III. Crackdown on Protests in the Mekong Delta

I had prepared myself for self-immolation. I had a lighter and gasoline bottle. I'd wrapped my body in cloth already. If they did not comply with my proposals, I would immolate. I said, "If you don't comply, if my body is burned, you will have to take responsibility." I was distraught because I had not done anything wrong.

--Khmer Krom Buddhist monk who was arrested after participating in the peaceful protest in Soc Trang in February 2007

The February 8, 2007, protest by Buddhist monks in Soc Trang had its origins in long-simmering discontent by Khmer Krom Buddhists about government restrictions on religious freedom, freedom of movement, and inadequate Khmer-language education. Prior to the protest in Soc Trang, Buddhist monks in neighboring Tra Vinh Province had conducted a smaller rally on January 19, 2007, to protest the detention of a monk for possessing copies of a bulletin published by an overseas advocacy group, the Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (KKF).[61]

The following in-depth account of the 2007 protests in Tra Vinh and Soc Trang provinces and the government's response to them provides a window into the severe and often shrouded methods used by the Vietnamese authorities to stifle dissent.

Pressure on Buddhist activists in Tra Vinh

Towards the end of 2006 tensions began to grow between Khmer Krom Buddhist monks and government authorities in the Mekong Delta. Monks in several pagodas began to be harassed and come under surveillance for alleged contact with overseas Khmer Krom groups, particularly the KKF, and distribution of KKF advocacy materials such as newsletters and video cassette disks (VCDs).

In November 2006 Tra Vinh provincial authorities summoned a Khmer Krom monk from Kanchong Kompong Lieu Pagoda for questioning for two days. They accused him of forming a dissident group, the Khmer Krom Nationalities Union,[62] and threatened him with imprisonment for allegedly opposing the government.[63] After the Bureau of Religious Affairs issued an order on November 24 forbidding him from leaving his pagoda, even for religious ceremonies, the monk fled from Vietnam.[64]

In December police raided Kanchong Kompong Lieu Pagoda, confiscating bulletins and disks produced by the KKF and placing three monks under pagoda arrest.[65] On December 31, 2006, police arrested a monk from Ta Sek pagoda in Soc Trang. He was detained for a full day and interrogated by officials from the Ministry of Religion, Ministry of Interior, police, and local officials about other monks and their activities.[66]

On January 17, 2007, police detained Thach Thanh, a monk from Kanchong Kompong Lieu Pagoda, for three days after he picked up copies of the KKF bulletin from the Pali Middle School in Soc Trang town.[67]

Other monks wrote a letter to the authorities, calling for Thach Thanh's release. When there was no response, on January 19, about 50 monks from various temples gathered at the commune center in Tra Vinh, where they conducted a peaceful rally from 1 to 3:30 p.m.

As a result police released Thach Thanh, on condition that he admit that he had wrongfully imported anti-government materials from abroad. Within days, however, police summoned for questioning two monks suspected of leading the protest in support of Thach Thanh.[68] Police placed Thach Thanh and the two monks under pagoda arrest and threatened them with defrocking and imprisonment for possessing the KKF bulletin.[69] "Kakada," one of the monks arrested at that time told Human Rights Watch:

When we protested the authorities promised to find a solution but instead they arrested more monks and accused them of disseminating documents.[70]

On January 20, 2007, officials from Hanoi and the provincial Buddhist committee[71] convened a large meeting in which they pressured "Kakada" to confess:

They said if I wanted to remain a monk I had to confess and admit my mistake. Otherwise I would be defrocked. I said no, what I did was legal under Vietnamese and international law. I had not committed any mistake.[72]

The three monks remained under pagoda arrest for more than three months. During that time, police, local authorities, and Buddhist officials repeatedly interrogated them about who their leaders were and accused them of trying to stir up trouble by organizing the protest. In April 2007, religious officials defrocked all three monks.[73]

The 2007 Buddhist protest in Soc Trang

By the end of January 2007, Buddhist monks from a number of different pagodas in Soc Trang Province had been quietly conducting meetings to plan for another, larger protest to call for religious freedom--including the lifting of restrictions on the number of days for celebration of the annual Kathin ceremony,[74] in which lay people give new robes and other offerings to Buddhist monks--and a broader Khmer-language and history curriculum at the Pali Middle School in Soc Trang.[75] Many of the planning meetings were held in Tuk Prae Pagoda in Long Phu district, about 20 kilometers east of Soc Trang provincial town.[76]

On the evening of February 7, approximately 150 monks from 14 pagodas in Long Phu district gathered at Tuk Prae Pagoda in advance of a protest tentatively planned for the next day.[77]

It is not clear whether the 200 monks and novices at the Soc Trang Pali School--who come from half a dozen provinces in the Mekong Delta--had originally intended to join the protest.[78]

The situation changed, however, on the morning of February 8. At 10 a.m. police--who had gotten wind of a possible demonstration and were worried that the Pali School students would join in--blocked the entrance to Khleang Pagoda, where the school was then located, as more than 100 monks attempted to leave the compound to collect their morning alms.[79]

Hearing the news, the monks who had gathered at Tuk Prae Pagoda the night before headed towards Soc Trang town on motorcycle taxis. They were led by several monks, including Kim Muol[80] and Ly Soeung. On the way, traffic police stopped the motorcycle transporting Kim Muol, in what authorities later said was a routine driver's license check.

As word spread that the authorities had prohibited the monks from Khleang Pagoda from going out to collect alms, more monks headed to Soc Trang, where they gathered at the provincial police station. Kim Muol, only briefly detained by police, joined them there. According to the final indictment by the Soc Trang People's Court, obtained by Human Rights Watch:

Although the police did not question the monk who was riding [as a passenger on the motorcycle] a number of adherents gathering in front of Khleang Temple took advantage of this incident to falsely accuse the police of preventing them from going out to collect alms, and afterwards organized a rally in front of the municipal police station.[81]

As morning classes ended at the Pali School at 11 a.m., the monks and novices were finally able to leave Khleang Pagoda, with more than 100 joining the rally at the police station.

The crowd of monks now numbered more than 200. Some waved Khmer Krom Buddhist flags. According to the indictment, the monks shouted various slogans:

'Are youhungry?' 'Yes, we are!'

'Why are you hungry?''Because of the traffic police!'

'Who made you hungry?' 'The traffic police!'

'Are you tired?'[no response recorded]

'Why are you here?' 'We're hungry!'

'You are out in the sun--can you take it?' 'No, but we'll try!'

'Are you united?' 'Yes, we are!'

'Whatdo you want?' 'Equal rights!'[82]

Several monks representing the protesters asked that the police chief come out to address their complaint about the police prohibiting monks at Khleang Pagoda from begging alms that morning. They also demanded that authorities from the Religious Affairs Committee and the Pali School address the issues of religious freedom--including allowing Khmer Krom pagodas to operate under Buddhist, not government, authorities--cultural preservation, and human rights in general for Khmer Krom people.[83]

Provincial authorities, including the head of the Mekong Delta Nationalities Committee, the chairman of the Soc Trang Religious Affairs Bureau, as well as Duong Nhon, the chairman of the Soc Trang Solidarity Association of Patriotic Buddhist Monks and principal of the Pali School, arrived to try to convince the demonstrators to disperse.[84] It is not clear what promises the authorities made to the monks, but by 4 p.m. the monks had returned to their pagodas.

Government officials immediately took steps to identify and punish the leaders of the protest. Police surrounded pagodas of suspected protest organizers in Soc Trang, placing the monks under surveillance and barring them from leaving their pagodas. Within days, officials from the Vietnam Fatherland Front,[85] the provincial Buddhist Sangha Executive Council,[86] and the provincial Bureau of Religious Affairs began to convene meetings in different pagodas to determine the cause of the demonstration and identify the ringleaders.[87]

Pagodas under siege

To avoid defrocking, two monks who had been identified as protest leaders barricaded themselves in the central sanctuary (vihear) of their pagoda for the next 12 days. There was no water for washing and they had to defecate inside the vihear. One of the monks, "Ponleak," told Human Rights Watch:

Many officials were at the pagoda. They sent in letters in falsified handwriting of the abbot asking me to please go and negotiate with the authorities. They tried to use decoys to get me out and arrest me. They called from outside: 'Don't worry, we won't do anything.' I said, 'If you want to negotiate, please provide a written summons. If you do not have proper legal papers, you can bring me somewhere or kill me without anyone knowing.'

I had three conditions: no defrocking, no handcuffs, and we should have the right to speak during negotiations.

I had prepared myself for self-immolation. I had a lighter and gasoline bottle. I'd wrapped my body in cloth already. If they did not comply with my proposals, I would immolate. I said, 'If you don't comply, if my body is burned, you will have to take responsibility.' I was distraught because I had not done anything wrong.[88]

On February 22 the two monks finally left the vihear. They were brought to a meeting in the sala (central meeting hall) of the pagoda, which was filled with government officials¾including high-level cadre from Hanoi¾Buddhist clergy, and lay people. Riot police from Unit 113 surrounded the pagoda. "Ponleak" told Human Rights Watch:

The officials asserted that I did not respect the authorities and had opposed the government. They had no evidence at all.

I said that defrocking must be conducted according to the law. But not only did they violate the law, they violated my right to speak in my own defense and threatened to throw me in jail. They threw me and the other monk into a truck and sent us to Khleang Pagoda, where we were defrocked.

They did not follow the law of Buddhism when they defrocked us. It was not a proper ceremony. They had us take our robes off and then just threw civilian clothes into the room.[89]

Monks defrocked

From February 21 through May 2007, government and Buddhist authorities defrocked at least 20 monks, with 10 monks defrocked from February 21-26 alone.

At 2 a.m. on February 21, authorities defrocked three monks from Tuk Prae Pagoda, followed several hours later by the defrocking of two monks from Sam Rong Pagoda.[90] An eyewitness described the defrocking of one of the monks:

No sooner had he tried to negotiate and protest with the monks from the Buddhist Rules Committee, than the chief of the Soc Trang provincial department for ethnic affairs and former head of the provincial bureau for religious affairs, rushed at him and forcibly pulled his robes off his body, giving him a shirt and trousers to wear. It is painful to remember this.[91]

The next day, February 22, authorities brought four monks (two from Serey Tamoeun Pagoda and two from Ta Sek Pagoda) to the dormitory of Khleang Pagoda, where they were defrocked.[92] On February 26 a monk from Karon Pagoda in Can Tho Province was defrocked in his home village in Bac Lieu Province.[93]

"Russey," one of the monks defrocked in February described what happened:

There were 70 policemen and officials in my temple. I saw the situation was bad and ran to my room. They surrounded my room for one day. They tried to break the door. I was very thirsty, stuck in there with no water. The chief of the provincial monks and five other monks tried to persuade me to 'work' with them [answer their questions]. When I went out to talk with them, the intervention police [unit 113] arrested me.[94]

After defrocking the monks, police then arrested those they concluded were the main ringleaders. On February 23 police arrested and interrogated Ly Suong, Thach Thuong, Ly Thanh Suy, Kim Muol, and Thach Do. On February 26 Danh Tol[95] from Karon Pagoda in Can Tho Province was arrested, followed by the arrest of Ly Hoang on April 20. Ly Thanh Suy and Thach Do were later released to house arrest in their home provinces; the other five were sentenced to prison on May 10.

Between March and May 2007, at least 10 more monks under pagoda arrest were defrocked. They included the abbots of two pagodas in Long Phu district, Soc Trang, and at least four monks from Tra Vinh: three who had been placed under pagoda arrest in January 2007 after the Tra Vinh protest, and a 17-year-old monk from Kanchong Kompong Lieu Pagoda after he attempted to photograph the defrocking of another monk there.[96] In addition, another 25 monks were expelled from the Pali School and sent back to their home pagodas, where they were placed under the surveillance of local authorities. Other monks under pagoda arrest or threatened with defrocking managed to flee from Vietnam.

Surveillance and house arrest

After the authorities defrocked "Russey" in February, they sent him to the district police station in his home town, where police detained and interrogated him for four days: "They asked me, 'Who is the chief of the machine? Who led you?'"[97] After feigning illness, he was eventually allowed to return to his home.

"Ponleak" told Human Rights Watch he was sent to the provincial police station in Soc Trang after being defrocked. Police questioned him for one day, hitting him during interrogation.[98] Before being sent to his home village, where he was placed under house arrest, the police forced "Ponleak" and his parents to sign papers guaranteeing that he would not flee.[99] Once back in his village, police continued to interrogate "Ponleak" from late February through early May, when five other monks were put on trial. "Ponleak" told Human Rights Watch:

First they interrogated me every day, then a couple of times a week. Sometimes they questioned me from morning until 10 p.m. at night--I wasn't allowed to go home. There were three people: one in front, two on each side, plus a guard at the door. They slapped the back of my head with their palm and hit me with rolled-up paper. They asked many questions. I said you cannot force me to confess. I have told you the truth.

They tried to intimidate me--showed me hand cuffs. They used impolite and disparaging words to refer to me--'A' and 'aing.'[100] They threatened that if I didn't answer, I would never see my parents again.

The confession letter was already written. They forced me to copy what they wrote. If not, they would not allow me to eat or go home. This was very painful for me. I cannot confess to accusations that what I did was wrong. They said we were traitors of the nation. I am not against the Vietnamese government. I abide by Vietnamese law. They said I was not loyal to the nation. I replied that the Party and state were like my own parents; I always respect the law of Vietnam. Now you threaten me¾that's a violation of my rights. Then when I protest, you say I oppose the government.[101]

Pressure to spy

In addition to police and local authorities prohibiting some monks from leaving their pagodas, several monks said that police also pressured them to inform on other monks. "Kosal," a Buddhist abbot from Soc Trang told Human Rights Watch:

When I got back to my pagoda after joining the demonstration, I was placed under 24-hour surveillance. Police surrounded my pagoda, which was filled with local authorities. The police would follow me when I went out to beg for alms… Later the police said if I didn't want to be defrocked, I must 'work' with them. 'Your job is to follow the other monks' activities and make reports,' they said.[102]

After he refused to act as a police informant, police placed "Kosal" under pagoda arrest and prohibited him from leaving his temple, which was guarded by police. Despite requests by laypeople from the pagoda that he simply be demoted, not defrocked, on April 19 authorities defrocked "Kosal." They sent him to the commune office, where he was interrogated and photographed by police, and then sent to his home village, where he was placed under surveillance and house arrest. Police officers slung their hammocks next to his house and entered it twice a day to check up on him. As soon as he could, "Kosal" fled from Vietnam.[103]

Several other monks described similar pressure to monitor and inform on other monks. In an interview conducted by the Khmer Kampuchea Krom Community, a Khmer Krom organization in Cambodia, a Khmer Krom monk who fled to Cambodia after the February protests said:

A secret police man tried to get me to spy on a monk at Prasat Kong Pagoda… I didn't dare answer whether I agreed or not. They said if the monk did something I was to tell them, or if there was any strange person in the pagoda or someone from Cambodia, I needed to inform them. This made me very upset, so I fled to Cambodia.[104]

Mistreatment in prison

Of the 20 monks arrested and defrocked between February and May 2007, five remained in detention at Soc Trang provincial prison until May 10, when they were sentenced to prison. The five monks were Ly Hoang, 21, from Sam Rong Pagoda; Kim Muol, 22, from Ta Sek Pagoda; Thach Thuong, 25, and Ly Suong, 32, from Tuk Prae Pagoda; and Danh Tol, 26, from Karon Pagoda in Can Tho Province.[105]

During the monks' two-and-a-half month pre-trial detention, police interrogated them on almost a daily basis, sometimes from early morning until late at night. Some of the monks were beaten during interrogation. In a group letter written by the monks while in prison, they stated:

During the interrogation the Vietnamese authorities used all kinds of tricks and threats: beating us, trying to stir us up and misguide us, or make us lose our minds by using the sweet words of the Vietnamese devil savage tiger. They told us if we agreed to answer in the easy and honest way, they would reduce our sentence…

During interrogation they tried to find out who were the masters, the leaders, the ones who initiated [the protest] and determine all the reasons [for the protest]. Moreover they recorded all of our words on the telephone, between the telecommunication system inside the country and outside. There were at least 300 pages [of interrogation reports]![106]

Police singled out two monks in particular for beatings during interrogation:

Two monks were under the heaviest pressure: they shouted out because they were beaten very severely. It is painful to remember the treatment of Kim Muol by the interrogation cadre, who beat him and punched him twice, one blow on his breastbone and another on his face. It sounded like 'wham wham wham.' Then they grabbed him and tightly squeezed his head in their hands…[107]

Police continued interrogating the imprisoned monks even after their trial, summoning three of them for a "working session" [interrogation] lasting from July 4-6, 2007, in which they forced the monks to write a letter denouncing Khmer Krom activists in other countries.

A new indictment

Indicating the authorities' awareness of the political sensitivity of the case, a first indictment issued by the People's Procuracy (Prosecutor's Office) of Soc Trang Province dated April 2 was superseded by a final, re-worded indictment, dated April 20.[108] The recitation of facts and conclusions in the two indictments differ in several respects. Slogans shouted by the monks during the protest that are reported in the first indictment are deleted from the final indictment. While both indictments charge the monks with "causing public disorder" under Penal Code article 245, in the first indictment the two aggravating factors are "in an organized manner," suggesting conspiracy, and inciting others to cause disorder. In the second indictment, "in an organized manner" is dropped while "causing serious obstructions to traffic or interfering with public activities" is added. It is possible that judicial authorities re-wrote the first indictment, which includes wording that indicates the monks were conducting a political protest, to present the appearance that the arrest and imprisonment of the five monks was not for political reasons, but for violation of traffic laws.

The April 20 indictment lists seven defendants charged in conjunction with the February demonstration. These include five monks whom authorities arrested, defrocked, and placed in detention or house arrest after the protest. Arrest warrants were issued for two other defendants--a monk who was defrocked in February and a motorcycle taxi driver, both of whom had gone into hiding. The indictment states that the Pali School would take appropriate action against an additional six defendants for their involvement in the "riot." The status of these additional cases is unknown to Human Rights Watch.

The May 10 trial

On May 10, 2007, the five monks were sentenced to prison by the Soc Trang People's Court on charges of causing public disorder under article 245 of Vietnam's Penal Code for having "blocked traffic and activities in public areas and inciting people to cause disturbances." The court sentenced Danh Tol and Kim Muol to four years' imprisonment, Thach Thuong to three years, and Ly Suong and Ly Hoang to two years.[109] According to the April 20 indictment:

[D]efendant Danh Tol has been charged with fervently instigating the riot of Buddhist monks and adherents; Kim Muol, upon receiving news of the disturbance in the Soc Trang Municipality, also eagerly incited other monks from Long Phu to join the disturbance in the municipality, worsening the public order situation; and Ly Suong and Thach Thuong have demonstrated the words and behaviors of active accomplices. With regard to Ly Hoang, he directed the riot movements and contributed to severely causing public disorder by provoking the protesting monks and adherents to shout and make noise. Therefore, their criminal behaviors are considered dangerous to society and must be seriously tried before the court of law with the aim of educational deterrence and prevention for the entire society.

As one of the leaders of the protest who fled from Vietnam told Human Rights Watch:

We demonstrated for freedom of religion but they said we had caused social order and disrupted traffic. They did not talk about our demands. They accused us monks of being political, but in court the charges were traffic violations and social disorder.[110]

The five defrocked monks during their trial on May 10, 2007. Left to right: Kim Muol, Danh Tol, Ly Suong, Ly Hoang, and Thach Thuong. Ly Suong was released on November 21, 2008. ©2007 Private

Social consequences of forced defrocking

In a country such as Vietnam, where the majority of the population--not just Khmer Krom--follow Buddhism, Buddhist monks, pagodas, and religious practice play a key role in community life. Central to Buddhism is the principle of acquiring merit (bon), with the most valued way to do so being to become a monk. Women, who are not allowed to become monks, acquire merit if their sons enter the monkhood, even briefly, by attending religious ceremonies, observing holy days, and making offerings to monks. Part of the Kathin ceremony that is so valued by Khmer Buddhists is to give gifts to monks, particularly new sets of robes.

Upon entering the monkhood and donning the saffron or burgundy robes, Theravada Buddhist monks pledge to follow Buddhist precepts and discipline. Infraction of these rules is very serious, and can result in a monk being warned or put on probation. The more extreme step of forcibly defrocking a monk, dismissing him from the monkhood, and expelling him from the monastery is taken only for monks who have committed any of the four offenses (bap) that "defeat" a monk and require that he leave the monkhood: engaging in sexual relations, stealing, killing, or falsely claiming to possess superhuman powers.[111] The decision to force a monk to defrock is taken by the community of monks (the sangha), and not governmental officials.[112]

"The validity of these acts is premised on the understanding that they take place within the sangha," writes Harris. "Disrobing is the affair of fellow monks, not of the secular power."[113]

The Buddhist monastic code calls for such decisions to be made through a process called adhikarana-samatha, or the settlement of issues, which is analogous to due process and fair trial rights provided by secular justice systems:

Adhikarana-samatha stipulates, among other things, that an accused monk is to be tried by a community of peers to which he belongs or a committee of them, and that those monks can cross-examine the accused and the accused can defend himself.The same part of the code lists the various disciplinary measures that can be used against a guilty monk, which include, among other things, admission of a breach of discipline and promise not to repeat the act, probation and defrocking.[114]

The defrocking of the activist monks in Soc Trang and Tra Vinh provinces in 2007 was a serious breach of the Buddhist code, an issue beyond the scope of this report. However, government authorities, and not just Buddhist officials, took part in the decisions to defrock, with police sealing off pagodas during the defrockings and physically preventing monks from escaping from pagoda arrest. In analyzing defrocking as a human rights abuse, when conducted by government officials backed up by police, rather than a religious organization, it can constitute interference or limitation of the right to practice religion and religious belief. It can also be tantamount to a punishment imposed without any due process, and when conducted violently or in a particularly humiliating way, constitutes cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

The defrockings carry very serious social consequences as well. Monks interviewed by Human Rights Watch described the process as extremely humiliating, since it implies a very serious moral transgression. They were also filled with outrage at not being allowed to speak or defend themselves in front of their pagodas' congregations, as allowed by Buddhist monastic code. Finally, the defrockings deprived the monks of the privilege of being supported and educated by the monastery, requiring them to earn a living or try to continue their education in another fashion.

Many Khmer Krom Buddhists were outraged by the fact that the authorities went far beyond Buddhist law in defrocking the monks. "Ponleak" described his anger at the process that led to his defrocking:

They pointed at me and another monk, and said we would be defrocked. They had videos of the demonstrations. I wanted to stand up to defend myself. They would not let me talk. I said, 'No matter what, I must be allowed to respond to the accusations against me.' But they had already convicted me--they had made their decision and said I must leave the monkhood.[115]

In response to queries by Human Rights Watch regarding the defrocking of monks for their involvement in peaceful demonstrations, the Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States wrote: "[W]hat can be iterated is that the discipline of monks who have violated religious rules and then are handled according to religious rules is an internal affair of the Vietnam Buddhist Sangha. It is our belief that those monks were dealt with in conformity with Buddhist Charter and rules of the Sangha."[116]