Addresses by MPs Craig Kelly and Chris Bowen in Australian House Debates on Human Rights in Vietnam – 17 June 2013

Craig Kelly
(Hughes, Liberal Party)

OpenAustralia
17.6.2013

I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler and I congratulate him on it. His motion states:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) on 16 May 2013 two young activists, Nguyen Phuong Uyen, age 21, and Dinh Nguyen Kha, age 25, were sentenced to six and eight years, respectively, in jail by the People’s Court of Long An province in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam;

(b) the two activists were arrested for distributing literature protesting against China’s claims to the Paracel and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea; and

(c) there are credible reports from various international agencies of continuing human rights violations in Vietnam which is evidenced by the high number of house detentions and imprisonment for people engaged in activities as basic as expressing views contrary to the Vietnamese Government’s position; and

(2) calls on the Australian Government to:

(a) refer the matters of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha, and other issues concerning human rights in Vietnam that have been raised in the Australian Parliament, to the next round of the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue; and

(b) continue to take appropriate steps to convey to the Vietnamese Government that Australia expects Vietnam to honour its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although Vietnam’s economy has made many great strides over recent years, its record on human rights remains extremely poor. Today the socialist government of Vietnam virtually suppresses all forms of political descent using a broad array of repressive measures. Freedom of expression and association and even public assembly are tightly controlled. Religious activists are harassed, intimidated and imprisoned. The criminal justice system lacks independence and operates under the direction of the government and the socialist communist party. Vietnam’s authoritarian penal code prohibits public criticism of the government and the Vietnamese communist party. We know that in 2012 at least 40 people were known to have been convicted and sentenced to prison merely for peaceful dissent, an increase on the number from 2011. And in the first five months of this year we have seen more than 50 people convicted in political show trials, more than the number for the whole of 2012.

That brings us to the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen and Dinh Nguyen Kha. Nguyen Phuong Uyen, at just 21 years of age, was a student at Ho Chi Minh University of Food Industry. The police arrested her on 14 October 2012 in Ho Chi Minh City and took her to the police station without even informing her family. Her family and friends then launched an extensive search for her by making inquiries of that very police station and alerting the public via non-state channels, including the BBC and Radio Free Asia. It was not until eight days after she had gone missing that an officer at that police station told her mother that she had actually been transferred to the police in Long An Province. On 23 October the Long An police acknowledged that she had been charged with ‘conducting propaganda against the state’ under article 88 of Vietnam’s penal system. According to the indictment, Nguyen Phuong Uyen was officially arrested on 19 October, leaving five days during which here whereabouts were unaccounted for by officials. Her mother claims that on a visit on 26 April she saw many bruises on her daughter’s neck, her upper chest and her arms. Her mother said that she told her that she was beaten and kicked severely in the stomach by guards in detention and that it was only when she fainted that the prison guards stopped the beating and took her to see a doctor.

Following these sentences, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch noted:

Putting people on trial for distributing leaflets critical of the government is ridiculous and shows the insecurity of the Vietnamese government…

Writing things that do not please the government is only a crime in a dictatorship. Vietnam should stop using politically-controlled courts to convict critics of the government.

The US embassy also issued a strong statement last month in light of these sentences handed down. It said:

We are concerned by a Vietnamese court’s sentencing of Dinh Nguyen Kha to eight years in prison and Nguyen Phuong Uyen to six years in prison on subversion charges.

These convictions are part of a disturbing trend of Vietnamese authorities using charges under national security laws to imprison government critics for peacefully expressing their political views.

These actions are inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression and, thus, Vietnam’s obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and commitments reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We call on the government to release prisoners of conscience and allow all Vietnamese to peacefully express their political views.

That is the message from the US embassy.

This is not the only case. I was very glad to hear the member for Holt raise the case of the Roman Catholic priest Nguyen Van Ly, also known as Father Thaddeus, who was detained for so-called spreading of propaganda against the state. What incentives are there currently for the Vietnamese socialist government to make changes to improve their human rights on record? It is all very well for us to come in here and make these well-intentioned motions, but we have to back it up with action. It is worthwhile noting that, as we are sitting here speaking in favour of this motion, our government is giving $160 million to the very same Vietnamese government that we are criticising to build a bridge across theMekong River. I am sure this bridge will facilitate trade and economic growth in that region, but what message are we sending when our nation borrows $160 million that we do not have and gifts it to the Vietnamese government? How can that Vietnamese government take motions like this seriously when we are giving such generous gifts?

Of course, us gifting them $160 million to build up their heavy infrastructure leaves the Vietnamese government free to spend their money elsewhere. So it is no surprise that what we have seen over recent years is a massive increase in Vietnamese military spending. Vietnam already spends more on defence as a proportion of GDP than all its South-East Asian neighbours—of course, except Singapore—spend. In December 2011, Hanoi signed a contract with Russia’s defence export agency for two additional Durapart Corvettes. This follows the acceptance of two of the last four patrol boats in October. Confirmation was provided by senior Vietnamese military officials in mid 2011 that Hanoi had ordered six Kilo class submarines for 2013 to 2016—and it has begun to take delivery—as well as ordering 12 Sukhoi Su-30MKK fighter aircraft. These Soviet-made advance fighter aircraft cost $30 million a pop. Rather than our government giving the Vietnamese government $160 million to build a bridge, why don’t we cut out the middleman and give them five Soviet fighter aircrafts instead? If we are going to be serious, we have to be a very loud voice against what the Vietnamese government is doing. Sometimes, with our foreign aid programs, we just cannot isolate the two.

In my remaining time, I would also like to commend the comments from the member for Cowan, who commented on the enormous contribution that the Vietnamese community have made to Australia through their entrepreneurial culture. To get the best economic advancement for that country, the socialist government of Vietnam must protect human rights and it must guarantee freedom of speech. If it can release the entrepreneurial spirit that we have seen from the Vietnamese community, the country of Vietnam has a great future. It will not do that while it continues to suppress human rights, while it continues to suppress free speech and while it continues to suppress religious liberty. We owe it to the people of Vietnam and to our local Vietnamese community to use our voice as loudly as we can to express our outrage against these violations by the Vietnamese government.

*****

Chris Bowen
(McMahon, Australian Labor Party) 

OpenAustralia
17.6.2013

I am very pleased to speak on this motion, which I seconded with the member for Fowler. I congratulate the member for Fowler for moving it and also for his longstanding advocacy for the cause of human rights in Vietnam. It is a matter very close to his heart, as it is to mine and to the hearts of many members across the House.

This motion refers to some individual cases—and these are very concerning individual cases—the case of Nguyen Phuong Uyen, who is aged 21, and the case of Dinh Nguyen Kha, who is aged 25, who have been sentenced to six and eight years respectively. These are very substantial times in prison. This motion is useful because it uses these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam. Obviously, by expressing concern about these cases—and we are doing so very strongly—we are using these cases as examples of what is happening in Vietnam more generally.

When you look at the sentences for these two young people, and they are very substantial sentences, it is worth looking at what crimes they are alleged to have committed. They have glued on to a tree trunk a slogan: ‘Long An‘s patriot youths struggle for freedom and human rights’. On a wall they have glued a flag with the slogan ‘1890 to 1920 – National Flag of Great Vietnam’. They have publicised pictures and pamphlets calling into question the actions of the government and the Communist Party of Vietnam. These are things for which no-one should be imprisoned for even a day let alone six or eight years. These are people who are going about their business exercising their right to freedom of expression, which every single human being should hold. It is a right that the Vietnam government has previously recognised. Vietnam is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

It is a very clear statement of the rights of the people of Vietnam, which the government of Vietnam has recognised by signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These two cases are concerning and deeply disturbing. It is appropriate that this motion be considered today, because the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue is underway today. And it is appropriate that this House expresses this very strong view on this day so that the government of Vietnam can be under no illusions just how concerned members of the Australian Parliament are not only about these two cases but about the human rights of Vietnamese people up and down Vietnam.

Dozens of activists have been jailed since there was a crackdown on freedom of expression, in late 2009. Most people would, I think, correctly reach the conclusion that the government of Vietnam was very concerned about events in the Middle East—the Arab Spring—as one-party states were around the world. They were concerned that the sorts of examples we were seeing in the countries of the Middle East would spread.

There are various ways you can deal with things like that. Unfortunately, it appears the government of Vietnam has chosen to deal with that threat, from their point of view, by not liberalising and not making things better, but by making things worse. That is something we cannot abide.

It is true to say, and it should be recognised, that the government of Vietnam has over recent years introduced some economic reforms. They are good economic reforms. They have unleashed the power of the market and entrepreneurism, to a certain degree, and the Vietnamese economy and people have benefited from this. But that is nowhere near enough. If you are going to liberalise the economy you need to liberalise society as well.

This is not to say that the Australian government would dictate to the government of Vietnam how it should run its country and how it should do its business. But it is right that the Australian Parliament very strongly expresses the view that the human rights of the people of Vietnam should be protected, promoted and enhanced. We need to do this not because it is our right, but because it is our obligation, because the people of Vietnam need somebody to speak on their behalf. The people of Vietnam need somebody to speak up for them, and here in this home of democracy in Australia it is perfectly appropriate that we do so. We have done so before. Motions have been moved in the House before by the member for Fowler, by me and by other honourable members. Back in 2006, I think, we signed a declaration—and I remember the member for Fowler signing it with me—in support of human rights in Vietnam. We organised this in support of the efforts of the pro-democracy group in Vietnam. That pro-democracy group is represented here in the parliament today in the form of representatives of Block 1706, and I recognise their attendance here today: Joachim, Bao Khanh, and the other members of the delegation. They are standing up and have been very strong advocates for the human rights of people in Vietnam, as have those elsewhere, who I recognise today, who could not be in the chamber today. I am referring to other Vietnamese Australians who have very strongly stood up for the rights of Vietnamese people.

That is one thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia: the member opposite correctly referred to the spirit of entrepreneurism and the contribution made by Vietnamese Australians to our country. That is all true and appropriate. The member for Hughes is right to acknowledge that. But the other thing about the Vietnamese community in Australia is that they have not forgotten their brothers and sisters left in Vietnam and they have been, almost universally, in my experience, dedicated to ensuring that their human rights are not forgotten.

Next week, there will be a celebration of the seventh anniversary of bloc 1706. I will be attending and the member for Fowler will be attending, as we have done in the past, because it is important that people in Vietnam putting human rights on the agenda do receive that support and encouragement. At some of those dinners in the past there have been telephone links to human rights activists in Vietnam, where we have personally provided encouragement to priests and others in Vietnam who have been expressing support for their human rights.

These days, it is much harder to suppress people. It is much harder to deny people information through the information revolution. Today, 31 million people use the internet in Vietnam, compared to two million in 2000. The authorities are actively promoting the internet to support economic development and trade—that is a good thing—but they are also determined to control online content and to crack down on those who use the internet to denounce corruption, social inequalities or the lack of freedom of expression. It is deeply concerning that Reporters Without Borders ranks in Vietnam 172nd out of 179 countries in its Press Freedom Index for 2011-12. Criminal penalties apply to authors, publications, websites and internet users who disseminate materials deemed to oppose the government, threaten national security, reveal state secrets or promote ‘reactionary’ ideas. The government blocks access to politically sensitive websites, requires internet cafe owners to monitor and store information about users’ online activities, and subjects independent bloggers and online critics to harassment and pressure. I have seen examples of this repeatedly. So far in 2013, at least 46 activists have been convicted of anti-state activity and sentenced to often lengthy jail terms under what rights groups say are vaguely defined articles of the penal code, most of which are contained in article 88 of the Criminal Code, on ‘anti-state propaganda’, which carries prison terms of up to 20 years.

This is deeply concerning. I have met, as I said, many Vietnamese Australians who have been courageous in fighting for the cause of democracy in Vietnam, where some of them have suffered great hardship, time in prison and forcible separation from their loved ones, and they have continued that fight here in Australia. It is a fight which they will continue and which we will continue to support them in. As I say, it is right and appropriate that the government of Vietnam be under no illusions as to how strongly members of the Australian parliament feel about these matters.

I have said in the past at various functions that democracy will come to Vietnam—and it will. There is nothing more certain because it will eventually come to all nations. But it will only come because of the courage and tenacity of people who stand up for the rights of Vietnamese people.

Source: OpenAustralia 

[subscribe2]