2024/01/01 by Dương Quốc Chính · 1 voice
Engineering · #Nuclear and radioactivity studies
paper · doi:10.1525/vs.2024.19.3-4.167
openalex publication_date 2024/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2025/12/27
Under the policy of “leaving no one behind” [không để ai bị bỏ lại phía sau], the government of Vietnam, under former Prime Minister Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, initiated a “rescue flight” campaign in early 2020 to repatriate Vietnamese citizens from abroad. The first flight, HVN68, evacuated thirty Vietnamese nationals from the epidemic hotbed of Wuhan, China, on February 2, 2020. This was followed by additional flights that repatriated hundreds of Vietnamese. Rescue flight passengers were required to pay for their airfare and the cost of subsequent quarantine at military facilities. Over the course of nearly two years, Vietnam ultimately organized more than two thousand rescue flights, repatriating nearly 240,000 Vietnamese from sixty-two countries and territories affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.This state-led campaign received widespread support and praise from the Vietnamese people as well as international acclaim. On social media, public sentiment expressed pride and even a sense of “arrogance” [ngạo nghễ] about Vietnam’s bold efforts carrying out what seemed like an impossible task. This self-congratulatory attitude made the scandal even more embarrassing and damaging when it became public.Over half a year into the rescue program, the cost of and demand for return flights continued to rise. In early September 2020, Vietnam Airlines reported on its website that the cost of each rescue flight could reach up to 10 billion đồng (400,000 US dollars). Due to high demand for repatriation and the challenges related to quarantine and costs, in November 2020 the Vietnamese government introduced a pilot program for ten “combo flights,” which required passengers to pay the full fee. Organizing these flights was a joint effort involving four ministries: Health, Transportation, Defense, and Foreign Affairs, with the Ministry of Public Security joining later.By mid-2021 the pilot combo-flight program was expanded, and private businesses were invited to participate. In this arrangement, passengers paid a private enterprise for a package that included the cost of transportation and quarantine upon arrival in Vietnam. These flights were essentially commercial transport operations rather than rescue missions.Most of the businesses authorized to offer these combo flights (including transportation and quarantine services) were travel agencies with experience in international tourism. Consequently, these companies already had connections with licensing authorities, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Immigration Department of the Ministry of Public Security. Given the downturn in the tourism industry due to quarantine measures, these companies saw the introduction of combo flights as a unique opportunity for new revenue streams. However, due to the limited number of permits, not every company could seize this opportunity. Permits were primarily available to those with the right connections.Despite the uneven access to permits for offering combo flights, the decision to implement them was reasonable considering the large number of Vietnamese expats who still wanted to return to Vietnam. However, on December 7, 2021, a forum called “Opening Tourism and Recovering the Economy” led to a public outcry: Were Vietnamese paying 80–240 million đồng (3,000–9,500 US dollars) for a ticket on a rescue flight? At the same time, complaints about the unusually high cost of rescue flights began to emerge on forums and social media. In response, airlines stated that profit was not their primary concern and attributed high ticket prices to various other factors.A Vietnam Airlines executive explained to the press that a rescue flight required a crew twice the size of a regular flight. Moreover, returning passengers had to cover the cost of both legs of the journey, since the outbound flight was empty. Additional costs were required to cover crew quarantine, aircraft maintenance, fuel, and in-flight meals. Therefore, the higher ticket prices for rescue flights were deemed reasonable.1In response to the public outcry on social media and in the press, including allegations in Facebook groups by overseas Vietnamese accusing diplomatic agencies of exploiting the repatriation process, the Ministry of Public Security [Bộ Công An] initiated a criminal investigation. This led to the arrest of several high-ranking officials from the five government agencies responsible for organizing the repatriation flights, as well as numerous executives from companies involved in arranging the combo flights. The arrested officials included deputy ministers and vice chairpersons of provincial people’s committees, along with directors and deputy directors of various ministerial departments. Some suspensions extended up to the ambassadorial level.In Vietnam, it is common for businesses seeking permits, quotas, or other approvals in various sectors to “grease the wheels” with payments [chi phí bôi trơn] to officials and civil servants in the relevant agencies.2 Given this norm, the bribery allegations in this case are not surprising. Giving and receiving bribes is “standard procedure” and nothing out of the ordinary. The amounts disclosed by the Ministry of Public Security align with the potential profits these businesses stood to gain.However, like the Việt Á case, which was also related to the COVID-19 pandemic,3 the story of the rescue flights generated significant public outrage and damaged the reputation of the party and the government. Initially, the rescue flights were heavily promoted in government propaganda and presented as a success. But the subsequent flights, which were exploited for profit, were seen as taking advantage of fellow Vietnamese during a desperate time. This transformed what was once a proud achievement into a public scandal, leading to widespread cynicism and disillusionment. As a result, cases related to COVID-19, including the rescue flights, were treated as major scandals and received special attention from the party’s anti-corruption bodies. Although the bribe amounts were not extraordinary in comparison to other cases, the damage to the regime’s credibility required that responsible parties be held accountable.4It is true that the high repatriation costs were paid by individuals who entered into commercial agreements with transport companies. Participation in the program was not mandatory, as people could have opted to remain abroad. However, due to strong government propaganda about Vietnam’s healthcare capabilities and its responsibility toward its citizens, many felt compelled to return. Nevertheless, state officials were implicated in the scandal because one factor that inflated ticket costs was state bribery. Other factors, such as increased airline costs for these special flights, also contributed to high prices, but public outrage was primarily directed at corrupt officials. It was unfortunate for the indicted individuals, as many other officials might have acted similarly under similar circumstances, given that such practices have been ongoing for some time in Vietnam.During the trial, most officials were candid and confessed to their crimes. However, many framed their acceptance of money as the receiving of “gratuities,” which they claimed were voluntarily given as a form of appreciation rather than payments extorted through abuse of power. The defendant accused of receiving the largest bribes was Phạm Trung Kiên, the (unofficial) secretary to the deputy minister of health. Phạm Trung Kiên allegedly received a staggering 42 billion đồng (1,665,000 US dollars). Meanwhile, his direct superior, Deputy Minister Đỗ Xuân Tuyên, was not a defendant in the trial. This situation led to public suspicions that Phạm Trung Kiên had been scapegoated, as it is unusual for an intermediary to receive larger bribes than their superior. Public opinion held that Phạm Trung Kiên might have been serving as the fall guy for someone of higher rank.Amid these allegations of egregious acts of bribery, two defendants brought a dose of drama to the trial. Both were former senior investigators from the Investigative Security Agency: Hoàng Văn Hưng and Nguyễn Anh Tuấn. Each man accused the other of accepting bribes from the heads of Bluesky Travel, one of the companies that offered combo flights, in order to shield its vice general director, Nguyễn Thị Thanh Hằng, and the general director, Lê Hồng Sơn, from prosecution. Nguyễn Anh Tuấn claimed Hoàng Văn Hưng accepted 2.25 million US dollars in total from the Bluesky executives.However, the only evidence for this claim was a video showing Hoàng Văn Hưng receiving a suitcase from Nguyễn Anh Tuấn’s driver. Nguyễn Anh Tuấn testified that the suitcase contained 800,000 US dollars, while Hoàng Văn Hưng maintained that it held only four bottles of wine.5 Additionally, Nguyễn Anh Tuấn also claimed to have given Hoàng Văn Hưng an extra 1.45 million US dollars, which the latter denied receiving. Ultimately, the court concluded that Hoàng Văn Hưng received 800,000 US dollars and held Nguyễn Anh Tuấn responsible for the remaining amount. Nguyễn Anh Tuấn was ordered to pay 1.8 million US dollars in compensation.6This dispute between Hoàng Văn Hưng and Nguyễn Anh Tuấn suggests that there was a degree of manipulation [chạy án] in the court proceedings, not an uncommon occurrence in Vietnam. Both Hoàng Văn Hưng’s and Nguyễn Anh Tuấn’s testimonies suggest that Hoàng Văn Hưng might have been only an intermediary in this Bluesky bribery scheme. Typically, the successful manipulation of a case would require bribing both the investigative agency and the prosecution. However, Hoàng Văn Hưng, a mere department head, was not in a decision-making position and was even reassigned toward the end of the investigation. No higher-ups associated with Hoàng Văn Hưng were named, nor was the “deputy-level official from the Supreme People’s Procuracy” (mentioned in Nguyễn Anh Tuấn’s testimony) identified by name. Based on Hoàng Văn Hưng’s and Nguyễn Anh Tuấn’s testimonies, it can be inferred that both individuals likely knew the identity of the senior official in question but avoided mentioning him. This suggests that the investigation may have been directed to limit its scope.Under Vietnam’s current criminal code, defendants can receive reduced sentences for bribery convictions if they make restitution payments, with larger amounts leading to greater reductions of their penalties. Consequently, most defendants are inclined to pay restitution. In this case, both bribe-givers and the recipients of bribes made restitution payments, resulting in a net “profit” for the state treasury.Public opinion has questioned whether passengers who overpaid for combo tickets will be reimbursed from these restitution payments. The concern is that the funds in question originated from bribes paid by businesses using money earned from selling tickets. This suggests that the financial victims were the passengers, not the state treasury. However, all restitution payments have been allocated to the state budget. No lawsuits have been filed by passengers against the companies that organized the repatriation flights, leaving no legal precedent for reimbursing them. Additionally, the public has no legal grounds to sue the government about this matter.Under Vietnam’s criminal law, embezzling as little as 1 billion đồng (40,000 US dollars) is punishable by death. However, in this case, no death sentences were handed down, despite some defendants having accepted bribes that ranged from 20 to 42 billion đồng (800,000–1,660,000 US dollars).7 This leniency in sentencing is likely due in part to the defendants’ restitution payments and, possibly, due to a reluctance to execute officials for bribery. The primary goals of the trial appear to be purging political opponents and recovering embezzled funds. The harshest sentence imposed was life imprisonment, given to three officials who received over 20 billion đồng in bribes, and to the former chief of the Investigation Security Department, Hoàng Văn Hưng, for his refusal to confess.8These sentences indicate a shift in the Vietnamese judicial system away from using the death penalty as a deterrent for corruption, focusing instead on recovering as much money as possible. Most of the other defendants received relatively light sentences, despite accepting bribes worth billions of đồng. For example, Vũ Ngọc Minh, former Vietnamese ambassador to Angola, was sentenced to thirty months in prison, while the prosecution had sought three to four years. Lưu Tuấn Dũng, former Deputy Head of the Citizen Protection Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, received eighteen months, whereas the prosecution had sought two to three years.The Vietnamese government’s approach to combating the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching implications for the political system. This particular case implicated five key government agencies, damaging the credibility of the regime in the eyes of the public and exposing deep-rooted corruption, including in embassies abroad. Two defendants who were ambassadors, along with several others, were dismissed from their positions, although they were not criminally prosecuted.9This case tarnished the reputations of the leaders of the implicated agencies, particularly two deputy prime ministers, Phạm Bình Minh and Vũ Đức Đam, who also faced criticism in other COVID-19-related incidents. Both have since asked to step down from their positions.The case has also exposed opaque dealings within diplomatic missions abroad, particularly in countries from which the repatriations originated. Arresting ambassadors is highly damaging to the reputation of the diplomatic service. Although there have long been rumors of misconduct in diplomatic missions, this case has brought it into the public eye. It may be inferred that bribery and corruption within the diplomatic corps are widespread in other situations, especially when Vietnamese abroad need to acquire permission or other services at their country’s embassies or consulates.Lastly, the case highlights the prevalence of corruption and bribery in nearly all state agencies. Despite the cases pursued by the anti-corruption body, public opinion continues to suggest that not all key figures in the scandal have been named. This has raised questions as to whether there are “untouchable zones” within the system. This case, like many others, suggests that the ongoing anti-corruption campaign has not brought about significant reforms beyond arresting officials to recover ill-gotten gains.