Connect with us

Human Rights

Vietnam’s Cybersecurity Draft Law: Made in China?

Published

on

Photo credit: Asia Times.

During the first part of last year’s November, the National Assembly of China passed the Law on Cybersecurity and established its effective date to be June 1, 2017.

Then come June 2017, five days after said law went into effect in China, the Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) sent their own proposal regarding a draft of the Cybersecurity Law to the Vietnamese government. It has been claimed that this draft law was the result of a legislative process which began to take place since July 2016, when the National Assembly scheduled Cybersecurity Law as one of its agenda’s items then. The MPS then also established their own drafting team and an editing group to work on the drafts of Vietnam’s Cybersecurity Law in late March this year.

After going through various collections of public comments and four draft versions of the law, the final draft (Draft Law) now is in the hands of the National Assemblymen and women. It would be among the items to be discussed when they meet at the end of 2017, and if all things go according to plan, Vietnam’s Cybersecurity Law will get approved and signed into laws by the middle of next year.

Yet, whether purposefully or unintentionally, Vietnam’s Draft Law has shocked many people because it is almost identical to that of China’s.

In their proposal submitted to the government, the MPS stressed that they have researched, and thus taken into considerations Cybersecurity laws from China, Japan, the Czech Republic, South Korea, and the U.S when drafting the Draft Law.

I have to make it clear that I do not have any evidence to conclude the Vietnamese government has indeed copied China’s Cybersecurity Law. Moreover, if both countries are functioning under an identical political system, then the use of identical legislative tools would be very understandable. This is even more likely when the MPS openly admitted that they have considered Chinese laws as stated. Besides, copying or learning from other countries’ legislative experiences do not necessarily mean negative consequences.

However, let’s just go straight to comparing Vietnam’s 4th draft of the Cybersecurity Law currently sitting on the desks of the National Assembly’s members and the English translation of the Chinese laws, to see how much they are alike to one another, and whether such similarities will bring negative consequences to Vietnamese people.

1. Two documents, one technical term

There is one technical term in the Vietnamese Draft Law that one should pay close attention to, which is the “critical information system regarding national security” in Article 9.

In the China’s version, there is a similar technical term: “critical information infrastructure” in Article 31.

Both laws centered on these two technical terms, and their definitions are also very much alike. Both are used to define any information, that if being under attack, they would bring harms to national security, social order and public safety.

That information – as mentioned in both Vietnam’s and China’s Cybersecurity Law – would then include energy, finance, transportation, media, and publications, as well as electronic governance.

However, the Draft Law of Vietnam also includes military-security, national secrets, banking, natural resources and environment, chemicals, medicine, and other national security structures.

The Draft Law also does not distinguish between private companies and government agencies when applying the concept of “critical information system regarding national security”. Based on the context of said law’s wordings, the targeted entities are implied to be both of them. The government and the enforcing authorities could also interpret this law as broad as possible.

Baker & McKenzie, in their analysis of the Chinese Cybersecurity Law, has warned all companies whose may have established relationships with those entities which fall under the regulatory perimeters of said law, that this law could very well be applicable to them.

The agencies and enterprises who are within the application of this law shall abide the technical measures and regulations as set by the government, and submit themselves to be under the direct control and observation of the MPS. They will have to obtain all necessary business permits to operate and maintain their equipment while at the same time, must cooperate with the authorities in monitoring users’ information.

These regulations between Vietnam and China are identical.

2. Directly target information considered to be dangerous to the regime

It is not surprising to learn that both Vietnam and China are extremely concerned about cybersecurity.

As detailed in the proposal from the MPS, the Draft Law of Vietnam focuses on underlining the importance of “preventing, fighting against, and neutralizing all activities using cyberspace to intrude national security; subverting against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; propagandizing to destroy the ideology, the internal affairs, and the common national unification; inciting mass protests; and obstructing cybersecurity, from the reactionary forces and those who are enemies of the State”.

Further, Article 22 of the Draft Law clearly states that the Vietnamese government would apply all necessary technical methods to treat such information.

Article 12 of the Chinese Cybersecurity Law has a similar provision when it prohibits Internet users from using “the network to engage in activities endangering national security, national honor, and interests, inciting subversion of national sovereignty, the overturn of the socialist system, inciting separatism, undermining national unity, advocating terrorism or extremism, inciting ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination, disseminating violent, obscene or sexual information, creating or disseminating false information to disrupt the economic or social order, as well as infringing on the reputation, privacy, intellectual property or other lawful rights and interests of others, and other such acts”.

3. Requiring all Internet users to provide true identity

Article 47 of the Vietnamese Draft Law specifically demands all Internet service providers to require “users to provide true and correct personal information. If any user refuses to comply, the service providers shall have the responsibility to deny that user service”.

At the same time, Internet service providers must establish their own verification system to ensure the accuracy and veracity of the information provided by the service users according to Article 33.

Article 24 of the Chinese Cybersecurity Law has the same language as those contained in the Vietnamese Draft Law’s Article 47.

Once businesses and the State can obtain users’ detailed personal information, there will be no guaranty that they would not use it for improper purposes, and would not harm such users.

4. The server is required to be localized within Vietnam’s territory and the providers will have to transmit their data overseas

This requirement has proven to be the most controversial in the past few days among the public in Vietnam.

Article 34 of the Draft Law requires “foreign corporations and providers, in order to provide telecommunications and Internet services in Vietnam, must … obtain business permits to operate, maintain a local representative agency, and the server which manages Vietnamese users’ data shall be stored within the national territory of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam”.

Article 48 further provides, all personal information and important data concerning national security shall be stored within the national territory of Vietnam. In the event that someone wants to transfer such information overseas, then a security assessment shall be performed according to the related governmental agencies’ requirements.

These rules and regulations have caused many Vietnamese concerns, that Google, Facebook, other social media platforms, email providers, and cloud computing service providers will soon pack up and leave Vietnam’s market.

Surprisingly, Article 37 of the Chinese version also provides for similar regulations as the two above-mentioned Draft Law’s articles.

As recent as this past June, tech giant Apple had to cooperate with a Chinese corporation to invest in a database center to comply with this specific provision. Microsoft, IBM, and Amazon had complied as well.

5. Forcing users and providers to act as informants

If the Draft Law gets passed into law, Internet users, telecom and Internet providers must cooperate thoroughly with the government.

Article 45 requires those who engage in activities using cyberspace must strictly comply with the government’s guidelines and shall allow the government to enforce their cybersecurity’s measures and safeguards.

Moreover, all service providers must work with the government to provide actual identities of those Internet users, while at the same time, shall have the responsibility to fend off all information which is deemed to be detrimental to the State, according to Articles 46 and 47.

Again, we find the same regulating language in China’s Cybersecurity Law. This time is located at Article 28, which demands that “network operators shall provide technical support and assistance to public security organs’ and state security organs; lawful activities preserving national security and investigating crimes”.

6. Forcing tech companies to follow government’s technical standards

Article 46 mandates all businesses involved in the production and putting in commerce digital products, as well as providing Internet services, shall be in accordance with the provisions of laws and with the “mandatory quality assurance of State standards”, before releasing their products to the market.

The State also shall pass laws which set the standards for the hardware and software to be used with the above-mentioned technical measures, as well as make sure that the applicable entities shall comply.

This provision also serves as the legal basis for the State to enact the necessary decrees and orders, regulating the specificity of the technical measures mentioned and how to enforce such measures.

Compare to China, the Chinese government had required all new computers to be pre-installed with the automatic content-control software – Green Dam – and also forced businesses, including Google, to have this software installed on all their computers.

The fact that the Vietnamese government had become increasingly more and more interfering with the technical measures regarding the high-tech market highlights the fact that it has opened the doors for corruption and abuse of power from the MPS, the Ministry of Defense (MOD), Ministry of Science and Technology, and other related governmental agencies.

7. Forcing all entities that have relations with “critical information” to be evaluated by the State when buying hardware and software.

Articles 11, 16, and 48 of the Draft Law gives the MPS, the MOD, and other State’s agencies, the authority to review equipment, networks products, and services which may be related to the national critical data system before they could be put into use or upgrade.

This is similar to Article 35 of China’s Cybersecurity Law.

Accordingly, this regulation means that any governmental agency or private business – who maintains an information system which related to energy, national finance, banking, transportation, chemicals, medicine, natural resources and environment, media, news and publishing, shall go through the MPS and/or the MOD when purchasing the necessary hardware, software, Internet service provider for their operation.

It probably makes sense to see this regulation being applied to government’s agencies, but the fact that it is stepping into fields such as banking, medicine, news, and publishing, raises questions about the State’s ambition in controlling information in society at large.

These regulations would grant the police and military the all-access key to both government’s agencies’ and private businesses’ hardware and software. This would be an opportunity for them to exert pressure on other agencies, businesses, as well as putting the whole society at risk for corruption and abuse of power.

The above were only seven strikingly obvious similarities between the Vietnam’s Draft Law and China’s Cybersecurity Law. With an in-depth reading of both documents, one probably finds, even though smaller, much more alike features.

This article is translated into English by Tran Vi from the article “Dự luật An ninh mạng: Hàng Việt Nam ‘Made in China’?“ that was published on Luat Khoa magazine on November 4th, 2017.

Religion

Updated Report on Freedom of Religion in Vietnam – August 2019

Published

on

Focus:

  • The Pure Hoa Hao Buddhist sect objected to the plan to change the original tiles of its An Hoa Tu Pavilion of Ancestral Worship.
  • The first observance of the International Day Commemorating Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief has demonstrated that many independent religious sects in Vietnam practice their religions inside their homes. 
  • Vietnam began a Human Rights Dialogue with Australia on August 29, 2019, in Canberra.
  • Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc met with leaders of government-approved religious institutions to guide, propagandize, and manage religious practice to be in accordance with the state authorities.

Changes in the law regarding religious practices

The government did not propose any new legal changes to religious practice in Vietnam this month.

Events that stood out during the month of August

Events by religious institutions

1. At the beginning of August 2019, the Pure Hoa Hao Buddhist sect – a religious organization that is not recognized by the Vietnamese government – objected to a plan to replace the original tiles of the An Hoa Tu Pavilion of Ancestral Worship. The tile replacement plan was proposed and was to be carried out by the government-approved Central Executive Committee of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Organization. 

An Hoa Tu is a pavilion of ancestral worship, a common house for all Hoa Hao Buddhists, and where they organize all of their devotions. An Hoa Tu was built in the early years of the 20th century and founder Huynh Phu So selected it to be the center of the Hoa Hao sect. Therefore, it is a temple consisting of many spiritual beliefs. Its pillars, its tiles, or even just a tree, can carry a special meaning for the Hoa Hao Buddhists. The religious teaching of the Hoa Hao also encourages prudence in building temples and worshipping practices. It is why the replacement plan of the tiles has caused the Hoa Hao Buddhists to worry that this may go against the religious sect’s tenets and the teaching of their founder. 

The Pure Hoa Hao Buddhist sect is an independent religious organization. Its members often are harassed by the local authorities because their religion is practiced independent of the state. These members are not allowed to organize their worshipping ceremonies publicly according to the traditions of their religion because the state only allows the Central Executive Committee of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Organization to have the right to organize such activities. The conflict between the two institutions has lingered for many years.

2. On August 22, 2019, many religious groups solely organized their observance ceremonies for the International Day Commemorating Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief. We have not received any reports that the state interfered with these ceremonies. The Cao Dai, Buddhists, Hoa Hao Buddhists, Catholics, and Protestants all proceeded with their ceremonies on private lands and not at their public places of worship. This event strongly demonstrated that many religious groups could not register their activities officially and so could only practice their religions on private premises. For example, regarding the Hoa Hao Buddhists, the state only recognizes the Central Executive Committee of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Organization. If the Hoa Hao Buddhists organize any ceremonies with people gathering, they would be deemed to have violated the law. 

There are also no reports of government-recognized and registered religious organizations that have organized to observe this day.

State events

1. On August 9, 2019, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc and senior officials met with 126 religious leaders from all the government-approved religious institutions in Danang City. This meeting was held to promote the state’s management and propaganda among the leaders of these religious organizations. 

According to the People’s Daily newspaper, Nguyen Xuan Phuc acknowledged that Vietnam leads the world in religious equality because it is a country that does not have ethnic or religious intolerance.

According to the government’s electronic gateway, the prime minister has alleged that there have been situations where people have abused religious freedom for the purpose of engaging in national separationism, and to complicate security, social order, and to affect Vietnam’s reputation. Nguyen Xuan Phuc declared two extreme points to guide religious practice in the country:

  •  All religions must join with the government, follow the laws, and resolve all conflicts with openness and goodwill along with the authorities.
  • All religious leaders and their members must  be loyal to the great ethnic unity of the state, and refuse to be used by civil society groups that have activities related to “democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.”

2. On August 29, 2019, Australia proceeded with the Human Rights Dialog with Vietnam in its capital in Canberra. It was the 16th dialogue between the two countries. In the previous dialogue, Australia expressed its concerns to Vietnamese authorities about the limitations on civic space for civil society organizations, limits on civil and political rights, and the increase in harassment, arrests, and the detention of human rights activists.

Continue Reading

Religion

Updated Report on Freedom of Religion in Vietnam – July 2019

Published

on

Introduction to the first report

Dear Readers:

Religion and beliefs play an essential part in everyone’s life. There are people who practice their faith by going to a church, a temple, or just praying in their own homes. This colorful picture of religious practice is actively ongoing with many different patterns.

Religious institutions also play a role in the background of a country’s civil society. Before 1975, there were many religious institutions maintaining schools, hospitals, charity organizations, and more in the south of Vietnam. Throughout Vietnam’s history, religious institutions have played a significant role in the life of our people.

However, after the war ended in 1975, and the country was united into one, freedom of religion in Vietnam became lamentable. While the government has begun to recognize the polychromy of religions, at the same time, severe violations of freedom of religion continue to happen in Vietnam.

Because of the issues mentioned above, The Vietnamese and Luat Khoa magazines wish to share with our readers news about the freedom of religion in Vietnam through our monthly newsletter. You are reading the first update on this topic. 

Starting from July 2019, we began doing monthly updates on the situation of religion in Vietnam via a newsletter in Vietnamese published by Luat Khoa and with an English version appearing on The Vietnamese web site.

We sincerely hope to receive your feedback regarding improving our upcoming newsletters via the email address editor@thevietnamese.org

 The focus of the July 2019 Report:

  • Ho Chi Minh City authorities attempted to force the Thu Thiem Congregation of the Lovers of the Holy Cross and Thu Thiem Church to donate their lands for a road-building project along the Saigon River.
  • Two activists from Vietnam who focus on freedom of religion met with US President Donald Trump in mid-July 2019 to share information regarding violations of religious freedom in Vietnam in conjunction with a meeting with victims of religious persecution around the world.
  • Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs alleged that the US Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report was not objective because it relied on what it termed biased evidence.
  • Many baptized Vietnamese Montagnards living in Thailand seeking asylum were arrested and detained by Thai police this year, including women, on charges of illegal residence.

Changes in the law regarding religious practices

There were no legal changes regarding the issue of religion in Vietnam in July 2019. We will soon share with our readers the statutory regulations and how they affect freedom of religion in Vietnam.

Events that stood out during the month of July

Events by religious institutions

On July 17, 2019, together with many international victims who suffered violations of their freedom of religion, two activists from Vietnam – Luong Xuan Duong from Cao Dai Buddhism and Protestant minister A Ga – met with US President Donald Trump. They presented the US   president with details regarding the current situation of freedom of religion in Vietnam. Both Mr. Duong and Minister A Ga were being sponsored for political asylum in the United States and faced danger while advocating for religious freedom in Vietnam. This meeting took place at the second  US Ministerial Meeting to Advance Religious Freedom, which was attended by more than 100 foreign ministers and victims of religious persecution from around the world.

At the beginning of July 2019, a Luat Khoa journalist visited Vietnam’s Protestant Montagnards who fled their homes in the Central Highlands to seek asylum in Bangkok, Thailand. As of now, there are approximately 500 Montagnards who have sought refuge in Bangkok. After the arrest and detention of 133 Montagnards in August 2018, the community believed that the Thai authorities were still holding their relatives for illegal residence in the country. The Montagnards said that they had to flee from Vietnam because the authorities harassed, abused, and imprisoned them for their Protestant beliefs.

State events

On July 4, 2019, Vietnam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs raised its objection to the International Religious Freedom Report that the US Department of State published. This report contains allegations that the current state of religious freedom in Vietnam is just as miserable as in previous years. It also raises the case of six members of Hoa Hao Buddhism being harassed by local authorities, the persecution of Protestants in the Central Highlands, as well as individual members of religious institutions that the local authorities have not allowed to practice their religion. The Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the US Department of State received incorrect information and so was unable  to objectively judge freedom of religion in Vietnam. Le Thi Thu Hang, spokesperson for MFA, said that Vietnam would cooperate and that it would enter into a dialogue with the US regarding freedom of religion in the country.

According to Thanh Nien newspaper, the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee has decided to join with the People’s Committee of the Second District to sternly advocate the Church of Thu Thiem and the Thu Thiem Congregation of the Lovers of the Holy Cross turn over their lands to be used in a project to build roads along the banks of the Saigon River, which is the site of the Thu Thiem New City project.

Continue Reading

Death Penalty

Wrongful Death Penalty Cases And The Families That The Inmates Left Behind

Published

on

By

Death row inmates Ho Duy Hai, Le Van Manh, Nguyen Van Chuong. Photo credits: Luat Khoa magazine

Mrs. Loan began to cry softly as she spoke to me one afternoon in late March, when I called to ask if there were any updates on her son Ho Duy Hai, who is sitting on death row in Long An province on a wrongful conviction.

“He is so young, and yet already has suffered over a decade of imprisonment,” she told me over the phone. “I want him to come back home and live a normal life. I want him to get married, and have a child. Sometimes, I just really wish to have a paternal grandchild and that both of my children could live with me like in those happy days before.”

I have been in contact with the Hai family for the past four years, since I first joined the community of Vietnamese bloggers and activists calling for the suspension of Hai’s execution in December 2014, after then President Truong Tan Sang issued an order to stop his execution. It was  then that I began studying his case a bit more and learned that the evidence submitted for his conviction was invalid, and quite frankly, illegal. 

For example, the local authorities wanted to ensure Hai was found guilty and so they purchased a knife at a market and marked it as “similar” to the weapon that they alleged Hai had used in committing the robbery and murder of two women. And with such “evidence,” Hai was convicted and sentenced to death in 2008, when he was a recent college graduate, and just 23-years-old. 

Throughout these years, I have also gotten closer to two more families of Vietnamese who have been handed wrongful death penalties. Those include the families of Nguyen Van Chuong and Le Van Manh. These two men also were convicted and sentenced to death in their 20s with no evidence and following alleged torture by police officers. These three groups of parents meet every month in Hanoi and go together to petition the government to overturn the wrongful conviction of their sons. Each month, if they saved enough money to buy supplies, they will also visit their sons in prison. All of the men were convicted and have been kept behind bars for more than a decade.

Yet, visiting their sons is not quite an easy task because of the financial strain on these families. The words of Le Van Manh’s mother – Mrs. Viet – broke my heart during our most recent telephone call, also in March this year. “If I manage to earn enough money, then I will go to see my son, but making money to support my family is quite difficult given my age,” she told me. “So for some months, I have not been able to see Manh.” 

My colleague based in Vietnam told me that catching fish and other aquatic creatures at the river near Mrs. Viet’s house was the main source of her income. Yet, her determination to fight against his unjust conviction has been so powerful. 

I asked her if she was able to talk about his case when she visited him in jail. “The officers don’t like me to talk about it, but I tell Manh anyways,” she said. “Manh needs hope and the information that people have not forgotten him and are fighting for him gives him hope.”

Mr. Chinh, Nguyen Van Chuong’s father, also has the same fighting spirit. He sends me documents and updates me on Facebook about his son’s case. This year, Mr. Chinh shared with me that the Supreme People’s Procuracy Office in Hanoi contacted him and invited him to go see them. The office told Mr. Chinh that they had sent a request for a trial for cassation in Nguyen Van Chuong’s case. However, the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam denied such a request without giving any apparent reason. The Procuracy Office used that excuse and the denial to tell Mr. Chinh to stop contacting them. However, that was not a legally sound argument. First, the office recognized that the case needed to be reviewed. Second, the law allows the office to continue sending their request, even after the denial. In fact, the Procuracy Office should continue to submit their requests for Nguyen Van Chuong and not tell his father to forget about the case.

The cost for discussing the details of their cases with their family members during visitations has been quite severe for Nguyen Van Chuong and Le Van Manh. Both of them claimed that they were shackled 24 hours a day a few times. Nguyen Van Chuong’s father also told me that Chuong was being beaten up by other inmates in his prison and being forced to sign a letter for the local authorities confessing to the murder he was convicted of. Yet, the families and the inmates did not yield in front of these pressures and they kept on petitioning for a review of their cases.

Different than Ho Duy Hai, both Chuong and Manh already had children before their conviction. But their wives could not withstand the pressure of having a spouse that was given a death penalty conviction and so they left their children to be raised by Chuong’s and Manh’s parents. The responsibility to raise the children while still trying to exonerate the two men greatly added to the burden of the two families, who are already straining to survive. The grandparents are elderly and cannot find jobs that provide a fair and reasonable income. But at the same time, they have to provide support for a lot of people in their families. 

In Vietnam, there is no organization that really focuses on the issue of the anti-death penalty or that assists people with wrongful convictions. And even though I work on this issue, my non-profit organization is not recognized by the Vietnamese government and our work is classified as “reactionary” conduct. More than that, none of the death row inmates would be allowed visitations by an organization or non-family persons, not even the International Committee of the Red Cross. The inmates are shut off from society entirely and can not have any contact with  people and organizations that care about their cases. In fact, visitations by independent organizations working on behalf of inmates, including those sitting on death row, was a request made by the Committee Against Torture  in its concluding observations for Vietnam in 2018.

As the person who has brought these three cases before the different international law reviews, such as the Committee Against Torture and the Universal Periodic Review of Vietnam, where specific inquiries were asked about them, it is very frustrating for me that international law – such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – had not been used for the benefit of the wrongfully-accused inmates. The Human Rights Committee (a body of independent experts that monitors implementation of the ICCPR) sadly acknowledged the fact that the covenant could not actually be implemented by the people of Vietnam in its third periodic report on Vietnam early in 2019. 

The families of Hai, Chuong, and Manh don’t really have support from the public or civil society organizations that operate in Vietnam. They are almost alone during their monthly petitioning to the authorities in Hanoi. They need to find some financial resources to buy supplies to visit their sons each month. More than that, no one actually assists them with funds to buy paper and pay postage fees to send their monthly petitions. And yet, none of the parents will call for financial support from the public for their families when I spoke to them. Instead, they all told me that they just want a review of the cases in an independent court of law. 

Their determination and belief in justice and rule of law always encourages and inspires me to continue to bring their cases to more people, which I will do until the day that these cases are  fairly reviewed and rightfully settled.

Continue Reading

Trending