VI. Mixed Messages: The Official Responses to Dr. Vu

The authorities’ attitude towards Dr. Vu has hardened over time.

In 2005, he faced no official repercussions for his controversial lawsuit against the People’s Committee of Thua Thien-Hue, or, in 2006, for his audacious self-nomination for the position of the minister of culture. In January 2007, the police newspaper, Cong An Nhan Dan, ran a long, fairly even-handed article entitled “The Artist and Legal Activist Cu Huy Ha Vu Stirs Public Opinion Three Times This Past Year.”[48]Even when Dr. Vu first filed his lawsuit against Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung in June 2009 regarding approval of bauxite mining in the Central Highlands, the Hanoi People’s Court responded promptly to him on June 15. Although it rejected his lawsuit on grounds that it lacked sufficient legal foundation, the official response from the Hanoi People’s Court could be seen as a sign that the authorities were willing to engage in dialogue. State-controlled media initially ignored the controversial lawsuit. However, all major online newspapers reported dispassionately on its official dismissal by the Hanoi People’s Court.[49]

There are several explanations for the government’s initial tolerance of Dr. Vu. His family background and his personal relationships with a number of important figures in the government certainly helped. But probably of more significance was his lack of relationships with other political dissidents and activists. Although loosely associated with the Bauxite Vietnam website and its co-founders Nguyen Hue Chi and Pham Toan, Dr. Vu appeared to operate independently of any political groups and organizations. While openly expressing his support for a multi-party system, he has apparently never attempted to form any political parties, associations, or clubs. Many of his lawsuits and denunciations of important figures in the government were sent to government offices and agencies before they were published online. It is also possible that in filing lawsuits against Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, Dr. Vu appeared to be acting as a single, courageous citizen, making authorities more hesitant to retaliate and appear to be persecuting him. The indictment does not mention the two lawsuits against the prime minister, even though they were listed on the inventory of Dr. Vu’s documents that Lieutenant  General Tu pointed to as constituting a violation of article 88 of the penal code during the November 6, 2010 press conference after Dr. Vu’s arrest.

By moving against Dr. Vu, the authorities may have been seeking to make him a less sympathetic figure. In addition to declaring that Vu had violated article 88, Lieutenant  General Tu also informed journalists that Vu was “responsible for the lustful and perverted relationship committed by Vu in the night of November 4, 2010 in room 101 at Mach Lam hotel, Ho Chi Minh City” and that he had a “lustful relationship with a woman who has a clear address and profession and who is not a prostitute.” While Dr. Vu was not prosecuted for these alleged acts, his indictment by the Hanoi People’s Procuracy stated that the Hanoi police investigation office had transferred the documents related to Ho Le Nhu Quynh to its counterpart in Ho Chi Minh City “to deal with in accordance with its authority.”[50] So far, however, Dr. Vu has not been formally charged with any offence related to being found in a hotel room with a woman who was not his wife.

At the November 6 press conference, Lieutenant  General Tu insisted that police had not followed Vu from Hanoi to Ho Chi Minh City and only discovered the alleged tryst after a routine resident household registration check. During the press conference, Le Van Dinh, chairman of the People’s Committee of Ba Dinh district where Dr. Vu lives, announced that “Cu Huy Ha Vu had continuously violated laws” including beating and cursing his younger sister and that he “appeared  arrogant and disrespected the law.”[51]

The government seriously miscalculated if it thought that portraying Dr. Vu as an adulterer and thug would dampen public interest and sympathy. Vietnam citizens online quickly ridiculed the police’s obsession with salacious details of the case, including mention of used condoms and the lack of a marriage certificate in a hotel. They began to post comments and even marriage certificates on forums, chat rooms, and the social network Facebook, begging police not to arrest them.[52] Both women involved in the case—Dr. Vu’s wife, Nguyen Thi Duong Ha, and the woman in the hotel, Ho Le Nhu Quynh—remain firmly in support of him. Ho Le Nhu Quynh contacted Dr. Vu’s wife and consulted the lawyer Tran Dinh Trien regarding a potential lawsuit against media outlets for violating her right to privacy.[53]

Not only has treatment of Dr. Vu’s activities been mixed, but the government’s handling of the case since his arrest has also been inconsistent. Pressured by multiple requests from his family, authorities granted five lawyers permission to defend Dr. Vu, and allowed them access to the defendant in detention.[54]

In addition, at the request of Dr. Vu and one of his defense lawyers, Ha Huy Son, the Hanoi People’s Court decided to postpone the original March 24 trial date to April 4, 2011.[55]These steps differ from the norm applied to other dissidents who are held incommunicado [56] and/or pressured not to hire defense lawyers.[57]

But the government’s responses have not all been positive. First, authorities ignored multiple requests from lawyer Nguyen Thi Duong Ha regarding procedural violations committed during Dr. Vu’s arrest and the search of his house on November 5, 2010. Authorities have also not responded to his family’s repeated petitions seeking his release from jail pending the investigation and trial.

On February 18, the Hanoi People’s Court notified Nguyen Thi Duong Ha that it was revoking the certification it had issued in December 2010 authorizing  her to represent her husband as defense counsel. Issued by the Hanoi People’s Court, decision 191/2011/HS-THAN cited her “abuse of the practice of law and use of information in the case to negatively influence national security and infringe upon state interests.” In particular, it cited the publication of Dr. Vu’s testimony from B14 Detention center which was recorded by Nguyen Thi Duong Ha on January 18, 2011 [58] on “Bauxite Vietnam, media and electronic webpages in and outside the country” as evidence for her violation of the law.[59]

Police and civil defense forces in Hanoi confiscate flowers sent by anonymous supporters to Cu Huy Ha Vu’s law firm, March 21, 2011. © 2011 Wind Merchant

In addition, authorities have been clumsy in dealing with the growing support for Dr. Vu. On March 20 and 21, 2011, anonymous supporters sent bouquets of flowers to the Cu Huy Ha Vu Law Firm, expressing solidarity with his family. Adorned with banners proclaiming, “The Fatherland and the People of Vietnam are always with you” (To quoc va Nhan dan VN luon ben anh chi), the flowers were placed outside the law firm’s door.[60] Within a few hours, police from Dien Bien ward sent a truck, officers, and members of the ward’s civil defense force, to confiscate the floral arrangements.[61] Online citizens quickly ridiculed the heavy-handed move, which ultimately proved ineffective.[62] The next day, more bouquets arrived at the law firm, this time with banners that proclaimed: “Cu Huy Ha Vu loves his country and the people” (Cu Huy Ha Vu yeu nuoc thuong dan).[63]