Voices From S-21: Terror and History in Pol Pot's Secret Prison (37 page)

28. CMR 141.20.

1. Steve Heder’s unpublished interview, cited in Burgler,
   The Eyes of the Pineapple,
   160.
   
2. Son Sen’s memorandum is an uncatalogued item in DC–Cam archive. See Tuy-Pon notebook, entry for 20 April 1978: “If a prisoner’s answer implicates a very important person, prepare a summary and submit it to [the administrators] for an opinion.” No such summaries have survived. See also Tuy-Pon notebook, entry for 18 December 1977: “If we overvalue the enemies, they will lead us into pessimism. We will see the Party as black, the army as black, the people as black. If, on the other hand, we undervalue the enemies, we will lose our revolutionary vigilance and they will be able to destroy us.”
   
3. Untitled cover page in an uncatalogued, undated cadre notebook, DC–Cam archive. The previous pages in the notebook have been torn out. Subsequent ones, in Tuy’s handwriting, date from 1978. The passage adds that when enemies are discovered, the “self-confidence of the masses will rise and the revolution will prosper.” See also document 1128, DC–Cam, minutes of a Communist Youth meeting at the prison: “Guards are lazy, fearful of difficulties, and shy
   (khmas)
   toward their superiors
   (bong).
   ”
   
4. Douglas Niven interview with Kok Sros.
   
5. Heder interviews, 59. See also Rittersporn, “The State against Itself,” which refers to “the unpredictable, incomprehensible and treacherous daily reality of the [Soviet] system” (95).
   
6. See CMR 88.17, Ngin Toi; CMR 104.17, Ou Yan; CMR 154.31, Sao Say; and CMR 159.5, Soeum Peou. The term “discard,” along with “smash”
   (komtec),
   was used to signify execution at S-21.
   
7. See, for example, CMR 62.1, Leang Chan Hen (328 pp.); CMR 64.7, Ly Vay (366 pp.); and CMR 65.7, Lam Samreth (304 pp.), among many.
   
8. See CMR 137.9, Sar Ngon, and CMR 140.11, Sar Phon; both date from October 1975.
   
9. Tuy-Pon notebook, entry for 26 April 1978. The confessions held in the DC–Cam archive probably constitute half of those sent to the “upper brothers” and were probably those handled by Son Sen. When the confessions were transmitted to DC–Cam by Cambodian authorities in 1997, they came mingled with material from the DK era related to defense matters, that is, those for which Son Sen was responsible.
   
10. For Soviet parallels, see Conquest,
    The Great Terror,
    and Khlevnyuk, “The Objectives of the Great Terror.”
    
11. Document from Interrogation Group 5, uncatalogued item in DC–Cam archive, 14 December 1976. See also CMR 151.35, Sok Sarith, which carries the notation “questions to be asked.”
    
12. It seems likely that these forms have survived by accident and that similar ones, destroyed on a daily basis, guided the interrogators’ work for hundreds of other prisoners.
    
13. On the genre, see Rossi,
    A Communist Party in Action,
    and
    Tung Padevat,
    special issue, December 1975–January 1976, 40–41. Burgler suggests astutely that “the [self-critical] biography . . . abolishes time as all elements of the past are reinterpreted in the light of the necessities of the present” (
    The Eyes of the Pineapple,
    114).
    
14. Apter and Saich,
    Revolutionary Discourse,
    264. DK did not follow the Chinese and Soviet practice of circulating biographies of revolutionary heroes, let alone those of the men and women in the Party Center. At S-21, the prisoners’ life stories, as well as their bodies, were under constant surveillance and subject to filing and revision. In
    Discipline and Punish
    Foucault speculates on the simultaneity of interest in biography as a genre and the development of modern punitive systems (319–20 n. 14).
    
15. Document 1129 from DC–Cam archive records a self-criticism session of Communist Youth Group workers held at S-21 on 14 February 1977, in which several interrogators assess their “strong points” and “shortcomings” in their own handwriting. As the text was passed around the group, people could probably read what their predecessors had written. Knowing the “shortcomings” of one’s colleagues enabled one to accuse them of these faults at other meetings. Faults, unlike strong points, were considered cumulatively, so in criticizing themselves people had to tread carefully between making their shortcomings too trivial and too severe.
    
16. Apter and Saich,
    Revolutionary Discourse,
    293. Similar procedures, of course, are employed by many secret societies.
    
17. Author’s interviews with Kok Sros and Nhem En.
    
18. On Ratanakiri, see Locard, “Le Goulag des khmers rouges,” 148;
    Tung Padevat,
    special issue, December 1975–January 1976, 8. See
    also Tung Padevat,
    March 1978, 37–53, translated in Jackson,
    Cambodia 1975–1978,
    296: “Scrutinize autobiographies meticulously.” For Pol Pot’s statement, see Chandler, Kiernan, and Boua,
    Pol Pot Plans the Future,
    203. On the
    

    importance of biographies in DK, see Someth May,
    Cambodian Witness,
    

    195–97.
    

19. CMR 13.28, trans. Steve Heder.
    
20. See “Chea Kak’s Life Story,” with notes by Mam Nay, 24 April 1977 (uncatalogued item in DC–Cam archive), which uses the dimensions of his parents’ house and land, the number of livestock, and the style of roofing to determine his class status. Him Huy told Peter Maguire that he had to alter his biography once cadres had verified that his parents’ house had a tile roof. Although Pol Pot claimed in 1977 that most Cambodians were poor peasants, those in the “middle peasant” category probably accounted for the largest portion of the population, according to Delvert,
    Le paysan cambodgien,
    490 ff. See also Willmott, “Analytical Errors.” DK class categories are listed with commentaries in Jackson,
    Cambodia 1975–1978,
    99–100, drawing in part on the tables in Summers, “The CPK: Secret Vanguard,” 15.
    
21. CMR 129.3, Sary Chheang, however, confesses to having rich parents and mentions the number of cattle, water buffaloes, and elephants that his parents owned.
    
22. For a discussion of these categories, which were used by villagers themselves, see May Ebihara, “Revolution and Reformulation in Kampuchean Village Culture,” in Ablin and Hood, eds.,
    The Cambodian Agony,
    20. Ebihara (personal communication) has suggested that no connection existed between wealth and power at the village level. See also Hinton, “Why Did You Kill?” 99–100.
    
23. See “A Short Guide to the Application of Party Statutes,” in Carney,
    Communist Party Power,
    56 ff. See also CMR 21.25, Chhay Keum Hor, who confessed that when he was recruited into the CIA in 1962 by Son Sen, CIA and CPK statutes were both discussed at study sessions. CMR 26.3, Dim Saroeun, recalls “saluting the CIA flag, though I forget now what it looked like”; CMR 87.8, Nuth Kap, locates the initiation ceremony in the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh, and CMR 136.14, Son Hoeun, claimed to have saluted a flag “with the image of a star.” In early 1976, mimeographed questionnaires prepared at S-21 traced several prisoners’ employment history, wages, and sponsors inside the CIA. See CMR 2.16, Chou By; CMR 173.5, Tan Pheng; and CMR 184.11, Va Heng. The form was scrapped after a few months.
    
24. DC–Cam Document 60–84, from security office, Northern Zone, 22 June 1976. The American’s name transliterates as Zhombu Douvinh. I’m grateful to Chhang Youk of DC–Cam for bringing this document to my attention.
    
25. For Khieu Thirith reference, see CMR 64.12, Lauk Chhot. CMR 173.13, Liang Kiny, who had studied in West Germany, claimed to have been recruited as a spy in 1967 at Kep by an American named Vikeri, and CMR 78.12, Men Tul, a “Hanoi Khmer,” claimed that he had been brought into the CIA in Hanoi in 1956 by an American “tourist.” See also CMR 131.3, Sok Knol, who claimed that his CIA recruiter was “Johnson.” Sok Knol also quoted a colleague, who had not seen his wife for a year, as saying: “That was why we are looking for a road to happiness . . . namely the CIA,” while CMS 178.20, Truong Sin, stated that “the CIA has prestige and an extravagant lifestyle.” CMR 166.28, Yusip Ganthy, a DK diplomat, claimed that he was recruited first by an agent named “Anderson” and again while a diplomat in Stockholm in
    

    1971 by “Johnson.” Ganthy then described a Soviet “plan” to airlift tanks to Phnom Penh and to invade Cambodia.
    

26. CMR 161.4, Yin Ron, and CMR 184.11, Va Heng. See also CMR 127.5, Penh Sopheap, Von Vet’s daughter.
    
27. Heder conversation with Hawk. For the Chinese reference, see Dittmer and Ruoxi,
    Ethics and Rhetoric,
    44. CMR 188.36, an administrative document from S-21, contains an organizational chart of the “CIA” under Lon Nol that seems to be coterminous with the regime. Duch’s obsession with the “CIA” led him to authorize a translation into Khmer of a global directory of CIA agents, published in English in East Berlin in the 1960s. Both texts are uncatalogued items in the S-21 archive. See also Tuy-Pon notebook, entry for 16 July 1978, which claims that the “CIA” in Cambodia split in 1954 into those treacherous agents sent north to Hanoi and those who remained behind.
    
28. White,
    Policies of Chaos.
    For examples of this and an interesting discussion, see Lu Xiuyuan, “A Step toward Understanding Popular Violence,” 533–62.
    
29. “Involvement with foreign intelligence services” was a mantra so deeply embedded in Soviet thought that Khrushchev used it in his “secret speech” in 1956 when he accused Lavrenty Beria, Stalin’s hanging judge in the 1930s, of working for (unnamed) foreign intelligence agencies. See Ali, ed.,
    The Stalinist Legacy,
    258. See also CMR 174.15, Touch Phoeun, a senior DK fi who claimed that the anti-Communist massacres in Indonesia in 1965 and 1966, which he refers to as a coup d’état, had been caused by CIA agents “burrowing inside” the Indonesian Communist Party.
    
30. CMR 99.19 gives the text of the speech.
    
31. Thayer, “Day of Reckoning.” Once Pol Pot had been shunted aside by his colleagues in 1997, the man who replaced him, Ta Mok (probably “Brother Number Three” for much of the DK era), called his former mentor a “Vietnamese agent.” Interestingly, the notion that Pol Pot was always in some way working for Vietnamese interests (which is to say, against those of the Cambodian people) is widespread among survivors of the regime (Judy Ledgerwood, personal communication).
    
32. CMR 141.3, Sam Hean, described six “faults”
    (komho)
    that had led to his arrest. Similarly, CMR 160.15, Yen Kun, names sexual encounters as his “weak points.” See also Locard,
    Petit livre rouge:
    “A comrade with many shortcomings equals an enemy” (145).
    
33. CMR 166.13,Yos Thoeurn; CMR 36.16, Huy Savorn; and CMR 88.3, Neou Kantha, an interrogator who claimed that he had been asked to pull a plow “just like a prisoner,” cited in Vickery,
    Cambodia 1975–1982,
    344 n. 45. On “trusties,” see Levi,
    The Drowned and the Saved,
    22–51, and Sofsky,
    The Order of Terror,
    130 ff. For staff assertions of discomfort, see CMR 20.19, Chon Chhay; CMR 22.23, Chau Kut; and CMR 46.6, Khleang Hu.
    
34. On religion, CMR 47.17, Korm Ron; CMR 160.25, You Phon; and CMR 173.16, Tan Doeun; on rank, see
    pravatt’rup
    of Chea Kak, uncatalogued item in DC–Cam archive, in which this S-21 guard remarked that he had joined the revolution in part “because I wanted a reputation and I wanted others to admire me.”
    
35. CMR 87.2 and CMR 58.4.
    
36. CMR 107.16 and CMR 56.28, Khuth Boeurn. See also CMR 144.1, Sok Hak : “I encouraged people to be corrupt, to drink liquor, to overeat, to chase women, to do anything that made them happy”; and CMR 169.13, Tong Chun: “I can’t survive in the revolution; it gives me no pleasure.” CMR 105.28, Ou Sou Neng, remarked that “we can’t figure out what’s going on in the revolution or where it’s going.” Has Saran (CMR 33.5) lamented that “all my relationships are personal, disorganized, and lack the Party’s permission.” While pursuing policies that promised rapid elevations in status, improved material welfare, and a more ascetic life style, the CPK’s intolerance of “happiness” contributed to its unpopularity. For a sympathetic view of Communist asceticism, however, see CMR 119.23, Pou Labine, a female Party member, who confessed proudly: “I have been in the revolution for fi years. I have built myself by reducing freedomism, family-ism, factionalism, and meritism.”