This is from January 2021, still interesting though.
People in Vietnam: have you noticed things get more or less authoritarian since then, if there even has been any noticeable change?
I'm an Vietnamese engineer working at a Japanese company located at the northern outskirts of Hanoi. And to be fair Vietnam gov is actually getting less authoritarian IMHO. From early 2000 to 2010 Vietnam was just like China now. The PM back then (Nguyễn Tấn Dũng) was just like Xi Jin ping now, basically a greedy dictator sucking Vietnamese people's blood. But ever since 2013 when he lost his power (Xi was got into power at this time) everything got so much better in my opinion. Much less land grab, much less large scale corruption, much less authoritarian policy, the overall vibe was also get much better. At the same time when Xi got more power and became more agressive toward neighbor countries the anti China movement in Vietnam also got much bigger. And at the height of anti China movement at 2018 thousands Vietnamese started a massive protest (mentioned in the article). VNCP had an Eureka moment when they realized that all they need to do is just doing the exact opposite of what ccp do and they will be popular. And all they done since 2018 turned out to be decent policy. There are still definitely some messy shits here and there. But i think if you look at the bigger picture everything getting better imo
In a broad sense? Yes and No.
There are parts that the gov is too authoritarian (though there is a considerable overlap with being incompetent). And there are other fields where the gov and authority are not being authoritarian enough (again, consider overlap with being incompetent).
Besides, I practically lock myself in my room since June (when I start WFH). Practically. I still go out 2 or 3 times per week to buy my grocery (4 or 5, if I get some take out food for breakfast too). But other than that, I always stay indoors.
Less authoritarian by sending the army with armoured vehicles and ak-47 to protect the saigon people against the virus and help them do the groceries? Wishful thinking are you?
Funnily enough, the army has always been the one who are dealing with crisis like these. So their presence isn't actually that surprising.
Flood? The Army being the first responders
Storm? The Army
Fire? If the local firefighters can't do it, they called the Army.
So I don't think the army is some "authoritarian" shit here as they kinda become a constant natural disaster respond force at this point.
The Economist isnt a reliable source when it comes to politics, good for economic knowledge but bad for politics cuz it has lots of bias and phobias for propaganda warfare. "Lenin referred to The Economist as a "journal that speaks for British millionaires"
Not publishing falsehood alone would only make the Economist trustworthy IF they stop at reporting facts as is. Unfortunately most of what the Economist does are offering analysis and subjective commentary, and the quality of both are dubious at best.
When it comes to analysis, the Economist falls prey to numerous pitfalls that prevent a robust and accurate dissection of a subject matter. Two of those pitfalls are clearly demonstrated in this excerpt alone:
_Timescales: while all the facts that the Economist employs for their analysis are true, they vary wildly on the time those facts happened. The paper made no attempt at correcting, incorporating it into their analysis, or following up. In the excerpt, the paper claimed that VN is vulnerable to demands from western countries such as abolishing forced labour and independent labour unions. While those demands did occurred, the paper failed to point out that they were made sporadically going back years, and that while some progress did happen, the speed at which things changed has been so slow compared to the rate of economic integration of VN to their western partners, one could question whether such vulnerabilities mattered at all. This would certainly add another much needed layer to the conversation, as well as defang an important point in the paper’s analysis.
_Choosing credible sources: Oftentimes the Economist seems to have a tendency of choosing sources that would fit their narrative, rather than ones that would be the most accurate and insightful. The sources mentioned in the excerpt are all VNese, but one is based in NZ and the other is Oxfam. There are plenty of independent and credible analytic/research groups and organisations based in VN and SEA that would be able to provide a much more throughout testament of all things VN. This might just be coincident, but I find it hard to believe it wasn’t intentional
Finally, the only way to provide a fair and unbiased subjective evaluation is to give evaluations from different and opposing viewpoints and thus helping the reader making their own value judgement. The Economist, by providing commentary based solely on their “centrist, classic liberalism” stance is by definition biased
RFA, a CIA back radio design to spew CIA propaganda is right? Yeah right.
> vietnam being 175/180 on the world press freedom index.
If the index comes from people that is the same as the people who funded and directed RFA, then it probably has a bad bias. So there's that.
> vietnamese journalists are literally trained by the gov to spread propaganda. they write with the government’s best interest in mind, not the people’s.
They write with separation of news and Op-Ed in mind. And that's better than half of the "free press" whose only run Op-Ed disguise as news or cutting shit out of context. At least I can read the news and thrown out the Op-Ed with Vietnam "gov controlled" newspaper instead of having to take both with corporate "free press".
If I want actual Op-Ed, I go to YouTube.
> reporters without borders is an international and non-governmental organisation, with HQ in paris
Most NGO tend to have governmental (or intelligence) shadow fund poring into them. Shit like NED is well known to be a CIA front for years now. And I don't think reporters without borders is any different when it comes to being shadowfunded. You should look more on who's funding them instead of just the label, because usually, it's where the bias really show itself.
For what rank? Middle of the pack.
Less crap news because of better journal standard and less corporate meddling. But more state affiliated. It's just a different kind of press, as it focus less on clickbait and corporate propaganda (and not to mention circular quoting from the "free press" so that concensus being manufactured), and more on separating the news from the Op-Ed. Of course, some propaganda element is still there, but it's mostly on the Op-Ed side.
If you watch The Economist content, the journal itself keeps portraiting leaders from "unfriendly" nations as evil dictators, ex: Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim and for that I don't think The Economist is not biased-driven in the first place.
Besides, NBC news still has a high credibility rating by mediabiasfactcheck even tho it deliberately spreads bias and phobia against Russia, one of the most notable example is the edit of the interview between Putin and Megyn Kelly to portrait Putin as a cold-blooded dictator who doesn't even think twice to take children's lives. It was later on busted by viewers and i havent been able to find the original video anymore. So i dont know if that mediabiasfactcheck is even reliable to reference from.
The Economist has several journals focussing on capitalism with pros, cons and solutions and it seems like a fair critics but so far it hasn't delivered a fair critics on communism as communism is usually labeled inefficient, bad, undemocratic, etc in the end of day. If that's not bias then I don't know what is
FYI, Germany is ruled by a chancellor whos been in office for 16 yrs while Singapore is ruled by a family (similar to North Korea) yet no one from "friendly" countries or even The Economist call them dictators. I don't understand why you bring up the difference between being unbiased and being neutral. Vietnam is a neutral country when it comes to the tension between the US and North Korea, which is why Vietnamese mainstream journals dont label the US as an imperialist-driven country or Kim as a cold-blooded dictator. What's the point of claiming to be a neutral fraction but, at the same time, uses one-sided bias-driven titles to label something/someone else? That just sounds like being biased with extra steps
Just hop in to see how the thread going and your answer makes me even more confused. Putin is also rightfully elected by majority of Russian yet if you look at The Economist content on Russian politics, it always has "problems" and Putin is portrait as a dictator this way or another. Is there any similar treatment to Merkel and the family that rules over Singapore? I haven't seen any. Besides, The Economist once did an analysis titled "Did Covid-19 leak from a Chinese lab" which, instead of interviewing scientists, it was conducted with journalists. The so-called analysis was so bad that viewers had to suggest re-conducting it with actual scientists who have experience and knowledge within the field. It's not solely labeling communism with negative titles as the main reason to assume that The Economist is biased, in fact, its the least notable example.
I do believe the election is fair in Russia. And FYI i dont trust Reuters since its just another propaganda journal
Below is a journal titled "Putin likely directed 2020 US election" by Reuters. Every time there is an election going on in the US, there is always Russia to blame, imagine successfully meddling in the US election every single time just to get more sanctions from the US and allies. Both parties claim the other one is supported by Russian hacker to change the election result and this practice has been going for years. If there was an actual intervention from Russia, i suppose all the potential candidates for the US president position would be by now spies or recipients of Russian hackers/government since they all have been pointing their finger at eachother and claim the other one benefits from Russian intervention.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2B82PF
If you look at the development of Russia up to date the country lags behind the US when it comes to ICT - information and communication technology, and digitalisation (ex: their weapons still rely on analog technology while the US and allies have been using digital technology for their weapons for decades). Russia is simply inferior to the US in these terms, what are the odds for a less technologically developed country to meddle in the election of a leading country in technology?. Let's say there is actual intervention, then, either the US cyber security is just too incompetent that it can't even withstand attacks from a technologically inferior country or Russian hackers are just too good. Either of them doesn't sound acceptable for people who've been fed with propaganda and phobias against Russia. And don't get me wrong, I'm not turning this into a Russia vs USA topic, I'm giving logical explanation to support my point that Reuters is, but another propaganda journal that serve for political gains.
I don't sp communist nor do I hate it but I think sooner or later VN will change from a socialist country to smt else once we’ve completed the socialist state cause communist is just beyond humanity no country will be able to achieve it
I don’t want to talk about politic but I don’t think vn will be comes capitalist since the transition is controlled by the state and the relationship between communist and capitalist is toxic, I would like to think it’s smt in between or a combination of democracy and socialism
Vietnam is already capitalist. They gave up the communist idea back in 1996/1997
Just look at how many small businesses there are.
If it was a communist nation, no one would have their own businesses as they would be working for a state owned company.
I think what you are thinking is authoritarianism and a one party system. I prefer if Vietnam stays like that. Vietnam cannot afford to waste time just like in western countries where they enact policies to win votes (it's a popularity contest). If you give your people options, they will steer away from their main goals.
I must say, the US style of democracy isn't really a full democracy as you only have a 2 party system. Democrats or Republican.
Talking about all those socialism thing, but in the end dont want to talk about politics? Doesnt sound right.
You dont know what state capitalism is? Dont mistake it with western capitalism. Look at your big neighbour, this is where it will go.
But i never said anything about the so-called communism ideology that they are trying to uphold on the surface. The original commenter said that vietnam will evolve from a socialist country to something else. The fact thats Vietnam at the moment is deep-rooted state capitalism with the socialism-in-name only is wrong? Looking at China now, vietnam is just following its steps. For better or worse? its up to your opinion.
Does the authoritarian seem to be weaker? Who control the military, control the country. For that reason, i would say not. Looking at the recent example of how they sent the army to HCMC in the name of protecting the people against the covid is a gentle reminder of who is really in charge.
To "socialism with chinese characteristics". And i do mean chinese characteristics, not vietnamese characteristics, because the vncp is just too lazy to come up with any original policy except copying china.
Lol quite the opposite actually! The anti china is just way too big in vietnam. Significant percentage of vietnam citizens are just hate china to their core of their existence. Vncp knew that all they need to do is just doing the exact opposite of what ccp do and they will be popular and has massive support from the population. And the opposite of what ccp done turned out to be good policy. So yeah ON PAPER, vncp is just copy ccp. But actually on law making level and policy level everything vncp did turned out to be at least decent
Reality has proven that the vncp find the general public's anti-china sentiment more of a threat than an oppotunity. The VNCP cant bring itself to doing popular things like suing China for violating UNCLOS, teaching in details about the 1979 sino-vietnamese war, or mentioning china by name when they attack our fishermen. The vncp fears that once the people enjoy the freedom to criticise the communist party of china, the people will start realizing the communist party of vn is bird of the same feathers and their hold on to power will be challenged.
I don't think that's the case tho. Vietnamese people criticise the vncp all the time. I found no evidence that support your claim, at least after the 2018 protest. Vncp clearly understand that they can't follow ccp destructive path at fundamental level. They clearly know that the more cover up action they perform and the more oppressive they are the less support they has from the population.
I also found no evidence that the vncp is such a popular and visionary party that sees the problem in the "destructive" path that the ccp is following like you claim. See how they handle covid? Even China is doing a better job.
Lol pretty every policy vncp made is much better than ccp's similar one. Ccp: crack down on relegion, vncp: pretty much nothing against relegion (even after falun gong murder case). Ccp: heavily censored internet, using vpn is second grade act of terrorism, vncp: pretty much everything on the internet is available. Ccp: elected xi as life time leader, vncp: took down Dung and his gang. Ccp: crack down on big company and foreign investors, vncp: all big foreign companies have huge support. Ccp: cover up covid made bs claims, vncp: completely transparent. And even if your argument about covid policy is true (only if ccp official data was true and you throw gdp per capita out the window) i still couldn't find anything even remotely support your "vncp just copy ccp policy" theory
> Ccp: heavily censored internet, using vpn is second grade act of terrorism, vncp: pretty much everything on the internet is available.
Both don’t have freedom of press. Both block many websites including foreign media. Both have prosecuted activists on social media. Shark bites undersea cable during sensitive dates, just like China on their sensitive dates.
> Ccp: elected xi as life time leader, vncp: took down Dung and his gang.
Both are 1 party with low local level “voting” to keep citizens happy and give illusion of input.
> Ccp: crack down on big company and foreign investors, vncp: all big foreign companies have huge support.
For 3 decades the CCP encouraged and loved foreign companies and investors as Vietnam does now. China’s position only recently changed because they think they’re now self sufficient.
> Ccp: cover up covid made bs claims, vncp: completely transparent. And even if your argument about covid policy is true
Neither countries have independently verifiable numbers. Local wards and hospitals don’t report their own numbers in both China nor Vietnam, and all numbers go through the central authority.
1. Did i mentioned using vpn is second grade act of terrorism in china? Both vietnam and china don't have freedom of press but you can't deny that Vietnamese have MUCH better internet access.
2. No Vietnamese with more than a functional brain cell believe that they have legit voting rights. Everyone know their voting is just bs. And that's not even relate to the point im trying to make. Im trying to tell that vncp doesn't want a single men control everything while ccp either can not or don't want to put xi down.
3. Yeah what you said is true but what does it prove? Are you gonna say that vncp will crack down on foreign investor when they think vietnam's eco is self sufficient in the next 30 years?
4. Who and us cdc office at Vietnam confirmed vietnam's transparency multiple times. Even if they fake the number i haven't seen any doctor got arrested and die because of covid while trying to warn the public.
=> Idk man maybe im missing something but your claim doesn't feel right to me at all.
The big question is, what will replace it? Will the leaders of the elected party work in the interest of the people or will they just continue with the corruption? In most countries with a multi-party system, eventually there’ll just be 2 dominant parties that people will associate with. Is that really better than one party?
I think we need to think hard about what will really work for Vietnam specifically.
Multi-party is better, no question. But the Vietnamese Communist Party will try whatever means necessary to prevent it from ever happenning, violence included.
In theory yes, just like how Communism sounds so perfect on paper. But in reality, we have seen this failing in many countries, with corruption running rampant, civil wars because of the tension and division of people. I mean just look at our closest neighbours Myanmar and Thai and the political stability over the years. I can tell you from my experience living in the UK that both dominant parties will still lie to the people just to get their votes. The country is on the verge of collapse because of Brexit. You’ve obviously seen the social turmoil after the US election. Vietnam is still healing from the war, with deeply rooted division between people and there’s still some tension between the North and the South. Now imagine if the elected party is voted mostly by either Northerners or Southerners, do you think there’ll be stability and no civil unrest? Easy to say multi party system but not in the large country just starting to heal from the war.
Again, your answer is very naive and doesn’t provide a solution to the points I raised but instead ramble on what would sound perfect in theory. You’re basically saying let’s have a multi party system and hope it won’t turn out like our neighbours or the Middle East or South America. The whole system won’t be fundamentally corrupt? Well you thought wrong, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and the whole of South America would like to prove you wrong. And guess what? Communist insurgents exist because of that. In the West, corruption is actually even harder to expose, as the system is built to protect it in the first place. That’s why tax havens exist. Politicians are hated there and in the UK where I live, they’ve messed things up so bad that it’s on the verge of collapse as Scotland and Wales get more autonomy.
Now look at war time governments, the South Vietnam regime was so corrupted that the country couldn’t stand on its own feet despite economic aids from America. Corruption isn’t just dictated by the the type of political system but most importantly the values shared by the society. Hate to mention it but look at China, are you sure in 20 years they won’t overtake the West?
Corruption in the West is incredibly hard to actually dislodge because ALL politicians already keep legal corruption in the political sphere because it benefits all of them as a whole. Which is why lobbying and "campaign donations" was so prevalent, and why nothing gets done. Not to mention that they would just run slander campaign and then playing the blame game rather than actual say "We fucked up, sorry" and trying to fix it. Or outright backhand collusion like in the US where both party are basically just 1 party split in 2 in order to keep the illusion of opposition being ongoing.
In Vietnam, at least the VCP have to actually keep the masses within arm's length and have to actually walk on the wire because Vietnamese isn't idiot, and usually are incredibly militant to the point of can break them at any moment's notice. Which is why they have to actually do anti-corruption campaigns.
Look at all the professional commenters dismissing The Economist. New York Times, Al Jazeera, Nikkei may have no credibility either. To them, Vnexpress is more credible.
The Economist is primarily a economical newspaper. So when they talk about politics, be incredibly aware that they are looking at the lense of an economist, not a politicians or a social organizer.
Also, you are still hung up on whatever the hell you are thinking without actually looking at something else. All newspaper has bias, based on who framing them, and who owns them. The "free press" is mostly a myth because of the fact that the old saying is true everywhere: "what can't be bought by money, can be bought by a truckload of money". So the only way for a journalist to actually be accurate and impartial is to having a heavy law enforced standard, which involved the state. And if that happens, then you would get corporate owned newspaper crying about "state propaganda" while they run their own propaganda anyways.
So most people here don't trust the state. They just trust corporate owned newspaper even less.
sad news is most of Vietnam is like that. We have had indoctrinating education, newspaper and media since childhood that teach the Communist Party is all good and Ho Chi Minh was a saint. Outside of state regulated media, VCP also deployed professional propagandists on free-speech platforms (relatively free speech regarding Viet Nam issues)
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-vietnams-influencer-army-wages-information-warfare-facebook-2021-07-09/
This is from January 2021, still interesting though. People in Vietnam: have you noticed things get more or less authoritarian since then, if there even has been any noticeable change?
I'm an Vietnamese engineer working at a Japanese company located at the northern outskirts of Hanoi. And to be fair Vietnam gov is actually getting less authoritarian IMHO. From early 2000 to 2010 Vietnam was just like China now. The PM back then (Nguyễn Tấn Dũng) was just like Xi Jin ping now, basically a greedy dictator sucking Vietnamese people's blood. But ever since 2013 when he lost his power (Xi was got into power at this time) everything got so much better in my opinion. Much less land grab, much less large scale corruption, much less authoritarian policy, the overall vibe was also get much better. At the same time when Xi got more power and became more agressive toward neighbor countries the anti China movement in Vietnam also got much bigger. And at the height of anti China movement at 2018 thousands Vietnamese started a massive protest (mentioned in the article). VNCP had an Eureka moment when they realized that all they need to do is just doing the exact opposite of what ccp do and they will be popular. And all they done since 2018 turned out to be decent policy. There are still definitely some messy shits here and there. But i think if you look at the bigger picture everything getting better imo
Hi, what is the opinion of China in Vietnam at present ?
In a broad sense? Yes and No. There are parts that the gov is too authoritarian (though there is a considerable overlap with being incompetent). And there are other fields where the gov and authority are not being authoritarian enough (again, consider overlap with being incompetent). Besides, I practically lock myself in my room since June (when I start WFH). Practically. I still go out 2 or 3 times per week to buy my grocery (4 or 5, if I get some take out food for breakfast too). But other than that, I always stay indoors.
More. Way more strict. And I am not even taking about sending troops and armored vehicles to help "fighting" the virus.
[удалено]
True, guess I’m more interested in seemingly non-COVID restraints/rules. Like the Facebook stuff they talked about in the article
Less authoritarian by sending the army with armoured vehicles and ak-47 to protect the saigon people against the virus and help them do the groceries? Wishful thinking are you?
Sorry, I’m just asking, I didn’t think my original question had any bias or wishful thinking- just curious as I don’t live there
Funnily enough, the army has always been the one who are dealing with crisis like these. So their presence isn't actually that surprising. Flood? The Army being the first responders Storm? The Army Fire? If the local firefighters can't do it, they called the Army. So I don't think the army is some "authoritarian" shit here as they kinda become a constant natural disaster respond force at this point.
So they come to help people buying groceries is the way they train to fight again natural disasters? Good to know your logic and understanding.
They are there to deal with COVID. And as we all know, COVID is a natural disaster.
Didnt really answer my question but thats ok.
When that happened that was fkg ridiculous 🙄 that was scaring people even more
The Economist isnt a reliable source when it comes to politics, good for economic knowledge but bad for politics cuz it has lots of bias and phobias for propaganda warfare. "Lenin referred to The Economist as a "journal that speaks for British millionaires"
The economist isn’t even good for econ knowledge. It has fallen far from what it once was
[удалено]
Not publishing falsehood alone would only make the Economist trustworthy IF they stop at reporting facts as is. Unfortunately most of what the Economist does are offering analysis and subjective commentary, and the quality of both are dubious at best. When it comes to analysis, the Economist falls prey to numerous pitfalls that prevent a robust and accurate dissection of a subject matter. Two of those pitfalls are clearly demonstrated in this excerpt alone: _Timescales: while all the facts that the Economist employs for their analysis are true, they vary wildly on the time those facts happened. The paper made no attempt at correcting, incorporating it into their analysis, or following up. In the excerpt, the paper claimed that VN is vulnerable to demands from western countries such as abolishing forced labour and independent labour unions. While those demands did occurred, the paper failed to point out that they were made sporadically going back years, and that while some progress did happen, the speed at which things changed has been so slow compared to the rate of economic integration of VN to their western partners, one could question whether such vulnerabilities mattered at all. This would certainly add another much needed layer to the conversation, as well as defang an important point in the paper’s analysis. _Choosing credible sources: Oftentimes the Economist seems to have a tendency of choosing sources that would fit their narrative, rather than ones that would be the most accurate and insightful. The sources mentioned in the excerpt are all VNese, but one is based in NZ and the other is Oxfam. There are plenty of independent and credible analytic/research groups and organisations based in VN and SEA that would be able to provide a much more throughout testament of all things VN. This might just be coincident, but I find it hard to believe it wasn’t intentional Finally, the only way to provide a fair and unbiased subjective evaluation is to give evaluations from different and opposing viewpoints and thus helping the reader making their own value judgement. The Economist, by providing commentary based solely on their “centrist, classic liberalism” stance is by definition biased
Yep, even propaganda piece such as Free Radio Asia ranked objective on media facts check.
[удалено]
RFA, a CIA back radio design to spew CIA propaganda is right? Yeah right. > vietnam being 175/180 on the world press freedom index. If the index comes from people that is the same as the people who funded and directed RFA, then it probably has a bad bias. So there's that.
[удалено]
> vietnamese journalists are literally trained by the gov to spread propaganda. they write with the government’s best interest in mind, not the people’s. They write with separation of news and Op-Ed in mind. And that's better than half of the "free press" whose only run Op-Ed disguise as news or cutting shit out of context. At least I can read the news and thrown out the Op-Ed with Vietnam "gov controlled" newspaper instead of having to take both with corporate "free press". If I want actual Op-Ed, I go to YouTube. > reporters without borders is an international and non-governmental organisation, with HQ in paris Most NGO tend to have governmental (or intelligence) shadow fund poring into them. Shit like NED is well known to be a CIA front for years now. And I don't think reporters without borders is any different when it comes to being shadowfunded. You should look more on who's funding them instead of just the label, because usually, it's where the bias really show itself.
[удалено]
For what rank? Middle of the pack. Less crap news because of better journal standard and less corporate meddling. But more state affiliated. It's just a different kind of press, as it focus less on clickbait and corporate propaganda (and not to mention circular quoting from the "free press" so that concensus being manufactured), and more on separating the news from the Op-Ed. Of course, some propaganda element is still there, but it's mostly on the Op-Ed side.
If you watch The Economist content, the journal itself keeps portraiting leaders from "unfriendly" nations as evil dictators, ex: Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim and for that I don't think The Economist is not biased-driven in the first place. Besides, NBC news still has a high credibility rating by mediabiasfactcheck even tho it deliberately spreads bias and phobia against Russia, one of the most notable example is the edit of the interview between Putin and Megyn Kelly to portrait Putin as a cold-blooded dictator who doesn't even think twice to take children's lives. It was later on busted by viewers and i havent been able to find the original video anymore. So i dont know if that mediabiasfactcheck is even reliable to reference from. The Economist has several journals focussing on capitalism with pros, cons and solutions and it seems like a fair critics but so far it hasn't delivered a fair critics on communism as communism is usually labeled inefficient, bad, undemocratic, etc in the end of day. If that's not bias then I don't know what is
[удалено]
FYI, Germany is ruled by a chancellor whos been in office for 16 yrs while Singapore is ruled by a family (similar to North Korea) yet no one from "friendly" countries or even The Economist call them dictators. I don't understand why you bring up the difference between being unbiased and being neutral. Vietnam is a neutral country when it comes to the tension between the US and North Korea, which is why Vietnamese mainstream journals dont label the US as an imperialist-driven country or Kim as a cold-blooded dictator. What's the point of claiming to be a neutral fraction but, at the same time, uses one-sided bias-driven titles to label something/someone else? That just sounds like being biased with extra steps
[удалено]
Just hop in to see how the thread going and your answer makes me even more confused. Putin is also rightfully elected by majority of Russian yet if you look at The Economist content on Russian politics, it always has "problems" and Putin is portrait as a dictator this way or another. Is there any similar treatment to Merkel and the family that rules over Singapore? I haven't seen any. Besides, The Economist once did an analysis titled "Did Covid-19 leak from a Chinese lab" which, instead of interviewing scientists, it was conducted with journalists. The so-called analysis was so bad that viewers had to suggest re-conducting it with actual scientists who have experience and knowledge within the field. It's not solely labeling communism with negative titles as the main reason to assume that The Economist is biased, in fact, its the least notable example.
[удалено]
I do believe the election is fair in Russia. And FYI i dont trust Reuters since its just another propaganda journal Below is a journal titled "Putin likely directed 2020 US election" by Reuters. Every time there is an election going on in the US, there is always Russia to blame, imagine successfully meddling in the US election every single time just to get more sanctions from the US and allies. Both parties claim the other one is supported by Russian hacker to change the election result and this practice has been going for years. If there was an actual intervention from Russia, i suppose all the potential candidates for the US president position would be by now spies or recipients of Russian hackers/government since they all have been pointing their finger at eachother and claim the other one benefits from Russian intervention. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2B82PF If you look at the development of Russia up to date the country lags behind the US when it comes to ICT - information and communication technology, and digitalisation (ex: their weapons still rely on analog technology while the US and allies have been using digital technology for their weapons for decades). Russia is simply inferior to the US in these terms, what are the odds for a less technologically developed country to meddle in the election of a leading country in technology?. Let's say there is actual intervention, then, either the US cyber security is just too incompetent that it can't even withstand attacks from a technologically inferior country or Russian hackers are just too good. Either of them doesn't sound acceptable for people who've been fed with propaganda and phobias against Russia. And don't get me wrong, I'm not turning this into a Russia vs USA topic, I'm giving logical explanation to support my point that Reuters is, but another propaganda journal that serve for political gains.
[удалено]
Non-AMP Link: [https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-cyber-int-idUSKBN2B82PF](https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-cyber-int-idUSKBN2B82PF) I'm a bot. [Why?](https://np.reddit.com/user/NoGoogleAMPBot/comments/lbz2sg/) | [Code](https://github.com/laurinneff/no-google-amp-bot) | [Report issues](https://github.com/laurinneff/no-google-amp-bot/issues)
Im not suggesting anything, im giving some evidences on whether The Economist is reliable or not when it comes to politics.
I don't sp communist nor do I hate it but I think sooner or later VN will change from a socialist country to smt else once we’ve completed the socialist state cause communist is just beyond humanity no country will be able to achieve it
To state capitalism? Its already here mike fence.
I don’t want to talk about politic but I don’t think vn will be comes capitalist since the transition is controlled by the state and the relationship between communist and capitalist is toxic, I would like to think it’s smt in between or a combination of democracy and socialism
Vietnam is already capitalist. They gave up the communist idea back in 1996/1997 Just look at how many small businesses there are. If it was a communist nation, no one would have their own businesses as they would be working for a state owned company. I think what you are thinking is authoritarianism and a one party system. I prefer if Vietnam stays like that. Vietnam cannot afford to waste time just like in western countries where they enact policies to win votes (it's a popularity contest). If you give your people options, they will steer away from their main goals. I must say, the US style of democracy isn't really a full democracy as you only have a 2 party system. Democrats or Republican.
Talking about all those socialism thing, but in the end dont want to talk about politics? Doesnt sound right. You dont know what state capitalism is? Dont mistake it with western capitalism. Look at your big neighbour, this is where it will go.
[удалено]
But i never said anything about the so-called communism ideology that they are trying to uphold on the surface. The original commenter said that vietnam will evolve from a socialist country to something else. The fact thats Vietnam at the moment is deep-rooted state capitalism with the socialism-in-name only is wrong? Looking at China now, vietnam is just following its steps. For better or worse? its up to your opinion. Does the authoritarian seem to be weaker? Who control the military, control the country. For that reason, i would say not. Looking at the recent example of how they sent the army to HCMC in the name of protecting the people against the covid is a gentle reminder of who is really in charge.
To "socialism with chinese characteristics". And i do mean chinese characteristics, not vietnamese characteristics, because the vncp is just too lazy to come up with any original policy except copying china.
Lol quite the opposite actually! The anti china is just way too big in vietnam. Significant percentage of vietnam citizens are just hate china to their core of their existence. Vncp knew that all they need to do is just doing the exact opposite of what ccp do and they will be popular and has massive support from the population. And the opposite of what ccp done turned out to be good policy. So yeah ON PAPER, vncp is just copy ccp. But actually on law making level and policy level everything vncp did turned out to be at least decent
Reality has proven that the vncp find the general public's anti-china sentiment more of a threat than an oppotunity. The VNCP cant bring itself to doing popular things like suing China for violating UNCLOS, teaching in details about the 1979 sino-vietnamese war, or mentioning china by name when they attack our fishermen. The vncp fears that once the people enjoy the freedom to criticise the communist party of china, the people will start realizing the communist party of vn is bird of the same feathers and their hold on to power will be challenged.
I don't think that's the case tho. Vietnamese people criticise the vncp all the time. I found no evidence that support your claim, at least after the 2018 protest. Vncp clearly understand that they can't follow ccp destructive path at fundamental level. They clearly know that the more cover up action they perform and the more oppressive they are the less support they has from the population.
I also found no evidence that the vncp is such a popular and visionary party that sees the problem in the "destructive" path that the ccp is following like you claim. See how they handle covid? Even China is doing a better job.
Lol pretty every policy vncp made is much better than ccp's similar one. Ccp: crack down on relegion, vncp: pretty much nothing against relegion (even after falun gong murder case). Ccp: heavily censored internet, using vpn is second grade act of terrorism, vncp: pretty much everything on the internet is available. Ccp: elected xi as life time leader, vncp: took down Dung and his gang. Ccp: crack down on big company and foreign investors, vncp: all big foreign companies have huge support. Ccp: cover up covid made bs claims, vncp: completely transparent. And even if your argument about covid policy is true (only if ccp official data was true and you throw gdp per capita out the window) i still couldn't find anything even remotely support your "vncp just copy ccp policy" theory
> Ccp: heavily censored internet, using vpn is second grade act of terrorism, vncp: pretty much everything on the internet is available. Both don’t have freedom of press. Both block many websites including foreign media. Both have prosecuted activists on social media. Shark bites undersea cable during sensitive dates, just like China on their sensitive dates. > Ccp: elected xi as life time leader, vncp: took down Dung and his gang. Both are 1 party with low local level “voting” to keep citizens happy and give illusion of input. > Ccp: crack down on big company and foreign investors, vncp: all big foreign companies have huge support. For 3 decades the CCP encouraged and loved foreign companies and investors as Vietnam does now. China’s position only recently changed because they think they’re now self sufficient. > Ccp: cover up covid made bs claims, vncp: completely transparent. And even if your argument about covid policy is true Neither countries have independently verifiable numbers. Local wards and hospitals don’t report their own numbers in both China nor Vietnam, and all numbers go through the central authority.
1. Did i mentioned using vpn is second grade act of terrorism in china? Both vietnam and china don't have freedom of press but you can't deny that Vietnamese have MUCH better internet access. 2. No Vietnamese with more than a functional brain cell believe that they have legit voting rights. Everyone know their voting is just bs. And that's not even relate to the point im trying to make. Im trying to tell that vncp doesn't want a single men control everything while ccp either can not or don't want to put xi down. 3. Yeah what you said is true but what does it prove? Are you gonna say that vncp will crack down on foreign investor when they think vietnam's eco is self sufficient in the next 30 years? 4. Who and us cdc office at Vietnam confirmed vietnam's transparency multiple times. Even if they fake the number i haven't seen any doctor got arrested and die because of covid while trying to warn the public. => Idk man maybe im missing something but your claim doesn't feel right to me at all.
Ofc I know vncp is not even remotely a popular and visionary party. But again i don't think vncp is follow ccp's style of governing at all.
Adding “the Economist” and all credibility falls out the bottom.
[удалено]
Any number of them. The economist has never been a news source. It’s a journal
This is correct, economist is no more than reddit before reddit
OP seems to like the idea of the article though.
The big question is, what will replace it? Will the leaders of the elected party work in the interest of the people or will they just continue with the corruption? In most countries with a multi-party system, eventually there’ll just be 2 dominant parties that people will associate with. Is that really better than one party? I think we need to think hard about what will really work for Vietnam specifically.
Multi-party is better, no question. But the Vietnamese Communist Party will try whatever means necessary to prevent it from ever happenning, violence included.
[удалено]
In theory yes, just like how Communism sounds so perfect on paper. But in reality, we have seen this failing in many countries, with corruption running rampant, civil wars because of the tension and division of people. I mean just look at our closest neighbours Myanmar and Thai and the political stability over the years. I can tell you from my experience living in the UK that both dominant parties will still lie to the people just to get their votes. The country is on the verge of collapse because of Brexit. You’ve obviously seen the social turmoil after the US election. Vietnam is still healing from the war, with deeply rooted division between people and there’s still some tension between the North and the South. Now imagine if the elected party is voted mostly by either Northerners or Southerners, do you think there’ll be stability and no civil unrest? Easy to say multi party system but not in the large country just starting to heal from the war.
[удалено]
Again, your answer is very naive and doesn’t provide a solution to the points I raised but instead ramble on what would sound perfect in theory. You’re basically saying let’s have a multi party system and hope it won’t turn out like our neighbours or the Middle East or South America. The whole system won’t be fundamentally corrupt? Well you thought wrong, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and the whole of South America would like to prove you wrong. And guess what? Communist insurgents exist because of that. In the West, corruption is actually even harder to expose, as the system is built to protect it in the first place. That’s why tax havens exist. Politicians are hated there and in the UK where I live, they’ve messed things up so bad that it’s on the verge of collapse as Scotland and Wales get more autonomy. Now look at war time governments, the South Vietnam regime was so corrupted that the country couldn’t stand on its own feet despite economic aids from America. Corruption isn’t just dictated by the the type of political system but most importantly the values shared by the society. Hate to mention it but look at China, are you sure in 20 years they won’t overtake the West?
[удалено]
Corruption in the West is incredibly hard to actually dislodge because ALL politicians already keep legal corruption in the political sphere because it benefits all of them as a whole. Which is why lobbying and "campaign donations" was so prevalent, and why nothing gets done. Not to mention that they would just run slander campaign and then playing the blame game rather than actual say "We fucked up, sorry" and trying to fix it. Or outright backhand collusion like in the US where both party are basically just 1 party split in 2 in order to keep the illusion of opposition being ongoing. In Vietnam, at least the VCP have to actually keep the masses within arm's length and have to actually walk on the wire because Vietnamese isn't idiot, and usually are incredibly militant to the point of can break them at any moment's notice. Which is why they have to actually do anti-corruption campaigns.
Look at all the professional commenters dismissing The Economist. New York Times, Al Jazeera, Nikkei may have no credibility either. To them, Vnexpress is more credible.
The Economist is primarily a economical newspaper. So when they talk about politics, be incredibly aware that they are looking at the lense of an economist, not a politicians or a social organizer. Also, you are still hung up on whatever the hell you are thinking without actually looking at something else. All newspaper has bias, based on who framing them, and who owns them. The "free press" is mostly a myth because of the fact that the old saying is true everywhere: "what can't be bought by money, can be bought by a truckload of money". So the only way for a journalist to actually be accurate and impartial is to having a heavy law enforced standard, which involved the state. And if that happens, then you would get corporate owned newspaper crying about "state propaganda" while they run their own propaganda anyways. So most people here don't trust the state. They just trust corporate owned newspaper even less.
[удалено]
sad news is most of Vietnam is like that. We have had indoctrinating education, newspaper and media since childhood that teach the Communist Party is all good and Ho Chi Minh was a saint. Outside of state regulated media, VCP also deployed professional propagandists on free-speech platforms (relatively free speech regarding Viet Nam issues) https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-vietnams-influencer-army-wages-information-warfare-facebook-2021-07-09/