Archive for the Society Category

Video: Dear Obama, “SIT. YOUR. ASS. DOWN.” From a Black Trump Supporter

Posted in Politics, Society, Videos with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 10, 2018 by Ian Pham

Henry Davis(Twitter / Henry Davis)

Just another day in the twittersphere.

Henry Davis, a Twitter user and African-American Trump supporter, had a few choice words for former president Barack Obama, in response to the latest attempt by the jealous previous president to undermine the yugely successful current president. The following video was posted by Davis a few days ago, and has garnered over 267,000 views so far. Seeing it cross my timeline, I gave it a watch, and found it to be very interesting and worthy of a share.

For those who don’t know, Obama made a speech late last week at the University of Illinois. Launching a fiery yet pathetically passive-aggressive attack on President Donald Trump, one can see that Obama was up to his usual condescending, lecturing, and truth-bending ways again. Only now, after a year and a half of President Trump, and all of the accomplishments, breakthroughs, and truths brought to light by Trump’s leadership, the words of Obama don’t seem to carry much weight anymore.

Not only that, but the things that we the people were willing to overlook about Obama in the past, such as his patronizing demeanor, his reliance on rhetoric, metaphors, and flowery language to avoid accountability and addressing real issues, and his willingness deliberate distortion of current affairs to glorify himself, all of these things were on full display last Friday, only more blatantly and obnoxiously than ever. Watching Obama eloquently talk down to America as if we were children, and watching him stick up his nose while lying to my face, caused me to become even more fed up with him than I realized was possible.

So when I came across Henry Davis’s video, I couldn’t help but think to myself, “Yes.” “This.”

I’m not saying I agree with 100% of what Davis is saying in his video, but I did find myself nodding along a lot as I watched.

If you’re interested, here is the video below (Caution: It comes at you quick, so mind the volume):

What I like about this video is that it really encapsulates the mood of what many people of color (such as myself) feel about Democrats, contemporary liberalism, and the current state of affairs today.

Now, I don’t want to speak for Henry Davis, so I will clarify that what comes next are my own personal views on the matter.

By my assessment, I get the sense that for whatever reason, because of my skin color, Democrats feel entitled to my vote. Just because of my ethnicity, the Democrats think I am automatically predisposed to vote for their party, regardless of what my views are. By exploiting the virtues of diversity, tolerance, and acceptance, the Democrats have watered down these values, turning them into mere buzzwords, slogans, and political leverage.

From the way they talk, one would think that liberals owned the idea of diversity, tolerance, and inclusiveness. They behave as if the only way you can be tolerant, compassionate, or accepting, is if you are a liberal, that you only vote Democrat, and that you wholeheartedly endorse the “progressive” open borders, anti-military, and pro-socialist agenda of the radical left. If you are white and you disagree with liberals, then you are labeled a bigot, a racist, a sexist, and a white supremacist, among many other names. If you are not white and you disagree with liberals, then you are an “Uncle Tom,” a sellout, a puppet, an idiot, a bigot, a racist, a sexist, and, hilariously enough, a white supremacist, among many other names.

They, the left, use identity politics, race baiting, and the self-victimization mentality to convince me that I need them, that they’re “fighting for me,” and that without them, I would be nothing. The whole “you’re a minority and you need my help” ideology of the Democrats and radical leftists is an insult, and a slap in the face of all hardworking people everywhere, whether black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or otherwise.

Modern-day liberalism is a joke, breeding mentally and emotionally weak people who are so soft, entitled, and easily offended that they are willing to relinquish their rights to the government in exchange for protection from hurt feelings and the promise that “no one will ever make you feel this way again.” It is a dangerous ideology that encourages dependency, disparages hard and honest work, and vilifies one of the most treasured principles of the free world: Equal opportunity for all.

Liberalism today not only scapegoats men, Caucasians, and heterosexuals, but also scapegoats strong and independent women, strong and independent minorities, and strong and independent LGBT people who choose to disagree with the leftist mob and think for themselves. It is a toxic ideology, one that breeds hate, division, and blame, transferring responsibility away from the individual towards an abstract other, a faceless bigot or bully who is the source of all of one’s problems – problems that Democrats promise to make go away, as long as we vote for them, as long as we depend on them, and as long as we do what they say.

Don’t fall for that trap anymore. Barack Obama is the last straw.

The days of the Democratic Party are numbered, and it is unknown yet what new movement will take their place in the future.

However, and this is merely a recommendation – for the short time being, I encourage everyone to vote Republican this November in the midterm elections. The Democrats have let us down for eight years and beyond, while politely talking down to us and lying straight to our faces the entire time.

Those days are over now.

We’re finally headed in the right direction with President Trump. And so, let’s keep the momentum going, and let’s make this a lasting change.

Let’s walk away from the Democrats, once and for all.

Advertisements

UNCOVERED: The Monks Who Committed Self-Immolation in South Vietnam (1963) Were Communist Operatives – Geoffrey Shaw

Posted in Modern History, Society with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 19, 2018 by Ian Pham

Vietnam Monk(Malcolm Browne)

One of the most shocking and enduring images of the Vietnam War is a photo of a monk who set himself on fire in the streets of Saigon. According to the leading journalists at the time (liberals), and the majority of historians who studied the event thereafter (more liberals), that particular monk, and a few others, committed these acts of self-immolation in protest of the widespread oppression experienced by Buddhists under the allegedly tyrannical, bigoted, and very mean governance of the bogeyman South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem.

However, as this article will show, there was no oppression, President Diem is neither a bigot nor a tyrant, and what the mainstream media led Americans to believe during the Buddhist Crisis of 1963 was far from what was really happening on the ground.

If one were to read and listen to the leftists’ popular coverage, the Buddhist Crisis of 1963 (where the infamous burnings occurred) would appear to be some spontaneous, grassroots movement, orchestrated by a willing and enthusiastic Buddhist majority. However, this mainstream narrative, cultivated by the leftists of that era, and carried on by the leftists of today, could not be further from the truth.

As with contemporary liberals’ coverage of issues they disagree with (e.g. President Trump, conservative views, border patrol, the police, the military, etc.), the liberals of the Vietnam era, in their coverage of the war, presented a very distorted, anti-South Vietnamese, and pro-communist spin on the tragic events of the communist-manufactured Buddhist Crisis of 1963, not to mention the war as a whole.

At that time, for reasons still beyond rational comprehension, the liberal media already wanted to see the fall of the Diem regime, and the prevalence of Ho Chi Minh and the North Vietnamese. In pursuit of that objective, the U.S. media, dominated by an overwhelming liberal majority, sought to demonize South Vietnam and glorify the communist forces. As Geoffrey Shaw’s evidence will show, the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, while orchestrated by radical groups inside Vietnam, was facilitated greatly by major leftist media outlets such as the New York Times (p. 202-3) and the Washington Post (p. 209).

That famous photo of the burning monk, the main topic of our discussion here, was one of the ways in which the media shaped the American public perception of the Vietnam War. Looking at the picture, with headlines and captions telling them that Diem and the South were to blame for the tragedy, Americans at home were horrified by what they saw. As a result, public opinion in the U.S. greatly turned against South Vietnam, even before the U.S. government under Kennedy managed to force American troops into Vietnam.

Given how the Vietnam War ended, needless to say, the efforts by the liberal media to assist the communists and bring down the Diem regime were hugely successful. Tactically similar to the mainstream media today, the media of the Vietnam War era, leftist in their views, pursued their anti-Diem agenda with smears, lies, and fake news. In the end, in wanting Diem to fail, wanting South Vietnam to fail, and wanting America to fail, the liberal media accomplished their mission. However, to their unpleasant surprise, whatever lies and perjuries committed by the liberal media, then and now, are slowly coming to light.

In The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam (2015), new research by military historian Geoffrey Shaw reveals many groundbreaking revelations about the Buddhist Crisis of 1963. Many of the information presented by Shaw in his book were either missed or intentionally ignored (you can probably guess which one) by the mainstream media at the time, during their coverage of the crisis. These important facts were then buried in the historical archives, while the leftist narrative went on to dominate public thought and the history books.

One of the most illuminating revelations about the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, as reported in Shaw’s book, is that the monks who set themselves on fire (including the monk in the infamous photo) were not common or disgruntled citizens, nor did they in any way represent the majority Buddhist population in Vietnam. In actuality, these monks were part of a fringe group of radicalized Buddhists, who, in coordination with anti-Diem forces, orchestrated a fake crisis to tarnish the Government of Vietnam under President Diem. Even more shockingly, these monks were found to be agents of the North Vietnamese, committing what they viewed as martyrdom to further the communist cause.

From the foreword of The Lost Mandate of Heaven, Georgetown University professor James V. Schall reveals the following:

After the war, the North Vietnamese acknowledged that the bonzes [Buddhist monks] who burned themselves in supposed defiance of Diem’s “anti-Buddhist” policies were their agents within minority Buddhist monasteries in Vietnam. This information never appeared in the American press at the time (p. 13).

Clearly stated above, the North Vietnamese themselves admitted that the monks who set themselves on fire were indeed part of the communist forces. Deeper in The Lost Mandate of Heaven, Shaw himself brings to light the fact that two of the monks who led the demonstrations during the crisis, Thich Thien Hao and Thich Thom Me The Nhem, were members of the National Liberation Front (p. 199), otherwise known as the Viet Cong, the brutal southern communist network that has been repeatedly confirmed as subordinates of the North Vietnamese. These monks not only met with North Vietnamese communist leaders, but were doing so with communist leaders from China as well (ibid). Furthermore, the most prominent and influential figure of this crisis, the outspoken, subversive, conniving, and now disgraced monk Thich Tri Quang, was the leader of a “small, radicalized coterie” of Buddhists, and a disciple of a North Vietnamese monk who held approval among the communists (p. 197).

Unsurprisingly, knowing the pro-communist bias and dishonesty of the liberal media, these facts were never reported to the public, and thus, everyday Americans were led to believe that the self-burning monks were part of some national resistance, of which all Buddhists across Vietnam were in support of. In reality, the Buddhist majority did not support these radicals monks. As shown above, the self-burning monks were actually communists, manufacturing outrage to manipulate public opinion in Vietnam and the United States, a scheme that received full complicity and support by the U.S. liberal media.

This position is further affirmed in Shaw’s book, with an excerpt explaining the tactics of the North Vietnamese and their allies. In regards to the communists’ fabrication of the 1963 Buddhist Crisis:

This kind of political sophistication was well within the capacities of Ho Chi Minh and his backers in China and Russia. Stephen C. Y. Pan of the East Asian Research Institute in New York City met and interviewed Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and other Southeast Asian leaders. This expert on Vietnamese politics concluded that the Buddhist crisis was indeed a communist front: “The communists knew how to cope with Diem’s appeals. Highly skilled at spreading false propaganda, they created incidents, and launched demonstrations. Masters of cold war strategy, they decided that the Achilles heel in Vietnam was the Buddhist associations. They realised the acute sensitivity of Americans, in particular, to the charge of religious persecution,” (p. 199-200).

The above explains the intricacy and skill in which the communists were able to manipulate American public opinion. Knowing what the average American cares about and is sensitive too, the communists manufactured a crisis, created fake outrage, and then used the willing and enthusiastic liberal journalist to deliver this fake outrage straight to the American public.

The New York Times, one of the most prominent U.S. news outlets covering the Vietnam War, is discovered to have falsely reported the situation in Vietnam during the Buddhist Crisis. According to Shaw, during the start of the crisis in May of 1963, reports by the New York Times blamed the South Vietnamese on explosions that occurred during a (staged) demonstration in Hue, an event claiming the lives of nine people (p. 204-5). Later on, the Time’s reporting of the incident was falsified and indicted as “based on ‘facts’ of highly doubtful authenticity,” (p. 202-3). Furthermore, the New York Times claimed that, during the crisis, President Diem imposed a discriminatory law that specifically targeted Buddhists, another accusation that turned out to be false. In researching the infamous incident, Ellen Hammer, a historian, and Marguerite Higgins, a reporter, had ruled that there was no such persecution of Buddhists by President Diem. From her discoveries, Higgins ruled that in all, the events of the crisis as described by the New York Times were completely false (p. 203).

Furthermore, it is essential to understand that the South Vietnamese security forces deployed to the protests in South Vietnam were only equipped with stun grenades and tear gas, weapons inconsistent with media coverage claiming that government forces fired on the crowd. After the demonstration ordeal, a doctor examining the dead clarified that the burns experienced by bomb victims were beyond the capacity of the government forces’ gear. He then attributed the cause to “homemade bombs… planted beforehand,” with signs that very much “indicate the handiwork of the Viet Cong,” (p. 204-5). Again, unsurprisingly, these facts were largely ignored by leftist “academics,” both journalists and historians alike.

In their coverage of the crisis, the leftist media not only lied to the American public, but repeated these lies over and over, day in and day out. According to Shaw, the distorted leftist reporting of the Buddhist Crisis was kept “on the front pages of the New York Times and other newspapers” for months (p. 210). One can only imagine the affect that these images and stories had on the American public, and how that affected the U.S.-South Vietnam war effort overall.

Though President Diem and his government, in the short term, survived the intricately crafted and viscerally effective outrage campaign of the communists and the liberal media, it would leave a permanent stain on his administration, of which he would never recover. This mark on Diem’s presidency, and the subsequent U.S.-led coup that caused the fall of his administration, was all built on a lie, concocted by the North Vietnamese, carried out by their Viet Cong wing in the south, and popularized by the liberal media.

Observing these liberal media tactics of the Vietnam era, one cannot help but think of the liberal media of today, manufacturing scandals and outrages such as Russian collusion, faux racism, “family” border separation, and Stormy Daniels against President Trump, in a concerted and coordinated attempt to bring down the Trump Administration. Make no mistake that historically, the media is a monumentally powerful entity. They have the power to shape public opinion, influence attitudes and behaviors, spur people to action, and bring down entire presidencies.

During the Vietnam War era, through lies, careful omissions, and the overall shameless dissemination of fake news, the liberal mainstream media turned the American public against the war, influenced the election of opportunist antiwar Democrats into the House and Senate, cut all funding to South Vietnam (even though the South was winning the war), and then celebrated the “victory” of the North Vietnamese.

In this era of Trump, through lies, careful omissions, and the overall shameless dissemination of fakes news, the liberal mainstream media has been trying relentlessly to turn the American public against President Trump, influence the election of impeachment-minded Democrats into the House and Senate, and all the while fantasizing about the leftist overthrow of a duly elected U.S. president, the complete undermining and erosion of American democracy, and spitting in the face of American voters. Unfortunately for the Left, after decades upon decades of unprecedented and unchecked power, the liberal media empire, the oligarchs of the western world, have finally overextended themselves. However, that is a discussion for another time.

Coming back to the Buddhist Crisis of 1963, one may benefit to know that in the midst of the crisis, President Diem reached out to the many Buddhist organizations in South Vietnam, working with Buddhist leaders, and even offering compensation to families whose loved ones died in the protests, even though his government was not responsible for the deaths. Furthermore, President Diem created a Buddhist-led commission to engage further with the Buddhist community in Vietnam, and even agreed to let an international investigation be carried out against his government (p. 206).

All of these initiatives were ignored by the liberal media (p. 207).

In their reporting of the outrage, the alleged discrimination and oppression, the liberal media, in all their boasted propensity for justice and truth, somehow conveniently failed to report any of the actions that the South Vietnamese President took to reach out to the community and soothe his people. Moreover, around this time, in the wake of the Buddhist Crisis, President Diem and his administration was soundly defeating the Viet Cong terrorist network in South Vietnam. The media conveniently failed to report this as well (p. 211).

Like the leftist journalists of today, who purposely omit President Trump’s accomplishments and noble actions (e.g. defeating ISIS, vastly cutting illegal immigration, bringing home U.S. soldier remains from North Korea, revitalizing the U.S. economy, achieving record-low African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and women unemployment, and donating virtually 100% of his salary to charity since taking office, just to name a few), the leftists of the Vietnam War era ignored the monumental accomplishments of President Ngo Dinh Diem, which include establishing a viable non-communist Vietnamese country, defeating the Viet Cong, keeping the North Vietnamese at bay, and building up essential national institutions such as the economy, the military, and the education system, just to name a few.

As the President of the Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem was viewed by all Vietnamese, Christians and Buddhists alike, as their legitimate leader (p. 17). The “iconic” picture of the burning monk, and the narrative that both leftist journalists and historians painted of Diem was contradictory to the reality.

In Diem’s Vietnam, despite being forced to sometimes take extensive measures to combat terrorism, warlord-ism, and post-colonial factionalism, there existed freedom of religion, freedom of demonstration, freedom of non-political assembly, and some freedom of the press (p. 200). Moreover, President Diem deeply respected Buddhism, viewed Buddhism as a “means to reinvigorate Vietnamese identity” after the French ruined it, and hoped that Buddhism would be a strong counter to communist influence in the countryside (p. 39).

During his administration, President Diem oversaw a Buddhist renaissance that brought the religion back from the edge of extinction after a disastrous near-century of French colonialism (p. 194). Under Diem, substantial government funds were given to the development of Buddhist infrastructure such as pagodas and schools. These funds saw the renovation, rebuilding, and new construction of several thousand pagodas, as well as the organizing of large Buddhist communities in South Vietnam, which in-turn trained and provided access to more than one million Buddhist practitioners across the country. Along with all of this, the Government of Vietnam, led by the Diem administration, also “encouraged Buddhist programs, periodicals, conferences, lectures, and libraries,” (p. 195).

These are all important facts that somehow always seem to be conveniently absent in the liberals’ coverage of President Diem, in today’s history, and yesterday’s news. From the information presented in this article, it is not hard to understand why.

None of the facts above support the leftist claim that Diem was a bigoted, anti-Buddhist dictator. As a matter of fact, the evidence presented completely obliterates that claim, which is why it can never be found in any book or article written by a liberal on the matter.

For reasons still to be discovered, the liberal media and leftists in general had a vested interest in the failing of the U.S. and South Vietnam, and the prevalence of the communists. Their anti-American, anti-South Vietnamese, and pro-communist agenda compelled them to present a distorted and fabricated narrative on the Vietnam War, one in which the communists were the good guys, and the U.S. and South Vietnamese were the bad guys.

To push this false narrative, the powerful American liberal press used all of their clout and resources to slander South Vietnam and the U.S., while at the same time glorifying the communist enemy. One of the means in which the media advanced their agenda was the promotion of the Buddhist Crisis, and repeatedly displaying the infamous picture of the self-burning monk for all Americans at home to see.

In examining Shaw’s research, including facts such as the monk’s communist affiliation, how his radical group was unrepresentative of the Buddhist population, and that the Buddhist Crisis itself was a sham concocted by the communists, this article aims to dispel some of the many prevailing myths about the Vietnam War that resonate to this very day.

Many things we have been taught about the Vietnam War is wrong. But little by little, the truth will be told.

Consider this article one more step towards telling the full truth about the Vietnam War. Major themes for this thesis include the heroism and sacrifice of the South Vietnamese and the allied American soldiers, the brutal and murderous totalitarianism of the communists, and the lies, cowardice, and deceit of the liberal media, during Vietnam and thereafter.

As always, everyone is encouraged to read for themselves the sources presented, and come to a few conclusions of their own. Academic, peer-reviewed, and written by reputable experts in their respective fields, the sources examined are reliable for research and general learning. The source this week, to reiterate, is The Lost Mandate of Heaven, by Geoffrey Shaw. It is a great read, and definitely worth your time.

 

Work Cited:

Shaw, Geoffrey. The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2015.

Viewers Beware: Brief Thoughts on the Upcoming PBS Documentary “The Vietnam War”

Posted in Film, Opinions, Politics, Society with tags , , on September 10, 2017 by Ian Pham

Novick and BurnsLeft to right: Lynn Novick and Ken Burns, the duo filmmakers of the upcoming PBS documentary, “The Vietnam War.” The first episode premiers next Sunday, Sept. 17, 2017. (David Burnett / Vanity Fair)

I got a bad feeling about this. That’s my take.

The reasons I am sharing my brief thoughts, and not a full-on analysis on the subject, are because: 1) I haven’t watched the documentary series, which, spanning 10 episodes, will be 18 hours in total, and; 2) The news articles out there that talk about the documentary don’t really tell you much, besides how great the liberal mainstream media thinks it’s going to be.

That’s why, based on my findings from a few articles I’ve read, I can only say that I do not have a very good feeling about this upcoming documentary.

At a glance, I would say that this new documentary is the political left’s latest multi-million dollar effort to screw us (the Vietnamese freedom community) over. Before I watch the whole documentary, however (… all 18 freaking hours of it), it would not be fair for me to write the whole thing off. With that said, given the track record of the liberal media, I have much reason to dismiss this documentary as the latest leftist hatchet job against the U.S. and South Vietnam, designed to further bury the truth and turn the more gullible of the millennial generation against us as well.

According to the UK’s Daily Mail, interviewees of the documentary range from U.S. soldiers who served in Vietnam, to deserters of the U.S. forces, as well as “North Vietnamese and Vietcong fighters.”

The prominent attention given to the North Vietnamese and Vietcong interviewees is a red flag (pun intended) in terms of possible biases. Acknowledging that I have not seen the documentary yet, I have concerns that a major focus of the film will be devoted to telling the side of the communists and viewing them in the positive light so typical of the leftists since the 1960s.

Not mentioned in the Daily Mail source, The New York Times claims that the documentary will also include some South Vietnamese soldiers as interviewees. Though that may be reason for optimism, I suspect that the “South Vietnamese” speakers chosen for the documentary may not be authentic South Vietnamese, but are actually traitors, communist sympathizers, ARVN deserters, Vietcong or Northern spies, and others of the sort. I am concerned that they are fake South Vietnamese, South Vietnamese in name only, who were specially selected by the creators because they hold views that fit the liberal antiwar narrative.

Another worrisome possibility is that these South Vietnamese interviewees, who may actually be legitimate and devoted citizens of the Republic of Vietnam, will not be fairly represented in the documentary. I am here concerned that these people, true to the South Vietnamese republic, may appear on the film with pure intentions, but get deliberately misquoted by the film’s creators, with their words twisted and distorted to fit the liberal antiwar narrative. Manipulation of words and facts was a major tactic of the liberal media during the war, is still frequently used up to this day (just look at the mainstream media coverage of Donald Trump), and is something we should be watching out for when viewing this documentary.

Furthermore, Vanity Fair says that, on top of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, the film will also be presenting interviews with “an anti-war protest organizer,” as well as “journalists who covered the war.” Neither of these interview subjects seem like they will be particularly friendly to the non-communist side.

In regards to Vietnamese interviewees from the North and the South, via the same Vanity Fair source:

It [the documentary]… includes South Vietnamese veterans and civilians, and, most strikingly, former enemy combatants: Vietcong guerrillas and North Vietnamese Army regulars, now gray and grandfatherly (or grandmotherly), many of whom showed up for on-camera interviews in their old uniforms, gaudy yellow epaulets on their shoulders.

The passing mention of “South Vietnamese veterans and civilians,” followed by a more detailed introduction of the communists, with humanizing depictions such as how “gray” and “grandfatherly (or grandmotherly)” they look, or the fawning observation that they “showed up for on-camera interviews in their old uniforms, gaudy yellow epaulets on their shoulders,” leads me to believe that the the author of this Vanity Fair article is much more enthusiastic and reverent of the communist side. By extension, I fear that these pro-communist sentiments echo across all creative fronts relating to the project, whether they be news outlets covering the documentary, or producers directly involved with this documentary.

I don’t know about you, but it seems like, intentionally or not, but almost certainly intentionally, this new PBS documentary “The Vietnam War” will most definitely skew to the side of the communists, Ho Chi Minh, and the antiwar “movement” that the liberals, even up to present today, still cling to as some sort of shining achievement.

The Daily Mail reports that the makers of the documentary “hope viewers will draw their own conclusions – while opening a dialogue about the controversial war.”

My concern about this above statement is that the makers of the documentary will bombard the viewer with 18 hours of pro-communist bullshit propaganda, flushed with $30 million-worth of gripping production value and epic “storytelling,” before “encouraging” the viewers to “draw their own conclusions.”

In summary, no, I do not have a good feeling about this upcoming PBS documentary. However, I am not worried about the negative impact this documentary will have on our freedom-loving Vietnamese community.

We will need to brace ourselves. It might hurt at the start, but we’re strong, we’re smart, and we’re resilient. We’re children of the Republic of Vietnam, and we didn’t brave the crashing ocean waves of the Pacific, become successful in all fields including sports, medicine, law, academics, government, military, etc., etc., to be undone by some bullshit liberal propaganda documentary.

It might not even be that bad, but in the event that it is, we’ll handle it. We are the freedom-loving Vietnamese community. We are children of the Republic of Vietnam, and we will handle it.

What is Vietnamese Republicanism? An Introduction

Posted in Announcements, Art, Modern History, Opinions, Politics, Society with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2017 by Ian Pham

Vietnamese Republicanism

Image by Ian Pham/Freedom For Vietnam

Editor’s Note: This article was first posted on Facebook late last night, on May 23, 2017. Expect much more in-depth discussions on this subject in the very near future. In the meantime, please read, comment, and share. The short-term objective is to disseminate this information quickly, and to reach as many people, inside and outside of Vietnam as possible. Communism has been destroying Vietnam for far too long. It’s time we started changing that. Thank you for reading, and thank you for the continued support.

Cheers,

Ian Pham

P.S. Please visit, ‘like,’ and ‘share’ the Vietnamese Republicanism Facebook page, and it’s Vietnamese counterpart, Chủ Nghĩa Cộng Hòa Việt Nam.

Vietnamese Republicanism is a political ideology. It is based on the three founding principles of Democracy, Human Rights, and National Defense, and its goal is to destroy Communism in Vietnam, bring freedom to the nation and people of Vietnam, and establish a liberal democratic Republic, of the Vietnamese people, by the Vietnamese people, and for the Vietnamese people.

The reason for the creation of this ideology is simple. Currently, Vietnam is in serious trouble. Never before, in over 2000 years, has Vietnam ever been so close to extinction and extermination. A change needs to happen in Vietnam, the thinking of the Vietnamese people who have been affected by Communism needs to change, and this is where Vietnamese Republicanism comes in. Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology of change. Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology of strength, progress, and resilience. And, at its core, Vietnamese Republicanism is a full-on attack on the cowardly, corrupted, and treasonous ideology of Communism.

As we speak, the Communist Party of Vietnam is willingly handing over the Vietnamese nation to the Chinese invaders, allowing Chinese people to freely enter and live in Vietnam without visas or paperwork, and permitting them to steal Vietnamese jobs, abuse Vietnamese citizens, and disrespect the Vietnamese heritage and way of life. Evil Chinese corporations such as Formosa, Lee & Man, and Bauxite are wreaking havoc and devastation across Vietnamese land, poisoning the waters, wiping out the food supply, and slowly starving, infecting, and killing the people of Vietnam, little by little. In the long run, millions of Vietnamese people will die as a result of these deliberate actions committed by these Chinese corporations. Moreover, the mining operations of these Chinese companies continue to devastate the Vietnamese environment, Vietnamese trees continue to be cut down in staggering numbers, and more broadly, Vietnamese forests, highlands, oceans, and vegetation are being blatantly destroyed by these Chinese corporations. All of these atrocities are part of a wider, diabolical, and evil plan by the Chinese government in Beijing to slowly and quietly eradicate the Vietnamese people. Instead of deploying weapons of war, the Chinese government is carrying out environmental terrorism against the Vietnamese people, as part of a broader Chinese operation of silent genocide against the Vietnamese people. Adding to the peril and humiliation is the fact that all of these evil Chinese schemes have been, and continue to be permitted by the Communist Party of Vietnam, who have already surrendered themselves over to the Chinese invaders.

In the seas, Chinese military personnel have been killing Vietnamese fishermen for decades, and continue to do so with impunity, without a single word of protest from the cowardly Communist Party of Vietnam. Furthermore, Beijing continues to try imposing the Chinese language into Vietnamese schools, and attempts to force the teaching of Chinese history into these same Vietnamese schools, all in an attempt to replace the heritage of the Vietnamese people in our own country. Thus far, the slavish Communist Party of Vietnam has been unsuccessful in pushing the cultural cleansing agenda of their Chinese masters, but they continue to try, and if we don’t stop them, eventually they will succeed.

In short, Vietnam is in serious danger, and if we don’t act now, Armageddon may soon be upon us.

In order for us to preserve and protect our Vietnamese heritage and our Vietnamese nation, we must change the way we think about ourselves as Vietnamese people, and we must change the way we think about our Vietnamese nation. This changing of thought, this changing of vision, and this changing of aspiration, is the first thing that Vietnamese Republicanism is set out to do.

As Vietnamese people, we must understand that we are exceptional. As citizens of the Vietnamese nation, we must understand that the Vietnamese nation is exceptional. First and foremost, it is the goal of Vietnamese Republicanism to make Vietnamese people everywhere, inside and outside of Vietnam understand that the Vietnamese people are an exceptional people, and that the Vietnamese nation is an exceptional nation.

For nearly 80 years, Communism has destroyed the spirit of the Vietnamese people, and disgraced the proud, rich and noble history of the Vietnamese nation. Communism has made the Vietnamese people believe that we are slaves, that we are weak, that we are insignificant, that we are inferior. This is the mindset of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and this is the mindset that the Communist Party has been forcing on the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people, the Vietnamese youth, for nearly one century. It is this mentality that made possible the current Chinese incursion into Vietnam. It is this mentality that makes the Vietnamese people passive, apathetic, and meek in the face of the Chinese invasion. It is this mentality that has made it possible for the Chinese to walk into Vietnamese land, shit on the Vietnamese dinner table, and insult the sacred traditions of the Vietnamese nation.

Communism, and the Communist Party of Vietnam, has destroyed the dignity, pride, and hope of the Vietnamese people. Communism has disgraced the thousands years’ history of Vietnam, and the ancient, sacred traditions of the Vietnamese people. Communism is a stain, a scourge, and a disease to Vietnam. Communism must be destroyed, along with the Communist Party of Vietnam, and all of its members. The destruction of Communism, the Communist Party, and all of its members, is one of the major objectives of Vietnamese Republicanism.

As a show of fairness and good will, Vietnamese Republicanism recognizes that there are some within the Communist Party of Vietnam who secretly hate the Communist Party, wish to abandon the Communist Party, hate Communism, and wish to abandon Communism. Vietnamese Republicanism encourages these members to forsake and abandon the Communist Party of Vietnam, forsake and abandon Communism, and to embrace and join the Vietnamese Republican cause. Vietnamese Republicanism welcomes anyone who believes in the Vietnamese people, the Vietnamese nation, and the principles of Democracy, Human Rights, and National Defense. Therefore, Vietnamese Republicanism is willing to forgive those who wish to repent for their sins and join the Vietnamese Republican movement.

Communism is an ideology of cowardice.
Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology of courage.

Communism is an ideology of treason.
Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology of patriotism.

Communism is an ideology of slavery.
Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology of freedom.

It is for this reason that I encourage everyone to reject Communism, and choose Vietnamese Republicanism to pave the way for Vietnam’s future.

Where Communism says cower in the face of Chinese aggression, Vietnamese Republicanism says stand tall in the face of Chinese aggression, and fight in the face of Chinese aggression.

Where Communism says to forget the greatness of the Vietnamese people, Vietnamese Republicanism says remember the greatness of the Vietnamese people. Not only that, but Vietnamese Republicanism says to be proud of the greatness of the Vietnamese people, to build on the greatness of the Vietnamese people, and dare to dream of creating the greatest nation that the world has ever seen, an exceptional Vietnamese Republic, a shining city on the hill, built on the will, the heart, and the greatness of the Vietnamese people, its rich history, and its ancient lineage.

It is time to end the failed experiment of Communism, and punish the Communist Party of Vietnam for all of their crimes against the nation of Vietnam, the people of Vietnam, and the sacred traditions of Vietnam. To accomplish this goal of removing Communism from the Vietnamese consciousness, and expelling the Communist Party of Vietnam from their tyrannical, treasonous, and dictatorial rule over Vietnam, I put forward the superior ideology of Vietnamese Republicanism as a starting point, a foundation for change in restoring the greatness of the Vietnamese nation, and then exceeding that greatness to unparalleled heights.

Vietnamese Republicanism is an ideology founded on the principles of Democracy, Human Rights, and National Defense. The flag of Vietnamese Republicanism is yellow, with three stars at its center, and three stripes above the stars. The three stars at the center of the Vietnamese Republican flag represent the three principles of Democracy, Human Rights, and National Defense, while the three stripes above represent the former Republic of Vietnam, a nation that existed on the principles of Fatherland, Honor, and Duty.

The former Republic of Vietnam was a free nation, a proud nation, and a courageous nation that kept its people safe at all costs. Its legacy remains a guiding light in these dark times, reminding the Vietnamese people that one time in modern history, there was a Vietnamese nation that was strong, proud, and free. The three stripes, which represent the North, Central, and South of all of Vietnam, represent the entire Republic, of the Vietnamese people, by the Vietnamese people, and for the Vietnamese people. These three stripes stand as the true symbol of the Vietnamese nation, and by including the symbol of this Republic on the new Vietnamese Republican flag, Vietnamese Republicanism recognizes and honors the proud and noble legacy, as well as the righteous ideals, and all of the heroes of the former Republic of Vietnam.

The yellow of the Vietnamese Republican flag represents prosperity, optimism, and the golden skin of the Vietnamese people. This yellow signifies the goals, aspirations, and pride of the Vietnamese people, and the endless potential of the Vietnamese nation. Furthermore, yellow is the color of anti-Communism. Yellow is feared by the Communists, and hated by the Communists. In embodying the color yellow, Vietnamese Republicanism declares proudly to be an ideology that despises Communism, rejects Communism, and seeks to destroy Communism.

As for the selection of Democracy, Human Rights, and National Defense as the three founding principles of Vietnamese Republicanism, the explanations are as follows.

Democracy gives the Vietnamese people the choice to select their leaders in free, fair, and frequent national elections. The democratic system allows multiple political parties to organize and compete in national elections, which take place every four years. Representative democracy, which is the most popular and common form of democracy in the free world, allows for citizens of different districts across the country to elect representatives and senators to represent them in the making of laws, the operation of the country, and to be their voice in government. Furthermore, representative democracy allows for the citizens of the nation to select their president, the commander-in-chief of the nation, in these free, fair, and frequent national elections. In a democracy, the job of the president is to serve the people, not himself or herself, or his or her party. Thus the mandate of the president depends solely on the will of the Vietnamese people, who decide the right to govern of their president through the power of their voice and their vote. In a democracy, it is the people and the nation that comes first, not the party. The freedom to choose the leader of the nation, the choice of many different political parties with different visions, views, and platforms, and the power to replace any leader and government that fails to perform its duties to the people, are all reasons why democracy is superior to one-party rule, and why Vietnamese Republicanism is superior to Communism.

Human Rights ensure the protection of every single Vietnamese citizen from cruel and unfair treatment by the government. In a nation of human rights, the government cannot enter the house or home of a citizen without a warrant or his or her explicit consent, and cannot touch or inspect his or her private property without a warrant or his or her explicit consent. Nor can the government, in a human rights nation, be able to arrest, jail, or search a citizen without a warrant or probable cause. In a human rights nation, the citizen is innocent until proven guilty, and protected from fear, terror, and violence at the hands of the police and the government. Human rights nations ensure the fair, just, and equal treatment of all citizens, regardless of their race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliations, financial status, and other such differences. Human rights nations guarantee the inalienable fundamental rights and dignity of every citizen, and guarantee the fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Vietnamese Republicanism envisions a society with all of these freedoms and rights, which is another reason why Vietnamese Republicanism is superior to the brutal, corrupted, and evil ideology of Communism.

National Defense is the defense of the nation, both from external threats, and internal threats of any kind. Vietnamese Republicanism believes that national defense is essential to the survival and success of the nation. The principle of national defense stipulates that the safety, security, and territorial integrity of the nation and its people are of utmost importance to the survival and success of the nation. No matter in weakness or in strength, in sickness or in health, the defense of the nation must always be a priority for the people of Vietnam, from the president, to the armed forces, to the common citizen. In terms of national defense, Vietnamese Republicanism believes in the development of a large, powerful, and advanced military whose sole duty is to serve and protect its nation and its people. What is more, Vietnamese Republicanism believes in fighting back against Chinese aggression, pushing back against Chinese disrespect, and identifying China as the major threat to the existence and survival of the Vietnamese nation. Furthermore, in terms of national defense, through the eyes of Vietnamese Republicanism, Vietnam is not afraid of China, and shall be willing and able to fight China, confront China, and defeat China at any time, in any place, by any means. Where Communism cowers in the face of Chinese aggression, Vietnamese Republicanism stands and fights in the face of Chinese aggression. Furthermore, while Communism accepts defeat before the fight even begins, Vietnamese Republicanism seeks to win the fight, and doing so conclusively and unapologetically. In addition, in terms of national defense, Vietnamese Republicanism believes in the ceasing of operations, expelling, and punishing of all of those evil Chinese and foreign companies that are currently wreaking havoc, misery, and destruction all across Vietnam. Whether the threats are China, or anyone else, anywhere else, inside or outside of Vietnam, the principle of national defense commands that these threats be confronted and eliminated in the name of safety, security, and sovereignty of the Vietnamese nation and its people. Vietnamese Republicanism places priority on the safety and security of the Vietnamese people, and defends the territory and sovereignty of the Vietnamese nation. This principle, once again, is why Vietnamese Republicanism is superior to the cowardly and treasonous ideology of Communism.

This is Vietnamese Republicanism, and stated throughout are the goals and aspirations of Vietnamese Republicanism.

Vietnamese Republicanism believes in the greatness of the Vietnamese people, and the endless potential of the Vietnamese nation. Vietnam has all the capabilities to be a strong, free, and prosperous nation. Without a doubt, Vietnam has the potential to be a superpower nation on the world stage. Vietnam has the power to be whatever it desires to be. The only thing standing in the way between Vietnam and greatness is Communism. For this reason, Communism must be eliminated, and Vietnamese Republicanism has the power to make it happen.

It is the goal of Vietnamese Republicanism to destroy Communism, the Communist Party of Vietnam, and punish all of its members for the crimes they have committed against the Vietnamese nation and its people. To accomplish this goal, we must change the way of thinking of every Vietnamese person who has fallen victim to the evil spell of Communism. In order to do this, we must start by disseminating this information, as far and wide as possible, and as quickly as possible.

By any means imaginable, and then pushing beyond these limits, spread the idea of Vietnamese Republicanism to your friends, family, acquaintances, associates, and anyone else you can possibly reach. Use email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the comments section of internet arguments, Tinder, brochures, pamphlets, leaflets, written letters, mail, brail, secret handshakes, sign language, postcards, puppet shows, and even courier pigeons, whatever. Any way you can think of to disseminate this information, do it. Then think of other ways you never even thought of before, and do that. Then keep thinking, and innovating, and doing, and then repeat, again and again, until you are so quick, so cunning, and so effective that you make the Communists’ heads explode with your speed and efficiency. And then do it some more. To the people inside Vietnam, this goes double for you. As the ones inside the system, the boots on the ground, you have the most influence in sparking change in Vietnam, so I encourage you extra hard to effectively pass this information along to your fellow Vietnamese in Vietnam. If we are successful, you will be at the forefront of the fight for freedom and country, and the leaders of the establishment of the Vietnamese Republic. Hopefully that is enough incentive for you to get on board.

This is only the first chapter in the quest to spread Vietnamese Republicanism throughout Vietnam and across the world, and ultimately, to bring the change that Vietnam so desperately needs. Expect more articles, more elaboration, and more ideas on this Vietnamese Republicanism ideology that believes in the greatness of the Vietnamese people, and the boundless potential of the Vietnamese nation, once it is rid of Communism.

Though there is much more to come, I would like to leave you all with the following question: Based on what has been expressed so far, would you consider yourself a Vietnamese Republican?

Join the movement. Let’s bring freedom to Vietnam. Together.

Brief Thoughts on the Formosa Disaster: The VCP Fails its People Yet Again… To No One’s Surprise

Posted in Economics, Opinions, Politics, Society with tags , , on July 11, 2016 by Ian Pham

Fish Deaths VietnamPhoto via Saigoneer

Folks, a lot has happened since the last time I’ve posted on here. I haven’t been able to provide coverage for them all, which sucks, but I would like to get us up to speed on some of the major issues here. I’m not sure how many issues I’ll be able to cover. I only know that there are some issues which I would love to chime in on. The Formosa issue is one that I feel the need to provide insight on, and that is what I will talk about today.

This problem has been brewing since early April of this year, with things finally boiling over by the end of that month and then beyond. The “Taiwanese” company Formosa Plastics Group has been in the hot seat for its role in contaminating Vietnam’s ocean waters, causing massive deaths of marine life, as well as considerable human life, along the country’s central coast.

The damage is so extensive that Vietnam’s fishing industry, its coastal waters, and the lives of millions of Vietnamese people will never be the same again. The livelihoods and means of survival of so many Vietnamese men and women have been taken away from them, Vietnam’s already damaged economy will only plummet further, and many Vietnamese lives have already been and continue to be lost due to poisoned water and fish.

One big thing I want to note about this horrible disaster is Formosa’s deliberateness in the whole issue. Formosa has made it no secret that they were both aware and willing to dump these exorbitant amounts of toxic waste into Vietnam’s waters, with no regard for the safety of Vietnam’s wildlife, habitat, or population.

The most notorious example of Formosa’s attitude comes from one of their officials’ audacious response to the crisis, saying the Vietnamese people must either choose between the steel industry or the fish industry, but they can’t have both (The Diplomat). Furthermore, the same source says that Formosa explicitly invested $45 million into that toxic waste dumping system, and, Formosa argued, since they already paid for it, feel they are entitled to dump in whatever means they see fit. They, Formosa, sought to destroy Vietnam’s environment, and, to the surprise of no one, Vietnam’s government was, and is happy to let them do it.

Whether it is from fear, incompetence, shameful obedience, or all of the above and more, the Vietnamese Communist Party has been slow and reluctant to respond to the Formosa disaster. Both in terms of helping Vietnam’s affected victims, and in holding the perpetrators responsible, the VCP has done little to step in and do its job in response to Formosa’s deliberate destruction of Vietnam’s land. It comes as no surprise, though. The VCP has been failing its people for this long, and there’s absolutely no hope in my eyes that they would ever step up and stop humiliating themselves or stop humiliating the people of Vietnam. The communists are cowards. It’s who they are, it’s who their fathers were, and it’s who their children will be.

In response to the massive backlash by Vietnam’s population, Formosa has claimed responsibility for the disaster, and offered a measly $500 million for the irreparable damage they had caused to the people of Vietnam and their country (Reuters). The damage thus far includes over 100 tons of dead fish (Asia Times), deaths of many, many Vietnamese people including fishermen and consumers of fish, the resulting broken families, devastated ocean waters and overall environment, and a fishing industry that may never recover.

Just so there is no mistake: $500 million is nowhere near enough to compensate the amount of damage caused by Formosa to the people of Vietnam. To put it in perspective, we may look at another environmental disaster: the BP Oil Spill along the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

In that disaster, which was an accident, a rig explosion caused a massive oil spill in the Macondo Prospect, located in the Gulf of Mexico (southeastern U.S., northeastern Mexico) (EPA). The environmental impact of this disaster was huge, and when the dust and smoke had settled, British Petroleum, the company responsible, was forced to pay up to $56 billion in fines, compensation, and cleanup (DoSomething.org). The settlement alone costs BP $20 billion, according to DW.com. In this disaster, the parties responsible were held accountable, everyone worked promptly to deal with and fix the issue, it was an accident, and, with the exception of the 11 workers who died in the initial accident, no further human lives were lost. Also, the compensation, which I repeat here, was worth $56 billion. That’s Billion, with a B.

By contrast, this Formosa disaster in Vietnam killed many Vietnamese people, destroyed over 100 tons of marine wildlife, was done deliberately by the offenders, who only admitted their faults eventually due to public outrage, and, even now, there is still no real solution to the death and destruction it has caused. The Vietnamese government has done absolutely nothing in response, besides happily accepting the money Formosa has offered to them, which is only $500 million. That’s Million, with an M. This money is not going to the victims of the disaster, but instead is being allocated to what the VCP is calling “future development,” which we all know really means their personal bank accounts.

Let me once again take a minute to talk about the compensation.

BP Oil Spill (U.S., 2010): accident, zero human casualties (besides the 11 BP employees), promptly handled, $56 billion costs in fines, compensations, and cleanup.

Formosa (Vietnam, 2016): deliberate, massive human casualties, still not handled, $500 million offer by Formosa to compensate (which the government is keeping).

Just so we’re clear: $56 billion / $500 million = 112

British Petroleum paid 112 times more to the U.S. for their accidental disaster than Formosa paid to the people of Vietnam, even though the Formosa Disaster of 2016 was deliberate and is astronomically more devastating than the BP Oil Spill of 2010.

That is why I say $500 million is a measly sum.

For a disaster of this scale, $500 million does nothing to compensate the myriad of people affected, the environment destroyed, or the lives lost. The Vietnamese Communist Party is stupid to accept it, but what else is new? They get to keep the money anyway, so in their eyes, it’s not about the worth of the disaster. In their eyes: “IT’S $500 MILLION, GUYS!!!” which goes straight into their pockets.

Out of this horrific disaster, the VCP did nothing to protect or help their people. All they did was make another measly profit off of the suffering and humiliation of their country and its people. They, the communists, are shameful. They are bastards. They are deserving of neither forgiveness nor remorse. They are communists, and they deserve to die.

That is why I say the Formosa Disaster is another failure by the Communist Party to the people of Vietnam.

At this point, though, what more can we expect from a communist? Just when we think it couldn’t get any worse with the communists, it does. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if they sink even lower in the future. This is the sad state of Vietnam today, people. The only way to change this sad situation is to change the regime. I’ve said it before, and I say it again now: The Communists need to go, and they need to go now.

Remembering South Vietnam: A Tribute to The Republic

Posted in Economics, IV. Columns, Modern History, Politics, Society with tags , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2016 by Ian Pham

Remembering South VietnamPhoto via Flickr

This is just a brief tribute to the former Republic of Vietnam and all the brave men and women who fought so bravely to protect the country. We all know very well the story of its tragic fall, but we also know very well what a great nation it was.

This year, to commemorate the day that Saigon fell to the communists, I want to remind everyone of the greatness of South Vietnam. By recognizing the actions, ideals, and achievements of the Southern Republic, I aim to demonstrate to us all why April 30 is such a sad day for any Vietnamese who loves freedom.

Every year since 1975, April 30 marks the fall of a proud, vibrant, and prosperous Republic, one that flourished culturally and economically, and carried itself with courage, pride and dignity. Moreover, this day marks the fall of a democracy, a young democracy, but a true democracy nonetheless.

South Vietnam was a nation that nurtured its young. It was a nation that had a deep love for education, invested heavily in education, and went to great lengths to ensure their citizens the access to this education. In only two decades of its existence, South Vietnam successfully expanded its educational programs by leaps and bounds, growing exponentially at the elementary, secondary, and university levels. To put neatly, South Vietnam was a nation of smart people, with endless potential for advancement and growth.

In terms of economy, South Vietnam was highly competitive, a leader in the Southeast Asia region, and a contender in Asia as a whole. Starting from its humble beginnings as a postcolonial state, South Vietnam showed rapid growth immediately after its birth as an independent nation. Over the course of its lifetime, up until its fall in 1975, South Vietnam prospered economically, excelling in agriculture, heavy industry, and trade. Due to its success, its capital city Saigon garnered huge respect from the world, and earned itself the famous title of “Pearl of the Orient.”

When speaking of democracy in South Vietnam, there is no doubt that the Southern Republic was a true liberal democracy. Secret ballot elections, universal suffrage, multiple political parties, freedom of speech, expression, and association, and checks and balances between its executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, South Vietnam met all of these criteria. In all, South Vietnam was a free country, one that championed the rights of its people, adhered to the rule of law, and kept its people safe.

Lastly, I would just like to recognize South Vietnam as a brave and noble nation that fought with every ounce of its strength to defend its people, from domestic terrorism by the National Liberation Front, the all too familiar invasions from North Vietnam, as well as an abrupt naval invasion by the People’s Republic of China.

In all of these cases, South Vietnam responded, and with whatever resources it had, the Southern Republic fought. This was the nation that captured many VC terrorists, even converting many of them to forsake their communist allegiances and come over to the Republic. Moreover, this was the nation that kept the North at bay for 20 years, and, statistically speaking, eviscerated the communist forces in the majority of engagements on the battlefield.

Finally, South Vietnam was the nation to open fire on the Chinese when the latter sent their warships into Hoang Sa (Paracel) in 1974, thinking that they can push the Southern Republic around. With all that has been shown, it simply needs to be understood here that South Vietnam was a nation that stood tall and fought hard. It was a proud nation, a brave nation, and an honorable nation that kept its people safe.

The loss of this Republic on April 30, 1975 is more than just a page in history. It is a tragedy, marking the day that every freedom-loving Vietnamese person lost their home.

The sadness brought about from the loss of the Republic of Vietnam stems from the greatness of its legacy. Because of its ideals, and because of its bravery, the memory of South Vietnam continues to resonate in the hearts and minds of every freedom-loving Vietnamese person across the world, even inside Vietnam today.

South Vietnam has become a symbol of what it means to be truly Vietnamese in the modern era: smart, hardworking, brave, loyal, and living with integrity. These are the things that the Republic of Vietnam stood for, and these are the type of people who hail from its origins and carry on its legacy. The yellow flag of freedom represents our roots as people of a proud and honorable nation, and reminds us of our undying love for independence and democracy.

In all of this, we cannot forget our veterans. The troops that sacrificed themselves, paying the ultimate price both physically and mentally to defend the ideals of the Republic and keep the people safe, their sacrifice must never be forgotten.

To the soldiers of South Vietnam, the soldiers of the United States, and soldiers of the allied nations who gave their lives to defend freedom in Vietnam, we thank you, for everything.

This is a tribute to the nation of South Vietnam, and all the brave men and women who fought to defend the country and its ideals. This is for you.

Thank you.

Annotated Bibliography: “South Vietnam’s New Constitutional Structure,” by Robert Devereux

Posted in Modern History, Modern History - A.B., Politics, Society with tags , , , , , , , , on April 26, 2016 by Ian Pham

Nguyen Van Thieu SpeechPhotograph via Xac Dinh

Devereux, Robert. “South Vietnam’s New Constitutional Structure.” Asian Survey 8, no. 8 (1968): 627-645.

As its title indicates, this article by Robert Devereux provides analyses of the provisions within South Vietnam’s constitution, which was promulgated officially by Nguyen Van Thieu on April 1, 1967 (p. 628). For anyone interested in exploring in-depth the function and structure of South Vietnam’s democratic system, Devereux’s article is a fantastic starting point.

Following the usual format, this brief blog article will only cover a few of the many important insights about South Vietnamese democracy covered in Devereux’s work. However, the points raised in this entry will be more than enough to prove the credibility of South Vietnam as a true and functional democracy.

To begin, Devereux’s article shows that in 1966, of the estimated population of 14.5 million people in South Vietnam, 5,288,512 were registered to vote, and 4,274,812 did just that. The day of the election was September 11, 1966, and these over four million people went to the polls to elect their new Constituent Assembly, which consisted of 117 members (p. 627).

One year following this important election, a formal presidential election took place on September 3, 1967, resulting in Nguyen Van Thieu’s election as the new President of the Republic of Vietnam (p. 628). Also on that day, 60 new Senators were elected to South Vietnam’s Upper House, and on October 22, 1967, another 137 representatives (called Deputies) were elected to the nation’s Lower House (ibid). In South Vietnam, elections were carried out by universal suffrage and secret ballot (p. 631), a point relevant here for clearly demonstrating the verity of South Vietnam as a democratic nation.

The major events above are mentioned in the introduction to Devereux’s article. The sections following then delve at great length into the various chapters and sections of South Vietnam’s constitution. Covered by Devereux in his article are the many provisions outlining the functions and powers of South Vietnam’s three branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.

The Executive section talks about the powers of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Vice President, and their duties and responsibilities to the National Assembly and other government organs (p. 628-631). In the Legislative section, the process of introducing and approving bills is discussed, with details on how the Senators in the Upper House and the Deputies in the Lower House go through the process of making laws (p. 631-634). Lastly, for the Judicial branch section, the process of selecting judges to the Supreme Court in South Vietnam, as well as details of the country’s judicial process, are examined (p. 634-636).

In addition to these sections, Devereux’s article also talks about other important parts of South Vietnam’s government structure, as covered within the constitution. Specific offices and governmental organs, described as Special Institutions, are discussed (p. 636-640), as well as the functions of Local Administrations in South Vietnam (p. 640-641), and very importantly, in the Political Parties section, the guaranteed rights of opposition parties to form and operate in the Republic (p. 642-643).

Devereux moreover provides important insights on the human rights aspects of South Vietnam’s constitution. In the Bill of Rights section of the constitution, as summarized by Devereux, many statements are presented which guarantee and defend the rights of South Vietnamese citizens. Examples include a line from Article 6 of the constitution, which stipulates that the state is pledged to “respect human dignity, and the law every citizen’s freedom, life, property, and honor,” (p. 641). Furthermore, in Article 8, the document “guarantees the privacy of a citizen’s personal life, home, and correspondence…” and that “Freedom of thought, speech, press and publishing is guaranteed,” (ibid).

In addition to these provisions, the Judicial section previously mentioned also demonstrates many examples of the Republic’s adherence to the rule of law. Articles 7 and 8 of the South Vietnamese constitution express many guaranteed rights to protect its citizens, and include, but are not limited to, the following:

“Every defendant is entitled to a speedy and public trial and to a defense lawyer at every stage of the legal process, including the preliminary investigation.”

“No one can be arrested or detained without a warrant issued by a competent legal authority, except in cases of flagrante delicto.”

“No one can be tortured, threatened, or forced to confess, and any confession obtained by such means cannot be used as evidence.”

“Defendants will be considered innocent until found guilty; in case of doubt the court must find for the defendant.”

“No one can enter, search, or confiscate the property of a person without a properly executed court order, unless it is necessary for the defense of security and public order according to the spirit of the law.” (p. 636).

These provisions outlined clearly illustrate the democratic foundations in which South Vietnam was built. From the information above, it can be clarified that the Southern Republic was one that respected human rights, and one that championed the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens and the rule of law.

Evidences provided in this article clearly demonstrate that South Vietnam was a true liberal democracy. Proven throughout this post, through Devereux’s findings, is universal suffrage, secret ballot elections, a system of checks and balances in government, individual’s rights, constitutional rights, and multiparty democracy in South Vietnam.

For all of its challenges as a young and developing nation, the Republic of Vietnam had all the foundations, and met all the criteria of being a liberal democracy. Further study will continue to prove this fact. In terms of establishing a base for research on this topic, this source by Robert Devereux is an excellent place to begin.