “the political stance of Saom,” that he was “too oppressive a person within the Sector.” When the judge expressed that he thought that the witness had already answered that question, Mr. Koppe clarified that he wanted to ask her: “Did she believe (Saom) was an oppressive, radical left-wing, Cultural Revolution-kind of person.” President Nil said that “any questions based on records of statements that are the result of torture are prohibited in this Chamber.” The Bench would be issuing their written decision on Mr. Koppe’s request for clarification on the issue “probably next week.” Before he agreed to move on, the dogged defense counsel got in that “there is no prima facie evidence that Chou Chet was tortured.”

 

All Ms. Khoem could remember about Sao Van was that he was removed (but not when). Nor had she known that Sao Van had worked on Popel commune although she admitted her husband, Chorn, chief of Popel, had known him. Mr. Koppe raised the issue of the infamous 1975 post-liberation meeting at which other cadres testified Ta Mok had announced that ranks from Second Lieutenants to Colonels were not to be mistreated. Khoem Boeun did not recall being at the Takeo meeting or the order about the soldiers. When the counsel quoted from other cadres’ testimony as to her presence, she allowed she “may have been there,” but she could not bring it to mind.

 

The witness refreshingly did remember stating in her OCIJ interview that there was no punishment for the victims of rape, only for the rapists. There had been no rapes in her commune, but the rule about them was there. Khoem Boeun was able to cite a case in Popel commune where a rapist had been suffered the public humiliation of having his hair shaved in a cross-like mark. Ms. Boeun did not recall any allegations about Mom Boen (husband of Meas Surat), raping Khorn.

 

After lunch, Judge Nil Nonn announced that Judge Fenz would be absent due to health reasons.

 

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Koppe, Khoem Boeun could not remember the 12 revolutionary moral principles of the CPK, and did not recall reading about them in the Revolutionary Flag magazine. She only knew that they had tried to act according to them during DK.

The witness did agreed that it was a principle that a cadre was not to behave in any way that violated women, and that marriage and setting up a family were also connected to the same principle.

 

Mr. de Wilde had “issues with the methodology” of the Defense counsel stating upfront two principles on marriage (that both the two partners as well as the collective must agree before a marriage could take place), when the witness had already responded that she did not remember the moral principles. He advocated that this was leading as it “suggested to the witness the answers she should provide.” With prodding, Khoem Boeun eventually confirmed that the agreements outlined were a principle of the party that they followed from the revolutionary principle of not behaving badly to women.

 

The selection of preferred characteristics used for the selection of coop committee members “rang a bell” with Ms. Khoem. She stated that it was “necessary to choose leaders of good conduct and who would respect Angkar’ discipline.” There were not many “bad revolutionaries” in her coop, but some “would eat secretly, not have a responsible attitude and were not authoritarian.”

 

On specific reference to it, Khoem Boeun recalled the revolutionary principle not to drink. Cadres caught drinking would be educated with threats of being dismissed and told to stop their untoward behavior.

 

The moment Mr. Koppe again brought up Chou Chet’s confession, the President stopped him. In no uncertain terms, he stated that the Chamber had ruled in the morning that the “contents of documents due to torture cannot be used.” Counsel apologized for the misunderstanding. He had not realized that that was the court’s ruling. But, for the appeal hearings, he wanted to read into the record “the passage he would have put to the witness.” Mr. de Wilde objected on the grounds that this “would be attempting to influence the witness’s responses to subsequent questions.” The request was disallowed.

 

Khoem Boeun did not meet her husband very often during the Khmer Rouge regime, sometimes only once a month. Subsequently, the spouses did not spend much of their time discussing policies and decisions regarding their work. Therefore, the witness could not conclude whether her husband’s decisions at Popel would have corresponded to the decisions she made in Cheang Tomg commune other than to say that each of them would have “implemented the instructions from ‘the Upper Echelon.’” As Ms. Khoem had been sick for most of 1977, she was not aware of what enemy activity there had been at the border or if there had been any increase in violence from the Vietnamese during March through May, 1977.

 

Kong Sam Onn spent most of his examination asking Khoem Boeun if she stood by her prior statements on miscellaneous matters such as: that she had not met Khieu Samphan; about Ta Mok’s visits to the communes and villages; who attended Sector meetings; the reporting structure; “urgent” meeting topics; incidences of misbehaviour over lack of food; and that she had resolved issues at the commune level and sent very few cases of misbehaviour to “the Upper Echelon.”

 

New testimony included that: Ms. Khoem had not heard the expression that “there is only sky above Ta Mok’s head;” she had seen Ta Mok at Sector meetings; the policy of three tonnes of rice per hectare would have come from Ta Chi or Ta Kit at the District level and that she had used fertilizer to increase production; this gave her a small rice surplus which was distributed to other communes; she had never worked as a messenger as she had young children to take care of; “exceptions” for minor offences meant “forgiveness” and release of the miscreants; she did not recall exactly when she fled to the jungle after the Vietnamese arrived but it was when Takeo was bombed; she only “perused” issues of the Revolutionary Flag as she was busy; and that pre-marital sex was not allowed as it “was an offence against tradition,” but people in love could get married with the approval of the village chiefs and their parents. The witness concurred with Pich Chim that the communes and districts decided on issues concerning marriage although policy (such as having group marriages) was decided at “the Upper Echelon.”

 

Khoem Boeun did not recollect a letter from Ta An requesting her to send militia to arrest two people. Although it was addressed to her, “men in the commune would deal with such matters.”

She went on to say that she “had nothing to hide, but (could not) recall whether (she) received such a letter or not.” Nor did she know if Sambith and Ta Ron were related to Ta Mok. Saom and Meas Muth were on the Sector 13 Committee before Sambith. Then she remembered that Prak was there before Sambith , she thought for less than a year. She could not recollect when Sambith replaced Prak. She said the signature on another document was not hers although it was her name. Neither did she recognize the handwriting.

 

This concluded Khoem Boeun’s testimony, and she was graciously dismissed by President Nil.

Court adjourned until Thursday, May 7, 2015, when witness TCW 822 will be called.