The devastation of war undermines societies, not only through human loss but through the destruction of the institutions that transmit knowledge across generations. For Theara Thun, APARC’s Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow on Southeast Asia (Fall 2025), the reconstruction of education in post-Khmer Rouge Cambodia offers an essential vantage point for understanding how countries rebuild political, intellectual, and social foundations after mass violence. His background informs Thun’s interest in post-conflict education. 

“As someone who was born and attended school in post-war Cambodia, I experienced firsthand how the educational system functioned in a society recovering from conflict and mass atrocities.” He describes how schools “prioritized basic learning and often had to rely on limited resources and improvised materials.” These experiences, he notes, “have deeply shaped my identity and continue to influence me to this day.”

His research investigates how educational systems emerge and evolve in the aftermath of conflict. As he explains, his project examines “the evolution, roles, and characteristics of educational systems established in the aftermath of social upheaval and mass violence.” Using Cambodia as a case study, he analyzes how the higher education system responded to the profound transformations that followed the Khmer Rouge regime and subsequent civil war, situating universities “within the broader processes of national recovery and development.”

Thun discussed this work in a recent Southeast Asia Program seminar, where he explored the social, political, and geopolitical dynamics of rebuilding an education system from near-total destruction. During the Khmer Rouge period, only 50 of 725 university instructors survived, and many Cambodian children who grew up during the 1970s and early 1980s became illiterate. By tracing the expansion of Cambodia’s higher education sector from eight public universities in 1997 to 189 institutions by 2024, Thun highlights both progress and persistent structural challenges in an environment marked by political constraints, student mobilization, transnational influence, and competing visions of national development.

From Personal Experience to Methodological Insight

Thun’s methodological approach developed gradually and reflects both personal experience and scholarly training. Thun employs archival analysis, textual interpretation, qualitative interviews, and fieldwork. He explains that over time he has worked to “integrate archival research, close textual analysis, and qualitative fieldwork to create a methodology that is attentive to both lived experience and documentary evidence.”

Studying this topic presents significant barriers. Thun notes that “gathering concrete evidence, especially on sensitive topics such as corruption, presents a significant challenge.” Access to key informants is also difficult, since many policymakers or administrators “may be reluctant to participate due to privacy concerns, political sensitivities, or fear of repercussions.” At the same time, he emphasizes that international organizations such as the World Bank, UNICEF, and UNESCO have preserved extensive written records, which are “abundant and easily accessible.”

Education as a Contested Arena

A central theme in Thun’s work is that education in post-conflict Cambodia should be understood not only as a developmental sector but also as “an arena where youth, states or leaders, and international actors negotiate influence and change.” In his seminar, he highlighted several illustrative dynamics like student protest, PhD inflation, and the geopolitics of post-war education

Large-scale demonstrations are rare, but small protests occur regularly. Thun discussed the 2016 case in which 99 students who failed oral examinations for medical school protested the outcome, prompting direct intervention by the prime minister on the grounds that the country needed more doctors. These episodes show that protests function as forms of negotiation for inclusion in an education system that carries high moral and economic stakes.

Thun also examines what he calls the “unusual growth” of PhD degree holders in Cambodia, including from diploma mills, even as universities face a shortage of qualified faculty. He notes that many PhD holders occupy political positions, that one private university granted 280 PhDs in 2022, and that the symbolic meaning of the degree often outweighs academic rigor. This pattern is linked to the legacy of conflict. As Thun explains, many senior officials “lost an opportunity to pursue their higher education” due to the Khmer Rouge era, and the pursuit of doctoral titles can serve as a form of compensation for that loss.

Reconstruction was also heavily shaped by external actors. In the 1980s, Vietnam and Russia played central roles by supplying teachers and establishing new programs. Today, China has become a major influence, supporting technical schools, integrating Mandarin into public curricula, partnering with Cambodian universities, and drawing Cambodian families to Chinese schools. Thun notes that “Chinese influence is very strong and will stay there for a long time.”

Yet these engagements also generate tension. Anti-Vietnamese sentiment has fueled public criticism of Vietnamese-supported programs. At the same time, nationalist sentiment can be mobilized within educational spaces, complicating transnational collaboration.

Research in a Constrained Environment

Thun emphasizes that discussions of academic freedom must contend with political realities. Universities, including private institutions, remain closely tied to state authority. Many topics are considered too sensitive, and regulatory structures surrounding accreditation and faculty status are still evolving.

Nevertheless, he identifies signs of incremental reform. New ranking systems for academic positions are emerging, and some regulatory attention has turned toward diploma mills. He argues that more concrete action is necessary to ensure that “good PhDs can have some visibility” and that higher education can serve its intended function.

Intellectual Community and Growth at APARC

Thun describes his time at APARC as intellectually enriching. “One of the greatest advantages of being at APARC is its vibrant scholarly community,” he observes. Exposure to seminars, conferences, and diverse methodological approaches has broadened his perspectives and strengthened his work. He highlights frequent conversations with his officemate and fellow Lee Kong Chian NUS-Stanford Fellow, Professor Gavin Shatkin, noting that “we have many mutual friends, as both of us work on Southeast Asia.” He has also benefited from auditing a course taught by Professor Joel Cabrita in the History Department. Cabrita’s teaching approach, he explains, has inspired him “in many ways, including her innovative approaches to course design and lecture delivery.”

Thun offers thoughtful guidance to emerging scholars. “I would suggest staying open to interdisciplinary approaches, as they often provide richer perspectives on complex issues.” He also encourages active engagement in scholarly networks and international collaborations, which can “offer support, critical feedback, and new directions for your work.”

Looking ahead, Thun plans to continue expanding his research on intellectual formation and identity in Cambodia and Southeast Asia. He intends to deepen comparative work, pursue collaborations across disciplines and regions, and incorporate more digital humanities tools into his methodology. “I am interested in developing new comparative projects and integrating more digital humanities tools into my methodology,” he notes.