Category: Commentary

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025: The Promise and the Gap

Stephen B. Young,

Former Dean and Professor of Law, Hamline University School of Law

Executive Summary

Eighty years after the 1945 Declaration of Independence, the ideals of freedom and democracy remain unfulfilled. In his September 2, 2025 speech at Ba Đình Square, General Secretary Tô Lâm projected both nationalist rhetoric and ideological loyalty. This duality underscores the enduring disconnect between promises and realities in Vietnam’s governance. The address reflected Vietnam’s structural crises: political mistrust, social disintegration, and geopolitical dependence. Absent genuine reform, Vietnam risks further entrenchment within authoritarian blocs and the erosion of its long-claimed independence.

1. A Tô Lâm “Walking Two Roads” or “standing at a crossroads”?

At the outset, Tô Lâm surprised observers by employing language rarely used by senior Communist leaders: “the sacred spirit of the nation,” “the nation’s eternity,” “my people,” “my fatherland.” His repeated use of the pronoun “I” rather than “we” or “our Party” lent his speech a veneer of intimacy. It created the impression of a leader speaking as part of the national community rather than as the faceless embodiment of Party machinery. 

Later in his National Day speech, To Lam also spoke of “Vietnameseness” – “dân tộc ta trường tồn”; “Đất nước Việt Nam trường tồn”

This intentional use of “Vietnameseness” established a moral foundation for elevating the Vietnamese people as the heart and soul of Vietnam.  Most auspiciously, To Lam spoke of “đặt lợi ích … của Nhân dân lên trên hết, trước hết” (put benefiting the people first and above all else); “sức mạnh lòng dân” strength from the hearts of the people; and “Vinh quang mãi mãi thuộc về Nhân dân.” (forever and ever honor belongs to the people).

By elevating the importance of the Vietnamese people, General Secretary To Lam implies that the duty of the Party and the Government is to serve the people by delivering prosperity, peace, democracy, and equality.

For many listeners, this rhetorical shift offers a meaningful signal of potential change—a glimmer of hope that leadership thinking might evolve.

Yet the more significant feature was his indecision – which road should he take – the old, familiar one, or the new progressive one. The General Secretary recognized public exhaustion with lifeless slogans, and thus may have turned to populist phrasing to capture goodwill. But populism at the top, absent concrete policy, is hollow. If limited to pronouns and decorative words, it is merely a fresh coat of paint on a wall already crumbling from within.

2. Repeating the Old Formulas

After this novel opening, the address quickly defaulted to familiar ideological templates: “National independence must be tied to socialism” and “steadfast adherence to Marxism–Leninism and Hồ Chí Minh Thought.” The backbone of the speech was therefore the same outdated ideology—despite eight decades of evidence that such a model has not delivered liberty, democracy, or prosperity for the Vietnamese nation as revered Ho Chi Minh had promised 80 years ago.

Here the contradiction is most evident: invoking “my fatherland” and “my people” while simultaneously clinging to the mantra “the Party above all, ideology above all.”

This invites an unavoidable question: which socialism is still being defended? Beijing’s authoritarian centralism, Pyongyang’s stagnation, or the democratic socialism of Scandinavia? Vietnam’s reality—one-party dominance, a pervasive security apparatus, an economy dependent on external powers, and systemic corruption—suggests an uncomfortable hybrid: the ambition to govern in Beijing’s mold, mixed with cheap populist appeals.  Or is this socialism – even in China – not much more than a crony capitalism?

3. Why This Dual Messaging?

The answer lies in Vietnam’s present crises. In an open letter to Tô Lâm, a civil society representative identified three interconnected breakdowns :

  • Political trust crisis: Public confidence in leadership has eroded. Corruption trials, factional struggles, and opaque personnel decisions have alienated citizens.
  • Moral and social crisis: The wealth gap continues to widen. Officials live in extravagance while workers endure hardship. Moral values erode, faith falters, and social cohesion weakens.
  • Foreign policy crisis: Vietnam is squeezed between the U.S. and its Western allies on one side, and China and Russia on the other. It lacks both the independence to stand alone and the clarity to select a reliable strategic partner.

In such circumstances, Tô Lâm must “walk two roads”: appealing to domestic audiences with nationalist terms like “Vietnameseness” and “people,” while reassuring Party cadres with slogans of Marxism–Leninism. 

But such dual messaging will not end the crises of political trust or moral and social discontent.

Yet a strategy of dual messaging, if prolonged, risks self-deception and inaction, leaving the country more vulnerable to missteps and deeper crises.

4. Diplomatic Personnel as a Strategic Signal  Unresolved: the Diplomatic Crisis

On the eve of National Day, Vietnam quietly changed its foreign minister. At first glance, this appeared a technical adjustment. In reality, it was a decision with potentially far-reaching implications for Tô Lâm’s tenure. Diplomacy has become Vietnam’s principal tool for survival in an increasingly polarized international environment, and the individual at its helm often shapes life-saving foreign policy trajectories.

Both outgoing minister Bùi Thanh Sơn and his successor Lê Hoài Trung were educated in the United States. But their political orientations differ. Trung, a more enigmatic figure, has long been rumored to enjoy favor from Beijing. If such assessments are correct, this personnel shift was not merely an exchange of officials but a signpost of Vietnam’s potential drift toward the China–Russia orbit—despite rhetorical commitments to “diversification and multilateralism.”

Placed alongside the tepid welcome Tô Lâm has received from Washington, and Beijing’s open embrace—underscored by the nearly simultaneous appearances of President Lương Cường and Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính in China—this adjustment reads as sends a warning signal. Vietnam’s balancing act increasingly tilts toward one pole, one not  very eager to promote Vietnameseness.

5. Pressure from China–Russia and the BRICS Dilemma

One day before National Day, Beijing accorded Prime Minister Chính an elaborate reception, sending an unmistakable message: China seeks Vietnam’s alignment within its anti-Western bloc. Russia, increasingly isolated after the Ukraine war, is likewise pressing Vietnam toward BRICS.

The central question follows: if Vietnam were to join BRICS, what would remain of “multilateralism”? Such a step would close off paths of integration with the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Economic dependence on China and Russia would soon translate into diminished political independence.

This is the “headband of control” Beijing seeks to tighten around Vietnam’s leadership. Even if Tô Lâm wishes to innovate, the pressure from abroad is immense and the room for maneuver extremely limited.

6. An Imaginary Dialogue: Party Rhetoric and Civil Society

Viewed together, Tô Lâm’s speech and the civil society open letter put two sides of an historic national dialogue before the Vietnamese people:

  • The official speech offered phrases such as “I—my people—my fatherland—the eternal nation,” but which, despite their novel tone, were coupled with familiar ideological formulae.
  • The open letter reminded us all: “Power endures only when it builds trust. Legitimacy cannot be imposed; it must be conferred by the people.”
  • While Tô Lâm struggles to balance Party factions and foreign pressures, civil society underscores a different measure: legitimacy derives solely from the citizenry. That truth has yet to be realized—whether in 1945 or in 2025.

7. Conclusion: The Persistent Gap

The 80th anniversary of National Day should have been a moment to celebrate national achievements and, more importantly, to realize the unfinished promise of the 1945 Declaration: “Vietnam has the right to be free and independent, and in fact has become a free and independent country.”

Instead of freedom and democracy, citizens witnessed a tightening power structure. Instead of independence, the country faces mounting dependence on Beijing. Instead of reconciliation, society is increasingly divided.

Tô Lâm’s September 2, 2025, speech simultaneously revealed a desire for renewal and the inability to escape the constraints of ideology and foreign pressure. He sought to “say something different,” but remained too tethered to tired and ineffective old formulas.

From Ba Đình 1945 to Ba Đình 2025, the gap between ideal and reality has remained unchanged: promises on one side, hard facts on the other. Unless Vietnam breaks free from authoritarian alliances and undertakes democratic reform, history will not remember Tô Lâm as the leader who opened a new era, but rather as one who squandered a unique opportunity to lead the nation out of darkness.

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.”

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).

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!

Minneapolis: Democratic Socialism or Moral Capitalism?

It’s quite frustrating that in 2025, well-intentioned people can still believe in socialism.  It’s as if they can’t learn from history or reason properly from who we are as human persons capable of ideals, but also enamored of self-promoting conceits and power trips.

Last Thursday, the Star Tribune published a commentary of mine on moral capitalism as the much better alternative to Omar Fateh’s democratic socialism.

My essay is here.

For those who hit a paywall, here it is:

How about Moral Capitalism, Instead of Democratic Socialism, for Minneapolis?

The much better alternative to Omar Fateh’s straight-jacketed capitalism is a moral capitalism – one born and raised in Minnesota.

Fateh can’t get rid of capitalism.  If he were to do that, who would then create the wealth needed to pay for everybody’s wants?

No, wealth creation is fundamental to human well-being and happiness.

To experience a moral capitalism is a piece of cake.  All you have to do is find a moral code that works for people and guides their economic behaviors.

Actually, there is one on the shelf.  It is Adam Smith’s first book, Theory of Moral Sentiments.  In that book, Smith observed that people have the capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others through empathy or what he called “sympathy.”  Today, we would call that conscience.  It is like having an observer inside you somewhere between your amygdala and your pre-frontal cortex, an impartial evaluator of your actions from the perspective of a good greater than your unenlightened self-interest.

Once you put your conscience directed self-interest to work in capitalism, you discover how dependent you are on stakeholders – no customers, you are bankrupt; incompetent or malingering employees and you are also bankrupt; no investors, no lenders, you are bankrupt as well; putrid raw materials or worthless supplies – same result.  And live in a dysfunctional, violent, corrupt, society with filthy streets, you will have few customers, few investors, unproductive employees and no law and order – a proven formula for poverty and failure.  Your community is another stakeholder to nourish with due care.

Thus, a moral capitalism puts care of stakeholders first.

If you combine into one system Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, you will have brought forth a moral capitalism

We might think of markets and money as the tangible parts of a moral capitalism and the caring management of stakeholders as the intangible part.

To manage both as one system, you just need to add intangibles to accounting.

First, put employees on the balance sheet as an asset.  Good employees are noted with a high number; unproductive employees with a low number.  The higher your asset number is, the more you are providing a moral capital.

For sales, add an intangible asset of reputation.

For access to investors, calculate the net present value of expected future income, discounted by risk of failure to care for stakeholders.  High risk of failure means low present value; low risk of future failure justifies a high present value.  Having a high present value will attract the enlightened self-interest of equity investors and lenders.

You can measure the quality of your employees with an assessment questionnaire.  You can measure the probability of customer purchases with such an assessment.  And the same for all other stakeholders.

If you do this, what will Omar Fateh and other “holier-than-thou” Democratic socialists have to complain about?

If he replies with griping about lack of access to wealth and cavils that there is no ethic of care to provide subsidies and entitlements to those who want them, you can ask: “What have those who want their wants attended to ever done to turn themselves into a social asset housing beneficial human capital, with skills to be a worthy contributor to our common destiny and so not be just a free rider?”

The Qur’an instructs us that each human person was born to be a khalifa – a faithful steward of God in his creation.  As persons, then, we have duties to others and to ourselves to work and contribute.  Jewish tradition speaks of this as tikkun olam – repairing the world.  In Catholic social teachings, we are “co-creators” with God of this world and our lives in it.  For Protestants, we seek vocations so that we might serve dutifully as ministers of the Almighty.  For Buddhists, we should seek the Noble Eightfold Way of right living, which is finding a middle way between self and other.

All these wisdom traditions point to a moral capitalism as our best calling.

What Goes Up…

I saw recently in the Wall Street Journal that a lot of cash is being invested in start-up companies, which will use the money to buy bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

This is a market bet on rising prices – i.e. future demand from as yet unknown consumers for crypto as an asset they want to own.

Here is the chart:

I found with a Google inquiry that:

  • There are 17,134 total cryptocurrencies.
  • The total market cap of all cryptocurrencies is $1.32 trillion.
  • The trading volume of all cryptocurrencies, per 24 hours, is currently $172 billion.
  • Bitcoin has the highest current market cap at approximately $650 billion – around 3x its closest rival, Ethereum.

The crypto market cap has been rising impressively:

But there was once a market mania for tulip bulbs in Holland:

And then there was the South Sea Bubble in the London Stock market in which Sir Isaac Newton lost his fortune:

And there was once an enthusiastic buying of stocks on Wall Street:

And within living memory, sub-prime mortgages soaked up a lot of money to be sold to willing buyers:

So, perhaps the best lesson to learn from history is to have caution about the quality of judgment which buyers have when money markets look most appetizing.

When something looks too good to be true, most likely it will not be worth the money in the long run.  But is that capitalism systemically creating wealth or just imperfect human nature at work when dazzled by the prospect of making easy money?

Once More into the Breach, Dear Friends, Once More…

Shakespeare’s Henry V spoke thus to rally his English to charge (from his perspective) the rascally French in Harfleur.  He drew a line between fatalistic acceptance and taking action:

In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger; …
The game’s afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’

I ran across yet another commentary, “ChatGPT’s Mental Health Costs Are Adding Up”, that we need to draw some line with AI in order to protect our heritage and our intelligence.

I have recently used ChatGPT and it went inventive on me: writing up its own conclusion to a chapter I had written on moral capitalism.  A reasonable conclusion, to be sure, but not mine.

Want Students to Grow Their Brains Wholesomely? Lock Up Their Phones!

I recently sent you two comments on the malign effects of TikTok and other “attention bewitching” short videos – free to viewers, but revenue-generating to companies.

Here is a proposal from Mary Ellen Klas, policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, on how to stop the spread of these de-socializing electronic depressants: “Want Students to Thrive? Lock Up Their Phones”:

There are few things most American politicians seem to agree upon, but banning mobile phones in classrooms seems to be one of them.  Based on the experiences of some schools that have required students to prioritize learning over TikTok scrolling, there’s also a welcome side benefit: less conflict and more “hellos.”

When school starts this fall, students in most U.S. states and D.C. will be required by law to turn over or turn off their smartphones during all or most of the school day, according to an Education Week tally.

Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Utah have statewide bans.  Another 24 states have adopted rules or laws that require restrictions on mobile phones, but leave it up to school districts to decide whether to ban them or not.  Two states offer districts incentives to restrict phones. Another seven recommend local districts enact their own restrictions.

The methods and policy details vary widely between states, but the reasons for silencing phones are pretty universal.  A growing body of research has found that the more time children and their developing brains spend on smartphones, the greater the risk of negative mental health outcomes — from depression, to cyberbullying, to an inability to focus and learn.

Social media is intentionally designed “to expose users to an endless stream of content” which makes it addictive, said Carol Vidal, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.  That’s especially risky for children and teens, she said, “because their brains are still developing and they have less control over their impulses.” …

The idea of severing the phone from the classroom not only has legislators and governors in red and blue states giving it near-unanimous support, a 2024 survey by Pew Research found that 68% of U.S. adults support a ban on smartphone use among middle and high school students during class.

But a ban, in theory, is not the same as putting it into practice, especially for the large numbers of parents worried about being unable to contact their kids during the school day.

That’s something Principal Inge Esping noticed when she barred phones from classrooms at McPherson Middle School in Kansas, an hour north of Wichita.  In 2022, when Esping started as the school’s principal, she noticed that the spike in online bullying among students was happening during the school day.

“Middle schoolers are a little notorious for when they’re trying to make fun of someone,” she told me.  “They’ll take a picture of the person that they’re making fun of and share that via social media — especially during lunchtime.’’

Absences and suspensions were rising, with too many students staying home either because they feared confronting their bullies or because they were bullying others.  She and her staff decided to impose a rule in the 2022–23 school year requiring students to turn off their phones and store them in their lockers from the first bell to the last.

With few exceptions, children who had grown up with mobile phones “simply accepted it,” Esping said.  It was their parents who protested.

“I don’t think we really realized how much parents were reaching out to their students during the school day,” Esping recalled.  Many parents feared being unable to communicate with their children during school hours, particularly in an era of school shootings.  Others didn’t trust the school to notify them when their child needed them, she said.

She and her colleagues then embarked on an ambitious plan to persuade parents of the value of keeping phones out of reach during school hours.  She organized back-to-school events to increase communication, engaged more parents in volunteer and visiting opportunities and refined the school’s alert system that notifies families when there’s an emergency.

As parents grew to accept the new system, the results for their children were dramatic.  In the first year, the school saw a 5% increase in their state assessment scores in both reading and math. School suspensions dropped 70% by Christmas and have remained at half the rate they were before the ban.  And absenteeism went down from 39% to 11% — because taking phones away prevented many of the harmful social media comments that kept bullied kids from coming to school.

Other school districts with mobile phone restrictions reported similar results in student discipline.  A year after the Orange County School District in Florida implemented its phone ban in 2023, fighting went down 31% and “serious misconduct” issues decreased by 21%, Superintendent Maria Vazquez told Florida lawmakers in January. …

But for teachers, the most tangible difference has been the “huge vibe change,” said Esping, who was named Kansas Middle School Principal of the Year in April.  Teachers reported that students were now more engaged — in the classroom and school corridors.

“The year before the phone ban, you’d say ‘hello’ to a student and they would ignore you and move on because they’re so tied to their cell phone,” Esping told me.  But after the ban, “kids were looking up and talking to one another,” especially in the lunchroom and as students transitioned between classes.  “When you’d say, ‘good morning’ to them, they’d say ‘good morning’ back.”

As always, students may be teaching the rest of the nation something here.  Maybe more smartphone bans are exactly what we need.