Established in 1984, the “Day of Anger” has always had a political dimension....
The fact it was initially dubbed the “Day of Hatred against the genocidal Pol Pot-Ieng Sary-Khieu Samphan clique and the Sihanouk-Son Sann reactionary groups” by the
then-Vietnamese backed government, suggests its inherent politicisation....
“Genocide is political and cannot avoid [it] being politicised,” Youk Chhang, of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia, wrote in an email.
“Even fiction has a role to heal this so broken society . . . The entire country, consisting of 15 million [people] (either on the victim or perpetrator side), have been pushed to deal and face with the past in the eyes of international community.”
“I admire their courage, despite some actions [being] so blunt!”
Indeed, Dr Chhim Sotheara of the Transcultural Psychosocial Organisation, which has worked closely with Khmer Rouge victims suffering from PTSD, said the theatrics could serve as a double-edged sword.
“I think this day is useful. It gives the opportunity for catharsis [rather] than re-traumatisation,” he wrote by email.
“It also allows people who still have grief the opportunity to mourn their deceased relatives.”
I profoundly disagree with this Day of Anger (at one point Hatred?) in possessing any values in this soiling of memories. I understand the need to be honest with one's raw emotions and their release, thus, the creation of "Poetic Justice" products. But there is NO redeeming value in this.
Re the "genocide is politics": there's a difference between description and prescription. I've made this point re the ECCC, how its initial set-up resulted from political compromise as being the nature of these tribunals. But does that mean that political interference once the judicial/court officers are in play?
Seen and heard on Ms. Theary C. Seng's Facebook accounts: