#sihanouk

[brieucgwalder]

The little boy and the tiger. Revisited

A Time-Patrol movie The Tiger is looking at me. Green eyes (his) straight into green eyes (mine). Though at that moment I couldn’t care less about similarities. The Tiger looks big. Okay, it is a baby tiger, but a three-months old baby tiger is almost as big as a three-year old boy. Me. And right there and then, I have to walk past him. Less than a yard away. No choice. I have to pass by him…

[zvaigzdelasas]

Next Blowback seasons gonna be on Cambodia which should be interesting

[dailystreetsnapshots]

Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia

[sonicandvisualsurprises]

1969 - Latest addition to my YouTube Laughs playlist:

[personallysunny]

wait what i should be white for my pride?

SOMEHTING SI WHITE???

[incorrectlooneytunesquotes]

As an anti-Earthling, I thank you for your rotten article devoted to my person.

Marvin the Martian 

[southeastasianarchaeology]

Preah Norodom Sihanouk-Angkor Museum Unveils Rare Crystal Treasures

Siem Reap's Preah Norodom Sihanouk-Angkor Museum exhibits 6,956 ancient semi-precious stones, unveiling Cambodia's rich cultural heritage.

via Khmer Times, 15 January 2024: The Preah Norodom Sihanouk-Angkor Museum in Siem Reap is set to dazzle visitors with an exhibition of 6,956 semi-precious stones, including amethyst, citrine, and crystal, unearthed from Kandal Sras Srang temple. Discovered by Apsara National Authority archaeologists in 2020, this permanent display aims to enlighten the public on Cambodian history and…

[tanadrin]

@zvaigzdelasas arguing in replies is annoying, so i am just going to put this in a post

Khmer Rouge wouldn't have been what it was without the US overthrowing Sihanouk bc of his perceived socialist sympathies and instituting & upholding the violent Lon Nol regime. You are in the imperial core in 2023, you are not in Angkor Wat in 1970

not my main point, which is just that revolutions (at least in the classic sense of storming-the-barricades or even just extraconstitutional shenanigans) are chaotic situations with unpredictable outcomes. you can get lots of positive changes. you can get lets of shitty ones. they're great for authoritarians and fascists in equal measure to sainted socialists or w/e. they do not solve the problem of having to do politics, but the rhetoric around the One True Revolution acts like it's the end of a long process, and not the beginning of a new, much more dangerous one.

if by "revolution" you just mean "major set of reforms carried out by winning control of existing political structures," sure, that's a lot less risky. but this would involve engaging with those wicked corrupt and nasty institutions of liberal democracy people are always so scornful of.

liberal democracy has pathways for lasting change [Citation Needed]

since the middle of the 19th century the US and Britain have seen massive improvements in income distributions, the creation of and the expansion of the welfare state, universal male suffrage, women getting the right to vote, (in the US) black people getting the right to vote, gay people going from criminals to a minority with rights protected under the law (including gay marriage), plus a laundry list of smaller but still important and lasting democratic, economic, and social reforms. yes, progress is not monotonic. no, no party is credibly threatening to (say) reimpose legal segregation in the US, or strip women of the right to vote anywhere in Europe. "nothing ever gets better" is an absolutely deranged take, especially when a lot of the reason things have gotten better is leftists willing to fight for improvements even if they fell short of total communist revolution.

You're aware of the world historic wave of reaction going across the western world like, right now right

Obviously! And I love the idea that a communist society would be magically free of prejudice or reactionaries leveraging it for power. Because it wouldn't be! And socialist countries generally have a human rights record that reflects similar issues!

(here I said even this language of "imperial core" involves assumptions which are silly and which i'm not willing to grant. marxists use the word "empire" in a way which is not actually very useful and has little explanatory power)

"within the geographic distribution of the highest value added surplus" very obvious explanatory power when the question is one of control over global labor capacity

i don't know if you're being deliberately disingenuous or what but the marxist use of the term "imperialism" is in fact much more sophisticated than that

and i think it's wrong in important ways, especially in the postcolonial period. the usage originated when colonial empires in the literal sense were very important; now, not so much. while there are important postcolonial dynamics of exploitation worth talking about, i do not think the framework of imperialism as articulated in the 19th century is anywhere close to sufficient, and it should be abandoned.

also don't wanna get bogged down in the weeds, just pointing out that one of the really irritating things about arguing with communists is you use words in annoying ways that inhibit rather than facilitate analysis.

And these are things that, for example, the AfD aren't trying to roll back?

you know you can look up the AfD's party platform online? like it's full of stupid, awful, xenophobic shit, and they are rightly reviled, but "return to the constitution and political structures of the German Empire" is not in there. i think the fact that even the biggest party of right-wing reactionaries can't imagine rolling back the clock more than a few decades is noteworthy--there are political gains over the history of modern leftism which are now so universally respected literally no one remembers we had a fight about them once.

like, obviously things have gotten better for the vast majority of people in germany, britain, or the US since the 1870s, and i don't know what we accomplish by pretending otherwise? except maybe creating some kind of martyr complex where we pretend leftism (and the labor movement in particular) is much less effective than it actually is.

i am going to mute replies to this and my other posts in this series, because on this particular morning i would rather have a root canal than argue about the word "imperalism," and i suspect this is the kind of argument that could go on literally forever. i do not think we are likely to persuade one another, but i have laid out why i find the contemporary marxist perspective on these things deeply unpersuasive (to the extent i can without rehashing a bunch of old posts), so i feel like i have said my piece.

[southeastasianists]

The story Southeast Asia likes to tell itself is that, by the late 1990s, it had something like its “end of history” moment.

By 1999, the region was free of colonialism, with the last push made by Timor-Leste, which that year held a referendum to throw off Indonesian imperialism. With that development, the region’s national borders appeared to be finally decided and revanchism, although it was still voiced on the fringes, had ended. 

All Southeast Asian countries, except Timor-Leste, were members of ASEAN. Communist Vietnam and Laos were stable and internationally accepted. Anti-communist tyrants like Indonesia’s Suharto, Burma’s Ne Win and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines had either resigned or been ousted. 

And the worst crimes of the Cold War-era, including the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, were not just over but there was to finally be some sort of justice. In 1999, the holdout Khmer Rouge leaders finally surrendered and Ta Mok, its former army chief, was symbolically arrested by the local authorities. 

Today, however, Southeast Asia finds itself trapped by history. 

On the one hand, it became evident in February 2021 that not all of 20th-century history was over. The military coup in Myanmar that month awakened many to the reality that some elements of the pre-Cold War period had not been solved. 

Indeed, Myanmar has been trapped in the early 20th century since independence from Britain in 1948. Whereas all other Southeast Asian threw off their colonial powers and then resolved their internal battles over what form of government would follow, Myanmar did not. 

Myanmar as outlier

Anti-colonial struggles are conflicts against a foreign aggressor and civil wars at the same time. It is not enough to claim self-determination; it must be determined what sort of self you want once free. 

The partition of Vietnam was both things at once. Many historians date the Cambodian Civil War as beginning in either 1967 (with the Samlaut Uprising) or 1979 (with the Lon Nol “coup”) but those same political schisms were latent, though blanketed, under Nordom Sihanouk’s regime that ruled after independence. 

The People’s Power uprising in the Philippines in 1986 was essentially the answer to the question — constitutional or personalist rule — that was posed when the country gained independence from Spain in 1898, and, indeed, was the internal debate within almost all of José Rizal’s writings. 

But Myanmar never went through this process — or, rather, successive military juntas never allowed the question to be seriously explored. The 1962 coup effectively froze in time the question of self-determination of Myanmar’s myriad ethnic minorities, a remnant of colonial rule.

In two ways, Myanmar under the military remained a colonial holdout: The Bamar center colonized the ethnic periphery and the anti-colonial struggle was never allowed to fully run its course. The cataclysm of the 2021 military coup appears to be the event that will finally bring this historical question to a proper solution. 

The answer offered by the anti-junta movement, centered on the National Unity Government, is a revolutionary federal state, in which Myanmar maintains its same territorial borders but vastly more power and autonomy is given to the ethnic areas, while at the same time the national army, a product of anti-colonialism, will be dissolved and something (perhaps a network of militias) will take its place. 

The junta’s answer, the same that its predecessors offered, is devolution based on the permission of a central authority, implemented through peace talks. The problem with this answer, as has been the case in the past, is that it is dependent not upon rules or laws but the whims of whichever general is sitting in Naypyidaw, so essentially yet another delay in answering the post-colonial civil war question.

Yet, for now at least, according to some hopeful observers, the forces of revolution are prevailing over the forces of reaction in Myanmar.

Baked-in crisis

Alas, the rest of Southeast Asia seems unwilling to accept that a historical reckoning must happen in Myanmar for there to be any progress. 

One can put aside the fatuousness of permitting Myanmar entrance into ASEAN in 1997 before those civil-war conflicts were solved, yet ASEAN still doesn’t accept that by doing so it institutionalized those conflicts into the regional system.

In other words, by accepting Myanmar into the ASEAN bloc, the rest of the region (perhaps) unwittingly accepted a share of responsibility for solving those historical conflicts. This point is still not appreciated by ASEAN in its continued insistence that the solution to the current crisis is to return to a point in time: the status quo ante. 

Yet, even if that return was feasible, which it isn’t, ASEAN would still be left with the situation of Myanmar’s 20th-century conflicts sparking another similar crisis at some point in the future. 

ASEAN is, therefore, trapped in apparently thinking that Myanmar is unique in that it won’t have to go through the same bloody processes that the rest of the region did — a final reckoning of post-colonial civil wars — and clearly thinks that the region’s responsibility is to forestall, not assist, this process.

On the other hand, Southeast Asia is also in a history trap of believing that the post-Cold War era is still alive. 

It can be fairly said that the region, aside from China, was the biggest beneficiary of the world order left after the collapse of communism in Europe. A cursory look at how the region has developed economically, culturally and socially since 1989 is enough to make that argument. 

But what should we call the period between 1989 and, roughly, 2019? The “Chimerica Era”, that chimera when the United States and China thought they could get along and when the West thought that Beijing was playing by the same rules? Or, perhaps, the “Inter-Cold War Era?”

Nostalgia not enough

In any case, that period is now over. Yet, Southeast Asia’s leaders still think that they can deny its disappearance by repeatedly stating their opposition to what has come after – a “New Cold War” – as if denying something’s existence makes it not exist.

They hold onto the hope that Washington and Beijing will finally see sense and agree that because things were much better for all in the 2000s that should be their shared vision for the future. 

If there is a purpose to “hedging”, it is presumably to play both superpowers off against one another to extract the most benefits. Yet the downside is that you make yourself dependent on both sides, as has been the case: As a share of overall ASEAN trade, the United States and China have taken on a larger, not smaller, percentage in recent years. 

Hedging, as manifested today, is to take both sides, rather than to take neither side. That is problematic, to say the least, if there is a possibility of both sides going to war, when you will be forced by events outside your control and at a time not of your choosing to decide which side to take.

None of this is unreasonable from an emotional level; it’s only natural for Southeast Asian leaders, by 1999, to have been jubilant that the horrors of the 20th century were over and that their societies could finally have the stability to become prosperous – thanks to the Inter-Cold War Era. 

It’s only natural to want the good times to continue. Sadly, they’re over and the world is once again a far more unstable and unpredictable place, including in ASEAN’s northwest. Nostalgia for times past will only get you so far. 

David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. As a journalist, he has covered Southeast Asian politics since 2014. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of Radio Free Asia and RFA sister organization BenarNews.

[reginaldqueribundus]

Hey, you know that post you reblogged awhile ago, about missionaries thinking Hawaiians were lazy because they optimized their work to allow them to rest for most of the day? And then you added that you heard a story on a podcast where some christian missionaries told some rural Cambodians about a way to double their crop yield, and were surprised when they used that knowledge to produce the same amount of crops for less work?

Well, do you remember what podcast that was? I would like to listen to it.

I do in fact! It is called Behind the Bastards and it's about controversial or notorious historical figures and celebrities. The episode I mentioned was about King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. Fascinating stuff, I highly recommend it. Their episode on Christopher Columbus was also very good

[zvaigzdelasas]

Never knew Sihanouk was alive until 2012?

[claudehenrion]

La France : c'était une terre, un langage, et une culture

Une des toutes premières choses (presque plus stupides que les autres, si c'est possible !) qu'a cru utile de faire Macron à peine élu (en 2017, à Lyon), a été de proclamer que la culture française n'existait pas... C'est gros ? En fait, son raisonnement est simple à suivre, à défaut d'être intelligent : ''Je suis leur chef et je suis gravement inculte... DONC (noblesse oblige), ils sont obligatoirement encore plus incultes que moi, et DONC il n'y a pas de culture française, j'en suis la preuve indiscutable, CQFD'' ! Il avait même cru malin de préciser : ''il y a une culture en France mais elle est diverse” … ce qui est encore plus odieux, plus humiliant, plus vexant... et plus mensonger. 

Claude Lévy-Strauss dans Tristes Tropiques (Ed. Plon, 1955), insistait sur l'idée que "chaque culture se développe grâce à ses échanges avec d’autres cultures. Mais il faut, ajoutait-il, que chacune y mette une certaine résistance, sinon, très vite, elle n’aurait plus rien à échanger''. Il est de toute première importance que nous réfléchissions à cette mise en garde : à un moment de notre histoire où les cuistres s'étonnent que nous prétendions avoir ''des souches'' et des racines profondes, que reste-t-il de spécifiquement français ? Que subsiste-t-il de la France ''éternelle'' ? Qu’est-ce que l’esprit français ? Qui sont les français, comment se définissent-ils (hors de ces faux français-sur-le-papier dont parlent nos croque-morts rouges), et comment vivent-ils ? Quelles sont leurs valeurs ? Quel est le poids résilient (du latin resilire = résister) de la langue française, en France et dans le monde ?

Une langue définit une Nation autant qu’elle en est le reflet, mais elle est très loin de n’être que cela : au-delà d'un langage, le français est toute une histoire, une culture, un système de pensée et de valeurs, des modes de vie, des caractéristiques individuelles et collectives (Cf. André Siegfried, L’ Ame des peuples, Hachette, 1950.), et la détermination de nombreuses caractéristiques dans pratiquement tous les domaines de la vie. Contrairement à ce que racontent aujourd'hui nos cuistres patentés, une langue n’est pas qu’un vecteur de communication entre les hommes, elle est également porteuse d’une vision du monde, et cette vision s’étend bien au-delà de situations locales voire nationales, puisque ce vaste ensemble de ''langue / nation / culture / parler'' que l’on appelle "la Francophonie" aurait dû être le véritable véhicule de façons convergentes de partager émotions, souvenirs, sensations, fraternité, ambitions, et même rêves.

J’ai encore en mémoire les jolies phrases des  "pères fondateurs" de cet émouvant espoir universel autour du français, cette langue de la culture, disait Léopold Sédar Senghor, en union avec Habib Bourguiba, Hamani Diori, le "petit Prince" Norodom Sihanouk et Félix Houphouët-Boigny, en un temps où des leaders de grande dimension savaient offrir un espoir au monde et à leurs peuples... Sédar Senghor avait ajouté, dans son discours inaugural : "La création d’une communauté de langue française [...] exprime le besoin de notre époque, où l’homme, menacé par le progrès scientifique dont il est l’auteur, veut construire un nouvel humanisme qui soit en même temps à sa propre mesure et à celle du cosmos". Il reste tout de même de cette belle ambition quelque 250 millions de "locuteurs" français dans le monde.... dont certains ont l'air bien partis pour parler russe ou chinois d'ici... pas très longtemps.

Le monde, alors, paraissait infiniment plus amical, harmonieux, courtois, civilisé ! Que ce temps me paraît lointain, au moment où j’écris ces lignes ! Est-ce mon âge qui me le fait regretter si fort, ou n’était-il pas, tout simplement, plus aimable aux hommes ? ''Le progrès'', avez-vous dit ? Mais où le voyez-vous, grands dieux, à part la médecine (et encore : tempérée par le honteux –pour elle-- épisode ''covid'' où ses membres se sont couverts de ridicule) ? La vérité force à dire que la France, en ce temps-là, était et représentait encore quelque chose dans le monde. Vaincue en apparence en 1940, elle avait réussi à redresser la tête et –c'est la principale différence avec les tristes jours que nous vivons-- elle s'était forgé un avenir autre que la seule perspective actuelle d'une inter-minable descente vers des enfers dont personne ne se risque –par terreur du résultat-- à évaluer la profondeur.

Pour que le tableau soit complet, il faut ajouter que le monde, alors, était dirigé par de véritables ''grands hommes'' de la politique –pas de petits boutiquiers incapables de voir au delà du bout de leur rue. Et la France, parmi ces géants (qui, comparés aux nabots actuels, paraissent encore plus immenses), tenait son rang. A côté d'un De Gaulle, d'un Pompidou, d'un Couve de Murville (qu'on peut aimer ou pas : je parle ici de leur stature et de leur envergure d'hommes d'Etat)... que pèsent un Macron, un Attal, un Séjourné (non, ne riez pas : ce serait cruel !) ? Quel rapport peut-il y avoir entre un Ministère de la Culture avec Malraux et un autre avec l'arriviste Rachida Dati (pour qui je voterai pourtant, pour la Mairie de Paris : ''N'importe quoi, mais pas Hidalgo''!) ?

Regardons le triste spectacle que nous offre notre lamentable personnel politique à qui il faut 3 semaines pour nommer des ''n'importe qui'' à des ministères dans lesquels on peut prétendre sans se trmper qu'il ou elle ne fera rien de bon, rien d'utile, rien qui aille dans le bon sens... et rien du tout, d'ailleurs ! Notre école effondrée a-t-elle, alors, une seule chance, même toute petite, de promouvoir un moyen de communication entre les hommes… ce qu'elle a été pendant tant de siècles, sous cet ''Ancien régime'' qu'on nous a appris à détester... alors qu'il n'avait rien ou très peu à voir avec les mensonges du discours officiel devenu ''ambiant'' : le français était ''lingua franca'', en ce temps-là !

Tant d'années plus tard, nous n'avons plus rien à proposer, si ce n'est quelques très mauvaises idées sur des sujets sans le moindre intérêt réel qui ne sont là que pour détourner tous les regards des vrais problèmes que posent le monde, le mouvement et le progrès. La haine, la jalousie, l'envie, les petits calculs mesquins, et un désir de vengeance sont seuls savamment entretenus par des leaders sans leadership et indignes, comme autant de ''non-réponses'' à tous les défis qui frappent violemment à notre porte... pendant que eux discutent de sexualité pervertie, de ''genre'' suicidaire, de l'égalité de ce qui ne saurait l'être juste parce que ce n'est pas à cette aune que le problème se mesure.

L'Empire byzantin, avait-on coutume de dire au temps où les écoliers et les lycéens savaient ce que recouvraient ces mots, serait mort de se disputer sur le sexe des anges. C'est évidement un bobard de plus, mais notre formidable civilisation, la plus prometteuse que l'Homme ait jamais su construire, a décidé de se suicider en se disputant sur le sexe des démons. On voit tout de suite le progrès... Et pendant que le monde entre dans une violence que le XX ème siècle avait, hélas, trop connue trop longtemps... que se passe-t-il en France ?

La sinistre option Bayrou enfin levée (Ouf ! On a eu chaud ! Imaginez qu'il ait accepté un poste !), il ne reste plus qu’une voie ouverte pour Attal : décevoir ! Après avoir organisé un suspense (?) de 4 semaines perdues autour du déplorable ''casting'' gouvernemental, il a donc nommé ou, pire, re-nommé une quinzaine d’inconnus et d'ex-ministres ex-sortis par la petite porte (cf Nicole Belloubet, exfiltrée du Ministère de la Justice en 2020, et infiltrée à l’Education quatre ans plus tard, pour le malheur de tous), le tout dans l’indifférence totale des citoyens écoeurés.

Seul résultat tangible de cette triste séquence : l'usure prématurée du ''le plus jeune etc..'' (NDLR - le coup du ''le plus jeune'', on nous l'a fait (n+1) fois, depuis Giscard... On l'a toujours regretté et payé très cher). Mais le ''baromètre'' Huff-Post est formel : en un mois, Gabriel Attal a perdu 6 points de popularité, soit 3 fois plus que ses 2 devanciers dans le même temps. Ça doit être ça, le ''réarmement'' promis par Macron ! Et pendant ce temps, Poutine se marre, sur tous les écrans de télévision du monde. Mais peut-on le lui reprocher ?

H-Cl.

[linkfortune138]

History of cambodia

The history of Cambodia is rich and complex, spanning thousands of years and marked by periods of great prosperity, cultural achievements, and political upheaval. Here is an overview of key periods and events in Cambodian history:

Ancient Civilizations: The earliest known civilization in Cambodia dates back to the Funan Kingdom in the 1st century CE. Funan was succeeded by the Chenla Kingdom in the 6th century, which eventually split into two rival states: Chenla Land to the north and Chenla Water to the south.

Angkor Empire: The Khmer Empire, centered around the city of Angkor, rose to prominence in the 9th century under King Jayavarman II. Angkor became one of the most powerful and prosperous empires in Southeast Asia, known for its impressive architecture, including the iconic Angkor Wat temple complex. The empire reached its zenith during the reign of King Jayavarman VII in the 12th century.

Thai and Vietnamese Incursions: The decline of the Khmer Empire began in the 13th century due to invasions by the Thai and Vietnamese kingdoms. Angkor was sacked by the Ayutthaya Kingdom in 1431, leading to the eventual abandonment of the city.

Colonial Rule: Cambodia became a French protectorate in 1863 after King Norodom signed a treaty with the French colonial authorities. Under French rule, Cambodia was governed as part of French Indochina along with Vietnam and Laos.

Independence and Turmoil: Cambodia gained independence from France in 1953 under King Norodom Sihanouk. However, political instability and internal conflict plagued the country in the following decades, exacerbated by the Vietnam War and the rise of the Khmer Rouge insurgency.

Khmer Rouge Regime: The Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, seized power in Cambodia in 1975 after the fall of Phnom Penh. The Khmer Rouge regime implemented radical communist policies, resulting in widespread atrocities, forced labor, and the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2 million people during the Cambodian genocide.

Vietnamese Occupation: In 1979, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime. Cambodia became a Vietnamese-backed socialist state known as the People's Republic of Kampuchea, leading to years of conflict and instability.

Peace Accords and Reconstruction: In the 1990s, Cambodia transitioned to a constitutional monarchy and began the process of national reconciliation and reconstruction. The Paris Peace Accords in 1991 laid the groundwork for democratic elections and the establishment of a multiparty system.

Modern Cambodia: Cambodia has made significant progress in the decades since the end of the civil war, experiencing economic growth, infrastructure development, and improvements in living standards. However, challenges remain, including political corruption, human rights abuses, and social inequality.

Despite its tumultuous history, Cambodia continues to be home to a rich cultural heritage, vibrant traditions, and resilient people who are working towards a brighter future for their country.

[ilaw-at-panitik]

News item: Khmer Rouge guerillas, whose 1975-78 rule cost the lives of a million Cambodians, are shipping flowers to beautify a Western Cambodian town before the visit of Prince Norodom Sihanouk.

Say it with flowers: Carnations and hibiscuses vivid as blood. Orchids hanging as held breath. Petals of roses tender as an ache, Throbbing in the mind, blooming into a million Thorns. And in the air, the leaves releasing Precious oxygen— the air turning green, Pure, tingling with expectation.

Danton Remoto, "Flowers" (Published in Budhi, 1997)

[southeastasianarchaeology]

Unearthed from the Deep: Cambodia's Hidden Maritime Heritage

via Post Khmer, 05 September 2023: Cambodian authorities have recovered 1,729 artifacts dating between 300 and 400 years old from the seabed, offering new insights into the country's historic maritime trade. Article is in Khmer.

via Post Khmer, 05 September 2023: Cambodian authorities have recovered 1,729 artifacts dating between 300 and 400 years old from the seabed, offering new insights into the country’s historic maritime trade. Article is in Khmer. ​លោក ​ហួត សំណាង ប្រធាន​នាយកដ្ឋាន​បុរាណវត្ថុ នៃ​អគ្គនាយកដ្ឋាន​បេតិកភណ្ឌ​នៃ​ក្រសួង​វប្បធម៌ ​និង​វិចិត្រ​សិល្បៈ​ប្រាប់ ភ្នំពេញ​ ប៉ុស្តិ៍ នៅ​ថ្ងៃទី​ ៥ ខែ​សីហា​ថា…

[hengheng7]

Phumĭ Kaôh Rœssei, Preah Sihanouk, Cambodia