Khmer Souvanapoum (the golden land of the Khmer) is
the facebook profile of a Khmer nationalist – one of thousands, who is active
on facebook. On a daily basis, he produces racist tirades aimed at the
Vietnamese, and especially the Vietnamese living in Cambodia.
Introduction
Early 2015 saw the
proliferation of a number of derisory and accusatory comments and articles, as
well as an equally severe organisational response, following the online
publication and circulation of several “pornographic” photographs depicting an
“Asian woman” at a temple complex in Cambodia’s Angkor region. The Apsara
Authority and Khmer-language media were quick to pounce on the incident and
start a finger-pointing campaign.
However,
lacking since the story broke has been a serious discussion about the ways in
which Khmer women were represented, how expectations of Khmer women were
conveyed, and whether they were helpful and (culturally) justified, or restrictive,
demonstrating a subtle regulation of female expression and sexuality.
I offer
no definitive answers here. Rather, I hope to spark a debate not only about the
clear gendered characteristics of the Khmer-language media (and of
national medias the world over) and its implications, as well as a discussion
about gender representation in general.
The walls
of the Angkor Wat temple complex, as well as those of Angkor Thom, the Bayon or
Ta Prohm, among others, are adorned with dancing figures (apsaras) and guardians
(devatas). Headley’s (2010) Khmer-English Dictionary defines apsara
as a ‘celestial nymph, angel, divine female, celestial dancer.’
Historically, the apsara were believed to perform the role of providing
entertainment for Cambodian Kings through the medium of traditional dance.
Furthermore, it is not unusual to find these figures depicted nude from
head-to-waist on the walls and bas-reliefs of the various complexes dotted
around the Angkor region.
In late
January 2015, the Phnom Penh Post reported that several images of a
partially naked woman of Asian appearance, dressed to resemble the classical apsara
dancers, were posted on a Chinese photo-sharing site under an account
named: “WANIMAL”. The images were reported to have been taken at Banteay Kdei
temple, located eastward of Angkor Thom. Before long the images found their way
onto Facebook to be commented on and shared. What followed was an
organisational and media reaction that, consciously or unconsciously, conflated
expectations of Khmer women with Khmer culture and the Cambodian nation.
The Conflation of Femininity, Culture and the
Nation
Set up by
Royal Decree in 1995, the Apsara Authority (Authority for the Protection and
Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap (APSARA)) works alongside the
Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts ‘for the protection, the preservation and the
enhancement of the national cultural heritage’. As a result, when the story
broke the Apsara Authority found itself in the firing line of news reporters
and civil society organisations eager to point out the Authority’s
incompetence.
Chau Sun
Kerya, a spokesperson at the Apsara Authority, was tasked with managing the
fallout from the incident. She was quick to vocalise that the Authority regarded the pictures as insulting
to Khmer culture, religion and identity, taken as they were on a site
considered to be sacred. Furthermore, and echoing a statement made earlier by
the Apsara Authority, the government affiliated Koh Santepheap newspaper
reported
that the images had a “serious impact” on the “the honour/prestige of Khmer
women and Khmer civilisation” (phiap-tlai-tnoo nei niarey-pheet neung
aaryathoa).
Furthermore,
the Apsara Authority went to great lengths to establish the “foreignness” and
inauthenticity of the images, emphasising that both the company responsible for
posting the photographs online, as well as the model, were Chinese.
Furthermore, working alongside UNESCO, the Authority has sought to ascertain if
the pictures were even taken at Banteay Kdei, arguing that the images may have
been photo-shopped. In addition to taking pressure off the Authority, which as
been criticised for its ineffective policing of the historical site, proving
the false origins of the images helps paint the whole episode as distinctly
“un-Khmer,” products of an alien culture at odds with Cambodian morals and ethics.
The
Khmer-language media has perpetuated these understandings by reinforcing the
position adopted by the Apsara Authority. The opposition affiliated Moneaksekar
Khmer (Khmer Conscience) reported that the photographs “flouted” (choan-chhlii)
Khmer culture and customs. The article
went onto encourage relevant parties, including Prime Minister Hun Sen, to
break from their silence, accept responsibility as well as locate and punish
the perpetrator(s).
The
underlying story here is one of nude images of an Asian woman posing at Banteay
Kdei temple being conflated with emotions pertaining to the Angkor region’s
sacredness, as well as to understandings of what is considered appropriate
behaviour for Khmer women. By castigating WANIMAL as a Chinese company that
often posts “obscene” (aasa-aaphieh) pornographic images, it became
quickly clear that such “immoral” (a-selthoa) acts were contrary to
acceptable (female) Cambodian norms.
This also
leads to a wider debate about the broader framework of gendered norms operating
through Cambodia’s national institutions. The maintenance of a correct “female
reputation” is enshrined in the constitution: ‘The commerce of human beings,
exploitation by prostitution and obscenity which affect the reputation of
women shall be prohibited’. In addition, pornography is banned under
article 14 of the Press Law which prohibits: ‘drawing or photographs depicting
human genitalia, or naked pictures, unless published for educational purposes’
which negatively affect ‘the good customs of society’. Of course, it is at the
discrimination of each individual reader as to whether such regulation is
constructive, harmful or restrictive. Indisputable, however, is that the
response to the “naked apsara controversy” has exposed particular
expectations and beliefs regarding Khmer women.
The Flip Side: The Objectification of Female
Bodies
On the
flip side there is the enduring issue of the objectification and sexualisation
of female bodies. And like the conflation of female bodies with national
integrity, reputation and honour, this is not a solely Cambodian issue. Here in
the UK has been an ongoing debate surrounding the issue of “Page 3 Girls.”
Launched on November 17th 1970, The Sun’s page three depicts
semi-nude women on a daily basis. The “No to Page 3” campaign argued that this
practice ought to be stopped as it contributed to the sexualisation and
objectification of female bodies. On the other side were page 3 models
defending their choice to appear in the tabloid, criticising so-called
“feminazis” who wished to regulate and censor free choice and expressions of a
feminine alternative.
Such
debates are difficult to resolve as they risk going around in circles. Both
sides have their proponents. Those who equate female purity with the integrity
of the nation see a justified means of maintaining national culture as well as
a means to stave of the sexualisation of women observed in “the West.”
Similarly, those who view “Page 3” as a crude form of female objectification
must face off against those view it as a legitimate expression of choice. These
issues and paradoxes lead to many questions: How should women be represented?
What are appropriate/correct representations? Do such representations exist? And
who should decide this? Is female nudity in all its forms conveying a negative
body image of women? Can female nudity itself ever be considered a form of
resistance or empowering?
As stated
previously, I offer no definitive answers, only further questions. We should
perhaps end on a caveat. As the previous section indicated, the issue of gender
representation and regulation is an open book and we should not be complacent
and believe that the gender debate is somehow done or finished.
Scott Rawlinson is a MA student in Southeast
Asian Studies and Cambodian Language at the School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS), University of London
No comments:
Post a Comment