Connect with us

Opinion-Section

The Real Casualty of Loc Hung Garden Incident: The People’s Trust

Published

on

When the officials of Tan Binh District in Ho Chi Minh City gathered over one thousands police officers and other forces to bulldoze some 200 houses at Loc Hung garden, they destroyed not only the shelters of a few hundred people but something else much more important.

What also crumbled and got buried deep in the rubbles was the people’s trust, or whatever left of that trust, in the current regime.

“I have to tell you honestly, the trust between the people of this community and the government has totally broken down over the decades. We cannot trust them after so many broken promises. They have told us that they would meet with us and provided us with documents about the projects, the plans. We received nothing. There is no trust.”

Cao Ha Truc, one of the persons representing the 124 households living in Loc Hung garden, spoke to me over the telephone on January 9, 2019, about 12 hours after he was released from the police station and came back to a home that was no longer there.

Truc told me that he was a vegetable farmer until the local authorities engaged in what he called “shady tactics” to stop him and others from continuing farming a few years ago.

In a video clip recorded earlier in the day, he said:

“They oppressed us by cutting off our means of survival, by letting water to flood our vegetable fields, and we could not live (rightly) for eight years.

We could not raise cats and dogs because they would die when the land was submerged in one meter of water. It took one month for the water to drain, but then the environment became polluted. We had to find other means of living.

We have lived here through three generations by farming vegetables, but now we had to flat out the land and built the Level 4 houses to keep on living.”

Truc was refuting the government’s claim that the residents living in Loc Hung were constructing houses illegally when it confirmed that some 112 homes were demolished on January 8, 2019.

Loc Hung garden is a complicated legal issue involving land rights and land possession which began to challenge the Ho Chi Minh City’s government starting in the late 1990s.

The Vietnamese government, in general, had faced more and more legal headaches concerning land disputes over the years, due to the rapid development happening across the country.

Land Disputes Developed with and within Land Development 

Vietnam’s economy grew exponentially in the past three decades after the communist regime decided to “open up” and explored a “free market with socialist characteristics.” In big cities like Hanoi and Saigon, some investment and development projects crashed head-on with the former way of life: farming.

Being an agriculture society for thousands of years, the fact that there were farmers even in the big cities probably should not surprise anyone. However, the clash between the old and new ways of life – coupled with the lack of a clear legal framework – had created long-lasting social, economic, and political problems to date.

Loc Hung garden incident was not the first and definitely, would not be the last of its kind.

In Vietnam right now, there could be hundreds of thousands of land-lost victims who are known as “dân oan” in Vietnamese, often translated into “victims of injustice” in English.

As of January 8, 2018, some may want to add another 124 households from Loc Hung area to this population.

At the same time, the local government has not exactly been transparent about the legal basis to support their claim to the land.

What the public knows thus far includes a still pending, development project for a public school system from K-12 on the land where Loc Hung garden is located, and that this project was postponed numerous times during the last five years.

Before that, both the City and District’s authorities had failed to carry out the other public construction projects they previously proposed for the area.

In report No. 6035/UBND-NCPC sent to the Government Inspectorate dated October 20, 2016, the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City admitted two critical matters:

1) The public school development project has yet to be executed and was still only a prospect, and

2) The land dispute with the residents at Loc Hung garden would have continued to be classified as “complicated and long-term petition” has the project already started.

This report and its conclusion showed that the government has always recognized the land dispute at Loc Hung garden is not a matter of black and white, and that it anticipated a lengthy legal battle with the residents once the project begins.

Information on the pending development project, as well as the proposal on compensation and relocation of the residents, is not made readily available to either the residents of Loc Hung or the public as prescribed by laws.

Was There Due Process?

The official reason for tearing down the hundreds of homes given by the enforcing authorities, the People’s Committees of both the Tan Binh District and the Ward 6, was to enforce the order to remove illegal constructions at Loc Hung garden.

For the enforcement and removal to take place, the law in Vietnam required the authorities to provide three critical documents with sufficient public notice to the violating individuals or entities:

  1. The report conducted by the appropriate authorities on the violation
  2. The decision to penalize the violation, and
  3. The decision to enforce

(Law on Land 2013, Law on Administrative Penalization 2012, Decision 166/2013/NĐ-CP on Enforcement of Judgment, and Decision 102/2014/NĐ-CP on Administrative Penalization Relating to Land – all links in Vietnamese).

These documents also shall be served upon the violating individuals and entities, giving them an opportunity to remove voluntarily.

Cao Ha Truc told me he did not receive any of the three required documents but cautioned me that he could not speak for all others in the area.

The state-owned newspaper that published the story about Loc Hung also did not enclose copies of these essential documents.

When I called the office of the People’s Committee of Tan Binh District and asked for copies of the documents to be provided electronically according to laws, they turned me down. The desk person stated that I would need to show up in person to make my request.

The law prescribes a specific duty to the enforcing authorities, which is to establish that the required documentation exists and that the affected people are duly noticed. When the government has yet to provide them, we cannot conclude that there was due process.

Who Owns the Land in Vietnam?

Land ownership in Vietnam “belongs to the entire people with the State acting as the owner’s representative and uniformly managing land. The State shall hand over land use rights to land users in accordance with this Law.” (Article 4, Law on Land 2013).

I noticed the word “shall” was added in the English translation that I have found online. Its addition would make a significant difference, legally.

The Law on Land 2013, however, provides in details a long list of specific scenarios where the Vietnamese government would hand over the right to use the land to the people. At the same time, it also prescribes another list of situation where the government may perform land recovery and land requisition.

The main legal issue in Loc Hung garden case has always centered on the farmers’ right to possess the land and land use right from 1975 to date.

The government claimed they acquired the land and the other 1.2 hectares nearby from the old regime’s Postal Services under Government Council’s Decision No. 111/CP dated April 14, 1977.

The residents claimed that Decision No. 111/CP only covered the 1.2 hectares because the 4.8 hectares in question have been used for farming during the last 60 years in an undisrupted manner and without any disputes. They also claimed that the 4.8 hectares belong to the Catholics Church and the church gifted it to the farmers in 1954.

The facts that all parties could agree with would probably be the size of the disputed land and that the current government did allow the residents to continue living and farming undisrupted on such real property since 1975 to date.

On January 8, 2019, the Tan Binh District’s division of the Central Propaganda Committee issued a publication, stating that the residents who have been living and farming at Loc Hung garden would be entitled to compensation according to the policy for agriculture lands.

What would be the justification to compensate the residents if there wasn’t any legal basis for them to live there in the first place?

And could there ever be a monetary compensation that is enough to gain back the people’s trust in their government?

Opinion-Section

39 Vietnamese Froze To Death In England: A Question On The Rule Of Law

Published

on

By

Vigil in Hanoi, Vietnam for the 39 dead people. Photo credits: Green Trees

“No one is above the law, but no law is above basic decency, justice, and kindness.”

This sentence is one of the first things you will see on my Facebook profile, right below my profile photograph.

Today I want to share some thoughts about that quote, mostly in light of the recent tragedy in which 39 people were found dead in a refrigerated lorry in Essex, in the United Kingdom. I am not a professional lawyer, and I don’t claim to know everything about this issue. But I think some people need to reexamine their concept of “rule of law” and what it really means.

I do believe no one is, or at least no one should be, above the law. And this applies to everyone from presidents to illegal immigrants. It is true that illegal border crossing is a violation of the law. Staying and working in a country without proper legal documentation is also a violation of the law. Growing marijuana is a violation of the law in the UK. There is no question about that. And, if any persons violate the law, they should be tried in a fair and just manner, and if found guilty, should be punished accordingly.

That said, I completely agree that the 39 people who died in that lorry were violating British law as they illegally entered the country and had intended to stay and work there illegally, without paying taxes. Had they been alive and arrested by the authorities at the border or afterward, I would have completely agreed that they must be given a fair trial, and if found guilty of committing a crime, should have been convicted and punished according to UK immigration laws, which I assume to be deportation. If they had violated any other laws against the community where they intended to reside, they also should have been tried and punished in accordance with the law as mentioned above. It’s that simple. You break the law, you get punished by the law.

On the other hand, doing something legal isn’t always right, and doing something illegal is not always wrong. No law is above basic decency, justice, and kindness, that is my belief. And that extends to the way you treat people, even those who break the law.

Some people say that we shouldn’t have mercy or empathy for those who break or try to break the law. Some accuse these people of being “parasites”, “greedy” and “stupid”, who “disgrace” their own countries of origin in the eyes of the world. I’m not sure that those who work hard in another country to support their families at home can be described as “parasites”, “greedy”, “stupid”, or a “disgrace”. But I am certain the majority of people in the world do not see looking down on their less fortunate compatriots as a virtue or a source of pride. I think this shows a lack of basic decency and respect for other fellow human beings.  

Some people say that the 39 people who died deserved their fate because they broke the law and had to pay the price, that they should’ve seen it coming. These 39 people, of course, would’ve broken several laws had they been successful in their (supposed) attempts. Are any of these laws punishable by death? Not that I know of. Do you think anyone who violates these laws should be given the death penalty? I don’t, and I’m fairly sure most people don’t either.

So how, exactly, did these people “deserve to die” for breaking those laws? How, exactly, did these people “deserve to die” for wanting to make more money even if they and their families were not that desperate? How, exactly, did these people “deserve to die” for not choosing the legal way to work overseas?

People who break the law deserve punishment in accordance with the law. But they don’t deserve to die, especially in that manner. It is not just.

Such responses demonstrate a lack of empathy and kindness that is, unfortunately, still quite common, not just in Vietnam, but also around the world, despite many efforts to promote the importance of empathy in our society. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes to understand their rationale and feelings. We cannot be kind to others without having empathy, without being able to look beyond ourselves and focus instead on other people.

Understanding the context is an important first step in developing empathy and kindness. Context is integral at every step of the legal process, from lawmaking to handing judgments and punishments, and in the everyday assessment of any situation or person. Jumping to conclusions without considering all contextual information and imposing your own views onto the problem can be dangerous, as you will be focusing on the surface problem and blinded to other underlying issues. You won’t be able to understand fully and correctly either the whole picture itself or the people involved. That lack of understanding will lead to bad solutions that won’t solve problems, but which will likely make things even worse.

Most importantly, I believe kindness makes the world a better place. Don’t confuse being kind to be lenient. It is not mutually exclusive to hand out just judgments and punishments while at the same time trying to understand and treat people well to help them right their wrongs. That is what I believe to be restorative justice instead of retributive justice. I suggest we not focus on their shortcomings, but rather on how we, as a society, as a country, as humanity can help the victims’ families and prevent as many people as possible from suffering such tragedies ever again. That requires not cruelty and apathy, but a balance of rationality and empathy.

The rule of law doesn’t mean you must uphold the law over people without exception. It doesn’t mean people who break the law are bad and don’t deserve our mercy or respect. It doesn’t mean that we can just punish someone and be done with it. We need more than just the rule of law to run our society in a way that improves most if not all of us. We need to have basic human decency, justice, empathy, and kindness in dealing with each other.

This tragedy is a failure and a lesson for all of us Vietnamese as a society and as a country.

Continue Reading

Opinion-Section

A Sexual Predator Walked Free As Arbitrary Application Of The Law Failed Everyone In Vietnam

Published

on

Illustrative picture of sexual assault victim. Photo credit: INIMAGE

A perpetrator in a sexual assault case was caught on tape in Hanoi where he forcefully came onto a woman in an elevator of a building and kissed her on the lips.

The news coincided with what would have been about one year after the #MeToo movement first marked its impact in Vietnam. Last year, an intern at Tuoi Tre newspaper went public about her sexual harassment allegations against her boss in April 2018.

The recent sexual assault case stirred up even more public outrage in Vietnam this time and made headlines on international news outlets as well.

It is because the police in Hanoi only issued an administrative fine against the perpetrator where the whole world had already watched what he did to the woman and believed criminal charges should have been filed.

Images of him assaulted the victim was spreading rapidly online, but anger erupted on social media – from both men and women alike – after the authorities announced the fine of 200,000 VND (Approximately USD 8).

The public felt that the legal system had failed them.

During March 11-12, 2019, Vietnam underwent its third review under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in front of the Human Rights Committee in Geneva, Switzerland. The recurring theme for the line of questions from the Committee concentrated on the ability of Vietnamese citizens to utilize their national legal framework to protect their human rights.

Vietnam’s legal system often faced criticisms from the international community due to its arbitrary application of the law in political cases. Vaguely defined penal codes under the category of “national security” crimes have been used to silence dissidents.

Most often, political opinions are all deemed to be either act of subversion against the people’s government or propaganda against the state.

And as such, for a while, arbitrary application of vague penal codes seem to be the problem that only political dissidents face in the country. Naturally, the call to reform the legal system in Vietnam has mostly been originating from this same group.

However, all of that has changed in March 2019 with this sexual assault case.

In just one night, an online campaign started by two young female activists, Ngoc Diep Dao and Nguyet Ha, on change.org gathered over 2,000 signatures.

The petition calls for legal reforms in the country with a specific request to the National Assembly to pass new legislation protecting victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

In recent months, the sexual assault in the building’s elevator was not the only case where the law failed to protect the victims of sexual assault and violence.

A nine-year-old girl alleged that a male adult raped and beat her, but the suspect was allowed to be released on bail because the authorities had deemed that his conducts were not dangerous enough to the community.

A male teacher who inappropriately touched his fifth graders was not criminally prosecuted.

The inability and unwillingness to prosecute the alleged perpetrators in these cases strongly highlighted the concerns of the Human Rights Committee during the ICCPR review: Vietnamese people currently do not have the support of a functional legal system to address their grievances when their human rights and their dignity are being violated.

The law enforcement, in the “elevator assault” case, arbitrarily applied a decree on protecting public order and preventing domestic violence instead of using a criminal code on assault.

The authorities’ excuse that Vietnam has yet to pass a specific penal code to punish the perpetrator in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases and therefore the law could not further protect the victim – as in the case at hand – is not a legally sound argument.

The forceful and unwanted kiss on the lips is a classic assault and battery. Vietnamese authorities in the past had sentenced a young woman to nine-month-imprisonment for slapping a police officer. The slap on the cheek or an unwanted kiss on the mouth have the same criminality in nature: they are both conducts that fall under the category of battery and assault.

While specific, well-defined sexual assault and battery crimes should and must be included in Vietnam’s Penal Code, at the same, we shall not tolerate the police who refused to apply a regular battery and assault charge against the perpetrator either.

It seemed that the Deputy Prime Minister, Truong Hoa Binh, might have agreed. On March 22, 2019, he had requested the City of Hanoi and its police to conduct a review of the case.

In the meanwhile, the people continue to voice their demand to change the current legal framework to protect victims of sexual assault and harassment.

Even though change.org itself is being blocked here and there in the country this year (coincidently after the new Cybersecurity took effect earlier in January), by the time this article goes to press, close to 4,000 Vietnamese people and 14 civil society organizations have signed the petition during the past four days.

Continue Reading

Opinion-Section

Vietnam: Social Media Successfully Forced Government To Leave Traditional Fish Sauce Alone (For Now)

Published

on

Traditional fish sauce production. Photo credits: baonghean.vn

Social media in Vietnam carries quite a force when it comes to having a say in public affairs, and the government is well aware of that. The effect of the new cybersecurity law of 2018 and its attempt to reign in the people’s power remain to be seen. However, the vibrant online civic space in Vietnam just recently proved how effective it could be in fighting against illogical and unreasonable governmental regulations.

This time, it was all about the fish sauce which for the majority of Vietnamese people, could very well be the essence of their souls. If anything could cause an uprising in the country, interference with the people’s consumption of their fish sauce might very well be it.

Three years ago, when the disastrous Formosa marine pollution erupted, the fear of not being able to have a safe supply of fish and salt (the main ingredients for making the fish sauce) prompted thousands of Vietnamese to take to the streets.

So for this reason alone, one would assume that it must take a very gutsy governmental department to take on a fight against the producers of this national treasure.

To everyone’s surprise, the Bureau of Production and Market Development for Agriculture Produce (Bureau) in Vietnam emerged in early March 2019 as the one who was willing to put on the hat of such a fierce fighter.

The Bureau proposed a new set of rules and regulations, detailing the practical steps that all who wish to produce fish sauce in the country must follow.

This particular bureau might have underestimated the outrage from not only the fish sauce producers but also the Vietnamese people at large when the proposed regulation went public.

It could partly be that the making of fish sauce is quite diverse and supposedly done according to the unique traditions and techniques in each region in Vietnam.

Similarly, not many of us would imagine instructing all French winemakers how their bottles of wine should be made or telling the whole Italian cheesemakers that they must follow their government’s detailed steps to produce their mozzarella.

More importantly, for years, the traditional fish sauce producers in Vietnam have been fighting against a few large food corporations who had created a monopoly which mass-produced not fish sauce, but its substitutes.

It turned out that there were two kinds of sauce involved in this battle.

The traditional fish sauce is organically made from fish and salt, and it takes longer to yield the final products.

The other is a chemically induced sauce that may smell like fish sauce but catered to an entirely different taste.

This non-traditional fish sauce substitutes, however, have dominated the market in Vietnam during the past two decades because they are considerably cheaper.

Nevertheless, the traditional fish sauce continues to survive throughout this battle even though their products cost more than those manufactured by the big factories.

Perhaps, because, in recent years, Vietnamese people begin to favor the traditional taste both for health reasons and for protecting the keepsake of their national identity.

I remember this one time when attending college in California, as I was passing by an apartment complex near my school, I suddenly felt the presence of my motherland and nostalgically yearned for my mama’s cooking while the distinctive aroma filled the air from one of the studios.

I am probably not alone in having such an experience where one associates fish sauce with memories of her homeland, making it an essential part of who she is.

And there it went, in the last few weeks, the Vietnamese people were not shy in expressing themselves on social media and letting the government knows that they were firmly against the proposal to regulate the traditional fish sauce’s production.

Their outpouring anger was enough for the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Science and Technology to quickly announce on March 12, 2019, that the proposed regulation for fish sauce production would be halted indefinitely.

But the abrupt halt did not calm down the public and the traditional fish sauce producers. For the people, the attempted regulation seemed to disproportionately favor one corporation in particular, Masan Group, who had dominated the fish sauce substitutes market in Vietnam.

Almost three years ago, the traditional fish sauce producers had suffered a different attack from another controversy allegedly concocted by a Public Relations firm – T&A Ogilvy – who worked with major food corporations, including Masan.

Back in December 2016, mass media in Vietnam picked up a story from the survey sponsored by T&A Ogilvy where it claimed that 95% of all fish sauce samples collected nationwide contained an alarming amount of arsenic content.

The story was later proven to be entirely false, and the Prime Minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, himself ordered an inquiry into the survey’s claims. Nevertheless, the traditional fish sauce producers already suffered losses when consumers panicked and avoided consumption.

This time around, the Vietnamese public seemed to believe that the latest proposed governmental regulation just proved that Masan would not give up on this ambitious dream of becoming the only producer for fish sauce in the country and that the government chose to stay on the corporation’s side.

Because fish sauce is not only a staple in many people’s diet but also a part of their identity, they came to doubt the government’s actual intention for attempting to regulate the production of such caused them.

On social media, people alleged that this whole incident just showcased the intricately entwined relationship between the Vietnamese government and the conglomerates – such as Masan Group.

To have such an allegation coming from its people should be a worrying sign for a regime that has been trying to maintain its dwindling legitimacy like Vietnam. And while the battle is not quite finished, social media will continue to be the much needed civic space for Vietnamese people to voice their concerns and exercise their rights.

Continue Reading

Trending