Following is a writing by Tieu Dao Bao Cu+., an outspoken critic of the Hanoi government. A member of the Vietnamese Communist Party during the war, Bao Cu+. lived in disguise in South Vietnam. Several years after the war and when the communist empire collapsed around the world he became a strong critic of the Hanoi regime, joining the friend circle such as Ha Si Phu, Bui Minh Quoc in calling for democratic changes in Vietnam. We would like to thank VNI for the translation and distribution of this article.
New Facts about a trial
The August 22 1996 trial of Le hong Ha, Ha Si Phu and Nguyen Kien Giang has created a lot of controversy in Vietnam and abroad. Even the trial details were kept secretive but with minimal information leaks and through official announcements in the VN press, general opinion rated the trial awkward, unjust and did not turn out the way the State had expected it to be.
After the trial, the newly released information helped the people to find out more facts which might be useful to the general (political) situation now.
The arrest of ha Si Phu was a mystery until he openly disclosed at the hearing. While riding his bike on Hanoi streets, he was approached and pushed by two individuals on a motor bike. They tried to snatch his sack. He shouted for help and the police came immediately. Instead of arresting the robbers, they took him to the police station, searched his bag and found a "top secret" document, the letter of Mr. Vo Van Kiet sent to the Politburo on August 09, 1996. He was then detained. The issue was very clear and the people of the North were not unfamiliar with this kind of antiquated game. But everyone was surprised because of its recurrence in this period of openness and renovation. So renovation is not as easy as we think, and some old tricks are being used again. These (tricks) are also a certain kind of "state secrets" which Ha Si Phu, since arrested, could not tell, and his wife, twice visited him at the prison, were not allowed to asked her husband. She asked the security police many times but were refused the answer.
When the judge asked him about his educational background, Ha Si Phu answered: "It's hard to say, but regarding my schooling, I received a master degree in Biology from Zechoslovakia." It was undoubtedly a Ha Si Phu-style ridicule.
Yet the judged arguably asked: "So have you finished 10th grade?" The audience of this serious trial - mostly state employees - burst out into laughter.
Some people were surprised that the State had assigned such a judge to preside the trial of these three intellectuals, well-known in rhetorics. Actually, it is a celebrating sign. People recalled the trial of Hoang Minh Chinh and Do Trung Hieu. The disdainful way and loud voice Mr. Chinh used with the judge made spectators wondering who was trying whom. People then learnt of the letter dated Aug. 9, 1996 Mr. Hoang Minh Chinh sent to the two judges after his release from prison, in which he requested two things:
1. Make public the contents of his two trials by allowing the
media, researchers and anyone who is interested in having access
to the audio and video tapes of the trial recorded fully by the
State.
2. The Citizen Hoang Minh Chinh was ready for any open debate
with the two judges: Nguyen Quang Dau in the Preliminary hearing
dated Nov. 8, 1995 and Vu Khac Xuong in the Final hearing dated
Dec. 18, 1995.
[The goal of the debate was to clarify the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the 2 above trials. All costs incurred by the debate will be absorbed by citizen Chinh]
Perhaps after these happenings, no good judge will dare to preside over the trial of the above defendants, fearing he will be made a mockery by the people. Only the kind of "deaf fearing no gunfire" judge who asked Ha Si Phu about the 10th grade is having the "calibre" to preside over this trial.
There were three lawyers to defend Le Hong Ha and Ha Si Phu. Nguyen Kien Giang defended himself. Both lawyers and Mr. Giang concentrated on 2 issues: there was no secret document and no one intentionally disclosed any "state secret." The arguments were very convincing.
The attitudes of the three defendants were very decent and serious. All pleaded not guilty and rejected all arguments of the prosecution.
After the trial, it was heard that the Central Ideology and Culture Committee sent to the Politburo a report with two important remarks:
1. The enthusiasm of the public defenders was unprecedented.
2. The arguments of the prosecutors were not convincing.
This trial was so significant because under this regime, no lawyer has ever dared defending the politically accused. Hell would await him. And the defense arguments were fully convincing and the prosecution's were fully unconvincing. Ha Si Phu when finds out will be very pleased by this contradiction.
Therefore, what happened at the trial of Le Hong Ha, Ha Si Phu, Nguyen Kien Giang are celebrating signs. It was a step toward democracy. In this trial of dissidents, justice and power belong to the defendants, not to the State's courts. Public opinion about the trial was correct: it was awkward, ridiculed and backfire on the state's desire.
The best way is to make everything open, implement the legal system and bring justice to the people. Only a true democracy can bring the country to progress and prosperity, in which many talented intellectuals will contribute their part instead of spending their time in jails.
Dalat, September 1996