Beyond Nationalism: A Response to ‘Why Cambodian Gen Z Prefers Thai Culture Over Khmer Tradition’

A Cambodian celebrity and members of the public wearing traditional Khmer krama. Supplied

#Opinion

The article titled “Why Cambodian Gen Z Prefers Thai Culture Over Khmer Tradition?” and published by Thai webpage ASEAN Skyline Rising, was less an objective analysis than an opinion piece that employed sweeping generalisations about Khmer youth while using provocative language likely to inflame social sensitivities.

Rather than encouraging mutual understanding between neighbouring countries, it reflected an attitude of cultural condescension toward Cambodia and demonstrates a limited understanding of both history and the ethics that underpin the protection and promotion of cultural heritage. Cultural dialogue should be guided by respect, scholarship and evidence, not by stereotypes or nationalist narratives.

The central premise of the article is fundamentally flawed. Young people everywhere are naturally attracted to innovation, creativity, digital content, fashion, music, entertainment and emerging global trends. This is not unique to Cambodia. Generation Z across Asia and the world enjoys Japanese anime, Korean popular culture, American entertainment, Chinese digital platforms, European fashion and cultural products from many other countries.

Khmer youth are no different. They appreciate the creativity of other nations while remaining proud of their own cultural identity. Khmer traditions, including classical dance, traditional clothing, the sbay, religious ceremonies, cuisine, hospitality and the Khmer smile, continue to be practiced, celebrated and passed on from one generation to the next. Appreciating another country’s culture does not imply abandoning one’s own.

Indeed, the people of a nation with a well-established culture, civilisation and a long, well-documented history naturally possess a profound sense of respect, affection and pride in their heritage. These sentiments are deeply rooted and cannot easily be uprooted through distortion, misinformation or incitement from outside.

The influence of foreign cultures and their temporary popularity among Generation Z, or any generation, is ultimately transient. It is like flowers arranged in a vase: admired for a time, but replaced once they fade. By contrast, cultural identity, when firmly rooted in history and lived traditions, endures across generations.

Ironically, while some commentators portray Cambodia as borrowing from Thailand, recent developments reveal a different concern. On July 1, the Office of the Royal Society of Thailand officially introduced the RST-KHOMTHAI digital typeface and published a guide entitled “Khom Thai Script”. The initiative promotes the term “Thai Khom” despite the historical fact that “Khom” was an exonym historically used by the Siamese and Mon peoples to refer to the Khmer people.

More broadly, this initiative contributes to narratives that seek to reinterpret the historical origins of Thai territory, language and script by presenting Thailand as the inheritor of the “Khom” legacy. Such reinterpretations deserve careful scholarly scrutiny because they concern historical evidence rather than modern political narratives.

The historical record is well documented through archaeology, epigraphy and decades of international scholarship. Stone inscriptions found across Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar demonstrate the long-established presence of the civilisation from the Funan period onward. The Khmer script emerged in the seventh century from South Asian writing traditions, while the Thai script developed centuries later through adaptations of earlier Khmer writing.

These are established subjects of historical and linguistic research and should be examined through evidence rather than nationalist interpretations. Historical revisionism, if repeated often enough, risks confusing future generations and even influencing modern digital knowledge systems, including artificial intelligence, which increasingly relies on online information of varying quality.

Today, concerns extend beyond historical narratives.

The serious problems have emerged over the representation and attribution of both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, including the promotion of replicas of Angkor Wat, claims regarding Apsara dance, the presentation of traditional Khmer attire such as the sbay and other elements of Khmer cultural identity including Khmer wedding tradition.

Cambodia and Thailand share centuries of interaction, exchange and mutual influence. The younger generations of both countries deserve a future founded on mutual respect instead of historical distortion and cultural competition. The way forward is not through nationalism, cultural appropriation or the notion that “might makes right”, but through respect for historical evidence, recognition of cultural origins, ethical stewardship of heritage and a genuine commitment to preserving the diverse cultural legacy of Southeast Asia for the benefit of all humanity.

Roth Santepheap is described as a Phnom Penh-based geopolitical analyst. The views and opinions expressed are his own.

-Phnom Penh Post-