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

72–463PDF 2012

EXAMINING ONGOING HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

IN VIETNAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 24, 2012

Serial No. 112–125

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 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Anh ‘‘Joseph’’ Cao, former Member of Congress ......................... 8

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

Mr. Rong Nay, executive director, Montagnard Human Rights Organization ... 30

Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu, victim of human trafficking ................................................ 37

Mr. John Sifton, advocacy director for Asia, Human Rights Watch .................... 45

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Anh ‘‘Joseph’’ Cao: Prepared statement ....................................... 11

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................. 20

Mr. Rong Nay: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 32

Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu: Prepared statement ............................................................. 40

Mr. John Sifton: Prepared statement .................................................................... 49

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 70

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 71

Edited oral statement of Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu ...................................................... 72

Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Material submitted for the record .......................... 75

Mr. Rong Nay: Material submitted for the record ................................................ 83

Mr. John Sifton: Material submitted for the record ............................................. 99

The Honorable Al Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Material submitted for the record .......................................................... 114

(1)

EXAMINING ONGOING HUMAN RIGHTS 

ABUSES IN VIETNAM 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

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

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. And I want to 

welcome all of you to our hearing on human rights in Vietnam. 

And I want to thank you for joining us at this very important hearing. 

Before I introduce all the witnesses, I do want to say a very special thanks to Anh Cao who is a good friend, the first VietnameseAmerican ever to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives 

and a man who spoke out bravely and repeatedly for human rights 

all over the world, but with a particular emphasis and with a great 

deal of knowledge in depth on Vietnam. So welcome back to the 

Congress. It’s great to see you again. 

The Vietnam Government continues to be an egregious violator 

of a broad array of human rights. Our distinguished witnesses who 

are joining us here today will provide a detailed account, and I 

would like to highlight just a few areas of grave concerns. Despite 

the State Department’s decision in 2006 to remove Vietnam from 

the list of Countries of Particular Concern 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 2011 Annual Report, ‘‘The Government of Vietnam continues to control religious communities, severely restricts 

and penalizes independent religious practice and brutally represses 

individuals and groups viewed as challenging its authority.’’

I agree with the Commission’s conclusion, where they have asked 

that Vietnam again be designated as a Country of Particular Concern. The State Department’s designation of Vietnam as a Tier II 

Watch List country with respect to the minimum standards for the 

elimination of human trafficking also needs to be critically examined. The Department’s 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report states 

not only that Vietnamese women and children are being sexually 

exploited, but that there are severe labor abuses occurring as well, 

with the government’s complicity. The report acknowledges that 

2

state-affiliated labor export companies charge illegal fees for overseas employment, and recruitment companies engage in other trafficking-related violations. 

There are also documented cases of recruitment companies ignoring pleas for help from workers in exploitive situations. As the 

sponsor of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, I am deeply concerned 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 are particularly privileged to have today Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu 

and she will testify about the horrific suffering she endured when 

she was trafficked from Vietnam to Jordan. It is also troubling to 

hear about the abuse that she and others have had to endure by 

the Vietnamese Government even after their escape from the traffickers. Ms. Vu, I greatly admire your courage and the subcommittee is most appreciative of your presence as well as your 

testimony. 

I met other courageous individuals during my last trip to Vietnam who were struggling for fundamental human rights in their 

country. Unfortunately, many of them continue to be persecuted by 

the government. Father Ly is in prison and is suffering from very 

poor health and attorney Nguyen Van Dai remains under house arrest. Despite this dismal status for human rights in Vietnam, there 

are new opportunities for the United States to exert pressure on 

the government to cease these abuses. HR 1410, the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act, which I introduced last year, which passed the 

House on two occasions, most recently in 2007, would provide significant motivation to the Government of Vietnam to respect its 

international human rights obligations. It would prohibit any annual increase in the amount of non-humanitarian assistance that 

the United States provides to Vietnam, unless there is an equal or 

greater increase in the amount of assistance for human rights and 

democracy promotion and programming in Vietnam. 

An increase in non-humanitarian assistance would also be prohibited unless Vietnam satisfies certain requirements including 

substantial progress toward respect for the freedom of religion and 

freedom of expression and assembly, respect for ethnic and minorities rights, and allowing Vietnamese nationals free and open access 

to the United States refugee programs. The government would also 

have to end its complicity in severe forms of human trafficking. 

In addition, this legislation would reaffirm the United States’ 

commitment to overcoming the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the 

Vietnamese Government, to engaging in cultural exchanges in a 

manner that promotes freedom and democracy in Vietnam, and to 

offering refugee resettlement of Vietnamese nationals who have 

been deemed ineligible solely due to administrative errors or for 

reasons beyond their control. 

Again, I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being 

here and look forward to their testimony. I’d like to yield to my 

friend and colleague, Ranking Member Don Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Excuse my voice. I became 

hoarse. Let me start by commending my colleague, Chris Smith, for 

calling this very important hearing. I would especially like to thank 

3

our witnesses, a very distinguished group, for agreeing to testify 

here today. 

Following the Vietnam War, relations between Vietnam and the 

United States were minimal until the mid-1990s. Since then, economic and security interests have resulted in increased partnership. I became very involved in the humanitarian side of the Vietnam War and was in Vietnam during the withdrawal of American 

troops and was working to try to build cities up by the north where 

the desire was to strengthen the community and to resist the north 

and VC from coming down. So I, up in Quang Trung Province and 

cities in that area, spent time working with various community development programs for a while. So I have a very strong interest 

and concern in Vietnam as many of us have. 

Since the 1990s when we started to have some attention paid, 

economic security interest has increased and there have been increased partnership. In 2001, the U.S. established normal trade relations with Vietnam. And in 2010, bilateral trade amounted to 

over $15 billion. Vietnam has joined the U.S. as one of the nine 

countries negotiating the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Free Trade Agreement which the administration intends to 

have in place no later than November of this year. However, as 

Secretary Clinton noted, last November, the United States had 

made it clear to Vietnam that if the two countries are to develop 

a strategic partnership, Vietnam must do more to respect and protect the civilians’ rights. 

Under the rule of the Vietnamese Communist Party, the VCP, 

the Vietnamese people have faced oppression in a number of areas 

including religious persecution, wrongful detainment, and suppression of expression, assembly, and association. Political dissidents 

are routinely targeted and ethnic minorities face repression and 

discrimination. In the 2004 Religious Freedom Report, the State 

Department designated Vietnam a Country of Particular Concern 

(CPC) principally because of reports of worsening harassment of 

certain ethnic minority Protestants and Buddhists. In 2006, Hanoi 

promised to improve conditions and release some of the dissidents. 

The Bush administration subsequently removed Vietnam from the 

CPC list. 

However, according to numerous accounts since at least early 

2007, the Vietnamese Governments’ suppression of dissidents has 

intensified and its tolerance for criticism has even lessened markedly. Beginning in 2009, the government began increasing the targeting of bloggers as well as lawyers who represent human rights 

and religious freedom groups, particularly those who are linked to 

a network of pro-democracy activists. Human Rights Watch and 

other rights groups have reported an increase in the incidents of 

forced labor, torture, and prison deaths. According to numerous accounts, the government’s suppression increased in 2010 and 2011. 

And in 2011 alone, 21 people died in police custody. This is a very 

troubling trend. 

I will have to leave following the witnesses’ testimony because of 

some special obligations with the State of the Union address, but 

I would ask unanimous consent that Congressman Al Green from 

Houston, who represents a great number of Vietnamese, be allowed 

to sit in. Thank you. 

4

Mr. SMITH. No objection. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I’d like to now yield to Mr. 

Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really want to 

thank all of our witnesses who have been so engaged on human 

rights for being here today and especially our former colleague, Joseph Cao. It’s good to have you with us on an issue which I think 

really touches all of us. Earlier this month, the chairman and I, 

along with Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and also the ranking member, Howard Berman, we sent a letter to the State Department. 

And in that letter we detailed the on-going human rights abuses 

in Vietnam and how little things have changed. 

In this hearing, we intend and I appreciate the chairman holding 

this hearing, we intend to put that needed spotlight on a situation 

that is very dire, especially for activists and many young people in 

Vietnam. I hope the administration is listening to this hearing. 

I think one of the cases brought to our attention speaks to all of 

us, the case of Viet Khang, who is a songwriter in Vietnam, and 

he sits in a Vietnamese jail for simply writing songs and posting 

songs on the Internet. One song he wrote was entitled ‘‘Who Are 

You?’’ questioning the conscience of the police who brutally assaulted and arrested demonstrators who were peacefully protesting. And he, like so many political prisoners in Vietnam, should 

be free today. 

Recently, I think, we’ve seen a change in pattern. Instead of the 

show trials that we’re used to, they’re just skipping the show trials, 

the Government of Vietnam, and they’re sending dissidents 

straight to administrative detention. Just the other day, The Wall 

Street Journal editorialized against this new practice in Vietnam, 

but as one witness notes, here’s how the editorial looked to readers 

in Saigon. Here’s The Wall Street Journal. They obviously went 

through a lot of magic markers in order to individually censor the 

Asia edition of The Wall Street Journal that was distributed in Saigon. So you’ve got many brave Vietnamese men and women who 

are standing up for their rights, the right to free speech, for the 

right to some measure of freedom, and they deserve our support. 

And what we’re talking about today is not some isolated case. 

We’re talking about the norm in that society today and we’ll hear 

today that the situation, especially for young bloggers, young writers, young songwriters, for the youth, it’s deteriorating in terms of 

the measure of freedom in Vietnam. 

I have legislation that calls for Vietnam to be placed back on the 

CPC list with respect to religious freedom. I also have legislation 

that Joseph Cao and I worked on that would identify and sanction 

those individuals in the Vietnamese Government committing those 

human rights abuses. It is the least we should do. We must do at 

least this. And we should move these bills and I thank the chairman for holding this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me as an interloper to be a part of the committee. I’d like to 

thank Ranking Member Payne for making the request and for all 

that he has done through the many, many years that I have known 

him to curtail human rights violations around the world as one of 

5

the preeminent spokespersons for human rights in the Congress of 

the United States of America. I’m grateful to each of these men for 

giving me this opportunity to be a part of this committee, temporarily. 

I want to thank the witnesses and I must especially thank Ms. 

Vu. It does take great courage to come before a committee of Congress and make your statements known to the world. We appreciate you for what you are doing to help others. It means a lot to 

have someone who has empirical evidence, firsthand knowledge of 

what’s going on presented. Thank you, Member Cao, for returning 

and being a part of this committee. But finally, Boat People SOS 

is known to us in Houston quite well, we appreciate what you’ve 

done across the length and breadth of our city. 

I am very concerned about human trafficking and one of my concerns, quite candidly, when properly distilled becomes simply is 

human trafficking, a euphemism for involuntary servitude, which 

is a euphemism for slavery, are people being detained against their 

will and forced to do things that we find unpleasant? I’m eager to 

hear from the witnesses. I can tell you that I’ve heard enough anecdotal evidence from members of my district. I have a very large Vietnamese population in my district. The ballot is printed in Vietnamese. And that population and I have a kinship and I am told 

quite regularly that things are in need of some attention. So I’m 

honored to have this opportunity to acquire some additional evidence of things that hopefully I can be of assistance with. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m interested in hearing what the witnesses have to say. I’m hoping that by shining the 

light on these problems, the United States will help use its trade 

policies and finally its moral solution to improve the human conditions and the rights conditions in Vietnam and elsewhere. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Let me introduce our distinguished panel beginning with former Congressman Anh Cao, who 

was born in Vietnam, and at the age of eight was able to escape 

to the United States with his siblings with the downfall in Saigon. 

He left without his parents. It was an epic journey, but one that 

he engaged in, and certainly he flourished. 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 became an attorney and worked for Boat 

People SOS and that’s how I first met him, when he was advocating on behalf of those who took to the seas, many of whom 

ended up in so-called refugee camps dotted throughout Southeast 

Asia and in the region. And he was a great, great advocate for 

those people who had been so disadvantaged by the invasion from 

the North. He has assisted Vietnamese and other minorities ever 

since. He lost his home and his office in Hurricane Katrina, but 

helped lead his community as it started to rebuild. He represented 

Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District in the 111th Congress, and 

as I said earlier, was a stalwart on behalf of human rights. 

6

We’ll then hear from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang who came to the 

United States as a refugee from Vietnam in 1979. After earning his 

Ph.D. from Virginia Tech, he began volunteering with Boat People 

SOS in 1988. Now serving as executive director of Boat People 

SOS, Dr. Thang has worked for the past two decades to resettle 

tens of thousands of Vietnamese Boat People and other refugees to 

the United States and has assisted more than 4,000 victims of 

human trafficking, modern day slavery. He has received numerous 

awards for his extensive human rights work. Dr. Thang travels to 

Asia frequently where he documents ongoing abuses and strives to 

rescue victims. 

I would note parenthetically that it was Dr. Thang in the 1990s 

who came to this subcommittee, and I chaired the subcommittee at 

the time, with alarming information about how there were many 

refugees in places like Hai Island and all throughout Asia, Boat 

People, some 40,000. And his estimation was that at least half of 

those, maybe more, had been improperly screened out from refugee 

status and were being involuntarily repatriated to Vietnam where 

they were facing a very, very bleak future, if not reeducation camps 

and incarceration. He brought that to the subcommittee. As a direct result of his intervention, my subcommittee held four hearings. 

I offered legislation on the floor that passed by approximately 100 

votes, a bipartisan amendment, that said no U.S. money will be 

used to involuntarily repatriate these individuals and Dr. Thang, 

at each of those four hearings, including one closed hearing where 

we desperately tried to get the administration to realize that these 

people were refugees and they were being sent back improperly in 

contravention of international law and U.S. law. As a direct result, 

a program called ROVR was established because there were friends 

in the administration at the time who saw it as we did, and that 

program resulted in the rescreening of so many, and approximately 

20,000 people made their way to the United States. I say this with 

great admiration; Dr. Thang was the one who brought it, kept us 

very well informed, and I will be forever indebted for what he provided this subcommittee, me and my staff, in terms of actionable 

information. 

Then we’ll hear from Mr. Rong Nay who has worked for over 30 

years to improve the lives of the Montagnard people, both in Vietnam and in the United States. After coming to the U.S., Mr. Nay 

was part of numerous groups helping the Montagnard people, including the Montagnard Human Rights Organization, which was 

founded in 1998, where he is currently serving as the executive director. He works on issues such as family reunification, refugee resettlement, cultural preservation, and cultural challenges that the 

Montagnard refugees encounter when they come to the U.S. Of 

course, we all have been deeply distressed over recent events concerning the Montagnards and we look forward to hearing more on 

that as well as the ongoing persecution of people of faith that we 

know is ongoing and totally repressive. 

We’ll then hear from Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu who was trafficked by 

a Vietnamese labor export company to Jordan in 2008 where she 

and 260 fellow Vietnamese were exploited in slave-like conditions. 

They went on strike and were beaten by guards and police. Ms. Vu 

quickly rose to become the de facto leader of the victims. She 

7

sought outside help and subsequently became the target of the Vietnamese Government. And as she was being returned to Vietnam 

for punishment, she managed to escape and took refuge in Thailand. She eventually resettled in the United States as a refugee 

and Ms. Vu continues to fight to end the trafficking of Vietnamese 

migrant workers, a true hero. 

We’ll then hear from Mr. John Sifton who is the advocacy director for Asia at Human Rights Watch, no stranger, nor is Human 

Rights Watch, to this committee, where he focuses on South and 

Southeast Asia. He was previously the director of the One World 

Research, the public interest research and investigation firm, that 

specializes in international human rights cases. Mr. Sifton traveled 

to Hanoi and Saigon late last year and has been actively raising 

the Vietnamese human rights record with various diplomats, trade 

representatives, officials, international financial institutions, and 

journalists in the context of emerging Trans-Pacific Partnership. 

Mr. Sifton, thank you for being here as well. 

Congressman Cao, please proceed. Congressman Cao, if you 

could just suspend for 1 minute, I didn’t see the vice chair of the 

subcommittee, Mr. Fortenberry has arrived and he’s recognized for 

such time he may consume. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for 

running a little bit behind, but I’ll give a brief opening statement 

and turn to our former colleague, Congressman Cao. Thank you for 

holding this important hearing as we work to develop effective bilateral relationships with Vietnam. This hearing is of special interest to the Vietnamese diaspora, particularly in my home State of 

Nebraska. Many people of Vietnamese descent have chosen to 

make Lincoln, Nebraska their home and build their American 

dream there. They contribute immensely to the vitality of our community and have voiced agonized worry about the human rights 

situation as the Vietnamese Government continues to repress 

groups viewed as challenging political authority, especially, as was 

mentioned, country dwellers and minority ethic groups in Vietnam 

such as the Hmong and Montagnard who live far from the eyes of 

the foreign news agencies. 

The persecution also extends to religious minorities. In May of 

last year, the village of Con Dau Catholic parish faced government 

retribution in the form of three lost lives and hundreds of injuries 

in a funeral procession of all things. The offense, they were exercising earlier their right of protest against when the government 

decided to sell their land to build a resort is my understanding. 

Simply being a woman or a child in Vietnam can be fraught with 

danger as well. 

According to the State Department’s Trafficking and Persons Report, Vietnam is both a source and destination country for both sex 

and labor trafficking of women and of children. With China facing 

a shortage of women, Vietnamese women are recruited into servitude through fraudulent marriages. The Vietnamese Government 

estimates that approximately 10 percent of women entering into arranged marriages may become trafficking victims. 

Women who are fortunate enough to enter into legitimate marriages with few exceptions are subject to a one- or two-child policy 

with tragic consequences. Vietnamese women and their families 

8

suffer as many as 45 abortions per 100 live births compared to 25 

abortions in the United States in the last decade. It was also reported that this abortion practice accounted for 11.5 percent of maternal deaths in Vietnam in 2002. 

I note that Vietnam was removed as a Country of Particular 

Concern in 2006 by the State Department despite lingering concerns about whether that change in status made good sense. While 

economic development and market reforms have spurred a relative 

improvement in the living standards of many Vietnamese people, 

the welfare of the most vulnerable continues to be in jeopardy. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and I 

welcome our witnesses and look forward to your further comments 

on what I have raised and any other issues that we feel—that you 

feel are necessary that we may need to know. Thank you. 

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

The Honorable Anh Cao. 

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

FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Payne, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee 

on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, I would like to thank 

you for holding this important hearing on the human rights conditions in Vietnam. 

The struggle for religious freedom and the promotion of justice 

and democracy in Vietnam remain in the hearts and minds of the 

1.5 million Vietnamese-Americans presently living in the United 

States. Therefore, your dedication in support of these issues will be 

deeply appreciated and remembered by those who continue to 

struggle and fight for these righteous causes. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, all human 

beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. These rights 

include the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 

which encompasses the freedom to change a person’s religion or belief and freedom either alone or in a community with others and 

in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, 

practice, worship, and observance. These words are expressed in 

Articles 1 and 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, respectively. 

Vietnam, a member of the United Nations, has systematically 

violated these rights and has no intention of keeping the promise 

that it made to the U.S. Congress in 2006 to steadily improve its 

human rights record as a condition for the Congress’ support of 

Vietnam’s entry into the World Trade Organization. Sadly, instead 

of improving its human rights records, the Government of Vietnam 

has increased its repression of dissenters and religious leaders. To 

continue its imposition of an iron will on the people of Vietnam, the 

government detains, imprisons, places under house arrest, and convicts individuals for their peaceful expression of dissenting political 

or religious views, including but not limited to democracy and 

human rights activists, independent trade union leaders, non-state 

sanctioned publishers, journalists, bloggers, members of ethnic minorities, and unsanctioned religious groups. 

9

The Government of Vietnam especially continues to limit freedom of religion, pressures all religious groups to come under the 

control of government and party control management boards and 

restricts the operation of independent religious organizations. Religious leaders who do not conform to the government’s demands are 

often harassed, arrested, imprisoned, or put under house arrest. 

As noted in the October 2009 report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,

‘‘There continues to be far too many serious abuses and restrictions of religious freedom in the country. Individuals continue 

to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or religious freedom advocacy. Police and government officials are not held fully accountable for abuses. Independent religious activity remains illegal and legal protection 

for government-approved religious organizations are both 

vague and subject to arbitrary or discriminatory interpretations based on political factors. Moreover, property disputes between the government and the Catholic Church in Hanoi led 

to detention, threats, harassment, and violence by contract 

thugs against peaceful prayer vigils and religious leaders.’’

A case that succinctly paints and substantiates the words of the 

Commission on International Religious Freedom is the case of Thai 

Ha Parish, a Catholic parish in Hanoi. The parish was founded by 

the Redemptorist Order in 1935 with the intention of providing 

educational and medical services to the region. Soon after the Communist government took over Hanoi in 1954, it confiscated schools 

that the parish had established, leaving only the facilities to house 

the Redemptorist Brothers, the church building, the community 

center, and a few small structures around the church. But that was 

not enough for the communist government. It subsequently seized 

all the land belonging to the parish around Thai Ha and underhandedly proceeded to take control of the remaining buildings that 

it did not want to confiscate in 1954. For example, in 1959, the government forced the Redemptorists to loan one of the two buildings 

housing the brothers so that the government could turn it into a 

school. Because it was for a good cause, the order complied. In 

1972, the government without due process seized the remaining 

buildings and converted both buildings used to house the brothers 

into a hospital. Subsequently, the government borrowed the community center and set up a wool knitting factory, then it borrowed 

the building at the front of the church and turned it into a Red 

Cross station. Finally, it borrowed the last structure belonging to 

the church and turned it into a machine shop to initiate the Thang 

Long Cooperative. 

In 2008, during peaceful prayer vigils, calling for the return of 

government confiscated church properties, contract thugs harassed 

and dispersed the protesters and destroyed church property. In its 

final act of usurpation, the government then decided only 4 months 

ago to construct a waste treatment plant on or near parish grounds 

to effectively seize the rights of ownership and stewardship after 

they forcibly took over the right of use. Again, the parishioners protested and again the government sent in their thugs. Father 

Nguyen Van Khai described what happened. For a number of days 

10

following October 2, 2011, high-powered loud speakers belonging to 

Quang Trung administrative area beamed toward Thai Ha church 

the government’s plan to build a wastewater treatment plant for 

Dong Da hospital on the 2000 square meter lot belonging to the 

church. Later events took place over a number of days. First, representatives of Dong Da Hospital came to the church to deliver the 

message. Subsequently, the Quang Trung People’s Committee requested a representative of Thai Ha church to come to its offices 

to hear the message. In response, Thai Ha parish promptly submitted a request to the appropriate government unit to one, stop 

all activities under the wastewater treatment project and two, return to the parish the land and buildings that the government borrowed. Furthermore, the parish used an electronic sign to display 

its legitimate demand. Concurrently, the government-owned media 

launched a furious campaign of libel, slander, false accusations and 

threats against parishioners, brothers, and priests in Thai Ha. Following this, the government resorted to its familiar tactics. It’s employees and police mustered a number of strangers, i.e., outside 

thugs who came to the church to threaten, harass, and terrorize 

priests, monks, and parishioners. On November 8, 2011, a government agent came to Mr. Dung’s house and formed a heated discussion. The police used this as an excuse to arrest Mr. Dung. The underlying reality is that like so many other Vietnamese, Thai Ha parishioners are being victimized by a corrupt regime that only cares 

about its own privileges. The regime frequently makes arbitrary 

decisions and backs them up by force instead of following the law. 

The government-owned media is trying to paint us as putting road 

blocks to stop a humanitarian project that will yield public benefits. However, nothing is further from the truth. We follow the law 

even as the government violates the law through its total disregard 

of its citizens’ rights, the rights that the government is supposed 

to respect and protect. 

Similar incidents occurred at Bau Sen, Loan Ly, Tam Toa, Dong 

Chiem, and Con Dau. But religious repression is not limited to 

Catholics. The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam suffers persecution as the Government of Vietnam continues to restrict contacts 

and movement of senior clergy for refusing to join state-sponsored 

Buddhist organizations. The Bat Nha Buddhist monastery at Lam 

Dong Province was attacked by the government thugs in October 

2009 and about 400 monks and nuns were physically abused and 

forcibly evicted from the monastery. Members of the Cai Dai, Hoa 

Hao, Mennonites, and Montagnard Christians suffered detention 

and imprisonment. Faced with these atrocities, the Obama administration’s approach to the human rights condition in Vietnam is to 

stand by and watch. Although administration officials express concerns, they continually push aside Vietnam’s human rights abuses 

to further the interests of the administration. This approach stands 

in stark contrast to the intent of the Founding Fathers of this great 

Nation who built the foundation of this country on principles of religious freedom and tolerance. 

The United States has to be more assertive in forcing Vietnam 

to adhere to the promises that it made to the U.S. Congress in 

2006 and this requires the passing and enforcing of the Vietnam 

Human Rights Act. 

11

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and members of 

this subcommittee for your commitment and support for the people 

of Vietnam. I know that if we persevere in this fight, Vietnam will 

one day be a free and democratic country. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cao follows:]


72463a-1.eps
12


72463a-2.eps
13


72463a-3.eps
14


72463a-4.eps
15


72463a-5.eps
16

Mr. SMITH. Congressman Cao, thank you so very much for that 

testimony. 

Dr. Thang. 

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

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE SOS 

Mr. THANG. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Payne, Congressman Royce, Vice Chairman Fortenberry, Congressman Al Green, 

and Congressman Turner, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to send you our best wishes for Tet, that is, our Lunar 

New Year. That was yesterday. And I also would like to point out 

that we truly appreciate the fact that Congressman Al Green and 

Congressman Royce have been working very closely with our offices 

in Houston and in Orange County on different issues relating to 

the local communities and also relating to human rights issues in 

Vietnam. 

I’d like to point out one fact, a little known fact about Congressman Payne. You stood tall and strong beside us in the darkest moments when the international community and countries of the region pushed back the Boat People. Thank you very much, Congressman Payne. 

First of all, I would like to express our strong support for the 

Vietnam Human Rights Act. I also support the call for the administration to place Vietnam on Tier III in its upcoming TIP Report. 

I also strongly support the redesignation of Vietnam as a Country 

of Particular Concern. And I also would like to call on our whole 

State Department to do a better job at reporting the violations of 

human rights, the gross abuses committed by the police, the widespread use of torture, atrocious forms of torture by the police and 

the attacks on the ethnic minorities in Vietnam. These crimes and 

violations have been under reported by our own State Department. 

Today, I would like to focus on three specific areas of human 

rights violations that have not yet been given appropriate recognition so far. First of all is the systematic and widespread modernday slavery, not just government complicity, but the Government 

of Vietnam was behind it. The Vietnamese Government operates 

those programs. Second, I’d like to touch on the widespread use of 

torture against political dissidents, people of faith, religious leaders, and also the increased frequency of police brutality. And we 

have some pictures that I would like to request the permission of 

the chairman later on after all the testimony to show as an illustration of the true face of brutality committed by the police. 

And finally, I’d like to talk about religious persecution focusing 

on the Hmong Christians. There has been very little news that 

could get out of Vietnam since last May. There was a massacre of 

Hmong Christians in the northwestern region of Vietnam, but we 

obtained never before seen footage and pictures to show to the 

members of this subcommittee. Very important. 

So first of all, let me talk about slavery-like conditions in government-run programs. It is very critical to make the distinction between two different categories of human trafficking in Vietnam. 

One would involve national policies, national programs, run by the 

government, sanctioned by the government, operated by the government, and protected and defended by the government such as 

17

human trafficking under the cover of Vietnam’s national policy of 

labor exports. Two, the forced labor inflicted on not only the rehab 

centers as reported by Human Rights Watch, but also subjected—

a lot of political dissidents have been subjected to those forms, single forms of forced repatriation. I just returned from an extended 

trip to Southeast Asia and I talked to over 100 victims and what 

I found out was in prison camps in Saigon, Vietnam right now, dissidents are being used for forced labor, to produce goods for exports 

overseas. So those are the forms, the most egregious forms of modern-day slavery that the Vietnamese Government doesn’t want 

anyone to talk about. 

The Vietnamese Government in recent days did invite organizations to go into Vietnam to fight the other forms of trafficking, the 

privatized form of trafficking that usually involves only small fish, 

small-time criminals and some low-ranking police officers and 

those who are sex trafficking of women and children to Cambodia 

and other countries. We don’t condone that, but that is a much 

smaller problem compared to labor trafficking in Vietnam. And also 

there’s an issue of child labor trafficking within Vietnam as well. 

So I just came back from Southeast Asia and I talked to a lot 

of people there and we monitored constantly the conditions in Vietnam. Just last year, the Vietnamese parliament, the National Assembly, passed the first law against trafficking. For the first time, 

they did mention labor trafficking, however, it was very disappointing as a document because one, it doesn’t include the standard definition of human trafficking. Initially in its initial draft 

there was a definition, but then they pulled it out in the law that 

got passed. That just became effective a few weeks ago on January 

1st. So the law that got passed essentially excludes all labor export 

companies in Vietnam from being incriminated as the source of the 

trafficking chain from Vietnam to other countries. And also there’s 

no penalties prescribed against the traffickers. 

Every year, Vietnam exports about 80,000 to 100,000 migrant 

workers. That is a $2.2 billion industry, very protected by the Government of Vietnam. And time and again, we have to deal with the 

Vietnamese Government sending these delegations not from the 

Embassy but all the way from Hanoi to the American Samoa, to 

Jordan, to Malaysia, even to Houston to silence the voice of those 

few courageous victims who came forth to expose the involvements 

of the Government of Vietnam in trafficking them. And over the 

past 31⁄2 years, we have rescued thousands of victims and we did 

thorough research through interviews of the victims and we identified over 35 labor export companies from Vietnam who are involved, completely involved in human trafficking. And we have 

brought this to the attention of the Vietnamese Government for the 

past several years. To this day, not a single case has been investigated. Not a single case prosecuted. But instead, the victims 

themselves had been prosecuted and threatened. So that is the 

state of human trafficking and the fight against human trafficking 

in Vietnam. 

Now I would like to mention very quickly about the Vietnamese 

ploy to play up its fight against the other form of human trafficking, the privatized form of human trafficking, just try to cover 

18

up the bigger problem of labor trafficking. So please do pay attention to the latter problem. 

Now with torture. There has been widespread use of torture from 

my direct interviews with the victims. In late 2010, Prime Minister 

Nguyen Tan Dung asked Secretary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, for assistance to help Vietnam prepare itself to ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture. It should be very simple. There is no need for 

technical assistance. Just give—issue a decree to stop the use of 

torture. We have observed a significant increase in the use of torture. Forms of torture would include beating of the victims in the 

chests and the sides and legs; handcuffing the victims up around 

the window and beating him up with batons and electric rods; 

stripping the victim naked, including women, and flogging him or 

her with a belt; hanging the victim to the ceiling beam and punching in the stomach; drawing a large amount of blood every week 

to debilitate the victim; standing the victim in water, electro-shocking him or her; applying electric shocks to the victim’s private 

parts, genitals for men, and vagina for women. Horrendous forms 

of torture. 

And what we found out that was even more troubling, the police 

in Vietnam maintain special torture chambers outside of the prison. For instance, I talked with several Montagnards who returned 

to Vietnam after being rejected by UNHCR. And they were told, 

‘‘You’ll be fine, just go back to Vietnam. You’ll be safe.’’ So they 

went back to Vietnam and they got arrested in Tay Ninh. And the 

police in Tay Ninh put them in prison, tortured them every day 

and for those few who were considered stubborn, in the dead of the 

night at 1 a.m., that person would be pulled out, taken to the special place called BC14, just outside the prison and that’s where the 

police operate a special torture chamber with special instruments 

and equipment. And the guys are very big, muscular, vicious, they 

are well trained, specialty trained to inflict torture on the victims. 

Most people had to admit to crimes that they never committed. 

And then they were brought back to the prison around 5 a.m. 

And we have compiled reports of all those interviews. I’d like to 

submit them to the subcommittee at another time. 

We also have pictures of police brutality inflicted against people 

of faith that I’d like to show afterwards. 

And finally, about the Hmong Christians. January of last year, 

the police came into a Hmong village of Xa Na Khua in the Muong 

Nhe District and in that Hmong village there were about 100 

households all converted to Protestantism and all the government 

was to raze the entire—raze flat the entire village. The explanation 

was this: ‘‘Either you renounce your faith or you have no place 

here. Protestantism is an American religion. If you stick to your religion, go to America to till America’s land. Go to America to follow 

America’s religion.’’ And then on January 28th, they proceeded to 

demolish the homes. So they completed the demolition of 13 homes 

and they stopped because of Lunar New Year and 15th of March 

last year, they came back. The government came back with the 

military and workers to break down all the remaining homes and 

therefore in May, on May 1st, the Hmong villagers they gathered 

in Muong Nhe, a small village in Muong Nhe District. And other 

Hmong across the country who suffered the same atrocities got 

19

word of that, so they came to the same place from across the country and there were 4,000 to 5,000 of them. And the police moved 

in, mobile police and the riot police and the military moved in with 

guns, batons, electric rods and assaulted these Hmong Christians. 

And their only demand was one, don’t destroy our homes, don’t 

take our land; two, allow us to be Christian. And you know that 

in the three provinces of Son Lai, Lai Chau and Dien Bien in the 

northern part of Vietnam, there’s not a single church. There’s none, 

none allowed by the government. And that’s their peaceful demonstration, very simple demands and the troops attacked them. A 

lot of people died and some got buried alive. And we got a list I’m 

going to submit for the record of 14 who got killed, just partial list. 

And these 14, we only verified by talking to either eye witnesses 

or the relatives of the deceased. 

And according to a few who made it to Thailand, hundreds are 

still in hiding to this day in the jungle and one by one they are 

being hunted down by the police. Just last month, one of them got 

shot dead when he tried to escape as the police approached. So that 

is the degree of religious persecution. We’re not talking about harassment. This is egregious. And with your permission, I’d like to 

show later some of those footages, you can see with your own eyes 

the atrocities committed by the Government of Vietnam against 

people of faith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]

20


72463b-1.eps
21


72463b-2.eps
22


72463b-3.eps
23


72463b-4.eps
24


72463b-5.eps
25


72463b-6.eps
26


72463b-7.eps
27


72463b-8.eps
28


72463b-9.eps
29


72463b-10.eps
30

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

Mr. Nay. And at the end of the testimony, we will show those 

pictures, your pictures. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RONG NAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MONTAGNARD HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION 

Mr. NAY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Rong Nay, and I am the 

executive director of the Montagnard Human Rights Organization. 

I represent the Montagnard people living both in the U.S. and in 

the Central Highlands of Vietnam. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for the 

honor and opportunity to share our feelings and experiences about 

the ongoing human rights abuses in Vietnam. I had the honor to 

testify at the first U.S. congressional hearing about Montagnards 

sponsored by former U.S. Senator Jesse Helms in 1998. I am very 

sad to report that human rights conditions in Vietnam have gotten 

much worse for the Montagnard people in the past decade. My testimony is a summary from my written statement that focuses on 

this area. 

Religious persecution. After U.S. normalization with Vietnam, 

the Government of Vietnam said there was freedom of religion in 

Vietnam, but in reality, it is not true. The freedom of religion of 

the Vietnamese Government is only to allow worship in government-sponsored churches, not in house churches. Montagnard pastors continue to be arrested, tortured, and persecuted. Human 

Rights Watch has published a detailed report in 20ll on the continuing religious persecution of Montagnards in the Central Highlands. 

We call on the U.S. Government to reinstate the Vietnam designation as a Country of Particular Concern for extreme violations 

of religious freedom are personal abuse. The Montagnard Christians are forced to renounce their faith. They are beaten, many put 

in jail, suffer long and terribly in jail and prisons without enough 

food, medicine, even family visits. Many suffer solitary confinement, torture. The Vietnamese Government continues to arrest, 

torture, and jail to Montagnard Christians. There are currently 390 

Montagnard Christians in prison for their religious or political beliefs for up to 16 years. 

Mr. Chairman, we recommend that the release of all the 

Montagnard prisoners is negotiated and they are released before 

any more U.S. Government defense and trade treaties with Vietnam go forward. We ask that this list be included in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

Mr. NAY. The Montagnard refugee protection. The UNHCR site 

in Phnom Penh, Cambodia closed in February 2011. Montagnard 

asylum seekers now have no place to feel safe and find sanctuary. 

Asylum seekers have fled to Thailand, been arrested and put into 

detention. We have reports of Montagnards hiding in the jungles 

in Vietnam right now because they have no safe place to hide. They 

are desperate. There are hundreds of Montagnards who have attempted to flee persecution in Vietnam and were hunted down by 

the police, beaten and put in jail. 

31

We urgently recommend that the U.S. State Department, in cooperation, with UNHCR, create a process and a place at the U.S. 

Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City or another country, which allows 

Montagnard asylum seekers to have a fair interview with a 

UNHCR or U.S. official, taking into account the very real conditions of ethnic discrimination and persecution that many 

Montagnards face in Vietnam. We respectfully request that the 

U.S. State Department re-open its Refugee Program within Vietnam because there are many claims of well-founded persecution 

within Vietnam. Why are the Montagnard persecutions being ignored by the U.S. Government? 

We also have proposed that a U.S. satellite consular office be established in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Such an office 

would be beneficial to facilitate refugee claims and standard immigrant visa processing. This satellite office could also be utilized for 

humanitarian and development assistance programs focusing on 

Montagnards in the Central Highlands. The U.S. Department of 

Defense has shown interest in establishing humanitarian aid programs in the Central Highlands. 

Vietnam’s ethnic cleansing policy. The Montagnard indigenous 

peoples are crying out to keep our ancestral land, our language, 

and our culture. We ask for help from the U.S. 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 coffee plantations. The Government of Vietnam accuses 

our Montagnard people of causing trouble, but we want only to 

keep our land and our farms, our heritage, and our survival. 

The need for development assistance. The United Nations, the 

European Union, and the U.S. State Department have all acknowledged that the rate of poverty for the Montagnard indigenous peoples is much higher than the majority Kinh or Vietnamese populations. We ask and recommend that the U.N. and the U.S. put 

more emphasis on development assistance, scholarships, boarding 

schools and Montagnard education in the Central Highlands. 

Montagnards do not have the same opportunities in education 

and development as Vietnamese. For example, over 15,000 Vietnamese students have been sent to the United States for education, 

but not a single Montagnard college graduate is allowed to have a 

scholarship to the U.S. 

The abuse of free emigration. The Government of Vietnam continues to break the agreement of free emigration that was outlined 

in the U.S. Jackson-Vanik Amendment that was tied to the U.S.-

Vietnam Trade Agreement in past years. 

Mr. Chairman, it is our 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 Vietnam’s 

Central Highlands. 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. We hope that the subcommittee today, 

the U.S. Government and the world, will hear our prayer and plea 

for help. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share the 

32

plight of our Montagnard people in the Central Highlands of Vietnam and our recommendations on how to help. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nay follows:]


72463c-1.eps
33


72463c-2.eps
34


72463c-3.eps
35


72463c-4.eps
36


72463c-5.eps
37

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nay, thank you so very much for your testimony 

and very practical recommendations. 

I’d like to now recognize Ms. Vu for such time as she would like 

to use. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PHUONG-ANH VU, VICTIM OF HUMAN 

TRAFFICKING 

[Testimony delivered via translator.] 

Ms. VU. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to be 

here and wish your family a happy Lunar New Year. 

I grew up in poverty in a province called Lao Cai in Vietnam. My 

family is Catholic so we have difficulties living there under the Vietnamese Government policy of persecuting Christian people. 

The government has the policy of persecuting Christian Hmong 

people and anyone that believes in Christianity. My family, we 

have the two of us, my sister and I. And my father died when I 

was 1 year old. When I turned 16, my sister was kidnapped and 

she’s been missing since then. Heeding the Vietnamese Government’s call for citizens’ participation in the labor export program in 

2008 I was transferred to Jordan and working in a sewing factory 

for a Taiwanese contractor. I was among 276 women and with the 

promise to only work 8 hours a day and that we would earn $300 

a month. That is an enormous amount of money for myself, along 

with the people that came with me. 

Myself, along with all my friends, each of us had to pretty much 

mortgage our home and borrow money, $2,000, to participate in 

this program. We were never given any contracts to sign and it 

wasn’t until we got on the plane where they gave us the contract. 

When we got to Jordan, it turns out that nothing was what was 

promised to us. When we arrived, immediately they took all of our 

paperwork, all of our passports, and immediately put us to work. 

Then starting the next day, we have to work and the shift was 16 

hours a day. 

I worked for 10 days and I received $10. I was very upset and 

surprised, so I asked the employer and the employer’s response was 

that I need to talk to the people who brought me here which would 

be the Vietnamese Government. I went on strike, along with some 

of my friends, to demand the payment for what was promised. We 

stopped working for 10 days and the owner gave me an ultimatum, 

gave us an ultimatum after that. They withheld food, electricity, 

and water from us. A lot of us—some of them were afraid, so they 

returned to work, but 176 of us remained on strike. A woman 

named Vu Thu Ha, she’s a representative of the labor export company, she led a group of people who came to our rooms and started 

torturing us. 

All the women there are like me, very small, and tiny and weakened by not having food and so forth. So they were beaten. I was 

beaten, along with—some of our friends, they hit them, smashed 

their head on the floor. So it was really brutal. 

I witnessed myself that some of my friends were really weak and 

not able to defend themselves and their hair was pulled like an 

animal and it’s very heartbreaking. And they continued to beat us 

and I didn’t know what to do, so I took a cell phone and tried to 

38

record what was happening, so they started beating me and the 

bruise is still there on my head and it’s still there. 

So I was heartbroken to see for myself all the women having to 

suffer through this. What I didn’t understand was that after the 

owner of the company witnessed us all being beaten and he did not 

do anything and then afterward they all were shaking hands. So 

I didn’t understand why that was happening. We were isolated and 

confined in rooms. We tried to get help and scream through the 

windows. Nobody came. The Jordanian police were there, but they 

were there to help beat us, rather than helping us. 

A lot of my friends were vomiting blood and they were obviously 

seriously injured. I tried to call for help and no one came to help 

us. So I didn’t know what to do so I have to find food and medicines to help my friends. I had to gather everything that we have 

and even the tampons for women to sell to get the money to buy 

noodles for my friends. I’m sorry, but it gets very emotional for me. 

And then one day the Vietnamese Government delegation came. 

I was happy because I thought they would be there to help us. But 

it turned out they came, it was very disappointing because not only 

did they not help us, but they also threatened me. The reason they 

threatened because I was the one that contacted the newspaper in 

Vietnam. They did an article and the article got to Dr. Thang, 

that’s how he knew about it and Dr. Thang sent us money and 

that’s why they came to threaten me. 

I used the money that was given from Dr. Thang to get medicine 

for my friends, but the government accused me of collaborating 

with the NGOs for my own benefit. I asked Dr. Thang to help my 

friends because most of them were very sick from being beaten and 

Dr. Thang arranged to have some physicians from IOM to come 

and help them. After the IOM delegation came and left, we were 

confined and isolated again and we were not allowed to leave. Then 

we were able to return to Vietnam and I learned that it was thanks 

to the Congressman and Dr. Thang. 

There are two gentlemen named Truong Xuan Thanh and Tran 

Viet Tu that announced I was returning home and there were 

threats that I would be imprisoned when I returned home. Dr. 

Thang helped me escape and when I got to Thailand I was able to 

escape from the government. The journey of my escape was very 

long and time is limited, so I won’t be able to explain all that right 

now. While I was in Thailand I was threatened by the Vietnamese 

Embassy and they said they would cut me into thousands of pieces. 

And I have that recorded, that conversation. While I was living in 

Thailand for 3 years, there was a lot of suffering including for my 

mom and it was very emotional for me while I was staying there. 

The most heartbreak for me was my 3-year-old daughter was 

electrocuted and died and she was not allowed to be buried unless 

I am home. They wanted me to go home before they can allow her 

to be buried. I was ready to go home to at least bury my daughter, 

but I learned that the police, the Vietnamese police were surrounding my home. 

One of my friends who was beaten has died because of the injury. 

I don’t know what else to say. I just wanted to send my gratitude 

to Dr. Thang and Congressman Smith and the panel and the U.S. 

Government for allowing this hearing and hope that it will help my 

39

people. I know there’s going to be a lot of uncertainties and threats 

for me participating in this hearing. However, I chose to do it because I don’t want a second Phoug-Anh like myself. I would like 

to be able to prevent this from happening to other people. 

I wish that everyone on the panel along with everyone here in 

the room now that you have heard my testimony that you would 

raise the voice and do something to help the Vietnamese women 

from suffering from human trafficking.

[NOTE: An edited version of the previous oral testimony, provided 

by Ms. Vu, appears in the appendix.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Phuong-Anh Vu follows:]

40


72463d-1.eps
41


72463d-2.eps
42


72463d-3.eps
43


72463d-4.eps
44


72463d-5.eps
45

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for that extraordinarily 

moving testimony. It moves this subcommittee and moves, I’m 

sure, the members of this committee to do even more to combat 

human trafficking so that there are no victims, hopefully fewer and 

then no victims. So your testimony will be pivotal, so thank you so 

very much for sharing it. If there is retaliation against you, your 

friends, your family, or anyone—please, let us know about that. We 

will also alert the administration as to that retaliation, and I know 

in a bipartisan way we will do everything we can to ensure that 

that does not happen, because again, coming here was an act of 

bravery, especially when an Embassy person tells you they will cut 

you to pieces. After hearing Dr. Thang and others explain the widespread use of torture which includes cutting, it is a threat that cannot be taken lightly and it brings nothing but dishonor to the Vietnamese Government. 

Mr. Sifton? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN SIFTON, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR FOR 

ASIA, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Mr. SIFTON. Thank you also for the invitation to testify today 

and I would echo what other witnesses said and all of us at Human 

Rights Watch appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in the human 

rights situation in Vietnam and welcome the efforts today to address it. 

The other witnesses today and the members of the subcommittee 

themselves already provided a lot of information about many of the 

human rights issues in Vietnam today including the crackdowns on 

religious activity, the problems facing ethnic minorities, the increased attacks on political dissidents, migrant and trafficking 

issues, and the worsening crackdown on free expression generally. 

I will add from the written version of my testimony. There’s some 

issues with land rights and land confiscation which need a little bit 

more attention paid to them and some continuing problems with 

torture and police brutality which we highlighted, I highlighted in 

the written version of my testimony. There’s also these worrying 

new facts about forced labor camps, administrative detention centers. And we don’t have time to run through each of these points 

now again, but again, I’ve provided details in each of the points in 

my written version of the testimony. 

In terms of the overall picture, I can sum it all up in a simple 

sentence. The state of human rights in Vietnam is very poor and 

it’s growing worse. As the other witnesses have noted in the last 

year, the government has actually intensified its repression of activists and dissidents, bloggers, writers, human rights defenders, 

land rights activists, anti-corruption campaigners, and religious 

and democracy advocates, advocates for minorities, and all of these 

folks from all across Vietnamese society are being subject to harassment and intimidation and arrest and imprisonment and torture. And I’m not even mentioning fully the issues of Internet restrictions, a topic on which you could easily have an entire hearing 

unto itself. But suffice it to say we’re seeing increased evidence on 

that front of government filtering of Internet content, blogs blocked 

by local Internet service providers, comments critical to the government being removed from news postings, Facebook is blocked interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:32 Apr 11, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\012412\72463 HFA PsN: SHIRL
46

mittently in many areas. And indeed, the only reason it’s not being 

blocked everywhere appears to be the government hasn’t completely figured out how to do that. The government is growing increasingly sophisticated in its filtering. It’s not easy to block the 

Internet because of its design and its set up, but as China has 

shown it’s possible and it’s looking increasingly like Vietnam is following the China model. 

I’d also repeat what the other witnesses have said including Congressman Cao which is that land rights issues, land confiscation 

issues, both for ethnic minorities and religious groups and just for 

Vietnamese citizens across the country is an area of increasing concern. And again, police brutality, torture, absolutely is another 

issue I flagged in my written version of my testimony which Dr. 

Thang mentioned. 

Another issue though just to flag right now very quickly is administrative detention. In the report we issued last September, 

‘‘The Rehab Archipelago,’’ Human Rights Watch documented a lot 

of abuses in these administrative detention centers and that report 

I’d love to submit to the report of this hearing. The details are all 

in there, but I just want to note now that the administrative detention is not just for drug users. Drug users were what we talked 

about in that report. But it was also reported to us of Vietnamese 

citizens placed in administrative detention for being homeless, for 

engaging in prostitution. There’s even a recent case of authorities 

using administrative detention camps for dissidents. Last week, 

last November, excuse me, a People’s Committee in Hanoi ordered 

police to send a prominent land rights activist to an administrative 

detention center for 24 months. It’s that news article that Congressman Royce referred to that resulted in this Wall Street Journal article being written which then was blacked out in the editions that were delivered in Saigon at least. And it speaks for 

itself. 

I can also offer to the subcommittee the actual text of the article 

that was blacked out in case you actually would like to see that. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, we’ll put in both the blacked out 

as well as the full. 

Mr. SIFTON. I’d echo and repeat Dr. Thang’s point about products 

produced in forced labor entering the supply chain, including possibly into the United States. A good example of a product like that 

is cashews. Members of the subcommittee may want to think about 

that the next time you’re offered some cashews, for instance. Cashew nuts don’t have certificates of origin like diamonds do, so you 

can’t prove that a specific cashew nut comes from a particular 

country, let alone a particular forced labor camp. But it’s a fact 

that Vietnam is a leading exporter of cashews in the world and the 

United States is its biggest importer of cashew nuts in the world. 

So if you perhaps eat 100 cashews over the year, there’s a chance 

that some of them were shelled in a forced labor camp in Vietnam. 

And I would note that food writers now coin the term ‘‘blood cashews’’ to refer to Vietnamese cashews. This is perhaps the first report where I ever engaged in advocacy, not just with the State Department and the White House and PEPFAR, but with food writers. I even corresponded with celebrity food writers like Anthony 

Bourdain about this issue. 

47

So I raise these issues in order to make a point. There’s a growing global awareness today that Vietnam is a country that has a 

very problematic human rights record and it’s getting more attention. It’s in the public consciousness and this provides us a really 

great opportunity to talk about what can be done and how U.S. 

power can be leveraged to affect serious improvements on human 

rights in Vietnam. That’s really how I’d like to end. 

There are several possible approaches I want to offer. The State 

Department, as you referred to in your opening statements, is negotiating a strategic partnership with the Vietnamese Government. 

The U.S. Trade Representative is negotiating with Vietnam in the 

context of the Trans-Pacific Free Trade Agreement. So obviously, 

the administration has a lot of levers to pull and push with Vietnam. Our understanding is that the State Department and the 

U.S. Trade Representative are pulling and pushing those levers. 

Michael Posner, the chief of the State Department’s Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor Section has been a very vocal critic. 

During the recent U.S.-Vietnam human rights dialogue, he didn’t 

pull any punches. He arranged to have the Vietnamese Government delegation sit down directly with us at Human Rights Watch 

and we gave them all kinds of criticism. 

Secretary Clinton was very vocal during her trip with President 

Obama through Hawaii and on to Bali during the East Asia Summit last November. She made clear Vietnam’s human rights problems are an impediment to reaching better diplomatic relations 

with Vietnam and other U.S. officials have made the same point, 

including Members of Congress very recently have said the same 

thing. But it’s vitally important not to let up the pressure and 

that’s what I really want to say today. The test will not come now, 

but will come at the 11th hour, some time in the next few years 

when the State Department is finalizing a strategic partnership, 

military to military relationship. The Pentagon will be involved. 

And the U.S. Trade Representative will be completing its agreement with the TPP nations, including Vietnam. 

Let me say as an aside, I very much doubt that the TPP negotiations will be finalized this year, despite what the U.S. Trade Representative says, but whenever it happens, U.S. resolve on human 

rights in Vietnam has to remain steady and strong. So this subcommittee, as well as the Vietnam Caucus and other important 

players, are really important actors in clarifying and conveying 

those concerns to the administration. 

This is what we think and I think this is what the administration thinks. I hope it’s what you think. The U.S. has an agenda for 

change here. The idea is to encourage Vietnam to improve its 

human rights practices and that will enable better international relations, increase military to military engagement, better trade engagement, but there can’t be a last minute change in heart. You 

can’t have the administration suddenly leaping to a different idea, 

suddenly offering a new doctrine, suddenly making some claim 

based on faith that Vietnam is going to change gradually, organically, it will take time, that the change will be more likely when 

the United States engages with Vietnam, that we should engage 

with Vietnam because that will bring about change. Those are the 

cliche ́d theories of change that were offered with China in 1994 

48

when the Most Favored Nation status was up and we can see how 

well that worked out. 

So our request to you is simple. Don’t let up. The administration 

may come later and offer the theory that I just articulated and I 

imagine you’ll hear it from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office 

first. And I’m saying please don’t accept it. Don’t take that bill of 

goods. Vietnam needs major reforms and if they don’t make them, 

Congress should just tell the administration, whatever administration it is, that it doesn’t support broader agreements. Vietnam 

needs the United States more for its strategic objectives than the 

United States needs Vietnam. And that’s leverage that just can’t be 

wasted. 

So we greatly appreciate your consideration and our recommendations and as the other witnesses have said, thank you for 

allowing me to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sifton follows:]

49


72463e-1.eps
50


72463e-2.eps
51


72463e-3.eps
52


72463e-4.eps
53


72463e-5.eps
54


72463e-6.eps
55


72463e-7.eps
56

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

Your report, we would like to make a part of the record, so if you 

could submit that, it would be very helpful. And your final words 

certainly were an indictment of the Vietnamese Government. I 

mean the deterioration, worsening crackdown on free expression, 

worrying new facts about forced labor camps, ongoing crackdowns 

of religious freedom, and problems facing ethnic minorities, and 

then how you elaborated in your testimony, it just finishes what all 

of our distinguished witnesses laid out for us today, an egregiously 

deteriorating situation in Vietnam. It was bad, but it is getting 

worse. And I think the pivot was right after when the Bilateral 

Agreement was signed and all the false hope, perhaps well meaning, but unwittingly people said it will get better if we only trade 

a little more. That has not been the case and your point about 

MFN with China, I remember that day because I had gone over to 

Beijing. Midway through the review period brought a letter signed 

by 100 Members of the House and Senate, from Nancy Pelosi and 

so many Members of the conservative side, Henry Hyde, many others, and I gave it to the Foreign Ministry, not the top guy, but the 

number two who met with me, and he laughed. He laughed. He 

said we’re going to get MFN and sure enough on May 26, 1994, 

they did and if you go to C–SPAN you can watch because I had 

a press conference. David Bonior did and Nancy Pelosi did. President Clinton ripped up the Executive order that linked human 

rights with trade and that was an absolute pivot point for deterioration in China. Likewise in an almost identical, parallel, way, 

right after the Bilateral Trade Agreement, with no linkage to 

human rights, things have deteriorated massively. 

So thank you, each and every one of you for your testimony. I 

would ask our panelists in the way you have touched on it in many 

ways, Ambassador John Hanford, our former Ambassador-at-Large 

for International Religious Freedom, when he recommended, as did 

others in the administration—the Bush administration—that CPC 

status, Country of Particular Concern, be rescinded for Vietnam, it 

was all based on promise. John Hanford would say there are 

deliverables that they are willing to engage in, to stop the forced 

renunciation of the Montagnards, for example, and all of these 

other repressions of Catholics, the Unified Buddhist Church, and 

all the others, all these promises, promises, promises CPC was lifted, the Bilateral Agreement was agreed to, MFN conferred—and 

then a massive retaliation against religious believers, Block 8406, 

all leading to say why wasn’t CPC put back last year? Well, the 

administration has the opportunity right now. 

I held all the hearings on the International Religious Freedom 

Act, Congressman Frank Wolf’s bill. I know exactly how the bill 

works. They could do it today. They could say the record warrants 

it. So I would ask our distinguished panelists if they might want 

to talk about CPC and why it is critical that it be reimposed right 

now with all 18 potential acts of penalty that could be imposed on 

the Government of Vietnam. 

Secondly, on the issue of trafficking, that’s the bill I wrote. And 

I can tell you when we did those minimum standards and redid 

them in ’03 and ’05, because I wrote those as well, and then the 

final bill was done, the Wilberforce Bill, which further tweaked 

57

those standards, it couldn’t be more clear that both on labor and 

sex, but especially labor trafficking, Vietnam absolutely warrants a 

Tier III ranking, which carries with it penalties as well. And for 

reasons that are absolutely beyond me, the administration has 

failed to impose what is warranted by the facts on the ground. 

Those designations are about those facts, with that designation. 

You could do nothing with CPC or nothing with Tier III if you 

think you’re making progress, but it gives the opportunity to impose two sets of sanctions on the Government of Vietnam for trafficking reasons. 

Dr. Thang, if you might want to start on those two very big 

issues. 

Mr. THANG. Yes, Mr. Chairman. While I just asked my colleague 

to try to upload the video, if it doesn’t work, then I can show it on 

my laptop. What about the CPC? In 2006, before the CPC designation for Vietnam was rescinded, we provided a list of 671 Hmong 

house churches in the northwestern part of Vietnam and they all 

tried to register themselves according to the new ordinance. And in 

2007, the Vietnamese Government decided to indefinitely suspend 

any review of those applications in April 2007. So none of them got 

registered. 

And during the U.S.-Vietnam human rights dialogue in 2010, to 

the credit of our own State Department, they presented this list 

again to the Vietnamese Government, this is 4 years later. And I 

had personally—and Congressman Cao was there, too—a meeting 

with Congressman Howard Berman and his staff delivered the 

good news, the Vietnamese Government declared right at the moment this will be our top priority when we go back to Vietnam. 

We’ll revisit, review this list to make sure they get registered. A 

few months later, what happened? That massacre in Muong Nhe, 

just a few months later, after the promise from the Vietnamese delegation attending the U.S.-Vietnam human rights dialogue. 

And when I look back at this list here and I promise to provide 

this for the record, the village that got razed flat by the Vietnamese Government was also on the list. They tried for so many 

years to register according to the ordinance of belief and religion 

issued in 2004. And instead of reviewing, the Government of Vietnam destroyed an entire village because they were all Protestants. 

And that’s what happens to the CPC. So there’s no improvement 

since ’07. It’s getting worse and worse. 

Regarding trafficking, I propose that our Government do a simple thing. Year after year after year, the Trafficking in Persons Report, the TIP Report, listed cases of trafficking from Vietnam to 

other countries, Malaysia, Jordan, Taiwan, et cetera. All we need 

to do is to go back to the Vietnamese Government and ask them 

what has happened to these victims and what has happened to 

these export companies that were involved in these cases? We need 

to follow up. And it would be very clear that nothing had been done 

to investigate the corporate, the perpetrators and a lot has been 

done to silence and threaten and persecute the victims. That’s a 

very simple task. Just go back for the past 5 years through their 

own TIP Reports and report it back to Congress. Based on that, 

make recommendations on ranking Vietnam, either Tier II Watch 

List or Tier III. I believe it should be Tier III squarely. 

58

Mr. CAO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate the words of Dr. 

Thang and again, I just want to look at this issue from the standpoint of the leverage that we have to use against Vietnam in order 

to promote change. We have seen in the last 2 years, at least I 

have seen in the last 2 years, is that our approach, the administration’s approach to Vietnam has all been about lip service. We saw 

a lot of things. We might condemn publicly the actions of Vietnam. 

But behind the scenes other things occur. We increase trade relations. We increase military operations so on and so forth, without 

putting very concrete steps that we would require Vietnam to follow through with the promises that they made to the U.S. Congress. 

So my plea to the U.S. Congress is if the administration does not 

act, the U.S. Congress must act. And our action will put Vietnam 

on notice that we are paying attention to what they’re doing, that 

their actions cannot escape unnoticed. Their actions cannot escape 

without ramifications. So again, my plea to the U.S. Congress is 

that the Congress must act. And I hope that the Congress will pass 

the Vietnam Human Rights bill, put Vietnam back on the list of 

Countries of Particular Concern, passing the Vietnam Sanctions 

bill being pushed forward by Congressman Royce, and other legislation that will force Vietnam to pay close attention to what they’ve 

been doing to their people. 

Mr. SMITH. I would say to my good friend, Anh Cao, that we are 

scheduling a markup for the Vietnam Human Rights Act and whoever seeks to block it, because it twice passed the House, and a 

third time we actually had it readied as an amendment to an appropriations bill and it was blocked, all three over on the Senate 

side, I will absolutely call out, as I have in the past, but more so 

now given the fact that we have seen gross deterioration of the 

human rights situation in Vietnam. I don’t care who is in the 

White House, I will say this, under George Bush, there was a relaxation or elimination of the CPC status which was done purely 

on faith and as I said on deliverables, within months of seeing that 

things further deteriorated vis-a`-vis religious freedom, I and so 

many others were speaking out. I don’t care who is in the White 

House. When you’re getting abused, you don’t say as a Republican 

or a Democrat, is somebody trying to protect their man who happens to be at the White House or at the State Department, not so 

this chairman. So if that bill is blocked, because we will mark it 

up in a week or two in subcommittee, I will call them out and call 

them out every day of the week. 

Yes, Mr. Sifton? 

Mr. SIFTON. A couple of low-hanging fruit about pushing these 

issues forward. I think that trafficking of persons, Tier III designation would be wonderful. CPC would be wonderful. We really welcome the letter to Secretary Clinton about the human rights report 

coming up. We’re pushing the U.S. Committee on International Religious Freedom to strengthen its language, but a few words about 

some other players on the stage. I can’t over-emphasize how important the U.S. Trade Representative is right now as an interlocutor 

on these issues. I mean they’ll say good things about how they’re 

listening and they want to use congressional leverage to pressure 

59

Vietnam, but I feel like the whole situation is kind of in a state 

of unreality. 

The U.S. Trade Representative is insisting the negotiations are 

done quickly and yet it seems inconceivable that Vietnam would 

make the kind of reforms that would be the precursor for it being 

a party to the TPP. So either they’re planning to just throw Vietnam out of the TPP at the last minute which is one way of getting 

the TPP finalized, or they’re going to just give up on getting the 

reforms that they say they want to get. So they need to be brought 

up here to explain exactly what the agenda is. 

Of course, it’s difficult to get them to talk about the negotiating 

strategy, but there needs to be some accountability on the USTR. 

Another thing is it kind of galls me as the Asia director for advocacy, that there’s this big bank out of Manila, the Asian Development Bank which gets an enormous amount of money from the 

United States Government and gives an enormous amount of that 

money to Vietnam. The World Bank does, too, but I mean the 

Asian Development Bank is a pretty big player and they give a lot 

of money to Vietnam and we’re a voting member. We’re the second 

biggest shareholder in the bank out in Manila after Japan and we 

ought to use that leverage at the bank and we don’t. If you go out 

to Manila and visit the ADB today, it’s like walking into the World 

Bank 25 years ago. I don’t speak from personal experience, but 

from what I’ve heard. Human rights is not on the agenda. It’s just 

give out money. 

So again, if you can exercise the oversight over the Asian Development Bank and its funding for programs in Vietnam, that would 

certainly be great. World Bank, too, but of course, they’re a little 

bit better on this. 

And then lastly, the Pentagon. What exactly is on the table with 

the strategic partnership? What exactly is Ambassador Shear negotiating? I have full faith in Ambassador Shear in Hanoi. He’s very 

serious about pushing these issues. They have pushed these issues. 

They’ve been helpful in a number of particular cases and they’ve 

raised general issues as well, but what exactly is being negotiated 

with the Pentagon? And how crucial is Vietnam to our naval posture in the Pacific? I’m not a naval strategist, but you don’t have 

to be Admiral Nimitz to appreciate that there’s more than one way 

to posture the fleet in the Pacific. They have to be prepared that 

if Vietnam doesn’t reform, then the strategic partnership isn’t 

going to go forward. 

Mr. SMITH. Excellent point, Mr. Sifton. We’re planning on inviting Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to testify and others within 

the State Department. But I think your point about USTR is a 

great one and we will invite them to come and testify so thank you 

for that recommendation. In terms of the bank, I think it is time 

for some oversight and perhaps a letter that we could do jointly to 

them and follow up on that issue as well. Those are very well taken 

points. 

My final question before going to Mr. Green, I just want to ask 

in regards to your point, Dr. Thang, about the Vietnamese law on 

human trafficking conveniently sidestepping the Palermo Protocol 

which is the boilerplate language used all around the world. And 

if you weaken that, you absolutely will get a weakened version of 

60

any kind of trafficking law. And the issue of torture which you laid 

out in frankly nauseating detail, which it has to be, it has always 

been my observation that when a dictatorship is doing something 

hideous like torturing and doing it in a very pervasive way, they 

often talk about signing a U.N. Convention or some other kind of 

convention which distracts and gets the eye to look askance as to 

what’s happening on the ground. 

China perfected that art form when they continually announced 

upon coming here with a high-level delegation that they were going 

to sign the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights 

and they milked that one for years. And then there’s no enforcement mechanism to any of these, including torture besides reporting and it’s not to be discounted how important that is, but the torture issue, I don’t think gets enough focus from Congress or from 

anyone of us. So I thank you especially for bringing it to our attention today. 

Mr. THANG. Mr. Chairman, may I also suggest very quickly that 

now there are so many asylum seekers that have successfully fled 

to Thailand, they are the witnesses of the crime of modern-day 

slavery against them, of the crime of torture against them, of detention, of religious persecution against them. It’s very simple for 

our State Department to ask our own officer to work on human 

rights issues in Thailand and Bangkok, just make a visit to them 

and talk to them, collect a lot of information that could not have 

otherwise been collected inside Vietnam. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I thank all of the 

witnesses for testifying and I again will focus on Ms. Vu for your 

testimony. As the chairman indicated, it was quite moving, compelling, and candidly, overwhelming. I’m very concerned about you. 

I’m not sure I should say where you live, but I’m concerned about 

you. My hope is that you will take to heart what the chairman said 

about any concerns you might have being called to his attention, 

our attention through him, because I have to be concerned given 

what I’ve heard. 

I am concerned about persons who were left behind. Doctor, you 

were helpful. How many people are still in that circumstance that 

she was extricated from? Do you have any guesstimate? 

Mr. THANG. Her last knowledge was about 70 people remaining 

in Jordan. 

Mr. GREEN. And Doctor, from your intelligence, is this just one 

of multiple venues in Jordan or is this the sole venue that we have 

intelligence on that’s in this country, in Jordan? 

Mr. THANG. There are only two sweatshops operating with Vietnamese in Jordan that we are aware of and the one that we wrote 

on was one of the two. There might be more. Vietnam is sending 

more and more workers to the Middle East these days. There are 

three major markets for Vietnamese labor exports. One is Malaysia, the second will be Taiwan, and the third one is now the Middle 

East. 

But let me add one thing here. You’re right on the spot when you 

talk about safety. Because right after this subcommittee announced 

the hearing with her name, she got a threatening call from the 

place that she’s living and I had to call someone in security to protect her. And I would like to——

61

Mr. SMITH. Pass that on to the FBI, immediately. 

Mr. THANG. I would also like to add that the spokesperson of the 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam who, back in 2010 held a 

press conference denouncing her, is now the General Consul of 

Vietnam in Houston. And the one, Mr. Truong Xuan Thanh, who 

came to Jordan to threaten her, and tried to report to Vietnam for 

punishment, he’s now the General Consul of Vietnam in Frankfurt, 

Germany. They all got promoted. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for 

pointing out that the FBI can be of assistance. Thank you for that. 

Just an aside if I may, the Vietnamese community in Houston did 

its part in protesting that consulate coming to Houston and more 

specifically we really took a hard stand on it coming into my district in Houston. There is concern. There is concern. And the Vietnamese people have raised these concerns. 

Let me ask Mr. Sifton, you mentioned the blood cashews and you 

spoke quite well. And my suspicion is while I can’t impact the policy of the United States, I can impact the policy of my congressional office. And I’m not as fond of cashews as I used to be. My 

suspicion is we won’t have a lot of cashews in my office. But are 

there some other products that you can call to our attention that 

you have been able to trace back to involuntary servitude? 

Mr. SIFTON. Yes, let me start by saying it’s very, very, very difficult, especially with Vietnam in particular. There are some textile 

products and some other camping-type mosquito nets and some 

other things that we identified in our report. And the companies 

that we identified took quite responsible actions when it was 

brought to their attention, cut off subcontractors. So we haven’t 

had a problem with sort of on the corporate side. 

The real issue is in Vietnam. What we have is the Ministry of 

Labor overseeing what is essentially a health issue, drug dependency. Why is the Ministry of Labor running detention camps for 

drug users? It really belongs on the Health Ministry. I mean the 

real problem is there’s a profit motive to the prison wardens who 

control these facilities. So at the end of the day it’s a question of 

the United States, the European Union, which just engaged in an 

EU-Vietnam human rights dialogue, just after Michael Posner had 

his. Other interested nations like Norway and Canada are all making it very clear, these drug treatment centers have got to close. 

You get funding for HIV intervention into these centers. PEPFAR 

knew this. There was some HIV intervention in this. The U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime funding goes to Vietnam for these centers. 

This has got to stop. It’s great to have drug treatment centers. People who have drug problems need to get treatment. But forced 

labor is not an effective form of drug treatment. Tell Vietnam to 

shut these facilities down. 

David Shear in Hanoi agrees. He’s said it. I think he should say 

it a little bit more vocally, but he said it. That’s what would end 

this rather than going after the companies one by one which we’ve 

done. The most effective thing would be for the trading partners to 

say enough is enough, close down the centers. 

One word about Jordan, though, you mentioned Jordan. I would 

just say Human Rights Watch globally has a huge amount of problems with forced labor, not just from Vietnam into Jordan, but from 

62

India, Sri Lanka, Nepal. There’s an active case in Federal court 

right now against the company in Jordan for trafficking of people 

from Nepal, for instance. There’s a big problem just with Jordan 

in particular, as a target country. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just add, Mr. Sifton, before going—are you 

done? 

Mr. GREEN. I will yield to the chair, of course, yes, sir. 

I will yield. 

Mr. SMITH. I didn’t mean to cut you off. 

Mr. GREEN. I’m fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your testimony. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sifton, if I could ask you, Vietnam is a focus 

country and they get hundreds of millions of dollars under 

PEPFAR. I’ve raised repeatedly that faith-based organizations are 

precluded participation by the Vietnamese Government which is 

contrary to Bush’s vision of what PEPFAR was all about and it has 

worked very well in all over Africa and everywhere else where 

there’s a PEPFAR focus country. But has our Embassy or anyone 

within the U.S. Government, have they investigated, as you called 

it, labor therapy, where PEPFAR might be commingling and money 

is being used in such a terrible way? 

Mr. SIFTON. I would be glad to—rather than take up a lot of time 

now, I’d be glad to forward you the correspondence we had with 

USAID and PEPFAR on this issue. The bottom line is a lot of 

money goes to Vietnam under PEPFAR and not a lot of it goes into 

the drug treatment centers, but some does. The money that goes 

in goes for lifesaving anti-virals for a very small number of HIV 

positive people in the forced labor camps. So it’s kind of difficult 

morally to say pull out and these prisoners suddenly have no 

HIV/AIDS anti-virals. It’s a little difficult. But with that said, 

there’s a lot of leverage that Ambassador Shear can exercise. And 

I think he has exercised, but again, to go back to my testimony, 

it’s a question of keeping up the pressure and not letting it lag. 

That’s our biggest fear is that at the 11th hour, when the agreements are finally ready to be signed, the administration will fall 

down and agree to all kinds of concessions and not continue to 

make these demands, and we will have squandered this amazing 

opportunity that is only going to present itself once to offer all 

these good things to Vietnam. I don’t think they should be offered, 

but I’m not in charge of the foreign policy of the United States. If 

they are going to be offered, it’s an opportunity that can’t be wasted. 

Ms. VU. Mr. Chairman, if I may? I’m very concerned about my 

safety. I was recently involved in a hit-and-run car accident. So I 

just wanted to raise that. It was 5 days ago. 

Mr. SMITH. Did you get a look at who did it? 

Ms. VU. I was exiting on a highway. And there was a white car 

without any plate, license plate, just hit me and then ran off. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may, one liberty, please. It is of 

concern because I know that there are people who want to see us 

doing business with Vietnam and so we’re not necessarily talking 

about somebody doing something dastardly under the color of state 

protection. It could be someone totally disconnected from a state, 

but there are people who are interested in a business relationship, 

63

so I am concerned and I’ll be amenable to working with you, Mr. 

Chairman, to do what we can to make sure that the proper authorities are noticed. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Just one question and I’ll ask this of Mr. Cao. The 

case I talked about, Viet Khang, was of a songwriter. He wrote a 

song appealing to the conscience of those who were brutalizing the 

protesters. The protest in question was one protesting China’s territorial ambitions. And along the same lines he had the situation 

of the editorial that I showed that had been blocked out painstakingly with a marker. They had marked out on every page of The 

Wall Street Journal that was distributed. They had marked out 

this comment about the case of a woman who had organized protests of China’s aggression in maritime territorial disputes. This 

topic really seems to get under the skin of the current Government 

of Vietnam. I would just ask you what does that Vietnamese songwriter, Viet Khang, what does he mean to the Vietnamese people 

and what do you make of the way the government is reacting to 

these protests about maritime aggression? 

Mr. CAO. Thank you for your question, Congressman Royce. With 

respect to the songwriter, I would like to again bring attention to 

the many other activists who are involved in the promotion of democracy in Vietnam. Obviously, any democracy activist, any person 

who is involved in promoting freedom and religious freedom in 

Vietnam, they are all considered at least by us here in the United 

States as people of great importance. But they are seen by the Vietnamese Government as enemies of the state, so that—and the 

records show very clearly that many of these people are routinely 

beaten, imprisoned, arrested, falsely accused for actions that they 

deem to be illegal under state law, but behind the scenes, obviously, their intention is all about intimidation. Their intention is 

about cracking down on democracy activism, on religious freedom 

activism. And this is something that we—as a Congress, you all, 

as Members of Congress, must continue to pay close attention to 

because freedom and democracy are not only confined to the United 

States. It should be an idea that is spread worldwide and we saw 

the significance of the activists in the Middle East, the Arab 

Spring, and I hope that something similar might occur in Southeast Asia. Call it the Asian Spring or what have you, but at least 

the goals and the aspirations of a people fighting for freedom would 

be fulfilled. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

first of all I’d like to thank you on behalf of many of my own constituents and Mr. Royce’s constituents as well for having this hearing today. Loretta Sanchez and Mr. Royce and myself represent 

large numbers of Vietnamese-Americans and we are very proud to 

do so and we are very grateful for the leadership that you provided 

over the years to make sure that their loved ones left back in Vietnam are not suffering horrible brutality from the regime that continues to oppress them. 

I can’t help but notice that when I go to a clothing store, more 

and more I’m finding clothing that says, ‘‘Made in Vietnam.’’ And 

that’s very disturbing to me because I realize what we have here 

is American businessmen going into a dictatorship in order to make 

64

a bigger profit from repressed people who are not permitted to form 

unions and go on strikes and demand better working conditions. 

And if American businessmen are going to be investing someplace, 

it should be in countries that are governed by democratic institutions. I mean we have people who are struggling now in Asia to 

create more democratic countries like in the Philippines, for example. And we should not, the United States should have as our policy that any Export-Import Bank or any of the Pacific Banks or 

whatever we’re talking about, the financial, the international financial structure that we are subsidizing, that that money should not 

be going to dictatorships. We should have that as the American 

policy and that would and should leave out Vietnam as it is today. 

And unfortunately, even some of the businessmen that have gone 

to Vietnam have realized that the dictatorship, that under such 

dictatorships, they’re not going to treat foreign investors and foreign businessmen any more fairly or honestly than they treat their 

own population. And there are many businessmen that have gone 

there and lost their investment through swindles by the government, by out and out theft by government agents. And why would 

we as American citizens, as free people, want to subsidize through 

these investment banks that we have, these international banks, 

people who are taking the risk of going into Vietnam or other dictatorships? We should not. 

And if a businessman wants to go over there, let them take the 

risk, knowing that there’s no free court system or judicial system 

in which these type of things can be taken up. So none of that. In 

fact, what we’ve heard today and I will be—I’m sorry, I was at another hearing, but I will be going through the transcripts, but I’m 

sure that you have underscored that the actual lack of freedom in 

Vietnam has gotten worse and not better and during the time period when people are investing money there. And yet, we have been 

told over and over again the more American interaction economically, the more investment, the more there will be reform. That has 

never worked in China. It hasn’t worked elsewhere. It’s not working in Vietnam. And I appreciate you drawing attention to that 

through this hearing today. So I would just stand on solidarity with 

you and I will be reading your testimony. I’m sorry I had a—we 

have hearings at the same time here. We have to run back and 

forth. 

But I believe that one last note, we now have, I believe, an opportunity that we have leverage on the communist Chinese Government of Vietnam and that is they feel threatened by another dictatorship. How about that? Two dictatorships, two gangsters fighting 

over territory. We’ve had that happen in our country and when 

you’ve got the Government of Communist China engaged in military action against the Government of Vietnam over certain territories, it is now the moment for the United States to use that as 

leverage to make sure they concede points on human rights and democracy before we go in and help them. But if they’re willing to 

do that, maybe we should help them because I do perceive that it 

is the Chinese who are being the aggressor. But let’s use this as 

leverage to get some reform in Vietnam before we proceed with 

helping that dictatorship. Thank you very much. 

65

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank Chairman Rohrabacher for his very 

eloquent summation of what this hearing has been all about. I 

know Dr. Thang wants to show a video. I do hope the members will 

stay a moment to watch that video. We held a hearing and you remember it very well about Nguyen Nam when he was murdered by 

the Vietnamese thugs and you did mention, of course, Con Dau 

earlier. And it seems to be a pattern. You want certain property 

owned by the church, regardless, or by one of the religious denominations, you take it, you call it eminent domain or some facsimile 

of that and then you beat the people to death as they did there. 

Your thoughts on that, update on Con Dau? Then we’ll show that 

video. 

Mr. CAO. And again, the issue of land disputes is not an issue 

that is under any color of law. It’s an issue of pure greed. Many 

of these land disputes are promoted by officials who have some 

kind of business dealings that would lead them to make a lot of 

money. So again, do not listen to what is coming out of Vietnam, 

but pay attention to the intentions and the stories that are being 

told by the citizens who are repressed and who are being arrested 

and tortured by the Vietnamese Government. 

Mr. THANG. In answering your question, Mr. Chairman, first I 

would like to be the bearer of good news. The widow of Nguyen 

Thanh Nam, who was tortured and beaten to death, successfully 

fled to Thailand. I had the pleasure of meeting her during my latest trip to Thailand just last month. I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over the State Department’s inaccurate reporting regarding what happened in Con Dau Parish. The 

State Department’s report on international religious freedom 

claimed that the Catholic Church had agreed to surrender the 

parish’s cemetery to the government of Da Nang City for eco-tourism development. There is no such agreement. There is no document to support that claim. The report also claimed that the barehanded mourners reportedly attacked the anti-riot police who were 

armed to their teeth. How plausible was that? Regarding the death 

of Mr. Nam, the reporter said that this disagreement among the 

family members of Mr. Nam, whether he died of a natural cause 

or because of a beating, you can go back to the report and read 

that. 

Clearly, the members of the family that had been approached by 

the police before our team from the U.S. Embassy met in Vietnam 

to investigate, and they were told, if you say anything you will face 

the same fate as Mr. Nam. Of course, they would say yes, he died 

of natural causes. Why didn’t we, as a State Department, just 

present the facts, that he got beat up, he got tortured, he was 

poked through the ears with a sharp wooden stick and he suffered 

injuries, internal bleeding, and he died a few hours later. Why did 

we have to be speculating whether he died of natural causes or 

not? Just present the facts. 

So it’s very troubling because after the UNHCR recognized 49 of 

those Hmong parishioners as refugees, the next six were excluded 

or denied refugee status, after that report came out. So we talked 

to Ambassador Posner and begged him to review that and please 

do talk to him to revise that piece of the report. 

66

Now regarding making the case for CPC redesignation, right 

after we rescinded the CPC designation in late ’06, the Central Bureau of Religious Affairs, that is the counterpart that Mr. John 

Hanford had been dealing with, issued a document that later was 

leaked out in 2007 saying that we should resolutely overcome the 

abnormal and spontaneous growth of Protestantism and propagandizing and mobilizing the people to safeguard and promote good, 

traditional beliefs of ethnic minorities. That is a euphemism for 

forced renunciation of their Christian faith. They are being pushed 

to go back with the traditional beliefs and stay away from Protestantism. Here are a few pictures. 

In 2008, this is what happened to Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh 

when he tried to help the Montagnard in the Central Highlands. 

Got beaten up bloodily. 

And this was what happened in 2009, a prominent member of 

the Unified Buddhist Church, he tried to deliver relief to the poor 

people in Vietnam, low-income people in Vietnam. 

And this is what happened in 2009 to Father Ngo The Binh who 

just led a delegation to hold a prayer of solidarity with the Parish 

of Tam Toa that was under threat of being taken away by the Government of Vietnam. 

This is what happened to a parishioner in Dong Chiem where the 

Government of Vietnam blew up the cross, the crucifix with explosives. 

This is what happened to Brother Nguyen Van Tang of the 

Redemptorist Order who came to Dong Chiem to express solidarity 

with the parishioners in Dong Chiem. They are beaten up by the 

police. 

This is what happened to a member of the Redemptorist Church 

in Hanoi in 2010. Because this is a college student and he protested the instructors from defaming his faith in class. 

And this—you already saw this, a picture of Mr. Nam in Con 

Dau in 2010, July. And this is what happened to a member of the 

Baptist Church in Quang Ngai just last year, October. 

The Buddhists broke in, disrupted the prayer, and beat him up. 

And this just happened in December, last month, in Thai Ha in an 

incident that Congressman Cao did mention. So this a parishioner 

who tried to peacefully protect church property. 

So these are just a few examples of police brutality against religious leaders and people of faith. And now your permission very 

quickly just 3 minutes, I’d like to swho the video of very rare footage of what happened in Muong Nhe village. 

[Video presentation.] 

You can see here the military were moving in to demolish the entire Hmong Christian village of Xa Na Khua and Muong Nhe. You 

see here the government workers, the cadres, the military sitting 

here. And you can see soon the workers breaking down the roof 

here. These are homes. These are their homes here. And these are 

the Hmong Christians. 

This is what was left of the homes. Nothing left. You see all 

these kids here. And then in mid-March the government came back 

after temporary suspension due to Lunar New Year and they demolished the rest of the village. 

67

You see all the roofs here. And these people now have become 

homeless, these Christians. 

And then May 1st, these small villagers they have no other 

choice but come together peacefully to request for an end to religious persecution and an end to demolition of their homes and the 

confiscation of their land, but 3,000 to 5,000 estimate. As you can 

see, the women, the children, they all came, peacefully, just begging the government to let them live. But then the government 

moved troops in, hundreds of them, surrounding and circling the 

demonstrators with guns, live ammunition. 

Mr. SMITH. How did you get this video? 

Mr. THANG. Some of the Hmong themselves, very high risk to 

themselves. You see batons here and electric rods and these are the 

mobile anti-riot police coming in. And now they’re being beaten up 

here. They’re running away, escaping. And there was a total blockage of news reporters coming in or news getting out from Muong 

Nhe since. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Video ends.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. Without objection, if there’s 

any final statement our distinguished panel would like to say before we adjourn, we do have to make our way over to a vote. We’re 

almost out of time. 

Mr. THANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and please do keep the 

attention on this issue. 

Mr. SMITH. There will be a series of hearings here like I said, Michael Posner and USTR will all be here. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether that’s in the 

record, but without objection if there is none, I would ask that a 

copy of that be placed in the record officially. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. As soon as any final statement is made, the hearing 

will be adjourned without objection. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

70

f


72463n.eps
71

f


72463m.eps
72

STATEMENT OF MS. PHUONG-ANH VU, VICTIM OF HUMAN 

TRAFFICKING 

[The following edited oral testimony was provided by Ms. Vu.] 

Ms. VU. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to be 

here and wish your family a happy Lunar New Year. 

I grew up in a poor family of ethnic Hmong in a province called 

Lao Cai in North Vietnam. My family is Catholic so we have difficulties living there under the Vietnamese Government policy of 

persecuting Christian people. 

The Government of Vietnam has the policy of persecuting Christian Hmong people and anyone that believes in Christianity. My 

family, we have the two of us, my older sister and I. And my father 

died when I was 1 year old. When I turned 16, my sister was kidnapped and she’s been missing since then. Heeding the Vietnamese 

Government’s call for citizens’ participation in the labor export program in 2008 I was transferred to Jordan and working in a sewing 

factory for a Taiwanese contractor. My group included 276 women 

and with the promise to only work 8 hours a day and that we 

would earn $300 a month. That is an enormous amount of money 

for myself, along with the people that came with me. 

Myself, along with all my friends, each of us had to pretty much 

mortgage our home and borrow money, $2,000, to pay to the Government of Vietnam to participate in this program. We were never 

given any contracts to sign and it wasn’t until we got on the plane 

where they gave us the contract. When we got to Jordan, it turned 

out that all the promises were reversed. When we arrived, immediately they took all of our paperwork, all of our passports, and immediately put us to work. Then starting the next day, we have to 

work and the shift was 16 hours a day. 

I worked for 10 days and I received $10. I was very upset and 

surprised, so I asked the employer and the employer’s response was 

that I would need to talk to the people who brought us here which 

would be the Vietnamese Government. We stopped working and demanded our wages be paid. The reason we stopped working was because we demanded the owner to pay us but he refused. After 10 

days of being on strike, the owner gave us an ultimatum. They 

withheld food, electricity, and water from us. A lot of us—some of 

them were afraid of the employer’s threats and could not withstand 

the hunger so they returned to work, but 176 of us remained on 

strike. A woman named Vu Thu Ha, she’s a representative of the 

labor export company of Vietnam, she led a group of security officers and police who came to our rooms and started to physically assault us. 

All the women there are like me, very petite, and tiny and weakened by not having food and so forth. So they were beaten. The security officers and the police pulled on our hair, hit them, they 

slammed their heads against the floor until blood came out from 

their nose and mouth. So it was really brutal. 

I witnessed myself that some of my friends had become unconscious but they did not stop. They pulled and dragged my friends 

like animals, and it’s very heartbreaking. And they continued to 

beat us with a batton, I thought my friend had died and I didn’t 

know what to do so I returned to help. I took a cell phone and tried 

73

to record what was happening, so they started beating me on the 

head and the bruise is still there on my head and it’s still there. 

So I was heartbroken to see for myself all the women having to 

suffer through this ordeal, being a migrant worker. What I didn’t 

understand was that after the owner of the company witnessed us 

all being beaten and he did not do anything and then afterward 

they all were shaking hands and smiling. So I didn’t understand 

why that was happening. We were isolated and confined in a room. 

We tried to get help, I broke the glass window and screamed 

through the windows. Nobody came. The Jordanian police were 

there, but they were there to help beat us and forced us to return 

to work, rather than helping us. 

On that same day a lot of my friends were vomiting blood and 

they were obviously seriously injured. I tried to call back to the 

Government of Vietnam and the company that arranged our trip 

for help and no one came to help us. So I didn’t know what to do 

so I have to find food and medicines to help my friends. I had to 

gather everything that we have and even the tampons for women 

to sell to get the money to buy instant noodles for my friends. I’m 

sorry, but whenever I think about this I cannot speak, it gets very 

emotional for me. 

And then one day the Vietnamese Government delegation came. 

I was happy because I thought they would be there to represent 

the Government of Vietnam and to protect us. I was so happy, but 

it turned out they came, it was very disappointing because not only 

did they not help us, but they also threatened us. The reason they 

threatened because I was the one that contacted the newspaper in 

Vietnam. They did an article and the article got to Dr. Thang, 

that’s how he knew about it and Dr. Thang sent us money to buy 

medicines for my friends and that’s why they came to threaten me. 

I used the money that was given from Dr. Thang to get medicine 

for my friends, but the government accused me of collaborating 

with the NGOs and abetting with the anti-government persons for 

my own benefit. I asked Dr. Thang to help my friends because most 

of them were very sick from being beaten and Dr. Thang arranged 

to have some physicians from IOM to come and help them. After 

the IOM delegation came and left, we were confined and isolated 

again and we were not allowed to go outside. Then we were able 

to return to Vietnam and I learned that it was thanks to the Congressman and Dr. Thang. 

The day before we were supposed to return there were two gentlemen named Truong Xuan Thanh and Tran Viet Tu who worked 

at the Embassy of Vietnam in Cairo, Egypt. They told my friends 

that upon returning to Vietnam I would be prosecuted according to 

the law. Dr. Thang helped me escape and when I got to Bankok, 

Thailand, I was able to escape from the government. The journey 

of my escape was very long and time is limited, so I won’t be able 

to explain all that right now. While I was in Thailand I was threatened by the Vietnamese Embassy and they said they would chop 

me into hundreds of pieces. And I have these verbal threats recorded. While I was living in Thailand for 3 years, there was a lot 

of suffering including for my mom and it was very emotional for 

me while I was staying there. 

74

The most heartbroken for me was when my 3-year-old daughter 

was electrocuted and died and she was not allowed to be buried unless I returned to Vietnam. I had thought about returning to Vietnam to see my daughter one last time but the police had already 

surrounded my house. 

One of my friends, Ngoc, who was beaten by the police has died 

because of the injury. I don’t know what else to say. For my last 

words I just want to send my gratitude to Dr. Thang, CAMSA, 

BPSOS, and Congressman Smith and the panel and the U.S. Government for allowing this hearing and hope that it will help my 

people. I know there’s going to be a lot of uncertainties and threats 

for me participating in this hearing. I will do my best to live as a 

witness to let the Government of Vietnam and for everbody to 

know. However, I chose to do it because I don’t want a second 

Phoug-Anh like myself. I would like to be able to prevent this from 

happening to other people. 

I also beg that everyone on the panel along with everyone here 

in the room now that you have heard my testimony that you would 

raise the voice and do something to help the Vietnamese women 

from suffering from human trafficking.

f

75

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY NGUYEN DINH THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE SOS


72463f-1.eps
76


72463f-2.eps
77


72463f-3.eps
78


72463f-4.eps
79


72463f-5.eps
80


72463f-6.eps
81


72463f-7.eps
82

f


72463f-8.eps
83

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. RONG NAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MONTAGNARD HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION


72463g-1.eps
84


72463g-2.eps
85


72463g-3.eps
86


72463g-4.eps
87


72463g-5.eps
88


72463g-6.eps
89


72463g-7.eps
90


72463g-8.eps
91


72463h-1.eps
92


72463h-2.eps
93


72463h-3.eps
94


72463h-4.eps
95


72463h-5.eps
96


72463i-1.eps
97


72463i-2.eps
98

f


72463i-3.eps
99

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. JOHN SIFTON, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR

FOR ASIA, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH


72463j.eps
100


72463k.eps
101


72463l-1.eps
102


72463l-2.eps
103


72463l-3.eps
104


72463l-4.eps
105


72463l-5.eps
106


72463o-1.eps
107


72463o-2.eps
108


72463o-3.eps
109


72463o-4.eps
110


72463o-5.eps
111


72463o-6.eps
112


72463o-7.eps
113

f


72463o-8.eps
114

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE AL GREEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS


72463p-1.eps
115


72463p-2.eps
116


72463p-3.eps
117


72463p-4.eps
118

Æ


72463p-5.eps