August 16, 2024
Lawyer Nguyen Ha Luan
At 1 pm of August 15, 2024. Nguyen Chi Tuyen gave his final words at the first-instance hearing by the Hanoi People’s Court on the charge of “Making, storing, disseminating or propagating information, documents and items against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.”
Activist Nguyen Chi Tuyen
Dear Trial Panel, representative of the People’s Procuracy, lawyers and all those present at today’s trial.
As a human being, born and raised, everyone has feelings, has the need to communicate and share information about social reality. As for the videos that led to my prosecution like this, it was just what I did according to Article 25 of the Constitution, other rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are the right to freedom of thought, expression, and freedom of speech. Youtube is just a means to convey my personal views.
Regarding the content of the case, I do not agree with the accusation of “Disseminating and propagating fabricated information, causing confusion among the people.” Because the information that I discussed and talked about all came from reality and had sources from official information, not created by me so I am accused of fabrication.
Regarding the viewpoint that the country needs multi-party system, or needs an opposition party, it cannot be attributed to psychological warfare. In the history of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, now the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, since September 2, 1945, the Communist Party has coexisted with other parties, that was the period of multi-party system and that was also the period of many achievements for the country. Therefore, multi-party system only makes the country better, the Communist Party also develops better, the multi-party mode does not affect the survival of the regime.
Moreover, the view that there needs to be multi-party system or opposition party does not go against Article 4 of the Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution only states that the Communist Party is the leading force, not that the Communist Party is the only force.
My opinion was expressed with the purpose of contributing to the fight against corruption, does not affect the leadership of the Communist Party and does not affect the interests of the country.
The representative of the Procuracy maintained the view that, through my actions, it was determined that I had the purpose of opposing the regime. I would like to reiterate that this is an imposed and speculative thought. The contents of the Hanoi Department of Information and Communications’s appraisal conclusion said that I had the intention to oppose the state, I do not agree with this conclusion. They did not point out the basis and appraisal method, so they did not convince me.
I see that Vietnam is increasingly integrating economically, politically, and socially with the world, and is a member of the UN Human Rights organizations. Leaders at all levels always say “people know, people discuss…”. However, at this trial, I was accused of anti-state behavior, affecting the survival of the country, and the proposed sentence of 5 to 6 years in prison is too severe.
Is this true or not? Is this worth it or not?
I am ready to take responsibility for what I did, but I affirm that I did not have any intention to oppose anything. I did it for “freedom” for legitimate rights: freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Thank you to the jury, the prosecutor, the lawyer and everyone who listened to my final words.
I thank my wife for accompanying me and being by my side during today’s trial.
I thank my friends and domestic and international organizations for their interest in what I had done.
