U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–344PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

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 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 7, 2018

Serial No. 115–137

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.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 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

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 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

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 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

KAREN BASS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Joseph Cao, former Member of Congress .................................... 9

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS ...................... 18

Ms. Dinah PoKempner, general counsel, Human Rights Watch ......................... 27

‘‘Anthony Le’’ (an alias), spokesperson, Brotherhood for Democracy .................. 37

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Joseph Cao: Prepared statement .................................................. 13

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 21

Ms. Dinah PoKempner: Prepared statement ......................................................... 31

‘‘Anthony Le’’: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 40

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 56

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 57

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: 

Vietnam’s Persecution of H’Mong Christians, prepared by Hmongs United 

For Justice ......................................................................................................... 58

Statement by the Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation Central Overseas Executive Committee .................................................................................................. 65

Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California ............................................................................. 68

Written responses from ‘‘Anthony Le’’ to questions submitted for the record 

by the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of California ......................................................................................... 70

(1)

A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN 

VIETNAM 

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018

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 2:00 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order and good afternoon. 

Sorry for the delay to our witnesses. We did have a series of votes 

and both Ms. Bass and I were delayed so I apologize for that. 

It has been, ladies and gentleman, as you know, a very bad year 

in Vietnam for human rights. Since the beginning of 2018 alone, 

the Vietnamese Government has handed out sentences totaling 

over 100 years in prison and house arrest to human rights defenders and democracy advocates. 

In the past year alone, 22 bloggers have been jailed as well as 

six members of the Brotherhood for Democracy. An outrageous 15-

year sentence was given to Nguyen Van Dai, whose wife, Vu Minh 

Khanh, testified before this committee back in 2016. 

I will note, parenthetically, we are hoping for his release. I would 

note, parenthetically, that I met with Nguyen Van Dai. 

Matter of fact, Dr. Thang helped to arrange it in Hanoi in the 

year 2005 and virtually everyone except one other person—he was 

a lawyer representing a number of people on human rights cases—

were all detained by police and couldn’t come and meet in his 

Hanoi law office. 

It was really very, very discouraging and also an insight into how 

repressive the Communist government regime is in Vietnam. 

I would note that Scott Flipse, who has done yeoman’s work for 

years and is right behind me here, met with Nguyen Van Dai in 

Hanoi in 2007 and 2009 while he was in prison. 

So we have had a long-standing concern that we have expressed 

over and over again for him and for the others who have been held 

unjustly by the Vietnamese Government. 

The Vietnamese Government has gotten a free pass on human 

rights for far too long. There are currently at least 169 political religious prisoners in Vietnam including bloggers, labor union activists, and democracy advocates and religious leaders. 

2

Freedom House rates Vietnam as not free and possessing of some 

of the world’s highest press in internet restrictions. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom again 

this year recommended that Vietnam be designated as a country of 

particular concern for egregious religious freedom abuses. 

I would note that I am disappointed when the new list came out 

and I did personally lobby the administration. We didn’t get any 

luck with the last administration or with the Bush administration, 

which took it off CPC category, and so far not yet with the new 

Trump administration. 

U.S. policy has failed the Vietnamese people. This is a bipartisan 

criticism. We have enriched Vietnam’s Communist leaders and coddled their interests at the expense of the hope and desires of the 

Vietnamese people for liberty and human rights, which they are 

striving to achieve but have been, unfortunately, repressed. 

The Trump administration does have an opportunity to bring 

about real reforms in Vietnam if and only if human rights improvements are linked to better U.S.-Vietnamese relations. 

The U.S. has leverage to encourage reform. Vietnam needs a 

strong U.S. partnership, particularly as China’s aggressiveness increases. 

The question is will there be leverage and will this leverage be 

used to help the people of Vietnam or will our acquiescence or indifference be used to help the Communist leaders? 

I have been to Vietnam a number of times on human rights trips. 

I’ve met with its rights advocates—young activists—for decades. 

The younger generation in Vietnam—66 percent of Vietnam is 

under the age of 40—looks to the U.S. as a land of opportunity and 

a land of freedom. 

This generation wants the same liberties enjoyed by their relatives living in California, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, in my home 

state of New Jersey, and so many other places where former Vietnamese have flourished. 

They want to speak freely, blog freely, worship God freely, and 

be free to choose and change their leaders. Failing to press for concrete human rights improvements underestimates U.S. leverage 

and will disappoint the young generation of Vietnam, who are that 

country’s dynamic future. 

The President will face pressure from his advisors and the business community, especially the business community, to look at 

Vietnam through the lens of trade deals and containment of China. 

Hopefully, he will be able to see the situation more clearly than 

past administrations, and that’s a bipartisan criticism. Both Republicans and Democrats in the White House have not done what they 

could have done to make a difference. 

No government that represses its own people or restricts fundamental freedoms can be a trusted ally of the United States. 

No government that censors the internet, tortures, and jails dissidents, crushes civil society should be given generous trade and security benefits without conditionality. 

Robust championing of individual rights will meet with some success, if recent history is our guide. The Vietnamese Government 

has responded to concerns expressed by the last two administraVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060718\30344 SHIRL
3

tions when they linked human rights improvements to better U.S.-

Vietnamese relations. 

Whether to gain entry into the World Trade Organization—

WTO—the TPP—Trans-Pacific Partnership—or to address U.S. 

concerns over religious freedom, the Vietnamese Government took 

steps when we insisted and when they were pressed by American 

Presidents. 

It is when the U.S. loses interest in human rights that conditions 

regress, as it has in the past year. The business of the Communist 

party is staying in power and repressing those that they believe 

will challenge their power. 

They will not embrace human rights improvements or the rule 

of law unless it’s a firm condition of better relations with the U.S. 

Putting human rights and the rule of law at the center of bilateral relations is the goal of H.R. 5621, the Vietnam Human Rights 

Act, bipartisan legislation that I introduced last month. 

I will note parenthetically that that bill—there is different 

iterations of it but with a lot of input, including from some of our 

witnesses including Dr. Thang, has passed the House four times. 

It always gets over to the Senate and holds are placed on it, and 

those holds are to the detriment of the Vietnamese people. Hopefully this year we will see a change. 

The bill emphasizes the connection between human rights improvements and U.S. interests and states that U.S. policy should 

prioritize the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, internet 

freedom, independent labor unions—which are nonexistent—the 

protection of women and girls from trafficking, and advances in the 

rule of law as critical components of both U.S.-Vietnamese relations 

and any U.S.-led effort to ensure free and open Indo-Pacific region. 

And I mentioned the bill had passed four times—three times as 

a free-standing bill, once as an amendment—and even then when 

Frank Wolf was willing to get it into an appropriations bill, a senator, stepped in and objected and out it came. So it’s time for that 

to end. 

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague, Ms. 

Bass, for any comments you might have. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today’s hearing 

and bringing attention to the myriad of human rights violations in 

Vietnam. 

Just over 1 year ago, we had an important hearing on how religious freedom and human rights in Vietnam are critical to the U.S. 

national interest. 

Starting from the restoration of diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995, the bilateral relationship with the United States has 

grown considerably, especially in trade and investment. 

Over the past decade, U.S. exports to Vietnam have increased over ninefold from $10 billion in 2016, U.S. imports in 2016 were 

$10 billion, up 43 percent from 2015 and 823 percent over the past 

decade. 

The relationship between our two nations is animated by the increase of Vietnamese who have immigrated to the United States. 

Over 1.3 million immigrants call the U.S. home. 

The deepening of this relationship, however, is going to depend 

on how much progress the Government of Vietnam makes on critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060718\30344 SHIRL
4

ical human rights, namely, free press and political descent, land expropriation, religious freedom, workers’ rights, and human trafficking. 

Unfortunately, the trend lines are not positive. CNN reported 

that six human rights activists in Vietnam have been sentenced to 

between 7 and 15 years in jail. 

As was mentioned by the chairman, the Hanoi People’s Court has 

given the longest sentence to human rights lawyer, Nguyen Van 

Dai for trying to overthrow the People’s administration. 

The judgment comes amid a wider crackdown on peaceful dissent 

that has seen several bloggers and human rights activists given 

long jail sentences in the last 12 months. 

During 2017, authorities arrested at least 21 bloggers and activists or exercising their civil and political rights. They were arrested 

for national security offenses but in reality, the offenses included 

writing articles critiquing the government—critical of the government, and peaceful activism. 

Added to this, the Vietnam—Vietnam’s legislature is set to pass 

a Cybersecurity law that would provide the government another 

means by which to silence and punish those critical of the government. 

This is a deeply disturbing trend and one that the Government 

of Vietnam needs to halt and reverse. I look forward to hearing the 

views, perspectives, and recommendations and I want to thank the 

chairman for allowing two of our colleagues, Zoe Lofgren and Alan 

Lowenthal, to participate in this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I’d like to yield to Chairman Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I was not prepared to have an opening 

statement but I will just speak from the heart, which is what 

makes us all Americans is that we believe in freedom. 

That’s what it’s supposed to do. There are no greater champions 

of freedom that I know than Vietnamese Americans who have suffered tyranny and suffered under what now is not even a Communist government but a crony capitalist government that is totally oppressive of its people. There is very little difference between 

that and what the Communists believed except the Communists 

were sincere. 

The gang that now—because they thought they were going to 

change the world by oppressing everybody and eliminating religion, 

getting rid of democratic notions. The group that now controls Vietnam is a group of gangsters that have their clique and they are oppressing anyone who might get in their way. 

And one thing I would like to ask the panel, I know—now, Mr. 

Chairman, as you know, I opposed the Magnitsky Act—only the 

title, however. 

I supported and support the idea of holding accountable those 

people who are committing human rights violations—those individuals and those specific offices overseas. I don’t think the Magnitsky 

was the—was the proper name because I think that particular case 

is still decided as to what happened. 

But the idea of punishing specific individuals overseas for their 

human rights violations is a good idea and I call on you, Mr. Chairman, and the rest of my members here, let’s find out who specifiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060718\30344 SHIRL
5

cally in Vietnam are conducting these human rights and hold them 

specifically accountable. 

And I pledge my support to the Vietnamese community in 

achieving that goal. Thank you very much and thanks for holding 

this very important hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. I’d just point out to my friend, and I’ll go to Ms. Zoe 

Lofgren, in our new bill, as I think the gentleman knows, we do 

have a strong admonishment to the administration to use the 

Magnitsky Act and also use the tools that are in the International 

Religious Freedom Act, which I sponsored. 

We named it after Frank Wolf, the great champion of religious 

freedom. But there are brand new tools that Brownback—and of 

course, the President—has now. Brownback is the Ambassador-atLarge for religious freedom—he can really bring to bear on Vietnam. 

I do think we missed an opportunity when we did not—we, the 

U.S. Government—did not designate Vietnam as a CPC country. 

But that can be done at any time. 

It doesn’t have to be done annually. It can be done anytime and 

I think the record absolutely invites that because they have a horrific record of religious persecution. 

I’d like to yield to Zoe Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Bass. I want to thank, you know, Chairman Smith, and 

Representative Lowenthal and I co-chair the Vietnam Caucus and 

although this is an official Foreign Affairs Committee, it’s very gracious of you to allow us to participate and I appreciate it very 

much. 

This is an important topic how the government in Vietnam is 

using Article 79 to oppress people and to suppress free speech. 

Some of the tools that we might have that have not yet been utilized amid the Human Rights Act that we have passed repeatedly, 

the Magnitsky Act that has been mentioned. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and so we can get 

to them sooner. I would just like to ask unanimous consent to put 

my remarks in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered, and thank you. 

I’d like to yield to Mr. Garrett? No? 

Mr. GARRETT. I would yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lowenthal, the gentleman from California. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for 

all attending and I thank also the chairman, Chairman Smith, for 

inviting me to participate and I appreciate that and also Ranking 

Member Bass, I appreciate that. 

As one of the co-chairs of the congressional Vietnam Caucus, I’ve 

advocated in Congress on the issue of the human rights abuses in 

Vietnam. 

During my time in Congress, I have adopted several Vietnamese 

prisoners of conscience who are unfairly and unjustly jailed for 

their political and religious beliefs. Two of my prisoners of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh and Nguyen Tien Trung, have 

been released. 

I want to thank BP SOS for their work in helping to relocate the 

pastor, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, to the United States. 

6

Unfortunately, this is not the fate of the many of the others who 

have been imprisoned for their act. I want to highlight and point 

out the case of Nguyen Van Dai, a pro-democracy activist, co-founder of the Brotherhood for Democracy. 

Mr. Nguyen is one of my current prisoners of conscience. He’s a 

human rights lawyer, a blogger who was recently sentenced to—

unjustly to 15 years in prison for what? For speaking out against 

human rights abuses. 

He traveled throughout Vietnam to teach law students and to 

train young human rights defenders on human rights reporting 

mechanisms, how to deal with police interrogation, and then he 

was tried for conducting propaganda against the state. He was sentenced to prison and forced to close his office. 

You know, throughout the Tom Lantos—through the Tom Lantos 

Human Rights Commission I’ve advocated for the release of Mr. 

Nguyen. 

I want to also acknowledge Mr. Anthony Le, who is here today. 

He’s a spokesperson for the Brotherhood for Democracy, and I look 

forward to hearing from his testimony. 

Again, I just want to—in concluding, I want to highlight another 

prisoner of conscience of mine, the Most Venerable Thich Quang 

Do, the Supreme Patriarch of the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam. 

The Patriarch has been jailed numerous times for leading nonviolent protests against the Vietnamese Government and for calling 

for religious freedom. 

He is currently under house arrest. It is unconscionable that the 

Venerable—the Supreme Patriarch is kept in jail or at least under 

house arrest now. 

And then I want to thank—and I’ll just end—Chairman Smith 

and the other co-chairs of the Vietnam Caucus for Chairman 

Smith’s work on H.R. 5621. I am glad to participate in that and 

to help. 

It imposes, among other things, it would invoke sanctions per the 

Magnitsky Act. It would impose financial and travel restrictions for 

human rights abusers and it calls for the release of religious and 

political prisoners and designates Vietnam as a country of particular concern. 

I look forward to the testimonies and, again, I thank the chair 

for inviting. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, and reclaiming my time. I just felt like 

saying that. 

I want to speak briefly because I know that sometimes in this 

body it’s frustrating. We don’t feel like we are getting things done. 

But I do that people in the Republic of Vietnam watch these 

hearings and so I want to take this opportunity in front of this assembled group as well as these distinguished guests to speak to my 

vision at it relates to our interaction with the nation of Vietnam. 

I had the honor with the ACYPO prior to my entry into this August body to visit Vietnam and what I watched was a dynamic 

emerging economy with opportunity and all sorts of good leading 

indicators for the future. 

7

However, the good facts as it relates to Vietnam as well as their 

geographic location adjacent to China, who seems more and more 

bent on hegemonic behavior within the region and the emerging 

economy will not aid in relations with the United States, despite 

the fact that we want to encourage those would stand against that 

hegemonic behavior by China, those who would engage in good 

international economic relations, and those economies that are vibrant and emerging to do so so long as human rights violations 

persist. 

And I stress that point and that is the only reason that I reclaimed time so that those in Vietnam who are watching this understand that the people in this body on both sides of the aisle appreciate the tools that are at our disposal. 

I don’t know what took us so long to get Global Magnitsky but 

I think now that we have it we need to be willing to use it—that 

we should engage in trade relations with nations who honor basic 

human dignities and rights, which include the freedom of expression, the freedom to love who you wish, worship how you want, or 

behave how you will so long as you do not harm another, and these 

things aren’t occurring in Vietnam. 

So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, as long as Vietnam recognizes 

basic fundamental human rights it’s exciting to think about the 

prospects going forward and the relations between our nations, particularly in light of the history between our two nations. 

But so long as they stymie the basic expression of individuals 

and disallow individuals from seeking their own conscience, soul, 

and self-determination as it relates to their beliefs, then this will 

stymie this relationship. 

And let that, if I have any contribution to this body today, be the 

message that I send. 

We want to work with you. We want to trade with you. We want 

to be friends with you. 

But if we are who we aspire to be as a nation, we will not, until 

you recognize basic human liberties. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrett. 

I’d like to now introduce our distinguished panel, beginning from 

my left, your right. It is a high honor and privilege to welcome 

back Anh Joseph Cao, the first Vietnamese American to be elected 

to the United States Congress, representing the 2nd Congressional 

District of Louisiana. 

At the age of eight, Anh Joseph Cao was placed by his mother 

onto a U.S.-bound plane fleeing Saigon with his 4-year-brother and 

14-year-old sister. 

His mother stayed behind to raise five children while her husband spent 7 years in reeducation camps where he was tortured repeatedly. 

In the United States, Anh was separated from his siblings and 

raised by an uncle. Later, he moved to Falls Church, Virginia, 

where he volunteered with Boat People SOS, working to protect the 

last boat people stranded in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong, and 

to secure the resettlement of reeducation camp survivors. 

In the fall of 1997, Anh returned to New Orleans to attend law 

school and join the board of directors of Boat People SOS there. 

8

We appreciate his service here in Congress. He was an absolute 

leader on human rights in general but especially for the Vietnamese. I thank him for the insights that he has provided years 

to date and I know will again today. 

Next, we will hear from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang. Dr. Thang left 

Vietnam with his family as a boat person in 1978 and arrived in 

the United States in 1979 after 7 months in a refugee camp in Malaysia. 

He graduated with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering in 1986 

and worked for 15 years at a research lab out of the United States 

Navy. 

For the past 35 years, he has been involved in community services, refugee protection, and human rights advocacy in the United 

States and in Asia. 

Under his leadership, Boat People SOS has grown into an international organization with operations in 14 locations in the U.S. 

and in Asia. 

In 2008, he co-founded the Coalition to Abolish Modern-Day 

Slavery in Asia called CAMSA, which has so far rescued and/or assisted over 5,000 victims of labor and sex trafficking. 

He travels extensively to Asia and closely monitors the human 

rights conditions of Vietnam, and I would just note parenthetically 

before going on to our other very distinguished witness—Dr. 

Thang—when the comprehensive plan of action was being closed 

with about 40,000 stranded refugees in Southeast Asia, we had 

very credible insights and information that many of the people who 

were true refugees had been improperly screened out by the Clinton administration. 

I held five hearings. Dr. Thang provided insight at those hearings that pointed out—which became something that we acted 

upon—that many people were intimidated if they got anything 

wrong in their interviews, which were very, very hostile. 

They weren’t U.S. adjudicators. They were people from Hong 

Kong and elsewhere who didn’t want them there, and I remember 

going to High Island in Hong Kong and seeing refugees there and 

being told how hostile it was. 

We had one man who was a double amputee who said, ‘‘I have 

a target on my back if I go back. I fought in the war and they are 

trying to forcibly repatriate me,’’ and they were calling it voluntary 

repatriation. 

So from those hearings, Dr. Thang and Joseph Rees, who was 

then our chief of staff, and I worked on an amendment that led to 

the ROVR program and over 20,000 Vietnamese people were actually given asylum here as a direct result of that program. 

That would not have happened without Dr. Thang and I want to 

thank him for that. I remember offering the amendment on the 

floor and it passed, against all odds. It wasn’t supposed to pass. 

And one of the things that they told us—and this is part of the 

disinformation campaign that some even—well, many people told 

us that anybody who was going back would have a repatriation 

monitor. 

So I had a hearing on repatriation monitors. Turns out there 

were seven of them, and what did those seven do? When they 

9

would go back and talk to someone who was forcibly repatriated, 

right next to them would be someone from the secret police. 

Who in their right mind is going to say, ‘‘I am being discriminated against, or hurt, or in any way maltreated,’’ with that person 

sitting there? 

So when the repatriation monitor exits the town or hamlet, whatever it might be, or a village, they are left to deal with those consequences. It was a farce. We used that in our debate and, thankfully, we got the ROVR program out of it. 

I would now like to welcome Dinah PoKempner, who is general 

counsel for Human Rights Watch. Her work has taken her to Cambodia, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia, and 

elsewhere, and documenting and analyzing compliance with international humanitarian law, war crimes, and violations of civil and 

political rights. 

She has written on freedom of expression, peacekeeping operations, international tribunals, U.N. human rights mechanisms, 

cyber liberties and security in refugee law, among other human 

rights topics, and oversees the organization’s positions on international law and policy. 

A graduate of Yale and Columbia University School of Law and 

a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. PoKempner also 

teaches at Columbia University. We welcome her here and are 

grateful that she’s here today to testify. 

We will then hear from Anthony Le, who is here today as spokesman for the Brotherhood for Democracy. He has participated in the 

struggle for the basic civil rights of the Vietnamese workers, farmers, and fishermen under the Communist regime. 

He and other assigned members have organized regular workshops for workers about their rights and advocacy skills for their 

rights and interest in addition to equipping them with the knowledge about organizing independent labor unions that currently do 

not exist, as I said earlier, in Vietnam. 

We deeply appreciate his presence here today, and I also would 

like to welcome Angela Huyen, who will be acting as his translator 

today. 

Congressman Cao, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CAO, FORMER 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. 

First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking 

Member Bass for holding this important hearing today concerning 

Vietnam’s human rights abuses this past year. 

Indeed, it was a bad year for human rights in Vietnam. Fortunately, the Vietnamese American community has Chairman Smith 

and members of this subcommittee who have been champions for 

human rights in Vietnam and around the world for as long as I can 

remember. 

As Chairman Smith stated, my first encounter with him came in 

1996. I first met Chris Smith as an intern of Boat People SOS to 

advocate for the rights of Vietnamese refugees. 

10

He listened attentively to an unknown 29-year-old Vietnamese 

American who had little experience lobbying for human rights on 

Capitol Hill. 

I returned to Washington, DC, 13 years later as a Member of 

Congress and there was Chris Smith, serving as my colleague and 

guide on the legislative process to bring about changes to the 

human rights conditions in Vietnam. 

Today, I appear before this subcommittee as a former Member of 

Congress and here is Chris Smith, still listening with the same attentiveness and determination to make this world a better place. 

Thus, my relationship with Chairman Smith spans over two decades, and with the help and sometimes even the lead of other 

human rights advocates such as Tham Nguyen, Dr. Tram Ho, Reverend Tam Huu Pham, Mr. Truc Ho, and countless others, we were 

able to bring about some changes, but change has been slow. 

Severe human rights abuses continue in Vietnam and data suggests these abuses are mounting. Mr. Chairman, the principles of 

religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, 

freedom to organize, and the freedom to own property have served 

as the bedrock of our great nation or over two centuries. 

Not only do we defend our citizens against those internal forces 

that seek to suppress these freedoms, we fought and have given 

our lives to defend these freedoms against foreign nations that 

threaten to destroy these values. 

We have demanded of ourselves that these freedoms must be preserved at all costs and we demand the same from those nations 

with whom we associate. 

In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly required that the Vietnamese Government adhere to universal standards on human rights for decades, but little has been achieved. 

The Vietnamese Government, in 2017, committed what is regarded as an outright assault on freedom and universal human 

rights. 

Instead of using the Asia-Pacific Economic Collaboration Summit, which was held in Vietnam, to demonstrate its adherence to 

universal standards on human rights, the government amplified 

human rights abuses including against freedom or religion or belief. 

According to the USCIRF, the assault on the freedom of religion, 

expression, association, and assembly was nationwide, signifying a 

concerted effort to suppress and silence critics and peaceful activists. 

Vietnam systematically harassed, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured dissidents, democracy activists, bloggers, and religious leaders on an unprecedented scale not since the end of the Vietnam 

War. 

Thus, the Vietnamese Government’s previous willingness to engage in dialogue on issues of human rights and religious freedom 

was only a ruse to gain benefit, and after the benefits have been 

gained, it reverts back to its old ways. 

But Vietnam has gotten smarter. To be able to wash their hands 

of the crimes committed against those who love freedom, they conspire with thugs and criminals to silence dissent. 

11

One through of such thugs is the Red Flag Association, a militant pro-government mob aimed at harassing Catholics. As a 

Catholic myself, I find this particular distasteful. 

The Red Flag Association’s goal is to suppress and hamper protests against the Formosa Steel Plant, whose illegal toxic dumping 

caused one of the greatest environmental disasters in Vietnam and 

brought suffering to the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who 

depended on the rivers and seas for their livelihood. 

Moreover, they sowed division between Catholics and non-Catholics, intimidate parishioners, vilify priests, attack lay leaders, and 

desecrate churches and homes. 

The association’s membership consists of local security forces, 

government employees, members of government-sponsored organizations, unemployed adults, and street thugs. 

The Red Flag leaders, among others, consist of Tran Nhat Quan, 

Le Thi Quynh Hoan, Nguyen Trong Nghia. According to the 

USCIRF, the harassment and assaults carried out by the Red Flag 

Association were government directed or government tolerated. 

An egregious incident involving the Red Flag Association occurred recently in Nghe An Province. On December 23rd, 2017, a 

group of thugs belonging to the association went to Ke Gai Parish 

and harassed, intimidated, and assaulted the parishioners while 

they were working on an irrigation project on their land near the 

church. 

A criminal complaint was filed with the Nghe An police against 

the perpetrators. Instead of arresting the thugs, Nghe An Province 

police prosecuted the victim and all witnesses of the criminal incident. 

Groups belonging to the Red Flag Association also carry out acts 

of harassment and violence in Song Ngoc, Van Thai, and Doing 

Kieu Parishes in Nghe An Province. 

Acts were also carried out in Vinh Diocese in central Vietnam 

and Tho Hoa Parish in Dong Nai Province. 

However, these actions are only the tip of an iceberg. Government-sanctioned land grab against religious institutions continues 

unabated for personal profits and economic gains of corrupt officials. 

One example is Thu Thiem Convent belonging to a congregation 

of Catholic nuns who, on May 1st, 2018, received a notice from the 

People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City requiring that the church 

be moved or face confiscation because the church is located on a 

block of land illegally auctioned to a developer, who intends to convert the land into a marketplace. 

Furthermore, how ironic that the APEC Summit, attended by 

President Trump in November 2017 was held at a resort in Da 

Nang City, owned by the very developer that took over the land illegally seized with the use of harassment, detention, and torture 

from Con Dau Parish, and incident that I, and Chairman Smith, 

condemned but was unable to prevent as we looked on helplessly. 

However, we are no longer helpless. The passage of the Global 

Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, which President 

Obama signed into law on December 23rd, 2016, now enables this 

House to bring justice to the victims of Con Dau Parish. 

12

Pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, I would like to submit the following officials who were 

involved in the illegal land grab of Con Dau Parish for sanction, 

and for the sake of brevity I’ll just simply mention their names. 

First is Nguyen Ba Thanh, Tran Van Min, Van Huu Chien, Vo 

Van Thuong, Le Quang Nam, Nguyen Van Tien, Le Van Tam, Tran 

Muu, Huynh Duc Tho, Nguyen Dieu, Nguyen Van Toan, Le Viet 

Lam, Ho Thi Nga, Le Viet Hieu, Phan Huu Phung, Dang Hong 

Phuc, Nguyen Ngoc Tuan. 

The incidents enumerated above is but a fraction of the abuses 

that the Vietnamese Government has inflicted on its own people in 

the past years. 

USCIRF annual report 2018, Vietnam chapter, outlines numerous accounts of other acts, which I will not enumerate here, and 

Dr. Thang Nguyen will direct this subcommittee’s attention to Vietnam’s law on belief and religions implemented in January of this 

year, which could open the door to further oppression and restriction on the freedom of religion. 

I commend President Trump in his meeting with Prime Minister 

Nguyen Xuan Phuc on May 31st, 2017, which stressed the importance of protecting and promoting human rights in Vietnam. 

However, I believe more must be done. In agreement with the 

USCIRF, I suggest, one, Vietnam be redesignated as a country of 

particular concern; two, economic and trade negotiations must address human rights and religious freedom abuses in Vietnam; 

three, Vietnam must be required to provide concrete benchmarks 

in the promotion of human rights and religious freedom; four, Vietnam promptly release prisoners of conscience and democracy activists who were arrested and imprisoned under dubious laws; five, 

return and/or adequately compensate victims of illegal land grab; 

six, a transparent system of compensation for the victims of the 

Formosa environmental disaster be implemented; and seven, the 

passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act. 

In closing, I would like to once again thank Chairman Smith and 

members of the subcommittee for holding this important hearing. 

In due respect, I would like to direct the subcommittee’s attention to the work of Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan. When you 

deprive people their rights to live in dignity, to hope for a better 

future, to have control over their lives—when you deprive them of 

that choice, then you expect them to fight for these rights. 

Staying faithful to the principles that make our nation great, we 

will fight for the rights of those who do not have a voice. 

We ask that this House and this administration will heed the 

voice of the oppressed around the world, particularly those of the 

people of Vietnam. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cao follows:]

13


30344a-1.eps

TESTIMONY OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN ANH "JOSEPH" CAO 

DATE: JUNE 7, 2018 

TOPIC: A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM 

COMMITTEE/SUBCOMMITTEE: SUBCOMMITTEE AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the Subcommittee: 

First, I would like to thank Chainnan Smith and Ranking Member Bass for holding this 

important hearing today concerning Vieh1am's human rights abuses this past year. Indeed, it 

was a bad year for human rights in Vietnam. Fortunately, the Vietnamese-American Community 

has Chairman Smith, who has been a champion for human rights in Vietnam and around the 

world for as long as I can remember. In the summer of 1996, I first met Chris Smith as an intern 

of Boat People S.O.S. to advocate for the rights of Vietnamese refugees. He listened attentively 

to an unknown 29-years old Vietnamese-Ame1ican who had little experience lobbying for 

human rights on Capitol Hill. I returned to Washington, DC 13 years later as a member of 

Congress, and there was Chris Smith serving as my colleague and guide on the legislative 

process to bring about changes to the human rights condition in Vietnam. Today, I appear 

before this Subcommittee as a former Member of Congress, and here is Chris Smith still 

listening with the same attentiveness and determination to make this world a better place. 

Thus, my relationship with Chairman Smith spans over two decades and with the help, and 

sometimes even the lead, of other human rights champions like Dr. Thang Nguyen, Dr. Tram 

Ho, Rev. Tam Huu Pham, Mr. True Ho, and countless others, we were able to bring about some 

change, but change has been slow. Severe human rights abuses continue in Vietnam and data 

suggest these abuses are mounting. 

Mr. Chairman, the p1inciples of religious liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, 

freedom to organize, and the freedom to ovm property have served as the bedrock of our great 

nation for over two cenruries. Not only do we defend our citizens against those internal forces 

that seek to suppress these freedoms, we fought and have given our lives to defend these 

freedoms against foreign nations that threaten to destroy these values. We have demanded of 

ourselves that these freedoms must be preserved at all cost, and we demand the same from 
14


30344a-2.eps

those nations with whom we associate. In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly 

required that the Vietnamese Government adhere to universal standards on human rights for 

decades, but little has been achieved. The Vietnamese government in 2017 committed what is 

regarded as an "outright assault on freedom and universal human rights."' Instead of using the 

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit, which was held in Vietnam, to demonsh·ate 

its adherence to universal standards on human rights, the government "amplitled human rights 

abuses, including against freedom or religion or belief." According to USCIRF, the assault on 

the freedom of religion, expression, association, and assembly was nationwide, signifying a 

concerted effort to suppress and silence critics and peaceful activists. Vietnam systematically 

harassed, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured dissidents, democracy activists, bloggers, and 

religious leaders on unprecedented scale not seen since the end of the Vietnam War. Thus, the 

Vieh1amese government's previous willingness to engage in dialogue on issues of human rights 

and religious freedom was only a ruse to gain benefits, and after the benefits have been gained, it 

reverts back to its old ways. But Vietnam has gotten smarter. To be able to wash their hands of 

the crimes committed against those who love freedom, they conspired with thugs and criminals 

to silence dissent. One group of such thugs is the Red Flag Association-a militant, 

progovernment mob aimed at harassing Catholics.' As a Catholic myself, I find this particularly 

distasteful. The Red Flag Association's goal is to suppress, and hamper protest against the 

Formosa Steel Plant, whose illegal toxic dumping caused one of the greatest environmental 

disasters in Vietnam and brought suffering the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese who 

depended on the rivers and seas for their livelihood.3 Moreover, they sow division between 

Catholics and non-Catholics; intimidate parishioners, vilify priests, attack lay leaders, and 

desecrate churches and home. 4 The association's membership consists of local security forces, 

government employees, members of government-sponsored organizations, unemployed adults, 

and street thugs. Its leaders, among others, consists of: Tran Nhat Quang (Red Flag Association 

in HaNoi), Le Thi Quynh Hoan (Red Flag Association in Nge An Province), and Nguyen Trong 

Nghia (Red Flag Association in Dong Thap Province). According to the USCIRF, the harassment 

1 USCIRF Annual Report 2018, Vietnam Chapter, available at httQJ/~"~LY'J,uscirf,go_y/countriesjvietnarn. 

zz "Red Flag Associations: An emerging threat to Catholic communities in Vietnam", available at 

Based on information and belief, the Formosa Steel Plant has paid $500 million to compensate the victims of the 

Formosa disaster. Typical of the Vietnamese Government, there has been a lack of transparency on how the 

money has been dispersed to those who were affected by the worst environmental disaster in the history of 

Vietnam. Tragically, the victims living in Nghe An Province, which was at the epicenter of the disaster, were not 

even on the list of those should be compensated. Based on information and belief, only small amount of the $500 

million has been dispersed to the victims. 4 See, "Red Flag Associations: An emerging threat to Catholic communities in Vietnam." 
15


30344a-3.eps

and assaults carried out by the Red Flag A~sociation were government-directed or govemmenttolerated.s An egregious incident involving the Red Flag A~sociation occurred recently in Nghe 

An Province. On December 23, 2017, a group of thugs belonging to the Association went to Ke 

Gai Parish and harassed, intimidated, and assaulted the parishioners while they were working 

on an irrigation project on their land near the church. A criminal complaint was filed v.cith the 

Nghe An Province Police against the perpetrators. Instead of arresting the thugs, Nghe An 

Province Police prosecuted the victims and/ or witnesses of the criminal incident. Groups 

belonging to the Red Flag Association also carried out acts of harassment and/ or violence in 

Song Ngoc, Van Thai, and Dong Kieu Parishes in Nghe An Province, Vinh Diocese in central 

Vietnam, and Tho Hoa Parish in Dong Nai Province. 

However, these actions are only the tip of an iceberg. Government sanctioned land-grab against 

religious institutions continues unabated for personal profit and economic gains of cmTupt 

officials. One example is Thu Thiem Convent belonging to a congregation of Catholic nuns who 

on May 1, 2018 received a notice from the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City requiring 

that the church to be moved or face confiscation because the church is located on a block ofland 

illegally auctioned to a developer who intends to convert the land into a marketplace. 

Furthennore, how ironic that the APEC Summit attended by President Trump in November 

2017 was held at a resort in Da Nang City owned by the ve1y developer that took over the land 

illegally seized, v.cith the use of harassment, detention, and torture, from Con Dau Parish, an 

incident and I and Chairman Smith vehemently condemned but was unable to prevent as we 

looked on helplessly. However, we are no longer helpless. The passage of the Global Magnitsky 

Human Rights and Accountability Act, which President Obama signed into law on December 23, 

2016, now enables this House to bring justice the victims of Con Dau Parish. Pursuant to the 

Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, I would like to submit the follomng 

officials who were involved in the illegal land-grab of Con Dau Parish for sanctions: 

1) The Estate of Nguyen Ba Thanh: Mr. Nguyen Ba Thanh was a member of the Vietnamese 

Communist Party Politburo, Chair of Central Internal Affairs, who was known as "Mr. 

Ten Percent" because he allegedly charged a 10% "commission" for any development 

approved in Da Nang City. 

2) Tran Van Minh: A former chairman of the People's Committee of Da Nang City and 

deputy head of the Communist Party's personnel committee, Mr. Tran Van Minh 

authorized and supervised the attack on Con Dau parishioners on May 4, 2010. 

5 See, USCIRF Annual Report 2018, Vietnam Chapter. 
16


30344a-4.eps

3) Van Huu Chien: A former chairman ofthe People's Committee of Da Nang City, Mr. Van 

Huu Chien signed orders to illegally confiscate properties belonging to Con Dau 

Parishioners; he was arrested by the policy on April 17, 2018 for mismanaging and 

misusing state prope1iy. 

4) Vo Van Thuong: A former chairman of the People's Committee of Cam Le District, Dan 

Nang City, and a current Pmiy Secretary and chairman of the People's Committee of Hai 

Cahu District, Mr. Vo signed orders to illegally expropriate land from Con Dau 

parishioners as part of deal with Sun Group to develop an eco-resort. 

5) Le Quang Nam: A current director of the Department of Natural Resources and 

Environment of DaN ang City, Mr. Le Quang Nam was responsible for formulating policy 

to evict and relocate Con Dau parishioners; he currently works with Sun Group through 

various investment banks to lands illegally expropriated from Con Dau parishioners to 

private investors. 

6) Nguyen Van Tien: The present commander of the Cam Le District Police Depmtment, 

Mr. Nguyen Van Tien ordered the arrest, interrogation, and t01ture of Con Dau 

parishioners. 

7) LeVan Tam: A current Commander of the Da Nang City Police, he ordered the use of 

force and violence against Con Dau Parishioners. 

8) Tran Muu: A current Deputy Commander of Da Nang City Police, he led his security 

force to attach mourners of a funeral procession in Cau Dau; he ordered the arrest and 

torture of 62 Con Dau parishioners. 

9) Huynh Due Tho: A current Chairman of the People's Committee of Da Nang City, Mr. 

Huynh continues his predecessor's illegal policy of land expropriation of Con Dau 

Parishioners. 

10) Nguyen Dieu: Before retirement, Mr. Dieu was the Director of the Department of Natural 

Resources and Environment of Da Nang City, and in that capacity, he officially 

transferred the illegally expropriated land of Con Dau Parish to the Sun Group. 

11) Nguyen Van Toan: A current Pmiy Secretary and Chairman ofthe People's Committee of 

Hoa Xuan Ward, he supervised the ordered the removal of 1,600 tombs from the Con 

Dau cemetery, and ordered the demolition of hundreds of homes of parishioners. 

12) Le Viet Lam: CEO of Sun Group, Mr. Lam was behind the forced expropriation of Con 

Dau Parish land and sub-divided the lots for resale and great profit. 

13) Ho Thi Nga: Allegedly an assistant to late Nguen Ba Thanh, Mr. Ho used fraud to obtain 

land use rights of Con Dau parishioners. 

14) Le Viet Hieu: A Lieutenant Colonel of the Cal Le District Police, Mr. Le personally 

tortured a number of Con Dau parishioners. 

15) Phan Huu Phung: A Lieutenant Colonel and Head of the Cam Le District Criminal Police 

Team, Mr. Phan personally tortured a number of Con Dau Parishioners. 
17


30344a-5.eps

16) Dang Hong Phnc: A police officer of Cam Le District, Mr. Dang personally tortured Con 

Dan parishioners. 

17) Nguyen Ngoc Tuan: A police Lieutenant of the Cam Le District Police, he tortured a 

number of Con Dan pmishioners, including Nguyen Hun Liem. 

The incidents enumerated above is but a fraction of the abuses that the Vietnamese government 

had inflicted on its own people the past years. USCIRF Annual Report 2018, Vietnam Chapter, 

outlines numerous accounts of other acts which I will not enumerate here, and Dr. Thang 

Nguyen will direct this Sub-Committee's attention to Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion 

implemented in January of this year which could open the door to further oppression and 

restriction on the freedom of religion. 

I commend President Trump, in his meeting with Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc on May 31, 

2017, for stressing the importance of protecting and promoting human rights in Vietnam. 

However, I believe more must be done. In agreement with the USCIRF, I suggest that: 1) 

Vietnam be re-designated as a "Country of Particular Concern" under IRFA; 2) economic and 

trade negotiations must address human rights and religious freedom abuses in Vietnam; 3) 

Vietnam be required to provide concrete benchmarks in the promotion of human rights and 

religions freedom; 4) Vietnam promptly release prisoners of conscience and democracy activists 

who were arrested and imprisoned under dubious laws; sl Vietnam return and/or adequate 

compensate victims of illegal land -grab; 6) a transparent system of compensation for the victims 

of the Formosa environmental disaster be implemented; and 7) the passage of the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act. 

In closing, I would like to once again thank Chairman Smith and members of this subcommittee for holding this important heming. In due respect, I would like to direct this subcommittee's attention to the words of Queen Rania AI Abdullail of Jordan: "When you deprive 

people their rights to live in dignity, to hope for a better future, to have control over their lives, 

when yon deprive them of that choice, then yon expect them to fight for these rights." Staying 

faithful to the principles that make our nation great, we will fight for the rights of those who do 

not have a voice; we ask that this House and this Administration will head the voice of the 

oppressed around the world, particularly those of the people of Vietnam. 
18

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Cao, thank you very much for your eloquent statement and, again, for your leadership. 

Dr. Thang. 

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

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE SOS 

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

subcommittee, thank you for using this timely hearing to shine a 

spotlight on the worsening human rights condition in Vietnam and 

also thank you for bringing us together because this is an opportunity for me to see Dinah PoKempner after 25 years. 

Dinah used to work with us—collaborate with us on projects to 

push back forced repatriation of Vietnamese boat people in Hong 

Kong. 

Since late 2016, we have documented a surge in the number of 

prisoners of conscience and the government’s more aggressive drive 

to force members of unregistered churches to renounce their faith 

or to convert to government-created or controlled religions. 

We have documented so far some 170 prisoners of conscience in 

Vietnam. I should have added four more—these are Falun Gong 

members which just got sentenced to 3 years of prison recently. 

And one-third of those prisoners of conscience on our list are actually religious prisoners. In the first 5 months of this year, 23 

human rights advocates have been sentenced a total of 172 years 

in prison followed by 41 years of house arrest, and among them 

four members of the same Hoa Hao Buddhist family are serving a 

total of 17 years of imprisonment. 

The ongoing brutal persecution of Hoa Hao Buddhists is documented in a report by the Hoa Hao Congregation Central Overseas 

Executive Committee, which, with your permission, I would like to 

include as part of this testimony. 

The Government of Vietnam has stepped up its game, enforcing 

followers of independent unregistered churches to renounce their 

faith. 

Forced renunciation of faith has caused the membership of the 

Montagnard Evangelical Church of Christ, which was founded by 

a former prisoner of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, that 

was mentioned by Mr. Lowenthal just now, to plummet from its 

high of 1,500 members just 18 months ago to merely 500 today, 

and at least 1,100 families of Hmong Christians in the north and 

central Vietnam have been denied citizenship documents and evicted from their villages because they refused to abandon their Christian faith. 

The circumstances I describe in detail in a report by Hmong 

United for Justice, which, with your permission again I would like 

to include as part of my testimony. 

Registration requirements is the government’s most potent instrument to force members of unregistered churches to abandon 

their faith and/or join government-created or controlled churches. 

The growth of the latter spells the decline and demise of independent religions but is often mistaken as a sign of improved religious freedom in Vietnam. 

19

One prime example is the massive forced conversion of millions 

of Cao Dai followers which has gone unnoticed by the international 

community for the past two decades. 

In 1978, the Vietnamese Government sweepingly abolished the 

Cao Dai Church altogether. Then in 1997, by a directive of the 

Communist Party, the government created a totally new sect which 

repudiates the most fundamental dogma of Cao Dai religion and 

that is direct communion between the Supreme Being and humanity through spiritualism. For ease of reference, I will call this 

newly-created government-created sect the 1997 Sect—the year it 

was formed. 

With government support, it has occupied the Holy See of the 

Cao Dai religion in Tay Ninh Province and has barred Cao Dai followers—true Cao Dai followers from accessing it. 

In 2008, for instance, the Vietnamese public security issued an 

arrest warrant against Mr. Zun Sun Lung—and he was here in 

Congress to talk to some of you, Members of Congress—because he 

was suspected of organizing a gathering on the grounds of the Holy 

See. He had to be on the run for 8 years before he successfully escaped to Thailand and he came to this country last year. 

A more recent gathering in 2015 of 200 Cao Dai followers at 

their own Holy See was met with violence by the police and the security unit of the 1997 Sect. 

This sect has systematically seized Cao Dai temples throughout 

the country, often using force and violence with support of the police and thugs. 

For more than 8 years, for instance, Cao Dai followers in Saigon 

had to conduct prayer services on the pavement outside of the temple after it had been taken by force by the government-created sect. 

In 2012, as another example, members of the 1997 Sect, with the 

support of government officials and thugs, seized the Cao Dai Temple in Binh Duong Province by force. 

The local leader of that sect poured gasoline on a young Cao Dai 

follower and was about to set him on fire when other sect members 

stopped him. Of the hundreds of Cao Dai temples, all except 15 

have been seized by the government-created sect. 

To coerce Cao Dai followers to convert, the 1997 Sect has routinely disrupted religious activities conducted in private homes. 

On November 11, 2015, its members, accompanied by the public 

security police and thugs, entered the home of a female Cao Dai 

follower in Tay Ninh Province, broke off the ongoing religious ceremony, and trashed food being served to guests because she had not 

asked the 1997 Sect for its blessing. 

We have documented some 20 similar incidents in different cities 

and provinces so far. Less than 5 months ago, earlier this year, the 

1997 Sect blocked the burial of a 78-year-old Cao Dai follower because his mourning family members had invited clergy members of 

the real Cao Dai religion to the funeral, and just last week we received reports that many tombs of Cao Dai followers being desecrated by the 1997 Sect. 

The government-created sect is different from the Cao Dai religion in all aspects—dogma, name, charter, canonical law, organizational structure. 

20

Yet, it occupies the Holy See and uses the letterhead, the seal, 

insignias, of the Cao Dai religion in all its communications and 

publications. 

Foreign governments, including our own Government, have thus 

mistaken it for the Cao Dai religion and misinterpreted its activities as greater religious for Cao Dai followers. 

This is analogous—the sect that does not recognize Christ as the 

son of God occupies the Vatican, persecutes Catholics, and yet presents itself as the Catholic Church, and the international community has been fooled. 

The new law on belief and religion has even more stringent registration requirements and will give local authorities even more 

power to curtail unregistered independent religions which represent the vast majority of people of faith in Vietnam. 

Three weeks ago, the government of Quang Tri Province officially 

declared that under the new law it is now illegal for the local parish priest to conduct prayer services in the private homes of his parishioners. 

In the case of the Cao Dai religion, the new law will certainly 

further tip the balance in the favor of imposter. In light of the 

above, I recommend that the U.S. Government, again, echoing the 

recommendation of Congressman Cao, redesignate Vietnam as a 

country of particular concern or at least place Vietnam on the 

international religious freedom watch list; apply sanctions under 

the Global Magnitsky Act and International Religious Freedom Act 

against not only government officials but also nonstate actors such 

as the Red Flag Association or the 1997 Sect that pretends to be 

the Cao Dai religion, found to be responsible for gross human 

rights violations; press Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience and amend its laws including the law on belief and religion to be in compliance with all 

human rights treaties that Vietnam is a state party of; work with 

like-minded governments to raise serious concerns on human rights 

issues at the Universal Periodic Review of Vietnam to be held in 

January of next year; and finally, engage directly with the unregistered churches to regular roundtable meetings with the representatives, the leaders both in Vietnam and in the United States. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]

21


30344b-1.eps

Vietnam: 

Statement of Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang 

CEO & President, Boat People SOS 

At the hearing on 

Freedom and Human 

l'.S. National Interests 

are Critical to 

Before the Subcommittee on Atfica, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International 

Organizations, House Committee on Foreign Atl'airs 

June 7, 2018 

Nguyen Dinh Thang, PhD, left Vietnam with his family as a boat person in 1978 and arrived in 

the United States in 1979 after seven months in a retugee camp in Malaysia. He graduated with a 

PhD in Mechanical Engineering in 1986 and worked for 15 years at a research lab of the US 

Navy. For the past 35 years he has been involved in community services, refugee protection and 

human rights advocacy in the United States and Asia. Under his leadership, BPSOS has grown 

into an international organization with operations in 14 locations in the United States and Asia. 

In 2008 he co-founded Coalition to Abolish Modern-day Slavery in Asia (CAMSA), which has 

so far rescued and/or assisted over five thousand victims of labor and sex trafficking. He travels 

extensively to Asia and closely monitors the human rights conditions in Vietnam. In 20 II he 

received, on behalf ofBPSOS and CAMSA, the Asia Human Rights and Democracy Award 

from Taiwan President and Speaker of the House. 
22


30344b-2.eps

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, 

Thank you for holding this hearing in light of the worsening human rights conditions in Vietnam. 

According to the NOW I Campaign, which BPSOS launched in conjunction with 14 other human 

rights organizations last November, there are some 170 prisoners of conscience in Vietnam's 

prisons. About half are victims of religious persecution. Many of them are Montagnard 

Christians. We also call your attention to the Hoa Hao Buddhists among the religious prisoners; 

notably, Mr. Bui Van Trung, a Hoa Hao Buddhist, was sentenced earlier this year to 6 years of 

imprisonment, his son also to 6 years, his daughter to 3 years, and his wife to two years of 

suspended prison tenn. Both Mr. Trung and his son are former prisoners of conscience. Mr. 

Trung's son in law was also a prisoner of conscience. With your approval, I would like to 

include the statement of Mr. Sydney Tran, who represents the Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation 

Central Overseas Executive Committee. 

Another group of religious prisoners consists of20 leaders of the An Dan Dai Dao Buddhist 

Sect. This sect was practically wiped out by the communist regime as soon as it took over South 

Vietnam. 

Since late 2016 we have observed a marked increase in forced renunciation offaith, in the 

government's use of non-state actors to carry out its policy of religious persecution, and in the 

government's land grab targeting independent religious institutions and communities. There are 

worrying signs that Vietnam's new law on belief and religion, which took effect on the first day 

of this year, only makes this dire situation worse. 

The new law restrictively detines religion and belief. For example, a religious adherent is detined 

as one who is recognized by a religious organization, and a religious organization must be 

recognized by the government. In other words, a follower of an independent church may not 

even qualify as a religious adherent; the government may now argue that even a heavy prison 

sentence against followers of independent churches would not constitute religious persecution. 

The language of this law and its related implementing decrees is intentionally left so vague that 

the government may interpret it in whichever way to justify their policies. The recent incident in 

Catholic Parish of Yen Giang, Quang Binh Province, serves as illustration. Tt has approximately 

one thousand parishioners. This impoverished rural area has few accessible roads and therefore 

many parishioners cannot easily attend church. Since 2014, the Parish Priest, Reverend Cao 

Duong Dong, had regularly conducted prayer service at the home of the elderly, those with 

disabilities, and those without means of transportation. 

This is no longer possible under the new law as interpreted by the local authorities. On May 15, 

2018, they issued a formal notice declaring prayer service at private homes illegal, citing Article 

12 of Section Ill, and Articles 16, 17, 18, 19 of Section IV of the Law on Belief and Religion. 

More stringent registration requirement is the most troubling aspect of this law; it deepens the 

government's already tight control of all religions and religious activities. Hence, in the view of 

the Vietnamese Conference of Catholic Bishops, "ftfhe Law on Belief and Religion continues to 

consolidate the )1011 ask and we grant' mechanisms." The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom 

of Religion or Belief~ Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt, echoed this concern in his report dated January 30, 
23


30344b-3.eps

2015, following his mission to Vietnam the previous year: "!1 should be clear that/he right of an 

individual or group to theirft·eedom of religion or he lief can never he 'created' hy any 

adminislralive procedures. !?!..7/her, if is the oiher way around: regislralion should serve !his 

human right, which itself must he respected as preceding any registration" See: 

1DY_lY.ohcbr.onz/EN/}ilU'l@i§!HRC/l~lar~_;;siQ!l1f .. ./A HRC 28 11i:i Add.2 E.doc 

The government has deftly used registration requirement to tighten the noose around 

unregistered churches while creating more favorable conditions for government-created or 

controlled churches to expand their int1uence and forcibly convert members of unregistered 

churches. To a casual observer, the increase in forced conversion to government-created or 

controlled religions would be ironically perceived as greater freedom of religion. 

At a prior hearing T already informed this Committee of the Vietnamese government's policy of 

using threats, harassment, intimidation, beatings, imprisonment and torture to force members of 

the Montagnard Evangelical Church of Christ, which was founded by Pastor Nguyen Cong 

Chinh, to join a government-controlled Protestant church. Consequently, its membership has 

plummeted to 500 from the high of 1,500 in 2016. 

This stratagem has worked so well that the forced conversion of millions offollowers of the Cao 

Dai Religion has gone unnoticed by the international community for the past two decades. In 

1978, the Vietnamese government abolished the Cao Dai Church. Then in 1997, it created a new 

sect. We have obtained copies of internal directives of the Vietnamese Communist Party laying 

out an elaborate plan to create the new sect, and form political cells of communist agents to 

control all parts and aspects of this sect, which we refer to herein as the 1997 Sect. 

This sect ditlers fundamentally from Cao Dai religion in practically all aspects, including its 

dogma. Most notably, Cao Dai followers believe in direct communion between the Supreme 

Being and humanity through spiritism. The new sect, by order of the Vietnamese Communist 

Party, otlicially repudiates spiritism. It was registered and recognized by the government as a 

different entity from the Cao Dai Church. Its name, charter, canonical laws and organizational 

structure of the new sect are all ditTerent from those of the Cao Dai Church. 

With the support of the Government the 1997 Sect seized the Holy See, located in Tay Ninh 

Province, of the Cao Dai Religion, leaving it with only the office of its Legislative Body. 

The 1997 Sect has prohibited followers of Cao Dai Religion from gathering on the grounds of 

their Holy See. In 2008 a group of 120 Cao Dai followers who gathered there were immediate! y 

dragged away by the police working in concert with the 1997 Sect's security force. The public 

security issued an arrest warrant against Duong Xuan Luong, suspected to be the mastermind 

behind that gathering. He had to live in hiding until his escape to Thailand in 2016. He finally 

arrived in the United States last year. 

On May 27, 2015, when some 200 Cao Dai followers converged to their Holy See, they were 

surrounded by public security police, militia members, traffic cops, plainclothes police, and some 

20 members of 1997 Sect's security unit wearing red armbands. As Cao Dai followers refused to 

disperse, these security members attacked them with batons and spray paint; the police dispersed 

them with water cannon from nearby tire trucks. One Cao Dai follower, Tran Van Hap, was 
24


30344b-4.eps

attacked by ten security members of the 1997 Sect. They wrestled him to the ground, kicked him 

at his face and groin, and beat him on his head and stomach with batons. They then tied his 

hands with a rope and delivered him to public security officers waiting in a nearby building. 

Three female Cao Dai Religion followers ran to his assistance; they were wrestled to the ground 

and brutally beaten by the 1997 Sect security members. 

The 1997 Sect systematically seizes Cao Dai temples throughout the country, often using force 

and violence with the support of the police and thugs. On April 14, 2005, the 1997 Sect, with the 

support of the Committee on Religious Affairs, evicted Cao Dai followers from their temple in 

Saigon. For the next 8.5 years, they had to conduct prayer service on the pavement in tront of 

their temple until they finally found a makeshift place of worship in 2013. [See photo No. I] 

Tn another equally outrageous example, on September 16, 2012, government officials led some 

30 members of the 1997 Sect and thugs to attack the Phu My Cao Dai Temple in Binh Dinh 

Province, when ten Cao Dai followers were attending prayer service. They were savagely beaten 

by the attackers and suffered serious injuries. Nguyen Cong Tru, a young Cao Dai follower who 

was most severely injured, was being nursed by other Cao Dai followers when the local leader of 

the 1997 Sect attacked, pouring gasoline on him and was about to set him on fire when other 

1997 Sect members intervened. Many victims had to be hospitalized afterwards including the 

young Cao Dai follower, who still suffered post-traumatic stress disorder when I talked to him a 

few weeks ago. [See photos No. 2 & 3] 

The next example points to the 1997 Sect's cruel and shrewd strategy to make it impossible for 

Cao Dai followers to ever reclaim their temple. Founded in 1970, the Dinh Quan Cao Dai temple 

served 500 Cao Dai followers in Dong Nai Province. On Sunday December 28, 2009 members 

of the 1997 Sect came, escorted by thugs, public security agents, military personnel, and local 

government officials. They punched, kicked and beat up all Cao Dai Religion followers present 

at the temple. They ransacked the temple, causing major damages. Overwhelmed by brutality, 

the Cao Dai followers left their place of worship. Members of the 1997 Sect moved in and 

occupied it. In 2017, they demolished the temple. On January 13, 2018, Mr. Nguyen Thanh 

Tam, Head of the 1997 Sect, attended the groundbreaking ceremony to build a new 1997 Sect 

temple on the grounds of the old Cao Dai temple. [See photos No.4 & 5] 

Of the hundreds ofCao Dai temples before 1975, all except 15 have been seized by the 

government-created sect. Cao Dai followers had to join this sect as condition to enter what used 

to be their temples. 

As additional pressure to coerce conversion to the 1997 Sect, local sect leaders have routinely 

disrupted religious activities of Cao Dai followers even in their private homes, demanding that 

they submit themselves to the 1997 Sect before they may conduct home-based religious 

activities. Since 2012 we have reported some 20 such incidents to UN Special Procedures and 

the State Department. Following are two illustrative examples. On November 11, 2015 members 

of the 1997 Sect, accompanied by the public security police and thugs, entered the home of Mrs. 

Cao Thi Chinh in Cam Binh Hamlet, Cam Giang Village, Go Dau District. They broke off the 

religious ceremony that was going on and trashed food being served to guests. [See photo No.6] 
25


30344b-5.eps

On July 15, 2015 as Mrs. Nguyen Thi Kim Thoi, a Cao Dai follower in An Quoi Hamlet, An 

Hoa Village, Trang Bang District, Tay Ninh Province, was about to start the religious ceremony 

to set up an altar, a mob composed of public security police, thugs and members of the 1997 Sect 

kicked open the front door of her house. They entered her home without invitation, destroyed 

furniture, attacked guests, and took away the statue of the divine eye, the most important 

religious symbol of Cao Dai Religion, and other religious icons so that the ceremony could not 

proceed. [See photo No. 7.] 

The 1997 Sect has targeted Cao Dai followers even posthumously. To accommodate the wish of 

many Cao Dai followers to be buried on the sacred ground of their religion's Holy See, the Cao 

Dai Church built a cemetery on 58 hectares of land. Any Cao Dai follower would be granted a 

burial lot if he or she wishes. At the time it seized Cao Dai Religion's Holy See, the 1997 Sect 

also took control of this cemetery. Its leaders recently decided that burial in this cemetery would 

be denied to those who had refused to convert to the 1997 Sect 

Earlier this year, we reported to the State Department and several UN agencies the appalling 

incident involving Mr. LeVan Nha, 78 year-old resident ofNinh Phuoc Hamlet, Ninh Thanh 

Village, Chau Thanh District, who passed away on January 7, 2018. As his family members and 

mourners proceeded to the cemetery at the Cao Dai Holy See, members of the 1997 Sect blocked 

the burial, and government officials asked family members to move the burial to a different 

cemetery. Intent on carrying out the deceased's last wish, his wife decided left the coffin 

unburied and unattended on the cemetery's ground overnight After more than a day of 

confrontation, the 1997 Sect relented and let the mourning family members bury their dead, but 

without the presence ofCao Dai clergy members. Unfortunately, this story is not unique. Last 

week we received reports of tombs ofCao Dai followers just outside this cemetery being 

desecrated by the 1997 Sect. 

To deceive foreign observers, the Cao Dai Tay Ninh Sect has used the letterhead, seal, and 

insignias of the Cao Dai Religion in all communications, publications, and promotional 

materials. The international community, including the U.S. government, has thus been fooled 

into thinking that the 1997 Sect is Cao Dai Religion, and religious activities conducted at the 

Holy See denote greater religious freedom for Cao Dai followers. This is analogous to a sect that 

does not recognize Christ as the son of God occupying the Vatican, persecuting Catholics and yet 

presenting itself as the Catholic Church. 

On November 16,2015, the highest authority of the Cao Dai Religion, its Legislative Body, 

broke its silence and declared that the 1997 Sect is not Cao Dai Religion and its leader, Nt,>uyen 

Thanh Tam, unqualified to be a Cao Dai clergy member. The 1997 Sect immediately closed 

down the office of the Legislative Body, thus completing the sect's physical takeover of the 

entire Holy See of the Cao Dai Religion. 

The new law on belief and religion will only strengthen the hands of the imposter at the expense 

of the real Cao Dai Religion. 

With increasing signs that our concerns about Vietnam's new law on belief and religion are 

becoming reality and considering the Vietnamese government's increasing use of non-state 
26


30344b-6.eps

actors such as the 1997 Sect to suppress independent religions, 1 respectfully offer the following 

recommendations to the U.S. government: 

( 1) Re-designate Vietnam as a country of particular concern or at least place Vietnam on the 

international religious freedom Watch List; 

(2) Maintain a list of non-state actors that have committed gross human rights violations and 

press the Vietnamese government to investigate and prosecute perpetrators for such 

violations; 

(3) Apply sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act and the International Religious 

Freedom Act to both government otlicials and members of non-state actors found to be 

responsible for gross human rights violations; 

( 4) Call on the Vietnamese government to amend its laws, including the Law on Belief and 

Religion, so as to be in compliance with human rights treaties that Vietnam is a stateparty of; 

(5) Advocate for the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience; and 

(6) Engage directly with unregistered churches through trequent, periodic meetings with 

their representatives, and through partnership with them in collaborative projects. 
27

Mr. ROHRABACHER [presiding]. I am Congressman Rohrabacher. 

Chairman Smith will be back, and I am very honored to chair this 

hearing while he’s gone. Let me say hello to my old friend as well 

as new friends and just say that I personally appreciate what 

you’re doing here today. 

You have listed for us the heroes and you listed for us the villains, and we have news for heroes, which is you are not forgotten. 

You may languish away. You may be just suppressed as the Cao 

Dai and our Montagnard friends are—or there’s others there who 

are the villains. 

To the heroes we say you are not forgotten. The Vietnamese people who are standing tall during these bad times, you are not forgotten. You are not alone. 

And to the villains that torture them and conduct themselves in 

a repressive way toward their own people, we say we are going to 

get you. We are coming for you. 

The people who believe in freedom in this world will not forget 

the crimes that you committed against your own people right now. 

So thank you for being specific on what people are being actually 

oppressed and vilified and they’re being treated and tortured—mistreated and tortured and their rights are being taken away specifically, which you both have, and thanks for naming the villains as 

well so that we can hold them accountable. 

Like I say, I didn’t agree with the title of the Magnitsky Act, but 

I believe—I vote the actually substance of that act of holding people accountable. It is a major step forward for the United States. 

And now we will have Ms. PoKempner. Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DINAH POKEMPNER, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. POKEMPNER. I am truly honored to be here to testify before 

you, because the last time I presented testimony to Congress on 

Vietnam was around the time of normalization and Dr. Thang, I 

remember working with you in the camps in Hong Kong. 

I followed Vietnam for years as the researcher on Vietnam for 

Human Rights Watch, and my heart is heavy because I am sad to 

observe that the progress in human rights we had hoped that closer relations might bring has not been realized. To the contrary, we 

see a sharp decline in the very recent years. 

As everyone at this hearing has made clear, human rights in 

Vietnam are deeply restricted in almost every area and it has not 

changed significantly in nearly the quarter century in which I have 

followed the country. 

The Communist Party of Vietnam continues to maintain a monopoly on political power, suppresses every conceivable challenge to 

its authority or prestige, and it equates its self-preservation with 

national security. 

All basic rights including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion are conditioned on the supremacy of the party 

and, accordingly, restricted. 

Those who try to assert their rights against authority, promote 

rights awareness or write or speak about human rights in any medium face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment. 

28

These are the facts. Repression is not strictly partisan or ideological. Criticism of the status quo is enough to bring retribution. 

Farmers continue to lose land to development projects without 

adequate compensation. Workers are not allowed to form independent unions. 

The entire system of enforcement serves the interests of those in 

power. The courts are not independent. Police use torture and beatings to extract confessions. 

Plain-clothes thugs are deployed to harm and intimidate people 

when arrest or more formal confrontation is deemed inconvenient. 

Once detained, people may be further physically tortured, ill-treated, denied family visits, adequate food, or needed medical care. 

This is all well known. It has been known for decades. Despite 

this, increasing numbers of bloggers and activists have called publicly for democracy and greater freedoms but Vietnam is not letting 

them speak. 

In recent years the government has arrested and criminally prosecuted an increasing number of people for simply saying things 

critical of the government. 

In 2017, we know police arrested at least 41 people, by our count, 

for sweeping national security offenses that are used to punish critical speech, peaceful activism. 

In the first 5 months of this year, the courts convicted at least 

26 people for political offenses. Although it’s always difficult to get 

reliable figures, our impression is the trend in numbers of people 

being arrested and convicted have been increasing and the harshness of sentences meted out has increased as well. 

And there’s no sign of change or progress. To the contrary, Vietnam’s legislature is scheduled to pass a cybersecurity law on June 

12th that will provide yet another way people who criticize the government or the party can be silenced and punished, and it’s going 

to be enlisting local and foreign companies in this suppression. 

We are about to publish a press release on this topic. I will give 

you a little preview. This law will give the ministry of public security the power to command the erasure of all kinds of forbidden 

content. Forbidden content in Vietnam can be anything that is simply disfavoured by the government. It will force companies to verify 

the real names of users, keep those names localized in Vietnam, 

and produce them to public security on demand, and then to force 

companies to deny services to those who post what the government—that is, the ministry of public security—considers forbidden 

content. 

It will also access information that is behind a firewall via a 

VPN a crime. This is one of the more repressive cybersecurity laws 

we’ve seen. We think it’s something that Congress must take note 

of. 

Mr. Chairman and—sorry, Representative Rohrabacher, members, our chief recommendation to the committee and to the U.S. 

Government in general is to speak much more forcefully and publicly to the Government of Vietnam about the problems and use the 

whole of the U.S. Government to do so. 

Every congressional office, every Federal agency that engages 

with Vietnam, and whether it’s on trade, military assistance, hardVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Jul 10, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\060718\30344 SHIRL
29

ware and software transfers, education, or any other subject should 

be expressing deep concern on human rights to its counterparts. 

They should be saying in this kind of frank language: We see 

what you’re doing and it’s tremendously disappointing to us. The 

fact that your government continues to beat, detain, incarcerate 

people for dissent or religious conviction more than two decades 

since the normalization of relations, it’s a constant source of injury 

to this relationship between our country and yours. Your actions 

imperil our security and economic relationship—a problem which in 

the context of an increasingly dominant China is not a good thing 

for you and it’s not a good thing for us. 

Congress should be sending delegations to Vietnam who can 

speak these concerns face to face. We also recommend that you list 

key cases of concern you’d like to see resolved. Tell them that you 

know who they are detaining. Tell them about Nguyen Van Dai. 

Tell them about Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, a 51-year-old entrepreneur who is serving 16 years in prison for calling for democracy 

and a multi-party political system. 

Why don’t you enquire about Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, also 

known as Mother Mushroom, a woman who is sentenced to 10 

years in prison for advocating social and political issues such as 

land confiscation, displacement of communities, police brutality, 

freedom of expression. 

Hoang Duc Binh, 34, a very young man sentenced to 14 years in 

prison for his activism to promote the rights of workers and fishermen in the context of that disastrous 2016 Formosa toxic spill. 

We would also suggest you raise the case of Ngo Hao, a 70-yearold human rights and democracy activist currently serving a 15-

year sentence after writing articles calling for transition to democracy in Vietnam. 

According to his family, he’s suffering from poor health including 

high blood pressure, gastric ulcers, high cholesterol. 

We ask that you raise these very specific cases because pressure 

on specific cases we know leads authorities to speed parole or improve conditions for prisoners. I have heard this directly from released prisoners. Your words, your actions directly affect their 

lives. 

In fact, they have—even if you—even if it fails to make an immediate improvement, they will hear about it. It will provide them 

comfort on a psychological level. It’s a good deed to do. It’s easy. 

We also suggest that should the National Assembly enact the 

cybersecurity law that I just described to you in detail that will 

make online dissent even more dangerous and enlist the complicity 

of U.S. corporations in Vietnamese repression that you react and 

react very strongly in protest. 

Vietnam’s actions of this nature should influence how Congress 

views its role in keeping U.S. technology and industry from being 

used for the purpose of stifling rights. 

Freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of opinion, 

and freedom of conscience are values that are central to this country, to its people, to its democracy, its security and, therefore, to 

its foreign relations. 

30

Attached with my written testimony is a list of 140 prisoners detained for merely exercising their rights who are currently known 

to Human Rights Watch. 

Each and every one of them deserves your attention. Thank you 

so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. PoKempner follows:]

31


30344d-1.eps

Testimony Submitted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 

Hearing: 'A Bad Year for Human Rights in Vietnam' 

Jtme 7, 2018 

Dinab PoKempner, General Counsel, Human Rights Watch 

Dear Chairman, Members of the Committee, friends, 

I am honored to be invited to testify before you today. The last time I presented testimony to 

Congress on Vietnam was at the time of normalization of relations with the US., and I am sad to 

observe that the progress in human rights we hoped closer relations might bring has not been 

realized. To the contrary, we have seen sharp declines in recent years. 

Today' s hearing, and the testimony of other witnesses, make clear that human rights in Vietnam 

are deeply restricted in almost every area. 

The Communist Party of Vietnam continues to maintain a monopoly on political power and 

suppresses every conceivable challenge to its authority or prestige, equating its self-preservation 

with "national security." All basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, 

association, and religion, are conditioned on the supremacy of the Party and accordingly 

restricted. Those who try to assert their rights against authority, promote rights awareness, or 

write or speak about rights in any medium face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and 

imprisonment. 

Repression is not strictly partisan or ideological; criticism of the status quo is enough to bring 

retribution. Farmers continue to lose land to development projects without adequate 

compensation, and workers are not allowed to form independent unions. The entire system of 

enforcement system serves the interests of those in power. The courts are not independent; 

police use torture and beatings to extract confessions; plainclothes thugs are deployed to harm 

and intimidate people when arrest or more formal confrontation is deemed inconvenient. Once 

detained, people may be further physically tortured, ill-treated, denied family visits, adequate 

food or needed medical care. State-run drug rehabilitation centers exploit detainees as laborers 

making goods for local markets and export. 

Despite all this, increasing numbers ofbloggers and activists have called publicly for democracy 

and greater freedoms. But Vietnam is not letting them speak 

In recent years, the government has arrested and criminally prosecuted an increasing number of 

people for simply saying things critical of the government. In 2017, police arrested at least 41 

people by our count for sweeping "national security" ommses that are often used to punish 

critical speech and peaceful activism. In the tirst 5 months of2018, the courts convicted at least 

26 people for political offenses, sentencing them to between 2 and 15 years in prison. Although 

it is always dit1icult to obtain reliable tigures, our impression is that the trend in numbers of 

people being arrested and later convicted have been increasing. And the harshness of their 

sentences appears to have increased as well. 
32


30344d-2.eps

Vietnam denominates many of these people as 'criminals.' But in many of the cases we've seen, 

the underlying acts for which people have been charged-writing articles critiquing the 

government, handing out pamphlets-are acts which all human beings have a right to engage in, 

under human rights treaties that Vietnam has freely signed and ratified. 

And there is no sign of change or progress. To the contrary, Vietnam's legislature is scheduled to 

pass a cybersecurity law on June 12 that will provide yet another way people who criticize the 

government or the Party can be silenced and punished, and it will enlist local and foreign 

companies in this suppression. 

Mr. Chairman, our chief recommendation to this committee, and to the US government in 

general, is to speak more forcefully and publicly to the government of Vietnam about the 

problems, and to use the whole of the US government to do so. Every congressional office, and 

every federal agency that engages with Vietnam--whether on trade, military assistance, hardware 

and software transfers, education or any other subject--should be expressing deep concern on 

human rights to its counterparts. They should be saying: 

'We see what you are doing And it is tremendously disappointing to us. The fact that 

your government continues to heat, detain and incarcerate people for dissent or religious 

conviction more than two decades since normalization of relations is a constam source of 

injwy to the relationship between our country and yours. Your actions imperil our 

security and economic relationship, a problem which in the comext of an increasingly 

dominam China, is not a good thing for you, and not a good thing for us.' 

Congress should send delegations to Vietnam who can speak to these concerns face to face. We 

also recommend that you list key cases of concern that you would like to see resolved. Tell them 

that you know whom they are detaining. We suggest you raise cases like Tran Huynh Duy 

Thuc, a 51 year old man who is serving 16 years in prison for calling for a democracy and a 

multi-party political system in Vietnam. Nguyen Van Dai, 48, sentenced to 15 years in prison 

for being affiliated with a pro-democracy group. Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, 38, also known as 

"Mother Mushroom", a woman sentenced to 10 years in prison for advocating on social and 

political issues including land confiscation, displacement of communities, police brutality, and 

freedom of expression. Hoang Due Binh, 34, a young man sentenced to 14 years in prison for 

his activism to promote the rights of workers and fishermen in the context of the disastrous 2016 

Formosa toxic spill 

We would also suggest you raise the case ofNgo Hao, a 70 year old human rights and 

democracy activist currently serving a 15-year sentence after writing articles calling for a 

transition to democracy in Vietnam. According to Ngo Hao's family, he is suffering from poor 

health including high blood pressure, gastric ulcers, and high cholesterol 

ln some instances, pressure like this on specific cases can lead authorities to speed parole or 

improve the conditions of prisoners. In fact, we have spoken to former prisoners who have told 

us that the fact that outside pressure was being placed on the government, in their cases, had 

practical and positive impacts on their treatment, and was also comforting on a psychological 

level 
33


30344d-3.eps

We also suggest that should the National Assembly enact the cybersecurity law that will make 

online dissent even more dangerous and enlist the complicity of US corporations in Vietnamese 

repression, that you react, and react strongly in protest. Vietnam's actions of this nature should 

influence how Congress views its role in keeping US technology and industry from being used 

for the purpose of stifling rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of 

opinion and freedom of conscience are values that are central to this country, to its people, its 

democracy, its security, and therefore to its foreign relations. 

Attached to the written form of my testimony is a full list of 140 prisoners detained for merely 

exercising their rights who are currently known to Human Rights Watch. Each one of them 

deserves your attention. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Appendix: 

Human Rights Watch List of Political Prisoners 

as of May 2018 

The following is a list of people imprisoned in Vietnam for expressing critical views of the 

government, taking part in peaceful protests, participating in religious groups not approved by 

the authorities, or joining civil or political organizations that the ruling Communist Party of 

Vietnam deems threats to its monopoly on power. This list only includes people who have been 

convicted and remain in prison and does not include the significant number of detainees who 

have been arrested, are currently facing trial, and have not yet been convicted. Tt is also almost 

certainly incomplete, as it only includes convictions that Human Rights Watch has been able to 

document. 

Due to difficulties in obtaining information about convictions and sentences in Vietnam, this list 

may differ from those compiled by other organizations, and such differences do not necessarily 

reflect inaccuracies. Vietnam should be urged to open its legal system -including official 

records and proceedings- to public scrutiny. 

1. Bui Hi~u Yo, born 1962 

2. Tr~n Thi Xuan, born 1976 

3. Nguyiln Vi@tDung, born 1986 

4. Nguyiln Van Tuc, born 1964 

5. Nguyiln Van Diti, born 1969 

6. Nguyiln Trung Ton, born 1972 

7. TmongMinhDuc, born 1960 

8. Nguyiln B~c TruySn, born 1968 

9. Le Thu Hit, born 1982 
34


30344d-4.eps

10. Ph<,~m Van Tr9i, born 1972 

11. Bui Van Trung, born 1964 

12. Bui Van Thi\m, born 1987 

13. Bui Thi Bich TuySn, born 1982 

14. Nguyiin Hoang Nam, born 1982 

15. Le H6ng H<,~nh, born 1979 

16. Hoang Due Binh, born 1983 

17. Nguyiin Nam Phong, born 1980 

18. H6 Van Hili (a.k.a Dr. H6 Hai), born 1959 

19. Vil Quang Thuan (a.k.a Yo Phil D6ng), born 1966 

20. Nguyiin Van Di~n (a.k.a Di~n Ai Qu6c), born 1983 

21. Tr&n Hoang Phuc, born 1994 

22. Vuong Van Tha, born 1969 

23. Vuong Thanh Thuan, born 1990 

24. Nguyiin Nhat Truong, born 1985 

25. Nguyiin Van Thuqng, born 1985 

26. T<,~ T~n LQC, born 1975 

27. Nguyiin Quang Thanh, born 1983 

28. Huynh Hilu D<,~t, born 1970 

29. Nguyiin Van Tufm, born 1984 

30. Nguyiin Van Ngh1a, born 1978 

31. Ph<,~m Long D<,~i, born 1996 

32. Doan Thi Bich Thuy, born 1972 

33. Truong Thi Thu H&ng, born 1984 

34. Truong Thi Bich Ng0c, born 1994 

35. Nguyiin T~n An, born 1992 

36. Huynh Thi Kim Quyen, born 1979 

37. Nguyiin Ng0c Qui, born 1992 

38. Ph<,~m Van Tr0ng, born 1994 

39. Nguyiin Thanh Binh, born 1994 

40. Nguyiin Van H6a, born 1995 

41 Phan Kim Khanh, born 1993 

42. Nguyiin Van Oai, born 1981 

43. Tr~n Thi Nga, born 1977 

44. Nguyiin Ng0c Nhu Quynh (a.k.a M~ N~m), born 1979 

45. Ra Ma Daih (Ama Pan) born 1989 

46. Puih Bop (Ama Phun), born 1959 

47. Ksor Kam (Am a H'Trum), born 1965 

48. RoLan K1y (Ama Blan), born 1962 

49. Dinh Nang (Ba Pol), born 1965 

50. Tr&n Anh Kim, born 1949 

51. LeThanh Tung, born 1968 

52. Ksor Phit, born 1970 

53. Siu Dik, born 1970 

54. Nguyiin Huu Qu6c Duy, born 1985 

55. Ksor Pup (Ama Hyung) 
35


30344d-5.eps

56. Siu Doang, born 1983 

57. A Jen, born 1984 

58. A Tik, born 1952 

59. Dinh Kil:, born 1972 

60. Thin, born 1979 

61. Gyun, born 1980 

62. Ng6 Thi Minh Uoc, born 1959 

63. NguySn Hil:u Vinh (a.k.a Ba Sam), born 1956 

64. NguySn Ti~n Thjnh 

65. Hoang Van Thu 

66. NguySn Le Chiiu Binh 

67. NguySn Van Thong, born 1965 

68. Kpuih Khu6ng 

69. Rmah Khil 

70. Rmah Bloanh 

71. A Kuin (a.k.a BaChan), born 1974 

72. Ngu (a.k.a Ba San), born 1972 

73. Di~u B're (a.k.a B~;~p Bum), born 1969 

74. Di~u By d, born 1967 

75. Dinh Yum, born 1963 

76. RaMah Pia (a.k.a Rmah Bla; a.k.a Ama Em), born 1968 

77. Siu Tinh (a.k.a Ama Khiim), born 1978 

78. Run 

79. Chi 

80. Dinh Ly 

81. Dinh Ngo 

82. Th~;~ch Thual, born 1985 

83. Ng6 Hito, born 1948 

84. A Tach (a.k.a Ba Hl61), born 1959 

85. Rung, born 1979 

86. Jonh (a.k.a Chinh), born 1952 

87. A Hyum (a.k.a Ba K61), born 1940 

88. Byuk, born 1945 

89. Dinh Lu, born 1976 

90. Dinh Hr6n, born 1981 

91. Dinh Nguyen Kha, born 1988 

92. Phan Van Thu, born 1948 

93. Le Duy L6c, born 1956 

94. Vuong Til.n San, born 1953 

95. Doim Dinh Nam, born 1951 

96. NguySn Ky L~;~c, born 1951 

97. Ta Khu, born 1947 

98. Tir Thien Luang, born 1950 

99. Yo Ngoc Cu, born 1951 

I 00. Yo Thimh Le, born 1955 

101. Yo TiSt, born 1952 
36


30344d-6.eps

102. LePhuc, born 1951 

103. Doim Van Cu, born 1962 

104. Nguyiin Dinh, born 1968 

105. Ph an Thanh Y, born 1948 

106. D6 Thj H6ng, born 1957 

107. Tr~n Phi Dung, born 1966 

108. Le Due Dong, born 1983 

109. Le Tr0ng Cu, born 1966 

110. Luang Nh~t Quang, born 1987 

111. Nguyiin Thai Binh, born 1986 

112. Tr~n Quan, born 1984 

113. Ph an Thanh Tucmg, born 1987 

114. H6Duc Hila, born 1974 

115. Nguyiin Dang Minh Mfrn, born 1985 

116. Trang A Cho, born 1985 

117. Kpuil Mel 

118. Kpuil L@ 

119. Siu Thai (a.k.a Ama Thuong), born 1978 

120. Pham Thi Phu.;rng, born 1945 

121. Tr~n Thi Thuy, born 1971 

122. Siu Hlom, born 1967 

123. SiuNheo, born 1955 

124. Siu Brom, born 1967 

125. Rah Lan Mlih, born 1966 

126. Ro Mah Pr6, born 1964 

127. Rah Lan Blom, born 1976 

128. Kpa Sinh, born 1959 

129. RoMahKlit, born 1946 

130. Nguyiin Hoimg Qu6c Hung, born 1981 

131 Tr~n Huynh Duy Th(rc, born 1966 

132. Rmah Hlach (a.k.a Am a Blut), born 1968 

133. Siu Koch (a.k.a Ama Lien), born 1985 

134. Nhi (a.k.a Ba Tiem), born 1958 

135. Siu Ben (aka Ama Yon) 

136. RoLan Ju (a.k.a Ama Suit) 

137. Noh, born 1959 

138. Roh, born 1962 

139. Siu Wiu 

140. Y Kur BDap 
37

Mr. SMITH [presiding]. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

I would like to now go to Anthony Le. 

STATEMENT OF ‘‘ANTHONY LE’’ (AN ALIAS), SPOKESPERSON, 

BROTHERHOOD FOR DEMOCRACY 

Mr. LE. Thank you very much. 

Dearest members of the United States Congress, guests, and 

media organizations who has a concern to human rights in Vietnam, my name is Thanh Tung and I am a member of Brotherhood 

for Democracy. 

I have just come from Vietnam. I am here today to speak of the 

ongoing crackdown by Vietnamese authority to Brotherhood for Democracy members over the past 5 years. 

Brotherhood for Democracy established in April 2013. There was 

a need for democratic society and sustainable development in Vietnam. 

Today, we have more than 100 members of across all regions of 

Vietnam including members and some from around the world. 

Our goal is to promote democracy in Vietnam, develop civil society and disseminate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

and support other civil society in various projects. 

Our previous work includes the launch of the Brotherhood for 

Democracy, meet the needs of those who wanted to promote human 

rights and democracy in Vietnam. These are the values of many Vietnamese and since the founding of the Brotherhood for Democracy, hundreds of people have joined our organization. We have 32 

members working full time and part time. 

Over the 4 years, we have established a solid structure and various working groups to organize 16 training courses on civil society 

both online and offline and we have over 250 candidates trying to 

learn. 

And face to face training involves over 100 people who are concerned with Vietnam human rights. We also support the world’s 

demands of labor rights and we support the fishermen to demand 

for environmental justice and lawsuits against the issue of Formosa 

following the environmental that left tons of toxins and fish washing ashore across six provinces in central Vietnam in 2016. 

We support the land rights petitioners and victims of government 

land grabs and, of course, without ongoing harassment from the Vietnamese authorities. 

Given that Vietnam is an only one-party state, the Communist 

Party of Vietnam does not allow civil society groups to operate 

without their knowledge or supervision. 

Because of this, it is necessary for Vietnamese authorities to stop 

the activities of various civil society groups. This has happened to 

the Brotherhood for Democracy. So that our organization has been 

harassed from the very beginning. 

From May 2014, three members—Nguyen Nam Trung, Pham 

Minh Vu and Nguyen Thi Phuong Anh—were arrested for attending the protest organized by workers in Binh Duong Province. 

On November 2014, our worthy brother, Truong Minh Duc and 

other member were physically attacked with severe injuries after 

38

supporting workers demanding for labor rights in Binh Duong 

Province. 

In December 6, 2015, our members, Nguyen Van Dai and Ly 

Quang Son, were attacked and beaten after facilitating a training 

on the Human Right Declaration on in Nghe An Province. 

And December 16, 2015, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thu Ha were 

arrested by the authorities. 

In October 2016, eight members in central Vietnam including 

Nguyen Trung Truc, Mai Van Tam, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van 

Thanh, Nguyen Ngoc Lanh, Nguyen Van Giap, Vo The Truong and 

Que were detained and severely beaten, had their possessions confiscated and clothing removed before they had been bring to the 

jungle in Huong Son Forest in the Ha Tinh Province. 

In February 2017, our chairman, Pastor Nguyen Trung Ton, was 

assaulted and beaten around the feet with an iron bar, until now 

still unable to walk properly. 

From the end of July until August 2017, seven members and one 

former members—Pham Van Troi, Nguyen Trung Ton, Truong 

Minh Duc, Nguyen Trung Truc, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van Tuc, 

Vu Van Hung and Nguyen Bac Truyen were arbitrarily arrested. 

Nine members and one former member of the Brotherhood for 

Democracy were unlawfully detained between December 2015 and 

the end of 2017 for activities aimed at overthrowing the state, according to Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code. Many have 

been sentenced to lengthy prison terms. 

And our remaining members are all being threatened and issued 

arrest warrants, with ongoing harassment of family members. Six 

members of us have had to flee to Thailand to seek asylum. 

Some members have had to flee their homes for the past year, 

with their close ones being continually harassed by authorities. 

And for myself, I personally have been far from home from August 2015 till now. I am luckier here and have safety in the United 

States, but my wife and children continue to be harassed. 

My wife has been attacked by local police within the confines of 

her home and my children have been detained while traveling to 

school to question them about me. 

Police have installed five cameras around my home in Saigon 

and anyone who approaches my home is questioned immediately 

after. No one has come to my home over the past 2 years. 

On behalf of the Brotherhood for Democracy, I would like to suggest the following. The United States Congress and the government 

call on the Vietnamese Government to end its crackdown on the 

Brotherhood for Democracy and unconditionally and immediately 

release all of our members as well as all prisoners of conscience, 

dissidents, and religious activists. 

Call on authorities to stop harassing and intimidating Vietnamese activists. We hope the United Nations and various NGOs, 

media, and individuals in Vietnam and around the world to support the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as the democracy 

movement in Vietnam. 

Members of the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as their families express their ongoing struggles and hope there will be a brighter future for the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as for all Vietnamese people. 

39

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Le follows:]

40


30344c-1.eps

Brotherhood for Democracy 

Anthony Le 

Testimony before the United States Congress 

Date: June 7, 2018 

Dear: 

TESTIMONY REGARDING THE CRACKDOWN OF 

BROTHERHOOD FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM 

• Members and Senators of the United States Congress 

• The Government of the United States 

• Distinguished guests including the media, organizations concerned about the 

human rights situation in Vietnam 

My name is Anthony Le, a member of the Brotherhood For Democracy (BFD). 

I am here today, to speak on the ongoing crackdown by Vietnamese authorities on 

BFD members over the past five years. 

The BFD was established on April 24, 2013 as there was a need for a democratic 

society and sustainable development in Vietnam. Today, we have more than 100 

members across all regions of Vietnam including members from around the world. 

Our goal is to: 

• Promote Democracy in Vietnam 

• Develop civil society and disseminate the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights 

• Support other civil society groups through various projects 

1. Our previous work includes: 

• The launch of the BFD met the needs of those who wanted to promote human 

rights and democracy in Vietnam. These are the values of many Vietnamese 

and since the founding of the BFD; hundreds of people have joined the 

organization with more than 32 members working full time and part time. 

• Over the four years, we have established a solid structure and various working 

groups to organize 16 trainings courses on civil society both online and offline 

with more than 250 participants. Face to face trainings involved more than 100 

attendees who developed skills and knowledge regarding human rights 

• Supporting workers to demand for labour rights 

• Supporting fishermen to demand for environmental justice and file lawsuits 

against Formosa following the environmental disaster which left tons of dead 

fish washing up ashore across 6 provinces in central Vietnam in April 2016. 

• Supporting land rights petitioners and victims of government land grabs 

2. Ongoing harassment from Vietnamese authorities 
41


30344c-2.eps

Given that Vietnam is an only one party state, the Communist Party of 

Vietnam does not allow civil society groups to operate without their knowledge 

or supervision. Because of this, it is necessary for Vietnamese authorities to 

stop the activities of various civil society groups. This has happened to the 

BFD. Our organization has been harassed from the very beginning: 

2.1. May 2014: 3 members: Nguyen Nam Trung, Pham Minh Vu and Nguyen Thi 

Phuong Anh were arrested for attending a protest organized by workers in 

Dong Nai Province. 

2.2. November 2014: Truong Minh Due and other youth accompanying him were 

physically attacked with severe injuries after supporting workers demanding 

for labour rights in Binh Duong Province. 

2.3. December 6, 2015: Nguyen Van Dai and Ly Quang Son, members of the 

BFD, were attacked and beaten after facilitating a training on the Universal 

Declaration on Human Rights in Nghe An 

2.4. December 16, 2015: Vietnamese authorities arbitrarily arrested two BFD 

members Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thu Ha 

2.5. October 2016: 8 BFD members in central Vietnam including: Nguyen Trung 

True, Mai Van Tam, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van Thanh, Nguyen Ngoc Lanh, 

Nguyen Van Giap, Vo The Truong and Que were detained and severely 

beaten, had their possessions confiscated and clothing removed before being 

deserted in Huang Son Forest in Ha Tinh Province. All required medical 

treatment for the next 12 months. 

2.6. February 2017: Pastor Nguyen Trung Ton, President of the BFD, was 

assaulted and beaten around the feet with an iron bar, still unable to walk 

properly. 

2.7. From the end of July until August 2017: 7 members and 1 former members of 

the BFD Pham Van Troi, Nguyen Trung Ton, Truong Minh Due, Nguyen 

Trung True, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van Tuc, Vu Van Hung and Nguyen Bac 

Truyen (former member) were arbitrarily arrested. 

9 members and 1 former member of the BFD were unlawfully detained 

between December 2015 and the end of 2017 for "activities aimed at 

overthrowing the state" according to Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal 

code. Many have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms. 

2.8. The remaining members: 

• Are all being threatened and issued arrest warrants, with ongoing 

harassment of family members 

• 6 members have had to flee to Thailand to seek asylum 

• Some members have had to flee their homes for the past year, with their 

closed ones being continually harassed by authorities 
42


30344c-3.eps

• I personally have far from home from August 2015 till now, I am lucky to 

have safety here in the United States but my wife and children continue to 

be harassed, my wife has been attacked by local police within the confines 

of her home and my children have been detained while travelling to school 

to question them about me. Police have installed 5 cameras around my 

home in Saigon and anyone who approaches my home is questioned 

immediately after. No one has come to my home over the past 2 years. 

3. Conclusions/recommendations 

On behalf of the BFD, I would like to suggest the following: 

The United States Congress and Government call on the Vietnamese 

government to end its crackdown on the BFD and unconditionally and 

immediately release all of our members as well as all prisoners of conscience, 

dissidents and religious activists. Call on authorities to stop harassing and 

intimidating Vietnamese activists. 

We hope the United Nations and various NGOs, media and individuals in 

Vietnam and around the world to support the BFD as well as the democracy 

movement in Vietnam. 

Members of the BFD as well as their families express their ongoing struggles 

and hope there will be a brighter future for the BFD as well as for all 

Vietnamese people. 

Washington DC 

June 5, 2018 

Anthony Le 
43

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. 

Chairman Rohrabacher does have to leave. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. I am sorry I am 

going to have to rush out. A very important call—it’s really important. But I want to express my thanks to the witnesses. 

Thanks to the chairman. You have done a great service to the 

free people of the world today. You have put on the record names 

of people who have been oppressed and tortured, and now there is 

a record—official record—of these people. 

They—the message we will have at the end of this hearing to 

those who are the oppressed, to those who are the victims, they are 

not alone. 

The victims of tyranny in Vietnam are not alone. We are with 

them. They are on the—we are on the record now of knowing who 

you are, and that’s true—as I mentioned before, that’s true of their 

torturers and the villains that murder and repress those people. 

We need those names—you have given us a few of those as 

well—because we do believe in holding accountable the tyrants in 

this world. 

And Mr. Chairman, we need to hold accountable YouTube and 

Facebook and other American companies, as was talked about 

today, who collude—people like to use that word nowadays—who 

collude with this tyrannical gangster regime in Vietnam. 

I spent a little time with the Montagnards back in 1967 and it 

breaks my heart to know that they’re being—that they found 

Christianity and that they’re being oppressed because of it. 

And I know that the Cao Dai—I remember them as well—who 

were so devout even in those days. So perhaps one of the things 

we need to feel bad about in America is when we were there—when 

I was with those Montagnards we encouraged them to side with us, 

and then we ran away. 

Well, now we can make it up to the Vietnamese people to make 

sure that now, as Vietnam needs us in their confrontation with 

China as a nation, that we insist that there be political reform and 

social reform there and that the gangster regime gives up the 

power to the people of Vietnam. 

So we are siding with the people, as we should have always 

along and had courage to do so. 

Thank you all for your testimony today and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for all the commitment you have shown to human rights 

throughout the world, especially here in Vietnam. So thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dana, and thank you for your leadership 

as well. It’s all about team effort. 

Let me just ask our distinguished panellists some questions, and 

thank you all for your testimonies. Without objection, anything else 

you wanted to add to the full statements and thank you for the list 

of prisoners from Human Rights Watch. We need names—always 

need names. We compare it with others to make sure we do not 

leave anybody out inadvertently. So thank you for that. 

Let me just ask you, if I could, Dr. Thang, starting with you—

on religious freedom, the designation of CPC—country of particular 

concern—was done away with during the Bush administration simply because of the bilateral agreement and promises that were 

made of what they called deliverables at the time on human rights. 

44

I travelled, as you might recall, on one of the many trips to Vietnam. I went to Hue, Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi and met with 

probably upwards of 60 different people, all the different religions—Venerable Thich Quang Do, like so many of my colleagues 

and I have met, who is still under pagoda arrest, and Dr. Li—Father Loi, all these wonderful, wonderful people—Cao Dai religion 

adherents. 

And they were hopeful. They thought that maybe something was 

going to happen for real. There were new policies in effect, and yet 

it was a total unmitigated disaster. We now have a new law that 

went in effect in January and I think some of the same people are 

saying this could be a positive development. We’ll be sorely disappointed by it, and you might want to speak to that issue. 

You really did emphasize—and I am glad you did—that Cao Dai 

has been eviscerated by the government. The forced renunciations 

of faith by the Hmong and others—the Highland people, who are 

being told they can’t practice their Christian beliefs. 

The numbers went down right before a bilateral trade agreement 

was accepted. But I will never forget the day of the consummation 

of that agreement the Vietnamese foreign ministry put out a statement to the effect of there’s no legacy of human rights. 

So they did everything they could to make it look like we were 

on the verge of major positive developments and it was nothing but 

a ruse. 

And I think there’s too often—so if you could speak to CPC, I 

would also raise the issue. When Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the President, was here in May, the communique that came out was very 

disturbing—between him and President Trump—to the effect that 

the U.S. welcomed Vietnam’s ‘‘ongoing efforts to refine its legal system to better protect and promote human rights’’ in the face of a 

gross deterioration of human rights. 

They can pass all the policies for international consumption that 

they want, but we want it on the ground to help people and to protect their fundamental rights. 

So how did that happen? Any of you might have any insights on 

that. I would note for the record—I mentioned it in my opening 

statement—that for three successive Congresses and then once as 

an amendment, so four times—the Vietnam Human Rights Act 

cleared the House. 

It was my bill. We worked very hard on it—totally bipartisan, everybody was here today. Zoe Lofgren, everybody—were all co-sponsors. It was totally bipartisan. 

It got over to the Senate. Holds were put on it. John Kerry always put a hold on it. But we know the Podesta Group worked 

overtime to defeat it, and we know there are other lobbyists who 

were trying to defeat it. 

I am wondering if maybe even that joint communique—Reuters 

suggested in an article that they had—lobbyists had had an impact 

on that joint communique from our President and Vietnam’s President which was totally misleading. 

So if you wanted to speak to that, then I would also ask, if I 

could, Ms. PoKempner, on that cyber law, June 12th, I think, is 

when the vote might be. That could always change but I think 

that’s when they’re planning on it. 

45

Back in 2006, I held a hearing as China Commission and Human 

Rights Chairman here on the House side on what Google, Yahoo, 

Microsoft, and CISCO are doing to enable the dictatorship in Beijing by censoring, by tracking down individuals. 

Shi Tao—remember they found him via Yahoo and he got 10 

years for telling people what Tiananmen Square dos and don’ts 

were—and they were all don’ts coming from the government. Ten 

years for a simple conveyance of a message to a human rights 

group in New York City. 

I am very concerned and I know you are as well that Google, 

Facebook, YouTube have all removed content, kowtowing to Hanoi. 

We need to be, as you said too, as loud and as clear as possible that 

these U.S. corporations and multilateral corporations have to get 

some backbone and stand up to these dictatorships. 

I remember Jerry Yang said—Jerry Yang from Yahoo—at one of 

our hearings that he said they’re removing their content in Vietnam—personally identifiable information—so that the government 

would have that easy access that they have had for years in China. 

But this is very, very disturbing—Google, Facebook, YouTube, 

and the like. You know, so it’s like deja vu all over again. It’s been 

banned in Vietnam. It’s been worse in China. But now we are seeing catch-up ball on the part of the Vietnamese. 

So if you could start off and then I have some other questions 

as well. Maybe, Dr. Thang, and Joseph, if you would like. 

Mr. THANG. Yes. 

We sounded the alarm about the new law on belief and religion 

when it was still being drafted back in 2015, and we pointed out 

three areas of concern. 

One is that it still maintains the requirement for churches and 

institutions and communities to register and be recognized and approved by the government. 

Secondly, the language is so vague that anyone can interpret it 

whichever way he or she wants, right. Just like in the example 

that I mentioned in my testimony. 

A local authority said that, well, from now on the parish priest 

can no longer conduct a prior service at the private home of his parishioners and he cited the new law. The local authorities recited 

the new law to justify that. 

The third area of concern is that the definition of what is—what 

religion is, what belief is, what an adherent is—are very restrictive. 

For instance, the definition under the new law of an adherent is 

that he or she must be recognized by a religious organization, and 

a religion organization must be recognized by the government. 

In other words, now a follower—a member of an independent unregistered church would not be considered as a religious follower 

under the new law and, therefore, sentencing that person to, say, 

5 years prison would now be explained as not religious persecution. 

So that is the trick that the Vietnamese Government is playing 

and I am afraid that we have fallen into that trap. 

Now, not too long ago, I had a one-on-one hour-long meeting with 

the new Ambassador to Vietnam, Kritenbrink. He is very concerned about human rights issues in Vietnam—very genuine—but 

he’s very new. 

46

And I also spent—I had meetings with the new Ambassador-atLarge on international religious freedom, Sam Brownback. He’s a 

champion, and I made two comments—recommendations to both. 

One is to place Vietnam at least on the watch list. At this time—

because this is a very serious time as Vietnam is still deciding on 

how to interpret its law on belief and religion. 

If we wait for another year it might be too late because they already have redefined other language intentionally left vague so as 

to further restrict religious freedom. 

So placing Vietnam on the watch list now for at least 2 years, 

that will send a very strong signal that we are watching. That 

hasn’t happened. 

Hopefully, after a few months for these two diplomats to get to 

know more of Vietnam, maybe with some nudges from Congress, 

maybe Vietnam would be placed on either the CPC list or the 

watch list. 

The second recommendation is that for Mr. Kritenbrink and also 

Sam Brownback and others, to hold periodic roundtable meetings 

with religious leaders of persecuted communities in Vietnam—indigenous and religious communities in Vietnam, just like the IRF 

roundtables that are being held here—and I know that Scott Flipse 

has attended quite a few of them—and make that into routine. 

Initially, the Government of Vietnam would protest against that, 

would block people from coming. But if we keep doing that every 

3 months, for instance, then slowly Vietnam would accept that as 

a fait accompli, and that would bring confidence to those communities and it will assure that anything happened in those communities will be known by the U.S. Government immediately, or at 

least by the next roundtable meeting. 

So those are my two recommendations and I would like to offer 

the same recommendations at this hearing. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that, you know, both 

you and I—we fully understand that the concept of religion and religious faith is more than simply going to church every Sunday and 

then go home. 

We fully understand that the practice of faith, which includes 

fighting for social justice, advocating for the oppressed, for the 

poor, for the elderly, all of that is encompassed in religious faith. 

And with the law on religion and belief, with the vagueness of 

how they define religion, any of these acts can be considered as 

acts against the state and be prosecuted. 

So, again, that is something that we have to be concerned about 

and to have to pay attention to. And, you know, there is an old saying that with the Communists—do not listen to what they say but 

watch what they do. 

What they say is very rosy, oftentimes painted. You know, when 

you look at Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi through the Travel Channel, everybody thinks that wow, these are a paradise that we 

should go and visit. But in reality, Vietnam is an oppressed state. 

People are being routinely arrested, prosecuted under dubious 

laws, tortured routinely, and that has to be revealed to the world 

to let people understand that Vietnam is more than simply Saigon 

and Ho Chi Minh City through the Travel Channel. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. PoKempner. 

47

Ms. POKEMPNER. Just to add, because I am a law professor, I 

wanted to point out to you that freedom of opinion and belief are 

among the very strongest human rights that exist. 

They don’t admit of any limitation at all, and so when we learn 

that things like forced renunciation of faith is still occurring, this 

is a violation without a conceivable excuse and we should be reacting very strongly to it. 

On the law, I think you’re right to pay special attention to this. 

This is one of the most oppressive cybersecurity laws I’ve read, and 

I’ve read quite a few now, and it puts companies in a tremendous 

bind. 

As you know, any company is obliged to respect the law of the 

market it operates in. But in this case it’s going to make many 

American companies have this direct conflict that they could be 

placed right back where Google and Microsoft were in China, as 

you observed, and be forced to essentially condemn people who 

would be fully protected under either the laws of our Constitution 

or the laws of the United Nations—that Vietnam as freely agreed 

to—and condemn them. 

And it’s going to be essentially a move that puts to them this 

stark choice—either help us commit human rights violations or get 

out of this market. 

And if that is, indeed, the choice and if the Congress cares about 

U.S. companies as well as human rights, it ought to be thinking 

well, what does this mean for our giving access to Vietnam on a 

whole—you know, to our markets to Vietnam—what does this really mean about international security and the freedom of companies 

to operate across borders. 

So there are very profound questions for regulators here and 

they’re not only about blaming the companies. The companies will 

have to make their decisions but they’re in a difficult position. 

It’s people who control the law and the regulation throughout our 

Government. We deeply appreciate your role, Mr. Chairman. I 

deeply appreciate the many constructive things that Representative 

Rohrabacher and many others have done throughout the years. 

I resonate with pain on these tales of Montagnards. I work to actually identify and protect Montagnards from repatriation on Hong 

Kong. There’s a long and very noble history of this House in trying 

to act on Vietnam’s human rights. 

But we need the whole of government. We need the entire administration. We need the Senate, too. And everyone has to pull together to send this message. 

In our experience, the Vietnamese Government is pragmatic. 

When it feels it has something to lose, it will act, and in our experience, the Vietnamese Government is complex, just like most governments. 

It has people who are very entrenched in the old ways, people 

who are thinking about new ways and trying to be progressive and 

keep the door open to the modern world. 

So you have to deal with it and give it time to adjust. But it 

won’t happen without incentives. So we raised a number of different avenues—that they all have to be considered. 

We are there to support you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

48

Mr. Le, if you could. We know about the Formosa environmental 

disaster, but if you could bring some additional focus on it. 

How did you become an advocate? The background of the Brotherhood of Democracy—a little insight into that, if you would, and 

also to make very clear—we are concerned—I am concerned, as 

chairman, for your family still in Vietnam and your wife and 

child—if they are threatened in any way. 

In the past we have had—Nguyen Van Dai’s wife here who testified on his behalf—was brilliant in her testimony—like our witnesses today, just got it very clear, very precise, and very eloquent 

as to what needs to be done and what the situation is on the 

ground. 

And he is on his way to freedom right now but we can’t announce 

it yet. But I just want to say, we want to give you every assurance 

that we will absolutely go to bat for your family if we hear that 

something has happened. 

So please know that it matters a great deal to my colleagues and 

I on both sides of the aisle and let the Vietnamese Government 

take note of that, because that crosses a huge bright line of demarcation if they were to retaliate against them. 

But could you elaborate, if you could, on the environmental disaster? 

Mr. LE. Yes. Formosa is—from April 2016, the Formosa company, they waste toxins to environmental and the Formosa they 

pay $500 million to—for their people there. But actually our fishermen there don’t receive any money from—the compensation from 

Formosa, and the compensation it come to another group of people, 

and we know that and we organized a team to come to the fishermen—come to the village to help the people to make document—

to make the legal documentation, submit to the local authority to 

ask for the compensation from the Formosa. That is the first thing 

we have to do. 

Secondly, we cooperate with other NGO and we ask some civil 

society local to organize some work group to help the people and 

as well as we are together because the people we are together to 

support the people there to make the news and bring the things 

to the public areas to internets. 

That’s it—the two things we have done for our—for the issue of 

Formosa. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that the system—

there’s no transparent system compensation. I recently spoke with 

a bishop from Vietnam and he told me that they don’t know what 

has been happening with the $500 million that was being allegedly 

paid by Formosa. 

Most of the victims have not received the money. Ironically, the 

fishermen of Nghe An Province they were at the epicenter of the 

disaster, and based on my information and belief, those people 

were not even in the compensation package. 

So, again, I would ask that the Congress request that Vietnam 

implement a transparent system of compensation similar to what 

happened during the BP oil spill here in the United States. 

It was being controlled by and oversaw by a Federal judge down 

in New Orleans. I would highly recommend that a similar system 

49

would be implemented in Vietnam with similar reporting procedures. 

If you would excuse me, I have to meet this deadline for a few 

minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Dr. Thang. 

Mr. THANG. I would like to add information regarding the disaster caused by Formosa steel plants in 2016. 

First of all, we have—we know that—I have been in touch with 

communities in that area every week and the fishing industry is 

dead. 

It may take decades to revive it. So there’s a huge loss of livelihood among the fishermen, the fishing communities, and many of 

those are actually Catholic parishes living along the coast of five 

provinces. 

Now, one entire province that is the most populace province that 

got affected severely by the environmental disaster and that is 

Nghe An Province. 

It is completely excluded from the compensation package, and 

that’s why there’s a lot of protest and that’s why—and among all 

those affected the Catholic parishes were at the forefront of the 

demonstration to demand fair, just compensation. 

And that’s why the government created the Red Flag Association, 

to suppress these communities—these advocates. 

The second aspect I would like to bring to your attention is the 

health issue. They’re documenting right now and there are more 

and more reported incidents of miscarriage among the villagers affected by the environmental ecological disaster and there is more 

reported prevalence of cancer cases in those areas, and there has 

been no studies along that line. 

And finally, human trafficking—because of the loss of livelihood 

so a lot of these younger villagers, formerly fishermen, now have 

to join the labor export program of the Government of Vietnam. 

And we have cases—we know cases where a person applying to go to Taiwan or to South Korea had to pay $16,000 in service fees. 

Now the law would cap that to just 1 month of salary per year 

of contract—say, $2,000 a month for 3 years of contract, that it 

should not exceed more than 3 years. So no more than $6,000. 

But a lot of these villagers didn’t know the law and they had to 

pay $16,000 and they had to mortgage off their homes and farmlands and the homes and farmlands of their parents and siblings. 

And according to our calculations, most of them would still be in 

debt after the 3 years working overseas. And for the first time last 

year, the number of migrant workers exported out of countries exceeded 100,000 by far. It was, like, 120,000. 

So I am afraid that human trafficking—labor trafficking is on the 

rise because government officials are taking advantage of the misery caused by the Formosa-induced disaster—environmental disaster. 

Mr. LE. Thank you very much for invitation, for inviting me here. 

So now I got bright news. I did receive around 21⁄2 hours ago. I am 

here on behalf of the Brotherhood for Democracy. 

I would like to thank you very much for letting us meet the 

chairman and some Congress members here and various people 

have support for the Brotherhood for Democracy. 

50

Two and a half hours ago, I was with a Brother and his wife and 

with his sister was released and now is on a flight to Frankfurt 

and hope they will arrive to Frankfurt around midnight, the time 

of Washington, DC. His name is Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thu Ha, 

and his wife is also on the flight now. 

So thank you very much for your support and help the Brotherhood for—during that time. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Through the time I will just ask two final questions, 

and thank you very much, and I think, Dr. Thang, you are aware 

that I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. 

I’ve been very concerned that for 6 straight years Vietnam has 

got a Tier 2 rating. Minimally, it should be on the watch list—if 

not Tier 3, where I think it really belongs. 

They do have a sex trafficking problem but I think the labor trafficking problem is enormous, and we’ve had specific hearings in 

this subcommittee just on that, and I wondered if any of you would 

want to speak to that. The TIP report isn’t out yet. 

Designations probably have been made already. We tried to 

weigh in as best we could as a subcommittee for countries that 

ought to be Tier 3. 

But if you could speak to that, and I would just point out one 

other law that I wrote that took 8 years to get out of the Senate, 

five times passed in the House—known as International Megan’s 

Law. 

It’s now been in effect for a little over a year. We notice countries 

of destination when a convicted pedophile is travelling. Its inspiration came from Megan Kanka, my home town constituent who was 

brutally murdered by and sexually abused by a convicted pedophile 

who lived across the street. 

So there are Megan’s Laws in every single state of the union and 

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. But, frankly, internationally, there’s not many Megan’s Laws. 

This law, as I think you know, notices countries of destination 

when a convicted pedophile plans to travel and there’s a very severe penalty if they don’t notice us, us being state police and then 

State Department. 

And the Angel Watch program now has been built and fully and 

very robustly staffed, and a little over a year in operation 3,600 

convicted pedophiles have been noticed to countries. Many of them 

have been turned back because we know why they’re going. They’re 

on secret sex tourism trips to exploit little girls and little boys. 

While Vietnam, as it turns out, is a destination country for 

many, we know other places like Thailand are working overtime to 

deny entry into their country when we notice such an exploiter 

coming their way. 

Vietnam has been unresponsive. We are trying to tell them so 

and so is coming—here’s their record and they could abuse your 

children horribly—and yet they are unresponsive. 

To me, it’s an insight like few others about an indifference that 

is so callous toward their own children. 

Secondly, on the issue of—we just, sadly, remember the 29th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Much of the world seems to want 

to forget it. Certainly, in China, they forcibly forget it in terms of 

their news media and what they teach their children in school. 

51

But there is a concern that with demonstrations against Chinese 

investments and incursions into the South China Sea or environmental disasters that these people who will protest will be met 

with violence and there’s a very big anti-China demonstration 

planned for June 10th and I am wondering what your concerns 

might be and is there anything we should be doing, our Ambassador, to mitigate what could be bloodshed meted out by the Vietnamese Government. 

Anybody want to take those? 

Mr. THANG. Yes. About human trafficking—yes, over the years 

we have rescued thousands of victims in destination countries and 

we continue to work on that—to rescue more victims. 

However, we cannot stop the flow if we don’t do anything—if we 

cannot stop it at the roots—that is, in the source country, and 

there is no way for us to go to Vietnam and stop it. 

However, there might be an opportunity here because of the Formosa-induced ecological disaster. I would like to propose that we, 

our Government, and through Congress we ask USAID to have programs in those areas to help develop livelihood opportunities for 

these fishermen who have been affected—to have development 

projects and work directly with the churches—independent churches—the Catholic churches that have been doing that. 

The Diocese of Vinh has been doing that. They don’t ever get 

funded by USAID. Now, not too long ago, just last month, again, 

Ambassador Sam Brownback brought into our roundtable meeting 

representatives of the USAID offices and I think that they are now 

willing and open to suggestions that USAID should fund directly 

to independent religious organizations to do the good work that 

they have been doing. 

So USAID, if they are in there, they can work with and provide 

technical assistance and coaching to the real people doing the real 

work on the ground, especially the independent churches, to develop livelihood projects. 

At the same time, they can educate the people on the ground. 

There are simple tips that they can learn on how to avoid becoming 

victims of human trafficking, especially labor trafficking. 

For instance, you should not sign a contract without reading it. 

You should not agree to go overseas and work overseas on a tourist 

visa, for instance. 

There are simple red flags and we have developed materials. But 

the challenge is to get those materials and that information directly to the villagers that are vulnerable to human trafficking in 

Vietnam. 

Thank you. 

Ms. POKEMPNER. I would simply urge that when you look at this 

problem of human trafficking, it ought to be a topic on which you 

can constructively engage the government. 

The Government of Vietnam does spend money and does have a 

bureaucracy that is devoted to this problem as well as related problems. 

But, as you pointed out, it’s not doing enough. But I think this 

is at least an area where cooperation and engagement is promising 

as well as the application of American aid. 

52

I would urge you to look not only at victims of sexual trafficking 

but labor trafficking generally. We are doing a lot of research on 

trafficking in the fishing industries and I am sure as Dr. Thang 

knows, this is a big, big problem in Thailand and a lot of the labor 

is coming from Burma and Vietnam. 

So there’s a regional interest in getting a hold of this and this 

is affecting American companies when they discover that there are 

marketing goods produced by slave labor. 

So I think this is a very promising area of engagement where, 

fortunately, economic interests and human rights interests align 

well. 

Mr. SMITH. I will just conclude. Any further comments you might 

want to make if you do—yes, Doctor. 

Mr. THANG. Relating to the case of Nguyen Van Dai and his wife 

and his partner, Le Thu Ha, I would like to point out that collaboration with other governments might make a difference. 

I have noted that over the past year there has been increasing 

collaboration between human rights offices at our U.S. Embassy in 

Vietnam and other Embassies such as the United Kingdom, 

France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and E.U., for instance. 

Mr. SMITH. And Germany. 

Mr. THANG. And Germany, yes—and Germany, definitely. And in 

this case of Mr. Dai, our public—most of the credit should go to 

VETO!, our long-time partner in Germany, and the Government of 

Germany. 

They have been very strong on this. I know that they have been 

working with our own State Department on this case, and I hope 

that by more collaboration like that, especially you already know 

about the Interparliamentarian Panel on Freedom of Religion and 

Belief. 

We are working with them and they are now connecting themselves—networking themselves with ASEAN parliamentarians for 

human rights in ASEAN. 

So a network like that would really, really help to further many 

of our common causes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank you. 

I thank you very, very much for your insights, for your expertise, 

your leadership, and for your patience, having a late start because 

of the votes. 

Again, our bill that’s pending—hopefully it will be marked up 

soon. If ever there was a time—and it does call for a designation 

of CPC, country of particular concern, because of religious persecution by the government. I will never forget talking to Rabbi 

Saperstein, who was the predecessor, obviously, to Sam Brownback 

as the Ambassador-at-Large for religious freedom. He did a wonderful job. 

But when he was meeting with Tran Thi Hong, she was beaten—

beaten. Government thugs beat the wife of a pastor, Nguyen Cong 

Chinh. 

I mean, if that isn’t a wake-up call, when the highest official for 

religious freedom in-country—in Vietnam—and that’s how they respond. It shows the animosity that continues to be animosity on 

steroids. 

53

So we have to push back hard, and I think, as you pointed out, 

Ms. PoKempner, they take notice. When we say something, we 

mean it, it’s predictable, we are not kidding, we are not vacillating, 

things will happen, and particularly when there’s a penalty attached to it. 

So CPC has at least 18 prescribed remedies—penalties—that are 

very significant. And I know when other countries have been put 

on lists like that—they know we mean it—it has an impact. 

So let’s hope the administration does the right thing on that. 

I thank you so much. Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(55)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

56

f


30344n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

W ASHTNGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 

Organizations 

Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman 

June 6. 2018 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to 

be held by Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health. Global Human Rights. and h1temational 

Organizations in Room 2200 of the Ray bum House Office Building (and available live on the Committee 

website at http://www.ForeignAffairs.house.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday. June 7, 2018 

2:00p.m. 

A Bad Year for Human Rights in Vietnam 

The Honorable Joseph Cao 

Fom1er Member of Congress 

Nguyen Dinh Thang. Ph.D 

Executive Director 

Boat People SOS 

'·Anthony Le·· (an alias) 

Spokesperson 

Brotherhood for Democracy 

Ms. Dinall PoKempner 

General Com1scl 

Human Rights Watch 

By Direction of the Chairman 
57

f


30344m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUHCOM1\1TTTEE ON Africa, Global flealth, Global Humrm Righi~': fflld lntemathmal Orga11izations HEARJNG 

Day _ _:c~c:~~c:uc_r."''dc.:aLy_· __ Date __ _cJ.:.;uc.:nc:e'--'-'7,'-'2"'0"'1"'8 ___ Room ___ _:2:.::2c:Oc:O __ _ 

Starting Time 2:18pm Ending Time __ 4,:"'0"3E.p""m,__ 

Recesses L_to __ )( __ to ___) L_to __ ) L_to __ ) (__to __ ) (_to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

ChaiJ·man Smith, Chairman Rohrabacher 

Check all of the following that apply: 

Open Session 0 Executive ~sed) Session D Televised [J 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

A Bad Year for Human Right., in Vietnam 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Ranking Member Bass, Rep. Garrett 

Electronically Record!&( taped) D 

Stenographic Record W 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: ~\farkwith an* if they are not members of full committee) 

Rep. Lofgren*, Chairman Rohrabacher, Rep. Lowenthnl*, Rep. Chabot 

HEARJNG WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes m NoD 

(If "no", please list belmv and include title, agency, department, or organizalion.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted for the record.) 

-Chairman Smith: Vietnam's Persecution of Jl'Jl!fong Christians, prepared by Hmongs United For .Tttstice 

-Chairman Smith: Statement by tlte Hoa Jlao Buddhist Congregation Central Overseas Executive 

Committee 

-Rep. Lofgren: Prepared Statement 

TilliE SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED ____ _ 

SujlcOmmittee Staff Associate 
58

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


30344e-1.eps
59


30344e-2.eps

Religious Persecution. 

Despite past commitments made to the international community, Vietnam's Communist Government 

has been intensifying its persecution of religious believers in the minority ethnic communities, including 

H'Mong communities. 

In late February 2017, Mr. Ho Nu Lu, a Protestant from Ca Dfnh Nhe Village, Huoi Leng Commune, 

MU'Ong Cha District, Di~n Bien Province, lost his right arm and suffered several injuries to his shoulder 

and face after the village government attacked the victim. 

On March 29, 2017, a H'Mong Protestant family in Mll'img Khll'ang District, Lim Cai Province, was 

physically attacked on account of the family's religion. On subsequent days, groups of strangers stopped 

family members who went on errands to force them to recant their faith under the threat of physical 

abuse. 

In March 2017,4 Protestant families in Tia Dlnh Commune, Di~n Bi@n DOng District, Di~n Bien Province, 

were expelled from their community after refusing to comply with the commune government's order to 

recant their faith. 

On April 22, 2017, the governments of Sam Kha Commune and Hang Dong A Commune beat up the 

victims, destroyed their agricultural assets, tore down their houses, and expelled from their community 

5 Protestant families in Hu6i Mi Village, Sam Kha Commune, and 3 Protestant families in Hang Dong A 

Commune, both communes being in Sop CQp District, San La Province (Northern Vietnam). The victims 

relocated to Lam Dong Province in Central Vietnam's Highlands. There, the local government frequently 

threatens to send them back to Northern Vietnam on account of their religion. Also in April 2017, the 

governments of Nang Ke Village and Huon Muon Commune (in Song Ma District, San La Province) 

continued to persecute 4 Protestant families and finally expelled them from their community without 

any intervention by the higher government of Song Ma District. 

In May 2017, the police department of flak Lak Province detained a H'Mong Protestant, Mr. Ma Sea 

Sung, from Ninh Hoa Village, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllrc District, flak Nong Province, and the victim 

died in police custody on May 5, 2017. 

On November 15, 2017, the government of Mll'img Nhe District in fli~n Bien Province, under the guise 

of Project 79, demolished 71 houses and expelled 71 Protestant families originally forming theTa Phi 

Cha Worship Group in Chung Chai Commune, Mll'il'ng Nhe District. 

On November 25, 2017, the governments of Chieng Dong Commune and Hua Chan Village in Tuan Giao 

District, fli~n Bien Province, seized the victims' assets (motorbike, stores of grains), demolished the 

victims' houses, and expelled 3 Protestant families from their community, without any intervention by 

the government of the district. In April 2018, other Protestant communities in the province bought 

construction materials and transported them from Chieng Dong Commune to the site of the 

demolished houses in Hua Chan Village. However, the village government stopped the shipment 

intended for rebuilding the destroyed houses. 

In December 2017, the Protestant worship group in Chu Va 6 Village of San Blnh Commune, Tam flll'il'ng 

District, Lai Chau Province, submitted its Christmas celebration plan to the commune government. This 

government did not allow the group to proceed and denied its request to borrow a facility for the 

purpose. 

From late 2017 to May 2018, the local governments continuously harassed 9 Protestant families in the 

hamlets of N<)c Coc I and II of flll'a Man Commune and Nong Ke Village of Huoi M<)t Commune, Song Ma 

District, SO'n La Province. Finally the government seized the NQc C6c residents' assets, demolished their 

houses, and expelled them from their community. The government continues to condone the 

2 
60


30344e-3.eps

harassment, beating, destruction of their orchards, and illegal taking of cropland from the Nong Ke 

Village Protestants to punish them for their religious belief. 

From early January 2018 to May 2018, the governments of Tam Hc;tp Commune and TU'O'ng DU'D'ng 

District in Ngh<:o An Province, with their policemen and border guards, persecuted 7 Protestant families 

in Pha Lom Village to stop their religious practice although they belong to the Vietnam Evangelical 

Church (Northern Region), a registered church, and revoked their civil rights, including legal residency, 

ID papers, and birth certificates. 

Revoking Civil Rights. 

Along with religious persecution, Vietnam's government revoked the civil rights of over 2000 H'Mong 

families in the Northwestern region and Central Highlands of the country, thereby rendering them 

"stateless". 

In view of the ruthless persecution of the H'Mong people and other minority groups by Vietnam's 

Communist government, we urge the international community and human rights organizations to 

condemn this inhumane policy and demand Vietnam to respect human rights and freedom of belief and 

religion. 

Stateless Hmong Christians 

In Vietnam, H'Mong Protestants are deprived of residency registration and personaiiD papers 

Situation of H'Mong Protestants in Vietnam. 

From 1998 on, the Communist government's persecution of Protestant Churches in Vietnam's 

Northwestern provinces- under the pretext that H' Mong Protestants are agents of the U.S. who support 

the U.S. in overthrowing the local government in the Northwest to establish a H'Mong kingdom. 

Members of the H'Mong communities had to flee to the Central Highlands where the local government 

discriminates against them and frequently subjects them to threats, violence, and suppression. 

The Central Highlands authorities refuse to allow them to register as legal residents and refuse to issue 

personal papers such as ID cards and birth certificates. The victimized adults and their children receive 

no public benefits. 

In 2017, approximately 1100 families in the Northwestern and Central Highlands provinces lack these 

basic papers. 

II. Tally of households lacking basic ID and residency papers in the Northwestern and Central 

Highlands provinces. 

1. Northwestern provinces. 

- 71 households in theTa Phi Cha worship group of Chung Chay Commune, MU'ong Nhe District, 

fli<:on Bien Province. These people moved here in 2000. The MU'ong Nhe District government 

stamped out this worship group. 

Link to Ta Phi Cha group: 

~_jliDN~_J;oog!e.corn/mpps/sea.r;.b/T%C3%Al+PhS/bC:5%AC+Ch%C3%AO +x%C3%A3+Chung+Ch% 

El %BA%A3y, +huv%E:1';·0BB%8"ln+M%C6%BO%E1 %B3%9[)nq 1-N h~;,_,c3~'10A9 +t%)E1 %BB~ CB9nh+%C4'.X~90 

i?-·hE1%RB%8lDjfu%C3%fi8.n/ (01)).1 0181 Q_£11020~79 1472- l37804.cn/d?.lta= llm7 [1e3!4Ql 

- 6 households are in the worship group at the source of N~m H0 Creek, Kan Ho Commune, MU'ong 

Te District, Lai Chau Province. The N~m Ho Creek worship group started meeting in 2013 and have 

not been issued papers. 

Link to N~m H0 Creek group: 

hitp;:/~::!j_.google,co'm/maps/place/M%Cf?%BO%f:1 %BB%90!!g±_T%C3~.{;A8_Lt-! ai+Chau +Vietna~ 

@ 22.40206 26 102.43454 73, 137508m/data= 13m2! 1e3 !4bl !4m5'3m4! 1s0x36d321559e3612 77:0x30 

]Jc629677 2d4SJ8 !8m2 !3d22J!00379 !4d10221.~5121 

3 
61


30344e-4.eps

- 5 Protestant households in Huoi My Hamlet, Sam Kha Commune, Sop C9p District, San La Province. 

The government of Sam Kha Commune expelled them and they moved to the Central Highlands but 

have not been issued papers. 

Link to Huoi My Hamlet: 

b!TI?~~y~.fi.~..:.~9.LDirrL~~L~S!riJ1(b%!;_1%B/\ZQ8.?B±tt!!26E1?·fBF,l%9:?1±1Tit-"±~~:.~J2~~~~-gio+kh_~ 

+-huy~J %B_Q2§.8ln+ ~~El%8 ;(,911?.±_(:~-0E1 %~B%~~-~ +t'J{~E1 %BB%89n_h+S~~OQ?..~bA ln+ L:.:J/@ 21 .04384, 

.JQ~cTIS 2 3.1li,.LQ.Q§Ji_rllLd ot'!_'c.D m 1 ! li'_~ 

-10 Protestant households in Song Ma District, San La Province were deprived of their ID papers 

and residency documents after the local government punished them. 

Link to Song Ma District: 

.h!iP~!L~~~Y-~f5Q.9E!g:~-\J:~~D-~~12l!LcsL~1£~?.~:EJi:1!_!_g_±M!~~~~i±Pistr!ct -t:~9.il±:b?.J_±.YJ~O_§!_r1Ji_@!l±J.-.Q 

06105.103.5922561 69380m/ data= Um2 !1e3 !4b1 !4rn5 !3m4! ls0x3 .1326te24a029d4d :Ox a T1406ab8a 

§22~~~-PB:Dl.L~fl 1. Los Q_~22ll4Q 1 03_&.52_~.§.§ 

-Approximately 30% of H'Mong residents are Protestant in the districts of MU'ang Nhe and N~m Po, 

flien Bien Province and have no ID and residency papers [efforts are continuing to gather more 

detailed information on the households). 

Link to the districts of N~m Po and MU'itng Nhe: 

htt ps: / !www. ~gggle .com I maps lse arch fM%C.§1:bBO%E l%B B~I:nR±ll..h~;QC3 %/\9+v%C3 %AO +N%E 1 %B 

A%ADm-l p~.-QEl %BB%93, t t%El~!(.BB%89nh t%C4%90i%El%BB%87n t Si%C3%AAn-f /@21.0996316,103 

.1716923 .277523m/ data.:~:! 3m?-! 1e3 l4bl 

2. Central Highlands Provinces. 

- 140 Protestant households in floim Ket Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak Nong 

Province have not been issued papers [floim Ket Hamlet was established in 2009- see 

accompanying photos). 

-90 Protestant households in Tan L~p Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak Nong 

Province, have not been issued papers. 

- 6 Protestant households in Sinh Chai Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak Nong 

Province, have not been issued papers. 

- 37 Protestant households in Ninh Hila Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak Nong 

Province, have not been issued papers. 

- 35 Protestant households in Si At Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak N6ng Province, 

have not been issued papers. 

- 20 Protestant households in Gian Chau Hamlet, flak Ngo Commune, Tuy fllic District, flak Nong, 

have not been issued papers (Gian Chau Hamlet was established in 2009- see accompanying 

photographs). 

(Link to map: 

b.!!2s://www.google.comLrn;)ps/search/B%E1%BA%A3n-t:%C4%90o%C3%AOn+i<%E1%BA%BH.++X% 

£~3? 0A3+%C4%90%C4%83k~+Huy%E1'%BB%87n·tTuv+%C:_t%90%E1%BB%A9c.+_+T%E1%BB~~2 

nh-%C4%90%C4%83k+n%C3%B4ng+ I @112 043066?,1.07 29_ll849,3G365m/ data=! 3mll1e3) 

-88 Protestant households in Area 179, Lieng Sronh Commune, flam Rong District, Lam Dong 

Province have no basic personal and residency papers after living here for more than 16 years. 

Link to Area179: 

https:/ /wwv~..JlQQill.e.com/ maps/search/Ti%E1 %BB%83u+Khu+ 179 +x%C3t;,'OA3+li%C3%AAn+5r%C3% 

Bll nh. +h uy%E 1 %B8%87n+%C4%90<:~m+R%C3%B4 ng, +t%El %BB0/089nh+l %C3%A2m +%C4%90%E:I %B 

_B%91D.gj @112 .039Z221,108.0 3 7 4 773 1273lm/ data= !3m2! le3 !4b1. 

-Over 200 Protestant households in flak Phai Commune, Lilk District, flak Lak Province, have no 

basic personal and residency papers after living here for more than 12 years. 

4 
62


30344e-5.eps

Link to map: 

lJ1t.f!s://www_gog~.:..~~ite£b/x%C~A3+%C4%909{&4%83k+~Ph%C6%.8_1i+v"/oQ1:£_AO+L%h:! 

%83k +t%E1%BB%89nh+~·OC4%90ak+L~.-:0C4%83 k+/(W 1L0395773 .107.8973306, 145461m/data=!3m2! 

).e3!![bl 

- 100 Protestant households in Area 181, Lieng S Roanh Commune, flam R6ng District, Lam flong. 

Province, have no basic personal and residency papers after living here for nearly 20 years. 

- 150 Protestant households in M'Drak District, -oak Lc3k Province, have no basic personal and 

residency papers after living here for nearly 20 years. 

Link ban do: 

btt ps :/ /wv~2S!JJ)_e .com/ maps/ p!a ce/M ~~·OC4 %2P r%E 1 %BP,.%A £t.±]·6C4 )l)9_ill·bE 1 %B8,~A Fk+ L%E 1 %8/'l. 

';ifl,E,~:':Provj~+Yli,1Dil'l1i@_:l2d.,1lQ.~~~"z 4889J.:-'2f:LZ9~.9Afu.3.;i,57tLcJil!~.=.Ll.ml[le3 !4r:DJ2:]_m1 

.U311£31?1!i~!icsd9.Q.<;l_Q£2!!.0'.1_8.1Z!:I1~ 51~_1:>_265.Ql§r!11_! 1d ~1.11§~2§6 !4d 108.7 60 Q2_qJ_ 

-Over 300 Protestant households in Vu Bon Commune, Krong Pak District, flak Lak, have no basic 

personal and residency papers after living here for more than 10 years. 

Link to map: 

h!t.P2iL~.J:Y~_gQ_Qfi~_:f9_r:D/lD1!2~J.?..f_§.L\L70El~:E.P:Jfi9~;? .. ±~.EJ1:2~~-~?.D-t..±-Kr%£.~.~!3AD.fliE~4.~~~J.!?~ 

%8l.c +%C4%90%El%BA%AFk+I.%1'1%BA%·AFk+Province,+Vietnam/@J.2.511G459,108.429201,1526 

Z~2.1Y2l_J:j.JifEl.0_::= :3 n!lJ.l~J~m2 Jlul1_~~o x3 ~:Ll~.~:lQfu.lCifi'Jl~.Qlill~Q.Q_Qi.Q~s;s:.?~33_:5J.§.m1.L?_912_._()_ 

287382 !4d108.4513438 

-Approximately 30% of the residents are Protestant in the communes of CU' San, Em roan, and CU' 

KrCra in M'flrak District, and the communes of CU' Pui and CU' flran of Kr6ng Bong District, flak Lak 

Province, have no basic personal and residency papers after living here for more than 20 years. 

h t 1 ps: I /www .go ogle .corn/ rnap~/ p! ace/K1 %f.3% B4ng+ B%C3 %B4ng+Di s lr kt, + %C4 %90% E 1 ~ .. t}BA %/\F k + 

L%El %BA%/\Fk+Province "!:Vietnam/@ 12.4699183,108.3 70737 511QlrTIL.9ata:j3m.:UJ.e3 !4rn5 !1l.J:l4 !'l 

?.~~;Lz_l be4Q;!~_§]_b_1J.~Q~_£1:l.." ... li31?.92'ilid.1lJl ... bj_8_r1l_f.LC\d 12 c1z_:l.Q;!_2J1cj1 08.1Z. ~Q_846 

-Over 200 Protestant households in Waterfall 4, Quang Phu Commune, Kr6ng N6 District, flak N6ng 

have no basic personal and residency papers after living here for more than 15 years. 

yea rsll_t!ps:l/wt~omLm.mls/piac~%E1 %B_A%AJJlg±E__tJ.~-6_C3%BA +Kr%C3%B4ng±N%(;}2~ 

I~:':L:~PJg:l..~~t±Q.~_t:~-~..& + VletJ}~~L_@_;LUg§Q..!-:2;JQ?~.9_?_$_?.]_3J . .L~Z£~~-rr!l9_~!~ !i!rl!..~l1~l4_b 1 t1.rn;?J?_ 

]]l_4! 1s0x3_17229'1J;l.?J.:b;i3ddo :Oxd3c9b289872a94b4 !3m2 !}d 12 .2S2Q7 46 !4d108.0124:1§_'i!_ 

-None of the families' children have birth certificates. They are allowed to attend school through 

Grade 9 only. 

Total number of Protestant households without basic ID and residency papers: approximately 

1100. 

This is an incomplete count of Protestant H'Mong households in Vietnam who are still without their 

basic ID and residency papers. 

We urge social organizations in Vietnam and those based overseas, and the international 

community to raise your voices in support of the families' rights and request the Communist 

government of Vietnam to issue them their personal papers. 

For the H'Mong Community 

Pastor Wa Chi Minh Vang 

5 
63


30344e-6.eps

A section of £Joan Ket Hqmlet. fiiik NgoCommune, TuyfJifcDistrict. DakN6ng Province 

A section of Area 179, Uen SrOnh Commune, Dam ROng District, LOrn DOng Province 

6 
64

f


30344e-7.eps

Ta Phi ChG Worship Group, Chung Chay Commune, MU'cmg Nhe District, f!i~n Bii!n Province 

7 
65

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


30344f-1.eps
66


30344f-2.eps

In response. Bui Van Trung and dozens of Hoa Hao Buddhist followers then staged a public 

demonstration to protest government repression. Bui Van Tham was later charged with ··disrupting 

public order"' under article 245 of the criminal code and "resisting people on public duty•• under 

article 257. The other rive were charged with ''disrupting public order.'' 

On February 9tb. 20IS, Bui Van Trung and his son Bui Van Tham were sentenced to six years in 

prison. Trung ·s daughter Bui Thi Bich Tuven was sentenced to tbree years, and his wife Le Thi 

Hen was sentenced to two years of house arrest. Family friends and co-religionists Nguyen Hoang 

Nam and Le Thi Hong Hanh were also convicted in the case and were sentenced to lour and three 

years respectively. 

2. Nguyen Bac Tmyen- Early in the morning of Julv 30, 2017 Mr. Nguyen Bac Truyen was abducted 

by Vietnamese police while waiting for his wife outside tbe Catholic Redemptorist Church in Ho 

Chi Minh City (HCMC), where both had worked since 2014. A few hours later. the website of the 

Ministry of Public Security announced that Truyen had been arrested on the charge of ·'acting to 

overthrow the people's government", which is punishable by deatb or by life imprisonment. 

This allegation grossly mischaracterizes the nature ofTruyen·s activism. After marrying his wife 

in 2014, Truyen converted to HoaHao Buddhism and has since focused all his efforts on defending 

and promoting religious freedom. He has documented many human rights violations committed 

against Hoa Hao Buddhists and submitted these reports to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom 

of Religion or Belief (FORB). He has provided pro bono legal assistance and training on basic 

human and civil rights to Catholics, Hoa Hao Buddhists, Hmong and Montagnard Christians, and 

Cao Dai followers. 

Truyen has been held without legal representation since his re-arrest on July 30 2017. Nearly three 

weeks after Truven's arrest, a single letter was sent to his wife by the Security Investigation Bureau 

of the Ministry of Public Security in response to her two requests for information about his 

whereabouts. The letter said Tmyen was being held at Detention Center Bl4 in Hanoi (1600 km 

away from where he was apprehended). 

On 5 April 2018, the government of Vietnam found Truyen guilty of'·carrying out activities aimed 

at overthrowing the people's administration.'' He was sentenced to II years in prison and 3 years 

of probation. 

~- The Death of Nguyen Hun Tan- Mr. Nguyen Hun Tan, was from a fanuly with a long history 

of religious persecution that lasts 3 generations. Both of his paternal grandparents were killed by 

the communist authorities due to their religious belief. Tan's parents are independent Hoa Hao 
67

f


30344f-3.eps

Buddhists who refused to join the local chapter of the state-sponsored Hoa Hao Administrative 

Council. As a result, his family often suffers from intimidation and harassment by local authorities. 

In the morning of May 2. 2017, Mr. Nguven Huu Tan, was abducted bv the Vietnamese police 

while going out for his morning coffee. That evening, about two hundred plainclothes and 

uniformed police escorted him home, surrounded the house, blocked off the streets, and conducted 

a house search that lasted several hours. He was accused of disseminating anti-State documents 

under Article 88 of the country's Penal Code. Even though the police did not find any evidence to 

substantiate their accusation. they read the Urgent Arrest Notice and took the victim away shortly 

after midnight. He was detained at the Temporarv Detention Center ofVinh Long Provincial Police 

Department. Less than 10 hours later (May 3), the victim died with multiple fatal injuries: a cut on 

his throat that was almost from ear to ear: the gap of the cut was about 2 inches, his windpipe 

severed, his neck bone exposed. There was a bruise on the victim's forehead and the skull was 

mushy in that area and also on his left temple and in the back of his head. 

Vinh Long police continue to intensit'v their threats against the victim's family. Security cameras 

are installed around the house to monitor the movements and activities of family members. Several 

police checkpoints are set up near the house and police come almost daily threatening to arrest all 

adult members of the family for conducting anti-state activities. The police pressure the victim's 

family to accept the police's conclusion that suicide was the cause or death and to end the quest 

for a thorough investigation into his death. 

The entire family is extremely frightened and fearing for their lives. The victim's mother and two 

of the three surv-iving brothers had to ±lee home and are now liv-ing in exile in their own country. 

PLEASE TAKE ACTIONS TO HELP THE VICTIMS: 

We respectfully ask for your help on calling on Vietnam to: 

l. Annul the sentences against Bui Van Trung and fellow Hoa Hao Buddhists. and immediately 

allow Bui Van Trung access medical treatment for his eye problem. 

2. Annul the sentences against Nguyen Bac Truyen. 

3. Stop all forms of harassment on Mr. N_guyen Huu Tan's family so that they can come home 

and resume their normal lives. 
68

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


30344g-1.eps
69

f


30344g-2.eps

2 

Rep. Zoe Lofgren 

subverting the people's government". His trial lasted just one day, but his sentence is the longest 

ever handed down to a dissident in Vietnam. 

In April of this year, when Vietnam Caucus members and I met with United States Ambassador 

to Vietnam, Daniel J. Kritnebrink, 1 handed him a list of prisoners of conscience, as 1 have in the 

past to officials of the Vietnamese government, and asked that he raise the issue of their 

unconditional release with the Vietnamese government. 

These individuals are victim to arbitrary arrests and detention for indefinite periods of time, 

without due process of law, merely for participating in peaceful protests, expressing their 

political beliefs, or exercising their religion. 1 will not give up the fight for the unconditional 

release of prisoners of conscience. 

It is my hope that the House Foreign Affairs Committee will continue the great work being done 

at this hearing to examine the state of human rights and rule of law in Vietnam by considering 

and marking up H.R. 562 I, the Vietnam Human Rights Act. 

The Vietnam Human Rights calls on the United States to use the Magnitsky Act authority to 

sanction Vietnamese authorities responsible for human rights abuses. The bill also calls for the 

release of prisoners of conscience and for designating Vietnam as a Country of Particular 

Concern. 

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Vietnam Caucus, on these 

matters, and to working to pass this important legislation. 
70


30344h-1.eps

Questions for the Record- Rep. Alan Lowenthal A Bad Year for Human Rights in Vietnam June 7, 2018 

Mr. Anthony Le 

1. Could you give us an overview and general update on the Brotherhood for Democracy? 

a. You mentioned that the group faces harassment in the country. How exactly have members 

been treated? 

BFD has been being harassed from very beginning, through 5 years 12 members of us be 

arrested anc/ jailec/, most of our member anc/ their families have been being harassing, I myself 

also the victim of harassment from focal authority 

b. Are you allowed to organize? 

Base on Vietnam legal we have authorize to organize, but actually we did not allowed to 

organize by local authority 

2. On the issue of Formosa Steel, you mentioned that Brotherhood for Democracy has done some 

work with supporting local fishermen. Are they receiving any of the money paid by Formosa? 

\!Ve helped prepare documents that Jfsteci the tosses due to the emAronment disaster caused by Formosa Steel 

Company that the fishermen and their famil!es suffered for several vilfages in the affected area_ 

We helped organized rallies and walks to local offices to demand for environmental rights and justice. 

We worked with the foe a! churches and priests to develop strategies to advocate for the fishermen' rights and 

compensation as we!! as to publicize the disserv'ice and violation of the government's responses to the disaster_ 

Vi:'e helped enl!st vo1ces in Vietnam to raise the issues with the V;etnamese govermnent and the Taiwanese 

government as regards to the issue 

Some area received the paid from Formosa, some not, such as in f\Jghe An province fishermen did not received 

any paid And the paid were not fair between families to families: Normal fishing and fishing service provider 

families have been paid from: $75.00 x 6 months = $450.00 to $220.00 x 6 months = $1,320.00 but families 

got relationship with authority officers they received more than from $10,000.00 x 6 months= $60.000.00 to 

$50.00000 x 6 months= $300.000.00 event they are not domg any JOb concerning to fishing or fishing service 

providing 

3. You mentioned that the Vietnamese government continues its crackdown on prodemocracy 

activists. Are you currently receiving help from any other organization? Have you received aid? 

Yes we do received the emergency assistance from f-reedom House." Legol assistance fee, medical 

treatment fee, and 6 months Jail visiting fee 

4. Human Rights Watch has been in touch with my office on this issue and we have heard that a lot of 

people imprisoned in the past year or so were arrested because they protested the Formosa issue. Is 

this still the case? 

Activist that have been arrested and jailing in the issue of Forrnosa are 

Hoang Due Binh: Viet Labor 

Nguyen Van Hoa: Freelance journalist 
71

Æ


30344h-2.eps

Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh: B!ogger 

Nguyen Trung True: Brotherhood For Democracy 

han Thi Xuan: Brotherhood For Democracy 

Nguyen Van Tuc: Brotherhood For Democracy 

Pham Van froi: Brotherhood f.or Democracy 

Nguyen Trung Ton: Brotherhood For Democracy 

Vu Van Hung: Brotherhood For Democracy 

Truong Minh Due: Brotherhood For Democrocy