The Star Malaysia

Relocation or forced eviction?

-

IT’S been more than a year since Yem srey Pin moved with her family from the village where she was born on Cambodia’s Angkor Unesco World Heritage site to Run Ta Ek, a dusty new settlement about 25km away.

Hers is one of about 5,000 families relocated from the sprawling archaeolog­ical site, one of south-east Asia’s top tourist draws, by Cambodian authoritie­s in an ongoing programme that Amnesty Internatio­nal has condemned as a “gross violation of internatio­nal human rights law.” Another 5,000 families are still due to be moved.

The allegation­s have drawn strong expression­s of concern from Unesco and a spirited rebuttal from Cambodian authoritie­s, who say they’re doing nothing more than protecting the heritage land from illegal squatters.

Yem srey Pin’s single-room home is a far cry better than the makeshift tent she lived in with her husband and five children when they first arrived, which did little to protect from the monsoon rains and blew down in the winds.

And their 600 sq m property is significan­tly bigger than the 90 sq m plot they occupied illegally in the village of Khvean on the Angkor site.

But the 35-year-old is also in debt from building the new house.

Her husband finds less constructi­on work nearby and his wages are lower, and there are no wild fruits or vegetables she can forage, nor rice paddies where she can collect crabs to sell at her mother’s stand.

“After more than a year here I haven’t been able to save any money and I haven’t earned anything,” she said.

The Angkor site is one of the largest archaeolog­ical sites in the world, spread across some 400 sq km in northweste­rn Cambodia.

It contains the ruins of Khmer Empire capitals from the 9th to 15th centuries, including the temple of Angkor Wat.

When it was inscribed as a World Heritage site in 1992, it was named a “living heritage site” whose local population observed ancestral traditions and cultural practices that have disappeare­d elsewhere.

still, Unesco at the time noted that Angkor was under “dual pressures” from some 100,000 inhabitant­s in 112 historic settlement­s who “constantly try to expand their dwelling areas,” and from encroachme­nt from the nearby town of siem Reap.

Cambodia’s answer was a plan to entice the 10,000 families illegally squatting in the area to resettle at Run Ta Ek and another site, as well as to encourage some from the 112 historic settlement­s to relocate as their families grow in size.

“The number of people were on the rise, including those coming illegally,” said Long Kosal, spokesman for the Cambodian agency known as Apsara that’s responsibl­e for managing the Angkor site.

“What we did was that we provided an option.”

Cambodia began moving people to Run Ta Ek in 2022, giving those who volunteere­d to leave their homes in the Angkor area plots of land, a two-month supply of canned food and rice, a tarp and 30 sheets of corrugated metal to use to build a home.

Benefits also included a Poor Card, essentiall­y a state welfare programme giving them around 310,000 riel (about Us$75) monthly for 10 years.

In a November report, Amnesty questioned how voluntary the relocation­s actually were, saying many people they interviewe­d were threatened or coerced into moving and that the relocation­s were more “forced evictions in disguise”.

“After more than a year here I haven’t been able to save any money and I haven’t earned anything.” Yem Srey Pin

The rights group cited a speech from former Prime Minister Hun Sen in which he said people “must either leave the Angkor site soon and receive some form of compensati­on or be evicted at a later time and receive nothing.”

Amnesty also noted Hun Sen’s track record, saying that under his long-time rule Cambodian authoritie­s had been responsibl­e for several forced evictions elsewhere that it alleged “constitute­d gross violations of human rights.”

It said Run Ta Ek – with dirt roads, insufficie­nt drainage, poor sanitation and other issues – did not fulfil internatio­nal obligation­s under human rights treaties to provide people adequate housing.

That has now changed: homes with outhouses have been built, roads paved, and sewers installed. Primitive hand pumps made of blue PVC piping provide water, and electricit­y has been run in.

There’s a school, a health centre, a temple; bus routes were added, and a market area was built but is not yet operating, Long Kosal said.

But Amnesty maintains there are major concerns. Among other things, families have had to take on heavy debt to build even basic houses, and there is little work to be found, said Montse Ferrer, the head of Amnesty’s research team investigat­ing the Angkor Wat resettleme­nts.

“They had a clear source of income at the time – tourism – but also other sources of income linked to the location at Angkor,” she said.

“They are now at least 30 minutes away from the site and can no longer access these sources.”

Following Amnesty’s scathing report, Unesco moved up the timeline for Cambodia’s submission of its own report on the state of conservati­on at the Angkor site, specifical­ly asking for the allegation­s to be addressed.

In that report, submitted to Unesco in March, Cambodia said it had not violated any internatio­nal laws with the relocation­s, saying it was only moving people involved in the “illegal occupation of heritage land” and that in Run Ta Ek many were now property owners for the first time in their lives.

Unesco said it would not comment on the situation until it has been able to analyse Cambodia’s response. It referred to previous comments from Lazare Eloundou Assomo, director of the Unesco World Heritage Centre, who stressed that the agency had “always categorica­lly rejected the use of forced evictions as a tool for management of World Heritage listed sites”.

Yem Srey Pin said even though Run Ta Ek has slowly improved since she arrived in February 2023, and her new home will be paid off fairly soon, she’d rather return to her village if it were possible.

But with almost all of the village’s 400 families moving out, Yem Srey Pin says there’s nothing left for her there.

“I can’t live in my old village alone,” she said.

 ?? — ap ?? Tourists visiting Bayon temple at angkor Wat temple complex in Siem reap province, Cambodia.
— ap Tourists visiting Bayon temple at angkor Wat temple complex in Siem reap province, Cambodia.
 ?? —ap ?? Kheang pichphanit­h, 24, sits next to her onemonth-old twin babies at her home in runtaek village in Siem reap province.
—ap Kheang pichphanit­h, 24, sits next to her onemonth-old twin babies at her home in runtaek village in Siem reap province.
 ?? — ap ?? Chhem Hay, 37, stands at a main door of her house under constructi­on at run Ta Ek village in Siem reap province, Cambodia. She decided last June to take the opportunit­y to move from the village where she’d lived since she was a young teenager to the new settlement. Cambodia’s programme to relocate people living on the famous angkor archaeolog­ical site is drawing internatio­nal concern over possible human rights abuses.
— ap Chhem Hay, 37, stands at a main door of her house under constructi­on at run Ta Ek village in Siem reap province, Cambodia. She decided last June to take the opportunit­y to move from the village where she’d lived since she was a young teenager to the new settlement. Cambodia’s programme to relocate people living on the famous angkor archaeolog­ical site is drawing internatio­nal concern over possible human rights abuses.
 ?? ??
 ?? ??
 ?? — ap ?? (Top) long Kosal at his office in Siem reap province. (Below) yem Sam-eng, 43, who is among the families relocated from Cambodia’s archaeolog­ical site, with his cow behind his new home at run Ta Ek village in Siem reap province, Cambodia.
— ap (Top) long Kosal at his office in Siem reap province. (Below) yem Sam-eng, 43, who is among the families relocated from Cambodia’s archaeolog­ical site, with his cow behind his new home at run Ta Ek village in Siem reap province, Cambodia.
 ?? — ap ?? (Top) yem Srey pin’s children; and (right) boys on a bike in run Ta Ek village.
— ap (Top) yem Srey pin’s children; and (right) boys on a bike in run Ta Ek village.
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Malaysia