RSF strikes a discordant note regarding press freedom in Vietnam

Founded in 1985, the Paris-based organisation takes Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for its action, with the aim of protecting press freedom internationally, fighting censorship and pressure, and helping detained journalists.

But contrary to the UN line and its stated principles, the RSF has often made false allegations and distorted the situation of freedom of the press and freedom of speech in several countries, including Vietnam. It has used flattering words to publicly defend those who have committed crimes and have been criminally prosecuted in the name of journalism, such as Pham Doan Trang, Pham Chi Dung, Nguyen Lan Thang, and Le Trong Hung. It has labeled them “independent journalists” to politicise and internationalise the issue of freedom of the press in the country, thereby seeking to discredit and call for international intervention in the internal affairs of Vietnam.

Claiming to protect the world’s press in a scientific manner, the RSF has so far failed to introduce the concept of “independent journalists” or clarify the connotation of “freedom of the press” specifically and clearly as a basis for its judgments. With this approach, its assessments are always prescriptive, lacking objectivity and transparency.

The RSF uses this as an excuse to call for freedom for anti-State instigators, which is truly a big mistake and shows a lack of respect for the strictness of the law of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Pham Doan Trang, Pham Chi Dung, Nguyen Lan Thang, Le Trong Hung, or anyone else living in the country must comply with the provisions of local law. Whilst acting in the name of “independent journalists” they cannot stand above the law, particularly as they have taken advantage of democratic freedom and freedom of the press to spread false and harmful information or produce and release publications against the Party and State.

As a matter of fact, the arrest and handling of these instigators was duly carried out in accordance with the law. Litigation agencies considered all of the defendants’ acts and consequences, including complete evidence, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances of criminal liability before then handing down sentences. Despite this, the defendants continued to commit crimes in a more and more dangerous and aggressive manner regardless of educational, counselling, and administrative measures. Therefore, the claim that Vietnam detains journalists ‘arbitrarily’ can be seen as false.

By focusing too much on defending those labelled as “independent journalists”, RSF always ignores the undeniable truth of freedom of the press that exists in the country. According to the Ministry of Information and Communications, as of December 2023, Vietnam had 127 newspaper agencies, 671 magazine agencies, and 72 television and radio stations. Approximately 41,000 people were working in journalism, including 16,500 in the radio and television broadcasting industry. More than 20,000 journalists have been accredited with a Press Card for the 2021 - 2025 term. The achievements Vietnam has recorded in promoting freedom of the press and freedom of speech have been recognised by reputable countries and international organisations.

The Vietnamese press has truly become a speech forum and tool for protecting the freedom and interests of people of social strata. All people, regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, and religion have the right to speak, express their wishes, and contribute opinions to Party committees and authorities at all levels through the press. Thanks to closely following and promptly reporting events, the press has played a good role as a critic, thereby bringing about social changes. This is objective reality about the situation of freedom of the press domestically, countering RSF’s distorted claims that freedom of the press is gradually worsening.

Among the 36 dissidents raised by the RSF, some used to be journalists and worked at press agencies, but due to lawbreaking, their press cards were revoked. Many other cases were not journalists but instead they took advantage of digital platforms to write articles and produce video clips that distort the truth in the country. Therefore, equating these cases to ‘arresting journalists’ and ‘suppressing the press’ is contrary to the nature of the matter. Indeed, the RSF’s misleading and dishonest reflection about freedom of the press and its advocacy for those dissidents is out of place and has absolutely no value in any aspect.