U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

80–363PDF 2013

HIGHLIGHTING VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN ADVANCE OF

THE U.S.–VIETNAM DIALOGUE

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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 11, 2013

Serial No. 113–54

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

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 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Anh ‘‘Joseph’’ Cao, former Member of Congress ......................... 9

Mr. Vo Van Ai, president, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and Que 

Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam ................................................................ 53

Ms. Anna Buonya, spokesperson, Montagnard Human Rights Organization .... 60

Ms. Danh Bui, sister of a victim of human trafficking ......................................... 68

Mr. Tien Tran, victim of religious persecution at the Con Dau Parish .............. 75

Mr. John Sifton, advocacy director for Asia, Human Rights Watch .................... 83

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Anh ‘‘Joseph’’ Cao: Prepared statement ....................................... 12

Mr. Vo Van Ai: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 55

Ms. Anna Buonya: Prepared statement ................................................................. 63

Ms. Danh Bui: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 70

Mr. Tien Tran: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 77

Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement .................................................................... 86

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 108

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 109

Ms. Anna Buonya: Material submitted for the record .......................................... 110

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: Statement 

of Boat People SOS and Hmong National Development, Inc. .......................... 112

(1)

HIGHLIGHTING VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT 

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN ADVANCE 

OF THE U.S.–VIETNAM DIALOGUE 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013

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 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order, and I want to wish 

everybody a good morning, and thank you for joining us for this important hearing to examine the ongoing human rights situation in 

Vietnam. The Vietnamese Government continues to be an egregious violator of a broad array human rights. Our distinguished 

witnesses who are joining us here today including our former colleague Anh Cao, and many very distinguished people who have in 

many cases themselves suffered, and who will provide detailed accounts. And I’d like highlight just a few areas of grave concern. 

Despite the State Department’s decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from the list of Countries of Particular Concern, or CPC, as 

designated pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, 

Vietnam, in fact, continues to be among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. According to the United States Commission for International Religious Freedom 2012 annual report, 

‘‘The Government of Vietnam continues to control all religious communities, restrict and penalize independent religious practice severely, and represses individuals and groups viewed as challenging 

its authority.’’ I agree with the Commission’s conclusion that Vietnam should be designated a CPC. 

I met courageous religious leaders during my last trip to Vietnam who are struggling for fundamental human rights in their 

country. Unfortunately, many of them including Father Ly, and the 

most Venerable Thich Quang Do, remain wrongly detained today. 

There are disturbing reports that Father Ly is suffering poor 

health. Leaders of religious organizations are not only victimized 

by the Vietnamese Government, individuals in small communities 

are also targeted by their regime. 

One of our witnesses today, Mr. Tien Tran, will speak of the brutality that he experienced as a member of the Con Dau Parish that 

2

was violently repressed in 2010 when they tried to have a funeral 

procession. I will point out parenthetically that we held hearings 

then. And Congressman Cao will remember it so well because he 

did so help put those together, and we talked about the fact that 

the bullies actually rained upon people during a funeral and beat 

them, and told them that they could not continue with their funeral procession. And unfortunately, people died, people were incarcerated and torture was rampant. 

The State Department’s upgrade of Vietnam from Tier II watch 

list to Tier II with respect to minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking also needs to be critically examined. 

The Department’s 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report states only 

that Vietnamese women and children are being sexually exploited, 

but there are severe labor abuses occurring as well with, not in the 

absence of, but with the government’s complicity. The report acknowledges that state licensed labor export companies engage in 

fraud and charge illegal commissions for overseas employment, and 

that there are documented cases of recruitment companies ignoring 

pleas for help from workers in exploitative situations. 

I would note again that Dr. Thang has been instrumental in 

bringing huge amounts of evidence forward not only to committees 

and hearings that I have held and we have held in the past, but 

also to the Department of State, asking them to use that in bringing their conclusion to a Tier III ranking, because it is unmistakable that on this score card Vietnam deserves a Tier III ranking 

as well. As the sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act I 

am deeply disturbed that the tier rankings are not being better utilized by our State Department to pressure Vietnam to correct the 

trafficking abuses occurring within its government, not to mention 

those in the private sector. 

We will hear from Ms. Hui Danh who will testify about the ordeal that her sister has endured as a victim of human trafficking. 

I am deeply disturbed by her story because her sister’s situation actually got worse when she asked for help from the Vietnamese Embassy. I greatly admire her courage, and the subcommittee is most 

appreciative of her willingness to speak out and to bring attention 

to this issue. 

Despite the dismal status for human rights in Vietnam we can 

exert pressure on the Vietnamese Government to cease these 

abuses. I will be introducing the Vietnam Human Rights Act very 

soon. We are in the final drafting stage of that legislation, and our 

hope is that swift congressional action on this bill will send a very 

strong message that Congress will not tolerate continuing human 

rights abuses in Vietnam. I will note parenthetically that this bill, 

in a different iteration, but very similarly crafted, has passed the 

House of Representatives with huge margins on two occasions only 

to die in the United States Senate because holds were put on it to 

block even a vote by the United States Senate. 

Finally, during the human rights dialogue with Vietnam in 

Hanoi, it is imperative that the U.S. Government send an unequivocal message to the Vietnamese regime that it must end its 

human rights abuses against its own citizens. This message, however, should not be confined to the human rights dialogue alone. 

It must be raised at each opportunity that we have with talks with 

3

the Vietnamese Government. It should be pervasive every time 

business, cultural or any exchange occurs. The ongoing plight of 

people like Father Ly, the evangelicals, the Montagnard, the 

Hmong, and The Venerable Thich Quang Do, and all the others 

who have been repressed, needs to be on the table. They need to 

know that we mean it, that we have not put this in a compartment, 

hermetically sealed from all other aspects of our bilateral relationship, that human rights matters to this country and matters to the 

American public. 

We are joined by our distinguished chairman of the full Foreign 

Affairs Committee, Mr. Royce of California who has been a champion of human rights in Vietnam, for however much time he may 

consume. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I want to thank Congressman and subcommittee Chairman Smith for that, and Karen Bass of California 

also, the ranking member here of this subcommittee. And let me 

begin by saying what a pleasure it is to see Representative Cao 

with us today, and not only to welcome him back but to say that 

his voice is sorely missed on the Hill here as one who spoke consistently for human rights, for religious freedom. And indeed that 

brings us to the subject today. 

The panel that is here has shown a very real dedication. A lot 

of expertise here in the subject of human rights. But I think it is 

absolutely dire today that our Department of State and we in the 

United States and the Congress, in the Senate and the House, 

manage to express to the Government of Vietnam that they are 

backsliding. Their walking in the wrong direction on religious freedom and freedom of expression is raising such a serious concern 

not only among the international community but I hear it from Vietnamese-Americans. And I saw it firsthand, I have to share with 

you. 

In a trip I took to Vietnam I had an opportunity to talk to some 

of the religious leaders including The Venerable Thich Quang Do. 

But I talked to several who were under house arrest. Now one of 

those was subsequently at one of these religious demonstrations 

and was beaten in such a way as he was permanently injured. And 

for those of you who follow these human rights cases, and follow 

particularly the case of religious leaders who refuse to bend to the 

party in Vietnam—and why do they? Well, as explained to me, as 

shown to me, the Buddhist texts are rewritten by party functionaries so that they are a small fraction of the original text, but 

the meaning, the meaning of the text has been changed. 

And so when the government itself says, well, we have our own 

new appointed Buddhist leader that we are going to recognize, 

that’s because that individual is willing to bend and change the 

faith. And the question that I have is that when we took Vietnam 

off of the Country of Particular Concern list the deal was that the 

government in Vietnam was going to recognize religious freedom. 

Now that means a cessation. That means ending the process of 

beating religious leaders who try to speak out for freedom of religion. That means ending the process of seizing church property. 

That means allowing, allowing all faiths to practice. 

And I am looking at the 2013 report of the Human Rights Watch, 

looking down through that. The conclusion is Vietnam suppresses 

4

nearly every human right from freedom of expression, freedom of 

association, religious freedom. And I think that as we look at the 

excessive use of force not just against religious leaders but also 

young kids that want to use the Internet in order to gain access 

to information, to see the sentencing for those that are involved in 

any kind of dialogue about freedom of expression, and see them 

locked away for these long periods of time, to see the functionaries 

of the government beating people with electric batons to break up 

protests over any issue including environmental issue, and this has 

remained the same for many years, but frankly it is getting worse. 

Vietnam, over the first 6 weeks of this year, the Government of 

Vietnam have convicted in show trials 40 dissidents. Now that 

means in just less than 2 months the Communist government there 

has already eclipsed the entire total of last year. That is why these 

witnesses came here today to speak out, is because things are regressing in Vietnam. And despite this behavior, Vietnam is actively 

pursuing a seat at the U.N. Human Rights Council. The words 

have no meaning. And in terms of the trafficking issue, which 

Chris Smith has been involved in for so many years, to hear the 

individual stories, to hear the complicity of the government, the 

Government of Vietnam doesn’t want these stories to surface about 

what is actually happening to these traffic victims. And that indeed 

is why if you complain to the government you might find yourself 

in worse shape than if you just suffer through. And the government 

makes money in so many cases off of the abuse of workers, but for 

the trafficking victims it is really hell. Their life is a life that no 

one would ever want to go through. We have got to have the U.S. 

Government stand up for moral principle here. 

Now the State Department is heading over to Vietnam for the 

next round of talks in the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue. 

And during those talks I hope that these cases that we discuss 

today, I hope that our Government here in the United States 

makes it absolutely clear, if Vietnam is serious about pursuing a 

stronger relation with the United States, well, that is contingent on 

it starting with one thing for certain, and that is, the human rights 

situation has got to be improved in terms of religious freedom, in 

terms of these traffic victims, and in terms of freedom of expression 

for these young people in Vietnam who want to simply have a dialogue. We can’t have these show trials. We can’t have this kind of 

abuse. We can’t have these beatings. It must end. It must end now. 

And I commend the chairman for holding this hearing, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 

full committee, Mr. Royce, for his longstanding and very effective 

leadership on behalf of the suffering people in Vietnam and for his 

very eloquent statement this morning. 

Ms. Bass, ranking member. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, as well as Chairman 

Royce, for your years of work on human rights. And I am glad 

today that we are joined by my good colleague from California, 

Congressman Alan Lowenthal. I want to offer my gratitude today 

to today’s witnesses for your testimony, and I look forward to your 

insights and perspectives. 

5

As we turn to another country and set of human rights issues 

that greatly require congressional and global attention, it is my 

hope that this hearing will lead to improved conditions for the Vietnamese people, where freedom of speech, the end of religious persecution, freedom of the press, any free press, are permitted to thrive 

in a society that is open and truly free. 

Tomorrow the U.S. and Vietnam will hold the 17th of its human 

rights dialogues, where there might be some advances—and I am 

sure today’s witnesses will confirm that or not—in the government’s crackdown on various freedoms. This is by no means widespread. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty 

International, and the Vietnam Human Rights Network continue to 

document the full extent of the government’s efforts to undermine 

the human rights of its citizens at every turn. The upcoming meeting between our two governments presents no better time than the 

present to raise the seriousness of these concerns and abuses, particularly as the Vietnamese Government seeks a seat on the U.N. 

Human Rights Council for 2014 to ’16. 

I would like to make very brief remarks on the freedom of 

speech, human trafficking, and religious persecution. Freedom of 

expression is fundamental in a society that thrives. Last year the 

Vietnamese Government arrested activists, bloggers, and human 

rights lawyers detaining them for extended periods of time, denied 

them access to legal counsel, prevented them from contacting their 

families, and prosecuted them in politically charged trials. Those 

convicted and sentenced merely sought a society in which their fellow citizens criticized their government to improve society and ensure policies do not exist where people live in fear or are under the 

threat of censor or arrest. 

I am particularly concerned about the trafficking of women, men, 

and children around the region, and hopefully the witnesses today 

will give us additional information about that. It is my understanding that both women and men are forced into sexual labor. 

Women are sold as mail-order brides or surrogate mothers. Men 

are often sold into indentured servitude. And the most vulnerable 

citizens, children, are exploited for the purposes of sex, labor, 

forced begging, or bonded labor. According to the State Department’s 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report, the Vietnamese Government has made some efforts to curb trafficking, but more must be 

done to combat sexual slavery and the illegal transfer of children 

to Cambodia, China and elsewhere. 

I am also troubled by the persecution of religious minorities 

across Vietnam. Government seizure of lands, particularly those 

belonging to religious or other minority groups, the resale of lands 

belonging to churches and temples, and the infiltration of religious 

organizations by government agents demonstrate contempt for religious freedom. People should be able to practice their beliefs without fear of punishment or persecution by government officials. 

I want to conclude by reminding all of us and all our governments the important words that enshrined within the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights. These words provide us a framework 

and serve as a guide to ensure that all people are free, live in open 

and just societies, and their governments, including our own, work 

with and for people rather than against. Everyone is entitled to all 

6

the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or 

other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the 

basis of the political, jurisdictional, or international status of the 

country or territory to which a person belongs whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or any other limitation of sovereignty. Everyone has the right to liberty, life, and security of person. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Slavery and the 

slave trade shall be prohibited in all these forms. No one shall be 

subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. 

Today I look forward to your testimony, and I yield back my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. I would 

like to yield to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

coming to testify. And as we listen to your testimony, one of the 

things, the clearest message that needs to be taken back that needs 

to be heard by the Government of Vietnam is that to truly have 

economic prosperity and economic freedom there first and must always be the protection of religious liberties and with human rights 

to make sure that those are protected and upheld in every situation. We are here in a country that many times for economic reasons we look the other way. And that cannot be the case and will 

not be the case. We would not tolerate this kind of human rights 

violations among companies here, and to be a good trading partner 

with the United States we must stand and be vigilant on this particular issue, and it is nonnegotiable. 

And to highlight this, I appreciate the bravery and the true sense 

of trying to expose and share in an intimate way the atrocities that 

are happening not just in Vietnam but across many countries, but 

specifically with what you have had to deal with. I look forward to 

hearing your testimony, and truly may it be the start of highlighting this over and over again so that real change, not just 

words but actions follow up those words. So thank you so much. I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Meadows. The chair recognizes Mr. Lowenthal. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Chairman Royce, 

Ranking Member Bass, for the opportunity to participate in today’s 

hearing on the human rights conditions in Vietnam. I would like 

to also thank the members of the panel for coming to testify today. 

This hearing is very important to me because of the large numbers of Vietnamese-Americans that I proudly represent, particularly in Little Saigon, one of the largest concentrations of Vietnamese outside of Vietnam. Since the normalization of diplomatic 

ties between Vietnam and the United States, Vietnam has gained 

tremendously from these economic ties and exchanges. In 

partnering with the United States, Vietnam was admitted into the 

World Trade Organization, received permanent normal trade status 

with our country, and it has gained access to the American markets. Currently, the United States is one of Vietnam’s largest, if 

not its largest exporting partner. 

7

But despite these partnerships, the Government of Vietnam has 

yet to demonstrate its commitment to upholding international laws 

and norms such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which 

Vietnam is a signator. Vietnam has disregarded its promises on respecting human rights and basic freedom of the press, expression 

and association of its own citizens as is already enshrined in the 

Vietnamese Constitution. 

Currently as we speak today, respected religious leaders such as 

the Supreme Patriarch Thich Quang Do of the Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam, and Father Nguyen Van Ly, along with many 

activists are under house arrest. According to reports as just reported also, by, I think, Chairman Royce, at least 50 human rights 

defenders have been arbitrarily detained within the last year alone, 

and that rate is increasing exponentially. 

The persecution of prominent bloggers such as Ta Phong Tan 

who received the State Department’s 2013 Woman of Courage 

Award; journalists such as Phan Thanh Hai and Dieu Cay who 

founded the Free Journalist Club; songwriters such Viet Khang 

and Tran Vu Anh Binh; the 14 Catholic youth activists; and most 

recently human rights lawyer, Le Quoc Quan, all of these persecutions have resulted in the Government of Vietnam being strongly 

criticized and condemned by international rights organizations and 

by governments around the world. The United Nations Working 

Group on Arbitrary Detention has ruled that these arrests and detentions are a violation of international law. 

Mr. Chairman, as the Government of Vietnam is seeking TransPacific Partnership agreements along with increasing economic and 

military exchanges with the United States, my hope is that the 

United States Congress carefully examines the seriousness and the 

commitment on the part of the Government of Vietnam to respecting human rights and basic freedoms of its citizens given these current conditions in Vietnam. 

I recently attended an event in my district where thousands of 

Vietnamese-Americans came together to support the call from religious leaders, from intellectuals, from former Communist Party officials, and from activists in Vietnam, demanding constitutional 

changes and for the Vietnamese Government to grant greater freedom to its people. I believe that the United States should use our 

diplomatic relations to try to influence and do everything that we 

can to support the people of Vietnam in their aspirations for justice, for liberty, and for freedom. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lowenthal, thank you very much for your statement and for your leadership and for being here today and joining 

us on the panel. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished witnesses. And 

beginning first, it is expressing the highest honor and privilege to 

welcome back Anh Cao, who is a good friend and a tremendous 

human rights leader. He was born in Vietnam, and at the age of 

eight he was able to escape to the United States with his siblings. 

After learning English, he did well in school and went on to earn 

his undergraduate and master’s degrees before teaching philosophy 

and ethics in New Orleans. Congressman Cao went on to earn his 

8

law degree and worked for Boat People SOS—and I first met him 

in the 1990s—to help poor Vietnamese and other minorities. 

He lost his home and office in Hurricane Katrina, but helped 

lead his community as it started to rebuild. In 2008 he became the 

first Vietnamese-American elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and represented Louisiana’s Second Congressional District, 

and as I said at the outset was a leader on numerous human rights 

issues, but was the leader on trying to protect the rights of people 

living in Vietnam. So it is a privilege to have him here. 

We will then hear from Mr. Vo Van Ai who serves as the international spokesman for the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

which is currently banned by the Communist dictatorship in Vietnam. He is also the founder and president of Que Me: Action for 

Democracy in Vietnam, and the Vietnam Committee on Human 

Rights, organizations established in 1976 to raise awareness of the 

human rights and religious freedom situation in Vietnam, the campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience, and promote democratic freedoms and human rights. He testifies regularly at the 

United Nations Human Rights Council, the U.S. Congress, European Parliament, and other international fora on human rights in 

Vietnam. Welcome. 

We will then hear from Ms. Anna Buonya who was born in Thailand and came to the United States as a Montagnard refugee in 

1986. She graduated from UNC Greensboro in 2006 with a degree 

in political science and communication studies, and received her 

law degree from Elon University in 2010. She has her own law 

practice, and outside of her private practice she does pro bono advocacy on behalf of refugee policy for the Montagnard Human 

Rights Organization and the Council of Indigenous Peoples in Today’s Vietnam. 

We will then hear from Ms. Hui Danh, a Vietnamese-American 

who lives in the United States. Her sister is a victim of a forced 

labor scheme in which she went to Russia thinking that she would 

work in a restaurant, only to find out when she arrived that she 

would be forced and compelled to work as a prostitute. Her sister 

was eventually able to return to Vietnam, but there are many others who remain trapped in Russia as well as elsewhere by their Vietnamese traffickers. We welcome her and thank her for her enormous bravery knowing that there has been retaliations because she 

has spoken out. 

We will then hear from Tien Tran who is a member of the Con 

Dau village in Central Vietnam where he was a farmer and a member of the local Catholic church. He was captured by Vietnamese 

security forces during a funeral at Con Dau on May 4th, 2010. He 

was jailed and tortured for 7 days in a police detention center. He 

was able to escape Vietnam and go to Thailand in August 2010, 

and then came to the U.S. in September 2012. We welcome him 

and express obviously our deep sadness as to how he was mistreated, but again thank him for speaking out for all those who remain and have been so victimized. 

We will then hear from Mr. John Sifton who is the advocacy director for Asia for Human Rights Watch where he focuses on South 

and Southeast Asia. He has extensive experience doing international human rights work with a focus on Asia, but has also 

9

worked on issues relating to human trafficking, terrorism, and refugees. Mr. Sifton has traveled to Vietnam where he investigated 

the human rights situation and other developments in the country. 

He works with a wide range of government officials from many 

countries to provide policy advice and raise awareness of Vietnam’s 

human rights record. And welcome, Mr. Sifton, as well. 

I would just note we also have Dr. Thang here today, and just 

one note concerning him. In the 1990s when I became chairman of 

the subcommittee focusing on human rights, it was Dr. Thang who 

came to my office and said, here is some information regarding the 

human rights situation especially with regards to the refugees who 

are in a number of camps including in High Island in Hong Kong, 

and elsewhere, who are about to be forcibly repatriated back to 

Vietnam where they were facing a predictably cruel fate and would 

have been, many of them, put into prison. We organized, as a direct 

result of Dr. Thang’s advocacy—and Anh will remember this as 

well—a series of four hearings including one closed hearing. 

The Clinton administration was intent on sending back those 

men and women who had been screened out as refugees, improperly, even though human rights organizations had made it very 

clear that they were refugees, that they had a well-founded fear of 

persecution should they be forcibly or in any way returned back to 

Vietnam. After the four hearings, I offered an amendment again 

with the guidance of Dr. Thang that said no U.S. money will be 

used to forcibly repatriate anyone. It caused a change in the attitude on the part of the administration. We had some friends within 

the administration as Dr. Thang will remember, and as a direct result the ROVR program was established. And, frankly, I want to 

thank Dr. Thang because he is the man, the person, the human 

rights advocate, and his organization Boat People SOS, but he personally, who made the difference in ensuring that upwards of 

20,000 people who would have gone back against their will were 

rescued. And he has been absolutely tenacious in promoting the 

cause of human rights for all faiths, all believers, all those who are 

suffering any kind of persecution in Vietnam, including those who 

have been trafficked. So Dr. Thang, thank you for your unbelievably effective leadership on behalf of the Vietnamese people. 

Anh Joseph Cao? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, 

FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Mr. CAO. Chairman Smith, I would like to personally thank you 

and to thank Chairman Royce for you continuing to be the champion of human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. I would 

like to also thank the ranking member Bass and members of the 

subcommittee for your interest in the human rights and religious 

freedom conditions in Vietnam, and for your willingness to support 

the fight of the Vietnamese people. 

Mr. Chairman, basic universal human rights have served as the 

basis and foundation of modern societies over six decades. The 

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights succinctly and rightly 

states, ‘‘All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights.’’ 

‘‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.’’ ‘‘No 

one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading 

10

treatment or punishment.’’ ‘‘All are equal before the law and are 

entitled without any indiscrimination to equal protection of the 

law.’’ Pope John Paul II called this Declaration ‘‘one of the highest 

expressions of the human conscience of our time.’’ Marcello 

Spatafora, on behalf of the European Union, stated, ‘‘The declaration placed human rights at the center of the framework of principles and obligations shaping relations between the international 

community.’’ Yet, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has for decades 

defiantly trampled these important principles under its feet, proclaiming to the world arrogantly that it is above what are right and 

decent. 

Since 2007, Vietnam has been backsliding on human rights and 

is now the proud possessor of the title ‘‘The Worst Violator of 

Human Rights in Southeast Asia.’’ Political opposition is outlawed; 

repression of dissidents intensified; severe restrictions on freedom 

of expressions are imposed; bloggers and peaceful activists are arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. In most cases, national security 

has been cited as a pretext for the illegal arrests and criminal investigations. 

One of the main groups of people who have suffered greatly 

under Vietnam’s oppression has been the religious faithful and 

leaders. Vietnam does not hide its strict adherence to the Communist assertion that ‘‘religion is the opium of the people,’’ and 

they therefore will take any measure, no matter how despicable, to 

suppress this basic freedom. To defend itself, Vietnam points to its 

Constitution that explicitly recognizes religious freedom, but like 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Vietnam’s Government officials and cronies trample on the country’s Constitution replacing it with a policy of intimidation, repression and torture. 

The case of Con Dau Parish succinctly displays Vietnam’s contempt for the rule of law. In May 2010, the Da Nang City People’s 

Committee ordered all households of the all-Catholic Con Dau Parish to sell their residential housing to a private developer, the Sun 

Group, for a price that was much lower than market price. As the 

parishioners rejected the deal both because of the low price and because they wanted to preserve their 135-year-old way of life, the 

government used force causing multiple injuries and several 

deaths. Scores of parishioners were arrested, detained and tortured. The case of Con Dau clearly illustrates Vietnam’s intention 

of wiping out a religious community through the expropriation of 

farmland, cemetery plots, and residential homes of all parishioners. 

On May 4, 2010, the authorities even prohibited the burial of a 

93-year-old parishioner in the parish cemetery. As parishioners 

proceeded with the funeral, the police attacked them brutally causing injuries to over a hundred parishioners including the elderly 

and children. The police arrested 62 parishioners and tortured 

them for days during detention. The Communist militia caught one 

parishioner who attempted to escape and tortured him to death. 

Seven of the parishioners identified by the government as taking 

the lead in the opposition to the blanket expropriation of the entire 

Con Dau Parish were tried and sentenced to prison terms. 

Other cases of recent arrests and torture are compiled under Exhibit A, which I would like to submit with this testimony for the 

subcommittee’s review and consideration. I would like also to subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Sep 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041113\80363 HFA PsN: SHIRL
11

mit the statement of Reverend Nguyen Van Khai, under Exhibit B, 

which succinctly explains Vietnam’s position on religious freedom. 

When I was growing up in Vietnam the children playfully called 

the Communist regime ‘‘The Red Devil.’’ After seeing the actions 

and the atrocities committed by the Vietnamese Government 

against religion, I realized how truthful this statement was. The 

drafters of the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights sufficiently appreciated the danger within a society when the basic freedoms of individuals are not recognized and defended. In the preamble the drafters stated, ‘‘Disregard and contempt for human 

rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the 

conscience of mankind.’’ This disregard and contempt for human 

rights have led to the Holocaust under the Nazi regime, the Cultural Revolution under Stalin and Mao, and the Killing Fields 

under Pol Pot when countless millions were tortured and killed for 

their beliefs. 

Recently in Vietnam, the Catholic bishops and leaders of other 

religious faiths demanded changes to Vietnam’s Constitution. 

These changes include power and land must belong to the people. 

The U.S. Congress must stand in solidarity with these religious 

leaders. I ask that this Congress will introduce and pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act of Chairman Smith and the Vietnam Sanctions Act of Chairman Ed Royce. We are America and we understand that these rights and freedoms are of the greatest importance for human flourishing in the modern world. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cao follows:]

12


80363a-1.eps

TESTIMONY OF FORMER CONGRESSMAN ANH "JOSEPH" CAO 

DATE:APRIL 11,2013 

TOPIC: HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM 

COMMITTEE/SUBCOMMITTEE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL 

HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. Chairman, 

Basic, universal human rights have served as the basis and foundation of modern 

societies for over six decades. The United Nations Declarations of Human Rights 

succinctly and rightly states: 

All human beings are born equal in dignity and righls . . , ,I 

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and securily of 

person" , ,2 

No one shall be subjecled 10 10rIUre or la cruel, inhuman or 

degrading treatment or punishment, J 

All are equal before the law and are en/Wed II>lIholil any 

discriminal/on 10 equal prolectiolJ oithe law . ... 4 

Pope John Paul II called this Declaration "one of the highest expressions of the 

human conscience of oW' time." Marcello Spatafora, on behalfoflhe European Union, 

adamantly stated: "it placed human rights at the [center) of the fi'amework of principles 

and obligations shaping relations within the international community," Yet, the Soci~list 

Republic of Vietnam has for decades defiantly trampled these important principles under 

its feet proelaiming to the world arrogantly that it is above what is right and decent. 

t Article I ofThe Universal D""lorotlon of HUllmtl Rights. 

, Article 3 ofThe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

, Aliicl. 5 ofTh. Universal Dedaratlon of Human Rights, 

• Article 7 ofTlle Universal Declaration ofH!lmon Right', 

Pagell 
13


80363a-2.eps

Since 2007, Vietnam has been backsliding on human rights and is now the proud 

possessor ofthe title "The Worst Violator ofHum8n Rights in Southeast Asia," Political 

opposition is outlawed; repression of dissidents intensified; severe I'estrictions on 

freedom of expression are imposed; bloggers and peaceful activists are arrested, . 

imprisoned, and tortured. In most cases, national security has been cited as a pretext for 

the illegal arrests and criminal investigations, 

Qne ofthe main groups of people who have suffered greatly under Vietnam's 

oppression has been the religious faithful and leaders, Vietnam does not hide its strict 

adherence to the Communist assertion that "religion is the opium orthe people," and they 

therefore will take any measure, no matter how despicable, to suppress this basic 

freedom. To defend itself, Vietnam points to its Constitution that explicitly recognizes 

religious freedom. But like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Vietnam's 

government officials and cronies trample on the country's Constitution replacing it with a 

policy of intimidation, repression, and torture. 

The case of Con Dau Parish succinctly displays Vietnam's contempt for the rule 

oflaw. In May of201 0, the Da Nang City People's Committee ordered all households of 

the all-Catholic Con Dati Parish to sell their residential housing to a private developer 

(Sun Group) for a price that is much lower than market value. As the parishioners 

rejected the deal both because of the low price and because they want to preserve thelr 

135-year old way of life, the government used force, causing multiple injuries and several 

deaths. Scores of parishioners were arrested, detained and tortured. The case of Con Dati 

clearly illustrates Vietnam's intention ofwiplng out a religious community througll the 

expropriation offarmland, cemetery plots, and resid~ntiill homes of all parishioners. On 

Page 12 
14


80363a-3.eps

May 4,2010, the authorities even prohibited the burial ofa 93-yearold parishioner in the 

parish's cemetery. As parishioners proceeded with the funeral, the police attacked them 

bmtally, causing injuries to over a hundred parishioners including the elderly and 

children. The police arrested 62 parishioners and tortured them for days during detention. 

The communist militia caught Olle parishioner who attempted to escape and tortured him 

to death. Seven of the parishioners identified by the govemment as taking the lead in 

opposition to the blanket expropriation of the entire Con Dau Parish were tried and 

sentenced to prison terms. Other cases of recent arrests and torture are compiled·under 

Exhibit A, which I would like to submit with this testimony for the Subcommittee's 

review and consideration, I would also like to submit the statement of Rev, Nguyen Van 

Khai under Exhibit B which succinctly explains Vietnam's position on religious ti'eedom. 

The drafters ofthe UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights sufficiently 

appreciates the danger within a society when the basic freedoms of individuals and not 

recognized and defended. In the Preamble the drafters state: "[D]isregard and contompt 

for h\uuan rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of 

mankind .... " This disregard and contempt for human rights have led to the Holocaust 

under the Nazi Regime, the Cultural Revolution under Stalin and Mao, and the Killing 

Fields under Pol Pot when countless mil!ions were (ortUl'cd and killed for their bel ids. 

Are we willing to let history repeat itself, or are we willing to do something about it? I 

ask this Congress to do something about it by passing the Vietnam Human Rights Act 

and the Vietnam Sanctions Act. We ure America, and we understand that these rights 

and freedoms are of the greatest importance for human flourishing in the modern world. 

Page 13 
15


80363a-4.eps

EXHIBIT A 
16


80363a-5.eps

Recent Incidents of Torture 

Compiled by BPSOS 

July 28, 2011 

(1) Tran Thanh Ticn subjected to torture at Cam Le District Police Station Da Nang 

On May 4, 2010 as the police cracked down on the mourners attending a parishioner's funeral in 

Con Dau Parish, Tien fled to his uncle's home. The police crashed the fences and broke down 

the entrance door and captured Tien as well as others who were in hiding in the house, As he 

was led to the police truck some 500 meters away, every 10 -15 meters Tien was kicked <lnd 

beaten at his legs by two police officers standing on each side. People dressed in civilian clothes 

and with their faces covered attacked and beat Tisn up. Tien was then handcuffed behind his 

back and pushed onto the police truck. He was madt:\ to lie face down to the truck's floor bed. At 

the District Police Station, other parishioners and Tien were lined up face against the wall. The 

police officers took turn to beat the detainees in the chest, sides and legs. Tien WaS then brought 

into the investigating room for further torture. He was beaten until unconscious; his interrogators 

threw water over his face to wake him up. A police officer then beat him in the back with a stack 

of chairs and broke the chairs. As he refused to admit to false allegations, he was repeatedly 

called in for interrogation and forced to write a self-incriminating report. A police lieutenant 

named Thanh handcuffed one of his hands to the upper rim ofthe interrogation room's window, 

causing him to stand on his toes, This interrogator used batons, electric rods to beat him. The 

interrogator said: "I will break you. Look at me well and remember my face in case you want 

revenge." On another day, a police officer with civilian clothes ordered Tlen to undress. Pointing 

to the bmises on his body, this officer asked what happened. When Tict! answered that he was 

beaten by the police, this officer beat him up badly and screamed: "Which police that beats you? 

I am a civilian, you bastard. I'll beat you to death!" On the seventh day he succumbed and signed 

the statement prepared by the police, He was released but ordered to not leave home 01' seek 

medical care. 

Tien is currently in Bangkok, Thailand. 

(2) Nguyen Lieu subjected to tOl1ure at Cam Le District Police Station, Da Nang 

On May 4, 2010, for participating in the funeral of a fellow Con Dau parishioner, he was beaten 

with an electric baton and then taken to the district police station. He was pulled off the truck and 

ordered to stand face to the wall. A police officer kicked him and punched him on the head. 

During intelTogation he was beaten until he fell ullconscious. Each time he passed out, his 

interrogator poured water over his face and intelTogated him again. He was physically assaulted 

BPSOS - July 28,2011 Recent InCidents of Torture 
17


80363a-6.eps

until he signed a statement admitting to the police's allegation of causing public disturbance and 

interference with officers on duty. He was released the next day at 10pm. He suffered mUltiple 

injuries and could not walk for days but was ordered not to seek medical care. 

Lieu is ctllTently in Bangkok, Thuiland. 

(3) Tran Thanh Lam subjected to torture at Cam Le District Police Station Da Nang 

On May 4, 2010 he was arrested for participating in the funeral of a Con Dau resident. He was 

beaten severely on the head and then transported to the county police station. There he was 

tortured by police officers during the interrogations. They beat him with batons and kicked him 

in his back, belly and hips. Interrogation sessions sometimes lasted from morning to evening. 

The interrogators told him to admit gUilt and beat him when he did not. They told him to lie 

down and beat him on his back. He threw up blood and his body was all covered with bruises, 

He was not allowed a family visit until three months later when he was transferred to a larger 

prison in Hoa Khanh. During II visit by his wife, he ~sked her to hire a lawyer, The police did not 

allow him to hire a lawyer and he was sentenced to 12 months of suspended sentence and 12 

months of probation. 

(4) Tran Thanh Viet sublected to torture at District Police Station, Da Nang 

On May 4, 2010 he was arrested for participating in the funeral ofa Con Dau parishioner. Police 

officers beat him and dragged him to the transport tnlCk. He was beaten badly along the way and 

his body was battered. At the police station, he was subjected to fUliher beatings duri1lg 

inten'ogation sessions. Two police officers stood on each side and one in front ofhim, recording 

his statement. They used batons to beat him on the head and body, and kicked his sides and back 

untl! he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, they forced him to sign in a 

prepared statement to admit guilt that he did not commit such as assaulting the pol ice, As 

punishment for his refusal to admit guilt, he was placed in solitary confinement in a cell with no 

light and with poor ventilation for 3 months and 9 days. He was beaten every 2 or 3 days. He was 

not allowed to hire a lawyer. He was sentenced to 12 months ofsllspended sentence and 12 

months of probation. 

(5) Over 60 Con Dau parishioners subjected to torture at Cam Le District Police Station Da 

Nang 

According to the above eye-witnesses, most of these detainees were subjected to brutal forms of 

torture including beatings, electric shocks, hwniliation (stripped naked and photographed), death 

threats, among others. 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
18


80363a-7.eps

(6) Krajan Phuil subjected to torture at the local police station in Lang Biang Village Lam 

Dong Province 

On August 23,2008, the local police broke into hel' home and atTested her because she helped 

fellow parishioners in the Lang Biang Catholic parish to draft petitions against the government 

confiscation of their land. She was handcuffed and taken to the police station. Accusing her of' 

treason, the police beat her on the head and in her stomach with a baton. She was slapped 

repeatedly at the face. She was then locked up. For five days she was given only one small bowl 

of rice per day and was kept incommunicado with her family. On the fifth day, a police officer 

entered her cell and physically assaulted her. Before she was released, he told her that her life 

depended on her keeping quiet on what happened during interrogation. 

(7) Nguyen Thi Huan. subjected to torture at the detention center orlay Ho District. Ha Noi 

A member of the Dan Oan (Victims 0/ Social Injustice) movement, she participated in sit-illS 

since 2003. In April 2009 she was arrested and on May 17,2010 sentenced to one year of 

imprisonment for creating "public disturbance." On June 9, 2009, the interrogator numed Vu 

The Anh, around 30, hunged Huan to the ceiling and used a slipper to beat her at the face unci on 

the head and body. As he beat her, Anh said: "You want justice? I·Iere is justice." After sCl'eml 

hours, Huan coughed out blood and suffered a broken facial bone. She continues to experience 

pain in her head and chest. 

(8) Do Van Hoang subjected to torture at the Tran Phu Detention Center Haj Phong 

During his ten months of detention (Aug 2007 - Jun 2008) Hoang was repeatedly tortured and 

forced to admit to being involved in the death of a police officer. As he maintained his 

innocence, the interrogator crushed his testicles Rnd burnt his genital. Hoang eventually had to 

sign the declaration of guilt. 

BPSOS -July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
19


80363a-8.eps

(9) Ho Thi Bich Khuong subjected to tOlture at the K2 Detention Center Camp 6 Thanh 

Chuong Nghe An 

A member of the Victims o/Social Injustice movement, Khuong was mrested and incarcerated 

on Sep 12,2008. Three male police officers used batons to beat her on her back, legs, and knees. 

As she fell down, they stepped on her face with their cleated shoes. She passed out, urinated and 

suffered internal bleeding, which lasted for ten days. Her legs became so swollen that she could 

not weal' pants. She was denied medical care and medication. She was held in solitary 

confinement for 8 months. 

After her release from prison, Khuong continued to pursue social justice. The evening of June 

14,2010 she was again arrested by the police. At the police station she was beaten on the head 

and kicked at the face repeatedly throughout the night and was then dumped at a public park the 

following day. She suffered many bruises and injuries. 

(10) K' Thea subjected to torture at police station in Moe Bai Tay Ninh 

A Montagnard in Lam Dong, he signed up to go to Malaysia as a migrant worker. There he 

suffered severe exploitation. Upon return to his home village in Lml Dong, Vietnam he spoke 

out about his experience. The public security police took him into custody and beat him up. He 

later managed to escape to Thailand, where he joined the Vietnam Forum for Democracy. Late 

last year, the UNHCR rejected both his claims and appeal, and took away his asylum seeker 

certificate (UNCHR Asylum Seeker Certificate NI - 23249). A UNCHR official told him thaI 

since he knew how to come to Thailand from Vietnanl, he should b~ able to find his way home in 

safety. 

As he could not slIl'Vive and faced the constant risk of being caught by the Tlmi police, he 

decided to return to Vietnam in late 20l[}. He called home to Lam Dong and asked his sister to 

pick him up at the bus station in HCM City. On December 10,2010 he left for Vietnam.l-li~ 

sister showed up at the bus station but could not find him. His father contacted the police in Lam 

Dong but was not given any infonnatioll of his whereabouts. Later on his family learned from a 

news article in a government publication that he had been arrested and taken into custody by the 

police. 

It tW'ned out that he was captured by the Vietnamese public security police at Moe Bui, Tay 

Ninh, along with another Montagnard, K' Khiep. The police accused him of escaping Vietnam 

to join the reactionaries in opposing the gOYelmnent. He was interrogated almost every day and 

was tOltured during interrogation. His interrogators beat him in the face, on his head, and all over 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent tncidents of Torture 
20


80363a-9.eps

his body, using with whatever available in the room, including furnitlll'e. He suffered mall)' 

bleeding injuries. 

They forced him to admit to all of those accusations. He was injured both inside and on his body 

due to the beatings but was not given access to medical treatment. During the 6 months in 

detention, he was held incommunicado from his family; they did not know his whereabouts. 

On June 14,2011 he was released without any given reason. The police warned him against any 

attempt to escape again or involvement in activities to oppose the government. The)' ordered 

him to pay the police 3.5 million Vietnamese dong for the expenses of detaining him. As he had 

no money, the police put that down as a debt that he had to pay Inter. 

He now has to report to the local police station every day. He cannot find work to earn a living. 

He has to depend on his family to survive. He is in poor health and still suffers from the injUt'ies 

inflicted while in detention. 

Hc rcported that K' Khiep was similarly tortured while in detention. 

(11) Krajan K' Khiep subjected to torture at police station in Moc Bai Tay Ninh 

UNHCR Asylum Seeker Certificate NI - 23250 

A Montagnard, he also worked in Malaysia. Back at his home village in Lam Dong, Viet Nam he 

was apprehended by the police after he had shared his experience of being exploited in Malaysia 

with other villagers. He was reportedly beaten by the police during interrogation. He managed to 

escape to Thailand, where he joined the Vietnam Forum for Democracy. His claims tor refugee 

protection were denied by the UNHCR. He returned to Vietnam on December 15, 20JO und has 

reportedly been held in detention by the public security police. He was reportedly tortured almost 

on a daily basis during inten·ogation. 

Address in Vietnam: Thon Pang Tieng , Xii Lat, Huy~n L~c Duong, Tinh Lam Dang 

His wife's phone has been confiscated by the public security police. 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
21


80363a-10.eps

Nguyen Thi The subjected to torture at police station in Cam Le Da Nang 

PA Date and Place of Birth: 1960. Con Dau Village, Hoa Xuan Ward, Cam Le District, Da 

Nang City, Vietnam 

She is a member of the Catholic Parish of Con Dau, Da Nang. She was very active in the parish, 

being a member of the church's choir and volunteering for many other activities, espccially with 

the parish's women organization. 

When the government ofDa Nang announced its plan to practically disperse the Con Onu parish, 

which has had 135 yeEll's of history, she was vocal against the government's policy and kept the 

parishioners unified in the defense of their pEll'ish's integrity. 

She attended the funeral of Mrs. Dang Thi Tan on May 4, 20 I 0 and was one of the women who 

protected the coffin from being taken away by the police. She was beaten and arrested along with 

more than 60 other parishioners from Can Dau during the police crackdown. The police dragged 

her to the police truck about 500 meters away, handcuffed her and started beating her mercilessly 

with batons and electric rods before throwing her on the truck bed and drove her and other 

parishioners to the Cam Le Police Station. 

At the police station, she was' hung to the ceiling beam of the investigating room. The police 

. stripped her naked and took turn to beat her on her chest and stomach. They applied electric 

shocks to her vagina until she went unconscious. 

They ordered her to admit to motivating people to oppose the government's policy and to attack 

the police during the fimeral. She was forced to sign a self-incriminating statement while she was 

in great pain and only half conscious. 

After more than 6 months of detention, on October 27, 20 I 0 at the coul1ty court of Cam Le, she 

was sentenced to 12montiJs of house arrest followed by 12 months of probation. 

She filed an appeal to the City of Da Nang Court of Appeal pleading for her innocence and was 

called to the Court January 26, 201 1. She pleaded not gtlilty for all of tile charges against her, btlt 

the court still kept the same sentence as the lower conr!. 

She was released in May 2011 and is now living under house arrest. She may not travel outside 

of the village without police permission. She has heart problem and becomes fearful evet')' time 

the police visits her house. 

The police constantly monitor her movement and her contacts. They instructed her nol to speak 

to anyone about the police beatings and torture. The polioe threatened to throw hel' in jail ag~in i r 

she fails to cooperate mth the police and report suspicious activities at the church 01' by other 

members ofthe parish. 

6 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
22


80363a-11.eps

SUMMARY OF 

THAILAND~ORTURB ACCOUNTS 

(Any publication or~~~/A) (ASYLUM SEEKERS IN 

asylum seeker .IC Use o{ the acco s. Please mform BPSOS if nnts ~ummarized below re . 

1. Le Thanh L there IS any intention of SU;;I~!::;e~~e consem of the 

am, Con Dau Par,'shl' one!' 

He was among tlle hundreds of mourners at 

2010. The police assaulted the mo the funeral of Mrs. Maria Dan Th' 

~~C~:dl~i:~' o~l~i~~:lii~eh:~~c~~~~ ~~:l :~t!:: ~: ;o~~:~:~~c~ :ae:.t~nl~e ~l:~~::'~~I~:;II~';CS him I Ih . 0 onger walk and fell t tl po ICC 

o e van, which was about 500 m awa a . 0 1e ground. The police dragged 

the police station of Cam Le District. y, nd threw him on the floor bed. He was taken to 

At the police station, another round of beatings would soon start. Unable to walk I .. 

dragged up the stairs to the inte:rogation room. The police started interrogating h;n:~ ~:~~il1g him 

savagel~. He was or~ered to write a report on those who had incited him to attend the funeral. 

The polIce accused him of opposing the government. He explained that no one incited him; he 

attended the funeral out of a sense of duty among parishioners. There were three interrogators 

One of them pulled his belt out and flogged me on the f~ce. Another kicked him all over ;he . 

body and used a stick to beat him from the head down. He bled all over bis body, which became 

swollen. When he passed out, they poured cold water on his face to wflke him up and then 

proceeded to beat him again till 9pm. They then took him downstairs and locked him up in a cell 

by himself. They did not feed him. 

The following morning, another three interrogators resumed the interrogation. They asked him 

questions while beating him repeatedly. For every question that he did not answer as they 

wanted, they punched him in the face and chest. They forced him to denounce the inciters. In 

reality there was none; he only acted according to his religiolls faith and the bond among 

neighbors. They did not accept that as truth. They told him: "We wi\l beat yO\l lip so that you'd 

live for only 5 years at most." The police tortured him for 9 straight days from 8 am to 8 pm. 

There were days they suddenly pulled him out of his cell at 9pm for interrogation and beating. 

That happened three times. 

His interrogators did not wear uniform. They insisted that he signed a pre-written document that 

he was not allowed to read. As he refused to sign it, his interrogators threatened that they would 

arrest his sister and other siblings and torture them similarly. On the 10,1> day, hc signed the 

document although he knew that he had not committed any crime. After he signed it, the 

interrogators told him: "Now that you admitted to your crimes, you should 1I0t expect to ~ec thc 

sun again. We will lock you up till you die rotten." 

8 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents ofTorture 
23


80363a-12.eps

The police then t~ansferred him to the detention center of Cam Le District, It was around 9pm. 

As soon as he arrIved, the wardens there stripped him naked and stalied to flog him usino their 

belts. He was then put in solitary confinement in a small cell that was pitch dark and filtl~. He 

was given only one bowl of rice with boiled vegetables and salt water. After 9 days, he was 

transferred to a cell for prisoners with AIDS. After another 9 days, he had to sign a document 

accepting his temporary detention for two months and 21 days. Every few days he was taken out 

by the wardens for severe bcating for no l'eason, 3-4 times pel' week. 

There were days he coughed Dut blood because of the beating. His body was all black and bllle. 

He was not allowed prison visit by loved ones. On August 13, 2010, the authorities transferred 

him to the detention center in Hoa Son, which is a big detention center in Da Nang City. There 

was no more beating. He was allowed family visit once every two weeks. 

2. Tran Thanh Viet, Con Dau Parishioner 

Around 5 a.m. on May 4, 2010, he attended the funeral service of Mrs. Maria Dang Thi Tan in 

Con Dau. At around 6 a.m., the fi.meral service finished and the procession to the cemetery 

began. When he and the other parishioners arrived at the junction of the cemetery, the police 

force blocked them. They tried to seize the coffin. They used clubs, batons, and electric rods to 

!U!hlessly beat the parishioners. Along with others, he tried to protect the coffin as best they 

could, to keep the police force from seizing the coffin. The two sides pulled the coffin back and 

fmih, fighting fDI' the coffin for about an hom before they let down. Then, the parishioners 

continued to pray until about 11 a.m. After they finished praying, he went back home to his 

parents' house where he and his wife also lived. At around 1 p.m., the police force IlUd gathered 

in large number, fired shots and beaten people ruthlessly. During this time, thcy had seized the 

coffin of Mrs. Maria Dung Thi Tan and taken it away. They forcefully entered his parents' homo 

and destroyed things in the house, destroyed their altar. At the time, there were over 50 people 

in his parents' home, and they were all arrested. The police beat them and accused he ancl his 

family of inciting the parishioners to protest the government and engage in anti-government 

activities. They used electric rods and batons to beat him from his head down to the rest of his 

body. They kicked him in the stomach and hip/side with their hard~soled shoes. He became 

UllCDnscious. They handcuffed him, and four policemen dl'agged him Dn the ftoor while still 

beating him. They dragged him about 500 meters to the police car that was already waiting there. 

They carried him off the ground and threw him into the car. They took him back to the police 

station of Cam Le district around 3 a.m. 

The police Jed him up to the second floor of the station. By now, he did not have the strength to 

walk on his own, but they continued to drag him along and beat him as they pulled him along. 

They stepped on his two feet which made him fall down on my knees. They told him that he had 

to walk even ifhe could not. During his interrogation, there wel'e three policemen. One sat 

acl'()SS from him writing down what he was saying. The other two people stood on each side and 

continuously beat him with clubs and batons from his head dOlVn to tile rest of his body. The)' 

kicked his hip/side and stomach with hard-soled shoes, knocking him unconscious for 10 to 15 

9 

BPSOS -July 28,2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
24


80363a-13.eps

minutes. When he crune around, they contilllied to beat him and pl1l1chcd him Inlhe face will! 

thelt nsteso hard, his /lose stalted bleeding Rnd thero WM a puddle ofbloo(ll'l front oftl10m. 

However, they 61111 conth\\led to beat hill!. They forced him to admit the charge of working with 

people outside the counh-y to organlZ{) and Ineite protest ngalnslthe government. They RCCliseel 

him of a~epl1ng aU this mOlley ovelseas to organize and Incite protest Inside the callnlry. They 

lold him lhat "If you do not admit to thescchargcs, wo will beat you 10 &ntll." They said that 

Ihey wJll also arrest hls father because his family hAS supported and Inclled the pAlish loners to plvtest the govenUliellt. At 7 p.m. tlmt evening, Ihey took him to thQ police post And det"lned 

him thoro \lnt!! the next morning. 

On tile /llQrnlng or May 5, 2010, th(\ 1'01100 continued to Interrogate him. ThIs time, tilere were 

two pollCl:men. 0110 policeman WliS writing down what he W"S M)'ing and the otller \VIIS 

standing beside him while his bands wore handcuffed to the chair. They used 1111 electric rod Oil 

his nook, And a club nnd baton to bont tho rest of his body. They cominued to use Ihelr boots to 

kick him in the hlp/side and stomach. They Just cOllthlued to beat him and took turns beating 

him. When tho two policemen were IIrcd from beating him, thoro would be two olher policemen 

to lake IlIeh' plae~ and contillue 10 beat him. 

Around S p.m. on May 5; 2010, they transferred him to 1\ prison cell. Tbe ro~ml\'lIS nQ blgget' 

Ihon 10 square meters nnd \Ulbeambly hot. There was 1\0 sunlight ol'frcsh air. It was 

suffocating. It smelled oflOtten Ihings. He was looked up in this room for 3 months,? days. 

DmitlS tho first week he was itnprison~d, Ihey conlinued to take him Into the illterro{l!1t1oll room 

forS to 10 hours a day. There wore times tho police puUed him oul .nd took him to ti,e 

Interrogation room 1\19 p.m. During the first week, they tortured him nnd I1Ilhl65sl), beat him 

until he was bloody, blaok and blue. During the 3 monlhs and 9 days he was detained HI thu 

prison In Cant Lo District, thoy only gave him one bowl of rico whh 2 103 drops of snit. Bvery 

two to three days, tho Jlollcc WOUld. como III nnd bent him. Thoy used chlbs nnd bnton~ to b~nt 

hllll, !Iud they would use tbeh' boots to kick him in tI,e hip/aide and stomach. Durillg the J 

months nnd 9 doys, hlsmentRI slate was destroyed, and he kept tlllnk!ng that he was going to die 

Injal\. 

After 3 llIon\lls and 9 dAYS, they frAlisferred 11111110 the Il1lson in Boa SOil whore ho WIIS dClIllncd 

until he wellt to trial. 

10 8PSOS -July ~8, ~Ol1 Rown! tntlden!s or Tortwo 
25


80363a-14.eps

4. K'Theo, VIetnamese Mon!agnard from Lam Dong, member of p,·o-democracy g,·o,,1' 

11 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
26


80363a-15.eps

After being rejected by UNHCR and told that he would be okay if he returned to Vietnam, he 

decided to return to Vietnam. The first time in or ar~und August or September 20 I 0 he tl'ied to 

return, he went with four other people, and was arrested in Cambodia. They searched his bag 

and found some documents. He said he was Thai so they deported me back to Thailand. 

The second time (around December 2010), he went back to Viet Nam by myself. He was at the 

border by Tay Ninh and was arrested there becatlse he believes they knew he was a member of a 

reactionary organization. He was on a tour bus, but at the Cambodian-VN border, he was asked 

to get down. The border poHce remembered him from before and searched his bag. Also, 

present were Vietnamese police. The arrest had been ajoint operation between the Vietnamese 

and Cambodian police. He found out about this after the second arrest when the Vietnamese 

police showed him evidence of his first arrest by the Cambodian police. 

After his arrest at the VN border, the VN police asked him why he was bringing leaflets from his 

reactionary organization and recruitment papers. He was locked up in a cell at Moc Bai neal' the 

border for nine days and interrogated. They asked him ifhe wanted to overthrow the 

government, ifhe intentionally went against the government? He said he didn't do anything 

wrong, and they statted to beat him. They tied him to the bars on a window by his arms so his 

feet did not touch the ground. They used their fists at first, and then they tied some cloth around 

their hands and then they hit him. They used electric shocks and shocked his penis. They 

watlted him to cooperate with them to an-est the others in his organization. But he refused. This 

all OCCUlTed during the first day of his an·est. 

On the tenth day, he taken to B4, Tal' Ninh Prison and detained there for about six months. Be 

was held in a cell that was three cubic meters with two other individuals. They beatings 

continued for about six months. Once, they used a pen and put it between my fingers and 

crushed the two fingers and turned the pen while his fingers were tightly ptlshed together. If he 

didn't answer when they asked him questions, they would beat him. They uscd a small knifc to 

cut his finger. Sometimes they used a wooden stick to hit his ankles, sometimes they used their 

feet to kick his ankles. This occurred while he was still being hung on the bal's of the window. 

Every time, there would be a "working session," they would hang him lip. This occurred about 

three to fO\lr times a week. 

In the daytime they hwt him so badly, he screamed loudly so others could hear. They decided to 

inten-ogate him in the evening, so they would transpOlt him to the police station every evening. 

The evening working sessions were a lot worse. At the police station, they would have him 

stand in water and then shock him. They shocked him about twice a day, especially when he 

refused to cooperate. 

During the sixth months, they also drew blood from him with a big syringe. Each time, the big 

syringe was filled with blood. He doesn't know why. This happened three times. The nurse 

12 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
27


80363a-16.eps

was a female police officer. When he went home, he was nearly drained of blood and had to go 

to the doctor. 

His food ration wag rice and salt and vegetables that had caterpillars in there. 

In the sixth month they told him, you either confess or we'll kill you - you have to help yourself, 

He managed to make a deal with them to help them arrest two individuals as a condition to his 

release. He was released after six months (June 20 II) even though they sentenced him to eight 

months. (He never went to trial, but there's a document that says he had a term of temporary 

detention for eight months.) 

S. Duong Hong Tham, FormeI' Boat Pel'son Rctul'ncC and Member of Pru-])cmocl'acy 

Group 

Upon being forcibly repatriated to Vietnam, he was under house arrest and under constant 

surveillllllce by the Vietnamese police and required to repolt regUlarly. Thereafter, he was called 

in for interrogations on several occasions. Two oftlle most gl'Uesome experiences took place in 

2006 and 2007 when he was interrogated by the Ho Chi Minh City police at 237 Nguyen Van Cu 

Street, District I. 

September 2006 

On September 17, 2006, he received a phone call from the Ho Chi Minh City police requesting 

him to report to 237 Nguyen Van Cu Street, District I, Ho Chi Minh City for something that 

involved him. On the morning of September 17,2006, he came to 237 Nguyen Van Cll Street, 

District I, Ho Chi Minh City. It was around 9 a.m. when I went to the office. Initially, one 

uniformed policeman brought me in where there was another uniformed offer waiting for me. A 

few minutes later 3 uniformed officers arrived and some time later 5 individuals in civilian 

clothing also came in. They started talking (0 each other about him: "Is this gllY lJart uflhe 

reactionary group?" and the person standing next to him nodded his he"d. They p[)inted (0 H 

chair and asked him to sit down. An officer silting across from him asked: "Do you know why 

we asked you to come here?" He said no. 

The officer continued: "You are pretending; how do you not know?" He responded: "You asked 

me to come here and I came. I do not know anything." The policeman said: "I will let YOli 

know." An older policeman said, "Stop. Let's work." At this time, the office only had 3 

policemen. The officer sitting across from him took out some paperwork and told him, "Frolll 

this moment, if you need to leave the office you mllst ask. And now we are going [0 ask you 

questions and you must answer truthfully, who are pUlt of your group? Who is the head of the 

reactionary group ? What is his name? Where does he live? How l11al1Y people 

are there? Where do you meet? You work together to oppose the government and distort the 

13 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
28


80363a-17.eps

pmy's policy. If you do not answer truthfully you will be imprisoned indefinitely; therefore. you 

must answer truthfully in order to receive clemency from the Party and the government. " 

They asked him about his friends from the refugee camp in Thailand und what they were doing. 

He said he didn't know. Suddenly from behind him there were several punches to his neck, his 

chest, lIIld his stomach. He fell out of his chair and someone in a white polQ shirt pulled him up 

and sat him in the chair, 

Police: "You must truthfully confess, who did you collude with to oppose the governmellt? If 

you do not lIIlswer clearly then you must face severe consequences." "Where did YOll meet them 

the last time? When? What are you responsibilities? Who is the head of the group?" 

He answered: "After my repatriation my focus was on working and I did not meet them." He 

was pulled out of the chair; the individual in civilian clothing repeatedly kicked him. They said, 

"You are hard-headed, trying to shelter your associates, you must tell the truth in order to stop 

this investigation." Then, there was a loud voice coming outside of the door that said: "If he 

doesn't want to confess, then take him away." 

He followed the plainclothes policemen. He walked down the hallway with someone walking 

behind him the whole time. They turned on the light, and he saw a metal door. The pel'son in 

front unlocked the door and motioned for him to enter. Once he was inside, they begall to beat 

him - they used their hands, their feet and rubber sticks. He was beaten until he bccamc 

unconscious. When he regained consciousness, h ewas parched. His feet were chained to a met,11 

stick. It was completely dark, and he had no idea what time it was. 

A few hours later, the light was turned on. He heard the door being opened and 2 individuals 

holding batons in their hlillds shouted: "Are you willing to inform us about your co-conspirators? 

What were you being stubborn? You dared to do it but are not willing to admit it! I will let you 

rot here." He was frightened. "Please release me. I do not dare to go against anything." They said 

"Fuck you. You continue to deny it? There's evidence and you still persist." They uncuffcd him 

and brought me outside. He asked to use the toilet and they waited olltside while he \ViiS tlsing 

the toilet. They then brought him back to the room where there Was someone thero waiting. The 

policeman asked: "Are you ready to lIIlswer now? Wc do not want to bother you, we only need 

you to give us illformotiolllllld confess. Then YOll wiII receive amnesty from the Party lind f!'Om 

the gover11111onl." He was silent. He said he was thirsty and hungry and had a headache. He was 

also dizzy because of high blood pressure. 

The police said: "rfyol! answer tlUthfully then we will give you what yOli need. or all (he people 

that we asked you about, you do not know a single person?" He said he only know (hem when 

they were in a refugee camp in Thailand. 

14 

BPSOS - Julv 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
29


80363a-18.eps

The questioning continued. Then, he was brought to the old room, and they did not give him 

food. He could not walk so he sat on the floor and rested his feet on the metal bar. Sometime 

later, they brought him a box offood and bottled water. They said: "Eut and then tell us all that 

you know and you will receive amnesty. You are suffering because you oppose liS, and this 

implicates your family too." He said: "I do not oppose to anything. If YOli feel that I have 

committed a crime, then please take me to court." 

Police: "Do not challenge us. We have enough evidence to convict you." He was silent. 

The police left and did not say anything else. The room was quiet. Then, the door to U l1emby 

room was opened. He heard punching, kicking and falling noises. There was also crying. He 

imagined being tortured, and his heart began racing. He was shaking. 

The police took me out at random times, during the day and night. They intentionally made him 

stressed and panicky in order for him to confess. 

In the morning of September 26, 2006, I was called to the office "to work." 

The police said: "Due to the humanity of the Party and the country, we are letting you go home 

to think about who your friends arc. What are they doing? Where do they live? Especially those 

who belong to Group and the former refugees from Thailand. Before you 

leave, you must write an affidavit staling that we have not worked with the pol ice in the past few 

days, YO\l were not investigated or detained by the police. Do not disclose this with anyone, 

including you\' wife and children. Once you are done with the affidavit then we will te111pornriiy 

release you to return home to think carefully. When we call you for YOll then youmllst report to 

the station immediately. You cannot miss showing up for imy reason." 

He went home and his wife took me to Ea Ria Hospital because of the multiple injuries inflicted 

by the beatings, in addition to his heart problems and high blood pressure. He was discllfll"ged 

after more than 2 weeks. 

March 2007 

On March 7, 2007, he received a phone call from the city police to report at 237 Nguyen Van ell 

Street. As soon as he set foot into the old room, he noticed there were several officers there, 

some with and some without their uniforms. From behind, a hand pushed him inside the room. 

He heard a shout: "It's you again. This time you cannot deny anything!" 

They again interrogated him about his associations and the people he knew from the refugce 

camp in Thailand. He again denied everything. 

The plainclothes policeman took him to the cell. They handcuffed him in the back, and his leel 

were cuffed to a long metal bar. At first he was in pain, then his body was stiff, and alkrwards, 

he did not feel anything. When a policeman uncuffed his hands, they felt like pieces of wood. He 

15 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent InCidents of Torture 
30


80363a-19.eps

did not feel his hands or his body. They gave him water. When he became consciolls, his lec! 

were still bound. Periodically, they would give him some rice in a plastic bag and a small bottle 

of water. 

On March 16,2007, the police took him "to work." He was sitting across from the police 

investigator and suddenly fell out of his chair. He sat on the floor to regroup and awhile latcr 2 

plainclothes policemen brought in a stack of paperwork. The police gave him a pen and papel' 

and told him to write an affidavit not to disclose the fact that he was detained by the p()licc, 

including the interrogation. After he finished writing and handed the affidavit to the officer, they 

let him go home but warned him that he Would have to cooperate with them. 

When he got home he had difficulty breathing, and his family had to buy medication for him. 

This time, the beatings were worse than the other times, When his family inquircd about his 

injuries, he had to lie to them and tell them he was in a car accident. 

April 2007 

On April 23, 2007, the Ba Ria-Vung Tau Police summoned him. On the morning of the 23'", he 

did not make it to the station yet before 2 police from the Phuoc Hoi Village Police camc to his 

house to take him. They took him to Dat Do District. He was taken to the 1" floor. There were 

many policemen seated at the table measuring about 2 meters. He was seated. About 6 

policemenintelTogated him. There were also plainclothes individlmls walking arOllnd thc table, 

sometimes injecting questions. They again asked him about the reactionary group, the people in 

the refugee camp in Thailand and certain individuals he worked with as well as members and 

leaders of other reactionary groups. They tried to lure him to confess by telling him that other 

members of his group already revealed his work to them, 

They took out a stack of hand-wrillen documents, and together with the list, they set everything 

in front of him. The two policemen behind him kicked and punched him. He fell into a corner. 

An older officer from the North said to put him in a cell. They handcuffed him and took him to 

the celL His feet were chained tightly to a metal stick, his hands Were culIed in front of him, 

blood poured from his mouth soaking his shirt. In the dark, he could smell the stench, and he loid 

on his back. Awhile later, the door opened and two people ullcuffed him. They told him to go 

out. The starless sky was black. His body felt like being cut by knives. lie followed the police 

und in front of them, there was a plainclothes individual walking towards them with a flashlight. 

The plainclothes policeman said: "Ask if he's willing to talk and if he's stubborn tl,cn i nilinl(' the 

papelwork to put him injail." 

16 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incident, of Torture 
31


80363a-20.eps

They took him into a lighted room and told him to sit down, The police siuing across 11'0111 him 

slammed on the table and said: "Who are your co-conspirators? What do they do? Where do the)' 

live? Who is in charge? When did you begin to conspire against the government? Who is the 

instigator? Which overseas reactionary group support and recruit you all'! Report everything 

truthfully," They gave him a pen and paper and told him to write, 

He said "I don't know anything. Tfyou have proofthenjust put me injail and don't hit me 

anymore," The police said: "The government is very stern when it comes to the reactionary 

individuals like YO\l and your cronies. You must answer truthfully in order to receive nll1l1csty 

from the Party and the government." 

Before thoy left they told him to think and then inform them about "What do the people in your 

group do? Their titles? Who's the person in charge? Where did you receive the reactionary 

materials from? You mllst report everything in details." The two policemen left the room. He 

was in the room by himself, hungry and thirsty. His body ached but he did not dare to get up 

because he was afraid that they would frame and charge him wIth another crime. 

Two hours later nearing dawn, an officer came to the room Ilnd asked ifhe was done, !-Ie said ';1 

do not know anything. How can you ask me to report?" 

The policeman said: "You continue to be stubborn? Go." They brought him to the cell located 

across from the old cell. They pushed him inside, This time ,they only chained his feet. He asked 

for water and they said "you can drink after you answer truthfully." 

In a dreamlike state, he heard the door open and an officer brought in a bag of food ancl a bottle 

of water. The policeman said: "Eat and then answer truthfully. Confess your crimes and pl'Omisc 

not to commit a crime again then you will receive amnesty, Why be in the opposition to suffel'." 

Then he lockcd the door and left. 

Twice in the daytime, and once in nighttime, the police brought him out to write an affidavit and 

at each time he said he didn't know anything. They handcuffed him in the back, chained his feet 

to a metal bar, did not feed him, and he released himself on the spot. His entire body was 

numbed, and he wanted to die but did not know how. 

On July 14,2007, the police called him in to their office, and they gave him a shirt to wear. 

The police said: "You are receiving amnesty from the Party and the Government. This is youI' 

first incident. We are temporarily releasing you to think. When you receive a summon you must 

repOlt at the station, When you go home, if you leave the area then you mllst inform the 

govemmen!. If there's someone new coming to your house or if your friends urge you to go 

incite destruction then you must report to us for amnesty. Now write an affidavit stating that )'Oll 

will not divulge to anyone, including your wife and children, about this temporary detention." 

17 

apsos -July 28,2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
32


80363a-21.eps

After writing the affidavit, he was allowed to go home. 

October 2009 

In October 2009, the Ba RJa-Vung Tau Province Police issued a summon for him to report at the 

station. After he arrived, they took him to an empty room, it was not a cell, and they pushed him 

inside. They said: "Stay in there and think long and hurd about the time when you mel up with 

______________ when they wel'ejust released fl'omjail. You nil 

continued to work against the revolutionary government; you must must inform us of all of ),our 

activities and confess your crimes in order to receive clemency from the party and Ihe 

government. This country is being governed by the Communist Party and when you oppose the 

management and policy of the Party then you violate the law and we will arrest all of you." 

He replied: "I do not oppose you. 1 have told you numerous times, they are my friends from 

refugee camp in Thailand." 

Police: "If you intentionally conceal information from us then do not blame why the government 

is harsh. Are you willing to provide information now?" 1 responded that 1 can not report unything 

to them because 1 do not have any information to give. 

They then took him to a cell. Two plainclothes individuals kicked him with hard-soled shoes, 

They chained his feet to a metal stick, cuffed my hands in the back, and closed the door. 

The next they uncuffed him and took me out oft[le room. They [et him use the toilet Ulld brought 

him back up to the room UIld continued the investigation, They produced paper and pcn ancl told 

him to write an affidavit about who him conspired with to go against the government. Hc sta)'ed 

at the interrogation room the entire morning and did not write anything. After several hours, 

they finally released him and made him write an affidavit that he would not disclose the working 

session 10 anyone. 

6. en Dung, Vietnamese MontagnRl'd from Lam Dong 

His son was a victim oflabor trafficking. Upon his son's return to Vietnam from Malaysia. his 

son become vocal in protesting the government and joined a pro-democracy group. His son was 

beat and detaitled by the government several times so he went into hiding in Saigon. After (\ 

close colleague was arrested, his son had to escape Vietnam to seek as)'lum in Thailand in 2008, 

After his son left in 2008, the government did not leave his family alone. They continually 

monitored and interrogated his family and him about his son and accused him of working wilh 

his son to "create public disorder" with the intention to subvert the Vietnamese governll1ent. 

18 

BPSOS _. July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents ofTorture 
33


80363a-22.eps

Many times, the police came to his house to interrogate and arrest me. Those times, he rcnlsed to 

go with them, they caused physical damage to his home. 

On February 5, 2011, the Ward police came to his home and arrested him arbitrarily. He WaS 

locked up in a dark, cold cell and was barely fed. They pulled him out of his cell to be 

interrogated sometimes twice a week and sometimcs 5 or six times !I 1110nth. He was often beat 

while in detention especially when he did not answer their questions even though he truthfully 

did not know the answers. While detained, they tortured used a Taser gun and electric baton to 

torture him; as a result, his left hand is disabled and he now experiences blurriness of vision. 

They detained him for four months without ever formally charging him or allowing him to go to 

trial. 

On June 1,2011, they made him write a confession statement admitting the charges they mude 

against him. But he continued to deny the charges and also told them that he was illiterate and 

can only speak Vietnamese. They then read him a confession statement that they wrote, and he 

was forced to sign it admitting to the charges against him. At that point, he was so exhausted so 

he just signed the statement. Then, he was finally released on June 2, 2011. 

On June 14,20 II, the Ward police came to his house. He was not at home at the time. His 

youngest son, Kraj811 Bloan, was sleeping in the house. The police started making a lot of noise 

and hitting the house. Bloan woke up and open the door. They immediately started beating him. 

Then, they handcuffed Bloan and asked him where his father went. Bloan said he didn't know. 

They dragged him over to their car, and Bloan refused to get in. So, the)' kicked him making 

him fall and hit bis head against the car door. They started to beat him !"lIthlessl)', and he lost 

consciousness. Bloan came to the next morning and found stitches on his head. He could not 

move his arm because his col1arbone was displaced from the beating. Bloan has stitches and 

scars on his head. He has visited hospitals in Bangkok to be treated. 

7. Nguyen Due Vinh, Former BOllt Person Returnee and Member of Pro-Democracy 

Group 

He is one ofthe founding members ofa pro-democracy group formed primm'ily by fOI'111er boat 

people returnees from Sikiew camp in Thailand. Beginning in20ID, the Vietnamese government 

cracked down on members in his organizations and I'elated organizations. On August 24, 20 10, 

he was served with a formal written request to repOlt to Police Force PA38 ProtectionOnit or 

Dong Nai province. He was out oftown in Lam Dong province at the time, partly to work and 

partly because he knew that the police in Dong Nai were started going after him. The police who 

served the summons ordered his wife and kids that they had to tell him to come home and report 

to the Interrogation Unit on August 31, 2010 otherwise they would issue a criminal order to hunt 

him down. 

On August 31, 2010, he had to return to Bien Hoa and report to the Pol ice Force Pt\3S Proleclil>!) 

Unit of Dong Nui Province. There, he met up with a policeman named Nguyen Thanh Long {he 

19 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
34


80363a-23.eps

is not sure of his ranking/title) and two other younger policemen in plainclothes, one of whom 

was named Tan. Mr. Long gave him a list and a picture and asked him about each persoll 011 the 

list and in the picture. He asked him the same questions as in the past such as: "Where did you 

meet this person? How do you know this person? What is their address and telephone Ilumber? 

After release from prison, when did you meet this perso.n? Where was the last place you met this 

person? What did they say? What documents did they give YOll? They reported that they 

delivered documents to you, that you met with this person, that person at this placc or that 

place ... You have to report to the truth to enjoy lelliency from the government. This person 

already reported everything about you, we knoweverything ... ifyoll are stubborn and cOllceailhe 

truth we will imprison you indefinitely ... " He just answered: 'They are friends fl'Om the 

refugee camp in Thailandl I have to worry about making a living. J did not meet with them, I 

don't know them, I don't know anything about this ... " Suddenly, from behind, the two young 

plainclothes policemen punched him in the hip causing him to fall to the ground, as they yelled: 

"You are a reactionary but you keep speaking this rhetoric, we have clear evidence but YOll keep 

saying you don't know anything. All the while, all your friends are fierce reactionaries. Let's 

just beat him mercilessly and throw him in prison!" One person lifted him up and the other 

person punched him in the stomach twice. Suddenly a voice from outside said loudly: "0011 't 

hit him anymore. He is not a criminal! Take him to the room downstairs." The two plainclothes 

policemen handcuffed him and took him to a dark room with no sunlight. A Illomentlatcr, he 

was able to scc old furniture in the room. They shouted at him: "We have enough evidence. 

The people in your group reported everything to \IS. If you are smart, YOll should admit it and we 

will reduce YOllr crime/punishment. If you keep denying it, we will beat you to death and put 

your skeleton in prison! You decide!" Then they locked the door and left him in the room ancl 

did not feed him or give him any water. That night, he was handcuffed and slept on the ground. 

During the night, they came to wake him 4 times and intel'l'Ogated him, asking him the smne 

questions. After each time, he would have to write a statement for a total of four statement~. 

Each time, he wrote the same thing - that these people were friends from the refugee camp and 

they help each other earn a living; that he didn't know what they do; that he did not know the 

other people. 

The foHowing day in the aftentoon, they brought in a bag of rice and a glass of water and took 

off his handcuffs. They told him: "Eat the rice and then report everything to us t\'llthfully. We 

will then release you. Don't be foolish. The people in your group already reported everything to 

us. If you deny everything, you willjllSt be punished more heavily! Ifyoll report truthfully, the 

goverJllllent will be lenient with you." After he finished eating, they led him upstairs to the room 

he was in the day before. They continued to interrogate him. They then made him write a 

statement, and he wrote exactly what he had told them. They made him write an affidavit 

pledging that he would not tel! anyone about what they investigated him about, including his 

wife and children. In the end, they told him: "We will let you go home tor now so you ~all 

20 

BPSQS - JulV 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Tortllre 
35


80363a-24.eps

think more about this! When we call you, you will have to report to us immediately," The)' 

released him, 

21 

BPSOS -July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
36


80363a-25.eps

22 

BPSO$ - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of Torture 
37


80363a-26.eps

23 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents of TortllrQ 
38


80363a-27.eps

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Hecent Incidents of Torture 
39


80363a-28.eps

25 

BPSOS -July 28, 2011 Recent Incidents ofTorture 
40


80363a-29.eps

26 

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 Ileccnt Incidents of Torture 
41


80363a-30.eps

BPSOS - July 28, 2011 

"ngJe b,j plngiJll1hi~!I )~1~ }.'l.:h lIhi~11 \';1 n\i 4i 

Il,\ ~;)h rh~fJ·dM ~v th6.~ 11:~\ \,;",..\ll)'\'li_ 

! . nlll irttOI.lt~1.;t' ill:", :. < -

27 

Herent Inciclents of Torture 
42


80363a-31.eps

28 

BPSOS -July 28, 2011 Rewnllnclclcnts 01 Torture 
43


80363a-32.eps

EXHIBIT B 
44


80363a-33.eps

STATUS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM: 

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S SITUATION 

The Vietnamese government claims that our people enjoys religious freedom. When discussing 

religious ft'eedom, officials frequently display pictures of recently built churches and scenes 

showing large numbers of believers attending Masses to convince others that there is religious 

freedom in Vietnam. Nothing is further from the truth. 

A, "FREEDOM" AS DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT 

1. Free to Worship? No. Forced to Renounce One's Faith? Yes. 

Everyone knows that once a person declares his faith, the government will restrict his fundamental 

rights and apply ingenious methods of discrimination. All believers feel the government's pressure 

to varying degrees. Government employees who are known to be believcrs could be fired 01' at least 

be shunned and passed over when it comes to awards and promotions. If the person who becomes a 

believer is someone with stature, the government wiII use its entire political apparatus, consisting of 

many organizations and groups, to put pressure on the person and his family. In remote villages in 

the highlands and near the (;oulltry's border, the government uses force to prevent p~ople from 

practicing theil' religion 01' to make them renounce their faith. In Northwestern Vietnam, the 

government even uses border guards for this purpose. 

At the same time, in cities from Ha Noi to Quang Ngai to Saigon, fi'om 2008 on, when Catholics 

apply for identity cards or household registration, the police would issue such doclll11ents with the 

word "NONE" next to the "Religion" item, even after the applicant had deolared that he was 

Catholic on the application form, Whatever its motive, the police is clearly pressllring people to 

renounce their faith, at least on official documents. In practice, when these people engage in 

activities aimed at preserving justice and truth, the police would claim that they are not Catholics in 

view of their official documents. Moreover, these people would encounter many difficulties when 

applying for admission to schools or fol' employment, selling property, or dealing with n 

government agency. The government employees would try to make the process very difficult for 

such applicants. We witnessed a number of such tragic cases involving people who were trying to 

sell their houses In Ha Noi. Therefore, if someone applies fm' nn ID card 01' hOllsehold registration, 

he should check the documents issued by the government very carefully and immediately request 

any needed corrections. Otherwise slIch persons would become victims of the government's tactic 

of using the administrative process as a tool ofreligious oppression. 

2. Free to go to church, to assemble, or pray? No! 

On the books, Vietnam's law recognizes freedom of religion. However, the government continues 

to violate this freedom in many locations throughout the country. 

In Saigon, in the sprawling Phu My Hung region, when nuns and private citizens asked lor priests 

to come and celebrate Mass, the goveflimenl pul up all kinds of obstacles. After n long struggle by 

the applicants on behalf of their right to religious freedom, the government finally allowed the nuns 

to invite some priests to come and celebrate Mass, but only in the early morning hours when hardly 

any believer could attend! 

In Hanoi, when people went to the Dong Chiem Church to pray and engage in charitable work, the 

police blocked their way and used violence, causing dozens to be injured. When Catholics from 

other parishes come to Thai Ha Church on religious occasions, the government usually tries to stop 

them or harass them through tactics such as shooting at the tires on their vehicles, confiscating 

driver llcenses, preventing vehicles from entering the town, prohibiting vehicles from other towns 

to use highways .nd streets that lead to Thai I-Ia Church. They even tried to prevent ~ bishop rL'OI1l 

celebrating Mass in Thai Ha, e.g., Bishop P.X Nguy~n Viin Sang when he led a group of priests and 

believers who traveled from Thai Binh Diocese to Thai Ha Parish on their annual pilgrimage. 
45


80363a-34.eps

It is even worse in the mountainous and border areas. For example, in many locations under the 

jurisdiction of the Redemptorists in Oialai, priests and even the bishop could not come to celebrate 

Mass. In Lai Ch~u, Son La and £Ii~n Bien, the local government does not acknowledge any 

religious establishment and consequently has no! allowed any ohurch to be built or priests from 

other 10catio11s to come and celebrate Mass over the pas! several decades. Only recently the 

government started to allow a few priests to celebrate Mass in a "semi-official" way at a few spots 

along Highway 6. Still, in many hamlets in the three provinces, local authorities continue to harass 

Catholics who galher in someone's home for prayers. Such harassment includes fines, arrests and 

beatings. I, myself, had to celebrate mass in hiding during the night llsually in the basement of 

private homes. Several times J had been hunted down by the police and the faithful had to lead me 

to the woods and steep hills to avoid police's pursuit. 

3. Free to build places of worship? No! 

Vietnam's law allows Catholics to remodel, repair or build churches, monasteries and other church 

facilities. It is quite a challenge to implement any ofthis in practice because government officials at 

alllovcls will try h .. ·d to provent such activities. 

First: With respect to existing facilities, the government uses delaying tactics when the Church 

submits applications for rep~iring or remodeling, or for building on Church land. Government 

officials usually come up with reasons to deny parishes or religious orders' requests for construction 

permits that would meet their needs. For example, Fr. Pham Min[l Trieu, pastor of BaD Long parish 

in Nam Dinh, has tried for 15 years in vain to apply for a permit to renovate the parish church. The 

local government would do anything to hinder the repair or building project of the church as 

proposed by the parishioners. Fr. Trieu also reported that as the parishioners were digging pond and 

building the monument of Our Lady In the front yard of their churCh, police and soldiers were sent 

out to harass and prevent them from doing so. 

Second: In th~ remote regions or in the highlands, construction of church is strictly prohibited by 

the government; the government always tries to block the construction of new churches and prevent 

believers from engaging in religious activities in spite of the large number of Catholics living there. 

In Son La, Lai CMu and f)i~n Bien, with a combined area of 45,000 kin', not a single church has 

been built \0 serve the large number of resident Catholics. The govcrnmCllt has not provided land or 

allowed the Church to accept land donated by private citizens for this purpose. 

Third: In new new urban developments and new commercial zone~ of existing towns, the 

government has not allowed the construction of new churches to meet the needs of the faithful. For 

example, there is no church building in the PM My Hung area in the southern pan of Saigon, a so" 

called "modern" development. Moreover, when the government implemented modernization plans, 

they demolished existing churches and forced the faithflll to relocate. In S"igOI1, tile government 

tore down the church and the lepers' asylum in Thanh Binh, and uprooted ~II the Tim Thiem 

parishioners when it carried out the modern development ofThu Thiem District. The government is 

also applying pre •• ure with lhe aIm of tearing down the church ~nd monastery of t[le Holy era,s 

Order as part of their plan for commercial development. The government did the smne to Du Lac 

Parish and Dong Yen Parish in Ky Anh, Hil TInh Province when it established the Vung Ang 

commercial district. 

Fourth: With respect to religious orders, the government forbids the building of new convents Hnd 

monasteries in areaS served by the orders. When members ofnn order first come to a new mea, they 

must make do with facilities borrowed from the local parish or purchased as the rraperty of one of 

the members. The fact that these facilities are legally private property and not church propeny, 

contributes to the risk of them being confiscated or being ordered to vacate as the govel"lll11ont 

attempts to put a halt to stich religious activities. 
46


80363a-35.eps

Fifth: The government has torn down church propertIes -- or ~nodi~cd or ch~ngcd their use:- t1~at it 

had "borrowcd". "leased", or forcibly taken from the Church III an Illegal manner. Its objective IS to 

obliterate the religious character of the properties and transform them into private properties. Right 

in Hanoi, the government still occupies the f)a Minh Church, olleorlhe most bealiliful chlll~hes ill 

Hanoi (at the Hung Vtrung-Cht'ta Mgt C9t intersection). In the past, the government llscd It as a 

restaurant. In 2011 the goverment is tearing down the Carmelite and Saint Paul de Chartres 

monasteries, church properties that had been used by the government in their original form until 

recently. Also in Hanoi, the government took [and fi'om the Fatima Order (Halll long Pm' ish) in 

order to build a public school, seized the chureh and has been using it as an administrative facility, 

while letting non-Catholic families live in the building in an attempt to erase the religious character 

of the property. Such offical tactics can be seen in many towns and cities. 

B. INSTANCES OF LACK OF FREEDOM AND UNEQUAL TREATMENT 

The government has treated Catholics and the Catholic Church in the harshest manne,·. This 

mistreatment and discrimination can be categorized as follows: 

1. Church property is not protected under the law 

Beginning in 1954 in the North when the Communist Party took power in Northern Vietnam and in 

1975 in the South when it took over South Viet naill, it has not recognized the people's right to olVn 

land - a reactionary legal approach that goes against the flow of model'll democillcy and serves as 

the basis for the government 10 confiscate properties (actually for the benefit of high-Ie vel officials). 

However, the government has acknowledged the "land use" rights of individuals and organizations 

through the Issuance of certificates, popularly known as "Red Certificates", authorizing slich llSCS 01' 

ccrtirying their ownership ofreul estate built on the land. 

There is one exception: the government does not Issue Red Certificatcs to religiolls organi;mtions, 

resulting in virtually no parish or religiolls order in Vietn~m having documents that prove their 

ownership of properties. When asked about this, government officials usually give the standard 

response: "because the government has not had time to develop policy" or "the governm~nt has not 

yet studied the matter and extended the practice to religious organiZations". In itself, this response 

revealed the government's discriminatory treatment of religious organizations. The misery does not 

end there. Without papers proving their rights to use land and ownership of buildings, parishes ~nd 

religious orders have a terrible time in their transactions with utilities companies and in handling 

affairs related to their properties. In addiU0I1, they have to live with nn ever-present risk, arbitrary 

confiscation by the government. If the victim protested, the government would ask for proof of 

ownership. When the victim presented papers issued by the previous government, government 

officials would say: "Documents issued by the old regime are not valid". The regime rcfuscs to 

issue ownership documents, but asks for such documents while refusing to accept documents issued 

under the previous political system when it wants to rob the Church. If a religions organization 

reacted strongly and the international community showed concern, as in the matter of tile apostolic 

delegation's propeerty in TMi Ha, tHe government would try to brush over the issuc by labeling it 

"a dispute related to land ownership", not a religious freedom issue. 

The Communist government had other tricks lip its slceves. Five years ago, soon after it issucd lhe 

decree on religious matters in 2005, in 2006 it requested that religiOllS organizations apply tor 

property ownership documents. However, after the parishes and religious orders listed a[1 their 

proper!les, Including those already confiscated, the government stopped in its tracks and continued 

its policy of not issuing Red Certificates to religious organizations. All)' organization that wants to 

proceed must accept the loss of thelt· illegally seized properties. For this reason, chmch property is 

still like the appetizing morsel dangling from a string in front of a cat -- the insatiable Communist 

Patty whose hatred for religion is well known. Can there be religious ft-eedom when the law does 

not acknowledge the Church's ownership of its propcrties, whcn religiolls organizations are never 
47


80363a-36.eps

sure ubout being able to use of their own land and facilities that they have been using for ovcr a 

century? The regime's tactic has been nothing less than a covert and devious effort to neutralize and 

oppress religion. 

2. The Church is not free to carry out her traditional religious activities. 

In Vietnam, the Church is not at all free to engage in traditional activities, i.e., religious events mllst 

be approved by the government. Retreats, conferences involving local, national 01' international 

religious groups must have official approval, unless one wants to run the risk of harassment and 

reprisals, including petty rovenge. The Church has no freedom in establishing dioceses, pMishes, 

religious orders, and convents and monasteries. The government requires seminaries to let 

government employees teach Vietnamese history, actually the history of Vietnam's Communist 

Parly, for propaganda purposes and to influence the thinking of future clergy members. The 

government controls the seminaries' admission process, the ordination of new priests, the I'eassignment of priests, etc. The Church must REQUEST authorization and may only carry 011 ollce 

the government has given its APPROVAL. From 2005 on, the government has replaced the word 

"REQUEST" with the word "REGISTER", but the system is still the "REQUEST - APPROVAL" 

system that is now more cleverly disguised. If the government does not "APPROVE" and a chmch 

organization or a clergyman still goes ahead, the government will call the activity illegal, try to 

block it, and retaliate later. In 2010 the government prevented two Redemptorist seminarians from 

being ordained, using tactics such as asking the appropriate bishops to desist from ordaining these 

two. 

Vietnam's government even inteferes with the appointment of bishops, an activity that is clearly 

under the Vatican's purview. The government accepts only the Vatican's choice of bishops if (he 

individuals have been approved by the government, nominally by the office of the prime III inisler. 

In practice, the approval comes f!'Om the People's Commluce, the Bureau of Religiolls Amlii's, ond 

the police, from the central government to the provincial and city level. ShOLIId the central 

government approve and the provincial or city government disagree, the process would grind to a 

halt. When a Vatican-proposed candidate is not approved by Ihe government, the appointment of a 

nelV bishop can take years. Some dioceses went up to 12 years withollt a bishop, e.g., HUllg H6a 

from 1991 to 2003. In practice, the government interferes grossly in Church affairs and is carrying 

out a strategy aimed at oppressing the Church in a sophisticated and devious way. I-lolY can Ihe 

Church maintain its independence and authority? How can the Church appoint the type of bishops 

that suits her needs when the government has a say in each step? Therefore I believe that the Chlll'Ch 

and Vietnam's government have been dealing with each another on playing field that is anything bllt 

level, a dysfunctional situation that has diminished the Church's legitimate autonomy. 

3. Catholics do not have equal rights, including political rights. 

In the past, the Communist Party did not enroll members who are Catholics. Only those who 

renounced their faith and Christian nature were accepted into the party, after declaring that they 

were atheists. However, from 2000 on, the palty stalted to recruit Catholics in an attempt to lise 

these new Communists in its assault on the Church. Communists who happen to be Catholic arc 

practically denied the chance to play any leadership role within the government. They ~re not 

promoted to mid-level and senior positions. Even in areas where the proportion of Catholics among 

the local popUlation Is very high, e.g., TMi Blnh, Nam B!nh, Dang Nui, etc., no Catholic has been 

promoted beyond the position of ~hainnan of the village administrative committee. At the present 

time, we have not seen any Catholic holding the position of chairman at the district, province and 

city level. Currently there Is not a single Catholic .among the ministers of departments and the 

officer corps of the armed forces. In every govcl'Ilmental tlllit, including scientiflc organizations, 

Catholics have not been promoted 10 responsible positions even if they are ethically and technically 

qualified. 
48


80363a-37.eps

4. The Church Is not treate<lllke oilier organizations with rcspect to fin8ncialnnd cOllllllercial 

ucllvltles 

The government allows domestic and foreign entities to lease land and buy properties fol' building 

manufacturing and commercial facilitiets, going as far as letting Chinese and Taiwanese lease land 

and build their commercial and industria! centers in Vietnam. Ironically, the same government docs 

not allow the Church to lease 01' buy land, or use her properties for income-producing activities. 

Worse, the government is illegally occupying land and comlllercial facilities that once belongcd to 

the Church, and forbids Church organizations from opening bank accounts. This discriminatory 

measure considerably hampers the receiving of monetary aids for religious or social projects from 

benefactors. 

The government often hinders the opel'ation of companies and stores owned by Catholics. WOl'se, 

when a Cntholic community happens to be ill a location with high financial potentbl and increa~ed 

land value, the government would draft "development plans" with the intent to force the residents to 

leave theIr homes or destroy their businesses. Examples include the conoscatiol1 of land belonging 

to Ct.n DAu parishioners in the DA Nang Diocese; the demolition of Cllg S~t in the tOIVn of ilien 

Him, within the Xufin LQc Diocese - an important business center of the Church; the demolition of 

the residential section of the parish and facilities of the Holy Cross Order in Thil Thiem -' a 

residential area, a church and an ancient monastery in Saigon that happened to be located 011 a 

highly desirable piece of land. 

5. Socially, there Is no equality fOI' CatllOlics 

The government considers Catholics second class citizens cvcrywhere. Laborers, govel'll111 cnt 

employees, and students at all levels are the subject of monitoring and oppression. The governl1lent 

uses subtle and sometimes grossly obvious means to discriminate. For example, T, a college student 

from TMi HA Parish who had been active in religious activities, has been watched closely by the 

police. At graduation time, the police pressured his college to deny him his diploma. 

Moreover, the government does not accept Church organizations as legal entities. The government 

alld many entities still do not recognise the seals and signatures of Church officials rcpresenting 

dioceses, parishes and religious orders. Consequently, the clergy's activities are constrained. Fol' 

example, I cannot use libraries because their management does not recognize letters of introduction 

issued by the Father Superior of my order. The People's Committee with jurisdiction over my 

monastery refuses to issue a letter ofintl'Oduction to me, claiming that I a1n not under their purview. 

When I try to do business at a bank, a school, or the post office, the same constraints apply. Once, U 

sister who maintained the website of the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam wired 400.000 

Vietnamese dollars (about 30 U.S. dollars) from Saigon to Hanoi as a p~yment for my "!'ticlcs, the 

post office asked for a government paper proving that I was a legal resident in Thai Hi! Church. The 

government has not issued me such a document because I was not allowed to register as a resident 

of TMi Hil Church - such registration requires the official certification of the legal entity 

responsible for my residency, which for Ille is the Rcdemptorist Order; however, my Order is not 

recognized as a legal entity. One can conclude that in the current Comlllunist-ruled Vietll~m. 

religious organizations, believers, and especially members of the Catholic clergy are being isolated 

and marginalized. 

6. There Is no freedom and no eqnal treatment wilh regard to education, communication, nnd 

charitable activities 

Clergy members, except the rew individualS who toe the Communist rarty's line, may not teach ill 

colleges. Catholics may nol enroll at military, police and security academies (and some othel' 

institutions). The Church and affiliated organizations may not run schools from the primary level 

through university level, or vocational schools. While the govemlllent allows us to run pre-school 

and kindergarten establishments, local officlals frequently try to cause us difficulties. Schools lllld 

hospitals that used to be owned "nd run by the Church had been confiscated by the govel'l1l11cnt and 
49


80363a-38.eps

have been operated as public in3titutions for some time, Now, the go\'el'l1mcnt plans to rrivatizc 

them, causing them to fall into the possession of government officials or their relatives, witilout the 

prospect of the Church being able to get them back and serve society through those institutions, 

The Church may not own publishing companies, periodicals, radio stations and TV slat ions, nor can 

she pay for space on newspapers or time on radio and TV to make annoul1cemenls or report on 

major religious events, The government-owned media even censor obituaries of deceased rdests 

and demand changes in content and wording. Christians typically face roadblocks whenever they try 

to rent facilities for important religious events. For example, Protestants rented My Binh Stadium to 

celebrate Christmas of 2010. Right before Christmas Day, the police pressured the stadium 

management to negate the contract. On Christmas Day, the police harassed and beat lip peorle who 

came to celebrate. 

The government allows the Episcopal Conference of Vietnam to issue only a single mOllthly 

newsletter, "Hi~p TMng", 100 copies, each not exceeding 100 pages of size A5, 1 made 

calculations using the font type of the publication (Times New Roman, Size 14) al1d found that if 

each of the 7 million Vietnamese Catholics got an equal share ofthis publication, in any given year 

each person would get 5 letters of the alphabet. Catholic websites with foreign domains such as 

chuacuuthe.com of the Redemptorist Order, have been blocked by firewalls set up by Vietnam's 

government and subjected to hackling around 10 times in the past rew years. When a parish Wlll1tS 

to issue a bulletin within its church, the government .Iso interfcres through harassment, till'eats, and 

even prohibition when the news does not please the governement, no matter how accurate. 

The government does not allow the Church to open charitable facilities serving handicapped people, 

orphans, lepers, etc. The Church used to own and run these types of facilities, but the government 

has confiscated them, The government also attempts to prevent the Church li'om organizing relief 

efforts in response to natural and man-made disasters, For example, Tluli Hil Church had to give up 

on the plan to establish a charity center in Th~ch Brch, Hanoi, because government officials wanted 

to skim 10% off the funds needed for the project. At the same time, priests and religious 

brothers/sisters could not continue with many of theh' relief efforts 011 behalf of the very pOOl' who 

live In mountllinous areas because local officials demanded that donated material be turned over to 

them so that they could distribute it themselves. If the officials had laid their hands on the Sllppiies, 

very little or nothing would have filtered through to the intended recipients, When t'lcing the crisis 

of a declining educational system, health care system, morality and culture in Vietnam, the 

government's actions show that it prefers to let citizens go hungry, suffer from diseases, find remain 

uneducated and poor, rather than acceding to the religious organizations' request for a chance to 

participate in serving the people and building society. 

7. There is no freedom in selecting where one lives and 110 freedom to travel 

The government turned a blind eye when Chinese citizens came to Vietnam (0 live and work, and, 

in some cases, cause trouble for Vietnamese residents. However, when the Catholic clergy and 

faithful who nre dedicated to serving their comnlllnities want to travel to the places where (he), can 

serve, the government places restrictions on where they may move to, while restricting their 

freedom to travel. Any clergy member who needs to work in a different location must "register", 

i.e., get the government's approval. However, the govemment tries to restrict this lype of travel in 

various ways. When the government fails to issue its approval of someone's npplication for 

residency (in Vietnam one must get government approval before one moves to another area), the 

person's daily life becomes much more complicated. In the Thai Ha monastery, there arc 

approximately 15 resident priests and brothel'S, all without the government's approval fOI' reside,}cy 

registration, i,e., long-term residency, The church encounters difficulties ill transactions involving 

the post office, ulilities, telephone service, and processes involving the local government on accollnt 

of the residency status of the 15 individuals, The system of residency approval is a violation of the 

freedom to select where olle wants to live, particularly in the case of priests and brothers and sisters, 
50


80363a-39.eps

Tile govermcnt violates citizens' right to travel freely. Par example, the police constantly 11\0nitor, 

and even trails Thai Hit clergymen. The police has set up a camera aiming at the entrance to the 

church so that they can monitor everything and everyone who comes and goes, all .thc time. 

Frequently the government violates the clergy's right to travel In a most obvious and illegat manner. 

For example, the Ninh Binh police refused to issue me a passport in 1999 without giving a valid 

reason other than labeling me a "reactionary." When the police in Ho Chi Minh City issued me a 

passport, the Ninh Blnh police requested the HCM City police to retract its decision and prohibit me 

from going abroad. EVen when one has a passport, there Is no guarantee that one's trip would be 

allowed. For example, in June 2010 the Hanoi police and HCM City police suddenly prohibited 

Rev. Nguyen Van PhuQ'ng from traveling to Rome. In December 2010 the HCM City pOlice 

prevented the Regional Superior of the Redemptorlsts, Rev. Ph~m Tnmg TMnh, frolll traveling to 

the USA. On July 10,2011, the HCM City pol1ce continued to prevent Rev. Ph~m Tnmg Th~nh 

from traveling to Singapore for the annual conference of Regional Superiors in Southeast Asia, and 

on July 12 the rAy Ninh police prevented Rev. £linh Hfru Tho~i> a Redemptorist, from traveling to 

Cambodia, All these police actions are illegal because the appl1cants have 110 police arrest record, 

have never been in prison, and have not been charged with any crime. 

C. IN LIEU OF CONCLUSION 

l. In 2004 Vietnam's government issued the Ol'dinance on Belief and Religion; in 2005 it issued !I 

new decree on religious affairs; in 2007, it issued a White Paper on religious freedom, The regime 

felt that such actions sufficiently proved that it respects religious fi'eedom and is concerned about 

meeting the people's spiritual needs. The truth is that it sought merely to use impressive words in " 

propaganda campaign to covel' up its increasing control of religion wllile trying to placate domestic 

and foreign critics. 

The government and its agents would point to those docllmcnts when asked whether there is 

religious freedom in Vietnam - a question that is so abstract and open·ended that could be e<lslly 

dodged. In order to truly learn about the reality in Vietnam, one must ask pointed questions slich as: 

Does the government officially recognize the legal status of Ule Catholic Churcll in any wrillcn 

document? Does the government treat Catholics just like other citizens? Are Catholics admitted to 

academies for the military, police and security forces? Can Catholics be appointed to mid-level and 

high-level government positions? Does the Catholic Church receive the same treatment as olher 

domestic and foreign entitles? Does the law protect church property? Has the Church been allowed 

to publish periodicals, or open schools, publishing hOllses, health clinics and hospitals; or charitable 

centers to serve the people? Does the government respect the Church's right to carrying out her 

traditional religious activities? Can the Catholic Church set up bank accounts or lease land? And 

other questions along this Iinc ... 

Actually, the government has been mistreating its Catholic citizens compared to tile way il lrcllts 

foreigners who live and work in Vietnam, and the government's treatment of the Catholic Church is 

much worse than its treatment of foreign entities that operate in the country. What is more painful is 

that the other religions and their believers suffer the same treatment as the Cathulic Church nnd ou,' 

faithful. How can anyone trust that Vietnam enjoys religious freedom when believers and churches 

are discriminated against and are not free to serve the people, something that the other citizen 

groups and non-religious organizations may engage in? 

2. The nature of Vietnam's Communist Party compels its members to eradicate all religions, or at 

least, to control them tightly, transform them, oppress them and made them serve the regime's 

agenda of dominating all aspects ofsooiety through the party's policy edicts, l'lws and Rcrions. 

The government stili uses the national media and educational system to train variolls levels of 

personnel in ways to oppress the Catholic Church and use propaganda against her. The government 

continues to make false accusations and declare that the Church has committed such and such 

"crimes" in Vietnam and in other nations. In government-sanctioned books used in schools, there is 

plenty of libelous material aimed at pRinting a very negative picture of Catholics, to tile point of not 
51


80363a-40.eps

being credible. The party still attempts 10 make non-Catholics view the Church as the evil and 

dangerous entity that Communists have been imagining forever. 

The government continues to use its "divide and conquer" strategy against the various religions and 

against groups within each religion, using highly sophisticated tactics, particularly in its uneven 

treatment of different faiths. One could sec this clearly when it uses public money (from the taxes 

that all citizens had paid) to build for Vietnam's Buddhist Sangha, which is controlled hy the 

government, the largest Buddhist temple in Southeast Asia, Bai £linh Temple in Ninh Blnh, at the 

cost of trillions of Vietnamese dollars (tens of millions of U.S. dollars). The government also uses 

public funds to support Buddhist events such as the World Buddhist Conference V, held in 2008 in 

Vietnam. On the other hand, it continues to outlaw the Unified B\lddhist Chlll'ch of Vietnam. 

The same "divide and conquer" policy is ~pp1ied to the Catholic Church. The government accords (l 

few clergy members and religious institutions certain privileges while oppressing the Catholic 

orders that speak out against religious persecution by the government. 

3. The Communist regime has grown increasingly heavy-handed in its religious persecution in view 

of the COlnmunlst Parly's inherent distrust of religion and perpetual dedication to abolish religious 

lifc. The government did not engage in the wanton destruction of religious fucilities, the abuse of 

priests and believers, the desecration of religious symbols, etc. as it is doing now. These types of 

horrendous acts have been occurring more and more frequently since the US government took 

Vietnam out of the list of Country of Particular Concern (CPC) in 2006. Fmm 2007 to 20 II, the 

regime has carried out the following oppressive measures against the Catholic Church: Seizing land 

from Thili Ha Parish and the apostolic delegation's land from the Hanoi Archdiocese; seizing land 

from Tam Toa Parish, Loan Ly Parish, Thu Thiem Parish, the Order of St Paul de Chartres in Vinh 

Long, the Order of St. Vincent de Paul In Saigon, the Order of the Divine Word in Nha Trang, the 

Order of Heavenly Piece in Hue, the Order of Lasalle in Hll~, etc.; demolishing the Virgin Mary's 

statue in £lOng £linh and the Cross in £lOng Chiem; removing Mary's statue in Bliu Sen; damaging 

properties belonging to the Order of St. Paul and the Carmelite Order in Hanoi; razing the Blnh 

Trl~u Church In order to build the Law School ofHCM City, etc. 

Furthermore, the regime has been performing other suppressive acts, including raids, beatings, 

arrests, dishing out long prison sentences, or prohibiting members of the Chllrch from traveling 

abroad, and is spearheading a systematic campaign against the Church, using the regime's total 

control of the media and school curricula, and its influence in various communities. When 

evaluating the nature ~nd degree ofseverily ofthase recent acts, one can conclude tl",\ such acts Me 

brazen and arbitrary, and are squarely aimed at the religious establishment. These are the type of 

acts that the regime did not dare to commit a few decades earlier. The demolition of the Cross and 

other sacred icons are examples of such acts. In Hanoi, the regime lIsed to refrain from dcmolbhing 

the Carmelite Monastery with its cross perched high above its roof; in Saigon, the regime used to 

cover the tower and Cross in the front of the church located near the Blnh Tri~u Bridge instead of 

tearing down Ihis Christian symbol. However, since 2007 the regime has shown no such restraint 

when demolishing these iconic landmarks in an attempt to wipe out all (LlICCS of legitimate Church 

ownership. 

Through the regime's numerous acts of repression and oppres5ion directed at all faiths in Vietnam, 

we have determined that the Communist rulers have been grossly violating religious freedom. 

Consequently, if someone asserted that "there is religious freedom in Vietnam", we believe that the 

person either: (I) lies; or, (2) has not spent time to examine thoroughly this issue; OL', (3) did 

something that enabled the police to blackmail him into saying the "official" linc; or, (4) is so 

concerned about his safety and well-being that he must say things that the regime wants him to say; 

or, (5) the person works for the regime as a police or other security personnel, or In some otller 

capacity. It Is our belief that bringing religious freedom to Vietnam is an arduous and very long trip, 

and anyone who claims that religious freedom exists in Vietnam now is guilty of self-deception, 

misleading others, and Whitewashing the oppressive regime in Vietnam. 
52


80363a-41.eps

Reverend Peter Nglly8n Van Khiii, Redemptorist O,'del' 

Rome, Italy October 16, 2011 
53

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Congressman Cao. 

Mr. Ai? 

STATEMENT OF MR. VO VAN AI, PRESIDENT, VIETNAM COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND QUE ME: ACTION FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM 

Mr. AI. Honorable Chairman, distinguished Members of Congress, I will make short remark and submit the full text of my testimony for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement and those of 

all of our distinguished witnesses, and any materials you want 

added to the record will be made part of the record. 

Mr. AI. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf 

of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, UBCV, the largest and 

oldest religious community in Vietnam. I appreciate the chance to 

speak before the dialogue, for I am concerned that the State Department does not realize the gravity of Vietnam’s repression of the 

UBCV. Buddhist leader Thich Quang Do expressed the same concern to Ambassador David Shear who visit him in Saigon. He said, 

‘‘The State Department report of abuses portray but a pale picture 

of the systematic police pressure, harassment and intimidation 

faced by Buddhists in every aspect of daily life.’’ I realize that that 

Vietnam deceptive religious policy with their mixture of a certain 

and sheer brutality are not easy to understand, but I appeal to 

Congress and the State Department to look behind Hanoi’s mask 

to see the reality of religious repression against Buddhists and 

other religious community and to raise this loud and clear in the 

coming dialogue in Hanoi. 

For the past three decade, the Communist hierarchy have systematically targeted the UBCV, detaining and harassing Buddhist 

monks and nuns. Religious gathering and festival such as the Buddha birthday are routinely disbanded by police. Foreign visitor are 

assaulted, follower are threatened with losing their jobs or having 

their children expelled from school if they worship in UBCV pagoda. The aim is to create a climate of fear in which no one dare 

live their faith. 

Just last week, security agent threw rotten fish and excrement 

into the home of Buddhist blogger Huynh Ngoc Tuan. He has spent 

10 years in prison for his article calling for human rights. In 

March, Buddhist youth leader Le Cong Cau was interrogated by security police in Hue for 3 days, and threatened him with a 20-year 

prison sentence simply for demanding the legalization of the 

UBCV. Le Cong Cau is head of the Buddhist Youth Movement, an 

unofficial educational movement which has over 500,000 members 

in Vietnam. During the interrogation, police told him that Vietnam 

would never accept to legalize the UBCV. 

Monk, nuns, and followers of over 20 provincial boards are prevented from carrying out charitable activity. In August, Venerable 

Thich Thanh Quang, in Da Nang, was brutally beaten under the 

eye of police who made no attempt to intervene. The most tragic 

victim is the UBCV leader and Nobel Peace Prize nominee Thich 

Quang Do. Despite over 30 years in detention he refuses to be silent. During the recent debate on reforming the Constitution, Thich 

Quang Do urged the Communist Party to embark on ‘‘a path of 

54

peace and multi-party democracy to lead our people into stability, 

development and happiness.’’

Alongside political violence, Vietnam also uses the law to curb religious freedom. In January, Decree 92 came into effect which submits religious to tighter control. Ordinance 44 authorizes the detention of religious dissidents under house arrest, in labor camps or 

psychiatric hospital without any due process of law. 

Mr. Chairman, the human rights dialogue is only relevant if it 

leads to concrete progress. The United States should set benchmarks and a time frame for improvement and ensure that Vietnam 

does not use the human rights dialogue as a shield to deflect international scrutiny from its grave abuses of religious freedom and 

human right. At the coming dialogue, I urge the U.S. to press Vietnam to release all religious prisoners, particularly UBCV Patriarch 

Thich Quang Do, and reestablish the Unified Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam legal status. Bring religious legislation into line with Article 18 of the U.N. Bill of Rights. Fix a date of the visit by the U.N. 

Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief to which Vietnam has agreed. 

Finally, regarding U.S. policy, I urge the U.S. to redesignate 

Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern; to mandate the Ambassador-at-Large on International Religious Freedom to visit Vietnam and meet with a wide range of stakeholders, including religious dissidents, and to consult widely with civil society before the 

trip; to adopt the Vietnam Human Rights Act in order to link trade 

relation to the respect of religious freedom and human right. In 

view of its abysmal human rights record, the U.S. should not support Vietnam’s membership of the U.N. Human Rights Council 

which will be voted at the General Assembly in New York in September this year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ai follows:]

55


80363b-1.eps

VIEJi'U\M COMITE ON HUMN,I RIGHTS 

QUE ME: ACTION feOR DEMOCRACY IN Vlm~AM 

firih 

I/1l:JDaf1 

Affiliated to the l~ternatlon8; Federation of ~u"""an Rigi~~s 

I\JGO accredited to th~ Unik:d Nations, LJrescc and trc Counc.il 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

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

Hearing on "Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human Rights Violations 

in Advance of the U.s,-Vietnam Dialogue" 

lIayhurn House Office Huilding. Wmhingtoll /J.C, Ihur.lday April 1 1,2013 

The State's Policy of Repression against the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

I estimony submitted by 

VOVAN AT 

Presiden~ Vietnam Committee on Human Rights & 

International Spokesman of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

Honourable Chairman, 

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on behalf of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), 

the largest and oldest religious organization in Vietnam. It is especially important to be able to 

testify in advance of the U.S.-Vietnam dialogue because, in the light of the latest Annual Report on 

International Religious Freedom, I am concerned that the State Department does not fully realize 

the gravity of Vietnam's relentless repression of the UBCV 

Tn August last year, when U.S. Ambassador David Shear visited UBCV Patriarch Thich Quang Do 

at the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery where he is under house arrest, Thich Quang Do expressed the 

same concern. He said: "Whilst appreciating the State Department's reports of abuses against the 

U Rev, we are concerned that they portray hut a pale picture of the .flJ'stematic Police pressures, 

h(tr(LSsment and intimid(ltionf(lced by UBCV Buddhists in every aspect of their daily lives", 

The assessment of the US Commission on Tnternational Religious Freedom, which has made 

several in-country visits to Vietnam, is much closer to the truth. Describing the UBCV as 

'T7etnam's IwXest reli~iolls Olxan;zation 1v;th a histOl)l (!l peaceful social activism and moral 

r~form", the USCIRF reported "marked illcreases in arresls, detelliions, and harassmelll of groups 

and individuals viewed as hostile to the Communisl Parly" in 2012, including the UBCV which, it 

stated, "has fClced decades C!i harassment and repression for seekinK independent status and for 

appealing 10 Ihe governmellilo respeci religiousfreedom alld relaled human rights ". 

BP 60063, 94472 Boissy Saint Leger cede)!;, France W (331) 45 98 30 85 ~ Fax (331) 45 98 32 61 • qusrne,democracy@gmaii.com .. http://W\l1JW.quemenet 

,11)1 "(SORr Ba \RJ) Mar..: Ui .. ndd, 1 

\'Iadimir Hm'!I'1,\~!J, 'y'liSSlQ 

Blll.l:h".uUt':-

lAIn,) Dbml<IHi, /..-.'>/; 

OTlIER FO[~I)LYG Mil'-'\,~Ill I)jihl~. L\ 1 (;:;0 ,,/,,,,1'< 

11EJf!fFcnl;' .!:,ugi'ne lUflt3t'(I. 

Lam'l'>kid:,md, 

DUttl{.l.;l~ Piht', 

V(lTnm'inllt 
56


80363b-2.eps

Vietnam's deceptive religious policy, with its mixture of subtlety with sheer brutality, may at lirst 

seem hard to fathom. But I call upon Congress and the State Department to look behind Hanoi's 

mask, beyond the veneer of State-sponsored freedom of worship, and recognize the full extent of 

religious repression against the UBCV and other non-recognized religions in Vietnam. These are 

the issues that the U.S. must assertively raise in tomorrow's dialogue with Hanoi 

Over the past year, violations of religious freedom and human rights have increased in Vietnam, at 

the USCTRF has observed. To avoid international outcry. Vietnam implements a policy of what T 

call "stealth repression"; instead of sentencing Buddhist leaders at public trials, the authorities 

detain them under house arrest, isolate them from their followers, cut off communications, place 

them under surveillance and deny them the right to travel and meet together. Foreign visitors to 

UBCY monasteries are assaulted and harassed. Police routinely disband religious gatherings and 

prevent UBCV pagodas from celebrating festivals such as the Vesak (Birth of Buddha) and the 

Lunar New Year. The authorities even seek to strangle the lJBCV's economic survival by 

threatening to fire Buddhists from their jobs or have their children expelled from school if they 

support the UBCV. To avoid surveillance, UBCV followers often come at dawn to deposit food and 

offerings outside pagoda gates. 

Following the Chinese model, Vietnam deploys special agents and "Religious Security Police" 

(c6"K a" t6" X'(io), some dis6'1lised as monks, to infiltrate, slander and divide the Buddhist 

community and undermine it from within. The aim is to slowly stifle and suppress the UBCV by 

creating a permanent climate offear in which followers dare not express their beliefs Today. as this 

Hearing takes place, new evidence from Vietnam indicates that the authorities are intensifying 

persecution and seeking by every means to intimidate, harass and silence members the outlawed 

Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam; 

Just last week, Buddhist blogger and writer Huynh Ngoc Tuan and his family were the 

victims of base intimidation. At midnight on 3 April, two men on a motorbike threw buckets 

of water mixed with rotten fish and excrements into his home in Quang Nam. Huynh Ngoc 

Tuan, who has spent 10 years in prison (1992-2002) for his articles on religious freedom and 

human rights. was one of five Vietnamese bloggers awarded this year's Hammel-Hammet 

award for persecuted writers, along with his daughter Huynh Thuc Vy. His son, Huynh 

Ngoc Tuan tried to travel to the US to receive the prize on their behalf, but was stopped at 

the airport and banned from boarding the plane; 

Tn March 2013, Buddhist youth leader Le Cong Cau was interrogated intensively for three 

days by Security Police in Hue because he posted articles on the Internet calling for the 

legalization of the UBCY. Police said that by advocating for the UBCV rather than the 

State-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist Church (VBC), he was "sowing divisions hetween 

religious followers", an offense punishable by up to 15 years in prison under Article 87 of 

the Vietnamese Criminal Code. Police also threatened to sentence him with up to 20 years in 

2 
57


80363b-3.eps

prison for . 'anti-Slate propaganda" (Article 88 of the Criminal Code). Le Cong Cau is head 

of the UBCV's Buddhist Youth Movement (Gia anh Ph,;1 Ilr Vi~1 Nam), an unofficial 

educational movement which has over 500,000 members in Vietnam 

During the interrogation, the Head of the Hue Provincial Security Police told Le Cong Cau 

that Vietnam would never accept to legalize the UBCV. This reveals the cynical duplicity 

of Vietnam's religious policies, which on the one hand claim internationally to be moving 

towards religious freedom, but on the other categorically reject all religious groups that 

refuse the political dictates of the Communist Party of Vietnam; 

Monks, nuns and followers of over 20 UBCV provincial boards set np to bring spiritual 

and humanitarian aid to poor people in the provinces are harassed, interrogated and 

prevented from carrying out educational and charitable activities, notably in the provinces of 

Quang Nam-Danang, Thua Thien Hue, Binh Dinh, Khanh Hoa, Ba Ria-Vung Tau, 

Dong Nai, Hau Giang and An Giang; 

For the past three years, the People's Committee in Danang has strictly prohibited Vesak 

celebrations at the Giac Minh Pagoda, deploying hundreds of Police and security officials 

to block all entries to the building, forcibly obstructing and assaulting Buddhists who tried 

to take part, and prohibiting the monks from reading the traditional Vesak Message by 

UBCV Patriarch Thich Quang; In August 2012, Superior monk Venerable Thich Thanh 

Quang, head of the UBCV Youth Department, was brutally beaten by a gang of plain 

clothed security agents under the eyes of the Police, who made no attempt to intervene; 

The most tragic victim of Vietnam's repression is the UBCV Patriarch Thich Qnang Do, 

85, currently under house arrest at the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery in Saigon and detained 

almost without interruption since 1982. Denied freedom of movement and citizenship rights, 

fforbidden even to preach in his Monastery and under constant Police surveillance, this 

revered dissident and Nobel Peace Prize nominee remains a symbol of the movement for 

democracy, and continues to challenge the government on religious freedom and human 

rights. Tn March, during a public debate on refonning the Vietnamese Constitution, Thich 

Quang Do urged the Communist Party to embark on a "Path o.(Peace" - a path of multiparty democracy which will lead our people to stability, del,eiopment and happines.,". 

Alongside political repression, Vietnam also uses the law to restrict religious freedom. In January 

2013, "Decree No. 92" on religious organizations and religious activities C31ne into effect, 

replacing Decree No. 22, which was issued in 2005. Buddhist and Christian leaders alike have 

criticized the new Decree for its use of vague and 31nbiguous tenninology, and for introducing new 

bureaucratic obstacles to the peaceful and lawful activities of religious believers. Although the new 

Decree reduces the timeframe in which the authorities must respond to applications for registration 
58


80363b-4.eps

and introduces some measures to improve transparency, the Decree as a whole is aimed at 

increasing control and management rather than the protection of religious freedom. 

At the same time, Vietnam invokes vaguely-worded "national security"' provisions in the Criminal 

Code to criminalize the peaceful religious activities. Ordinance 44 authorizes the detention of 

religious and political dissidents under house arrest, in labour camps or in psychiatric hospitals 

without any due process oflaw. 

Me. Chainnan, 

Vietnam seeks to suppress the UBCV not only because it is a religious movement, but because it is 

one of the most vocal civil society movements in Vietnam. Tn this one-Party state, where there is no 

political opposition, no independent media, no free trade unions, the religious movements, in 

particular the UBCV, are the sole independent voices that the Party has failed to suppress. Religious 

freedom is thus the key to peaceful progress towards a pluralistic and vibrant society based on 

respect for human rights and the rule oflaw 

Recommendations for the Human Rights Dialogue 

The U.S.-Vietnam human rights dialogue as a viable policy tool. But it must not become an 

end in itself At its Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations in 2009, Vietnam 

declared that its engagement in dialogue with the US, the EU and other countries "proved" 

that it respects human rights. This is surely not America's view. The dialogue is only 

relevant if it leads to substantive progress. The United States should set benchmarks and a 

concrete time-frame for human rights improvements wherever possible, and ensure that 

Vietnam does not use the human rights dialogue as shield to deflect international 

scrutiny from its egregious violations of reJigious freedom and human rights. 

For the upcoming dialogue, I urge you to press Vietnam to: 

release prisoners of conscience in prison or under house arrest for their nonviolent religious 

activities or convictions; release UBCV Patriarch Thich Quang Do as a matter of urgent 

priority and restore his full freedoms and rights; 

re-establish the legitimate status of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and all 

other non-recognized religions so they can contribute to the social and spiritual welfare of 

the Vietnamese people; 

rescind or review all legislation that restricts the exercise of religious freedom in 

contravention of Article 18 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 

fix a date for the in-country visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion 

or Belief to which Vietnam has agreed; allow a visit by the UN Rapporteur on Freedom of 

4 
59


80363b-5.eps

Opinion and Expression, and Human Rights Defenders, as well as a follow-up visit by the 

UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to monitor the situation of human rights 

defenders and prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. 

Recommendations for U.S. Policy 

the U.S. should heed the recommendation of the US Commission on [nternational Religious 

Freedom to re-designate Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for its egregious 

violations of religious freedom and related human rights; 

the US Ambassador-at-Iarge on International Religious Freedom should make an incountry visit to Vietnam and meet with a wide range of stakeholders, including religious 

dissidents and members of non-recognized religious bodies as well as government and religious 

officials; in preparation for this trip, the Ambassador should consult widely with international 

experts and overseas-based civil society representatives of religious movements in Vietnam; 

religious freedom should be main streamed into legislation regarding the US-Vietnam trade 

relationship. In the absence of a "human rights clause" in bilateral trade agreements, the 

Vietnam Human Rights Act should be passed to link trade relations to the respect of religious 

freedoms and human rights; 

Vietnam rejected many concrete recommendations made by the United States at its 

Universal Periodic Review in May 2009, and it has failed to uphold its binding commitments to 

respect UN standards and norms. Therefore, [ urge the United States not to support Vietnam's 

bid for membership ofthe UN Human Rights Council for 2014-2016 which will be voted at 

the UN General Assembly Meeting in New York in September 2013. 

VoVan Ai 

Washmgton D.c.. Aprilll. 2013 
60

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ai, thank you very much for your testimony and 

your very concrete recommendations to the committee and to the 

President and to the U.S. Congress at large. I would like to now 

ask Ms. Anna Buonya if she would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ANNA BUONYA, SPOKESPERSON, 

MONTAGNARD HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION 

Ms. BUONYA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Smith and other distinguished members and guests for the honor and the opportunity to 

be here to speak with everyone today. Again, my name is Anna 

Ksor Buonya, and I am here on behalf of the Montagnard Human 

Rights Organization, and we are based from Raleigh, North Carolina. I am also here to represent the Montagnard Indigenous Peoples of the Central Highlands of Vietnam. 

As some of you may know, the Montagnards were strong and 

loyal allies with the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War, 

and because of that after the fall of South Vietnam we have been 

subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Since then 

Montagnards’ political and religious leaders have been tortured 

and imprisoned. Our population has been forced for relocations and 

thousands have been condemned to live in some of the country’s 

poorest cropland. Also our ancestral lands are being deforested for 

logging and being used as rubber plantations. My statement today 

will focus primarily on religious persecution and human rights violations that confront the Montagnard, the Hmong, and other persecuted indigenous peoples of Vietnam. 

In 2011 and 2012, Human Rights Watch has published detailed 

reports on the continuing religious persecution of Montagnards in 

the Central Highlands and the extreme persecution of the Hmong 

Christians in the Northern Highlands. During 2011, entire Hmong 

villages have been destroyed by the Vietnamese Government. Also, 

in May 2011, Hmong Protestants gathered peacefully to ask for an 

end to religious persecution and the confiscation of their homes and 

lands. The Vietnamese Government responded with violence and 

the attacks resulted in multiple deaths and countless injuries. 

Also, August 21st, 2012, there had been reports that Montagnard 

Catholics were in the midst of prayer when they raided by the Vietnamese police. In November 2012 Vietnam police carried out a 

sweeping operation of about 1,000 soldiers searching for 

Montagnard Catholics. They found six people. These men were severely beaten. One man was tied to a cross while the others had 

their hands and feet tied and were surrounding him. The police 

then rounded up the villagers and threatened them with the same 

punishment if they continued to carry out their religious beliefs. 

I also have some pictures that I want to include in the record. 

This is of a Hmong deacon who was tortured to death at the police 

station on March 17th, 2013. This is a Hmong Christian. He participated in the May 2011 protest that I had stated earlier. He escaped the police crackdown but he was later found out and when 

he tried to escape he was shot down by the police. 

The religious persecution I just highlighted above also relates to 

numerous arrests regarding religious leaders. The Vietnam Government is directly responsible for the cruel and terrible treatment 

of Montagnard Christians and other political prisoners. The VietVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Sep 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041113\80363 HFA PsN: SHIRL
61

nam Government continues to arrest, torture and jail Montagnard 

Christians. There are currently over 400 Montagnard Christians 

imprisoned for their religious beliefs, some of them up to 16 years. 

Between 2001 and 2004, over 400 Montagnard house churches 

were taken over by the Vietnamese Government, hundreds of 

Montagnards were arrested and imprisoned for their participation 

in demonstrations which related to the policy of land confiscation 

and religious rights. To this day, many of these house churches still 

remain closed, and practically all these Montagnard prisoners are 

still in prison. 

They are also often forced to renounce their faith. They are beaten, and many put in prison for many years without adequate 

water, food, medicine and family visits. May suffer solitary confinement and torture. These conditions have not improved. Two main 

areas that continue to experience problems are Pleiku and Buon 

Ma Thuot. Many of the issues I just described also leads to the 

Montagnards seeking asylum in Cambodia or Thailand. This in 

itself is another problem. Montagnards asylum seekers have no 

place to find sanctuary. There are hundreds of Montagnards who 

are hiding and they are trying to flee persecution. They are hunted 

down by the police. They are beaten and put in jail. There are no 

safe haven for them. When they escape to Thailand they are also 

facing rejection by the UNHCR, and they are later arrested and 

put in immigration detention. The Hmong who flee to Thailand, 

most of them because of the May 2011 protests, are also experiencing similar problems. Right now there are approximately 300 

known cases which have been reported to the Hmong National Development organization. Dozens of applications for refugee status 

have been filed with the UNHCR, and to date every single application has been denied. 

There is another recent case that I want to highlight. Again at 

this very moment there are two Montagnard individuals who are 

hiding in the Central Highlands. They were participating in protests, and because of that they experienced persecution and physical beatings by the Vietnam police. For the last year they have 

struggled to obtain an interview with the U.S. consulate. Finally, 

after a year of waiting they went through three separate interviews, the whole time still continued to stay in hiding, and just recently within the last week they were told by the International Organization for Migration that they now need a passport from the 

Vietnam Government or their refugee application will be abandoned. And of course, with the fear of persecution this would be a 

problem. Everything I have just stated is only a very brief, general 

overview of the types of religious persecution and human rights 

violations that Montagnards and other indigenous people face. 

We do have some requests. In the latest USCIRF Annual Report 

for 2012, the Commission again recommended that Vietnam be returned to the list of Countries of Particular Concern. We agree 

with this recommendation, and we urge the U.S. Congress and the 

U.S. Government that the release of all Montagnard prisoners be 

negotiated for and their release obtained before any more U.S. Government defense and trade treaties with Vietnam go forward. Also 

in light of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which the U.S. administration and President Obama 

62

recently endorsed on December 2010, we also recommend that the 

U.S. Government continues its dialogue with Vietnam to recognize 

the Montagnard, Khmer Krom, and Cham as its indigenous people. 

Vietnam has shown support of the United Nations Declaration, and 

we urge the U.S. Congress to put pressure on Vietnam to implement the principles of this declaration especially since religious 

persecution is being experienced by all of the indigenous groups. 

Also we hope that the U.S. State Department will consider reopening its refugee program within Vietnam by acknowledging that 

there continues to be claims of well-founded persecution there. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to come here 

today, and I hope the U.S. Government takes what I have said into 

consideration during future dialogue with Vietnam. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Buonya follows:]

63


80363c-1.eps

U.S. Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights 

"Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human Rights Violations in Advance of the U.S. -

Vietnam Dialogue" 

Hearing: April 11,2013 

Testimony from Anna Ksor Buonya, Spokesperson 

Montagnard Human Rights Organization 

The Honorable Christopher Smith 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights 

Mr. Chairman, 

My name is Anna Ksor Buonya, and 1 am here on behalf of the Montagnard Human Rights 

Organization based in Raleigh, North Carolina. I represent the Montagnard indigenous people of 

the Central Highlands of Vietnam. 

Brief Background 

My parents, along with 10,000 Montagnards, struggled and suffered for over 12 years in the 

jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia as we fought to defend our freedoms and way of life from 

1975 until 1986 when our family came to the U.S. as refugees. I feel privileged to have enjoyed 

many blessings of freedom, thanks to the sacrifice of my beloved parents and the Montagnard 

people. 

Tens of thousands of Montag nards were recruited and trained by US Special Forces, and loyally 

served the United States during the Vietnam War. Their bravery in fighting against the 

communists was legendary. During the war years, it was estimated some 100,000 Montagnards 

fought alongside US troops and at any given time some 30,000 were actively serving. By the end 

of the war in 1975, it's estimated over 200,000 people, perished in the conflict. 

The survivors were left to face the vengeance of the victorious communists. On taking over 

South Vietnam, the communists imprisoned and executed the Montagnard's political and 

religious leaders. The wider Montagnard population was subj ected to forced relocations and 

thousands were condemned to live on some of the country's poorest cropland. The military also 

deforested the Montagnard's ancestral lands while expanding their logging operations into 

neighboring Laos and Cambodia. The Montagnards have been deliberately marginalized as 

losers of the war and survive today in a cycle of crushing poverty. 

1 would like to thank Mr. Chairman for the honor and opportunity to share our feelings and 

experiences about the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam and especially, persecution 

experienced by indigenous peoples. My organization has had the honor to testify at the first U.S. 

Congressional Hearing about Montagnards sponsored by fonner U.S. Senator Jesse Helms in 

1998, as well as in subsequent U.S. Congressional Hearings in Washington 
64


80363c-2.eps

My statement today will focus primarily on religious persecution and human rights violations 

that confronts the Montagnard indigenous people of the Central Highlands, along with similar 

issues that impact the Hmong, Khmer Krom, Cham, and other persecuted indigenous populations 

in Vietnam 

Religious Persecution 

Human Rights Watch has published a detailed report in 20 II and 2012 on the continuing 

religious persecution of Montagnards in the Central Highlands and the extreme persecution of 

Hrnong Christians in the northern highlands. During 2011, entire Hmong villages have been 

destroyed by the Vietnamese government. The Khmer Krom also sutfers. They follow the 

Buddhist Therevada branch, but the Vietnamese government has forced them to become 

members of the government-sponsored Vietnamese Buddhist Sangha. These two different 

Buddhist orders have different ethnic practices that range from the color of their robes to the 

practice of the way they eat their meals. Because of this forced conversion, many of their temples 

are shut down by the government. Some Buddhist and Christian clergy are forced to work as 

informants for the Communist government. 

Reminiscent of the Montagnards mass demonstrations of 200 I, 2002, 2004 and 2008, the Khmer 

Krom Buddhist monks, some 200 ofthern, staged a mass sit-in in Feb 2007. They were brutally 

cracked down by the police Approximately 60 monks were arrested, nine defrocked and five 

jailed. 

Most recently, in 2012, Buddhist Hoa Hao groups were prevented by the Vietnamese local police 

from commemorating the anniversary of their founder, Huynh Phu So, by blocking roads and 

intimidating Buddhist followers. A Protestant pastor, Nguyen Trung Ton was arrested in January 

without any known charges. Three Catholic Montagnard activists were arrested in March. Two 

Buddhists activists were arrested in April and July. And about 15 Catholics were arrested in July, 

August, and September. 

Another indigenous group, the Cham has experienced the destruction of their religious temples 

What was once religious shrines are now functioning as tourist attractions. To add to the insult, 

none of the profits made from these tourist attractions are being put back into the Cham 

community. 

1 am very grateful that this country gives me the opportunity to worship in whatever way I 

choose. Freedom is a precious right that must be protected and fought for, but unfortunately for 

my people, that right continues to be restricted. They are persecuted for believing in God, with 

many tortured and facing long prison sentences. For Americans, "In God We Trust" is often 

times simply a motto, and something we take for granted, but for the Montagnard and other 

indigenous people, it is something they suffer for each and every day. 

Prisoner Abuse 

The religious persecution highlighted above also relates to numerous arrests regarding religious 

leaders. The Vietnam government is directly responsible for the cruel and terrible treatment of 

Montagnard Christians and other political prisoners. They discriminate against the Montagnard 

prisoners by not allowing them to have clean water, family visits or enough food to eat. The 
65


80363c-3.eps

prisons are long distances from the Central Highlands, maldng it very hard, if not impossible for 

family members to visit. 

The Vietnam government continues to arrest, torture and jail Montagnard Christians. There are 

currently over 400 Montagnard Christians in prison for their religious or political beliefs up to 16 

years. Between 2001 and 2004, over 4000 Montagnard house churches were destroyed, and 

hundreds of Montagnard were arrested and imprisoned for their participation in demonstrations 

that objected to the policy ofland confiscation and religious rights. Most of these house churches 

remain closed and practically all Montagnard prisoners remain in prison to this day. Montagnard 

Christians are often forced to renounce their faith, they are beaten, and many put in prison to 

suffer long and terrible years in prison without enough food, medicine or even family visits. 

Many suffer solitary confinement and torture. 

Montagnard Refugee Protection 

Because of all the issues I have described earlier, the Montagnard and Vietnamese asylum 

seekers are seeking protection in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand or other countries. This in itself, 

is another problem. 

The UNHCR site in Phnom Penh, Cambodia closed in Feb. 2011. Montagnard asylum seekers 

now have no place to find sanctuary. Asylum seekers have ned to Thailand, been arrested and 

put into detention. We know of Montagnards rights now who are hiding in the jungles of 

Vietnam because they have no safe place. They have no safe place and they are desperate. 

There are hundreds of Montag nards who try to nee persecution in Vietnam and they are hunted 

down by the police, beaten and put in jail. 

There is no safe haven for asylum seekers in Vietnam so they escape to Thailand where they face 

rejection by the UNHCR and are later arrested and put in immigration detention. One 

Montagnard refugee recently arrived in Raleigh, NC, after years in a Bangkok detention center. 

This young Montagnard was a Christian youth leader who was tortured and imprisoned in 

Vietnam. He twice received prison sentences, and has told us the details of his torture. He spent 

5 years on the run with a small group of other Montagnard refugees, hiding in the jungles of 

Laos and Thailand, separated from his wife and two children, all with the hopes of finding 

freedom and the right to worship as a Christian. 

Sadly, he was rejected by the UNHCR in Cambodia and later in Thailand. It took many 

advocates to finally win his freedom. The situation in Thailand becomes desperate for refugees 

who often cannot register with UNHCR or who have their claims denied by UNHCR. 

There is another very recent case I want to highlight. As of this moment, there are two 

Montagnard individuals, who are hiding in a Central Highlands province. They have experienced 

persecution and physical beatings by the Vietnam police. For the last year, they have struggled to 

obtain an interview with the U.S. consulate. Finally after a year of waiting, they went through 

three separate interviews, all the while still in hiding. They were told by the International 

Organization for Migration (10M), within this past week, that they now need a passport from the 

Vietnam government or their refugee application would be abandoned. 
66


80363c-4.eps

Vietnam's Assimilation Policies 

The Montagnard indigenous peoples of Vietnam are crying out to keep our ancestral land, our 

language and our culture. We've asked for help from the US. government, the United Nations 

and the world community to help us. Many of our ancestral lands have been seized by the 

Communist government for rubber or coHee plantations. 

Our languages are being lost, and our children shamed into believing they are not worthy. Even 

Montagnard prisoners in Hanoi's prisons are not allowed to write letters in the Montagnard 

language. The Montagnard names of our rivers, forests, mountains, and provinces have been 

altered into Vietnamese names. We believe this is a policy of quiet genocide and ethnic cleansing 

targeting our Montagnard people. The reason behind this being, that the Vietnamese Communist 

government wants our precious land of the Central Highlands and their goal is complete 

assimilation. 

Recommendations 

In the latest USCIRF Annual Report for 2012, the Commission again recommended that 

Vietnam be returned to the list of countries of particular concern. We have also called on the 

US. government to reinstate Vietnam's designation as a "Country of Particular Concern" (CPC) 

for extreme violations of religious freedom. We agree with their recommendation and we urge 

the US. Congress and the US. government that the release of all Montagnard prisoners be 

negotiated and their release obtained before any more US government defense and trade treaties 

with Vietnam go forward 

In light of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, which was 

adopted by the General Assembly on September 13, 2007, and which the US. administration and 

President Obama recently endorsed on December 2010, we also recommend that the US. 

government continue its dialogue with Vietnam to recognize the Montagnards, Khmer Krom, 

and Cham as it's indigenous peoples. Vietnam has shown support of the United Nations 

Declaration and we urge the US. Congress to put pressure on Vietnam to implement the 

principles of this declaration, especially since religious persecution is being experienced by all of 

the indigenous groups. 

We hope that the US. State Department will consider re-opening its Refugee Program within 

Vietnam by acknowledging that there continues to be many claims of well-founded persecution 

in Vietnam. There is concern for individuals in Vietnam who have experienced persecution, but 

have difficulty obtaining an interview with a US. official at a US. consulate. When they finally 

do get an interview, they may be retused refugee status because there is now the requirement to 

obtain a passport, which must be requested from the Vietnam government. For people facing the 

fear of police brutality and persecution, this makes the task almost impossible. We recognize that 

there is not an onicial US. refugee program currently in Vietnam, but the current mechanism is 

not etfective. We recommend that the U.S. consulate have some formal arrangement with 

Vietnam to allow an "exit visa" or other process, for individuals who quality for refugee status. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to come here today to tell you the truth about the 

Montagnard human rights abuse that the Montagnard Indigenous Peoples are facing right now in 
67


80363c-5.eps

Vietnam's Central Highlands and in other areas of Vietnam. We Montagnards are treated like 

enemies in our own homeland. Hundreds of prisoners in Ha Nam prison are suffering terrible 

abuse and isolation, and other Montagnard men, women and children quietly suffer in their 

villages under constant fear and police surveillance. 

I corne to you today, not only as a Montagnard, but also as a U.S. citizen. I'm grateful to have a 

voice because I know the voice of my people has been silenced for over a century. I'm grateful 

to speak on behalf of those who suffer in prison and who can't see their families all because they 

spoke out for freedom or the right to be a Christian. I've had the opportunity for education in 

America, but I'm saddened that my Montagnard people have been denied education and 

development assistance in Vietnam for so many years. 

We hope that with these continuous hearings, the U.S. government and the world will hear our 

prayer and plea for help. 

Thank you for your time and for letting me share the plight of the Montagnard people along with 

the struggles of other indigenous groups of Vietnam. 

Respectfull y, 

Anna Ksor Buonya, Esq. 
68

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Buonya, thank you very much for your testimony, your very specific recommendations as well, and we will follow up on each and every one of them. Thank you so very much. 

Ms. BUONYA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now ask Ms. Danh if she would testify. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DANH BUI, SISTER OF A VICTIM OF 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Ms. DANH. Members of the committee, my name is Danh Hui. I 

live and work in Houston, Texas. Thank you for the opportunity to 

be here to speak at this hearing. The purpose of my being here 

today is to call on the U.S. Government to help with the rescue of 

15 victims, Vietnamese victims, who have been sex-trafficked to 

Russia. My own little sister, Huynh Thi Be Huong is one among 

those 15. My sister Huong was the first one to be released and returned to Vietnam. Then gradually six other victims were also released and allowed to return to Vietnam. However, there are still 

eight victims being held captive in Russia. I truly hope that after 

this hearing, the committee, the Congress, and the government will 

help raise the voice so that the remaining eight victims will be 

eventually rescued and allowed to go home and be reunited with 

their families in Vietnam, and also assure that the trafficker, the 

brothel’s owner, would be prosecuted before the law so that she 

won’t be able to harm other victims anymore. 

Over a year ago, my sister Huong was promised employment in 

a restaurant in Russia. However, as soon as she landed in Russia 

her passport was confiscated and she was taken into a brothel 

owned and run by a Vietnamese woman. She was forced to serve 

sex clients immediately on that day. My sister Huong and the other 

victims were beaten regularly and they were not allowed to communicate with their family in Vietnam. Last July, the owner of the 

brothel, the trafficker, called me demanding $2,000, U.S., as ransom as a condition for the release of my little sister. Being so poor 

I had to borrow the money to pay her. However, she raised the ransom to $4,000 and then to $6,000. I realized immediately that she 

never had the intention to release my sister but only wanted to extort my family of our little resources. 

On February 2nd of this year, my sister Huong and three other 

victims managed to escape. They called home and also they called 

the Vietnamese Embassy in Russia to ask for help. Very soon afterwards, all four of them were recaptured by the traffickers and they 

were beaten and tortured every day. Then BPSOS, Boat People 

SOS, helped us, and mobilized the involvement the media, the U.S. 

media. And also there was Congressman Al Green who spoke out, 

and also thanks to the State Department, my sister Huong and six 

other victims were released and were allowed to return to Vietnam. 

Once home, Huong then informed us that the brothel’s owner 

had very close relationship with people at the Vietnamese Embassy. Her boyfriend’s, that is, the owner’s boyfriend’s older brother 

worked at the Embassy, the Vietnamese Embassy in Russia, and 

then that older brother is married to the niece of a very high ranking official at the Vietnamese Embassy as well. Currently, my sisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Sep 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041113\80363 HFA PsN: SHIRL
69

ter Huong is in very dangerous situation. She doesn’t dare to go 

home to her hometown to work, but she has to stay in hiding in 

Saigon, because the trafficker had already threatened to send her 

subordinates to Vietnam to harm her and the other victims. They 

would not allow them to stay in peace in Vietnam. Huong is the 

very one that the trafficker had pointed out to her subordinates to 

track down and harm by all means and cost. 

Huong, right now, and the other victims who have returned to 

Vietnam really need help and also protection. And also there are 

eight others who are still in Russia, they need to be rescued. I 

would like to present to the committee and submit to the committee the list of the victims here, the list of victims, and also the 

pictures of some of the victims. And here is my little sister Huong. 

Just think of them as your own daughters. 

On behalf of all these victims I would like to thank you, distinguished members of the committee, especially Congressman Al 

Green and the Boat People SOS organization. Please accept my 

deep gratitude. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Danh follows:]

70


80363d-1.eps

Statement of Ms. Hui Danh 

Sister of a Vietnamese Victim Sold to a Brothel in Russia 

Before 

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, 

and International Organizations 

Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human Rights Violations 

in Advance of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue 

April 11,2013 

Translator/Interpreter: Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang of BPSOS 
71


80363d-2.eps

I am appreciative for the opportunity to be here today. And thank you for listening to my 

presentation about my sister's tragic story. 

Before presenting my sister's tragedy, I would like to extend my gratitude to 

Congressman Al Green who met with me in person, to the US State Department, BPSOS, 

Coalition to Abolish Modern-day Slavery in Asia (CAMSA), and especially the BPSOS 

President, Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang. I thank many others whose zealous advocacy helped my 

sister to safely return to my parents in Vietnam. I came here today to speak on my sister's behalf 

and especially for the remaining 8 female victims who cannot escape from the same brothel in 

Moscow where my sister was imprisoned. 

My sister, Huynh Thi Be Huong, was victimized by a sex-trafficking ring. Be Huong's 

tragedy began in 2011. She was approached by an acquaintance with the opportunity to travel to 

Moscow for employment as a waitress at a night club. Wanting to help her parents, Be Huong 

hastily assented. The acquaintance referred Be Huong to a job agency that handled her work visa 

to Russia. The agency did not require Be Huong to pay any up-front fees. She was told that she 

would pay the agency back whenever she started working. 

Unknown to Be Huong, the acquaintance and job agency were agents of a sex-trafficking 

ring that sells Vietnamese girls to brothels in Moscow. In December 2011, members of the sex 

trafficking ring escorted her by bus from her home town, Go Quao, in southern Vietnam's Kien 

Giang province, to Bangkok, Thailand. And, they flew her from Thailand to Moscow. 

Our family lost contact with Be Huong for a few months. When Be Huong called home 

for the first time, she stated that she was fine. In the following phone call, Be Huong requested 

her parents to send her money. Be Huong told my parents that she was sick and needed the 

money to pay for her medical expenses. After hearing her story, my parents sold their valuable 

belongings and sent my sister $300 dollars. 

A few weeks later, Be Huong called my parents again. She told my parents that the 

restaurant was slow. Be Huong's employer therefore agreed to let her return to Viet Nam. 

However, Be Huong would need US $2,000 to pay for her airplane ticket and traveling expenses. 

My family is poor, so I borrowed the sum from my uncle in the US. We paid Be Huong's 

employer, a Vietnamese woman in her 40's named Nguyen Thuy An. Yet, Be Huong was not 

released. Her employer raised the sum to US $4,000 and then $6,000. 

My parents requested to speak to Be Huong's employer. When being confronted why Be 

Huong had no money after working there for several months, Thuy An got angry. Realizing her 

extortion trickery was not working, Thuy An angrily told my parents that Be Huong worked as a 

prostitute in Moscow serving mostly Vietnamese clients. 

Only much later did I learn that, once in Moscow, Be Huong's passport was confiscated 

and she was immediately taken to a brothel owned by Nguyen Thuy An. My sister was forced 

into sex slavery on the same day. This lasted for over a year, until her repatriation last month. 
72


80363d-3.eps

Be Huong, 27 years old, recalled the abuses she suffered at the brothel house. The house 

has three rooms. When she was there, there were 14 other Vietnamese female sex slaves, and 

one of them was only 16 years old. Another victim had been held captive at the brothel for over 

four years. New arriving girls were not allowed to leave the house. Be Huong remembered the 

brothel had two security guards. The guards acted as corporal punishers for those who tried to 

escape or refuse to serve clients. Two victims who attempted escape were savagely beaten and 

forced to destroy their own passports so that they would never be able to leave Russia. 

Regardless of the time, Be Huong would continuously sell her body as long as she had 

clients. Clients were able to choose whether they wanted to stay in the brothel for her service or 

whether they wanted to go elsewhere If a client chose to stay, Be Huong would layout a mat to 

have sex with the client. On any given day, Be Huong was forced to have sex with as many as 

four clients. 

Unless Be Huong was sick, Madam Thuy An forced Be Huong to serve clients. Thuy An 

would keep all the money and tally up the number of Be Huong's customers. At the end of the 

month, Thuy An would keep half of the proceeds from Be Huong's customers. That's only in 

theory. In reality Thuy An made up reasons to deduct "points" from Be Huong's earning. 

Consequently Be Huong rarely earned any money. There were months where her earning was 

negative, adding to the large debt that Thuy An had already imposed on her - thousands of US 

dollars that Thuy An claimed that Be Huong owed her for bringing Be Huong to Russia. 

Even though they were held captive against their will, all the victims must pay their captor 

for rent and food. Every day, the same two meals were served at the brothel: bowl of rice, 

cabbage, and a portion of cooked pork 

Be Huong stated that she was a sex slave in the brothel for 14 months. She had no money 

to send back to her parents, but continued against her will to sell her body 

In February of this year, 13 months after her enslavement, Be Huong escaped from the 

brothel with three other victims - Le Thi Thu Linh, Le Thi Ngan Giang (the victim held captive 

for over four years at the brothel), and Nguyen Pham Thai Ha (the 16-year old minor). During 

her escape, Be Huong contacted my parents in Vietnam. With the request from Be Huong, my 

mother reported Be Huong's story to the local Vietnamese police. 

The Vietnamese police gave Be Huong the contact number of the Vietnamese embassy in 

Moscow. She called the embassy and talked to Nguyen Dong Trieu, a consular envoy in charge 

of security matters at the embassy. However, Trieu told her that prostitution was not illegal in 

Russia. He then concluded: "Whoever brought you here, ask them to take you home." 

Two days after begging Trieu for help, Be Huong and the other three victims were 

recaptured by Thuy An and the brothel's guards. Their hiding location was compromised after 

talking to Trieu. Be Huong later learned that Consular Envoy Trieu was a good friend of Madam 

Thuy An. In fact, Thuy An's boyfriend's older brother, himself an employee at the embassy, is 

married to Trieu's niece. 
73


80363d-4.eps

After being hauled back to the brothel, the other three victims received a swollen face as 

corporal punishment. Be Huong was not beaten because she had been in touch with embassy 

officials. And her physical appearance might be a concern for Madam Thuy An, who was 

already planning to send Be Huong to the Vietnamese embassy to recant her denunciation of 

Thuy An. 

Thuy An forced Be Huong to call my family in Vietnam and insist that they withdraw 

their complaint to the police, call me in Houston and ask that I apologize to Thuy An in writing, 

and write a self-report admitting that she had wrongly accused Thuy An of sex trafficking. Thuy 

An then arranged for Be Huong to go to the Vietnamese embassy and submit that self-report to 

Consular Envoy Trieu. 

When I heard my sister's failed escape, I reached out to the U.S.-based anti-trafficking in 

persons organization named Coalition to Abolish Modern-Day Slavery in Asia (CAMSA), which 

was co-founded by Boat People SOS. Her tragic story received coverage from Vietnamese 

media based in the U.S and then the Houston Chronicle and Radio Free Asia interviewed me 

Madam Thuy An reluctantly agreed to release Be Huong Be Huong was brought to the 

Viet Nam Embassy in Moscow to be released. 

At the embassy, a staff member named Kien told her that her release was conditional: Be 

Huong must write a letter stating what she had told her relatives about Madam Thuy An was 

inaccurate. In addition, Be Huong must thank the embassy officials and Madam Thuy An for 

having helped her with repatriation. Indeed, Be Huong had to borrow money to buy her own 

plane ticket home. Neither the embassy nor Thuy An gave her a cent. 

Once Be Huong finished writing the thank-you letter, she was put on a plane. She 

reunited with her 6-year old son and parents in Vietnam on March 3 

As of this moment, Be Huong is living in hiding, afraid of persecution from Madam Thuy 

An She had to change her cell phone number because she was contacted by Madam Thuy An's 

agents. She tested negative for HIY. However, she suffers from psychological issues from her 

experiences at the brothel. 

Be Huong told me that her wish is to see her trapped friends at the brothel be all released 

She wants to share her tragedy with others so that her friends can be freed from sex slavery. 

I therefore continued to work with Boat People SOS and CAMSA to set the other victims 

free. I was interviewed by an ever increasing number of media organizations in the US, in 

Canada, in Australia ... I contacted the families in Vietnam of the other victims to get 

information and to encourage them to sustain the fight. 

Thanks to Boat People SOS and CAMSA's efforts to gather information about the 

whereabouts of the victims, to the US State Department which passed on that information to the 

Russian police, and thanks to the widening media coverage, six other victims were gradually 

released. They all made their way home last month. 
74


80363d-5.eps

From them I have learned that on March 5, the Russian police mounted a raid to rescue 

the victims - 14 of them at that time. However, two hours before the raid, a phone call from the 

Vietnamese embassy in Moscow tipped off Madam Thuy An. She immediately moved all 

victims to another location. The Russian police only found an empty apartment. They 

confiscated all luggage found in the apartment. Two days later Thuy An moved the victims back 

to the apartment. Many of them were left with only one piece of clothing on their back. Yet they 

were still forced to serve sex customers. 

I believe that the Vietnamese embassy knows how to contact Madam Thuy An and 

therefore knows exactly where the remaining 8 victims are being held. 

I am asking the US Congress to get the Vietnamese government to provide that 

information to the Russian police, assist in the rescue of the victims, and bring them all home to 

their families in Vietnam. 

Thank you 
75

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that extraordinarily moving story and 

the call to action on the part of our committee to do more on behalf 

of your sister who is in hiding but all the other eight who remain 

victimized in Russia. So thank you so much. 

I would like to now call on Mr. Tran. 

STATEMENT OF MR. TIEN TRAN, VICTIM OF RELIGIOUS 

PERSECUTION AT THE CON DAU PARISH 

[The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] 

Mr. TRAN. Distinguished members of the committee, my name is 

Tien Thanh Tran, a parishioner of Con Dau village in Da Nang, 

Vietnam. I deeply thank the U.S. Government, the Members of 

Congress, and the congressional staffers who are here today. The 

fact that you have raised your voice bought me the freedom. I feel 

that it is my duty, my responsibility to be here to present at the 

U.S. Congress about the violation of human rights in my parish 

Con Dau where I was a victim myself. 

Since June 2008, the City of Da Nang’s government had already 

ordered the wipeout, the total wipeout of my parish, Con Dau, the 

relocation of all 2,000 parishioners and also the displacement of 

1,600 graves at the cemetery of our parish so that they could build 

and develop an eco-tourism project. This order violated Vietnam’s 

own law on land. The reason for that, the purpose for the order to 

confiscate the land of our parish was to serve the interests of a privately owned development company and not for any public interest. 

On the 4th of May 2010, the government of Da Nang City sent 

in hundreds of troops, police, to stop a funeral procession and broke 

up the procession of the burial of one of the parishioners. Over a 

hundred parishioners, including the elderly, the seniors, women, 

children, were brutally beaten by the police. Sixty-two of us were 

taken to the police station where we were tortured for over a week, 

including myself. Seven of the parishioners were sentenced to prison terms. Parishioner Nguyen Thanh Nam, over there, the picture 

was over there, was tortured until death. 

At the police station in Cam Le I was called in for interrogation 

repeatedly, continually. There was one police officer who read out 

all the crimes I had to admit to have committed. If I didn’t say 

what they wanted me to say, immediately two police officers standing by my sides beat me up using whatever they got a hold of such 

as the chair, the baton, wooden sticks. My face was all bloody. I 

fell down to the ground. They lifted me up and continued to beat 

me until I pass out, then they pour water over my face and then 

continue the interrogation. After 7 days of torture, I was released 

on the condition that I must report to the police the other parishioners that were involved in the funeral. And I had to report to the 

police station every 3 days. When I went to see a doctor for my examination about my injuries suffered during detention, all these 

doctors refused to treat me when they found out I came from Con 

Dau. 

More than 90 parishioners had to leave Vietnam and seek protection, refuge protection in Thailand. I am one of the 34 who have 

arrived in the U.S. since, as a refugee. A few weeks after my arrival in the U.S. I had a medical exam and the doctor told me that 

my eardrums had been punctured and also I had a hole in my eye 

76

caused by the very severe impact during the torture session. And 

here is the medical record. 

Right now over a hundred families are still left in Con Dau Parish. They are digging in, but they are very worried because there 

is a new order for them to vacate the parish. Two days ago the police approached a family and then destroyed their home using bulldozers. And just last night the tent that they set up on their land 

just to stay overnight was taken away and they were transported 

away, I don’t know where. This policy of confiscating properties in 

Con Dau actually violates the interests of many U.S. citizens who 

used to be Con Dau residents, parishioners. They still hold title to 

their properties in Con Dau or they inherited the property from 

their deceased parents, and some of them are here today at this 

hearing. 

I eagerly appeal to you, Members of U.S. Congress, to request 

that the Vietnamese Government immediately stop their intention 

to eliminate our parish in Con Dau, to immediately stop the brutality, the torture and the violence committed by the police, and 

also to immediately stop the confiscation of the property of U.S. 

citizens. Once more I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my fellow parishioners as a free man 

in a free country. Thank you, and God Bless America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tran follows:]

77


80363e-1.eps

TIEN THANH TRAN 

CON DAU PARISHIONERS ASSOCIATION 

HOlJSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

SUBJECT: Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human 

Rights Violations in Advance of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue 

INTERRETER: Dr. THANG DINH NGUYEN 

Date: Thursday, April 11, 2013 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 
78


80363e-2.eps

Dear M em bers of Congress, 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

My name is Tien Thanh Tran, a parishioner from Con Dau, Danang City, Vietnam. I was 

a young fanner happy with my life until the day disaster struck my parish. On May 4, 

2010 I attended the funeral of a 93-years old parishioner and was captured when 

hundreds of anned police attacked the funeral. I was interrogated and tortured for 7 days 

at a police detention center. My interrogators forced me to admit wrongdoings which I 

did not commit After being released, I escaped to Thailand and came to the US in 

September 20 12 after 2 years being a refugee in Baugkok First of all, I would like to 

sincerely thank the US government and many of Congress members and statl'ers who are 

here today. Your speaking out in the past has given me freedom. It is my honor to speak 

to the US Congress about the violations of human rights at my parish in Con Dau, 

Danang City. 

1. What happens to Con Dau Parish illustrates the persistent violations of human rights, 

particularly the persecution against the Catholic Church, which have been going on for 

almost four decades. Con Dau is a village and a cotenninous Catholic parish in the 

Diocese of Da Naug, Central Vietnam. It has 135 years of history. The area was 

originally a swamp with low, uncultivable land due to salt water coming in during the full 

moon. The ancestors of the residents of Con Dau built a dam to prevent seawater and 

turned Con Dau into a habitable area. French and Vietnamese priests led this etl'ort to 

build a beautiful and prosperous parish. The century-old cemetery of the parish, in which 

generations of parishioners have been buried, is located about lkm from the parish's 

church. This cemetery, property of the parish, is a beautiful IO-hectare park with more 

than 2000 burial plots. In the middle of the cemetery is a concrete plaza with a chapel 

where parishioners gather for evening prayers. Because the cemetery is over 100 years 

old, it was designated a national historic heritage site under Vietnamese law. 

2. On 26th of June 2008, the People's Committee ofDa Nang City issued Decision No. 

511IlQD-UBND to confiscate the entire parish, thus displacing all two thousand of its 

residents and wiping out this historical Catholic parish, purportedly for an eco-tourism 

development project This was a clear violation of Vietnam's own laws regulating the 

land "recovery" process as laid out in Decree No. 181-2004. This decree allows for 

government's "recovery" oflands for the following purposes only: national defense, 

national security, national interest, public benefits, and economic development projects 

that belong in "Group A". Group A projects do not include urban development unless 

they involve infrastructure for a new urban area. The eco-tourism project in Con Dau 

does not qualify under Group A. They have discriminated us when giving the 

environment reasons to remove our cemetery while creating a new cemetery for the 

deceased soldiers just a few hundred yards from our parish cemetery. 

3. Furthermore, it is a development project of a private compauy (The SUN Group Ltd.) to 

tum a profit for its owners or stockholders, having nothing to do with public interests or 

benefits. The government should have let this development company negotiate directly 

with residents of the Con Dau Parish. Instead, on May 4, 2010 the government ofDa 
79


80363e-3.eps

Nang City sent in hundreds of police to block the funeral of a 93-year old woman 

parishioner, claiming that the Parish' cemetery must be relocated and therefore off-limit 

to the parishioners. Over one hundred parishioners, including men, women, children and 

seniors, were brutally beat up. Sixty two parishioners were taken to the police station, 

where they were repeatedly tortured for days and some for weeks, including myself. 

Seven of them were sentenced to prison tenns. On July 1,2010 the militia caught and 

tortured Nguyen Thanh Nam to extract information about parishioners who posted photos 

and videos of police brutality on the internet. The next day he died of bleeding injuries. 

Some 90 parishioners trekked across Laos to seek refugee protection in Thailand. The 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has recognized the vast 

majority of them, including Nguyen Thanh Nam's surviving wife and children, as victims 

of persecution and granted them refugee status. Thirty four of them have been resettling 

in the US recent! y. 

4. After the May 4 raid, the police then rounded up parishioners and, threatening 

imprisonment and other retaliatory measures, forced them to surrender their land and 

homes for insignificant compensation, at approximately $12 USD/m2. The developer 

then turned around and posted billboards placing the Con Dau Parish on sale, in the fonn 

of residential plots. The sale price was $400 USD/m2, or 33 times the level of 

compensation. Some of the parishioners inquired about purchasing their own land, even 

at the much higher price, but were told that they may not - the only option available to 

them was to relocate outside of Con Dau Parish. In fact, in meetings with the 

government, we have proposed many times that they allow us to buy each family a small 

lot around the parish church, but the request was i1at!y rej ected as it is considered nonnegotiable 

5. The police continue to resort to intimidation and threats so to coerce parishioners to 

surrender their real properties. In many instances, the police have summarily evicted the 

residents to allow the developer's contractor to bulldoze their homes. As recent as 

December 19, 2012, the police surrounded a home in Con Dau Parish while the thugs 

accompanying them broke into it, disrupted the family during lunch, and beat up the wife 

in front of her husband and two daughters. The couple managed to escape from Con Dau 

Parish on the same day, went into hiding in another village and then ned to Thailand and 

now seeking protection from the UNHCR. A month ago, six of more than 100 families in 

Con Dau who are still hold up in the parish, received the Order of Eviction from the local 

government to destroy their homes and move out of the parish. In March 20, 2013, the 

local government posted a Notice in the parish cemetery entrance to order all 400 graves 

to be removed from the cemetery by April 10, 2013. After this deadline, all are 

considered non-owner graves and will be removed by force. Many of these graves belong 

to former Con Dau parishioners who are US citizens. They have infonned their Congress 

members about the distress they have to endure when their relative's graves become the 

target of eviction. 

6. This coniiscation ofland and real properties not only violates Vietnam's own laws but 

also infringes on the properties of citizens of other countries. Many members of our 

Association are US citizens; we have retained our original ownership of real properties in 
80


80363e-4.eps

Con Dau Parish while allowing relatives to live in our homes or cultivate our farmlands. 

Many others among us have inherited real properties from our Vietnamese relatives. As 

the government continues its efforts to expropriate additional land in Con Dau Parish, the 

SRV practically continues to violate the right to own property of non-Vietnamese 

citizens, which is a violation of international laws. This is happening not only in Con Dau 

Parish but throughout the country. Many of the US citizens formerly from Con Dau have 

requested their Congress members, the State Department and the US Trade 

Representatives to raise the issue of expropriation of US citizens' properties during the 

negotiations ofGSP and TPP trade agreements with the government of Vietnam. 

7. As mentioned earlier, 1 was captured during the funeral of May 4, 2010 while 1 was doing 

my duty as a drummer in front of the funeral procession. The police beat me up with 

baton all over my face and stomach. While they dragged me in the street, 1 saw my 

mother stand nearby and embraced her to avoid more beating but they poked electric rods 

to my chest and beat her as well, so 1 had to let go of her. Two police officials dragged 

me to the waiting truck a hundred meters away. 1 was kicked in the stomach and beaten 

by thugs every few meters along the way. They handcuffed and threw me face down onto 

the flatbed of the truck. At the police station in Cam Le County, all 62 captured 

parishioners were lined up facing the walls of the hallway. Dozens of police officers took 

tum to kick at our backs and legs. We were then divided into 2 groups; each of us was 

called into a separate interrogation room. Everyone coming back from the interrogation 

session was bleeding or unconscious. We were horrified by the scene and cried loudly 

when our name were called. 

8. 1 was called in at7pm and the interrogation session lasted till Ilpm on the first night. The 

police interrogator read me the verdict (attacking the police) and told me to admit it. As 

soon as T said T did not do it, two police officers attacked me with whatever they had on 

hand: chair, batons, wooden rods, etc. They hit me on my back with a stack of 4 chairs 

until they were all broken. My head was bleeding seriously; my body crumbled onto the 

floor. One of them lifted me up to take more hits until T was totally unconscious. They 

threw water on my face to wake me up. They called me into interrogation session every 

day no matter day or night. They continued to torture me because T did not admit to doing 

anything wrong. One day, a police Lieutenant named Thanh used a handcuff to hang one 

of my hands to the top of a window, leaving me to stand on my toes. He beat and told me: 

"I know you are a farming machines operator. You have good health but 1 guarantee you 

that you will never recover and you will not live very long after this". Another day, there 

was a police in civilian clothes who asked me to take off my clothes for him to check. He 

pointed to the bruises on my body and asked: "What happened?" 1 replied:" 1 was beaten 

by the police." He yelled at me: "Who is the police that beat you? T am a civilian. I'll beat 

you until you die, damn it I" 

9. 1 was released after 7 days on condition that 1 provide information about other 

parishioners and report to the police station 3-5 times every week. T tried to go to the 

hospital and doctor's offices for medical checkup and treatment for my injuries but they 

refused to treat me after learning that 1 was from Con Dau. They only gave me some pain 

relief medicine and herbs for the bruises. A few weeks after arrival to the US, 1 
81


80363e-5.eps

undervlient medical checkup. The doctors found that both of my ear drums are broken and 

my left eye needed surgery to repair a hole caused by violent impact in that area. I am 

including the medical results as evidence. 

10. At the police station, the police continued to interrogate me to find out who leaked 

infonnation to the media overseas about the May 4 police raid and subsequent torture 

sessions at the police detention center. The interrogators beat me every time I refused to 

tell them what they wanted to know. After a few months, I escaped from Vietnam. I 

stayed in hiding in Thailand with other asylum seekers from Con Dau while applying for 

refugee status with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). I was 

recognized as a refugee and came to the US in September 2012. I currently reside in 

Raleigh, NC. 

11. I am determined to tell the world of what happened to me, to the 61 of my fellow 

parishioners who similarly suffered torture, and to the thousands of innocent Vietnamese 

who have been brutally beaten by the police of the communist regime in Vietnam. At the 

time of this hearing, my fellow parishioners in Con Dau are anxiously preparing 

themselves for another wave of forced eviction by the government of Danang City. The 

government has already announced that this time their houses would be bulldozed and 

their relatives' graves would be razed mercilessly. Defenseless, they cannot speak up to 

anyone in Vietnam and I feel obligated to raise the issue to you in this forum: The 

Vietnamese government has routinely expropriated the properties of the persecuted 

religious communities. Property expropriation is part of its persecution tool kit. 

12. It is important for the US Congress to know that the Vietnamese government's policy of 

expropriating the properties of religious communities has atJected many US citizens, 

including those originally from Con Dau Parish. Some of these affected US citizens are 

here with me today at this hearing. We respectfully request the US Congress to take 

action to not only defend the human rights of the Vietnamese people but also to protect 

US citizens' properties. 

13. Please call on the government of Vietnam to: 

1. Stop its plan to wipe out the existence of the Parish of Con Dau, including the Parish 

cemetery, and allow the people of Con Dau the right to live on their ancestor's land 

and practice their faith. 

2. Stop all forms oftorture and brutality by the police. 

3. Immediately suspend all further expropriations of land and other real properties so as 

not to violate the properties of US citizens. 

4. Collaborate with the US government in determining the compensations for real 

properties already confiscated from US citizens. 

14. Also, please call on our own Administration to apply US laws in defending the properties 

and interests of US citizens, namely: 

1. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1964 (22 USC 2370(e», 

stipulates that the President shall suspend all assistance to a country the government 
82


80363e-6.eps

of which has expropriated the properties of U.S. citizens, and the U.S. government 

shall vote against loans to that government from international iinancial institutions. 

believe that the Department of State should proactively find out whether a foreign 

government has expropriated properties of U. S. citizens and the said statute therefore 

applies. 

2. The Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2462(b )(2» stipulates that the President shall not 

grant Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) status to a government that has 

"nationalized, expropriated or otherwise seized property of U.S. citizens or 

corporations without providing, or taking steps to provide, prompt, adequate, and 

effective compensation, or submitting such issues to a mutually agreed forum for 

arbitration." 

15. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to be here today to speak up for my 

people as a free man living in this free country. God Bless America. 
83

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Tran, thank you for bearing witness to a very 

ugly truth that you suffered yourself, but also on behalf of those 

who remain in Vietnam who are suffering to this day. And your 

testimony and the other testimonies again underscores what Congressman Cao said so eloquently, that Vietnam is the worst violator of human rights in Southeast Asia. And that fact has to emerge 

right now especially during that dialogue, and our U.S. relationship 

vis-a`-vis Vietnam must be predicated on a full understanding of 

that fact. 

Mr. Sifton? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR 

ASIA, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. SIFTON. Thank you. First let me thank the committee as the 

other witnesses have for inviting me to testify. The committee is 

definitely to be commended for its efforts, repeated efforts, to draw 

the world’s attention to Vietnam’s rights record. Unfortunately I 

must confirm many of the reports today that that record has not 

improved. Since this subcommittee had a hearing on Vietnam last 

year, the rights situation has, in fact, worsened. The numbers are 

clear and numbers can’t lie so there is really no doubt about it. The 

simple fact is that a growing number of dissidents including religious leaders and bloggers and politically active people are being 

convicted and sent to jail for violations of Vietnam’s authoritarian 

penal code which prohibits any kind of public criticism of the government or the Communist Party. 

By our count, which I believe Representative Royce cited earlier, 

which is a conservative count based on available information, it 

may be an under count, shows that the trend lines are very, very 

clear. At least 40 people were convicted in political trials last year. 

That was an increase from 2011, which was an increase from 2010. 

And then again, just in the first 6 weeks of this year another 40 

people were convicted. The entire total for 2012 was matched in the 

first 6 weeks of 2013. 

These trials have themselves led to other arrests, arrests which 

have not yet led to new convictions but probably will. During protests at some of the hearings, some of these trials, other activists 

are detained for protesting, and some of those arrested have been 

reporting beatings and even sexual assault. One blogger who wrote 

a terrible account of being detained temporarily after a well-known 

trial in late 2012. She was beaten. She was forced to undergo a 

cavity search in front of other police officers, a sheer humiliation 

of the grossest form. 

And there has also been an official campaign in recent months 

to suppress critical comments about a process currently underway 

to amend Vietnam’s Constitution, and this appears to have been a 

factor in the arrest on December 27th of last year of the lawyer Le 

Quoc Quan, and in the harassment this year of several other critics. I should mention that Senators McCain and Kelly Ayotte and 

Sheldon Whitehouse, and Joseph Lieberman met with Le Quoc 

Quan in 2010, and I hope that they will write to the Prime Minister to raise their concerns now, and I think they will very soon. 

Thuggish harassment also seems to be on the rise with street violence by unidentified thugs who are probably government agents. 

84

As Mr. Ai noted, just this week, Monday night, I believe, some men 

through a bucket of rotten rice water and fish heads and fish intestines, a disgusting foul mix, through the window of the writer 

Huynh Ngoc Tuan who I should note is the 2012 recipient of 

Human Rights Watch’s Hellman/Hammett grant for writers who 

have been victims of political persecution. 

And later in the week, this week, April 8th and April 9th, mere 

days ago, the bloggers Bui Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen Chi Duc 

were attacked by thugs on the streets of Hanoi. There were police 

nearby. They didn’t do anything to intervene. And it affirms the 

common sense hypothesis that these unknown attackers, these 

thugs, are in reality just government actors, either paid goons or, 

in fact, police who are out of uniform. A picture of Nguyen Chi Duc 

has been circulating widely on Vietnamese language sites in the 

last 24 hours and it show, the bruises on his face from the beating, 

it looks to have been taken within minutes of the beating, for there 

is dried blood on his cheek. And I suspect, I am not medically 

trained, but I suspect it was taken minutes after his attack because 

there isn’t even any swelling. He probably looks worse today than 

he did when that photograph was taken. 

While the trend lines show this worsening situation, it should be 

noted that none of this really new. I mean Vietnam has unjustly 

imprisoned political prisoners for decades, and several of its current political prisoners have been in detention for decades. And in 

some instances these prisoners have been denied proper medical 

care for their deteriorating health conditions. So one suggestion we 

have made to the Vietnamese Government is that even if they disagree with the human rights groups, even if they disagree with the 

U.S. Government about reversing their crackdowns and repealing 

their draconian laws, they at least agree that the very elderly and 

the very sick prisoners need not suffer in detention and that whatever the merits of their supposed crimes, they don’t pose a threat 

to the government, the party or the people of Vietnam and so they 

should be released. 

And that is a message I think everybody, including the State Department, in the dialogue will take as a kind of confidence building 

measure, at least that could be done. 

There are of course many other human rights issues to discuss 

with respect to Vietnam religious freedom which has already been 

discussed, administrative detention and forced labor for drug users 

and alleged drug users and alleged sex workers. There is a lot of 

Internet blocking and filtering going on. Several dozen Web sites 

being blocked on Vietnam’s ISPs including Radio Free Asia and 

Voice of America, Vietnamese service. Each of these issues is discussed in our World Report 2013 chapter which I have included 

with my testimony, written version. 

I will also submit a recent statement from Human Rights Watch 

that we made 24 hours ago on the occasion of the U.S.-Vietnam 

Human Rights Dialogue. As that statement makes clear, the focus 

really needs now to be on the Vietnamese Government. I think this 

is something that we and everyone in the U.S. Government agrees, 

both the State Department and the White House and this subcommittee, the spotlight really belongs on Vietnam itself to give 

some kind of sign that it will address these issues and not ignore 

85

them. And in this context it is important that everyone stand together, everyone in the U.S. Government, and explain to them that 

the relationship, which has improved as just a basic matter of fact 

over the last few years, will not continue to improve unless Vietnam’s Government undertakes serious reforms to address the 

human rights problems we have spoken about today. 

A few of the avenues that the U.S. Government can use are not 

just this dialogue but the regular legislation that moves through 

this House and through the Senate on appropriations. I mean, I believe in addition to the legislation that is underway for Vietnam in 

particular, the appropriations bill itself can do its part and send a 

message. Restrictions on the IMET military-to-military assistance, 

FMF, which is very small but it does exist, could be strengthened. 

Language could be included to instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to use his voice and power on international financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank to start being tougher 

on asking questions of Vietnam about what they are doing. I think 

if Japan and the United States together were to start asking questions on those international financial institutions and also just in 

general that would make a big difference. 

And then lastly, at the Human Rights Council this year Vietnam 

will go before Geneva for its Universal Periodic Review along with 

Cambodia, just a coincidence but Cambodia is up as well. It is very 

important that the State Department really not only criticize Vietnam in that forum but marshal the diplomatic power to convince 

other countries to do so, especially countries like Japan and Australia, and that goes for Cambodia as well although that is not the 

subject of this hearing today. On the other issues, levers that can 

be discussed, the trade agreements, the U.S. Trade Representative 

in his role, and the Pentagon, but we can discuss that in the questions if you wish. I would be happy to take questions from the committee on these issues. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]

86


80363f-1.eps

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

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

Hearing of April II, 2013: Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human Rights Violations in 

Advance of the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue 

Testimony of John Sifton 

Asia Advocacy Director 

Human Rights Watch 

First, let me thank the committee for inviting me to testify today. As all of us are aware, it is 

often difficult to draw attention to Vietnam's human rights situation, and the committee 

should be commended for its repeated efforts to do so. 

Since this subcommittee held a hearing on Vietnam last year, the rights record has worsened. 

Numbers are clear indicators, so there really isn't any doubt about it. The fact is that a 

growing number of dissidents-including religious leaders, bloggers, and politically active 

people-are being convicted and sent to jail for violations of Vietnam's authoritarian penal 

code, which prohibits public criticism of the government and the communist party. 

In 2012, at least 40 people are known to have been convicted and sentenced to prison in such 

trials, an increase from 2011, which itself was an increase from 2010. 

Alarmingly, another 40 people were convicted in political trials in just the first six weeks of 

2013, matching the total for 2012. To repeat: in the first six weeks of2013, as many people 

have been convicted in political trials as in the whole of2012. 

These trials have themselves led to other arrests. During protests at some of these hearings, 

other acti vists have been detained, and some of those arrested have reported beatings and 

even sexual assault. One blogger wrote an account of being detained temporarily after a wellknown trial in late December 2012, being beaten, and then forced to undergo a cavity search, 

in front of several police officers-sheer humiliation of the grossest form. 

There has also been an official campaign in recent months to suppress critical comments 

about the process, currently underway, of amending Vietnam's constitution. This appears to 

have been a factor in the arrest on December 27,2012 of human rights-defending lawyer Le 

Quoc Quan and in official harassment and intimidation during February and March 2013 

against several other critics. 

Thuggish harassment also seems to be on the rise. Just this week, at almost midnight on 

Monday night, unidentified men threw a bucket of rotten rice water, fish-heads, and intestines 

into the house of the writer Huynh Ngoc Tuan, who was the 2012 recipient of Human Rights 

Watch's Hellman Hammett grant, for writers who have been victims of political persecution. 

And on April 8 and April 9, mere days ago, bloggers Bui Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen Chi 

Due were attacked by thugs on the street; police who were nearby reportedly failed to 

intervene-which affinns the common sense hypothesis that the unknown attackers are, in 

reality, government actors, either paid goons or police out of uniform. 

While the trend-lines show a worsening situation, it should still be noted that none of this is 

new. Vietnam has unjustly imprisoned political prisoners for decades. Several of its current 
87


80363f-2.eps

political prisoners have been in detention, also for decades. And in some instances these 

prisoners have been denied proper medical care for deteriorating health conditions. 

One of these is 66-year-old Nguyen Huu Cau, first detained in 1975, then rearrested in 1982 

and held ever since. His health has reportedly deteriorated recently. One suggestion we have 

made to the Vietnamese government is that, even if they disagree with human rights groups 

about reversing their crackdowns, and repealing their draconian laws, they at least agree with 

us that very elderly or very sick prisoners need not suffer in detention when, whatever the 

merits of their supposed crimes, they can pose no threat-to the government, the party, or the 

people of Vietnam. 

There are, of course, many other human rights issues to discuss with respect to Vietnam. 

Religious freedom. Administrative detention and forced labor for alleged drug users. Internet 

blocking and filtering, the fact that more web sites are being blocked on Vietnam ISPs. Each 

of these issues is discussed in Human Right Watch's annual World Report 2013, the Vietnam 

Chapter, which I have included as an appendix to my testimony and which I submit for the 

record now. 

I also submit a recent statement from Human Rights Watch on the occasion of the USVietnam human rights diaIQb'lle. As that statement makes clear, the focus now really needs to 

be on the Vietnamese government. This is something on which we and everyone in the u.s 

government agrees, both in the State Department, at the White House, and on this 

subcommittee: that the spotlight is now on Vietnam, to give some kind of sign that it will 

address these issues, and not ignore them. And in this context, it is important that everyone 

stand together and insist that they do so, and explain to them that the u.s. relationship with 

Vietnam-which as a basic matter has improved in the past year years-will not continue to 

improve unless Vietnam's government undertakes serious reforms to address the human 

rights problems we've spoken about today. 

I would be happy to take questions from the committee on the issues discussed in those 

documents or in my testimony today. 

Thank you. 

[Exhibits attached.] 
88


80363f-3.eps

Exhibits: 

Human Rights Watch 

World Report 2103 (excerpt) 

Vietnam Chapter 

(current as of late 2012) 

The Vietnam government systematically suppresses freedom of expression, association, and 

peaceful assembly, and persecutes those who question government policies, expose official 

corruption, or call for democratic alternatives to one-party rule. Police harass and intimidate 

activists and their family members. Authorities arbitrarily arrest activists, hold them 

incommunicado for long periods without access to legal counselor family visits, subject them 

to torture, and prosecute them in politically pliant courts that mete out long prison sentences 

for violating vaguely worded national security laws. 

In 2012, police used excessive force in response to public protests over evictions, confiscation 

of land, and police brutality. 

Land confiscation continues to be a flash point issue, with local farmers and villagers facing 

unjust confiscation of their lands by government officials and private sector projects. Those 

who resist face abuses from local authorities. 

Following a series of arrests of well-connected tycoons and managers of state-owned 

companies, the Party Central Committee held its sixth plenum in October. During the session, 

factions led by Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and by Communist Party Secretary General 

Nguyen Phu Trong and President TruongTan Sang vied for control of the state's political and 

economic machinery in a still ongoing power struggle. However, neither faction has voiced or 

otherwise demonstrated a commitment to protect human rights. 

Vietnam has stated that it will seek a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) 

for the 2014-2016 term. 

Freedom of Expression, Assembly, and Information 

On the surface, private expression, public journalism, and even political speech in Vietnam 

show signs of enhanced freedom. This trend was especially evident in a surge of criticism of 

Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung during the course of the 6th Plenum of the Party Central 

Committee in October, and a high-profile call for his resignation issued from the floor of the 
89


80363f-4.eps

National Assembly in November. However, there continues to be a subcurrent of state· 

sponsored repression and persecution of individuals whose speech crosses boundaries and 

addresses sensitive issues such as criticizing the state's foreign policies in regards to China or 

questioning the monopoly power of the communist party. 

The government does not allow independent or privately owned media outlets to operate, and 

exerts strict control over radio and TV stations, and publications. Criminal penalties apply to 

those who disseminate materials deemed to oppose the government, threaten national 

security, reveal state secrets, or promote "reactionary" ideas. The government blocks access to 

politically sensitive websites and requires internet cafe owners to monitor and store 

information about users' online activities. 

In April, the government revealed a draft Decree on Management, Provision, and Use of 

Internet Services and Information on the Network. As drafted, the decree will outlaw posting 

internet content that opposes the Vietnam government, national security, public order, 

customs and traditions, national unity, offends the reputation of an individual or group, or 

transgresses a number of other ill·defined areas of concern. The decree would also require 

domestic and foreign companies to filter whatever content the government finds objectionable. 

The National Assembly had not yet begun considering the draft at this writing. 

In September, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung ordered the Ministry of Public Security to target 

blogs and websites not approved by the authorities, and to punish those who create them. 

On August 5, authorities forcibly dispersed peaceful marchers in Hanoi protesting Chinese 

foreign policies on sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratly islands. Authorities temporarily 

detained more than 20 protesters for disrupting public order. Yet on the same day, authorities 

did not interfere with over 100 people on bicycles participating in Vietnam's first public 

demonstration for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. 

Repression of Rights Activists 

During 2012, the Vietnam government used vaguely defined articles in the penal code that 

criminalize exercise of civil and political rights to send at least 33 activists to prison and arrest 

at least another 34 political and religious advocates. At least 12 other rights campaigners 

detained in 2011 were still being held, awaiting trial at this writing. 

Rights activists continue to suffer from intrusive police surveillance, interrogation, monetary 

fines, and restrictions on domestic and international travel. Police use temporary house arrest 
90


80363f-5.eps

to prevent them from participating in protests or attending trials of other bloggers and activists. 

In a number of instances in 2012, unidentified thugs have assaulted dissidents and police 

have done little or nothing to investigate. 

In a prominent, internationally monitored trial that lasted only several hours on September 24, 

a court convicted the country's three most prominent dissident bloggers-Nguyen Van Hai 

(also known as Dieu Cay), Ta Phong Tan, and Ph an Thanh Hai (also known as Anhbasg)-for 

violating article 88 of the penal code (conducting propaganda against the state). The court 

sentenced them to 12, 10, and 4 years in prison respectively. All are founding members of the 

Club for Free Journalists. United States President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary 

Clinton, and European Union High Representative Catherine Ashton have all raised concerns 

about their cases on different occasions during the year. 

Authorities also widely used article 88 to silence other bloggers and rights activists. In October, 

musicians Tran Vu Anh Binh and Vo Minh Tri (also known as Viet Khang) were sentenced to a 

total of 10 years in prison for writing songs critical of the regime. In August, bloggers Dinh Dang 

Dinh and Le Thanh Tungwere sentenced to six and five years in prison respectively. In June and 

July, labor rights activist Phan Ngoc Tuan in Ninh Thuan province and land rights activists 

Nguyen Kim Nhan, Dinh Van Nhuong, and Do Van Hoa in Bac Giang province were sentenced to 

a total of eighteen·and·a·half years in prison for conducting propaganda against the state for 

storing and distributing pro·democracy documents and leaflets. In March and May, five 

Catholic activists-Vo Thi Thu Thuy, Nguyen Van Thanh, Dau Van Duong, Tran Huu Duc, and 

Chu Manh Son-were jailed for a total of 17 years and 9 months for distributing pro·democracy 

leaflets, reduced to the total of 16 years and 3 months on appeal. 

In March, the People's Court of Go Dau district in Tay Ninh province sentenced rights activists 

Ho Thi Hue and Nguyen Bich Thuy to three years each in prison for participating in protests 

against land confiscation in Tay Ninh province. Their sentences were reduced to two years each 

on appeal in August. In April and June, land right activists Nguyen Van Tu in Can Tho and 

Nguyen Van Tuan in Ba Ria·VungTau were sentenced to two and a half years and fouryears 

respectively in prison for "abusing rights to democracy and freedom to infringe upon the 

interests of the State." Both were accused of helping local people file petitions against land 

confiscation. Nguyen Van Tuan's sentence was reduced to two years on appeal in August. 

Freedom of Religion 

The government restricts religious freedom through legislation, registration requirements, and 

harassing and intimidating unsanctioned religious groups, including independent Protestant 
91


80363f-6.eps

home churches, and individuals and congregations of Hoa Hao Buddhists, Cao Dai, the Unified 

Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and Falun Gong. 

Religious groups must register with the government and conduct their operations under the 

direction of government·controlled management boards. The authorities do generally allow 

government-affiliated churches and pagodas to hold worship services. However, local 

authorities routinely harass and intimidate religious communities, especially unregistered 

ones, when they take up politically disfavored issues including land rights and freedom of 

expression; when they are were popular among groups that the government considers to be 

potentially disaffected, such as ethnic minorities with a history of resistance against central 

rule and assimilation policies; orwhen they simply refuse to conform to state-sanctioned 

religious organization. 

In February and March, Phu Yen province police arrested at least 18 members of a Buddhismbased religious group that refers to itself as the Council for Public Law and Affairs of Bia 

Mountain. They face charges under penal code article 79 for "activities aiming to overthrow the 

people's administration." At this writing, the 18 members of the group were in police detention 

in Phu Yen province, awaiting trial. 

In Gia Lai province in March, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh was sentenced to 11 years in prison for 

"undermining national unity" in violation of article 87 of the penal code. The same month, 

eight ethnic Hmong Protestant activists from Muong Nhe district in Dien Bien were each given 

sentences of between two to two-and-a-halfyears in jail for "disrupting security" after they 

participated in a mass protest in Muong Nhe in May 2011. 

In April and June, three other Protestant activists, Kpuil Mel, Kpuil Le, and NayY Nga, were 

sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for transgressing article 87. All three were accused of 

practicing Dega Protestantism, which is outlawed by the state. 

In May, three ethnic Montagnard activists, Runh, Jonh, and Byuk, were arrested in Gia Lai for 

being affiliated with the unregistered Ha Mon Catholic group and charged with "undermining 

national unity" according to article 87. 

Police in An Giang prevented members of the unregistered Pure Hoa Hao BuddhistAssociation 

from gathering to commemorate key events, including the anniversary of the disappearance of 

the group's founder Huynh Phu So. Hoa Hao activist Bui Van Tham was sentenced to 30 

months in prison for "resisting officials in the performance of official duties." 
92


80363f-7.eps

In June and July, local authorities sought to prevent Catholic priests from performing masses at 

the private homes of Catholic followers in Con Cuong and Quy Chau districts in Nghe An 

province. In both areas, local Catholics have filed multiple requests to authorities to form and 

register new parishes without success. 

Criminal Justice System 

Police brutality, including torture in detention and fatal beatings, continued to be reported in 

all regions of the country in 2012. At least 15 people died in police custody in the first 9 months 

of the year, according to state·controlled media. 

Vietnamese courts lack independence since they are firmly controlled by the government and 

the Vietnam Communist party, and trials of political and religious dissidents fail to meet 

international fair trial standards. Police intimidate, and in some cases detain, family members 

and friends who try to attend trials or publicly display dissenting views during court 

proceedings. 

Vietnamese law continues to authorize arbitrary "administrative detention" without trial. 

Under Ordinance 44 (2002) and Decree 76 (2003) persons deemed threats to national security 

or public order can be placed under house arrest, involuntarily committed to mental health 

institutions, or detained at "re·education" centers. 

In June, the National Assembly passed the Law on Handling of Administrative Violations that 

will finally halt the practice of sending sex workers to administrative detention in the so·called 

"05 centers" where they often suffer abuse. Human rights observers welcome this rare 

example of a concrete and positive institutional reform. 

The policy of detention of drug users, however, remained unchanged. The mainstay of 

Vietnam's approach to drug treatment remains detention in government centers where 

detainees are subjected to so·called "labor therapy." Some 123 centers across the country 

hold around 40,000 people, including children as young as 12 years old. Their detention is not 

subject to any form of due process or judicial oversight and routinely lasts as long as four years. 

Infringement of center rules-including the work requirement-is punished by beatings with 

truncheons, shocks with electrical batons, and imprisonment in disciplinary rooms where 

detainees are deprived of food and water. Former detainees report that authorities forced them 

to work in cashew processing and other forms of agricultural production, including potato or 

coffee farming, construction work, and garment manufacturing and other forms of 

manufacturing. 
93


80363f-8.eps

Key International Actors 

Vietnam's complicated relationship with China plays a key role in domestic and foreign affairs. 

Hanoi pledges friendship with China, but domestically must respond to criticism that it fails to 

counter China's aggressive behavior in the disputed Spratly and Paracellslands. 

Internationally, the government has increased cooperation with the US, the EU, Russia, India, 

Japan, and neighboring Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to counter·weight to 

China's growing influence. 

The EU and Vietnam launched negotiations on a comprehensive free trade agreement in June. 

Two rounds of the EU·Vietnam human rights dialogue took place in January and October. 

The relationship between Vietnam and the US continues to grow. The US is Vietnam's largest 

export market, and the June visit of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta symbolized the growing 

ties between the two countries' militaries. The US and Vietnam are also negotiating a Trans· 

Pacific Partnership free trade agreement. However, during a July visit to Vietnam, Secretary of 

State Hillary Clinton publicly raised serious concerns about Vietnam's poor human rights 

record, and US policy makers indicated that failure to improve human rights could impose 

limits on the closeness of the relationship between the two governments. 

Starting in 2013, Le Luong Minh, Vietnam's deputy foreign minister, will start his five· year term 

as secretary·general of ASEAN, greatly increasing Vietnam's influence in this regional bloc. 
94


80363f-9.eps

For Immediate Release 

Vietnam: Rights Dialogue Should Produce Coucrete Steps 

Timefor Government to Begin Delivering on Human Rights 

(Washington, DC, April 10,2013) - The Vietnamese government should use the opportunity 

of the upcoming US-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue to release political prisoners and make 

commitments to end the persecution ofbloggers, land rights activists, and other peaceful 

critics, Human Rights Watch said today The 17th US-Vietnam Human Rights dialogue will 

take place in Hanoi beginning on April 12, 2013. 

"The Vietnamese government has produced an avalanche of political show trials as it tries to 

keep a lid on growing dissent," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. 

"The US should use this opportunity to make it clear that Vietnam needs to engage in serious 

reforms to improve the rights situation, or there will be severe consequences, including 

damage to relations with the US." 

According to the United States, the purpose of human rights dialogues is to produce concrete 

results to narrow the differences between international human rights standards and human 

rights policies and practices in Yietnam Human Rights Watch said that the US should make 

clear that if Vietnam wants to be considered a responsible international partner, it should 

make strong advances in meeting its international human rights obligations immediately. 

Vietnam is bidding for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and will inevitably face 

greater scrutiny of its record at the Council's Universal Periodic Review process. 

Human Rights Watch pointed to the large and growing number of criminal convictions of 

peaceful protesters by Vietnam. In 2012, at least 40 people are known to have been convicted 

and sentenced to prison in trials that did not meet international due process and fair trials 

standards. Alarmingly, at least 40 more people were convicted in political trials in just the 

first six weeks of 20 13. 

"Last year was a terrible year for dissidents, who were imprisoned in large numbers," Adams 

said. "Yet just as many activists were imprisoned after political trials in the first two months 

of2013 than in the entire year of2012. The Vietnamese government needs to realize it 

cannot solve the country's huge social and political problems by throwing all its critics in jail." 

In recent months there has been an official campaign to suppress critical comments about the 

process of amending Vietnam's constitution. This campaign appears to have been a factor in 

the arrest on December 27,2012, of human rights-defending lawyer Le Quoc Quan and in 

official harassment and intimidation during February and March 2013 against critics like the 

journalist Nguyen Dac Kien, and Buddhist activist Le Cong Cau. Anonymous thugs threw 

rotten fish heads and fish intestines at the house of2012 Hellman/Hammett prize winner, 

writer Huynh Ngoc Tuan. On April 8 and April 9, bloggers Bui Thi Minh Hang and Nguyen 

Chi Duc were attacked while police failed to intervene. 

Vietnam has held some political prisoners for decades. In some instances these prisoners have 

been denied proper medical care for deteriorating health conditions. One of these is 66-yearold Nguyen Huu Cau, first detained in 1975, then rearrested in 1982 and held ever since. His 

health has reportedly deteriorated recently. 
95


80363f-10.eps

As a first urgent and humanitarian step, Human Rights Watch urged Vietnam to grant 

medical parole to all political prisoners and detainees who, like Nguyen Huu Cau, have 

serious health problems, followed by expeditious independent and impartial review of their 

cases to ascertain those who should be unconditionally and permanently released because 

they have been held solely for peaceful exercise of their fundamental human rights. 

Those who appear to be in that category include: Nguyen Huu Cau, Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, 

Ho Duc Hoa, Dang Xuan Dieu, Le Van Son, Nguyen Van Hai, Mai Thi Dung, Nguyen Cong 

Chinh, Pham Thi Phuong, Ta Phong Tan, Nb'1lyen Hoang Quoc Hung, Nb'1lyen Van Ly, 

Nguyen Dang Minh Man, Tran Thi Thuy, Phung Lam, Do Thi Minh Hanh, Doan Huy 

Chuong, Cu Huy Ha Vu, Nguyen Tien Trung, Pham Van Thong, Nguyen Ngoc Cuong, Dinh 

Dang Dinh, Nguyen Xuan Nghia, Tran Vu Anh Binh, Nguyen Kim Nhan, Ho Thi Bich 

Khuong, Le Thanh Tung, Phan Ngoc Tuan, Vi Duc Hoi, Nguyen Van Lia, Vo Minh Tri, Le 

Quoc Quan - and many others. 

Human Rights Watch called on the Vietnamese government to use the current process of 

amending the constitution to initiate an urgent program oflegal reform aimed at: 

• Amending or repealing legal provisions that effectively criminalize peaceful dissent, 

freedom of expression, and labor organizing; 

• Removing all legal hindrances to independent religious organizations to freely 

conduct peaceful religious activities; 

• Dropping plans for implementing the current "Decree on the Management, Provision, 

and Use of Internet Services and Information on the Network" and removing filtering, 

surveillance, and other restrictions on internet usage; 

• Abolishing all legal justifications for forced labor and detention without trial for socalled "labor therapy" in cases of drug use or other purposes; and 

• Dropping all provisions that make possible land confiscation without due process, just 

compensation, and independent and impartial means of review. 

"For far too long, Vietnam's government has been given an easy ride on human rights, with 

the result that the Vietnamese people have suilered increasing abuses," said Adams. "The 

roadmap to reform is obvious, but it requires the Vietnamese Communist Party to tolerate 

dissent and accept the right of people to advocate different views. 

For more Human Rights Watch reporting on Vietnam, please visit: 

http://www.h,·w.org/asialvietnam 
96

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Sifton, for your testimony 

and for very concrete recommendations to the committee, to the 

White House, to State, and to Congress at large as to how we 

should proceed. I do hope your organization and you will look at 

our Vietnam Human Rights Act again, because we do have a very 

strong provision dealing with using our voice and vote at the 

Human Rights Council. 

And I think your point about marshaling other countries to join 

us is good, as Congressman Cao pointed out so well, this is the 

worst violator of human rights, and maybe there are others that 

are equal to, but in Southeast Asia. And again, the Human Rights 

Council has not distinguished itself as to membership. There are 

rogue nations that sit in good standing on it, and I think that 

brings nothing but dishonor to the process. And we need the 

Human Rights Council to be as faithful to promoting human rights, 

and who sits on it makes all the difference in the world. So excellent point by you. 

Let me just ask if I could, Ms. Danh, if I could begin with you. 

With regards to your sister who is in hiding in Saigon, you mentioned, next week, I will begin the process this week, but I will ask 

to meet with the Ambassador of Vietnam to specifically raise the 

issues raised by this panel, but to ask that your sister be protected, 

that the trafficker as you pointed out is in pursuit of her. She is 

in hiding. And a country that is a Tier II country, which Vietnam 

is, and that means that our Government has suggested that they 

have taken action to meet the minimum standards prescribed in 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, it would be unconscionable 

for the government, once apprised of this situation, especially officially, to then look away and look askance and allow your sister to 

be further victimized. 

And I would say, you mentioned that the Russians on March 5th 

mounted a raid to rescue the victims, 14 of them at the time. However, 2 hours before the raid a phone call from the Vietnamese Embassy in Moscow tipped off Madam Thuy An. She immediately 

moved the victims to another location. The Russian police only 

found an empty apartment. I have recently met, we have met, several of us, with the Russian Ambassador to talk about adoptions 

and human trafficking. I will convey to him our gratitude that the 

Russian police did mount such an effort to liberate these Vietnamese women and to ask that additional actions be taken to provide protection for them. 

Ms. BASS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I will yield. 

Ms. BASS. I would, first of all, like to join you——

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. BASS [continuing]. In that meeting. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, good. 

Ms. BASS. But also I believe that Ms. Danh mentioned that there 

were eight other women, and I think that we should pursue them 

as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, exactly. And that is what we will do with the 

Russians as well as with the Vietnamese Ambassador. Why is it 

that it is okay for a government to allow its women to be raped, 

exploited and abused in another country? Where is the national inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:54 Sep 24, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041113\80363 HFA PsN: SHIRL
97

terest that Vietnamese young women are being so cruelly exploited? They ought to be leaving no stone unturned to protect 

them. But when, as you said, there are people from the Embassy 

itself exploiting these women that probably tells the story. So we 

will follow up on that with the Ambassador, and I hope he sees 

clear to meet with myself and Ms. Bass and Mr. Meadows and others who might want to join us for that meeting. 

Let me ask you just a few other questions. If you want to respond please do, but Mr. Tran, thank you again for your testimony 

and for reminding us of the ongoing cruelty that has been committed against the parishioners and that you, yourself, have suffered so. If you and perhaps others could speak to the UNHCR. I 

have raised with High Commissioner Guterres on several occasions 

the unavailability of UNHCR personnel to assist Montagnard and 

others who seek protection and are given obstacles that are just insurmountable—where is your passport? They have a well-founded 

fear of persecution. They are being persecuted and yet they are left 

to drift. I am a great fan of the UNHCR. I have been to refugee 

camps all over the world. They are good people, but they have not 

stepped up to the plate, in my opinion, to meet their obligations 

here. So if you could maybe speak to the UNHCR problem. 

And again we will ask, this committee will ask that High Commissioner for Refugees, Guterres, appear before the committee. We 

have jurisdiction over the U.N. in this committee as well. And as 

we have done in the past, he will come in an official briefing because U.N. personnel are not allowed to testify in an official hearing, but frankly it is a distinction without a difference. He will sit 

here and we will ask very courteous, but very real, questions of 

him. So if you could elaborate, if you will, on the UNHCR problems 

that you have encountered. 

Ms. BUONYA. I am not exactly sure why all these cases have been 

denied. I just have heard from other people, for example, that some 

of the officers are cutting people off during questioning. I know 

with the Montagnard situation it may be a translation problem 

also. A lot of Montagnards don’t speak fluent Vietnamese, which 

that could also be an issue. I have also heard from someone who 

works with Hmong National Development, for example, these victims will have scars on their bodies and they won’t even get a 

chance to show the evidence of the torture, of the beatings, of their 

persecution. 

And also with the problem of the passports, this is after people 

have been in hiding, for this recent case, I mean it has been over 

a year, and then to finally go through the whole process the whole 

time being in hiding, and then at the end of the line they are saying, we need a passport, which they don’t have and in which they 

have to go get from the Vietnamese police. I mean how do you ask 

people who are already in fear to then go get a passport from the 

Vietnamese police? So I am not exactly sure what the right solution 

would be, but I just know right now the mechanisms in place are 

not working. 

Mr. THANG. Yes, if I may. We have lawyers in Bangkok right 

now. We have a legal team in Bangkok to help about 900 Vietnamese asylum seekers. And there are some systemic issues. One 

is that the UNHCR doesn’t allow any legal representation, so these 

98

asylum seekers go into the interview and they don’t know how to 

articulate their claims and they are not allowed to have anyone to 

come with them. And second, it looks like there is a policy of not 

allowing Montagnard and Hmong to be even registered for an 

interview with the UNHCR. Also they don’t want to see more 

Montagnard. It is an implicit policy they don’t see any Montagnard. 

I would like to bring to your attention that at least right now 

there are four cases, three Montagnard and one Khmer Krom, who 

have been denied refugee status by the UNHCR. They have been 

told that they could return to Vietnam in safety, and they did return to Vietnam and they were captured and tortured and imprisoned. And they are trying to go to Vietnam to visit them but they 

were denied access. And four of them made it out of Vietnam and 

they are now in Thailand. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. If you could, Dr. Thang, provide additional information for the record that would be very helpful. 

Mr. THANG. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just let me point out to my colleagues and to our witnesses, we have had hearings on North Korea, and I have also met 

with High Commissioner Guterres on North Korean women who 

are trafficked into China, once they made it across the border 

thinking they had escaped to relative freedom, and then were trafficked and sexually abused. The Chinese Government sends them 

back sometimes, and when they send them back they go to prison. 

They are tortured. Some of them are executed. And we heard from 

witnesses tell firsthand knowledge of that happening. It is a gross 

violation, sending someone back when you have basic information 

that they will be so hurt. And China has signed the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. They are in violation of it and the 

UNHCR and others have failed to take action. So the importance 

of these agencies is to take action when it is profoundly inconvenient because they are all about protection, and that is what we will 

at least admonish the High Commissioner to do with regards to 

these individuals. 

Let me ask you finally, Mr. Tran, and then I will go to some of 

the others, after my colleagues. What has been the response of the 

U.S. Department of State, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative, to what has happened to your parish and the abuse that has 

been visited upon the parishioners including yourself? 

Mr. TRAN. No, I have not heard anything from the State Department or other agencies from the U.S. Government about intervention and help for the parish. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. CAO. Yes, even when I was in the U.S. House, I brought up 

the issue directly with the Department of State and also through 

the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam. And I was received with somewhat 

of a lukewarm answer that they are looking into the problem, they 

are looking into the issue, but nothing was done. No utterances 

from the Department of State to condemn the actions of the Vietnamese Government in that parish of Con Dau, along with the 

other locations, as well as other religious groups that were being 

persecuted by the Vietnamese Government. And this has traditionally been, I guess, the practice of the Department of State to deal 

99

with these many issues with a blind eye or simply to utter rhetoric 

without taking any action whatsoever. 

And in my own opinion, if we continue to act in this way then 

we are simply in complicit with these despicable acts because we 

are supporting a government to stay in power, a government that 

continues to persecute its people, a government that continues to 

torture religious leaders, a government that continues to make 

false arrests and to detain citizens without the due process of law. 

And again I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, along with members 

of the subcommittee, to bring this very issue to the State Department to ask them to take action, to ask them to sit down with us 

and other members of the community who are knowledgeable about 

the Vietnamese Government, who are knowledgeable about the Vietnamese culture, to consult with us on how to dialogue with the 

Vietnamese Government. That is all we ask. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Ai, if you could tell us, in your testimony you mentioned Ordinance 44 which authorizes detention of dissidents in labor camps 

and psychiatric prison. Is Ordinance 44 being used today? 

Mr. CAO. Vietnam use Ordinance 44 along with other colorful ordinances, and again because they do not abide by the rule of law 

it is difficult for us to even comprehend what basis they are using 

to arrest dissidents as well as individuals who speak out against 

the government. And then if we were to look at their actions in Con 

Dau along with other parishes, even though when I spoke with the 

Department of State with the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam, again at 

that time it was Ambassador Michael Michalak who was in Hanoi. 

His response was that these are just simply land disputes. They 

are simply land disputes between individuals. 

And again this is just a simple excuse for them to overlook the 

question, to overlook the problem, and to proceed on with possibly 

economic conversations are what you have between Vietnam and 

the U.S. Government. Vietnam’s intention, Vietnam’s intention in 

taking land from religious institutions, in taking land from religious communities, their intention is to suppress religious freedom. 

That is their intention. And these disputes are not simply property 

disputes between land owners or what have you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Ai, did you want to answer that please? 

Mr. AI. Yes, I would like to talk something about the Ordinance 

of 44. Many people forget that in Vietnam there are not only the 

prison as such but the Ordinance 44, all popular home that would 

just become a prison, like is the case of Thich Quang Do. He is now 

in his own pagoda as a prison. And Ordinance 44 can arrest or 

send the people under house arrest, for all the policeman in the 

town, in the countryside, they can do that and they don’t need to 

deal with any due process law. And more than that they can send 

people into labor camp or psychiatric hospital. It is like in the Soviet Union. It is horrible. And now there are three blogger are arrested under the Ordinance 44 and sent to the psychiatric, the hospital, psychiatric one. 

And especially the case of Thich Quang Do. Thich Quang Do do 

not be treated before the process of law. And they hear that policeman say that you are now under arrest and house arrest. And 

100

since 10 year he is now a prisoner under house arrest. So I think 

that many time we ask in the council in Geneva, Human Rights 

Council, to abolish the Ordinance 44, but until now they didn’t do 

anything for the Ordinance 44. So I would like to ask you to press 

Vietnam in order to abolish the Ordinance 44. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ai. 

Mr. AI. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. When I did meet with The Venerable Thich Quang 

Do in his pagoda I will never forget how impressed I was, and I 

know others who have met with him, with his incredible peace and 

a sense of strength and resolve. But he told me that if he walked 

out the door with me it would be a matter of seconds that security 

apparatus personnel and secret police would swarm and push him 

back and hit him right back into the pagoda. That is how ubiquitous the secret police is. 

Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Once again, thank you all for your testimony today. And in particular I want to express my gratitude to 

your willingness to share what I know are very painful stories, situations and memories of abuse. I just have a couple of questions, 

because I wasn’t sure I understood what was the important thing 

to happen. For example, I know the U.S. is getting ready to have 

this dialogue. It seems as though I heard two different opinions as 

to whether or not you feel the dialogues are useful and are important. I believe I heard, and it might have been from Mr. Ai that 

he said that he felt that the dialogues could be used as a shield. 

So I don’t know. If there is a difference of opinion that is fine. 

I just wanted to understand what you thought about the dialogue 

with the U.S. Should they be stopped? Should they continue? 

Mr. AI. No, I think that we must have a dialogue. I agree with 

having to dialogue in order to talk and to change. As I talked in 

my remark, the human right dialogue is only relevant if it leads 

to concrete progress. But I saw since a many year the human right 

dialogue between Vietnam and United States, between Vietnam 

and Australia, and between Vietnam and many country in Europe 

that didn’t conduct to any change on human right in Vietnam. I 

think that Vietnam has a two-track political. One track for international. That mean they show for every people that Vietnam respect human right, respect democracy, and sometime like the secretary general of the Communist Party would say that the democracy in Vietnam is a thousand more democracy in the Western 

country. It is a democracy of one party. It is 1,000 times more than 

you know democracy in the Western country? 

And so for the international they use the dialogue of human 

rights as a shield to say that yes, the fact that they dialogue with 

United States prove that they respect human rights. But too many 

year to this dialogue between United States and Vietnam, what 

can change in Vietnam? No, everything is the same. And they try, 

and the two-track policy as I say, the policy inside of Vietnam is 

to repress people, an oppression of religion, the bloggers, the 

netizen and so on. Many netizen and blogger, they try to aspire 

about the human right, about the democracy and even that they 

are accused for 20 years under prison, like the case of Khai Thuy 

as we have heard last time. 

101

So I think that of course we need the human right dialogue but 

we hope that United States set a benchmark and a time frame for 

improvement, resolve that Vietnam change on the human right. 

Ms. BASS. I also wanted to ask in terms of the religious prosecution, is it of all religions or is a particular religion singled out, religion perhaps that Chairman Royce was talking about? Is religion 

just an excuse for political persecution? 

Mr. CAO. Again, Ranking Member Bass, the Communist Government of Vietnam persecutes all religion across the board, and more 

particularly they target those groups of people that do not have a 

voice, the Montagnards, the other minorities, other groups in Vietnam. But there has been some progress made on the issue of religious freedom in Vietnam recently when many of the religious 

leaders demanding changes to the Vietnamese Constitution, asking 

that power belong to the people, asking that land belong to the people and not to the government. 

And I want to again briefly address your previous question concerning dialogue. We have been having dialogue with Vietnam for 

the past 38 years. And in the last several years our dialogue with 

Vietnam has not been followed up with action, and Vietnam, they 

recognize that. They recognize that when we approach them and 

talk to them about human rights, about religious freedom, they are 

simply empty words. Because why, because no actions have been 

taken by the U.S. Government to challenge Vietnam on their violations of human rights and religious freedom. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Mr. CAO. And therefore I would ask the Congress to take actions 

now to back up our dialogue with action to show Vietnam that 

these are no longer empty words. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Danh, and please forgive me if I am mispronouncing your 

names. But I think you were saying something about that the State 

Department was helpful at some point in the release of your sister, 

and if that is the case, if that is what you said, what did they do? 

Ms. DANH. That was thanks to the intervention of Congressman 

Al Green, who is a representative in Houston, and because of that 

the U.S. State Department has passed information about the victims to the Russian police. 

Ms. BASS. I see. So he did a phone call or a letter or something? 

Ms. DANH. Yes. 

Ms. BASS. And so was that when you said that the Russians were 

tipped off? I remembered you described an incident where they 

were tipped off so that the woman who was in charge of the brothel 

was able to——

Ms. DANH. That is right. Just before the Russian police undertook the raid, the Vietnamese Embassy, someone there called Ms. 

Thuy An, that is the brothel’s owner, to tip her off. And she moved 

all the victims immediately and therefore when the Russian police 

made the raid there was no one left in the apartment. 

Ms. BASS. Okay, thank you very much. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

for your testimony today. Congressman Cao, thank you for coming 

in, and I have a couple of questions for you. Given that you were 

talking about the backsliding of Vietnam and the government, and 

102

yet here they are trying to be recognized by the international community for their improvements in human rights. Can you explain, 

I guess, the repression that we are seeing, but yet where they are 

going with this in trying to be recognized from an international 

standpoint? 

Mr. CAO. Congressman, again I do not understand the irony in 

all of this. I simply, at least this is a personal opinion of mine, I 

simply believe that their actions, at least the actions that they are 

taking, are simply steps for them to sidetrack the fact that their 

record say very clearly that they have been backsliding in the past 

several years since 2007. And again, the actions taken by the Vietnamese Government is another explicit message that at least the 

words that are uttered by us and by other international communities, when they are not followed by actions, are simply empty 

words, and therefore the actions that they have taken clearly 

shows that they do not take our words into much consideration 

whatsoever. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your compelling message today would be that 

if we are going to make a statement we need to have teeth and action behind that statement, not just simply rhetoric that plays well 

in the media. 

Mr. CAO. That is absolutely correct. Historically, at least in the 

past 4 or 5 years, at least the administration has spoken of Vietnam human rights violations, but at the same time they are sitting 

down with Vietnam at the table talking about the TPP, talking 

about GSP, talking about other economic and other benefits. When 

we send a mixed message like that it is extremely difficult not only 

for us as a government but for other organizations such as Boat 

People SOS to make a push to Vietnam to make those changes that 

are required before they get the benefits of GSP, before they get 

the benefits of TPP. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. And the chairman in this very room, just 

a couple of days ago we had a hearing that highlighted some of the 

human rights violations with regards to China. And part of that 

testimony talked about the fact that what we needed to do is not 

have a human rights dialogue that is separate than some of the 

other dialogue that is going on whether it be military, whether it 

be economic, whether it be other trade, that it needs to be all-inclusive. Would you agree that that would be the most pragmatic approach and most meaningful approach with regards to Vietnam? 

Mr. CAO. I absolutely agree. Because when we look at the history 

of our country, this great nation was founded on the principles of 

religious freedom, on the principles of the freedom of expression 

and individual rights. And if we were to neglect those principles 

that make our country great, in dealing with other countries, then 

we ourselves are acting in a hypocrisy. We ourselves are acting in 

a way that encourages other countries to be involved in 

wrongdoings. So I absolutely agree with Chairman Smith that 

when we speak with Vietnam on the issues of economic trade, on 

the issues of military exercises that we must demand that they improve their human rights and religious freedom records. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so having been a Member of Congress, and 

having the power to vote and knowing that TPP is coming up and 

that dialogue is real today, would it be your recommendation to 

103

other Members of Congress, of a body that you have been a Member of, to encourage them not to ratify that unless this human 

rights violation is not only addressed but addressed in a real and 

meaningful way? 

Mr. CAO. That is absolutely correct. I highly recommend that the 

U.S. Congress would not ratify Vietnam’s entrance into TPP, would 

not ratify any actions taken by the administration to grant Vietnam GSP until some of these issues are concretely corrected by the 

Vietnamese Government. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, and let me follow up on that because I believe in your testimony you encouraged Congress to pass human 

rights legislation specifically with regards to Vietnam. Is the Government of Vietnam sensitive to the actions we would take here in 

Congress with respect to human rights or is it do they kind of just 

not pay attention? 

Mr. CAO. Of course the Vietnamese Government, like other authoritarian regimes, they recognize the acts of Congress, and over 

the past years, even though we have passed the Vietnam Human 

Rights Act through the House but eventually it got stuck in the 

Senate, the passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act through the 

House speaks very loudly of where we are as a government. That 

we are willing to challenge the Vietnamese Government on their 

human rights records, on their religious freedom records. 

But I believe that this is the right time for us to take further 

steps to not only pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act and the 

Vietnam Sanctions Act through the House, but to make a concerted 

effort to get it through the Senate and get them signed by the 

President. And if you were to look at the explicit language of those 

two acts, the language allows the President after he signs those 

acts into law to provide waivers when he deems fit. So it is not, 

these acts are not somehow bound the President in any way, but 

at least when necessary it give the President teeth to force Vietnam to make these changes. 

So again I urge the U.S. Congress to present the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act, to present the Vietnam Sanctions Act, to pass 

it through the House, to pass it through to the President, to pass 

it through the Senate, and to get the President to sign these two 

acts into law. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And one last follow-up, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

If with the tier ranking that has been changed by the State Department, obviously to show improved status with regards to 

human rights, do you think that that sends conflicting messages in 

terms of where we are as a nation? And not to condemn the State 

Department, I know they are well meaning, but does it send the 

wrong message? 

Mr. CAO. Again, I absolutely agree with you that when we utter 

phrases, when we utter words challenging Vietnam on human 

rights but at the same time move them out of the list of Countries 

of Particular Concern, again we are sending Vietnam mixed messages that what we are saying are simply empty words. And they 

fully recognize that. And I again urge the U.S. Government to put 

Vietnam back on the list of Countries of Particular Concern to 

make sure that Vietnam knows that our words are no longer empty 

104

words and that we are now willing to take action to demand 

changes in Vietnam. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Ms. Danh, thank you for your testimony. 

It touches my heart. My daughter Haley who is 19 years old 

brought the human trafficking dilemma, horrific actions across this 

nation, to my attention 3 or 4 years ago. You today have brought 

it home when you said that these victims, look at them as your 

own daughters. And that is what we must do as a people. We must 

not look at it as some horrific tragedy, an action that is taking 

place far, far away. We must look at it as if it were our own daughters. And so I thank you for sharing your story. 

I want to go on a little, but ask you specifically with regards to 

this action, would you see with the State Department changing this 

tier ranking and the complicity that we have seen with regards to 

Vietnam Government, do you think that that is creating an environment where the international community is saying we will turn 

a blind eye to these awful sex trafficking, human trafficking efforts? 

Ms. DANH. Yes, the U.S. Government should put more pressure 

on the Vietnamese Government so that they will truly protect the 

victims. And I would like to point out in these pictures here they 

are not just teenagers, but that is one of them who is 16. And this 

is a 16-year-old minor among the victims, and the other are 19 to 

20 or 21 years old. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And my last question, do you think your sister’s 

story and the story of these 15 people is truly a unique story, or 

would you say that there are many other Vietnamese women who 

are being victimized even now? 

Ms. DANH. It is not just my sister. It is not just these 15. There 

are a lot of other young Vietnamese women in the same situation 

in Russia. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I thank each one of you for your testimony. 

I have to speak on the House floor in just a few minutes and so 

my leaving is not an indication of anything other than a great desire to say thank you for being here today. And with that I yield 

back to the chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your robust participation 

and your deep and abiding concern for human rights in Vietnam. 

Is there anything our distinguished witnesses would like to say 

before we close? Yes, Mr. Ai? 

Mr. AI. I would like to have the last word. So I hope so much 

that the Congress will adopt the Vietnam Human Rights acts, because I have the feeling that the United States support human 

rights already for 3 million Communist Party but not for 87 million 

Vietnamese people, and I hope so much that you can work in order 

to redesignate Vietnam on the CPC. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sifton? 

Mr. SIFTON. I would just add that on the issue of this dialogue 

being useful or not it might be important to add one word of elucidation. I think it wouldn’t be correct to assume that the U.S. Government doesn’t raise human rights issues outside of this dialogue. 

I think they do, and I think Ambassador David Shear does do that 

quite a bit and he encourages the U.S. Trade Representative to do 

it. I know the Pentagon does it in the context of the conversations 

105

they have. The question is do they do it enough, and what should 

they do if Vietnam doesn’t improve? And I think that is the big 

question that we still haven’t settled. It is a very difficult question, 

the effort to convince and pressure and inveigh and dialogue with 

the Government of Vietnam involves some really complex dynamics. 

So all I would say the only glimmer of hope, I think, is the party 

doesn’t want to relinquish power but nor does it want to lose power 

and be swept aside. And they are worried about wild cat strikes 

and land uprisings and their international standards and their economic situation especially given last year. And so there are things 

they may want to do, but those are decisions they need to make, 

the Government of Vietnam. They can be pressured, they can be 

convinced, they can be inveighed, they can be tricked even perhaps, 

but it is not just simply a matter of bashing them over the head. 

But I think there are some opportunities there. 

And then as last on the Human Rights Council, it goes without 

saying that the State Department and the White House will oppose 

Vietnam as a member of HRC. What I really think might be useful 

would be for Members of Congress to pressure the State Department not just to do that but to really rally the rest of the Council. 

Argentina, Brazil, India, The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, all 

the other members who would sort of be on the fence to say you 

guys have got to stand up with us as well. That is a very important——

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much, Mr. Sifton. 

Mr. Tran? 

Mr. TRAN. I would like to add one point relating to the relationship, the close relationship between the police and the thugs. Recently at Con Dau Parish just last December, there was a case of 

a family of they refused to sign the paperwork to relocate, so they 

dug in. And then the police surrounded the village, blocked the village letting no one leave, and they escorted the thugs in. And they 

surrounded the house while the thugs broke into the house and 

beat up the couple, and the wife pass out. And that shows that 

there is a close relationship between the police and the thugs. Out 

of fear they just fled to Thailand to seek refuge protection but they 

are still without status. Oh, and the Vietnamese authorities even 

threatened that if they got caught and recaptured they would be 

eliminated. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes? 

Ms. BUONYA. I do have one last thing to add. In your continued 

dialogue with Vietnam I just wanted you to, I guess, remind the 

Communist government that yes, everything is similar in terms of 

religious persecution between the Vietnamese and the indigenous 

people, but I feel like when it comes to the Montagnards, the 

Hmong, the Khmer Krom, the Cham it is even worse. And one reason is because of the allying with the U.S. Government during the 

Vietnam War, and also because they were already suppressed populations. And on top of being persecuted for their religion and because of their ethnicity, there is also lots of, I guess you could say, 

problems with land confiscation, so now they are losing their homeland. And just to keep that in mind with your dialogue that you 

are all here in unity, but at the same time the indigenous people 

106

face a little bit different situation than the majority of the Vietnamese do. 

Mr. SMITH. And just for clarification, the forced renunciations of 

faith——

Ms. BUONYA. Right. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. They continue? 

Ms. BUONYA. They do still continue, yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Are they widespread? 

Ms. BUONYA. From what I have heard they are widespread. Like 

I said, two regions that I mentioned earlier, Pleiku and Buon Ma 

Thuot were one of the major ones because there, there is constant 

police surveillance. So it is like the people, they are scared to do 

anything. They are just being watched all the time. 

Mr. SMITH. Because one of the preconditions for removal from 

CPC some years back was the Ambassador-at-Large had what he 

thought were deliverables as he described it, and one of them was 

to completely end the forced renunciations of faith. CPC was eliminated for Vietnam and yet the forced renunciations and other repression against all other faiths continue as well. 

Ms. BUONYA. Still continue. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? I want to thank you 

for your testimony, your very, very timely and very comprehensive 

recommendations to the subcommittee, for your valued efforts on 

behalf of human rights, and for those who have suffered personally, 

thank you for your willingness to share that with us. It will mobilize and not just inform, but mobilize this committee to do even 

more. So thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(107)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

108

f


80363n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

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

Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman 

April 10,2013 

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 the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

International Organizations in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on 

the Committee website at \~l1YWJQL~igrliiffuir~JlQ~~e-!.4pYJ: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, April I 1, 2013 

10:00 a.m. 

Highlighting Vietnamese Government Human Rights Violations in Advance of 

the U.S.-Vietnam Dialogue 

The Honorable Anh ·'Joseph" Cao 

Former Member of Congress 

Me. VoVan Ai 

President 

Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and Que Me: Action for Democracy in 

Vietnam 

Ms. Anna Buonya 

Spokesperson 

Montagnard Human Rights Organization 

Ms. Hui Danh 

Sister of a victim of human trafficking 

Me. Tien Tran 

Victim of religious persecution at the Con Dau Parish 

Me. John Sifton 

Advocacy Director for Asia 

Human Rights Watch 

By Direction of the Chairman 
109

f


80363m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

:MlNUTES OF sUBcolvnvnTTEE ON A/deft, Global Ileal/It, Glohal IlW1W/I Rights, alld Illlematfotw! Organizatioll'S HEARING 

D.y_-"T-"1,,,u,,I',,,~d,,,u,",I,--' __ D.ate __ -,-A"p"-I-,,'/{--,l,,1,,-,-,,2,,,O-,-1,,-3_~Room 2172 Ral'bu/"n HOB 

Starting Time /0'00 a HI Ending Time 12:17 p,m, 

Recesses kl ( __ 10 ----J L-lo __ )( __ lo __ )( __ 10 __ ) L-lo __ )( __ lo __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Rep, Cltl'l,SlIIiliJ 

Check {(II of liJe following ilIa' apply: 

Ollen Sc~sion [Z] 

~;xeclltiv. (c[osed) Session D Televised [Z] 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electronically Record!:!!..(talled) [Z] 

Stenogra])hic Recol'(l l{J 

Highlighting Vietnalllese GOl'el"lllllellt Humall Rights Violations ill Admllce of/he U.S,-Vietllam Dilrlogue 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep,lfIal'k MeadolVs, Rep, J({//'ell Buss 

NON-SUBCOl\'i1\nTTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with all • !fthey are 110t members qf.fttll committee.) 

Rep, Ed Royce, Rep, Alall Lowelltltal 

HKAIUNG WITNESSES: SHme flS meeting notice attached'/ Yes GJ No D 

(If "no ", please Ii.\! below and include litle, Qgcncy, deportment, or oJ'g~mization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (Li.ll allY "lalell/elliS slIhmilledji,,'llte "eGemf,) 

Photograph,' ,,,rbmitted b)' lII", BlUm)'a 

Excerp/ ji'om a s/a/emeJ1/ 011 perseclltion of Hmoll!? Chris/ialls ill Vietllam submitted by Rep, Smith 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

t~Nd= TIME ADJOURNED 12:17 p,m. 

Su committee Staff Director 
110

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. ANNA BUONYA, SPOKESPERSON, 

MONTAGNARD HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION


80363g-1.eps
111

f


80363g-2.eps

Hoang Van Ngai, Hmong Deacon at the Bui Tre Protestant Church in Oak Nong, Vietnam, was tortured to 

death at the police station on March 17, 2013: (1) bruises all over his face, head, neck and chest; (2) his 

corpse ready for burial; (3) the police station where he was held and tortured to death; (4) his surviving 

family members. (Compiled by BPSOS) 
112

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


80363h-1.eps
113


80363h-2.eps

cell phone and Tnternet service of a number of political activists and their family members." 

(United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011, 

Vietnam report.) 

Vietnamese law also restricts freedom ofmovel1lenL All citizens are required to inl"ol1l1 the local 

police when changing their residence or staying overnight at any location outsidt: their own 

homes. Police brutality and torture of de!ainet:s is conU1lOn throughout the nation. As reported by 

Human Rights Watch (HR\V), "Police frequently torture suspects to elicit confessions and, in 

scvcral cases, have responded to public protests over evictions, confiscation of land, and police 

brutality with excessive use afforce." (HRW World RepOlt, 2012.) 

These human rights abuses are endemic throughout Vietnam, but are often specifically targeted 

towards the ethnic minorities that live in Vietnam's remote provinces, such as the Hmong. 

While Vietnamese laws f(mnally prohibit all fonns of discrimination against ethnic minorities, 

longstanding societal discrimination against ethnic minorities continues to be manifested fi·om 

the national to the provincialleve!. (See, eg, HRW, "Montagnard Christians in Vietnam: A Case 

Study in Religious Repression," 2011; HRW,"On the Margins: Rights Abuses of Ellmic Khmer 

in Vietnam's Mekong Delta," 2009.) Although the u.S. State Department repOits do mention the 

discri111il1ation that these ethnic minorities suffer throughout the country, they fail to adequately 

reHect the severity and scope of the torture and persecution thut the Hmong and other ethnic 

minorities such as the Montagnards and Khmcr Kl·om face, especially when it comes to religious 

persecution. 

II. Vietnam's Restrictions on Religious Freedom 

Vietnamese law requires all religious organizations to be registered and subsequently approved 

by the government. Pattieipating in independent religious organizations is viewed as challenging 

the authority of the governmcnt. Even in the cases of government approved religious 

organizations, legal protections "are both vague and subject to arbitrary or discriminatory 

interpretations based on political factors; and new eonvclts to some Protestant and Buddhist 

cOllllnunities face discrimination, intimidation, and heavy pressure to renounce their faith." 

(USCIRF AlU1ual Report, 2011.) 

On the individual level, believers who are members of unrecognized religions "continue to be 

imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious freedom 

advocacy." (USCIRF Annual Repolt, 2012.) 

In September 2004, the "Secrctary of State designatcd Vietnam as a 'Country ofPatticular 

Conccrn' under the International Religious Freedom Act for particularly severe violations of 

rcligious freedom." Among the most impOliant reasons for this designation was the harsh 

trcatmcnt often meted out to Protestants, particularly those who are members of ethnic minority 

groups. "The U.S. Ambassador and other U.S. officials, including the Ambassador at Large for 

2 
114


80363h-3.eps

Religious Preedom, raised concerns about the repression of Prot cst ant ism in the Central and 

Northwest Highlands, detention and arrest of rcligious figures, and other restrictions on religious 

freedom with government cabinet ministers up to the level of Deputy Prime Minister, CPV 

leaders, provincial officials, and others," but serious violations of religious freedom, particularly 

against Hmong and other ethnic minority Protestants, continued. (U.S. State Department, 

International Religious Freedom Report [hereinafter IRFR1, 2004.) 

In 2006, this designation was lifted due to some progress made by the Vietnamese government 

with respect to religious freedoms. However, this "progress," including increased registration of 

church groups, largely occurred in the more densely populated urban areas where changes can be 

casily monitored, and was not enacted equally throughout the country. Specifically, these 

improvcmcnts were not implemented in the more remole provinces in the highlands, where many 

ethnic minorities including the Hmong reside, and where access by outsiders is severely 

restricted. 

USCIRF's Annual Report for 2011 states that any improvements with respect to religious 

fi'eedom "often depended on geographic area, ethnicity, relationships with local or provincial 

officials, or perceived 'political' activity ... Ihere continues to be active suppression of 

independent religious activity, especially among ethnic minority populations and religious 

groups or individuals perceived as posing a political challenge to government authority." Rather 

than seeing any improvement, Vietnam's record on religious freedom for its ethnic minorities 

has seen a steady decline in the years since the cre designation was lifted in 2006. USCIRF 

stated in its 2011 Annual Report that, since 2007, Vietnam has "moved decisively to rcpress any 

perceived challenges to its authority, tightening controls on freedom of expression, association, 

and assembly ... independent religious leaders, and religious freedom advocates were arrested, 

placed under home detention or surveillance, threatened, intimidated, and harassed." 

Any religious activity by ethnic minorities is viewed as inextricably linked to political 

dissidence, leaving people offaith vulnerable to arrest and prosecution for their presumed 

opposition of the Communist goverllll1ent. Conditions continue to deteriorate, and USCIRF 

states in its most recent 2012 Annual Report that "[t]he government of Vietnam continues to 

control all religious communities, restrict and penalize independent religious practice severely, 

and repress individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority." Based on its 

"systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations," the USCIRF recommended thai Vietnam again 

be designated as a "country of particular concem" in 2012. 

A. Hmong Protestllnts in Vietnllm 

The Hmong residing in Vietnam's remote Northwest Highlands have been converting to 

Christianity in large numbers since the late 1980s. According to the U.S. State Depaliment's 

International Religious Freedom Report for 2011, the number of Protestants in Vietnam ranged 
115


80363h-4.eps

from approximately 1 %-2% ofthe population. Approximately two-thirds of these Protestants are 

ethnic minorities living in the Northwest Highlands, including the Hmong. (U.S. State 

Department TRFR, 2011.) 

Basic legal rights "of ethnic minority Protestants in 1l0lthern Vietnam have been impaired by the 

refusal of the competent authorities to issue them identity cards that recogniz:e their religious 

a11iliation. Without proper recognition of their Protestant status, they are lell in an indeterminatc 

and vulnerable position: eilher (hey have no idcntity card, or the fact thaI they are identified as 

subscribing to no religion may be used to prevent their attendmlce at churches." (USCIRF 

Annual Report, 2011.) 

The Vietnamese government has viewed the spread of Christianity among its ethnic minorities as 

a threat, dne to its perception of Christianity as an "American" religion in direct conflict with 

Communism and loyalty to the Communist government. USCIRF notes in its 2012 Annual 

Report that "new convelis to ethnic-minority Protestantism ... face discrimination, intimidation, 

and pressure to renounce their faith. 'j 'his tactic seems to be a policy developed and condoned by 

central government authorities and carried out in the provinces." For groups such as the Hmong, 

which has unique histOllc ties to the U.S., this conversion to Christianity is viewed with 

particular hostility. 

The growth of Protestantism in the Northem Highlands, which is largely shielded from foreign 

scmtiny, is viewed by the Vietnamese government as a potential tlu'eat to national security. "In 

many provinces, Protestant churches were required to submit lists of all worshippers as part of 

the registration process, although the legal framework on religion does not require this 

infolmation. This practice appeared to be widespread." (US. State Depmtment IRFR, 2010.) 

These lists, many Hmong believe, have assisted the government to identify, monitor, and ml'est 

those who are perceived as opponents of the govemment. 

Provincial officials in the remote highlands often fail to follow the 2004 Ordinance on Religion 

and Belief, which outlines the paramctcrs of authorized practice of religion, and instead follow 

their own special mlcs intended to clmnp down on religious activity. USCllil"s 2012 Annual 

Report stales, "Contrary to the [2004 Ordinance on Religion and Boliefs] provisions, local 

officials have told religious groups and visiting USCIRF delegations that the Ordinance's 

provisions do not apply in their provinccs. In the northwest provinces, there remain hundreds of 

applications for legal registration that have not been acted upon by govenrment officials." 

Rather than implement the Ordinance in ethnic minority areas, the central government has 

instead "issued a training manual on religious groups in the northwest provinces that counsels 

restricting rather than advancing religious ti·eedom." (USCIRF Annual Report, 2012.) The 

handbook outlined guidelines for "provinl:ial officials in the northwest provinces on how to 

manage and control religious practice among ethnic minorities ... [The 2006 handbook] indicates 

4 
116


80363h-5.eps

that the Vietnamese governmcnt continues to control and managc religious growth, label anyone 

spreading Christianity in the northwcst provinces as a national security threat, and >.lSe 

unspecified tactics to, , , persuade new converts to renounce their beliefs." (USCRIF Annual 

Report, 2011.) 

As a result of many criticisms ii'om the international community, two revisions of the handbook 

have been released since 2007, "Neither, however, offers much improvement on the original." 

(USClRF Annual Report, 2011.) These new versions continued to include language which 

instructed provincial of1icials to "control and manage existing religious practice through law, 

halt 'enemy forces' from 'abusing religion' to undermine the Vietnamcse state, and overcome 

the extraordinary,,, growth of Protestantism," (USCIRF Annual Report, 2011.) . 

The 2007 revised version also states that local officials must try to 'solve the root cause' of 

Protestant growth by, 'mobilizing' ethnic groups to 'preserve their own beautiful religious 

traditions, ... '" (USCIRF Annual RepOlt, 2011.) Specifically, the handbook calls on local 

officials to "encourage the return to traditional beliefs" -- essentially condoning forced 

renunciation of faith -- despite the Prime Minister's Instruction No.1 and Decree 22, both passed 

in 2005, which outlaw such practices. The handbook illustrates Vietnam's omcial govemment 

policy of religious repression of Hmong Protestants and its view of the Protestants as a political 

threat to be eliminated. 

1. Religious Pcrsecution of Hmong Protestants in Vietnam 

Vietnamese government officials have been employing numerous means of religious persecution 

in an attempt to suppress the spread of Christianity among the Hmong and punish those who 

refuse to renounce their faith. 

Lack of Bibles and Rcligious Education 

Hmong Protestants seeking to register their churches have been told they need a recognized 

minister in order to register, though when some obtain the necessary celtification as ministers, 

local authorities do not recognize their certification. 

According to the USCIRF 2011 Annual Report, one of tlle methods the government has used to 

repress the growth of Protestantism among ethnic IImong is to deny or delay the publication of 

Bibles published in modern Romaniied Hmong. Hmong who are caught with Bibles printed in 

Hmong have been subjected to beatings, fines, and detention. As noted by the USCIRF, "[l]n 

March 2011, in Dien Bien province, a Hmong Protestant leader was briefly detained and the 

Bibles he was carrying were confiscated. He was wamed to not transport 'illegal materials. '" 

(USCIRF Annual RepOlt, 2011.) 

Church Registration Issues 

5 
117


80363h-6.eps

Hmong Protestants are often subjected to more severe constraints on the practice oftheir religion 

than are imposed on other ethnic groups, with the government accepting VeJY few of the 671 

registration applications s~lbmitted by Hmong church groups since 2005. (Boat People SOS, 

[BPSOS], "Persecution ofHmong Christians and the Muong Nhe Incident," January 24,2012. 

2006.) 

"[U]nlike in some palts of the Central Highlands, the govennnent has moved very slowly to 

extcnd legal recognition to IImong Proteslanl churches. The number of legally-recognizcd 

churches and mceting points has reached 100 in the past year, but an estimated 1,000 religious 

groups arc secking affiliation with the ECVN. Hundreds of applications for legal recognition 

have beon declined or ignored, despite provisions in the Ordinance on Religion and Belief 

requiring government officials to respond to applications in a timely mamler." (USClRF Annual 

Report, 2011.) 

Forced Renunciation of Faith 

The practice of forced renunciation of faith, although formally banned by Decree 22 in 2005, 

persists at both the local and provincial levels with at least tacit SUPpOlt from the central 

govenmlent's religious regulators. Repolts of forced renunciation of faith "arc not isolated ca~es, 

but are sanctioned by central govcmmcnt authorities to thWU11 both thc growth of Protestantism 

in the northwest provinces and indcpendent religious activity in the Central Highlands." 

(USCIRF Annual Report, 2011.) In palticular, "local authorities are pressuring Hmong 

Protestants to recant their religious practices and retu111 to traditional practices." (U.S. State 

Department IRFR, 2010.) 

The State Deparlment's Religious Freedom report for 2010 describes one example of forced 

renunciation: "In the Ho Kaw Village of the Dien Bien Province in 2009, district olTtcials 

pressured 10 Cln'istian families to recant their faith." Among them were "[t]hree ethnic 

Protcstant H'mongs, Sung Cua Po, Slmg A Sinh, and Hang A Xa, who refused to renouneo 

Christianity [and] were allegedly detained, handcuITed, and beaten by police in order to foree 

them to renounce their faith. Following the beatings, most Clu'istians in the village stopped 

practicing their religion under pressure from local officials and family members .... After 

additional police threats, Po signed a renunciation of Christianity. Tn March, Po and his family 

fled his home aller continued abuse from authorities and family members, and have not been 

seen since that time." (U.s. Statc Department TRFR, 2010.) 

In 2010 and 2011 there were multiple instances in which local otlicials in Dien Bien forced 

Hmong Protestants to renOilllce their faith through methods such as fines, beatings, threats of 

property confiscation and expUlsion, and even death threats: As noted by USCIRF in its 2011 

Annual Report: 

6 
118


80363h-7.eps

"In June 2010, several Hmong Protestants from Trung Phu village, Na Son 

Commune, Dien Bien Dong district, Dien Bien province were threatened with 

death and beaten severely unless they renounced their faith .... " 

"In June 2010, 25 individuals from Ban Xa Fi #1, XaXa Tong, IIuyen Muang 

Dien Bien Dong, Dien Bien provincc wcrc threatcned with confiscation of 

property and beatings unless they gave up Protestantism. Thc leader of the local 

congregation was dri v~n from his home and relocatcd to anothcr village. 

Authorities continue to harass and intimidate the villagcrs." 

"In March 2011, 21 people belonging to an umecognized Protestant church in Pha 

Khau Village, Phinh Giang Commune, Dien Bien Dong district, Dien Bien 

Province, were threatened with propelty confiscation and forced relocation unless 

they stopped meeting to worship. The individuals refused and authorities continue 

to harass and intimidate them." 

"[I]n March 2011, Hmong Protestants leaders who stalted an umecognized 

congregation in Ira Tam village, Muong Ba commune, Tua Chua district, Dien 

Bien province were detained and interrogated by local authorities. They 

subsequently were expelled from the district. The 'new' converts in Ha Tam 

village were threatened and ordered to renounce their faith." (USCIRF Annual 

Report, 2011.) 

The persecution of Hmong Protestants is not a new phenomenon, with many incidents taking 

place in Dien Bien province in 2006 and 2007, as reported by USCIRF in its 2008 Annual 

Report: 

"In Dien Bien province, Muong Lay district, Cha Cang commune, local 

authorities encouraged Hmong clan leaders to pressure local Protestant families to 

cease practicing their faith, including by forcing some families to constlUct 

traditional altars in their homes andlor to sign formal documents renouncing their 

beliefs." 

"In Dicn llien province, East Dicn Bicn district, police broke up a house church 

meeting, banncd worshipp~rs Jl·om gathering, confiscated religious material, fined 

followers, forccd some to cul wood, and visited the homes of church members to 

pressure them to abandon their faith." 

"Religious leaders in the nOlihwest provinces and central coast region, including 

leaders and followers from the Inter-Evangelistic Movement Bible Church, also 

reported that they were being denounced as "enemies of the state" tor "believing 

in an American religion," and were torced to pay fines." 

7 
119

Æ


80363h-8.eps

"In January 2007, security officials threatened to freeze the bank account of a 

Protestant leader in Muong Khong district, Dien Bien province unless he either 

left the district or renounced his faith." 

"Members or one house church Protestant group in the nO/ihwcst provinces report 

that police actively broke up meetings of worshippers and authorities refused to 

register their meeting areas. Membcrs of this group reported that they were forced 

to 'meet secretly at night, in the fields' ill order to worship and that police actively 

pressured them to abandon thcir religion and return to 'traditional beliefs.' There 

are no repO/is that any security officials have been punished for these actions, 

despite thc fact that they have heen technieally illegal since the Febmary 2005 

decree." 

''In Muong Nhe district, Dien Bien province, a house church deacon was detained 

after he returned fi'om Hanoi carrying church documents and applications for 

registration. Since that time, there are reports that a special task force of security 

persomlel has been Jiving in the district to monitor the activities of Hmong 

Protestants there." 

"Police have threatened to charge the village chief of Muong Nhe district, Dien 

Bien province with national security crimes for sending researchers documents 

about govemment attempts to 'prohibit Christian practice' in the northwest 

provinces. " 

"In 2006, Protestants ill Muong Lay dishict, Dien Bien province, were forced by 

police to construct traditional animistic altars in their homes and ~ign documents 

renouncing Protestantism." (USCIRF Annual Rcpot1, 2008.) 

Local authorities sometimes use "contract thugs" to harass, threaten, or beat Hmong Protestant 

religious leaders. (USCIRF Annual Repol1, 2011; and U.S. DepaIiment of State, Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011, Vietnam RepOli.) Other methods of repression 

used in the NO/ihem Highlands include "forcing church gatherings to cease, closing house 

churches, and confiscatiug propeliy." (USCIRF Annual RepOlt, 2011.) 

Hl1long Protestants arc unable to contact foreign governments or international organizations for 

assistance because any "foreign relatious of religious organizations, and particularly human 

rights defenders within such organizations, are the focus of particular suspicion." (Christian 

Solidarity Worldwide [CSWJ, Analysis of White Paper on Religion - Vietnam, 2007.) Moreover, 

diplomats and foreign joumalists must obtain official permission in order to visit the Northern 

and Central Highlands regions of Vietnam, and when visits are auth011zed, they are heavily 

monitored. This enforced isolation means that Vety little information can leave these regions 

without passing through the strict censorship ofthe central government. 

8