Commentary – Page 2 – Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

Non Sub Homine Sed Sub Deo et Lege (“Not under human authority but under God and the Law,” Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England, 1235)

What is law and what is lawlessness?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. has just ruled that Donald Trump’s tariffs are illegal, that he had no authority under the U.S. Constitution to impose those taxes on the American people.

Let’s start thinking about his lawlessness with a famous narrative of injustice from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland:

A large rose‑tree stood near the entrance of the garden: the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red. Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them…

Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two. Two began, in a low voice, “Why, the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a red rose tree, and we put a white one by mistake; and, if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So, you see, Miss, we’re doing our best, afore she comes, to — ” At this moment, Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out, “The Queen! The Queen!, and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces. …

“And who are these?” said the Queen, pointing to the three gardeners who were lying round the rose-tree; for, you see, as they were lying on their faces, and the pattern on their backs was the same as the rest of the pack, she could not tell whether they were gardeners, or soldiers, or courtiers, or three of her own children.

“How should I know?” said Alice, surprised at her own courage. “It’s no business of mine.”

The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed “Off with her head! Off—”

“Nonsense!” said Alice, very loudly and decidedly, and the Queen was silent.

The King laid his hand upon her arm, and timidly said, “Consider, my dear: she is only a child!”

The Queen turned angrily away from him, and said to the Knave, “Turn them over!”

The Knave did so, very carefully, with one foot.

“Get up!” said the Queen, in a shrill, loud voice, and the three gardeners instantly jumped up, and began bowing to the King, the Queen, the royal children, and everybody else.

“Leave off that!” screamed the Queen. “You make me giddy.” And then, turning to the rose-tree, she went on, “What have you been doing here?”

“May it please your Majesty,” said Two, in a very humble tone, going down on one knee as he spoke, “we were trying—”

“I see!” said the Queen, who had meanwhile been examining the roses. “Off with their heads!” and the procession moved on, three of the soldiers remaining behind to execute the unfortunate gardeners, who ran to Alice for protection.

“You shan’t be beheaded!” said Alice, and she put them into a large flower-pot that stood near. The three soldiers wandered about for a minute or two, looking for them, and then quietly marched off after the others.

“Are their heads off?” shouted the Queen.

“Their heads are gone, if it please your Majesty!” the soldiers shouted in reply.

But in the question of Tariffs, unlike the Queen of Hearts, what Donald Trump says in not law.

The opinion of the court on whether or not President Trump had authority to impose tariffs turned on the definition of words. Laws consist of words, nearly always written words. To know the law, we must know the meaning of words.

A very early example of written law is the Code of King Hammurabi, 1750 BCE, with words carved in stone and placed in public so that his subjects would know what laws they had to obey. You can see one surviving example of such public law in the Louvre Museum:

In ancient China, the Zuo Zhuan history records a telling incident about the introduction of written law. The prime minister of Zheng, Zichan, had criminal punishments written on the surface of cast bronze tripods placed in public for the people to read. A moralistic scholar chastised him, saying: “When people know what the exact laws are, they do not stand in awe of their superiors. They will come to have a contentious spirit and make their appeal to the express words. They can no longer be managed. … When once the people know the grounds for contention, they will cast propriety away and make their appeal to your descriptions. They will all be contending about a matter as small as the point of an awl or a knife. Disorderly litigations will multiply and bribes will walk abroad.”

Zichan replied: “As to what you say, I have not the talents nor the ability to act for posterity. My object is to save the present age.”

But how can any court know what the words of the law mean?

Again, we can turn to Lewis Carroll to illuminate the question more pointedly, this time from his fable, Through the Looking Glass:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”

So, the question of whether or not Donald Trump has personal power – arbitrary discretion – to impose taxes on the American people when they buy goods from foreign countries depends on whether he is or is not master of defining the word “regulate,” as used in a statute adopted by the Congress.

If he is master, he is lawless, for one – like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland or Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass – who can define, at whim, the laws which he or she will obey is “out-side” the law, an “out-law.”

But statutes are interpreted by courts, not by presidents who, under the Constitution, have no judicial authority.

So, if the federal courts are master in defining the word regulate, then Trump is not a master, but must follow the law, as others define it to be. As such a follower, he would then be lawful in his decision-making.

In defining the meaning of “regulate,” as included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrote: “This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate” importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President.”

The court built a rational argument on how to understand the meaning of the word “regulate” as follows:

Since taking office, President Donald J. Trump has declared several national emergencies. In response to these declared emergencies, the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade. This appeal concerns Five Executive Orders imposing duties on foreign trading partners to address these emergencies: Executive Orders Nos. 14193, 14194, 14195, 14257 and 14266 … In imposing the … Tariffs, the President again invoked his claimed authority under IEEPA;

Before we reach the merits of this case, we briefly discuss the history and legal authority concerning the imposition of tariffs as relevant to this appeal. The Constitution grants Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, 3. Tariffs are a tax and the Framers of the Constitution expressly contemplated the exclusive grant of taxing power to the legislative branch; …

For much of this early history, Congress set tariffs without authorizing the President to adjust tariff rates by entering into international agreements. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Congress began to delegate to the Executive limited authority to “activate or suspend” tariff rates through international agreements. …

In 1976, Congress … enacted the National Emergencies Act (NEA). The NEA limited presidential power … and placed new restrictions on the declaration and termination of future national emergencies. [the] IEEPA is the result of this legislative effort and is consistent with Congress’s stated goal “to revise and delimit the President’s authority to regulate international economic transactions during wars or national emergencies.” …

IEEPA provides that, after declaring a national emergency pursuant to the NEA, the President may “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any . . . importation or exportation of . . . any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.” … Notably, IEEPA does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” nor any similar terms like “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA also does not have a residual clause granting the President powers beyond those which are explicitly listed. …

Notably, every Congressional delegation to the President of the core legislative power to impose tariffs includes well-defined procedural and substantive limitations. …

We are not addressing whether the President’s actions should have been taken as a matter of policy. Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the … Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not. …

Upon the declaration of such an emergency, IEEPA authorizes the President to: investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. …

The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, … The [Trump Administration] locates that authority within the term “regulate . . . importation,” but it is far from plain that “regulate . . . importation,” in this context, includes the power to impose the tariffs at issue in this case.…

Notably, when drafting IEEPA, Congress did not use the term “tariff” or any of its synonyms, like “duty” or “tax.” There are numerous statutes that do delegate to the President the power to impose tariffs; in each of these statutes that we have identified, Congress has used clear and precise terms to delegate tariff power, reciting the term “duties” or one of its synonyms. In contrast, none of these statutes uses the broad term “regulate” without also separately and explicitly granting the President the authority to impose tariffs. The absence of any such tariff language in IEEPA contrasts with statutes where Congress has affirmatively granted such power and included clear limits on that power. …

It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs. The statute neither mentions tariffs (or any of its synonyms) nor has procedural safeguards that contain clear limits on the President’s power to impose tariffs. …

Taken together, these other statutes indicate that whenever Congress intends to delegate to the President the authority to impose tariffs, it does so explicitly, either by using unequivocal terms like tariff and duty, or via an overall structure which makes clear that Congress is referring to tariffs. This is no surprise, as the core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution; when Congress delegates this power in the first instance, it does so clearly and unambiguously. …

Contrary to the [Trump Administration]’s assertion, the mere authorization to “regulate” does not in and of itself imply the authority to impose tariffs. The power to “regulate” has long been understood to be distinct from the power to “tax.” …

the Government has not pointed to any statute or judicial decision that has construed the power to regulate as including the authority to impose tariffs without the statute also including a specific provision in the statute authorizing tariffs. …

Since IEEPA was promulgated almost fifty years ago, past presidents have invoked IEEPA frequently. But not once before has a President asserted his authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs on imports or adjust the rates thereof. Rather, presidents have typically invoked IEEPA to restrict financial transactions with specific countries or entities that the President has determined pose an acute threat to the country’s interests. …where IEEPA has been invoked, presidents did so to freeze assets, block financial transfers, place embargoes or impose targeted sanctions on hostile regimes and individuals. …

The Executive’s use of tariffs qualifies as a decision of vast economic and political significance, so the Government must “point to clear congressional authorization” for its interpretation of IEEPA. …

For the reasons discussed above, we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the … Tariffs. Reading the phrase “regulate . . . importation” to include imposing these tariffs is “a wafer-thin reed on which to rest such sweeping power.” …

We are unpersuaded by the Government’s argument that it is “particularly inappropriate to construe narrowly a delegation of power in the arena of foreign affairs and national security.” While the President of course has independent constitutional authority in these spheres, the power of the purse (including the power to tax) belongs to Congress. It is essential the congressional role in foreign affairs be understood and respected. . . . The Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.” …

Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term “regulate . . . importation.”

With no cogency did President Trump reply to this reasoned decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

As to who has authority to interpret the Constitution, the impressive jurist, John Marshall, wrote in 1803 in the seminal case of Marbury v. Madison:

“It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the

people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

An Open Letter to General Secretary Tô Lâm, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam

On the 80th Anniversary of Vietnam’s Independence, September 2, 2025

Introduction

Stephen B. Young,

Global Executive Director

In a most unusual open letter, Mr. Lê Thân – once an activist who was tried and imprisoned by the former Republic of Vietnam government in Saigon – has, on this National Day, set forth new standards for the leadership role of today’s head of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

These standards reflect the moral foundations of the Caux Round Table’s Principles for Responsible Governance. Mr. Lê Thân also points to the essential foundations for living a life of integrity and decency:

“The strength of a nation does not lie only in weapons or wealth, but in honor. And honor is not won through violence, but through fairness; not through power, but through justice; not through command, but through respect for one’s own people…”

“Seize this moment! Seize this opportunity! Let power be transformed into service, and let service become greatness.”

The Caux Round Table Principles for Responsible Governance hold that state power is a trust granted by the people. It is not meant to satisfy personal ambition, accumulate wealth, or secure privileges, but to act on behalf of the community in serving the public good.

Public power always comes with responsibility; to hold power is to bind one’s actions to the welfare of others. Public office is not private property, but a temporary trust to serve the common good.

Those who hold public office must be accountable to the people for their actions. If they act wrongly, neglect responsibility, or abuse their power, they may be removed. And it is upon them to prove their own integrity.

The state exists only as a servant and instrument for higher purposes of society, not as its master. Public power must be exercised within the bounds of moral responsibility, for the well-being of the people. Any government that betrays this trust will lose legitimacy and can be replaced.

I am reminded of the words of Nguyễn Trãi – the great thinker and statesman of the 15th century – who helped establish the Lê dynasty after defeating Chinese invaders. Nguyễn Trãi wrote of nhân nghĩa – humane righteousness – as the foundation of politics. Only on such a basis can a government deserve the people’s support.

You can check out the Vietnamese version here, on one of the most popular social media sites in Vietnam: https://boxitvn.blogspot.com/2025/09/thu-ngo-goi-ong-to-lam-tong-bi-thu-csvn.html

________________________

Dear General Secretary,

On September 2, 1945, at Ba Đình Square, President Hồ Chí Minh declared the birth of a free Vietnam. From that square rose not only a republic, but a promise—a promise of independence, of freedom, of a people governing themselves.

Eighty years have passed. We have endured trial and triumph. We have suffered wounds and built anew. We have achieved much. Yet the Revolution remains unfinished. For as Karl Marx reminded us, no revolution is truly won until the people enjoy abundance, a sound culture, and democratic rule. By this measure, our task is still before us.

The duty of leadership today is not merely to guard the past. It is to raise it higher. To advance does not mean to betray; it means to carry forward, to complete what history began but could not finish. We have progress, yes. But we also have decline in morals, division of wealth, and doubt in the hearts of the people. These are not small matters. They cut to the core. They demand renewal—deep, honest, and whole.

You hold great power. But power endures only when it wins trust. The strong leader is not the one who speaks last, but the one who listens first. Not the one who commands alone, but the one who unites. Not the one who rules over, but the one who awakens the conscience of a nation. Legitimacy cannot be forced. It is given—freely, proudly—by the people when they believe.

This year marks eighty years of independence. But it may also mark your place in history. The August Revolution gave us sovereignty. Your leadership can give us liberty, democracy, and prosperity. Rarely does history open such a door: a chance to bind past to future, to meet the present with courage, and to shape the destiny of generations.

In the world beyond, Vietnam must be steadfast yet supple—holding fast to principle, yet never trapped by rigidity. The strength of a nation is not only in arms or wealth, but in its honor. And honor is won not by force, but by fairness; not by power, but by justice; not by command, but by respect for its own people.

Seize this hour. Take this chance. Let power become service, and service become greatness. Do this, and history will not remember you as one who merely preserved order, but as one who carried Vietnam into a new age—an age of freedom, of democracy, of prosperity.

With solemn respect, I place these words before you, dear General Secretary. May the spirit proclaimed on September 2, 1945—independence, freedom, sovereignty of the people—live not only in memory, but in the daily life of our nation, here and now.

Ho Chi Minh City, August 25, 2025

Lê Thân

Former Political Prisoner, Côn Đảo
Chairman, Lê Hiếu Đằng Club

“When Life Pours Tears, Heaven Pours Rain” – A Dire Warning from Heaven, Earth, and Humanity

By Prof. Nguyễn Đình Công

Introduction

Stephen B. Young,

Global Executive Director

Writing under the pen-name of Prof. Nguyen Dinh Cong, our commentator collapses history and current events into one lived experience. He draws from Vietnam’s cultural past, its core values which can be carried forward into our present – in our minds and hearts, to animate thinking today, right now – just as if Vietnamese from the 15^th or 18^th centuries were to appear among us and speak to us, unmoved by modernity and firmly committed to a Vietnamese moral and intellectual heritage.

The decision-making frame that arises for Vietnamese when their moral heritage is recalled is how to choose – modernity and the West or tradition and Vietnameseness? Or, what Prof. Cong suggests a blend of the two. Not a rejection of heritage but an appreciation as appropriate. Not a rejection of the West to live in the past, but an appreciation and an appropriation which is fit and becoming for “modern” Vietnamese.

Finding such a point of balance – an alloy with proper temper and resilience and a high melting point – has been a challenge for all non-Western cultures after the era of Western expansion and exportation of its rationality, its science, its economic dynamism, its technologies. For some like an angry and resentful Frantz Fanon, the choice has been zero-sum – one or the other; no compromise; no blend. One is either of the “West”, the colonialists, or one is “native” enclosed by tradition and so subject to their disdain and condescension.

Here Prof. Cong draws on psycho-socially powerful insights from his people’s past into the meaning and purpose of life and nature so that he can with authority and determination advocate for a new order in the Vietnam of 2025.

(The Vietnamese text can be read here: https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3087/ )

Prof. Cong writes:

In the old days, emperors held sacred “manuals” for the Rites of Sacrifice to Heaven at the Nam Giao Altar — solemn ceremonies to repent before Heaven and Earth. Now, in the midst of catastrophic natural disasters, the communist regime distributes a “pocket manual” for the September 2nd military parade (!?) [6][7]

A Nation Weeping Amid Storms

As August fades into September, the land writhes under violent tempests.

Rain falls like torrents; floods spread without end. Roofs of red tile are torn away, fields vanish under oceans of water. The cries of fathers losing sons, mothers losing husbands, the wailing of peasants stripped of all they owned — all these laments blend with the mournful roar of storm and rain [1].

And yet — amidst this tragic scene, where “life pours tears, and heaven pours rain” — proclamations blare from the capital: parades, processions, fireworks to celebrate the 80th National Day.

One side: blinding fireworks above Ba Đình Square. The other: a flickering oil lamp in a peasant’s flooded shack. That contrast is not merely material. It is a fracture in the sacred triad of Heaven – Earth – Humanity.

Heaven – Earth – Humanity in Ruin: A Nation in Peril

Eastern philosophy has long taught that Heaven, Earth, and Humanity form the three pillars that uphold both the universe and the fate of nations [2].

• Heaven — the will of nature, of fate.

• Earth — the land, the resources, the homeland itself.

• Humanity — the people’s hearts, and the virtue of those who rule.

When the three stand in harmony, peace endures. When one falters, dynasties fall.

These storms are no mere weather. They are warnings. Two years in a row, since Tô Lâm “ascended the throne,” Vietnam has been struck by devastating storms: in 2024 the super-typhoon Yagi, now in 2025 the great storm number 5 [1]. Natural disaster upon natural disaster — is this not Heaven’s rebuke against how men govern the land?

Heaven rages. Earth lies broken. The people seethe with anger. The triad is fractured. It is an omen.

While the People Weep, the Ba Đình Elite Banquets

Storm number 5 has ravaged the provinces: hundreds of homes unroofed, thousands of hectares of crops destroyed, countless lives lost. In Hanoi, streets drowned in 40cm of water; in Nghệ An and Hà Tĩnh, villages are completely isolated [1].

Yet in the capital, the regime trumpets its parade plans: 30,000 participants, foreign armies invited, high-altitude fireworks in multiple sites, LED screens across the city [3]. The costs — billions upon billions of đồng, drawn from the sweat of farmers, from the meager wages of workers.

What if those billions rebuilt homes, schools, and barns for the poor? What if they bought new buffaloes and cows — a farmer’s only wealth — instead of fleeting fireworks?

Fireworks blaze for minutes, then die. But the tears of the poor last a lifetime. This extravagance is not celebration. It is a wound — a moral wound in the soul of the nation.

Tradition Once Understood: Disasters Are Warnings, Not Occasions for Showing off

In the past, rulers saw disasters as Heaven’s rebuke. They would issue edicts of self-blame, reduce taxes, curb luxury, focus on relief.

The Nguyễn dynasty built the Nam Giao Altar to pray for Heaven’s favor [4]. The Tây Sơn did likewise in Bình Định [5]. These rites were not superstition — they were acts of humility, reminders that rulers must serve Heaven and care for the people.

But now those rites are gone. The communist regime scoffs at them as “superstition,” replacing them with hollow parades [6][7]. By denying the spiritual, they sever the bridge between ruler, people, and Heaven. In its place, only cold fireworks flare — light without warmth, spectacle without soul.

The Treachery of Courtiers: A Greater Peril Than Storms

A storm can drown a village, but treacherous ministers can destroy an entire nation.

If Tô Lâm seeks to be remembered, let him beware. Flatterers will paint illusions, urging parades and fireworks, dressing his power in false glory. But history teaches: dynasties do not collapse from storms alone, but from rulers who hearken to sycophants and abandon Heaven and the people.

If Heaven – Earth – Humanity already teeters towards regime collapse, then letting traitors reign is to dig the grave of the nation.

A Chance to Re-Found the Nation?

Hồ Chí Minh founded the Democratic Republic in 1945, but with his death in 1969, his era ended. Lê Duẩn and his heirs built the Socialist Republic — a model that has clearly failed.

Now, Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm stands at a crossroads. He could, if he has true courage, ignite a second founding of the nation. Not to split the land into “socialist” and “capitalist” Vietnams — but to change the very principle of rule: to abandon repression and indifference, and instead establish a governance that reveres Heaven, honors the People, fears treachery, and truly serves the nation.

The upcoming 14^th Party Congress — this is the golden moment. Persist in the old ways, and storms, the people, and history will sweep everything away. But dare to change, and a new destiny may be born.

The Hour of Choice

Disasters will come and go, but how rulers respond reveals their moral worth. A just government halts pageantry to save its people. A wise government honors Heaven with humility, not parades.

Tô Lâm — “Throne without Crown” — you stand at a grand crossroads. Will you choose the sound of drums and fireworks, or the cries of your people drowned in tears and rain? The choice is yours — and with it, the fate of the nation.

Beware! Heaven, Earth, and Humanity have spoken. Fireworks cannot silence the fire of a people’s wrath. If you refuse to change, history itself will render its verdict — and so will Heaven and Earth.

To change, or to perish. There is no other path.

Note & References:

[1] https://nhandan.vn/bao-so-5-gay-thiet-hai-nang-tai-nhieu-dia-phuong-post903648.html

[2] https://www.chungta.com/nd/tu-lieu-tra-cuu/thien-dia-nhan.html

[3] https://xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn/lich-trinh-chi-tiet-le-dieu-binh-dieu-hanh-danh-sach-cac-diem-ban-phao-hoa-ky-niem-80-nam-quoc-khanh-2-9-2025-119250812122817399.htm

[4] https://www.homepaylater.vn/blog/tim-hieu-le-te-troi-o-dan-nam-giao/

[5] https://haloquynhon.com/tin-tuc/dan-te-troi-tay-son–di-tich-lich-su-tai-binh-dinh

[6] https://mia.vn/cam-nang-du-lich/le-te-troi-o-dan-nam-giao-van-hoa-cung-dinh-doc-dao-tu-thoi-nha-nguyen-2341

[7] https://thuvienphapluat.vn/phap-luat/ho-tro-phap-luat/cam-nang-di-xem-dieu-binh-dieu-hanh-292025-concert-quoc-gia-a80-sap-toi-the-nao-le-quoc-khanh-29-du-230246.html

Timely Recommendation on a New Direction for Vietnam

Our distinguished new fellow, former Vietnamese ambassador and advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Dinh Hoang Thang, has written for our website in the context of strategic choices now before the Vietnamese government and people an insightful approach to change. He draws on Asian approaches to change as the rule of life and so as deserving our respect and analysis. He notes the role of balance, equilibrium, as the most appropriate sustaining and life-enhancing stance for us to manage as we respond to the changes coming our way. He implies that since change is a rule of life, it behooves us to think about what causes change? How can we best adjust to and “profit” from change?

You may read Mr. Thang’s commentary here.

Freedom of the Press and the Moral Nobility of a Nation 

Foreword by Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director of the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism (CRT)

Freedom of the press is not a luxury but the foundation of moral governance and national dignity. As Karl Marx once warned in 1842, when the press is reduced to a mere trade, its “inner freedom” is destroyed — leading inevitably to censorship or the press’s annihilation altogether. Journalism, he insisted, is not a business but the realization of human freedom itself: “wherever there is a press, there must also be freedom of the press.”

The Caux Round Table (CRT) shares this conviction. Its first ethical principle for moral government is that discourse ethics should guide the application of public power. Legitimacy in governance depends on free and open communication among autonomous moral agents who make up the community. Independent journalism is therefore not an enemy of the state but its indispensable ally, ensuring transparency, accountability, and the possibility of just leadership.

Vietnamese voices from the past also affirmed this truth. Phan Đăng Lưu, a founder of the Communist Party’s “revolutionary press,” argued in 1938 that freedom of the press never harms those in power. Newspapers that survive in a free environment reflect authentic social aspirations, which any government wishing to govern responsibly must heed. Suppression of such voices is not a sign of strength but of fragility.

To this, the CRT adds the ethical duties of journalists themselves: to be competent, truthful, and diligent, never distorting facts or concealing adverse information. Journalism, properly practiced, is a noble profession serving the public good. Without these virtues, freedom degenerates into license, and the credibility of the press collapses.

From a Vietnamese philosophical lens, one might even liken a free press to a modern I Ching — a “Book of Changes” for society. Just as the ancient text helped generations discern patterns of transformation and navigate shifting circumstances, today an independent press provides predictive intelligence about social, cultural, and economic dynamics. To read a free press is to read the flows of human ambition, power, and possibility.

With these reflections in mind, readers may turn to the contemporary Vietnamese debate on this very subject. A recent article circulating widely on social media, available here: https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3076/, illustrates the continuing importance of responsible journalism and the urgent relevance of press freedom in Vietnam today.

Thus, whether seen through Marx’s vision of freedom, the CRT’s ethical principles, or Vietnam’s own philosophical traditions, the conclusion is the same: a censored press is a contradiction in terms, “a perfumed abortion” in Marx’s searing phrase. A free press, by contrast, is the watchful eye of the people’s spirit, the living bond between citizen and state, and the nobility of a nation’s soul.

——————–

Journalism under Tô Lâm: Building or Destroying?

By Phạm Hoàng Thuyên

Behind the recent persecutions of journalists — from the manhunt for martial artist and writer Đoàn Bảo Châu, to the imprisonment of prominent KOLs such as Phạm Đoan Trang and Trương Huy San (Huy Đức), to the planned closures of newsrooms under the guise of “streamlining staff” — lies a single, stark message from the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV): all independent voices must be caged within the Party’s institutional framework.

Yet this warning may have unintended consequences. Loyalty to the regime is no guarantee of safety. The only true source of dignity and legitimacy for journalism — as for every individual who takes up the pen — is to live and work for conscience, for the nation, and for the people. Only then will the homeland honor their service.

On June 21, 2025, during the celebration of “Vietnam Revolutionary Press Day,” General Secretary Tô Lâm declared: “The press must become a force for building confidence, inspiring the aspiration for national development.” An inspiring message at first glance. But reality forces us to ask: is Vietnam’s press today being built up — or steadily destroyed?

1. When Truth Is Hunted

The case of independent journalist, martial artist, and writer Đoàn Bảo Châu is telling. On August 14, 2025, Hanoi police issued a warrant for his arrest on charges of “propaganda against the state.” Forced into hiding, Châu released a public statement: he had done nothing wrong, merely written and spoken the thoughts ordinary citizens held but dared not say (Báo Tiếng Dân, Aug 21, 2025).

The evidence against him? Simply his participation in interviews and civil society forums — activities that should be the basic right of any journalist. Châu collaborated with leading global outlets such as AP, Reuters, the New York Times, and Forbes, and had 215,000 Facebook followers.

But in an environment where press freedoms are suffocated, it is precisely the voices embraced by the public that become targets of repression. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reports that Vietnam currently holds at least 27 independent journalists in prison, ranking the country near the very bottom of the 2025 World Press Freedom Index (Người Việt, 2025).

If this is what it means to “build confidence,” then that confidence has been reduced to silence — survival through submission.

2. When Mainstream Journalism Becomes a Megaphone

Even the official press — supposedly “the eyes and ears of the people” — has repeatedly shown it is never truly independent.

Take the case of Lê Hồng Sơn, former director of Ho Chi Minh City’s Department of Education and Training. For years, journalists were stonewalled and dismissed when questioning his office. At one point, the department even proposed disciplining a reporter for daring to investigate procurement scandals. Ultimately, Sơn himself was expelled from the Party for corruption in equipment bidding (Báo Tiếng Dân, Aug 22, 2025).

The haunting question remains: had the press been allowed to do its job back then, could society have avoided paying such a heavy, belated price?

3. Rumors of the Death of Tuổi Trẻ

It is not only individuals who are under siege. Entire institutions face erasure. Reports that Tuổi Trẻ — Vietnam’s most popular daily with more than half a million copies in circulation — may be dissolved and merged into the struggling Sài Gòn Giải Phóng have unsettled the public (Sài Gòn Giải Phóng, 2025).

Tuổi Trẻ is more than a newspaper. It is an heir to the tradition of student and youth activism in Saigon, a financially self-sustaining publication with a broad readership. To strip it of its identity and fold it into a Party organ with little traction is widely seen as the suffocation of a brand once synonymous with hope and trust.

Is this the dawn of a “new era” for Vietnamese journalism, or merely a historic regression — a future with only one voice left, that of the Party committee?

4. A Comprehensive Campaign to Seal All Mouths

Since 2016, more than 70 journalists have been imprisoned, including the high-profile case of Phạm Đoan Trang, sentenced to nine years (BBC Vietnamese, 2022). Since Tô Lâm assumed the post of General Secretary in August 2024, repression has only deepened.

Trương Huy San (Huy Đức) — once lauded for fearless reporting on high-level corruption — was sentenced to 30 months in prison in early 2025 (VOA Tiếng Việt, 2025a). Nor is the crackdown limited to “dissident” voices. Even moderate insiders — retired officials, establishment scholars, cautious commentators — have had accounts frozen, broadcasts cut, and platforms denied.

This is not selective censorship. It is a systematic campaign to extinguish dissent at every level.

Meanwhile, the Party has pushed forward with its policy of “one newspaper per ministry, province, or agency,” under the pretext of reducing costs and streamlining staff. If cost-saving were the true motive, a far simpler solution would be to let newspapers operate independently, self-financed, free from state payrolls. But that option is never permitted.

5. Journalism as a Corrective Mechanism

In every society, journalism is not only a mirror of reality but a corrective mechanism for government. Policies inevitably lag behind social needs. The press is the warning system, the voice of criticism, the channel for timely adjustment.

Journalistic truth may be uncomfortable — but discomfort is essential for progress. History shows that a society without a free press is like a body without an immune system: it may appear stable on the surface, but disease festers within.

6. Building or Destroying?

Under Tô Lâm, the authority of the General Secretary has been consolidated. Yet the paradox remains: the tighter the Party cages journalists and KOLs within its “institutional framework,” the faster public trust erodes.

If Tuổi Trẻ is forced to vanish, if dozens of journalists are imprisoned or hunted down, these are not isolated events. Together they paint a bleak picture: journalism is being transformed from a bridge of the people into the monopolized tool of the Party.

From newsroom closures to the “streamlining” drive, the regime’s implicit message to society may well backfire: loyalty to the Party offers no protection.

The only safeguard for the dignity and legitimacy of journalism — as for every journalist — is to live and work for conscience, for the nation, and for the people. Only then will history record their service with honor (VOA Tiếng Việt, 2025b).

Living in the Gray Zone: Navigating Vietnam’s Path to Strategic Autonomy in an Uncertain World

Đinh Hoàng Thắng

Fellow of the Caux Round Table

Summary: The article outlines a new strategic orientation for an era advancing a “Red River Renaissance”, a strategy based on five pillars: repositioning national identity, mastering complexity through analysis and forecasting, creating value rooted in the ideology of cultural continuity, reforming the Communist Party of Vietnam into a constructive, service-oriented organization, and steering soft diplomacy to proactively exert influence. The paper concludes: in today’s gray-zone environment, the capacity for Vietnam’s survival and development does not stem from hard power alone, but grows out of wisdom, observational acuity, and the ability to build consensus.

“What secret charm leads me toward the God I adore,

Who frees me from the world and casts off all my chains,

What bliss is there for love so fair,

If not to fashion dreams amid the madness,

With a mortal heart and secular love!”

(Adapted from Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte, 1642) [1]

Introduction

In the contemporary world of deep uncertainty, the lines between war and peace, ally and adversary, order and chaos are increasingly blurred. There is no longer a single straight road to the future — only bends, detours, and gray zones — where strategic nerve and political wisdom become existential assets.

The U.S.–Russia summit in Alaska (August 16, 2025) offered a warning sign: if Moscow can legitimize territory it occupies in Ukraine through an agreement brokered by two major powers, might Beijing be tempted to apply the same “precedent” to Taiwan or the South China Sea? [2] If an international order grounded in the rule of law, human rights, and sovereign equality gives way to a new order where strength decides everything, then is the message not clear: middle and small powers will have their fate imposed on them unless they can determine it for themselves?

Standing in that vulnerable gray swath of history, it would be catastrophic for Vietnam to remain a bystander. To avoid that fate, we must shed doctrinaire thinking and have the courage to build a new cognitive paradigm — one based on rooted wisdom, analytical judgment, an acceptance that flux is the norm, urgent institutional reform, and a timely, forward-looking diplomacy.

1.⁠ ⁠Repositioning National Identity to Shape National Strategy

What identity should serve as the foundation for strategy? [3] Vietnam must answer this core question: who are we in an era when the international legal order is weakening and coercive power is reasserting itself as the author of history?

Traditionally, the Vietnamese have not treated chaos as meaningless. I Ching teaches that disorder is a kind of dynamic order, governed by changeable laws that can be discovered by the wise among us. From that insight, wisdom becomes a precondition for survival: recognize trends, and preserve the immutable amidst the mutable. It is precisely thanks to such insight that our predecessors were able to assert their identity amidst the whirl of global power.

Today’s national strategy therefore cannot be mere reactive improvisation. It must begin with repositioning identity: Vietnam is a country that loves peace but will not accept subjugation — a middle power that refuses to let its future be determined by others.

2.⁠ ⁠Mastering Disorder — Building Analytical and Predictive Capacity

The current turning point of the post-modern world tempts people to abandon both reason and faith, strips order of higher purpose, and glorifies unbounded chaos as freedom. In such disorder, any people without analytical and predictive capacity is easily swept away.

Vietnamese tradition includes a habit of “reading” chaos to find a way forward. Systems of knowledge and observational methods — emerging from different philosophical schools — helped our ancestors find levers of support when times are uncertain. Phan Bội Châu studied the I Ching (Dịch) to reflect on the path of struggle. [4] That is evidence that even if the international legal framework collapses, a people can rely on powers of observation, analysis, and foresight to survive.

Today, that analytical skill must be modernized into a suitable methodology for strategic-analysis: reading the trends of coercive power, forecasting global risks, and proactively “moving one step ahead” of predictable events. This is not occultism; it is a form of systemic, modern knowledge built from Vietnamese intellect and global analytic and forecasting science. We cannot change the global chessboard, but we can understand it and so more effectively engage with the pieces as placed and as they might move.

3.⁠ ⁠From Reaction to Creation — A New Doctrine of Enduring Vietnameseness

For too long Vietnam has tended to react to events. But perpetual reaction only trails history. An uncertain world forces us to shift from reaction to creative initiative — from defensive postures to building enduring strengths.

Vietnam needs a new commitment to an enduring Vietnameseness, which precisely would be the moral courage to not fear flux but rather to treat it as a constant. In the interplay of yin and yang, order and disorder, opportunities for creative construction are always present.

This requires a change of mentality: instead of an inward, short-term calculus for preservation, Vietnam must commit to creation — create standards, create value, create influence. This is not merely survival; it is the living expression in today’s world of a many generational commitment to Vietnameseness. [5]

4.⁠ ⁠Institutional Reform — From Revolutionary Party to Party of Service

The Communist Party of Vietnam [CPV] can continue to lead if it transforms from a revolutionary party into a party of service. The 14th National Congress is not merely a milestone; it should be the starting point. To retain a central role, the Party needs to move beyond a “centralized leadership” model and become the “architect of sub-systems.”

Institutional reform can follow the “The Principle of Accumulation and Dispersion” (Tích – Tản) [6]. Pooling resources: from knowledge and trust to social innovation. Decentralizing administration: delegating authority to localities, civil society, businesses, and the press; making state governance transparent. Moving from totalizing control to constructive design, the Party must learn to delegate and to adjust its policies taking accurate data into consideration. The Party should first “accumulate” resources (talent, knowledge, trust), then design the operating architecture (laws, norms, feedback), and, third, “disperse” —empowering all sectors of society.

The governing party of a modern state must be accountable through performance, operate on data, and engage in dialogue rather than impose. The center of institutional reform is not enlarging central power but redesigning systems to aggregate and then apply strength from below — from individuals, firms, and localities. Only when the people are treated as the primary actors to be served — not merely objects to be controlled — can the Party become a force for the creation of solutions and prosperity.

To sustain leadership, the CPV cannot rely on political-economic formulas frozen in the previous century. To be a creative, service-oriented Party, it must lead in forecasting, adapt to open dialogue with citizens and the world, and show flexibility. It must be willing to change when circumstances so require, while remaining steadfast on the immutable core goals— national interest and sovereignty. This is not a renunciation of revolutionary heritage but a transformation from revolution toward constructive governance. [7]

An urgent further demand of institutional reform is national reconciliation and social healing. Reform is not merely an administrative technique; it must be an act of mending and opening. If we have been able to establish “comprehensive strategic partnerships” with former adversaries, why have we not achieved full reconciliation at home and between the homeland and the overseas Vietnamese community? Only by removing the scars of the past can social energy be fully deployed so that, through togetherness, the future can be well built.

5.⁠ ⁠Timely Diplomacy — From Defense to Building Soft Influence

Vietnamese diplomacy in the new era must go beyond mere defense. The tradition of “keeping the immutable in order to respond to the mutable” should be upgraded: do not merely respond — transform to shape influence. [8]

The spirit of the new cognitive paradigm asserts that yin and yang are always in motion, transforming within a complementary, oppositional relationship. Vietnamese diplomacy must mirror that: flexible in detail, firm in principle; willing to cooperate when needed, restrained when necessary. Whether “pausing” or “winning hearts strategy,” every posture is a means to protect the national self-determination and sovereignty.

To achieve this, Vietnam must develop diplomacy on three levels: national, regional, and global. In rule-making — at tactical or technical levels — compromises may be possible, but at the strategic level we must not “straddle two sides” and so cling to the dangerous rationale of “neither side, but choose what is right…” [9]

Done well, diplomacy will not only keep the country secure, but also turn Vietnam into a voice of influence—a player, not a passive actor.

6.⁠ ⁠“Red River Renaissance”: Leveraging East Asian Wisdom

Based on the five pillars of the new cognitive paradigm, why shouldn’t Hanoi aspire to launch a “Red River Renaissance” to help build durable security and long-term prosperity for East Asia in this era of cascading instability?

Uncertainty also opens doors to achievement when we act with virtue and wisdom. The 42nd hexagram in the I Ching suggests that if a leader dares to “cross the great river,” fill what is empty, and guide events with foresight, great results will follow.

At the core of East Asian wisdom is balance. China has Taoism and the Doctrine of the Mean. In Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos, Buddhism teaches the Middle Way that leads to prosperity and wellbeing; Buddhism has left a profound imprint on this region for centuries. In Japan, Shinto seeks harmony between humans and nature. In Malaysia and Indonesia, the Qur’an instructs respect for balance.

Conclusion

Vietnam can certainly host an annual gathering of government leaders, thinkers, scholars, and philosophers — an “East Asian DAVOS,” for example — to seek wise responses to the transformations facing the global community.

Concretely, Vietnam can act as a trusted friend and broker, promoting consensus between Japan, South Korea, and ASEAN. This would help form a reassuring balance of power to the benefit of middle and small powers in a peaceful, culturally rich, East Asia.

Vietnam has already made contributions beyond its borders. Professor Võ Tòng Xuân achieved notable success in Sierra Leone and several African countries by introducing high-yield rice varieties that helped build irrigated rice agriculture. [10] In the United States, France, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, Vietnamese diasporas have also achieved remarkable success in economics, culture, and politics. These examples confirm that even in distant lands, Vietnam is not forgotten.

The world has entered a gray zone of history. But grayness is not a dead end — it is open space where any choice can become a turning point. To be strategically autonomous amid uncertainty, Vietnam must reposition identity, master disorder, create value, reform institutions, and expand soft influence. Above all, it must nurture a new cognitive paradigm — deeply Vietnamese in character but connected to humanity’s intellect: a paradigm capable of forging an “East Asian consensus.”

Interpretation of “order” and “uncertainty” goes beyond Dr. Kissinger’s conclusions. [11] More important in standing at the threshold of a new order is to validate the five pillars implementing the above proposed cognitive paradigm. [12] And as East Asian wisdom has long taught: change is eternal. Yet amidst change, people who possess wisdom are the people who survive intact.

Author’s note: Dr. Đinh Hoàng Thắng is a former Ambassador of Vietnam to the The Royal Netherlands, former Head of the Leadership Advisory Group at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam, and a current Fellow of CRT.

References:

[1] https://suckhoedoisong.vn/cao-thom-lan-gio-cormeille-nghi-gi-169124712.htm

Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte (1606–1684) is a foundational figure of classical French tragedy. Polyeucte centers on a martyr figure and the force of Christian faith. The stanza above is an adapted translation from the French: “Quel charme me conduit vers le Dieu que j’adore? / Je triomphe du monde, et je sors de ses fers / Heureux qui peut aimer d’une amour toute pure, / Mais malheureux celui qui fonde son bonheur.” — Adapted from Pierre Corneille, Polyeucte (1642)

[2] https://www.facebook.com/… [Beijing will observe the Trump–Putin summit] (access link as provided)

[3] https://nhandan.vn/khang-dinh-vi-the-van-hoa-viet-nam-trong-ky-nguyen-moi-thuong-hieu-van-hoa-gia-tang-uy-tin-quoc-gia-post889560.html

[4] https://www.chungta.com/nd/tu-lieu-tra-cuu/phan_boi_chau-nha_van_hoa.html

[5] https://www.voatiengviet.com/a/co-mot-chu-nghia-truong-ton-viet-nam/7961206.html

[6] TS. Nguyễn Thế Hùng: Tích Tản – Một nguyên lý, một tầm nhìn, một con đường (Information Publishing House, 2025)

[7] https://tuoitrethudo.vn/chuyen-doi-trang-thai-sang-kien-tao-chu-dong-phuc-vu-nhan-dan-280478.html

[8] https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/articles/cdx5v0448wyo — “Vietnam and ‘timely diplomacy’: from the bamboo metaphor to national strategy”

[9] https://boxitvn.online/?p=94713 — “’Not choosing sides, choosing righteousness…’ — a dangerous diplomatic philosophy!”

[10] https://siwrp.org.vn/tin-tuc/giao-su-vo-tong-xuan-va-tam-nhin-cay-lua-xuyen-bien-gioi_4333.html

[11] https://www.academia.edu/118015198/Kissinger_Henry_World_Order_New_York_Penguin_Press_2014 — Henry Kissinger, World Order (Penguin Books, 2015) synthesizes centuries of diplomatic thought and geopolitical structure through historical case studies. Foundational, but only a starting point for strategic reflection.

[12] https://tapchithoidai.diendan.org/ThoiDai36/201736_DinhHoangThang.pdf — Đinh Hoàng Thắng (2017), “Vietnam and the Pre-Threshold of a New World Order,” Thời Đại No. 36. The author highlights the fluidity of both Vietnam and the evolving global order and proposes a conceptual framework (the “P&DOWN” paradigm) for navigating transformation.

A Second Case Study from Vietnam

Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director

The following commentary presents a second case study on the prevalence of crony capitalism in a developing country – Vietnam – a nation that could quickly catch up with the economic achievements of Singapore and South Korea if it adopted a more “moral” form of capitalism.

Similar to last week’s case of “Vietnamese cars, Vietnamese goods…”, this time we examine how crony capitalism is being used to exploit government allocations of land use.

The commentary below highlights “crony capitalism,” where, as the analysis suggests, government officials secretly colluded to share a business opportunity. Those with political power in a one-party regime need money to build influence and attract “clients,” but they cannot openly engage in private business. As a result, those in authority favor one project over another, granting licenses and permits – essentially “green-lighting” plans.

Businesses that receive such “favors” reap large profits, then divide the spoils – one way or another – with the decision-making officials.

I have heard Vietnamese joke that in Vietnam, “the first administrative document you submit to an official is an envelope of cash.”

From this commentary, we can infer that in Vietnam today, not just a few individuals but the entire ruling apparatus has turned into a political-economic structure of rent-seeking by those with political authority and influence. In reality, Vietnam’s constitutional structure has become one “of interest groups, by interest groups, and for interest groups.”

“Strategic planning” in an economy subordinated both to Party power and to unaccountable administrative fiat creates countless opportunities to extract personal gain from public assets.

The commentary makes clear that under such a regime, the practice of politics is not about serving the nation with fidelity and integrity, but rather about leveraging whatever power one holds to gain private ownership of financial assets – monetizing one’s position.

In Vietnam there is a cynical saying: “If you can’t take care of Brother Three, you’d better take care of Brother Four.”

As has been demonstrated again and again – especially in the outstanding book Failed States by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson – corruption and authoritarianism are like two peas in a pod, or like a shadow that always follows power: whoever holds power inevitably has a dark side shadowing them.

The author makes a strong case that building a new international airport at Long Thanh, far from Ho Chi Minh City, makes no sense under any calculation of market rationality. He then offers five alternative solutions that would better respond to supply and demand realities.

In my view, his warning is highly credible: if the Long Thanh airport project goes forward without consultation or input from those directly affected by such an enormous expenditure, then a perfectly viable solution will be ignored. The current Tan Son Nhat airport will become obsolete, while a redundant new airport will be built at Long Thanh.

In that case, Vietnam will continue to sink deeper into the gray zone of crony capitalism, unable to become truly wealthy or strong, always misallocating resources by diverting funds away from the public good in order to serve private interests – the very sort Karl Marx castigated in Das Kapital as “Mr. Moneybags.”

To rephrase another famous line of Karl Marx, we might say that crony capitalism “takes from those with ability and gives to others according to their wishes.”

Rent-seeking by the well-connected and by government privilege-holders is nothing less than social theft, not social righteousness.

You can find the second case study of crony capitalism in Vietnam on Vietnamese social media here:
👉 https://phongtraoduytan.com/chinh-tri/chinh-tri-viet-nam/3065/

And you may read the English version of the commentary below:

Turning Long Thanh into an International Airport to Strangle Tan Son Nhat: A Classic Case of “Crony Capitalism”

If today the people and conscientious managers remain silent, then tomorrow it won’t just be one airport being strangled, but the entire nation dragged into the abyss.

By: Tran Quoc Sach

1. Introduction: Airports and the Truth Behind the Glitter

A metropolis like Ho Chi Minh City—with more than 10 million residents plus surrounding satellite towns—having two airports is completely normal. Around the world, there are countless examples: Tokyo has Narita and Haneda; London has Heathrow, Gatwick, and Stansted; Paris has Charles de Gaulle and Orly. The question is not whether “two airports are necessary,” but why there is such a deliberate attempt now to make Long Thanh the main international hub for Ho Chi Minh City, effectively strangling the current airport Tan Son Nhat—the nation’s most important gateway.

The truth behind the so-called “mega project of the century” Long Thanh is this: (1) It is not merely a technical or planning issue, but a living example of crony capitalism, where political power and vested interests collude, turning public infrastructure into a tool for private enrichment. If this model is not stopped, it will drag the entire nation into a bottomless pit—rather than lifting it up, as the empty socialist slogans claim.

2. Tan Son Nhat’s Golden Land: National Assets Turned into a Feast for Interest Groups

Colonel Phan Tuong—the officer who took over Tan Son Nhat on April 30, 1975—once revealed the following (2):

• Under the French, the airport was planned at 1,800 hectares.

• Under the Republic of Vietnam, operations expanded to 1,850 hectares.

• After 1975, “under our management,” the area shrank to just 1,100 hectares.

So where did the missing 750 hectares go? The answer is obvious: golf courses and residential areas. Prime land in the heart of Saigon, instead of serving aviation and national defense, was converted into lucrative commercial projects. This is not only absurd from a planning perspective but has direct consequences: drainage canals and reservoirs that once lay under that land were filled in. Runway flooding today is not caused by “tidal surges” or “climate change”—fancy phrases state media throws around—but simply because the drainage system has been strangled.

Now, instead of reclaiming those 750 hectares to expand Tan Son Nhat, officials concocted the narrative: “Tan Son Nhat is overloaded, so we must build Long Thanh.” In other words, those in charge created a problem only to sell their own “solutions”—solutions that are costly, irrational, yet hugely profitable for their cronies.

3. Crony Capitalism: When the State Becomes a Tool of Cliques

To understand why Tan Son Nhat is being strangled, we must revisit the concept of crony capitalism (3).

In a healthy society with democratic institutions, politics serves the people, while businesses operate according to market rules. But under crony capitalism, these two spheres secretly collude to carve up benefits, through shady deals between corrupt politicians and unscrupulous businessmen:

• Politicians need money but cannot directly do business.

• They use their power to channel projects, allocate budgets, and greenlight planning for their “backyard” companies.

• Those companies reap profits, then kick back “slices of the pie” to the policymakers.

Gradually, not just individuals but the entire ruling apparatus morphs into a political–economic mafia network. The state ceases to be “of the people, by the people, for the people,” and becomes a state “of the interest groups, by the interest groups, for the interest groups.” In such a system, every so-called “strategic plan” is nothing but a cover for looting public assets.

In this case, Long Thanh is the shiny “cover,” while the 750 hectares of golden land at Tan Son Nhat are the first juicy prize. Once Tan Son Nhat is stripped of its role and Long Thanh crowned the new hub, the entire 1,800 hectares of prime Saigon land will gradually fall into the hands of these cronies—“Anh Ba, Anh Tu,” and their cliques.

In a democracy, politicians serve the nation according to the will of the people. They dare not abuse power for personal gain, because once they lose the voters’ trust, they must resign and return to being ordinary citizens. By contrast, in a dictatorship—an authoritarian system—politics is not about serving the country but about exploiting power for illicit enrichment. Those in power cling to their seats solely to plunder, and corruption can never be eradicated. It simply mutates from one face to another, from the faction of “Anh Ba” to the faction of “Anh Tu.” That is why dictatorship and corruption are inseparable—two sides of the same coin.

The Long Thanh project is not an unsolvable issue. The original rationale was to “ease the load” on Tan Son Nhat (despite strong opposition from experts). Yet the most rational solution is simple: return the land seized for golf courses, and Tan Son Nhat could easily expand to handle 80 million passengers annually, while continuing to operate normally. Only when Tan Son Nhat truly reaches capacity should traffic gradually shift to Long Thanh. In reality, Tan Son Nhat handled 40 million passengers in 2023, and only 38 million in 2024. At this fluctuating rate, even a decade from now it may still not be overloaded.

But to “rescue their cronies,” the public is told that there is no option left but to immediately divert international routes to Long Thanh, while rushing to build connections between the two airports. Connections may be necessary—but are they urgent, when Tan Son Nhat still functions normally? If you, as a journalist, so much as “poke your nose” into this subject, the authoritarian machine will come crashing down on you—just like how Pol Pot’s gang, once fostered by China, unleashed terror. In such a regime, at any time, anywhere, the government sees you as the enemy. Why? Because by exposing the truth, you threaten to take away their share of the pie.

4. A Hundred-Year Vision Built with Patchwork, Fixing Mistakes as They Go

A major infrastructure project should be based on a hundred-year vision. But let’s look at reality:

• Metro Line 1 in Ho Chi Minh City: approved in 2007, started in 2008, scheduled to finish in 2018. After endless delays, only in 2024 did trial runs begin—17 years for 19 kilometers of track.

• Metro Line 2: approved in 2010, groundbreaking in 2025, projected completion by 2030. But who dares believe that projection?

• The HCMC–Long Thanh–Dau Giay expressway, just 55 km long, took 16 years to finish—yet was already congested the moment it opened.

In this context, Long Thanh is painted as a “project of the century.” But once the die is cast, people will suddenly realize: no metro connection, no high-speed rail, no proper transfer infrastructure. Traveling from Tan Son Nhat to Long Thanh takes 3–5 hours. Who would want to book a connecting flight under such conditions? This is not long-term vision—this is patchwork, fixing mistakes as they go (4).

The truth: Long Thanh looks beautiful on paper, but in reality it’s just a black hole for taxpayer money—bloated costs, endless overruns—while essential infrastructure for the people is neglected.

5. Solutions & Recommendations: Reclaim Public Infrastructure for the People

Facing this disaster, to protect national interests and stop the rampant crony-capitalist model, concrete and decisive actions are needed:

1. Return the 750 hectares to Tan Son Nhat. The golf course must be reclaimed immediately, restoring its original aviation function. This is the optimal solution: expand capacity while also fixing flooding caused by blocked drainage.

2. Stop the hidden scheme to “strangle Tan Son Nhat” by designating Long Thanh the central hub. The two airports must complement each other, not be forced into competition.

3. Make transparent all interests tied to Long Thanh. Publicly disclose contractors, investors, and financial terms so citizens can monitor.

4. Establish independent oversight for strategic infrastructure projects. We cannot allow the same apparatus to design, approve, implement, and supervise. That’s like players both kicking the ball and blowing the whistle! Oversight must include civil society, independent experts, and a free press.

5. Reform land policy at its root. As long as land remains “collectively owned, managed by the state,” it will remain fertile ground for corruption and cronyism. Legal mechanisms must prevent arbitrary conversion of public land, especially strategic assets like airports, seaports, and rail stations.

6. Conclusion: Crony Capitalism—the Road to Ruin

Under the slogan of building Long Thanh to advance toward “socialism,” the reality is the opposite: a political–economic mafia in action. Public assets are being carved up, infrastructure strangled, while citizens are left to shoulder public debt, traffic jams, and flooding (5).

This is not “progress toward socialism.” This is a plunge into ruin. The vultures of crony capitalism are tearing apart the flesh of this nation—its land, its infrastructure, its resources, and even its trust.

A nation can only rise when public infrastructure is protected as sacred assets, when the state truly belongs to the people, and when planning is based on long-term vision—not the short-sighted greed of interest groups.

Tan Son Nhat today is the test. If the people and conscientious managers remain silent, then tomorrow it won’t just be one airport being strangled—it will be the entire nation dragged into the abyss.

References:

(1) https://phapluatplus.baophapluat.vn/ro-dan-hinh-hai-sieu-du-an-san-bay-long-thanh-86628.html

(2) https://vietnamfinance.vn/dai-ta-phan-tuong–nguoi-tiep-quan-tan-son-nhat-sau-ngay-thong-nhat-d49765.html

(3) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism

(4) https://tienphong.vn/mat-5-tieng-di-chuyen-giua-san-bay-long-thanh-tan-son-nhat-thi-khong-ai-muon-dat-ve-post1755356.tpo

(5) https://tuoitre.vn/thiet-hai-hang-ti-usd-vi-ha-tang-qua-tai-nhung-giai-phap-tp-hcm-can-lam-ngay-20250807095909853.htm

Eighty Years Later

Yesterday, World War II ended effectively 80 years ago, when the Empire of Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers.

The War had begun with aggressions – by Germany on Poland and by Japan on Great Britain’s colony in Singapore and then on the U.S. The Japanese had previously invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China itself in 1937.

Such aggression had been outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. Frank Kellogg, then the U.S. Secretary of State, was a lawyer from St. Paul, Minnesota (his office was right down the street from where ours is now). Later and also from Minnesota, Charles Denny of ADC Telecommunications and Robert MacGregor of Dayton Hudson Corporation (now Target) took the lead in proposing the Caux Round Table Principles for Business, which have since been internationally recognized.

Today, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, affirmed by the Charter of the United Nations, has been violated by Russia in Ukraine and by Hamas in Gaza. Though Hamas is not a sovereign government, its obligations are nevertheless defined by a duty not to cross borders and kill the citizens of another country.

Aggressions, small or large, trigger wars which can be cruel and very destructive. Japan’s aggression led to the deaths 80 years ago this month of tens of thousands of non-combatants from the dropping of two atomic bombs.

The moral obligation not to act as an aggressor applies to all terrorists, no matter how righteous they believe themselves to be.

Some terrorists, in our time, have invoked their God as legitimating their aggressions. But if that God is the Allah whose will is revealed to us in the Qur’an, to no avail. Qur’an teaches, to me, that its God is one of mercy and compassion, that only its God – not you or me, not even his Prophet Muhammad – has authority to judge the fates of people, for better or worse. Qur’an affirms that the Prophet Muhammad was sent “only to warn.”

So, if we presume to usurp God’s privilege of judging others harshly without our having regard for his willingness to be merciful (which we cannot know), we elevate ourselves to be his equal in decision-making, which, according to Qur’an, is a heinous sin.

Today, President Donald Trump meets with President Vladimir Putin to discuss Russia’s aggression against the Ukrainian people. Will President Trump stand firm in upholding the moral ideal of no aggression, no time, no where? It would be the civilized thing to do.

“NOT CHOOSING SIDES BUT CHOOSING JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS” – CHANGING A FLAWED AND DANGEROUS FOREIGN POLICY PHILOSOPHY

Refusing to make a choice is putting a big boulder blocking Vietnam’s road to prosperity and happiness!

Dr. Dinh Hoang Thang, former ambassador of Vietnam, Fellow of Caux Round Table

Since the 13th Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam, one of the most frequently cited foreign policy principles has been the vacuous phrase:

“Vietnam does not choose sides, but chooses justice and righteousness.”

On the surface, this appears to be a noble and balanced position — one that affirms both independence and moral vision. But upon closer examination, this philosophy reveals fundamental contradictions and serious risks. In today’s deeply fractured world order, such an approach is no longer neutral — it is strategically dangerous, ethically inconsistent, and diplomatically self-defeating.

I. Justice and righteousness — defined by whom?

The key question is: Who defines “justice” and “righteousness”? Without a clear, objective, and internationally accepted standard, these terms become vague slogans — easily manipulated to serve narrow national or ideological interests.

For Vietnamese – who will decide what is “justice” and what is “righteousness”? Will Vietnam’s leaders. right now, remember Vietnam’s age-old traditions of virtue, morality, and righteousness?

In modern international relations, the only legitimate foundation for justice and righteousness is international law — especially the UN Charter, principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of aggressive war.

Yet in the face of Russia’s blatant invasion of Ukraine, Vietnam has remained silent, or worse, expressing implicit sympathy toward the aggressor. This undermines any credible claim to moral consistency. A policy that refuses to name wrongdoing is not choosing righteousness — it is choosing ambiguity at the expense of principle.

II. From victim to bystander: A historical contradiction

Vietnam’s 20th century was shaped by its struggle against colonialism, imperialism, and foreign invasion. From French and Japanese occupation, to American intervention, to border conflicts with China — Vietnam has long positioned itself as a victim of aggression, fighting for justice and sovereignty.

So why now, in the 21st century, when Russia uses force to annex territory and violate the sovereignty of another nation, does Vietnam choose silence?

How can Vietnam demand international support to defend its maritime sovereignty in the South China Sea, while refusing to condemn similar violations elsewhere? This is not principled neutrality — this is strategic contradiction.

III. The peril of not speaking with truth, of just using euphemisms: When aggressors are called “unknown vessels”

A troubling symptom of this flawed philosophy is the persistent use of ambiguous language to describe acts of aggression. Vietnamese media frequently refer to hostile incursions as the work of “strange ships” or “unknown countries.”

When Vietnamese fishermen are rammed by Chinese vessels in disputed waters, the reports speak only of “unidentified foreign ships.” When China’s Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil rig entered Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone, official statements avoided naming the violator.

This pattern reflects a deep fear of confrontation and a culture of self-censorship. By refusing to call an aggressor by name, the state abdicates its responsibility to protect its citizens and uphold national dignity.

Worse, it sends a dangerous message to both domestic and international audiences: that Vietnam is willing to tolerate violations of its sovereignty if the violator is powerful enough.

IV. Signs of internal reconsideration: Is strategic ambiguity losing favor?

Encouragingly, recent developments suggest there may be internal rethinking of this outdated foreign policy stance.

At a recent joint conference of Vietnam’s public security, defense, and foreign affairs sectors, newly appointed General Secretary To Lam notably did not repeat the “not choosing sides” mantra. Similarly, during the 80th anniversary of the diplomatic service, Foreign Minister Bui Thanh Son also omitted this phrase from his official remarks.

In a political system where every word is scrutinized, such omissions are not accidental — they may indicate a shift in internal consensus away from hollow neutrality toward more principled engagement.

V. The consequences of staying silent and vague

If Vietnam continues to cling to this foreign policy practice of being vague and evasive, it will face mounting risks:

Diplomatic isolation: Both democratic and authoritarian powers may view Vietnam as untrustworthy or opportunistic.

Loss of moral and legal credibility: Without consistency, Vietnam cannot expect the world to support its very legitimate claims in the South China Sea.

Erosion of international reputation: Strategic partners may question Vietnam’s commitment to international norms.

Loss of public trust: Citizens will rightly ask: Why does the government remain silent when our sovereignty is violated?

VI. Conclusion: Neutrality without principles is not diplomacy — it is denial

Vietnam urgently needs a clear, values-based foreign policy grounded in the rule of law and moral clarity. Countries like Finland, Lithuania, and Singapore have shown that small states can maintain independence while upholding principles — and earn global respect for doing so.

Vietnam cannot demand justice for itself while turning a blind eye to injustice elsewhere.

“Justice and righteousness,” without the framework of international law, are meaningless abstractions. And diplomacy without courage is nothing more than a shadow — a form without substance.

“Not choosing sides, but choosing justice and righteousness” — this euphemism, if left undefined — becomes little more than putting a big boulder blocking Vietnam’s road to prosperity and happiness!

An Interesting Case Study from Vietnam

Introduction:

Stephen B. Young, Global Executive Director, the Caux Round Table for Moral Capitalism

The following commentary presents a case study of the tension between a Moral Capitalism and a Crony Capitalism in a developing country, Vietnam. The defining characteristic of Crony Capitalism in the insertion of political power as a kind of “grey” property into business decision-making. The asset purchased by a business from the “Crony” is not land, labor, capital, or raw materials. It is permission to operate. Sometimes the permission is formal license from a public authority which is paid for, either legally, or corruptly. But sometimes the permission is private, unseen by the public or the market, a personal commitment either to manipulate political authority to favor the business or to prevent political authority from interfering in the business.

Economists refer to the mechanism of Crony Capitalism as “rent-extraction”. Those who use power on one kind or another, legally or illegally, to make money though rent-extraction are called rent-seekers.

Rent-seekers and rent-extraction violate the rules and practices of Moral Capitalism and Moral Government where public office is held as a trust to enhance the common good of the community.

The commentary argues that in Vietnam today what is produced in Vietnam – “Made in Vietnam” – should not finance rent-seeking by anyone. Chinese entrepreneurs should not be able to buy permission to make Chinese goods in Vietnam and pass them off as Vietnamese goods reflecting the skills and efforts of Vietnamese.

The Commentary asks Why are powerful people pushing sales of certain products and not others? Who will compensate them for this effort? If their favored companies gain a monopoly or a disproportionate share of the market, such companies can force the Vietnamese people to pay monopoly prices – to pay “rents” to those who hold power.

The Commentary is available at: https://chantroimoimedia.com/2025/08/05/hang-viet-xe-viet-va-cau-chuyen-ep-dan-yeu-vuong-vin/amp/

VIETNAMESE PRODUCTS, VIETNAMESE EVs, AND THE FORCED “LOVE” FOR VINFAST

Loving your country doesn’t mean loving a product made with 70% Chinese parts!

Author: Trần Trung Thực

What does “Made in Vietnam” truly mean? Ideally, it should refer to products created by Vietnamese people, infused with Vietnamese intellect and labor, serving the Vietnamese community, and contributing to the nation’s goal of sustainable, self-reliant development.

Unfortunately, today, the concept of “Vietnamese goods” is being narrowed, even distorted. Instead of supporting locally made, accessible products, all attention and resources—from media to policies and even subtle forms of coercion—are being funneled into promoting a single model: the Vietnamese electric vehicle.

The pressing question is: Why, at this point in time, has the conversation shifted from broadly supporting “Vietnamese products” to solely pushing for one very specific, very expensive item that’s out of reach for most working-class citizens: VinGroup’s electric scooters?

From the 3-million-dong bike to the 40-million-dong e-scooter – blatant imposition

Let’s face reality: Most workers, students, laborers, and street vendors in Vietnam still rely on traditional motorbikes—used ones can cost as little as 3–5 million VND. They’re easy to fix, simple to use, and well-suited to both the terrain and the modest income of the average Vietnamese.

Yet in recent years, a massive media campaign has been in full swing to glorify “Vietnamese” electric vehicles—sleek, clean, high-tech machines, priced at 30–40 million VND apiece, not including battery replacements, charging, and maintenance.

Alongside this PR push are policy proposals to ban gasoline vehicles, recall older models, raise environmental taxes, and most recently, Resolution 68. Yes, promoting green transport and reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But why is only one type of vehicle—produced by one major corporation—being touted as the national symbol, the “Vietnamese dream,” and the only acceptable path forward?

Policy lobbying—or aggressive market interference?

This is no longer a matter of free market dynamics. When policies are tailored to pave the way for one specific product, we must speak up. Lobbying is not new—but when it escalates into indirect coercion of consumers, via policy pressure, inflated propaganda, and limited alternatives, then we’re no longer talking about fair competition but engineered monopoly.

Who’s behind voices like Trần Đình Thiên?

Recently, Trần Đình Thiên—a figure once sarcastically nicknamed “Trần Huyên Thuyên” (Trần the Rambler) for his often lofty, ungrounded public statements—has again stirred controversy. He openly and enthusiastically advocates for Vietnamese EVs, declaring them the inevitable future.

But it’s his most recent comment that truly raises eyebrows:

> “Joining hands to support Vietnamese EVs is how each of us can show our patriotism.”

This statement eerily echoes a dangerous old slogan:

> “To love your country is to love socialism.”

History has shown us that when patriotism is hijacked to serve specific political, economic, or ideological agendas, the result is often division, coercion, and public disillusionment. Patriotism should never be reduced to favoring one brand—nor should it ever become a mandatory sentiment.

Let’s define Vietnamese goods—clearly and honestly

It’s important that readers understand what qualifies as a “Vietnamese product.” Yes, it may be labeled “Made in Vietnam,” but more importantly, it must have substantial local value-added content—meaning the parts, labor, intellectual property, and supply chain are predominantly Vietnamese.

Take Trung Nguyên coffee, for instance: grown, processed, and packaged entirely in Vietnam, exported to over 200 countries and territories. Or the Vietnamese catfish industry, which, though using feed from CP (a Thai-owned firm in Vietnam), still produces fundamentally local products.

In contrast, VinFast electric scooters reportedly consist of over 70% imported components. The remaining 30% “Vietnamese” portion includes things like food service, driver wages, utility bills, and land use—not core manufacturing.

Governments should encourage investment in local supply chains and supporting industries—that’s good policy. But once a product hits the market, it is the consumer who decides. No government, ministry, or academic has the right to promote one product while disparaging others. That violates the basic principles of fair competition.

Don’t forget: major brands like Honda, Suzuki, Hyundai, and Kymco all operate manufacturing facilities in Vietnam. Their products also count as Vietnamese-made.

Patriotism is not about endorsing a product made of 70% Chinese parts—especially if it’s inferior in both price and quality compared to its competitors.

—

Final thoughts

Dear Mr. Trần Đình Thiên,

Dear economic advisors,

Dear those holding the reins of media and policy:

Please, let the people choose what fits their lives. If electric vehicles are truly good, the market will choose them. But if they don’t suit the income, infrastructure, or reality of most Vietnamese citizens, then don’t force this love on us.

> “Loving someone, when forced, can hurt them tenfold.”

And that’s exactly what’s happening!