Vietnam Imposes 5-Year Prison Term on Activist Accused of \’Anti-State\’ Acts

On Wednesday (March 23), a Vietnamese judge handed five years in prison to Le Van Dung—the 51‑year‑old commentator known online as “Le Dung Vova”. The verdict comes in a courtroom that, like a tight‑laced knot, buries dissent in darkness.

• “Propagation against the State”—the banner read, and it stuck.
• Dung was accused of uploading 12 videos on the Internet that allegedly defamed the administration and “offended the honour” of the party and state leaders.
• The court’s hearing was a brief blur—just a few hours, but enough to cement a grim fate.

Whenever the digital clock struck, Le Van Dung exploded onto Facebook and YouTube, sparking live streams that lit up the feeds of thousands. He earned a reputation as a fearless voice, someone who turned Facebook into a megaphone for “truth” and “courage.” Then, in June last year, the official gates shut and the locks clicked.

• His lawyer, Ha Huy Son, announced that Dung didn’t plead guilty during the trial and will appeal the verdict.
• Whether the appeal lights a candle for his freedom or dims it further remains a cliff‑edge question.

Even with sweeping economic reforms and a sprinkle of social freedom, Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party keeps its media reaper fully sheathed. Their doctrine: any prickle of criticism is a threat that will be knifed to size.

• Human Rights Watch’s Deputy Asia Director, Phil Robertson, urged the government to drop Dung’s charges, labeling his case as part of a broader pattern of silencing dissent.
• He warned that the country’s foreign partners should confront Hanoi, urging the state to listen to critics instead of pushing them into cells.

Le Van Dung’s five‑year sentence sits squarely in a list of more than 60 activists sentenced for voicing “concerns” or “ideas” that brush against the party’s skin. It’s a grim number, a ledger of how every dissenting thought can be penalized with a sentence as long as a normal office tenure.

The answer may hinge on whether the global community’s eyes stay fixed on this case. Both dignitaries and activists hope the light of transparency will break through the heavy curtain of censorship that has, for years, smothered the volumes of remarks that society feels should even be heard.