ReliigiousPolicy
Bt Van Nguyen
The Reaction
Bt Van Nguyen
The Reaction
In general, the most significant originality of the
ordinance consists in the efforts to accomplish the compilation of the project,
furnishing certain specific definitions and terms for the project. The term
“religion” is defined as a community of people, the “Church,” a composition of
clergy, certain other persons of responsibility, and the establishments for
cult. There is no mention as far as the faithful is concerned. The project
shows sheer embarrassment, grouping under the same category “nha tu hanh” the
clergy of different religions. The term only suggests vague appellations,
implying certain devout personalities or laymen who consecrate to religious
services or performances of hermits who mainly conduct religious services and performance
at home. The project contains at best the elements that are already prescribed
in previously-issued administrative orders and decrees. It draws comments,
observations, and criticisms, mostly from members of the clergy of all faiths.
The clergy, in general, show more concerns about the
restrictions against the religions of life clergy, and laity. The impression
was that they are treated as second class citizens under the tutelage of the
State. They are subject to strict control, from ordination to displacement. Services
and activities are performed under directions of the Party and State. While,
within the framework of socialism, an individual, a group, or organization is
allowed to operate an educational establishment at any levels, a Church is not.
The contribution of the religions in this domain is carefully limited to
maternal education. The authoritative and paternal conduct of affairs adopted
by the State with regard to the religions in this domain is anything but
rigorous regime of a totalitarian monarchy, and that is totally contradictory
to the moral tenets characteristic of the human person, and of the cultural
values of the whole Vietnamese society
The Remarks
The official press of the Communist regime still had
not published the text of or the draft of the ordinance on religion. As the
weekly “Catholicism and Nation” cautioned
without comment priests who were in possession of the document not to disclose
this possession to the press. The test should be first revised by the Permanent
Committee of the National Assembly. Nevertheless, the diffusion continues to
spread as it involuntarily aroused waves of criticism in the religious milieus.
A chain reaction of the clergy is followed by a series of remarks of the
bishops of the ecclesiastic province of Ho Chi Minh City, The well-known Redemptories
Chan Tin exclaimed: “A new beaker for
an old alcohol.” The Redemptories pries
resented an analysis in which he stressed that, even if the dispositions in
draft are more flexible than those in the Decree 26/1999/ND-CP that proceeded,
they still provoke a source of violations on religious freedom and serve as an
instrument of oppression against the believers of diverse religions.
Remarks by the
Reverend Chan Tin
The remarks first appeared in an article on the
second issue of the news review Tin Nha (Letters from Home). It summed up the
context of the new governmental document on religions, relating it to the
provisions in the Decree 26 April 26, 1999. It called to mind, in particular,
the Letter of Opinions of the Episcopal Conference, in October 1999 according
to which the prelates noted that this decree constitutes a contradiction to
fact with regard to religious freedom. With firm determination, on September 5,
1990, the priest himself and other religious personalities signed for this
purpose, an “Appeal for Religious
Freedom.” Because of numerous ambiguous dispositions, the government might stop
the application of the decree. As a result, the actual draft came in to fill
the gap left by the impracticability of the decree. Nonetheless, the new draft failed
in its attempt to renew the policy on religions of the government.
To justify his remarks, the priest enumerated elements
that constitute true religious freedom. This enumeration constitutes a list of
rights which the adepts of diverse religions in Vietnam have demanded for many
years. As a case in evidence, Article 4 of the Constitution of Vietnam, the
principal source of all violations of human rights and religious freedom, is a
point in evidence. It arbitrarily declares that the Communist Party is “the
leading force of the country and society.”
Obligations in all forms are required
all to obtain permission, from recollection of money for charity to
ordination, nomination, and displacement of the personnel of the Church. Indications
of false promises are self-evident. The draft foresees the restitution to the
Church all the properties that the government has confiscated or those that the
Church had to “offer” under threat, in particular, schools and hospitals. The
right to open schools and conduct social work to meet the needs of the
population should be rendered to the religions. That is mere hypocrisy. Errors
and mistake should be rectifies, instead. Repressive measures must be spared, and
just and fair conduct of affairs should be honored. It is urgent now to
suppress the religion entity of the citizen on the identification card, which constitutes
an unacceptable measure of discrimination. It is equally necessary to put an
end to the mandatory indoctrination of Marxism-Leninism to high-school and
college students. The priest remarked that, in almost all schools in the world,
the obligation of the students to follow classes of catechism has been
suppressed. The imposition of indoctrination of Marxism-Leninism in schools in
Vietnam appears to be particularly retrograding. (A New Review in Saigon
Criticizes the Draft of the Legislative Code on Religions (EDA 327)
Remarks by a
Member of the Catholic Clergy in Saigon
The provisions in the draft posed serious
counter-arguments among which were the reflections of a member of the Catholic
Clergy of Ho Chi Minh City who asked anonymity. The text is as follows:
The first chapters of the draft of an ordinance on
religions elaborated by the Bureau of Religious Affairs were sent to the clergy
for consultation so that they could express opinions on the subject. The text,
dated December 25, 2000, on Christmas day, was addressed to the Episcopal
Conference of Vietnam. The clergy of diverse dioceses of the country were only informed
of a consultation by the time they assembled for a meeting. They were asked to
send feedback on the project before January 24, 2001, the date on which the
document must be submitted to the Permanent Office of National Assembly for
judgment and decision. Below are the reflections of a clergy on the future ordinance.
"Being
neither an expert in the laws study nor a specialist in the compilation of
legislative texts, I simply would like to express some reflections and remarks
concerning the ordinance-draft on religions. My first considerations are:
1. The
draft comes into existence after successive decrees on religions, all of which
are destined to guarantee the freedom of faith of the citizen,
2. The
main objective of the draft is brought forwards to the knowledge of the
interested for opinions. That is a step forwards compared with the work-process
of preceding decrees. Unfortunately, the time devoted to this consultation is
very short. Therefore, the consultation would not benefit the magnitude of
participants who would have been allowed to bring in contributions.
My general impression of the draft is that nothing
changes. The National Assembly will be able to prepare and vote for that relatively
comprehensive law in appreciation of the religious circles for their
contributions to the project, but what will happen after that? If the law comes
into effect, it will not be carried out without effectiveness if it is as impracticable
as incomprehensible? Worse still, it will be coercively applied, and carried
out in an erroneous manner?
Pitfalls
If I
consider that I am oppressed, that my liberty of faith and religion is not
respected, and will I be allowed to complain? That is a question that poses
itself a problem not only in the domain of religion but also in other domains
in the press, in our journals, for instance. There are people who voiced
complaints some ten years ago abut receiving no other things than “redoubtable
silence” (the vocabulary term used by
Party Secretary-general Nguyen Van Linh) from the authorities. Should we wait
for the State to find the cause of these complaints until the population could
provide an answer with placards in a sit-in demonstration? We resent for the
unjust treatment of the State against us. We are given a statute that is quite
"bizarre." There is no coherent and clear distinction between the
three powers, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. In democratic
countries, these three powers are independent from one another to guarantee
impartiality of the law. This confusion of these three powers bears the
negative aspects of the law, leading to dictatorship and creating injustices.
The Liberty of Expression
Our rights
to liberty of expression are restricted. The operation of journals is subject
to the directives or control of the government. We have heard of the issuance
of a common letter of the Episcopal Conference on this subject. As always, in
order to be diffused, a review is bound to undergo censorship. We are thus
placed in the situation where the State shoots on the ball as a player and
blows the whistle as an arbiter in a soccer game. This situation entails
negative aspects: the population loses confidence; those who don’t like the regime
have an occasion to cry out; the religious believers feel like an object of
discrimination, to be second class citizens. Those who are ready to welcome the
issuance of an ordinance are few, and the praise for the objective of the draft
is deemed to be superfluous.
Discrimination and Injustice
It is not without foundation we speak of
discrimination and the sentiment of being a second class citizen. Here are some
facts:
- Being
treated as second class citizens, when going abroad, the religious and priests
all face with unfavorable conditions imposed on them. They have to solicit
authorization from the Office of Religious Affairs of the Fatherland Front.
Why? A session of religious study is subject to prior authorization, while a
session of study organized for the personnel of an enterprise is not? A session
of professional study of a teaching staff of a school has to be registered? A
family reunion has to be registered?
-When
people assemble “outside the limits
of the establishment of cult, they have to apply for authorization. We conceive
that the establishment of cult is a church, a temple, and so on. Thus, if
religious activities can only take place inside a church, rites and rituals of religious
services are then simplified to some acts of preceding the ceremony with only
one celebrant who performs the rites of offerings to God.
- Would
it be necessary only to receive religious books by mail? Why are pontifical
benedictions properties confiscated at their arrival? Do they belong to the
categories of novice literature that pose questions? Certainly not, but the
answer is: “This application pertains to the prescriptions of the law of the
State.”
Nomination
The nomination and displacement of the religious
personnel require approval of the competent organ of the State. Why, then? Are they afraid that these religious people
take advantage of their position to conduct illegal activities? If this were the case, the State suffices to
apply the law to punish them. Besides, there is no religious organization that
makes much of a choice to make a competent person to accomplish diverse
functions of a Church at a time. The
reality is: State authorities intentionally
intervene in the internal affairs of the Church, manipulate the Church
personnel, and transform religious organizations into their instruments.
Cultural and Humanitarian Activities
Concerning
cultural and humanitarian activities, the law regulates that “religious
organizations as well as individuals can open maternal schools, boarding houses
for handicapped children or orphanages in conformity with the legislation on
education.” Why are they restricting educational services to maternal schools? Is
it a controversy over when the State advocates socialization of education? Socialization
is only materialized with the participation of all segments of the society in
the educational tasks with financial means and mind and heart of all citizens.
Why do the authorities restrict the participation of religious organizations
while private economic and administrative organizations are allowed to open
secondary schools and universities?
We do not
intend to analyze the entirety of the draft. We only present a number of points
that create problems and that foster negative sentiments and grief’s making the
believers think they are only second class citizens.
The Lack of Transparency of the Project
In all,
we think that the prescriptions provided in the text of law has to be clear; it
has also to be concise to avoid what may engender obscure or arbitrary
interpretations. We would like to allow ourselves to present some remarks on
the fundamental principle marked Number 2 on page 1: “The religions in Vietnam
conduct their activities in the framework of the constitution and legislation
of the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The State guarantees the
religious activities accomplished in the framework of legitimate and legal
interests of the faithful. It encourages the religious activities accomplished
for the Fatherland and the people. It respects and exalts cultural and moral
values which it adopts to the building of the new society and religion.”
In our opinion, the above-mentioned clause contains
two parts. The first one speaks of the sphere of activities of religions in
Vietnam. It is performed within the framework of the Constitution and the law.
The Constitution recognizes that the citizen has a certain number of rights,
among which is the right to liberty of faith and religion. The legislation defines
the manner of application of that right. That is, it should be inducted in
agreement with the other rights and the common good. The second part of the
clause speaks of the role of the State; that is, to guarantee..., to
encourage..., to respect, to give impulsion. Nevertheless, every time an
element is added, not only does the role of the State become more obscure
because not only does the religion appear to be an instrument in the service of
the State for another objective, but also it might give room for arbitrary
interpretations.
What does it really mean by “religious activities accomplished in the framework of legitimate
and legal interests of the faithful?” Who
has the right to interpret the legitimacy of the interests in question, the
district, the commune, or the Fatherland Front? Even the State is not capable
of determining which can be the legitimate interests of a believer. The State
encourages “religious activities accomplished in the interests of the
Fatherland and the People. What kind of activities are these? Is it the kind of
activities of the Committee of Union of Patriot Catholics accomplished for the
Fatherland and the People? In the old days, that committee was called Committee
of Patriotic Catholics. Why did they strip off the adjective “patriotic”?
“Elevate cultural
and moral values is the motto we adopt to devote ourselves to the building of
the new society and religion.” We do
not understand what the editor of the text really wants to say. If the answer is about a just and charitable
society that promotes respect for the dignity of man, then, all religions and
their faithful demand that they be allowed to behave just like that. Please,
remember that Catholicism possesses social catechism that is extremely powerful
in exalting this practice. Thus, the
fundamental principle “guaranteed by the State” becomes totally confusing and engenders interpretations many of
which are unacceptable. We would like, then, to allow ourselves to abridge
Clause No. 2 like this: “The religions
in Vietnam conduct their activities in the framework of the Constitution and
legislation of the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The State
guarantees religious activities.”
Would one be afraid of such
statement? The State should have the duty to guarantee whatever religious
activity it may be. No, it certainly would not. They have already been vocal
about the fact that the religions conduct their activities in the in the
context of the Constitution and the law of the State of the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam. Thus, the religions need only to lean on the Constitution and the law;
the State will evaluate them on its judgments. On the contrary, if the faithful
think that their liberty of faith and religion is not respected, they would be
able to lay a claim. In a regime where separation of powers is respected, the
liberty of expression and independence of the justice courts of justice
prevail. Conflicts would be settled, and no one would claim that he is the
object of opposition or discrimination. Three will be no question of whether
authentic religious liberty is non-existent or no longer exists. And, that is
the desire of the citizens with regard to the religion.
