U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–130PDF 2015

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES BY

VIETNAMESE AUTHORITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 17, 2015

Serial No. 114–84

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Nguyen Van Hai (Dieu Cay), writer, Free Journalists Club of Vietnam ..... 6

Mrs. Doan Thi Hong-Anh (wife of a torture victim) ............................................. 11

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS ...................... 16

The Reverend Nguyen Manh Hung, Vietnam Interfaith Council ........................ 26

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Nguyen Van Hai (Dieu Cay): Prepared statement ........................................ 9

Mrs. Doan Thi Hong-Anh: Prepared statement .................................................... 14

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 19

The Reverend Nguyen Manh Hung: Prepared statement .................................... 28

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 40

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 41

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Photographs of sheds for storing funeral objects and victims of associated 

violence .............................................................................................................. 42

Photographs of police brutality against people of faith .................................... 47

(1)

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES BY VIETNAMESE 

AUTHORITIES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in room 

2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and let me 

begin first by expressing my apologies for being late in convening 

the hearing. 

There has been a number of crises today. One of them is in 

Ghana. As you know, this subcommittee is Africa, Global Health, 

Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and they 

have had serious floods. So we have been working with the Ambassador from Ghana to try to ensure that sufficient funding for those 

victims is provided. 

So I pushed back the schedule a bit so I express my apologies 

to our witnesses as well as to our friends in the audience. I am 

truly sorry. 

Let me begin with some opening comments, and Karen Bass is 

on her way as well as some of the other members of the subcommittee. 

I would like to begin by recognizing the distinguished Vietnamese-American leaders who are visiting Washington to discuss 

with Members of Congress issues of concern to the community including issues of freedom and human rights in Vietnam. 

Our former colleague, Anh Cao, is here. Anh was the first Vietnamese-American to be elected to Congress, did yeoman’s work in 

Boat People SOS, as Dr. Thang notes so well. 

I met him many, many years ago, a very distinguished Member 

of Congress. There was no greater advocate for the people of Vietnam past, present or, I would say respectfully, into the future—certainly, past and present than Anh was. 

He was tenacious on human rights in general but when it came 

to Vietnam no one cared more and did more on this side as opposed 

to our witnesses in civil society. 

So I want to thank you for that leadership. Also Ambassador Joseph Rees, who used to be staff director and has served in a number of capacities at the U.S. Department of State. 

2

Ambassador Rees, as I think many of you know, was our first 

Ambassador to East Timor when that nation became an independent nation, and frankly, it was Joseph working with Dr. Thang 

in the mid-1990s when the boat people were being denied access 

to the United States and were housed—is probably the euphemism 

for the way they were being treated—they were incarcerated 

throughout all of Asia including in a prison in Hong Kong and were 

being forcibly repatriated. 

It was Joseph, especially as the former general counsel for the 

INS, who helped lead the way along with Dr. Thang. 

We had four important pivotal hearings about the Comprehensive Plan of Action put forward by the Clinton administration to 

forcibly repatriate Vietnamese to Vietnam, many of whom would go 

to reeducation camps and to prison. 

And as a result of that, I offered an amendment on the floor from 

what we gleaned from all of that information and we put a stop, 

a tourniquet, to that terrible forcible repatriation. 

And the ROVR Program then came into existence and something 

on the order of 20,000 Vietnamese made their way to the United 

States. It is because of that and if it wasn’t for Dr. Thang and Ambassador Rees, that would not have happened. So I want to recognize them and thank them for that extraordinary leadership. 

The Vietnamese-American community is celebrating its 40th year 

in the United States—those who came after the fall of Saigon, and 

of course we all remember the helicopters and the last few who 

made it. 

My own in-laws are Vietnamese-American; my son is married to 

a Vietnamese-American young lady who is about to have her second child. They left during the 1975 exodus. They were the lucky 

ones who were not part of the boat people exodus. 

And I just want to say how much all of us in Congress, both 

sides of the aisle, so deeply respect the contributions that have 

been made by the Vietnamese Americans to this country. 

Very, very strong patriots, men and women who are hardworking 

have really made their mark on this country and have cared so 

deeply for their families and for their relatives and, of course, for 

all other Americans. Thank you for that. It is very, very important. 

This subcommittee has held numerous hearings on human rights 

in Vietnam over the years and we have discussed a range of concerns from restrictions on religious freedom, to the jailing and torture of dissidents, from sex and labor trafficking, to the censorship 

of the press and the Internet. 

The Vietnamese Government and Communist Party continue to 

be one of the worst abusers of human rights. We may want to 

sweep that reality under the table and many do, sadly. We may 

want to paper over it by promises of security cooperation and trade 

deals. 

But that reality stares us in the face and requires us to ask 

whether U.S. policy really serves the people of Vietnam, people who 

want our liberties and our freedoms as much as our trade. 

The U.S. Government must continue to press the Vietnamese 

Government on truly fundamental human rights issues, not only in 

human rights dialogues, which very often are dead-end streets, 

maybe they ought to be done, but in all meetings with Vietnamese 

3

officials, especially the trade meetings and that means that the 

highest levels from the United States President on down. 

It can’t be a sidebar issue. It can’t be something that’s in the appendix that is brought up in a cursory way so the President can 

say, ‘‘Oh, I raised human rights.’’ He needs to raise it, especially 

with the upcoming visit, with specificity. 

Talk about individuals who are being incarcerated for their faith 

or because of their democracy activism and say we want these people released. The President needs to do that and he needs to do it 

when he meets with the head of party coming very shortly from 

Vietnam. 

Sixty-six percent of the Vietnamese population is under 35 and 

some don’t even remember the war except from history and from 

news reels. They want their lives to look like those of their Vietnamese cousins in the U.S., in Australia, as well as in Canada. 

Our policies cannot be directed at the Vietnamese elite in the 

Communist Party but must focus on the people of Vietnam. What 

are in their best interests? Not the ruling clique who suppress. 

They understand that if the U.S. sides with the Vietnamese Government, they will only receive crumbs from the Communist Party’s table. 

Our economic, security, and freedom interests must be linked. 

The Vietnamese Government needs U.S. security cooperation and 

economic benefits more than the U.S. needs Vietnam. 

We have leverage to bring about concrete changes in Vietnam 

and we must not give up, ignore, trivialize, belittle, or squander 

that leverage. 

If human rights issues are not explicitly linked to our economic 

and security interests, we risk having discussions on trade and defense moving forward while human rights conditions go in the opposite direction, backwards. 

Trade between the U.S. to Vietnam has exponentially expanded 

since Vietnam was granted normal trade relations in 2000. 

If this expansion is to continue under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, I would say, for full disclosure, voted against the fast track 

legislation, believing that human rights have to be a centerpiece. 

And I have gone to the so-called secret room and I read the key 

chapters. Don’t count on human rights being enforced, including 

labor rights, if the TPP goes into effect as currently written. It is 

nice language but there is no enforcement power contained in that 

document called the TPP. 

Let me point out to my colleagues that when the State Department removed Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular 

Concern as a gesture of good will, which I opposed in 2006, we once 

again saw backsliding. 

Promises were made. Ambassador Hanford, the Ambassador for 

International Religious Freedom, told me and so many others that 

there were deliverables that the Vietnamese Government was committed to doing. None of them happened. 

As a matter of fact, as soon as they got into the WTO, once we 

lifted our objection there was a snap back and many of the people 

that I had met on one of my many trips there were all rearrested 

and put back in incarceration. 

4

According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom’s annual report, and I quote a pertinent part,

‘‘The Vietnamese Government continues to control all religious 

activities through law and administrative oversight, restrict severely independent religious practice, and represses individuals 

and religious groups it views as challenging its authority. . . .’’

I agree with the commission’s conclusion that Vietnam should be 

designated immediately a Country of Particular Concern because of 

its egregious record of suppression and repression of human rights. 

In Vietnam, I have met courageous religious leaders during trips 

there including Father Ly, the Venerable Thich Quang Do and yet 

they remain wrongly detained today. 

There are disturbing reports that Father Ly is suffering poor 

health. There are over 150 prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. We 

should not forget them. We need to use our leverage to try to compel their release. 

Since some have made the case that Vietnam has made progress 

in recent years because they signed the U.N. Convention Against 

Torture, I just want to say it is all about deeds. Anybody can sign 

a convention. Anybody can put it on paper and say, ‘‘We are going 

to do this.’’ We want deeds and the deeds are not there. 

Let me also make a point that on trafficking there is no doubt—

I am the author—again, Ambassador Rees remembers so well because he worked so effectively on the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act—if there was ever a country that meets the definition of a Tier 

3 country, an egregious violator, with significant problem and is 

not taking significant actions to meet minimum standards prescribed by the TVPA of 2000 and its follow-on authorizations, Vietnam is it. Both on the labor trafficking point of view as well as 

from the sex trafficking point of view where Dr. Thang has testified 

to that many times in the past. 

I have reintroduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act. It has 

passed the House six separate Congresses. We are hoping to have 

it pass again. 

Maybe the seventh time will be the charm, and the Senate will 

take up the bill and President Obama, who right now is against it, 

will reverse that and support the legislation. 

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague for any comments that he might have, the gentleman from California, and then 

we will go to our witnesses. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I am Congressman Alan Lowenthal. I am here 

and I want to thank Chairman Smith for having me join the subcommittee today and I also want to applaud the chairman for his 

leadership role in pointing out and drawing attention to the human 

rights abuses in Vietnam. 

He has been the leader in the United States Congress and I am 

pleased to have joined him on the legislation on human rights as 

an original co-sponsor too. 

I also want to thank and express my deepest appreciation to the 

witnesses, some of them who I have worked with, who I know, who 

have traveled here, who have so bravely shown the spotlight on the 

abuses of the Vietnamese Government. 

5

There is no denying the fact that Vietnam is an oppressive oneparty state that has no respect for the rights of its own citizens. 

The Vietnamese Government jails those who speak out, who advocate for the right to form independent trade unions, for a free 

and fair press, for freedom of religion, for the ability to associate. 

This is really what the Vietnamese Government does. 

You know, last week following up on what the chairman said we 

had a very important series of votes in the House on United States 

trade policy and specifically on whether to grant Trade Promotion 

Authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the President of the United States. 

I opposed this bill. I opposed granting TPA for a number of reasons but the one major reason is, and I did it in part because I 

really also want to protect American workers and including American workers that will be impacted by what takes place in Vietnam, 

but the major concern that I have in the trade agreements is why 

we are rewarding a country like Vietnam which engages in bad behavior at this moment and that we are now granting them this. 

I think this is the inappropriate way to do it. Instead of working 

now at this moment to release prisoners of conscience, to end restrictions on racial practice to allow labor organizing in advance of 

Congress considering the TPA that is what if Vietnam really wanted to do would be doing. 

No, Vietnam has doubled down on its bad behavior. You know, 

I visited Vietnam last month with Chairman Salmon on our Asia 

Subcommittee in our delegation and I specifically took every opportunity including some of the other members of our delegation—

Chairman Salmon and also Mr. Emmer from Minnesota—to press 

the Vietnamese Government in respect to the rights of Vietnamese 

citizens. 

We also met with human rights activists including Nguyen Tien 

Trung and the patriarch, Thich Quang Do. We left and the Vietnamese Government said, ‘‘Oh, we are going to work with you.’’

I was so disappointed and, frankly, absolutely shocked when just 

a few days after returning to the United States I learned that 

Nguyen Chi Tuyen, an anti-Chinese pro-environmental activist was 

badly beaten by five plainclothes police officers in Hanoi. 

Incidents like this only serve to further call into question why 

the United States should be working to reward Vietnam and again, 

as I point out, in the face of its bad behavior. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. I hope all my colleagues in the House will take notice of what is occurring in this 

hearing today as we continue to consider Trade Promotion Authority and Vietnam’s participation in the TPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Congressman Lowenthal. 

And I would like to begin now with our very distinguished witnesses, beginning first with Nguyen Van Hai of the Free Journalist 

Club of Vietnam, writing under the pen name Dieu Cay. 

Mr. Hai is one of Vietnam’s pioneering citizen journalists. 

Through his blog he has exposed government corruption, called for 

freedom of expression, and was one of the first Vietnamese to criticize China’s annexation of the Spratly Islands. 

6

He was arrested while calling for a boycott of the Beijing Olympic torch relay and was originally convicted on trumped-up charges 

of tax evasion. In September 2012, he was sentenced to 12 years 

but was released to exile in October 2014. 

We will then hear from Ms. Doan Thi Hong Anh, wife of torture 

victim Nguyen Thanh Nam who was tortured and subsequently 

died of his injuries in what has become known as the Con Dau 

massacre in July 2010. 

She is knowledgeable about the events at Con Dau, which she 

witnessed, but she will also speak to religious persecution going on 

in different parts of the country. 

In order for her husband to be buried she was pressured by the 

government to admit that he died of natural causes. 

Subsequently, she and her two children were constantly harassed 

and intimidated by local security agents and subsequently they had 

to flee to Thailand for safety. 

They were recognized as refugees by the UNHCR and recently 

resettled in the United States, and I would note parenthetically 

that Anh ‘‘Joseph’’ Cao convened hearings on Con Dau that were 

truly heartbreaking to hear how the Communist dictatorship and 

the bullies surrounded people, even during a funeral, because they 

wanted the property and they didn’t want the church to retain possession of that property. 

It is just a another terrible indication of what dictatorship is all 

about. 

We will then hear from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang. Dr. Thang, who 

I have known for almost 25 years came to the U.S. as a refugee 

from Vietnam in 1979. 

After earning his Ph.D. he began volunteering for Boat People 

SOS in 1988. Now serving as head of Boat People SOS, Dr. Thang 

has worked for the past 25 years to resettle tens of thousands of 

boat people and he has also worked very hard on the trafficking 

issue and has provided this subcommittee pivotal information 

about not only what happens with trafficked people in the United 

States but brought a very specific case to our attention, which we 

raised via a hearing, that occurred in Russia. So I want to thank 

him for that very fine work that he has done. 

Then we will hear from the Reverend Nguyen Manh Hung, who 

is pastor of the Binh Tan Mennonite Church of Vietnam and a 

member of the Interfaith Council of Vietnam. 

He is active in promoting religious freedom, campaigning against 

human rights violations, and defending victims of corruption, especially those involved in government land seizures. 

He is routinely harassed and threatened by the police and recently his wife and children have been subjected to similar threats 

as well. His congregation is also under constant threat and harassment from officials. 

I would like to now begin with Mr. Hai and then each of our witnesses will follow. 

STATEMENT OF MR. NGUYEN VAN HAI (DIEU CAY), WRITER, 

FREE JOURNALISTS CLUB OF VIETNAM 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

7

Mr. HAI. Members of Congress, I am honored to be here today 

to present the issue of human rights in Vietnam. 

Shortly before leaving Vietnam, my fellow prisoners entrusted 

me to relay their cries for help to the international community, to 

help the international community understand that the persecution 

of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam is systemic, to lay bare the 

deceit of the Vietnamese authorities who would commit to revise 

Vietnam’s laws in order to participate in international trade agreements but do not implement such laws. 

So the first thing I wanted to discuss is freedom of the press. All 

media in Vietnam is in the hands of the Communist regime. The 

people don’t have a platform to raise their voice. 

People do not dare to speak their views simply because any disagreement with the ruling party can get you arrested under vague 

laws such as Articles 258, 88, and 79 of the criminal code. 

A conviction under one of these statutes can result in a dozen 

years in prison. It is these vague laws that allow authorities to arrest and imprison anyone with differing opinions and to maintain 

their dictatorship. 

My case is a testament to the suppression of human rights in 

Vietnam when I was sentenced to over 10 years in prison simply 

for peacefully expressing my political views. Only when people are 

able to speak freely, are free to express their opinions without fear 

of repression can society change for the better. 

Hence, we need to pressure the Communist authorities to abolish 

the absurd laws and to return freedom of the press and freedom 

of expression to the people of Vietnam. 

The second issue is prisoners of conscience. I spent 6 years and 

6 months in 11 Communist prisons so I know that the prisons of 

Vietnam are administered by circulars and regulations, not by 

laws. 

For example, Circular 37 of the Ministry of Public Security deprives prisoners of the rights prescribed in the criminal procedures 

code. Based on Circular 37, Vietnam’s public security has established a series of prisons within prisons to detain political prisoners. Placed in solitary confinement for months, those prisoners 

refused to admit guilt, leaving many to go on hunger strikes to protest. 

Recently, Ms. Ta Phong Tan, a member of the Club of Free Journalists, went on a hunger strike to protest the abuse of political 

prisoners by officials of Prison Camp Five in Thanh Hoa Province. 

Circular 37 of the Ministry of Public Security is really an instrument to punish these dissenters outside the legal code. As I mentioned, prisoners are deprived of rights stated in the law, especially 

when prisoners who wish to submit a complaint must first go 

through the jailers who, of course, never forward on the complaints 

but instead take revenge on the prisoners. 

Oversight bodies and Vietnamese law do not provide inmates the 

opportunity to exercise their right to protest as prescribed in the 

criminal procedures code. 

To ensure basic rights for all prisoners, to prevent political prisoners, as well as prisoners of criminal offenses from being treated 

like animals, the Vietnamese Government must abolish Circular 37 

8

of the Ministry of Public Security and revise the criminal procedures code in accordance with international standards. 

I earnestly call upon governments and international organizations to pressure the Vietnamese authorities to, first, abolish vague 

laws such as Articles 258, 88, and 79 of the criminal code, Decree 

72 of the Prime Minister and Circular 37 of MPS. 

Secondly, revise domestic laws to be in compliance with international conventions to which Vietnam is a signatory, and third, 

release all political prisoners. I would like to submit a list of prisoners of conscience in need of emergency assistance. 

They are Ta Phong Tan, Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, Nguyen Huu 

Vinh, Bui Thi Minh Hang, Tran Vu Anh Binh, Vo Minh Tri (Viet 

Khang), Nguyen Dang Minh Man, Ho Bich Khuong, Doan Van 

Vuon, Doan Dinh Nam, Doan Huy Chuong, Nguyen Hoang Quoc 

Hung, Dang Xuan Dieu, Ho Duc Hoa. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hai follows:]

9


95130a-1.eps
10


95130a-2.eps
11

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Mr. Hai. 

We have been joined by Chairman Dana Rohrabacher, also of 

California. Any comments? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say that we are facing one of 

these decisions and I am happy to hear and see you here to help 

guide us in this decision because we are being told, like we were 

told with China that if we just give certain economic status to a 

country, even though that government is dictatorial and abuses its 

own people that by giving them the same type of economic status 

that you would give to a free country that it will lead to reform and 

lead to democratization and liberalization. 

I have just come from a hearing just a moment ago about China 

and there has been no political reform in China, and from what 

this gentleman has just told us there has been no political reform 

in Vietnam. Yet, we have been opening up the floodgates. 

I want to make sure that I get your advice as to what we should 

be doing about expanding our economic openings to Vietnam and 

America and whether that will help or whether that extra wealth 

will bolster the strength of those who oppress the people. 

And in China, it has certainly not weakened the hold on the people of China. So with that said, Mr. Chairman, I have appreciated 

working with you over the years on issues—human rights issues in 

Vietnam but throughout the world and Congressman Lowenthal 

and I have decided that we are going to be partners in a lot of very 

important things and helping people in Vietnam and elsewhere, for 

their human rights is right on the top of that list. 

So thank you all very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher. 

I would like to—Mr. Clawson, do you have any opening comments? 

Mr. CLAWSON. I think Chairman Rohrabacher has it exactly 

right. What goes on in the world over and over again is that folks 

use our marketplace to industrialize and to modernize their economies and their infrastructures and then sometimes some of that 

flows through to the folks that are making Nike shoes and electronics and toys and so their lives are better, freer and there is 

more social justice and human rights. And sometimes it doesn’t 

work out that way, correct, Congressman? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I haven’t seen it work in the latter yet 

so——

Mr. CLAWSON. You are not going back far enough. I also am interested. I am very much into free and fair trade but I think everybody needs to share in that wealth and in the benefits derived 

thereof and therefore hearing from folks like you all and what you 

have to say about that I think is an important day here on Capitol 

Hill. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now introduce Ms. Doan, if you could proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. DOAN THI HONG-ANH (WIFE OF A 

TORTURE VICTIM) 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mrs. DOAN. Honorable Congressmen, ladies and gentlemen, my 

name is Doan Thi Hong Anh, the widow of Mr. Nguyen Thanh 

12

Nam, the Con Dau parishioner who was tortured to death that you 

have been informed of in the U.S. Congress hearing August 18, 

2010. 

After the brutal police crackdown at the Con Dau parish cemetery on May 4, 2010, and especially after the painful death of my 

husband by the torture of the local militia, the government found 

every way to prevent me from telling the truth about the real cause 

of my husband’s death. 

I had to close all doors and hid in my house for months before 

finding a way to escape to Thailand to protect my children and my 

own life. 

We were accepted with refugee status and we settled in the U.S. 

less than a year ago. I am honored to be here today to say thank 

you to the Congress and the United States Government for the concern and support for my family and my parish in Con Dau in the 

last 5 years during the fight for justice and protect our parish assistance. 

It is because of the strong voice from the Congress, especially 

from you, Mr. Chairman, has brought my family and more than 

100 victims from Con Dau to freedom the last 2 years. 

Your work and your efforts have changed many lives including 

thousands of Vietnam refugees in other humanitarian programs 

that you sponsored over the years. You are truly the champion of 

human rights. You are our hero and we are deeply grateful for 

that. 

The religious persecution policy of the Communist Government of 

Vietnam was exposed very obviously with the persecution in Con 

Dau. They have used every means from intimidation, harassment, 

beatings, torture, imprison to land expropriation by force to take 

over the land and wipe out historical and all-Catholic parish. 

I have witnessed and myself a victim of so many times being intimidated by government officials to sign an agreement to move out 

without leaving any chance to stay around the church to continue 

with our religious activity. 

Con Dau is only one of hundreds of religious persecutions that 

have happened in Vietnam, especially in the far away areas. I 

would like to give some examples. 

In the Diocese of Kontum, central Vietnam, on January 17, 2015 

the government ordered to dismantle the temporary chapel of the 

Dak Jak Parish and expel the chaplain from the parish of more 

than 5,000 parishioners. In March of this year, the government of 

Dak To District campaigned to dismantle 22 temporary chapels in 

the district also with the reason of not being recognized by the government. 

In the Diocese of Hung Hoa, northern Vietnam, the province government of Lai Chau, Dien Bien, and Son La in the last 70 years 

under Communism never allowed the establishment of any chapel 

at any mission station in the provinces or permit priests to come 

celebrate Mass per the demand of thousands of Catholics in this 

area. 

In the Diocese of Vin, a diocese with more than 500,000 Catholics 

in central Vietnam the Parishes of My Yen, Tam Toa, Con Cuong 

and many other mission stations in the province of Quang Binh, 

13

Nghe are still facing many difficulties in the religious activity because of the nonrecognition of the local government. 

In reality, the freedom of religion in Vietnam has not been respected. That is a statement from the U.N. Special Rapporteur 

Heiner Bielefeldt after his visit in Vietnam July 2014. 

The government has covered up or turned away from multiple 

violations in many places. In summary, I call you to continue raising your concern and pressure the Vietnamese Government to respect religious freedom. Strong U.S. and international pressure is 

necessary and makes a difference as in the case of Con Dau. 

Con Dau Parish is still standing even though battered and reduced in size after so many persecutions and forced expropriation. 

The decision of resolving the Con Dau issue is still on the hand of 

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung since September of last year. 

I call on you to request the Prime Minister resolve the issue reasonably and fairly. I also call on the Congress to pass the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act and incorporate human rights conditions into 

the TPP negotiation with Vietnam. 

I call on the United States State Department to designate Vietnam as CPC to force them to improve human rights generally in 

order for our 90 million fellow countrymen to have the opportunity 

to live as a human being and enjoy freedom like me today. 

Thank you. God bless America. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Doan follows:]

14


95130b-1.eps
15


95130b-2.eps
16

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Doan, thank you so very much. And again, our 

deepest condolences to you for your loss and know that our prayers, 

all of us, feel so much for you and for all of those who have suffered 

in that wonderful Catholic parish. 

Dr. Thang. 

STATEMENT OF NGUYEN DINH THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE SOS 

Mr. THANG. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, I would like to thank Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee for holding this hearing at this very critical juncture in 

the relationship between the United States and Vietnam. 

Ongoing negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, 

is expected soon to be concluded and President Obama will soon 

welcome Mr. Nguyen Phu Trong, the secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party, to the White House. He is not the head 

of state. He is the head of the Communist Party. 

As the two governments celebrate the two decades of normalized 

diplomatic relations this year, independent religious communities 

in Vietnam continue to face severe persecution. 

Ms. Doan Thi Hong Anh only mentioned about some incidents in 

Kontum. I just would like to point out some of the pictures. I am 

not sure whether you can see these or not but these are temporary 

chapels, 22 of them in just one district, that recently received the 

order to be dismantled. 

These are temporary chapels. They are tiny. They are just sheds. 

They are the only places of worship of thousands of Catholics in 

that district of Dak To. 

Why temporary chapels? Because their repeated requests to be 

registered as organizations, as parishes, have been ignored by the 

government. 

Their repeated requests to build churches have been ignored by 

the government and the only way out for them was to erect these 

temporary chapels and now they are being ordered to dismantle 

them. 

That is a very troubling trend of dismantling religious facilities 

so as to deny the faithful a venue to practice their faith. On February 6th of this year, the authorities in Khuoi Vinh village, Cao 

Bang Province, destroyed the very simple shed that followers of the 

Duong Van Minh sect—that is a Christian sect—built and used to 

store funeral objects as called for by their religious practices and 

traditions. They share this shed, and the funeral objects stored in 

this shed, because they are very poor. 

They cannot buy these objects, here—accessories here in the picture, for the funeral procession so they use and they store them in 

the shed so all the villagers can reuse them. 

These are the sheds and the government consistently, repeatedly 

destroyed them. So on February 6 the police came in and assaulted 

the villagers who tried to protect their shed and caused severe injuries to two of them that required hospitalization. 

A few months later, the villagers rebuilt that shed and on May 

21, that is just a few weeks ago, the authorities again demolished 

it. So this is the sixth time that villagers built and rebuilt the shed 

and it was the sixth time that the authorities destroyed it. 

17

And then on April 14, the governor of Phu Yen Province dismantled Tuy An temple. This is the temple shown in the picture, a tiny 

temple of the Cao Dai, the local Cao Dai community. 

That is the only place of worship for that community and now 

it is gone. So these Cao Dai followers are worshipping in the place 

of destruction—the destruction of the temples, outdoors. They have 

no facility anymore. 

So that goes on and on. These are just a few examples of the situation on the ground—the reality in Vietnam. Reacting to international criticism, the Vietnamese Government has promised to 

pass its first ever law on belief and religion. 

That raised a lot of expectation and hopes among observers of 

Vietnam. However, its latest draft that was released in late April 

of this year was disappointing. 

This draft law would simply cement the restrictions and controls 

already in place under the existing ordinance on belief and religion 

and Decree 92, both of which are in direct violation of Article 18 

of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 

Under the draft law, all religious activities that involve a group, 

even those conducted in private homes, would be required to register and be preapproved by the government. Registration is a requirement, not an offer, and there appears to be no alternative 

legal personality for organizations who choose not to register. So 

they would be practically outlawed. 

Registration approval are required for a broad range of activities 

and events including organizing festivals, ordainment and assignment of clergy, religious training, participation in overseas religious events and organizations, division or merging of affiliated religious organizations, establishment of religious formation facilities, 

amendments to a religious organization’s charter or rules and regulations and so on. 

So in summary, the draft law is designed to impede independent 

religious communities. It would perpetuate and even aggravate the 

current situation where ‘‘the rights to freedom of religion or belief 

of these communities are grossly violated in the face of constant 

surveillance, intimidation, harassment, and persecution,’’ and these 

are the very words of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on freedom of 

religion or belief in his recent report on Vietnam. 

I would like to make a few recommendations. First of all, the 

U.S. Congress should take legislative actions to make trade and security partnership with Vietnam including the TPP and future 

transfer of lethal weapons to Vietnam contingent on significant improvement in human rights, particularly the right to freedom of religion and belief. 

Second, the U.S. State Department should designate Vietnam a 

Country of Particular Concern and the Vietnamese Government 

should treat registration with the government as an offer to religious communities to enhance their rights, not as a prerequisite for 

religious activities. 

So the points that I just presented actually reflect the opinion 

and the position of the majority of Vietnamese-Americans. 

At this very moment, some 800 Vietnamese-American advocates 

joined by many American veterans of the Vietnam War are arrivVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:12 Sep 09, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\061715\95130 SHIRL
18

ing in the national capital from 30 states for our fifth Vietnam Advocacy Day in 4 years. 

We will be joined by numerous religious leaders tomorrow and 

many fellow advocates from other countries and tomorrow we will 

go office to office to talk to Members of Congress to advocate for 

greater rights of Vietnamese citizens—freedom of religion and 

human rights for them all. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]

19


95130c-1.eps
20


95130c-2.eps
21


95130c-3.eps
22


95130c-4.eps
23


95130c-5.eps
24


95130c-6.eps
25


95130c-7.eps
26

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Thang, you so very much. 

Pastor Hung. 

STATEMENT OF THE REVEREND NGUYEN MANH HUNG, 

VIETNAM INTERFAITH COUNCIL 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. HUNG. The following is my statement representing the Vietnam Interfaith Council and the Cattle Shed Congregation of the 

Mennonite Church of Vietnam. 

I am here today as a part of a campaign for prisoners of conscience in Vietnam with my colleagues, Mr. Truong Minh Tam, a 

former political prisoner, and Mr. Nguyen Van Loi, the father of 

political prisoner, Nguyen Dang Minh Man. 

I am a pastor of the Mennonite Church and member of the Interfaith Council of Vietnam. My parishioners and supporters have 

been persecuted for expressing their faith. Before this trip, I discovered that the venerable Thich Khon Tanh Lien Tri Pagoda was 

threatened by security police that after TPP is approved authorities 

will tear down the pagoda. 

This trip to America comes at a crucial moment because of the 

discussions on TPP and I hope to bring forth my experiences and 

perspectives on conditions of religious freedom in Vietnam. 

The experiences of the Cattle Shed Congregation serve as evidence of the Vietnamese Government’s repression of religious 

groups that do not accept the state’s interference in their activities. 

We have 100 members and provide five classes for poor children. 

Because the Vietnamese Communist authorities do not want us to 

do charity work, they seized our land, forcing us to resort to setting 

up our place of worship in an abandoned cattle shed. 

Over the past 8 years, since moving to the cattle shed, authorities have continually looked for ways to get rid of us. 

On one occasion, the Cattle Shed Congregation was organizing a 

ceremony and I was told that the security police had come to investigate. 

When I came downstairs to see what was going on, plainclothes 

police came up, grabbed my neck, and choked me down to the floor 

as the security police stepped over my body to enter the ceremony 

room and disband the event. 

On another occasion, plainclothes police came to my house and 

destroyed my property and threatened to kill me, my wife, and my 

son. 

They use thugs and plainclothes police to brutalize our parishioners including Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang and have manipulated the law to imprison religious leaders such as Father Nguyen 

Van Ly, Pastor Duong Kim Khai, and Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh. 

In spite of these acts of terrorism on our spirits and wellbeing, 

we keep moving forward. The most pressing issues for those in the 

wider religious communities are as follows: The Cao Dai and Hoa 

Hao Buddhist groups suffered land grabs at religious sites and the 

members are barred from participating in large ceremonies and 

Catholic groups have been banned from allowing Bishop Hoang 

Duc Oanh to ordain seminarians and authorities are preparing to 

seize 22 churches of ethnic minorities in Kontum Province. 

27

Another concern is the state’s draft law on religion which is an 

attempt to tighten control over the affairs of faith-based organizations and stifle religious freedom. 

In order to address these issues, five major religious groups have 

come together to form the Interfaith Council of Vietnam. With our 

collective voice, we speak up for religious freedom and political 

prisoners and engage in humanitarian efforts. 

With the 20th anniversary of normalization between the U.S. 

and Vietnam, the ongoing TPP negotiations as well as General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong’s visit to the U.S., I hope that members 

of the U.S. Government will first call for the release of prisoners 

of conscience, especially faith leaders such as Father Nguyen Van 

Ly, Reverend Duong Kim Khai, and Reverend Nguyen Cong Chinh. 

Secondly, urge the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi to regularly visit political prisoners. I would like to request urgent attention for blogger 

Dang Xuan Dieu and photojournalist Nguyen Dang Minh Man, 

held in Prison Camp 5 of Thanh Hoa Province and community organizer Ho Duc Hoa in Nam Ha Prison in Ha Nam Province. 

They have been mistreated, placed in solitary confinement and in 

the case of Ho Duc Hoa denied the right to practice his Catholic 

faith in prison. 

And thirdly, call on the Vietnamese Government not to enact the 

draft law on religion. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hung follows:]

28


95130d-1.eps
29


95130d-2.eps
30

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Hung, thank you very much for your testimony 

and for your leadership. 

Let me just begin with a few questions. Mr. Hai, you made a 

very powerful opening and all of your statements were very powerful. 

But you noted that your fellow prisoners entrusted you to relay 

their cries for help to the international community and you have 

done that, as you all have, to help the international community understand that the persecution of prisoners of conscience in Vietnam 

is systemic—that it is ongoing, it is pervasive and it is part of the 

system. 

It is not an aberration. And also, to lay bare the deceit of the 

Vietnam authorities when they commit to revise Vietnamese laws 

in order to participate in international trade agreements but do not 

implement such laws. 

I would take it a step further and say even the laws they write, 

as Dr. Thang pointed out, the new religious law is likely to compound and make worse the already existing Decree 92, which is already a terrible onerous burden on people of faith. 

So that deceit that you speak about, and all of you might want 

to speak to this, we have been here before. We have seen this 

movie. 

It almost is like deja-vu from 15 years ago in 2000 and again a 

half a dozen years later when the WTO was the issue, all of this 

seeming movement toward easing, only to be followed by a snap 

back. 

As a matter of fact, Pastor Hung, you pointed out that a religious 

leader was informed by authorities that when TPP is approved his 

pagoda would be torn down. When are we going to learn? Why 

won’t the administration hear? 

One of the leaders in the administration wrote an op-ed recently 

saying how this good thing is happening and this prisoner is being 

released. 

We saw that before only to see, again, a very serious repressive 

move by the Government of Vietnam against its own people. This 

will be the third time. First time, shame on you. Second time, 

shame on me. 

Third time, are we being foolish? Are we naive? And yet, the 

same cynical notion is seemingly having an impact positively at the 

White House and among Members of Congress. 

So let me just ask you if you could speak to that issue, starting 

with Pastor Hung, about the pagoda. Elaborate on that. While you 

are translating, I remember I made a trip to Vietnam—several—

but one of them I met with a large number of leaders from the 

Buddhist Church. 

I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do, like my friend, Mr. 

Lowenthal, like many of my colleagues. Father Ly, Father Loi, so 

many others and a lot of Protestant pastors. Many of them were 

rounded up after the trade benefit was provided and even people 

who had signed Bloc 8406 found themselves targeted by the repressive Vietnamese Government. 

So if you could answer how naive are we as a government here 

in the United States, thinking that somehow things will improve? 

31

And I will just add one last thing. Having read the key chapters 

of the TPP, which is under lock and key right now—we can’t even 

discuss it openly—I am absolutely not persuaded that human 

rights would be advanced. 

Just the opposite. There is no enforcement, even of ILO standards. It has some nice language about the international labor laws, 

but no enforcement mechanism. 

So if you could all address that, then I will yield to my friend, 

Mr. Lowenthal, for any questions he might have. 

Mr. HUNG. Lien Tri Buddhist Temple for many years has a place 

in a place for people who have been disadvantaged who suffered injustices and has been a place to help the handicapped including the 

wounded veterans of the former Republic of Vietnam. 

Because of these humanitarian efforts by the Lien Tri Pagoda, 

the Vietnamese authorities have really focused on targeting to shut 

down this Buddhist temple. 

So last August, the authorities came out with an announcement 

that they would take administrative measures against the pagoda 

in September. So the Interfaith Council, which I am a member of, 

we organized a petition that got thousands of signatures to oppose 

that and fortunately the government backed off from those plans. 

And recently the Vietnamese Redemptorists were prevented from 

organizing their own activities at the Ky Dong Church and in Saigon and because of that the Redemptorists partnered with the Buddhist temple at Lien Tri and because of that the authorities are 

further focusing on the Lien Tri pagoda. 

And so before I came to the U.S., the Venerable Thich Khong 

Tanh, the abbot of Lien Tri pagoda, said that fellow Buddhists of 

that pagoda have heard from government officials to remove all 

their artifacts from the temple including cremated remains of the 

relatives because the temple would be closed down after TPP. 

And so now the authorities are pressuring the Lien Tri temple 

to basically take a settlement—a very reduced sale of the temple, 

of the land—so then the government can take over the land. 

So Venerable Thich Khong Tanh has refused that cash settlement as well as the Vietnam Interfaith Council has refused that 

and so now we are waiting for the response from the Vietnamese 

authorities. 

Thank you. 

Mr. THANG. Yes. The Vietnamese Government now has sent 

some signals to our Government that it may be ready to make concessions on legal rights as part of TPP. 

However, I don’t think there is any benchmark or mechanism to 

enforce their commitments, to monitor their compliance, or to sanction them in case there is noncompliance. 

We have seen a precedent before back in 2006 when the Vietnamese Government promised to respect the right to freedom of religion in order to be taken off the CPC designation. 

So we hurriedly took Vietnam off that list and immediately there 

was a brutal bloody crackdown against religions that we have documented through pictures—actually, the violence against people of 

faith including religious leaders. 

These are very graphic and I would like to point out a few pictures only. This is a picture of Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh serving 

32

a long-term sentence in prison right now, a picture of Father Ly, 

a Buddhist monk here—he was beaten and had to be hospitalized. 

Father Ngo The Binh, a Catholic priest, also beaten up and he had 

to be hospitalized. 

This person was beaten to death, a Khmer Krom Christian 

Protestant. Ms. Ken a female Catholic, so on and so forth until this 

day. There continues to be violent against people of faith. 

So we have no mechanism from our own Government when we 

accepted the promise and commitment by the Vietnamese Government that they would improve. If they fail to do so, we have no 

mechanism, no benchmark to measure that. There are no 

deliverables, as Mr. Chairman just mentioned. So I am just afraid 

that we are back in the same situation again with the Vietnamese 

Government’s promise to respect the workers’ rights, to form or join 

independent and free labor unions. So I am very concerned about 

that. 

Mr. SMITH. On that point I did ask an administration witness at 

a previous hearing what happens when labor rights activists and 

other human rights activists and religious freedom prisoners and 

especially since labor rights are at least signaled in the TPP included in it, when they are beaten, when they are incarcerated and 

given long jail sentences and their efforts at organizing are completely thwarted, what does that trigger? 

They said, we will get back to you. They still haven’t gotten back 

to me. I have now read the secret proposed treaty called the TPP, 

or executive agreement, and I didn’t see any enforcement. 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I want to follow up on—and first of all, I am finding the very informative, the hearing, and I thank, again, the witnesses. 

I assume that all of you are, and I want to hear from you—I 

guess it is my assumption after listening—if you were advising us 

you would advise us, given the present circumstances, to vote 

against the TPP? 

Does each of you make that statement to us that you see that 

the gains would be offset tremendously by the negative aspects of 

the TPP? I am trying to hear—would you advise us to vote against 

the TPP, given the circumstances of where we are? 

And if not, what should we be doing as Members of Congress? 

Dr. Thang. 

Mr. THANG. That is a very tough question because on the one 

hand we would like to see Vietnam be prosperous. We would like 

to see Vietnam be democratic, to be a stable and reliable partner 

of the United States. 

However, there are no preconditions right now to make those 

things happen. And therefore, we are pushing for conditions to 

make Vietnam a trusted party and deserving party of the TPP and 

that means that they must truly respect human rights. 

They must allow their citizens the basic rights, the basic freedoms—and there are three of them—freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. Those are 

the cornerstones of civil society. And we would like to see those 

things demonstrated before Vietnam joins the TPP. 

33

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Okay. So I am not going to ask the others because I think it could put you into a difficult situation what to do. 

So I hear that you are saying that there are preconditions. 

What you would like, Doctor, is that these conditions be addressed first before they do and you have not seen—and you said 

you see some signs but you’re not sure that these are really moving 

forward. 

What signs do we really need to see? What do we really need to 

see now in terms of the conditions? 

Mr. THANG. For instance, there ought to be a decision at the 

highest level to release all prisoners of conscience. Secondly, there 

ought to be laws to truly legalize the formation of free and independent labor unions, and we don’t want a repeat of the ordinance 

on belief or religion because that ordinance has actually been used 

as a tool to control and suppress religions and not to promote religion at all. 

And thirdly, we would like to see that there will be sanctions 

provisions as part of the negotiation, as part of TPP. Maybe we 

should give Vietnam 5 years to get there, to be fully a partner in 

TPP. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. And then I am going to ask Mr. Hai. What you 

are saying is that we should, especially with Vietnam, slow down 

the process, not say not to join or to join, but to specifically see 

some very specific changes whether in religious freedom, labor law, 

right to associate before they become a partner in this—that you 

are not opposed economically in the future for Vietnam to be prosperous but we should not grant that right away. 

We should be really holding their feet to the fire and letting 

them demonstrate not after they become part of the TPP, but before they do that and not to send a message you are against it, but 

you want them to demonstrate these very specific changes in laws 

and other practices. 

I wonder if Mr. Hai has the same feeling about that. What would 

you advise us to do? 

Mr. HAI. So we all recall that before Vietnam joined the WTO 

they made many promises of which they have not fulfilled. So one 

of the big questions is whether TPP will actually bring economic 

benefits to people in Vietnam, in particular, Vietnamese workers. 

In Communist countries, not just Vietnam, in China too, they 

suppressed worker wages as a way to, you know, spur trade and 

investment so therefore the competition that happens in Vietnam 

is not something that is productive. 

So American businesses may bring their operations to Vietnam 

to take advantage of the artificially low wages and the lack of environmental protections. 

So Vietnamese authorities will profit from these operations in 

taxes and so forth but Vietnamese workers won’t receive their 

proper wages and when those operations shift from the U.S. to 

Vietnam then, of course, American workers will lose their work—

their jobs. 

So therefore I don’t want to see TPP be achieved at the expense 

of human rights. So if Vietnam joins TPP, I would like to see Vietnamese workers have the right to form their own independent 

labor organizations to defend and protect their own rights because 

34

the government-sponsored labor group doesn’t work for the Vietnamese workers and in its history of 80 years it has never organized a strike on behalf of Vietnamese workers. 

And Vietnamese activists who have organized to protect workers 

have been persecuted, as you may have heard, cases such as Bui 

Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen Hoang Quoc Hung. So the lessons experienced with WTO is apparent to us and we should apply that 

for TPP. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. So what you are saying is you don’t want promises. You would like to see real change before the——

Mr. HAI. Yes. I would like to see enforceable measures including, 

with TPP, things that can be done if they do not abide by the promises in the letter of the agreement. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. When are we ever going to learn? They are 

Communists who control Vietnam. I mean, these are people who 

believe in an atheist dictatorship and they have been pushing it 

ever since the beginning of the Cold War. 

I am sorry. You are not going to make deals with these Communists that are going to make them not Communists, and the fact 

that there is still repression going on now, Mr. Chairman, religious 

repression in Vietnam after all of this time which shows you they 

are committed to their philosophy which atheist dictatorship will 

create a better world. 

And, obviously, this idea that we are going to try to—they are 

going to make an agreement to make things better and thus we are 

going to let them into a better trade relationship with us, I am 

sorry. 

It didn’t work in China and it is not going to work in Vietnam. 

The only thing that is going to work in Vietnam and in China is 

if the people of the United States and other freedom-loving people 

around the world decide we are not going to let them be treated 

like they are a free country. That is the only hope we have. 

If we treat gangsters like we do people who are a democratic political people, don’t expect the gangsters to become like political 

people. They will think we are a bunch of suckers. 

Why do they have to change? The last thing we want to do is 

give TPP—a trade status—to any Communist dictatorship until 

after they change, not an agreement that they will change. 

Let me put it this way. The Vietnamese are very freedom-loving 

people and that they are still trying to build churches and suffering 

the repercussions is something consistent with what I have seen 

about the Vietnamese people. 

I spent some time in Vietnam in 1967 up in Pleiku and the Vietnamese I was working with—they were Montagnards and these 

guys were very small and they were willing to take on the entire 

North Vietnamese Army with these little crossbows. 

And then I was down in Saigon working with some students who 

were trying to promote democracy in Vietnam and there would be 

rallies and the Communists would blow up—they would have these 

bicycles loaded with explosives and they would put them into the 

middle of the rallies and blow everybody to hell. 

35

But the students didn’t give up and they were still for freedom 

and democracy, just like the people in Central Highlands didn’t 

give up. 

And today we have got to make sure we don’t give up. We gave 

up once before and I think we betrayed the fail that was put into 

us and now who is going to benefit in faith the United States by 

reaching out to the Communist Government of Vietnam? 

It is a clique of capitalists who will make money and then the 

Communist dictators and the gangsters that run Vietnam will 

make money and the American people won’t be any better off. 

We will be worse off because we will be less secure. We will be 

relying on a gangster regime. But certainly, the people of Vietnam 

aren’t going to be better off. 

They are not going to—out of the goodness of their heart make 

sure that this—that the resources that they are producing with 

their hard work are compensated justly for it because then they 

couldn’t take their share. 

I think it is time for us to, instead of looking for ways to basically 

cozy up and think that we are going to be nice to the dictatorship 

in Vietnam and it is going to reform, we have to put those days 

behind us. 

We are always open to that but we should be open until they 

make the steps first. 

The fact that they are still persecuting religion indicates to us 

that they still believe in this monstrously evil atheist dictatorship 

that the Communists tried to impose on the world for 50 years. 

So with that said, I will certainly be against TPP if they include 

a Communist dictatorship as one of the countries we should treat 

as friends. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Regrettably, there is a series of votes on the floor but I do have 

a few final questions I would like to ask, and if I do have to run 

over, please continue and the hearing will adjourn when you are 

done with your remarks. 

First of all, Mr. Hai, you made a number of very important 

points about abolishing Circular 37 and you said to ensure basic 

human rights for all prisoners to prevent prisoners of conscience, 

political prisoners, as well as prisoners of criminal offenses from 

being treated like animals and maybe elaborate on that. 

You point out that Circular 37 must be abolished and you also 

pointed out when there is a complaint from a incarcerated person—

a political prisoner, for example—that there is a retaliation taken 

against that person by the—by the prison guards and by the warden. 

You might want to respond to that as well. Did that happen to 

you? 

To you, Dr. Thang, as you pointed out, the U.N. Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief offered a very, very 

important observation when he said the rights to freedom of religion or belief of the independent religious communities are grossly 

violated in the face of constant surveillance, intimidation, harassment, and persecution. 

That was July 2014, and unfortunately there are many in Washington who are acting as if somehow things had matriculated from 

36

severe repression in Vietnam to emerging democracy, which it has 

not. If you want to elaborate on that. 

And you also pointed out, and I think this is very important, that 

the Vietnamese National Assembly is promising to promulgate its 

first law on belief and religion. 

Now, there are a lot of people here on Capitol Hill who are gullible, who will accept that they are in the process of reforming and 

you in your testimony many a very strong point that this simply 

cements the restrictions and controls already in place under the ordinance of Decree 92. 

So, you know, another sham reform effort and yet unfortunately 

it will have its buyers here in the capital who will say they are 

redoing their religious—maybe you want to speak to that as well. 

And Ms. Doan, again, thank you for your courageous stand on 

behalf of those who have lost their lives, including your husband, 

and of course those who lost their homes and a parish that lost its 

ability to thrive as it did so well. 

Your courage is deeply appreciated. And of course, Pastor Hung, 

thank you for your leadership as well and for your very concrete 

recommendations. 

Mr. Hai, if we could start with you. 

Mr. HAI. So Circular 37 was issued by the Ministry of Public Security in 2011 and the contents of that circular have never been 

published and they are held in secret. 

According to the criminal procedure code of Vietnam there is no 

mention of all the measures that people have experienced under 

Circular 37. It is something that is not in the legal code. 

For instance, Article 42 of this code, the legal code, talks about 

Vietnamese prisoners being held in public areas in groups who are 

not in solitary confinement. 

But in Article 37 the jailers have many prisons where they hold 

people separately, sometimes behind three sets of doors. 

Each cell will hold from one to two political prisoners and that 

the doors never open and these people are held in de facto solitary 

confinement. 

I am a victim of this Circular 37 and in June 2013 they read an 

order to hold me under solitary confinement but they never gave 

me the written order. 

I was held in solitary confinement for 3 months even though the 

actual laws permit something like that to happen for 10 days. So 

this is an example of a regulation that is below the laws but supersedes the laws. 

Two very appalling and recent cases are of the blogger Dang 

Xuan Dieu and also Nguyen Dang Minh Man, who are both held 

in such circumstances. 

On the issue of issuing appeals, in June 2013 I issued an appeal. 

According to the laws, the authorities have 24 hours to respond to 

my appeal but then I had to go on a hunger strike for 33 days before the authorities made any attempt to resolve the matter. 

During my hunger strike was the visit by the state chairman, 

Truong Tan Sang, to the United States two summers ago and it 

was only when Truong Tan Sang returned to Vietnam that the 

pressure led to the resolution by the authorities. 

37

In conclusion, rather than authorities, you know, resolving my 

case within 24 hours as the law stipulates, I had to go on a hunger 

strike for 33 days and because when I want to protest my mistreatment I have to write it out and give the paperwork to the people 

who are mistreating me. That is why there is such abuse in the Vietnamese prisons. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Please don’t hurry your response. I am 

going to have to leave. Without objection, your full comments will 

be a part of the official record and when you have concluded the 

hearing is adjourned because it is so important that we hear what 

you have to say. 

So Dr. Thang, I do have to run to the vote. But thank you and 

thank you all for your extraordinary testimony, which we will 

make sure that other Members of Congress hear it, House and Senate, because again, your bravery and your insights are absolutely 

amazing and I thank you for it on behalf of my subcommittee. 

Dr. Thang. 

Mr. THANG. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that the prime reason 

for the situation that we have found ourselves in is that the Vietnamese Government has made multiple promises to the U.S. Government and the free world that it would change, it would improve 

human rights conditions in Vietnam, it would become more tolerant of religious freedom. It is of concern that there is a lack of political will in our own administrations throughout many presidencies. 

For instance, Vietnam did promise to come out with a law that 

would respect religious freedom and it did come out with the ordinance on belief and religion. However, the Vietnamese Government 

has surely used that law to control religions, to restrict religious 

activities, and also to create synthetic organizations to crowd out 

the real ones. 

For instance, in many situations relating to Cao Dai religion, the 

Hoa Hao Buddhist religion, the Unified Buddhist religion, the 

Khmer Krom Buddhism, et cetera, and many Protestant denominations, the government aided the synthetic organizations to take 

over the facilities and the assets of the real religious organizations. 

So we are seeing that the Government in Vietnam is using its 

law that on the one hand it claims to be progress in dealing with 

the outside world. But on the other hand, it is using its law to further suppress religious activities in Vietnam. 

Now, back to the report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur, Mr. 

Heiner Bielefeldt. If we take that report at its face value then, 

clearly, there is no other option but for the State Department to 

designate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern. 

The threshold for CPC designation is that there is ongoing egregious violations of freedom of religion. And systematic. And it is 

systematic because this is the law—there is a legal framework that 

allows the government to do this—to act that way and it is ongoing 

because, clearly, in my testimony we have demonstrated that even 

as of today there are egregious violations of freedom of religion in 

Vietnam. 

There is, clearly, a lack of political will on the part of the administration to do exactly what it should have been doing according to 

the law passed by Congress. 

38

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

40

f


95130n.eps
41

f


95130m.eps
42

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


95130e-1.eps
43


95130e-2.eps
44


95130e-3.eps
45


95130e-4.eps
46

f


95130e-5.eps
47

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


95130f-1.eps
48


95130f-2.eps
49


95130f-3.eps
50


95130f-4.eps
51


95130f-5.eps
52


95130f-6.eps
53


95130f-7.eps
54

Æ


95130f-8.eps