Vietnam social media users hit by 'expanding crackdown' on dissent: HRW
Representative Image (AI-generated)
BANGKOK: Vietnam is targeting ordinary social media users for posts criticising the state in an expanding crackdown on dissent,
Human Rights Watch
(HRW) said Tuesday.
Vietnam, a one-party state, has long sentenced bloggers and human rights activists to hefty jail terms, but now even those with no appreciable public profiles risk arrest if they voice a grievance against communist party officials, HRW said in a report.
Members of the public are being targeted through an expansion of the scope of article 331 of the penal code, which centres on the "infringement of state interests", the report says.
Between 2018 and February 2025, Vietnamese courts convicted and sentenced at least 124 people to harsh prison terms under article 331, according to HRW. In the six years to 2017, only 28 were sentenced under equivalent laws, the report said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy
IC Markets
Tìm hiểu thêm
Undo
Vietnamese authorities "abuse the... law not only to silence prominent activists and whistleblowers, but to retaliate against ordinary people who complain about poor services or police abuse," said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia director at Human Rights Watch.
"Article 331 is the government's handy tool to infringe upon the basic rights of Vietnamese citizens."
Harassment, intimidation:
Among those imprisoned under the article is Vu Thi Kim Hoang, a seamstress who allowed her partner to use her laptop at her home, where he discussed political issues on social media. For hosting him, she was jailed for two and half years.
Another is Dao Ba Cuong, who livestreamed a protest he staged inside his house after his son died in police custody in 2022. He was handed a two-year jail term a year later.
Others thrown in jail include Nay Y Blang, who reportedly hosted prayer gatherings at his home for members of the Evangelical Church of Christ, a religious group that the Vietnamese government does not recognise.
He is serving a prison term of four and a half years for organising meetings to "gather forces... incite secession, self-rule, and establish a separate state for ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands", state media said after his trial in January last year.
Prior to his jailing, Nay Y Blang, from the ethnic minority Ede group, advocated for religious freedom and met foreign diplomats to discuss the issue, HRW said.
The US-based Vietnamese founder of the Evangelical Church of Christ, who goes by the name Pastor Aga, told AFP that Nay Y Blang set up the group "in service of God and his personal religious beliefs".
"Blang is a very nice person and loyal to God. He is not against the Vietnamese communist administration. He did not want to set up a separate state," he said.
Unrecognised independent religious groups face constant surveillance, harassment, and intimidation, and their followers are subject to forced renunciation of faith, detention, interrogation, torture and prosecution, HRW said.
"The Vietnamese government should immediately revoke article 331, release all those detained and imprisoned for exercising their basic human rights," the HRW report concluded. Vietnam's ministry of foreign affairs did not respond to a request for comment from AFP.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Fulbright scholarship program is facing a crisis under Trump's oversight
Fulbright board resigns over blocked awards and unauthorized reviews under Trump. (AI Image) The prestigious Fulbright scholarship program, a cornerstone of US diplomatic and academic exchange for nearly 80 years, is facing a deepening crisis under President Donald Trump's administration. Designed to promote international understanding and academic excellence, the program is now caught in a storm of political interference and resignations that threaten its integrity and global reputation. A wave of resignations has shaken the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, with nearly all members stepping down in protest. In a public statement, the board members accused the Trump administration of unlawfully meddling in the selection process by denying scholarships to recipients who had already been approved to study and teach in the US and abroad. As reported by the Associated Press, the board declared that continuing to serve "would risk legitimizing actions we believe are unlawful and damage the integrity of this storied program and America's credibility abroad. " Board accuses administration of overreach According to the Associated Press, board members stated that the administration overrode their authority by blocking a substantial number of already-selected candidates, and launching an unauthorized review of an additional 1,200 foreign awardees. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo These scholars, previously approved to travel to the US, are now subject to a secondary evaluation process that could lead to their rejection. The board emphasized that these actions contradict both the letter and spirit of the Fulbright-Hays Act, which established the program with protections from political influence. The Fulbright program, which awards approximately 9,000 scholarships annually in over 160 countries, is known for supporting a wide range of academic fields. The canceled scholarships affected students and scholars in disciplines such as biology, engineering, agriculture, music, medical sciences, and history. Selection has traditionally been managed by nonpartisan staff at the State Department and foreign embassies, with the board providing final approvals. Administration calls board members 'political appointees' The State Department, which oversees the program, dismissed the board's claims, describing the resignations as a political stunt. As quoted by the Associated Press, the department stated, "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders. " The department added that the board members were partisan appointees of former President Joe Biden. One remaining board member, Estrada-Schaye, told the Associated Press, "I was appointed by the president of the United States and I intend to fill out my term." Broader scrutiny of international students intensifies The controversy surrounding the Fulbright program is part of a broader pattern of increased scrutiny of international students under the Trump administration. According to the Associated Press, the government has expanded grounds for revoking foreign students' legal status, paused new visa interviews, increased social media vetting, and pressured institutions like Harvard University to implement reforms. Former board members expressed hope that Congress, the courts, and future boards will defend the Fulbright program from what they called attempts to "degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate" a pillar of American diplomacy, as reported by the Associated Press. Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
Gujarat plane crash: PM Modi expresses shock; calls accident 'heartbreaking beyond words'
Photo/Agencies NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday expressed grief over the Ahmedabad plane crash, saying that the incident is "heartbreaking beyond words." "The tragedy in Ahmedabad has stunned and saddened us. It is heartbreaking beyond words," PM Modi said in a post on X. PM Modi added, "In this sad hour, my thoughts are with everyone affected by it. Have been in touch with ministers and authorities who are working to assist those affected." Moreover, President Droupadi Murmu also expressed her thoughts on the accident. "I am deeply distressed to learn about the tragic plane crash in Ahmedabad. It is a heart-rending disaster. My thoughts and prayers are with the affected people. The nation stands with them in this hour of indescribable grief," the President of India's official handle said in a post on X. Earlier, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also issued the statement on the tragic incident and called the crash of Air India flight, which had 53 British nationals on "devastating", adding "my thoughts are with the passengers and their families". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo "The scenes emerging of a London-bound plane carrying many British nationals crashing in the Indian city of Ahmedabad are devastating. My thoughts are with the passengers and their families at this deeply distressing time," Starmer said in a statement issued by his Downing Street office. An Air India plane from Ahmedabad to London with 242 passengers crashed in the Meghaninagar area near Ahmedabad airport on Thursday. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation said that a team has been rushed to the spot for investigation. "Air India confirms that flight AI171, from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, was involved in an accident today after take-off. The flight, which departed from Ahmedabad at 1338 hours, was carrying 242 passengers and crew members on board the Boeing 787-8 aircraft. Of these, 169 are Indian nationals, 53 are British nationals, 1 Canadian national and 7 Portuguese nationals. The injured are being taken to the nearest hospitals. We have also set up a dedicated passenger hotline number, 1800 5691 444, to provide more information. Air India is giving its full cooperation to the authorities investigating this incident," Air India said in a statement.
Hindustan Times
24 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
China and the US at the upcoming G7 summit
If the G7 once stood as the West's economic command centre, today it is a stage for the world's most consequential rivalry: The US and China. The 2025 Kananaskis summit arrives not as a celebration of unity, but as a crucible, testing both the G7's cohesion and its capacity to respond to a world reordered by Beijing's rise and Washington's anxieties. In this context, the G7 is forced to grapple with the reality that its own cohesion is increasingly defined by how it manages the China question. The summit's agenda, though broad, is inevitably shaped by the undercurrents of this strategic contest. Every policy proposal, from digital standards to global health, is now filtered through the lens of US-China competition. The G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and present a credible alternative to China's growing influence will be scrutinised more closely than ever before. Let's acknowledge the elephant in the room: The G7 was created in the 1970s to manage western economic crises, with the US as its undisputed conductor. Fast-forward to 2025, and the G7's very relevance is under scrutiny not least because of the US's own internal divisions and the relentless ascent of China. The G20 was once hailed as the premier forum for global economic coordination, precisely because the G7's old formula could no longer contain the ambitions of China, India, and the wider Global South. Yet, as the G20 has stumbled, mired in geopolitical paralysis, Russian aggression, and China's assertiveness, the G7 has tried to reassert itself as the last redoubt of liberal democracy and economic order. But with the US now led by a president openly sceptical of alliances, tariffs weaponized as policy, and unity fraying, the G7 faces an existential crisis at its own doorstep. The irony is thick: the very institutions designed to manage western dominance now find themselves wrestling with the limits of that dominance. The G7's attempts to reassert itself are both a response to and a symptom of a shifting global order, where old alliances are tested and new alignments are uncertain. The summit thus becomes not just a meeting of leaders, but a barometer of the West's willingness to reinvent itself in the face of profound change. The US enters Kananaskis less as the first among equals and more as the unpredictable uncle at the family reunion. President Trump's return to the summit table brings a familiar playbook: Scepticism of multilateralism, open disdain for the EU, and a willingness to use tariffs as both carrot and cudgel. The US's stance on the climate crisis has reversed course yet again, leaving Europe and Japan to pick up the slack. Intelligence-sharing, once a pillar of trust, is now a source of European anxiety. Trade, too, is a battlefield. Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs have injected uncertainty into global markets, and while G7 finance ministers might dance around the issue in public, the reality is that America's economic statecraft is now as much about managing allies as it is about confronting adversaries. The question for Kananaskis: Can the US still lead a coalition it seems intent on destabilising? The American approach to the summit is further complicated by domestic political pressures. With an eye on the upcoming election cycle, the administration is keenly aware that foreign policy gestures must resonate with domestic audiences. This dynamic risks turning the G7 into a stage for political signalling rather than substantive cooperation, with allies left to interpret shifting signals from Washington. The US's ability to balance domestic imperatives with global leadership will be a key subplot at Kananaskis. China, of course, is not at the table but it is everywhere in the conversation. The G7's agenda is saturated with China's presence: From concerns over the East and South China Seas, to the militarisation of the Taiwan Strait, to the ever-present anxiety over supply chains and critical technologies. The phrase 'free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific' is now G7 code for containing China's influence. Yet, the G7's China policy is riven by contradictions. Europe's economic entanglement with Beijing tempers its hawkishness, while Japan and the US push for a harder line. The group will likely issue hortatory statements on peace, stability, and the rules-based order, but the real contest is about who sets the standards for Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital trade, and green technology. China's growing economic footprint in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia also complicates the G7's calculus. As Beijing deepens its Belt and Road investments and forges new trade alliances, the G7 faces the challenge of offering compelling alternatives. The summit's deliberations on infrastructure, debt relief, and technology standards will be shaped by the need to counter China's expanding influence, even as member States weigh the risks of economic decoupling. Here lies the G7's central paradox: It is united in its concern over China's rise but divided on the means and ends of responses. The US wants to de-risk supply chains and decouple where possible; Europe wants to hedge; Japan wants security guarantees without sacrificing economic ties. Meanwhile, China's absence from the summit is itself a statement: The world's second-largest economy is both the target and the test of the G7's continued relevance. This dilemma is compounded by the reality that no member can afford a full rupture with China. The interdependence of global supply chains, the need for cooperation on climate and health, and the risks of escalation in the Indo-Pacific all constrain the G7's options. The summit will thus be a study in ambiguity, with leaders seeking to project resolve while quietly managing risk. The outcome may be less about grand strategy and more about the art of muddling through. If the G7 is to avoid becoming a relic, it must do more than issue communiqués about shared values. It must reconcile its internal divisions, offer credible alternatives to China's Belt and Road, and set enforceable standards for technology, trade, and climate. The US, for its part, must decide whether it wants to lead a coalition or simply bully a bloc. The G7's future indeed, the future of western leadership may hinge on whether this summit is remembered as a turning point or a missed opportunity. The stakes could not be higher. The choices made at Kananaskis will reverberate far beyond the summit, shaping not only the trajectory of US-China relations but the architecture of global governance itself. If the G7 can rise above its divisions and articulate a compelling vision for the future, it may yet reclaim its role as a steward of stability and progress. If not, the world may look elsewhere for leadership perhaps to new coalitions, or to the very rivals it once sought to contain. Finally, the 2025 G7 summit is not just another diplomatic gathering; it is a stress test for the post-war order. The US and China may not sit at the same table, but their rivalry shapes every conversation, every alliance, every policy. The question for Kananaskis is not whether the G7 can contain China, but whether it can contain its own centrifugal forces long enough to matter. In the end, the G7's fate may rest less on who is in the room, and more on whether those present can agree on what kind of world they want to defend. In this pivotal moment, the G7's ability to adapt, innovate, and demonstrate unity will be watched not only by its adversaries but by a world searching for credible leadership. The summit's legacy will be determined by its willingness to face uncomfortable truths and make hard choices that will define the contours of global power for years to come. This article is authored by Maj Gen Dilawar Singh, senior vice president, Global Economist Forum, AO, ECOSOC, United Nations.
