---

Personnellement, je n'aime pas ce genre de question, elles sont baisées, de même que le sont les questions issues de la l'alinea a la loi sur la colonisation.

---

---

Je refuse cette vision politique et manicheene des chose: l'histoire est un ensemble de fait, et doit etre considéré comme tel.

---

---

---

Personnellement, je n'aime pas ce genre de question, elles sont baisées, de même que le sont les questions issues de la l'alinea a la loi sur la colonisation.

---

Non, je ne ferais pas ma blague !
Non, je ne ferais pas de blague à 2 riels !

---

---

La fierté de son passé emmène des gens à vivre dans l’illusion et les rendre bête et arrogant.

- çà dépend des individus, de leur culture, de leur niveau d'études.

Croit que l’on est le meilleur, le supérieur …alors que le temps de la gloire est révolu, est quelque chose de vraiment ridicule.

- Rien n'est moins sûr !

Il faut plutôt fière de ce que l’on est capable de faire de nos propres mains et non de ceux que faisaient nos aïeules il y a 9 siècles.

---

---

Oxymore n. m. Figure de style qui consiste à placer l'un à côté de l'autre, deux mots opposés.

---

---

Le Cambodge n'est pas dans le classement. Le Laos et le Vietnam sont les deux derniers du TOP 20 par contre.




PARADE’s Annual List Of...The World’s 10 Worst Dictators


More From PARADE
The World’s 10 Worst Dictators—2005
The World’s 10 Worst Dictators—2004
The 10 Worst Living Dictators—2003

By David Wallechinsky
Published: January 22, 2006

A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. The worst commit terrible human-rights abuses. This present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. While the three worst from 2005 have retained their places, two on last year’s list (Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan) have slipped out of the Top 10—not because their conduct has improved but because other dictators have gotten worse.


1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

Since February 2003, Bashir’s campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians in Darfur in western Sudan and driven 2 million people from their homes. The good news is that Bashir’s army and the Janjaweed militia that he supports have all but stopped burning down villages in Darfur. The bad news is why they’ve stopped: There are few villages left to burn. The attacks now are aimed at refugee camps. While the media have called these actions “a humanitarian tragedy,” Bashir himself has escaped major condemnation. In 2005, Bashir signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in non-Islamic southern Sudan and allowed its leader, John Garang, to become the nation’s vice president. But Garang died in July in a helicopter crash, and Bashir’s troops still occupy the south.


2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

While the outside world focuses on Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons program, domestically he runs the world’s most tightly controlled society. North Korea continues to rank last in the index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and for the 34th straight year it earned the worst possible score on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in “reeducation camps.” Malnourishment is widespread: According to the United Nations World Food Program, the average 7-year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter than a South Korean boy the same age and more than 20 pounds lighter.


3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

In November 2005, without warning, Than Shwe moved his entire government from Rangoon (Yangon), the capital for the last 120 years, to Pyinmana, a remote area 245 miles away. Civil servants were given two days’ notice and are forbidden from resigning. Burma leads the world in the use of children as soldiers, and the regime is notorious for using forced labor on construction projects and as porters for the army in war zones. The long-standing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and Than Shwe’s most feared opponent, recently was extended for six months. Just to drive near her heavily guarded home is to risk arrest.


4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

Life in Zimbabwe has gone from bad to worse: It has the world’s highest inflation rate, 80% unemployment and an HIV/AIDS rate of more than 20%. Life expectancy has declined since 1988 from 62 to 38 years. Farming has collapsed since 2000, when Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms, giving most of them to political allies with no background in agriculture. In 2005, Mugabe launched Operation Murambatsvina (Clean the Filth), the forcible eviction of some 700,000 people from their homes or businesses—“to restore order and sanity,” says the government. But locals say the reason was to forestall demonstrations as the economy deteriorates.


5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

Until 2005, the worst excesses of Karimov’s regime had taken place in the torture rooms of his prisons. But on May 13, he ordered a mass killing that could not be concealed. In the city of Andijan, 23 businessmen, held in prison and awaiting a verdict, were freed by their supporters, who then held an open meeting in the town square. An estimated 10,000 people gathered, expecting government officials to come and listen to their grievances. Instead, Karimov sent the army, which massacred hundreds of men, women and children. A 2003 law made Karimov and all members of his family immune from prosecution forever.


6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.


7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so.


8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has created the world’s most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. The latest examples of his government-by-whim include bans on car radios, lip-synching and playing recorded music on TV or at weddings. Niyazov also has closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries. He launched an attack on his nation’s health-care system, firing 15,000 health-care workers and replacing most of them with untrained military conscripts. He announced the closing of all hospitals outside the capital and ordered Turkmenistan’s physicians to give up the Hippocratic Oath and to swear allegiance to him instead.


9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

Over the past four years, the rulers of Iran have undone the reforms that were emerging in the nation. The hardliners completed this reversal by winning the parliamentary elections in 2004 —after disqualifying 44% of the candidates—and with the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2005. Ultimately, however, the country is run by the 12-man Guardian Council, overseen by the Ayatollah Khamane’i, which has the right to veto any law that the elected government passes. Khamane’i has shut down the free press, tortured journalists and ordered the execution of homosexual males.


10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea. There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky has reported on world figures for PARADE, including an interview with Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. For more on the worst dictators, visit parade.com on the Web.

---

---

Culturellement, je pense que le Cambodge pourrait être fier de son passé. Mais politiquement, nos hommes politiques ne commettaient que des erreurs, ce depuis le coup d'état du 1970 ! Peut-être l'éducation khmère y était pour quelque chose. En effet, l'éducation khmère, selon Cambodge Soir, était et est basée sur l'assistanat, c'est-à-dire qu'elle n'éduque pas les enfants à devenir des leaders mais des assistants !

Si on observait bien l'histoire, cela se confirmait. En effet, aucun roi, aucun gouvernement khmer, depuis le protectorat, était vraiment seul à diriger le Cambodge. Il y avait toujours un grand-frère quelque part qui guidait ou influençait...

Si, peut-être, entre 1954 et 1970 et encore...

---

---

Sereypheap a écrit

---

Culturellement, je pense que le Cambodge pourrait être fier de son passé. Mais politiquement, nos hommes politiques ne commettaient que des erreurs, ce depuis le coup d'état du 1970 ! Peut-être l'éducation khmère y était pour quelque chose. En effet, l'éducation khmère, selon Cambodge Soir, était et est basée sur l'assistanat, c'est-à-dire qu'elle n'éduque pas les enfants à devenir des leaders mais des assistants !

Si on observait bien l'histoire, cela se confirmait. En effet, aucun roi, aucun gouvernement khmer, depuis le protectorat, était vraiment seul à diriger le Cambodge. Il y avait toujours un grand-frère quelque part qui guidait ou influençait...

Si, peut-être, entre 1954 et 1970 et encore...

---

Bonjour à tous,

Nos hommes politiques commettent des erreurs seulement depuis le coup d’Etat de 1970 ? Et avant non ?

---

---

Puisque notre ami Sereypheap a évoqué « les grands frères » de nos dirigeants, il me semble que les grands frères du prince Sihanouk étaient, par ordre décroissant, Zhou Enlai, Kim Il Sung et Hô Chi Minh.

---

---

Désolé, si mon petit exposé heurtait la sensibilité des admirateurs inconditionnels de notre ancien monarque, mais j’ai perdu plus de la moitié de ma famille.

---

---

Dans les années 60, lycéen encore, je sens bien fier d'être cambodgien (je salue tous les anciens de Yukanthor). Fier de notre passé glorieux.
Mais je commence à perdre petit à petit cette ardeur.
-Les bêtises du clan LON Nol - Sirimatak et leurs saloperies.
-Le génocide des KR
-la soumission vietnamienne
-les faux nationalistes …
- la crédulité de tout un peuple
-L'incompétence et la manipulation du nouveau cadre dirigeant (il
préfère les coups bas aux combats loyaux)

me pousse à dire depuis que je ne suis plus fier de rien.
L'Angkor Wat n'est qu'un témoignage muet d'un passé glorieux,
perdu à jamais.

---

---

Seun nmott a écrit

---

Dans les années 60, lycéen encore, je sens bien fier d'être cambodgien (je salue tous les anciens de Yukanthor). Fier de notre passé glorieux.
Mais je commence à perdre petit à petit cette ardeur.
-Les bêtises du clan LON Nol - Sirimatak et leurs saloperies.
-Le génocide des KR
-la soumission vietnamienne
-les faux nationalistes …
- la crédulité de tout un peuple
-L'incompétence et la manipulation du nouveau cadre dirigeant (il
préfère les coups bas aux combats loyaux)

me pousse à dire depuis que je ne suis plus fier de rien.
L'Angkor Wat n'est qu'un témoignage muet d'un passé glorieux,
perdu à jamais.

---

Non Seun nmott ! je comprends que tu sois amère !
Mais Angkor : la 8.Merveille du Monde !
C'est à ces beaux ouvrages qu'il faut vous "accrocher", pour ne pas sombrer dans le découragement.
Car du courage il en faut, et baucoup de patience, pour voir la condition au pays s'arranger.
Passé glorieux, avenir encore incertainn mais pas déespéré pour autant !
Vive les Khmers ! Les Vrais ! Et il y en a beaucoup.

Lorsque tu te promènes dans les galéries de ce temple, seul, en fin de journée, tu entends des bruits, tu le "sens" ce passé, lien vers le présent.

sothy

Pas vrai Vicheay ?

---