How To Shake China From Its Recurring American Dreams

Too many Chinese have taken their pursuit of happiness to the United States, and elsewhere in the West. China must ask itself why are there still so many good reasons for leaving.

Chinatown, San Francisco - ( D0m1n0_Journalism)

By Wang Xiochuan ECONOMIC OBSERVER/Worldcrunch

BEIJING - Just like scandals involving corrupt officials, news about emigration and property purchases abroad by Chinese citizens can quickly set off waves of anger.
The latest comes after a recent article from the Wall Street Journal that reported on the large number of property buyers from China aiming either to emigrate to the U.S. or set their children up with accommodation while they study there. China's web portals and micro-blogs erupted right away.
The public often presumes that many of these homebuyers are corrupt public officials, or at the very least the nation's wealthiest eager to move their assets abroad. On the Chinese Internet, one refers to the original sin that stains both categories of people.
Putting aside whether or not these notions are even correct, it is worth looking into just why the Chinese public lashes out at their compatriots considering a move abroad.
To begin with, I don't believe corrupt officials make up the majority of those Chinese homebuyers abroad. Though I don't have the hard numbers to prove it, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is mostly the growing middle-class and rich buying up foreign property and looking to emigrate.
Experience tells us that people tend to be path-dependent. The increasing importance that knowledge and education play in a person's success, the more one attaches importance to their own child's education.
Based on this logic, the middle class and wealthy would be more likely, and able, to invest in their children's future. Similarly, the middle-class and the rich are also much more sensitive to the context of their surroundings, particularly to the legal and institutional environment. All this raises their interest in emigration.
Some indirect data supports my judgment. Last year it was reported that there are 2.7 million Chinese people who possess at least $1 million in net assets, among which 30% have invested in real estate overseas. Of course it's quite difficult to accurately calculate the revenues of corrupt officials, while regardless we can all agree that 2.7 million is a considerable figure.
Even if only a small part of this population invests in a country, it can have a significant impact on the local government. According to the Wall Street Journal report, out of $70 million of transactions at a New York real estate agency in last January, 30% came from Chinese customers. The trend of Chinese people buying properties abroad has actually become a strong external force helping the American real estate market to recover. 
Student wisdom
Choosing freely how one likes to live is a citizen’s basic right, so is the choice of education one likes to receive. Therefore no matter what the purposes of our compatriots who buy property abroad, we need not impose our moral judgments on them. As long as their sources of wealth are not illicit, how they like to dispose of their wealth is their own business.
China is still a developing country. In comparison with advanced countries, the levels of public services, legal standards, and environmental protection are still far behind. If a portion of Chinese people are willing to live or study in advanced countries, it’s also a symbol of China’s rise.
However, just as in trade, import and export should be balanced. In the current stage, it’s understandable that as a latecomer China’s outflow of funds and people is higher than that of the inflow. But if this remains out of balance, then it won’t be normal. A continuous outflow of funds will eventually harm the economy. From an economic point of view, it is necessary to build a breakwater against capital outflow.  It is best to be as open as possible to create opportunities for domestic investment, and in particular in the liberalization of services, including the audiovisual, press and publishing sectors. Capital is the lifeblood of an economy. If there is an embolism, it will overflow.
From the social point of view, the authorities do indeed need to pay close attention to a maintaining a harmonious society, and raise the level of China’s public services and improve the legal standards. As one high school student pointed out when he was interviewed by a television program discussing the “naked businessmen” who send their families and fortune overseas, if our bridges were more solid, if our food was safer, and our civil servants were less corrupt than those of other nations, we wouldn’t have so many naked businessmen.
I wholeheartedly agree with this young person: making his ifs come true one day will help put an end to Chinese people suffering from so many American dreams.

Read the article in the original language.
Photo by - D0m1n0_Journalism
All rights reserved ©Worldcrunch - in partnership with ECONOMIC OBSERVER

Crunched by: Laura Lin

Sweden: More Than Ever, The Land Of Internet Freedom

By Boris Manenti NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR/Worldcrunch

STOCKHOLM - “This is happening right now in Homs, Syria...” Hans Eriksson shows a shaky video of column of smoke just after a bombing from Bashar al-Assad’s troops.
Bambuser is the name of the service launched by this 44-year-old Swede, which allows any smartphone user to broadcast live what’s happening in front of him – without any censorship. The service is a precious resource for Arab Spring protesters.
“In these countries where information is – or was – under heavy surveillance, it is crucial to be able to show the details of the repression. The world needs to know,” says Eriksson. His service is used by CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.
From 5,000 to 10,000 raw, unedited videos are uploaded every day by this 12-person  start-up. Bambuser is the latest symbol of Sweden’s fight for freedom of speech on the Internet.
Three years ago, the country decided to take a stand for the promotion of freedom on the Internet. Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt launched a dialogue with companies on Internet freedom. He was soon followed by Hillary Clinton, who made an acclaimed speech on Internet freedom in 2010.
“Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of the Swedish government, we just extended it to the Internet,” says Ministry of Foreign Affairs Special Adviser Johan Hallenborg. “The freedom to say what we want on the Internet or anywhere else is a human right.”

[Håkan Dahlström]

In 2011, Sweden launched a U.N. initiative with the support of more than 80 co-sponsors, to promote, protect and facilitate human rights on the Internet. The resolution, which affirmed that ““the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice” was adopted in July 2012 by 47 states of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
“It’s a start. With this resolution, we will be able to promote the perspective of human rights on the Internet in order to force the states to be more transparent,” says Hallenborg.
What freedom of speech doesn't include
Transparency is also Netnod’s creed. This foundation, which handles most of Europe’s Internet physical transit, is also lobbying operators and the governments for the “transmission of information, without restriction, without monitoring, without modification and without discrimination,” according to director Kurtis Lindqvist.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean “the right to say absolutely everything,” says Hallenborg. “Of course there are limits, the same limits as offline communications,” he adds. In Sweden, hate speech, denying the Holocaust, inciting violence or crime is forbidden. Swedish Internet providers have already blocked, at the bequest of law enforcement, hundreds of Internet pages containing child pornography.
The Kingdom of Sweden still managed to rank number one on the World Wide Web Foundation’s 2012 Web Index, an overview of the web’s availability and impact on countries around the world.
(The controversial site Wikileaks, which publishes secret information from anonymous sources, has long based most of its servers in Sweden, in large part because of the country's protections for Internet freedom) 
Why is Sweden encouraging digital freedom of speech so fervently through its companies and politics? “When you launch a service in such a small country, you have to think globally to be successful,” says Eriksson. “For this to happen, you need an open dialogue.”
Thinking global to be successful can also be applied to Swedish companies. In a country where the Foreign Ministry includes the Ministry of Trade, they “dream of an open world where everyone can communicate,” says Hallenborg. “This would help to promote democracy, to reduce poverty, to encourage education and develop trade. A global market would provide many opportunities, especially for local companies.”
Not so naive at all: behind the humanist ideal of digital freedom, Sweden is busy looking out for its commercial interests as well.

Read the article in the original language.
Photo by - Håkan Dahlström
All rights reserved ©Worldcrunch - in partnership with NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR

Crunched by: Leo Tilmont

Owen was the supreme scorer... I pleaded with him to snub Real Madrid and I wish he rejoined Liverpool

In terms of making a first impression, Michael Owen could not have done anything more. Pitched into an FA Youth Cup quarter-final against Manchester United at Anfield, he scored a hat-trick.

We had heard his name mentioned around the club as being someone to keep an eye on but it was in that game, in the spring of 1996, I thought Michael was going to be something special. His finishing was deadly, delivered in a calmness you would not expect a 16-year-old to possess.
What really sticks in my mind from that night, though, was Michael’s tackling. I was known as being someone who was not afraid to put his foot in but Michael made me wince with some of the challenges he made. He was desperate to win and had an incredible mental strength.

Glory night: Michael Owen celebrates the 2001 UEFA Cup triumph with Robbie Fowler, Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard

Deadly: Owen celebrates an England goal

Within 12 months, we were both in Liverpool’s first-team squad and, as we were the youngest in the group, we became friends and room-mates.
He scored a brilliant goal on his debut against Wimbledon and became one of the most talked-about footballers of his generation.
If you had said back then, just after he had been crowned European Footballer of the Year and scored that goal against Argentina, that he faced the prospect of ending his career sitting on the bench at Stoke, you would have been laughed out of town but, for a couple of a reasons, that is what has happened.

The first is injuries. Michael was not the same after he lost the pace that used to blow defenders away, the hamstring injury he sustained against Leeds in April 1999 had an enormous impact, as did the cruciate ligament damage he suffered at the World Cup finals in 2006.

But another reason is that the role of the consummate goal poacher, the one in which Michael excelled, has effectively disappeared over the last few years. Teams now play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 and neither of those systems suit Michael’s qualities.

Long-term friends: Carragher and Owen came through the Liverpool youth ranks together, followed by Steven Gerrard

It still annoys me that people forget what a top player he was. Michael had this unshakable belief that he was the best and wasn’t bothered about trying to usurp Robbie Fowler and Stan Collymore to get into Liverpool’s starting line-up.

The best strikers are single-minded and I saw at first hand how he was able to put disappointments to one side and bounce back when it really mattered. He used to take knocks in his career but he always came back with an answer.

When he was left on the bench for the 2001 League Cup final against Birmingham, he got his place back and ended up scoring the goals that won the FA Cup final against Arsenal and helped Liverpool qualify for the Champions League for the first time. He was, simply, a big-game player.
It’s why Real Madrid eventually came calling for him. Michael and I were rooming in America during Liverpool’s pre-season tour when he told me that Madrid had made him an offer and he was thinking seriously about it.

'Big-game player': Carragher knew Owen could be relied upon to perform when it counted, such as in the 2001 FA Cup final

Liverpool had just signed Djibril Cisse and Milan Baros had returned from Euro 2004 as the winner of the Golden Boot. Michael felt the time was right to pursue a fresh challenge. I told him he was making a mistake, that Madrid were a football club rife with politics and he wouldn’t play.

They had Raul and Ronaldo, who always played, and to be a success at Madrid, you had to be more than just a goalscorer but Michael wouldn’t be moved. He thought he was the best and would become a success in Spain.

And in difficult circumstances, he did very well. Despite Real Madrid having three managers that season and him getting limited starting opportunities, he scored 16 times in 45 appearances.

He may not have won any honours but his reputation was not harmed. When he returned to England 12 months later, he could have come back to Anfield but Liverpool were outbid by Newcastle. That story is well known but less so is the chance that arose to come back to Liverpool in 2009.

Competition: Owen could not get into the Real Madrid side ahead of either Ronaldo or Raul

Liverpool supporters did not take too kindly to the way he left but I’m a firm believer that time is a healer and I’m sure they would have welcomed him back after his contract at Newcastle had expired.
I had heard he was thinking of joining Manchester United but he would have jumped at the opportunity to come back to Liverpool. He would have been happy to be a squad player and was excited at the opportunity to return home.
The way he left Liverpool had saddened Michael and he wanted the opportunity to redeem himself. I sent Rafa Benitez a message explaining what Liverpool could get on a free transfer but Benitez instead went out and bought David Ngog.
Joining United was a mistake. It ruined any chance of him repairing things with Liverpool fans and it’s safe to say United supporters never really took to him despite his famous winner against Manchester City.

Rare highlight: Owen had declined by the time he had signed for Manchester United

'Mistake': Jamie Carragher believes Michael Owen should never have left Liverpool

Maybe he should have made this decision a couple of years ago or taken the chance to play in America or the Middle East. Something doesn’t seem right about him potentially bringing the curtain down on his career sitting on the bench when Stoke play Southampton.

But that won’t diminish my memories or opinion of him. He was a supreme goalscorer, capable of glorious moments, and the goal he swept past David Seaman in the Millennium Stadium in that 2001 final provided my finest Liverpool moment until Istanbul. For good reason it will be remembered as the ‘Owen Final’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2296083/Jamie-Carragher-I-told-Michael-Owen-snub-Real-Madrid-stay-Liverpool.html#ixzz2O5KXwj4f
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Human Rights Organizations Call on the UN to Aid Detained Vietnamese Blogger Le Quoc Quan

MARCH 15, 2013 | BY EVA GALPERIN - the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – On 27 December 2012 prominent Vietnamese activist and blogger Le Quoc Quan was arbitrarily arrested and detained by local authorities while taking his daughter to school. The arrest was the culmination of years of constant surveillance and harassment over his extensive writing on civil rights, political pluralism and religious freedom for the BBC, online newspapers, and on his blog.

As a lawyer, Quan represented many victims of human rights violations, but was disbarred in 2007 on suspicion of engaging in “activities to overthrow the regime.” Despite these threats, he continued with his human rights advocacy and as a result he has been arrested several times since. In August 2012, he was hospitalized after being severely beaten near his home by unknown assailants—an assault which has not been investigated by Vietnamese authorities.

Since his latest arrest, Quan has been held incommunicado in detention at Hoa Lo No. 1 Prison, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, Viet Nam, and has had access to counsel only twice. No trial date has been set, and reports of a 15-day hunger strike, which has left Quan weak, raise concerns about the state of his health.

Quan’s arrest is part of the Communist Vietnamese government’s ongoing crackdown on activists, dissidents, and bloggers. Dozens of high profile figures have been arrested and detained since late 2011. In January 2013, in the largest case of its kind, 17 bloggers were put on trial at once, charged under Article 79 (“activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s government”) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The allegations included: attending workshops on digital security; writing and linking to blog posts that are critical of the Communist Vietnamese government; calling for peaceful protests and political pluralism; and association with the Vietnam Reform Party (Viet Tan). After a two-day trial, a court in the city of Vinh convicted all 14 of the defendants that appeared in court. Thirteen of the activists and bloggers were sentenced to serve prison terms ranging individually from 3 to 13 years. One defendant (Nguyen Dang Vinh Phuc) was given a three-year conditionally suspended sentence, making him easily vulnerable to re-arrest. Three of the accused activists—Nguyen Xuan Kim, Thai Van Tu, and Le Sy—fled the country prior to trial and the Ministry of Public Security has issued a warrant for their arrest.

Quan’s arrest warrant suggests that he has been detained under Article 161 of the 1999 Penal Code concerning tax evasion. Charges such as “tax evasion” and “fax fraud” are often used by the Vietnamese government to silence critics. One of the founding members of the Free Journalists Network in Viet Nam, Nguyen Van Hai (also known as Dieu Cay), was arrested in 2008 and charged with tax fraud, widely seen as a baseless pretext to punish him for blog posts critical of Vietnam’s accommodationist policies to its northern neighbor, China, and his political activities. He finished his prison term in October 2010, but was immediately rearrested on charges of “conducting propaganda” against the State.

EFF has joined to a broad coalition of human rights organizations, including The Media Legal Defence Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, and Article 19, to request that the United Nations’ Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression, human rights defenders and freedom of association conduct an urgent intervention with the Vietnamese authorities on behalf of Le Quoc Quan. In a detailed petition, we argue that Le Quoc Quan is being persecuted for his legitimate blogging and human rights advocacy, in violation of his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association and that Vietnam is in blatant violation of the principles contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Additionally, we have sent a parallel petition to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, asking it to formally declare that Le Quoc Quan’s detention is arbitrary and demand his immediate release.

In a letter written shortly before his arrest, Quan wrote:

I strongly believe that the day will come when we will live in a free and truly democratic society. A day when all Vietnamese people can express their views openly, with the rights to seek and pursue our happiness and success on this beloved homeland, Vietnam.

These are not opinions that should land anyone in jail. We hope that the UN Special Rapporteurs and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention will act swiftly to add their voices to chorus denouncing this injustice and calling for Le Quoc Quan’s release.

Mysterious Attack on a Vietnamese Blog

Twenty months ago, I was approached by a member of the team that puts out the Anh Ba Sam blog, Vietnam’s leading source of “alternative news.” Would I mind, they asked, if they posted a Vietnamese translation of a story that I’d written on the deepening South China Sea crisis.

I agreed, and there began a relationship that has made my writings on contemporary Vietnam far better known to readers there and in the Vietnamese diaspora than to the several thousands who read me in Asia Sentinel and other regional online publications.

Lately — up to March 8, anyway — there has been a lively debate on the Ba Sam blog about how the Vietnamese Constitution ought to be revised. There’s nothing strange there; the National Assembly is going to vote on a new text in the fall, and in anticipation it has called for the people to express their ideas. 

Taking the legislature at its word, commentaries posted on Anh Ba Sam have tilted sharply toward freeing the current constitution’s guarantees of human rights from a host of eviscerating national security-based limitations. There’s also been considerable support for diluting the Communist Party’s monopoly of political decision-making and freeing the courts and the mainstream media from a surfeit of political instruction.

That nearly ended on March 8, when the Ba Sam blog was thoroughly hacked. Several years’ reportage and commentary were deleted. The e-mail accounts of the blog’s editorial team were also compromised. The Ba Sam team has so far been unable to regain control of wordpress.anhbasam.com. That’s a manageable tragedy, however. All but a few days’ content was backed up on offshore servers.

Then, however, on March 13, the hackers struck again, posting on the website an apologia attributed to the blog’s managing editor, cobbled together from e-mailed messages and photos. Like all effective propaganda, it was a mixture of fact and fiction. A naive reader might conclude that the Anh Ba Sam team are in fact renegades and grudge-bearing reactionaries based in the United States and dedicated to the overthrow of the Hanoi regime.

That’s a considerable exaggeration. They are trenchant critics of the regime, for sure, but Anh Ba Sam’s first priority has been to publish an objective summary of newsworthy events in and about Vietnam. It’s up with the news 24/7. As might be expected, the blog has given particular emphasis to the stories that Vietnam’s state-supervised media has been unable to report. Its daily digest is the hook that has caught the attention of 100,000-plus regular readers.

Additionally, the Anh Ba Sam blog has published a great deal of commentary, mostly by a distinguished stable of Vietnamese academics, old revolutionaries and retired officials. And it also has published my essays every three or four weeks on problems of environmental governance, media culture, economic policy gone awry, China’s moves to turn its farcical South China Sea claim into fact, and the fumbling efforts of the regime and ruling party to reform land policy, right a faltering economy and rewrite the nation’s constitution.

The hacking of Anh Ba Sam got to me directly and personally, and that’s why I’m writing this in first-person. We’ve had a seriously professional relationship. The Ba Sam team thought my stories were worth the attention of its Vietnamese readers. And, having learned that whatever I wrote was inevitably going to appear in translation somewhere in the Vietnamese blogosphere, I wanted whatever that was attributed to me at least to be what I meant to say. Our arrangement was that Ba Sam volunteers would send their translations to me, and with help from the native speaker who consented to marry me 44 years ago, I’d check that they’d got it right.

In September 2012, Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung issued “guidance” that authorized Vietnamese cyberpolice to go after blogs that posted “slanderous, fabricated, distorted and false” reports on the nation’s leaders. At the time, Dung was fighting to keep his job, and it was tempting to regard his order simply as a riposte to intra-party rivals’ sponsorship of scurrilous anti-Dung blogs.

Six months later, however, someone has taken down Vietnam’s best blog, one that had no particular animus for Dung. It was the system that Anh Ba Sam subjected to daily, withering scrutiny, not Dung himself. With tighter security and another URL, wordpress.anhbasam04.com, it is being reconstituted, and so the cat-and-mouse game between Vietnam’s community of free journalists and its internal security agencies goes on.

What’s evident is that like the weeds in my garden, Vietnam’s free online press can be clobbered from time to time but not eliminated. Some bloggers simply give up rather than serve time in prison or lose their livelihoods. Many more blogs spring up to take their place. No matter how sophisticated the Vietnamese cybercops become, however, Internet-enabled dissent is beyond their ability to control. In the internet era, the Hanoi regime might have better success reasoning with its critics rather than trying to suppress them.

(David Brown is a retired US diplomat with extensive experience in Vietnam and a regular contributor to Asia Sentinel.)

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN MY SITUATION?

When I pose that question to you, I don’t mean that I expect you or any other Vietnamese to go through what I have experienced. It is simply that I expect your sympathy. I believe that life will be much interesting and lively when we assume ourselves in others’ circumstances and think and feel by their hearts. Those circumstances I suggest here may make you feel bad and think that “Wow, its so unlucky.” If so, just stop reading them. However, I still want you to take part in this “funny test” in order to let me understand you more. Just let me know your feelings so that we could come close together. And below this are situations that you are likely to encounter if you were I.

In just nearly 6 months after your release from prison, you received more than ten summonses from the local authorities. Repeatedly, they came to your home to annoy you with various reasons: checking registered residence, questioning, or just paying a visit. These self-claimed people’s police would knock strongly on the door if you did not let them in. It was no pleasure at all when they chose while you were away to terrify your near-eighty mother time and time again. Even more, in late night and during power cut, they opened your house gate arbitrarily and forced your mother to open the door to let them “check registered residence.” A whole pack, uniformed or not, shone the torch all over the house, from private rooms to toilets.

You went back from prison in exhaust; you needed to go to hospital for treatment but the local authorities kept thwarting you. You asked: “If, unfortunately, I had a severe disease which needs emergency aid or otherwise I risked my life, whereas the hospital is located in other ward and other district. According to “your laws,” still I have to write a petition to submit to you at the ward level, and wait for you to submit to the district level and continue to wait until you reply, then I am permitted to save my life myself. What happens if, unfortunately, I die then?” And you would receive the answer from the mouth of the Vice-Chairman of People’s Committee of the Ward: “When it comes to laws, it must be enforced. No other way!”

Your private house were always blocked, guarded and surrounded by the police in order to terrify your mind and hinder your freedom to travel. Moreover, they caused public tumult at night, affecting your family’s as well as your neighbours’ sleep.

On 5th day of the Lunar New Year, the police came to your home to “recommend” that you do not go anywhere and then guarded your house right away, making your guests and friends anxious and scared.

When you paid a visit to one of your acquaintances, just braced yourself for a sudden raid by the police. They then took you to several public buildings at their fancy and questioned you for hours. After all, you would be “granted” a fine worth 1.5 million VND for the so-called “breach of regulations on obligations of persons under surveillance punishment.”

And the story I want to share with you is as follows.

I have went through 4 years in prison under the laws of the “Socialist Republic of Vietnam” and returned home in very poor health. Never have I accepted the sentence as well as other illogical laws that the authorities enforced on me. This means I will face so many difficulties, even accepting those risks that I cannot anticipate. Too nervous, my mother advised me to “write a petition” to inform them of my trip to Hanoi for medical examination. Previously, she had been “reminded” by the police that if I went on my own free will, they would bear no responsibilities in case I experienced any “incidences” during the trip. Then I… wrote a petition, informing them of every necessary details they required. And the answer was: At 23h30 on 3^rd October  2012, a group of policemen (Dong Hai 1 ward) rush to my house to “check registered residence”, just several hours after I submitted my petition. They gave me “oral command” that I stay put at home. Besides, they told me that my petition was “wrong” because there was no word “DON XIN” (a humble word asking for favours) as well as no “Socialist Republic of Vietnam/Independence – Freedom – Happiness” at the head of the petition letter.

To enjoy my apparent right, I had to manage by myself, taking into account every possible ways to get to the hospital unthwarted. The doctors at the Viet Tiep Hospital concluded that I only had a sore throat, with no risk at all, whereas I frequently had a slight fever and they failed to give an explanation on this as well. An ophthalmological doctor diagnosed that I had acquired a papilloedema and degeneration of purpurogenous membrane. He also gave me a prescription. My illness didn’t ease up but got more severe, however. I went to a very well-known and prestigious doctor in Hanoi. She diagnosed that I had acquired an aesthenopia and “optic atrophy at temple’s side.” Following her method of treatment, I felt my illness easing up apparently. Nearly 2 months later, however, I felt the pain again. Time and again, I felt my eyes were about to blow up, very uncomfortable. Worse, accompanied with this was a slight fever that persisted from day to day. I was really worried. I needed to go to Saigon for medical examination and treatment.

Again, for the second time, I wrote a petition. It was not that I compromised with that “lawless laws” but that I did not want them to take my absence as a pretext to terrify my mother. Moreover, the right to medical services is self-evident for anyone to enjoy (without permission). No normal government or state would want their citizens to be ill or sick. With that in mind, I was sure that they would let me go. I was wrong!

On 19 February 2013, I submitted my petition to ask for permission to go for medical examination.

On 22 February, I felt unwell and had to go to a clinic for tonic injection. The doctor asked me to go on treatment the following days.

On 23 February, the police began guarding my house. The treatment was then disrupted.

On 24 February: In the morning, the police came to my house to give me a summons which required that I go to the headquarters of the People’s Committee of the Ward to hear “the answer for your petition.” In the afternoon, unable to go to the former clinic, I had to go to a smaller one near my home. My blood pressure as checked here did not reach 80/50 levels. While I was on bed for tonic injection, the police guarded outside the room.

On 25 February 2013, while I was on bed for tonic injection, the policeman in charge of my neighbourhood went right to the spot for “inspection” and then called his superior to report the situation.

In the morning of 26 February, I went for working sessions with the local authorities. The police at ward, district and municipal levels all informed me that they had received my petition and promised to address it. I requested that they reply in written form as stipulated by the laws. Both Mrs La Thi Thu Thuy, representative of the Hai Phong Municipal Public Security, and Mr Nguyen Van Ky, Vice-Chairman of the People’s Committee of Dong Hai 1 Ward, promised me to reply in written form.

At 10am on 28 February, the police of the ward came to my home to give me a summons, requesting my presence at 10h15am the same day to hear their official answer. I asked them to cite whatever legal stipulations which authorizes the police to summon a citizen just before 15 minutes (the time to open the gate and listen to their explanation alone already exceeds 15 minutes). They got back to their office and minutes later came back with another summons, which requested me to go to the headquarters of the People’s Committee of the ward the next day “for a working session.”

On 1 March 2013, I went for a “working session” with “authorized agencies”, which include:

1)      Mr Nguyen Van Ky, Vice-Chairman of the People’s Committee of Dong Hai 1 Ward;

2)      Lieutenant Colonel Luu Van Thi, Deputy Head of Dong Hai 1 Ward Public Security;

3)      Mrs La Thi Thu Thuy, Team Head, Political Security Department (PA67), Hai Phong Municipal Public Security;

4)      Captain Nguyen Manh Tung, Head of Criminal Sentences Enforcement Team, Hai An District Public Security, Hai Phong;

5)      Lieutenant Colonel Mac Tu Khoa, Team Head, Criminal Sentences Enforcement Department, Hai Phong Municipal Public Security;

6)      Do (or Dinh) Van Thuan, Head of Dong Hai 1 Ward Public Security;

7)      A policeman not in uniform and not introduced himself;

8)      A policewoman from An Hai District Public Security, not in uniform, named Nga.

These “authorized agents” orally replied me as follows: You are not permitted to go (for medical examination); if you go deliberately, you will be arrested. The justification for them to prohibit me was that I was a “special target,” quoting Mrs La Thi Thu Thuy’s words verbatim. When I asked them to deliver their promise and also to abide to (their own) laws by replying me in written form, Captain Tung answered: “We have explained very clearly, you can remember yourself. No need for written documents.”

Mr Luu Van Thi asked me to pay… “the debt” (fine) worth 1.5 millions VND. He also said that, because I did not go to the ward authorities to “show up and report your observance of regulations of surveillance” every month, even tore a summons before the police, so from this April 2013 on, even if I want to go to the headquarters of the People’s Committee of the ward, I have to call to “ask for permission” in advance and wait for their assent before “showing up”. Otherwise, I just wait for their summonses to arrive home and go as specified by the summonses. He did not forget to “reprimand” me for daringly using the word “Don yeu cau” (Letter of Request) instead of “Don xin” (letter asking for permission) when writing the petition.

I don’t want to tell more about the conversation between I and these people. But I remembered telling them before going home that, “You do not give me any reason to respect you. If you want others to respect you, respect yourself first.” Glancing up at  certificates of credit (which state “heroic forces…”) hung on the wall, I said: “Hanging these certificates of heroism doesn’t turn you into heroes right away. Rather, getting them down will make you feel ashamed less.” Then I stood up, pushing the chair aside forcefully and going to the door. The policewoman named Nga rush towards me: “Let me take you home, sister Nghien.” I reluctantly expressed my gratitude and went home on foot. Until 5March 2013, after 12 days guarding my house, they quit.

When I type these letters, my eyes are still awfully painful. Slight fevers still follow me persistently, and how awfully I wish one day I could get rid of these chronic, constant headaches!

Thank you so much for your patience in reading my incoherent and uninteresting story. And, after all, just let me know: What will you do to remain a free man?

Pham Thanh Nghien, 19 Mar, 2013.

Netizen Huynh Ngoc Chenh’s Remarks to the RSF’s award ceremony on Mar 12, 2013

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a surprise and a pleasure to be here at this honorable ceremony today, just because, in my country, many rights are recognized under the constitution but the authorities have restricted them by all means. Over the past two years, many bloggers have not allowed to travel abroad for tourism, health cares, conferences or receiving the international prizes, like myself, without any proper reason. They are blogger Dao Hieu, Nguoi Buon Gio, Nguyen Hoang Vi, JB Nguyen Huu Vinh, Huynh Trong Hieu, Uyen Vu, Le Quoc Quan…

Therefore it is a big surprise for me to be here. Perhaps, its reason may be the prestige of RSF and Google Inc. who are the founder and the sponsor of this worthy award. And also it may be the lively outcome of campaigns for human rights and democracy in my country as the result of petitioning amendments of the constitution, which has had a certain effect on the authorities.

By the way, I would like to say more about the campaign for democracy and human rights which has been happening actively in my country. Three years ago, blogger and lawyer Cu Huy Ha Vu wrote articles to call for a multi-party system to democratize, he soon was sentenced up to 7 years in prison. Nowadays, I am here to witness a number of organizations with nearly twenty thousands of signatories in the petition calling for abolishing Article 4 of the constitution and pluralism, multi-party system without such fear.

What has made this magic thing? it is the internet. Internet network helps our people raising our concerns and real aspiration in the circumstance of freedom of expression is stifled.

As you know,  there is non-existence of private press, only the organs of the state or of the party who can make publications and establish radio or television stations.  So 700 media agencies are under the control of reliable Communists. The information on such media reflects the guideline of the ruling party. The voice and aspiration of people have no place to express. Fortunately, internet is born.

There are only a few bloggers at first, but they are the sharp needles to pierce the curtain of information suppression in Vietnam. Many people among them had paid a price for such bravery. They have been behind the bars, in re-education camps, under administrative probation or even forced to the mental centers. They are Thích Quảng Độ, Nguyễn Văn Lý, Nguyễn Đan Quế, Phạm Bá Hải, Nguyễn Văn Đài, Hà sỹ Phu, Bùi Minh Quốc, Tiêu Dao Bảo Cự,  Cù huy Hà Vũ, Đỗ thị Minh Hạnh, Bùi thị Minh Hằng, Phạm Thanh Nghiên, Tạ Phong Tần, Điếu cày Nguyễn Văn Hải, Phan Thanh Hải, Phạm Minh Hoàng, Lê Công Định, Trần Huỳnh Duy Thức, Nguyễn Tiến Trung, Lê Thăng Long, Trần Anh Kim, Nhạc sỹ Việt Khang, Trần Vũ Anh Bình, Lê Anh Hùng…

Their sacrifice is not a waste of effort. At the present, bloggers and pro-democracy activists

 have developed  to a strong force nationwide that the authorities can no longer hold back. It is evident that there is twenty thousands of signatories to call for elimination of  the said Article 4. Hundreds of websites, blogs are promoting reform, freedom of expression, democracy, which have been attracting an uncountable number of readers, linking to form a media network called as the people-oriented newspapers (bao le dan), which co-exists parallelly with the state-run media called the party-oriented newspapers (bao le dang).

In that concrete sphere I am given strength. The votes from around the world that you cast for me are the votes for the movement of struggle for civil rights, including freedom of expression that is increasingly developing.

Please offer this honor to the pioneers who have been paying their price in prisons and to all my colleagues who have helped and supported me.

In order to win over this worthy prize, I have received the support of bloggers, patriotic youths in Vietnam and overseas. The votes you cast for me are the votes contributed to encourage for a growing movement – a movement of independent journalists, who are ready to confront with difficulties to gain the justified right to freedom of expression. Thanks to communication media such as VOA, BBC, RFA, FRI, SBTN, etc. They have actively made media attention  about me and voting for Netizen. It triggered an good effect on the movement to progress in my country.

Personally when receiving the honorable award, I have felt the love and the trust that readers placed on my blog. The daily total number of readers increased from fifteen thousands to twenty even twenty five thousands.

Thanks to Google Inc. who owns a huge networks around the world. Google now is a great stock of knowledge  that news providers like us always need when typing on the keyboard to write articles. It deserves to Google together with RSF organizing the annual award for those who operates online journalism.

Sincere thanks to RSF, who has a vast network all over the world, is a very important base for free bloggers like us to more easily cope with numerous dangers. The RSF’s Netizen award is a great encouragement for bloggers in countries with limited freedom of speech as our country.

Paris, Mar 12, 2013 – Huynh Ngoc Chenh.