CANADIAN BROADCAST STANDARDS COUNCIL

BRITISH COLUMBIA REGIONAL PANEL

CHKG-FM re Lac Viet Radio

(CBSC File 05/06-0023)

Decided May 9, 2006

M. Loh (Chair ad hoc), G. Leighton, F. Riahi, J. Rysavy, M. Singh, S. Warren

THE FACTS CHGK-FM (Fairchild Radio, Vancouver) broadcasts a Vietnamese program entitled Lac Viet Radio [Lac Viet Public Education Society (Ðài Phát Thanh Lac Viêt)] every Saturday morning. During their broadcasts of April 23 and April 30, 2005, there were announcements made which troubled a listener, who was identified in those broadcasts and soon thereafter complained about them. The show is broadcast in Vietnamese and tapes, transcripts and translations of excerpts of episodes of the shows of November 27, 2004, April 23 and April 30, 2005, June 11 and August 20 were furnished by the complainant. While the translated excerpts in the hands of the CBSC are all included in Appendix A, only brief illustrative extracts are included here. (It should also be noted that some of the translations were provided by the complainant and some by the broadcaster but there seems to be common acceptance of the accuracy of these by both parties.)

woman’s voice: [...] serving the Vietnamese settlers in BC, regardless of their origin in the North, Central or South [region of Vietnam]. It is Lac Viet’s policy not to interfere [or be affiliated] with any other organizations’ activities, especially those with political affiliations. Lac Viet has never provoked hostility with any individual or any organization, but we will not hesitate to speak out in defense when our policies are being slandered. An illustrative example of this [slandering act] is the surfacing of anonymous letters. In that spirit [of speaking out in defense], we would like to announce that from now on, we will not accept any phone calls to the radio station from [people or organizations] that has been and still is displaying destructive intentions, slandering, accusatively labeling Lac Viet as communist-friendly. We do not view them as our listeners; specifically, we will not receive phone calls from Mr. Nguyen The Tien due to the following reasons:

2

1 Mr. Tien has used “un-educated” language to speak about the policy

makers of Lac Viet’s station. [translator note: the literal meaning was “uneducated language”, however, this term is a polite way of saying that the speaker, i.e. Mr. Tien had spoken using less courteous languages, but not quite “cursing” yet]. Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being said.

2 Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as “communist-friendly” at a meeting of the “Vietnamese Community in the Greater Vancouver Area”, on this past April 17, in the presence of more than 100 people.

3 Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] -- also known as Mr. [R. C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided in Vietnam for a few years -- when he was ON AIR. Not enough, Mr. Tien has even made several personal phone calls directly to Mr. [A. Q.] to insist and deter Mr. [A. Q.] [from co-operating with Lac Viet]. This resulted in Mr. [A. Q.] backing out from his promise to contribute regularly to the Lac Viet Station.

We regret having to publicize this announcement and that with the sole intention of protecting the safe environment of the Lac Viet station and the reputation of the policy maker group, as well as our volunteers and collaborators. We hope to continue to receive the active support from our loyal listeners. This will conclude our section on community news.

There was a second statement broadcast one week later, which was sufficiently similar to the one cited here that it is only quoted in full in Appendix A. Additional Material Information Based on the correspondence and documents provided by the complainant and the station, it appears that the complainant, Mr. Tien The Nguyen, wrote directly to the station in March and April 2004 to complain that the program Lac Viet Radio should begin its broadcasts with the Vietnamese national anthem and that it should deal with particular controversial political issues identified by Mr. Tien, in order to better fulfill the program’s self-proclaimed mandate of promoting a sense of community. The station also apparently received a number of anonymous letters containing similar suggestions. It appears that these anonymous letters generated some discussion within the Vietnamese community and were discussed at a community meeting held in October 2004. Mr. Tien also wrote at least two open letters in October and November 2004 (which are found in Appendix B) about the matter, which appeared in a Vietnamese periodical. By way of response, Lac Viet Radio then made their own statements about the issue and about Mr. Tien on air on April 23 and 30, 2005 (as already mentioned above). Mr. Tien complained about those April broadcasts on the basis that they contained inaccurate and unfair information about him personally.

3

The Complaint and Ensuing Correspondence Despite the age of the challenged program content, the initial complaint was only filed on September 6, 2005 with the CRTC, which forwarded it to the CBSC in due course. While this was well beyond the 28-day period during which broadcasters are obliged to retain logger tapes, the complainant furnished his own recordings of the challenged episodes and the broadcaster did not object to their use by the CBSC. The letter of complaint read as follows (complete copies of all correspondence are included in Appendix C):

In their two broadcasts (7:00-10:00 am), on April 23/2005 and on April 30/2005, Lac Viet Public Education Society broadcasted [sic] a “special announcement”. This announcement was repeatedly read three times: two consecutive times on 23/04/2005 – by Ms. Tamy Dao first (not recorded) and then by Ms. Hong Tuoi (recorded) – and once more on 30/04/2005 by Ms. David Nhung [sic] (recorded). In the announcement, they flagrantly violated the listeners’ rights of speak [sic] and made serious lies and slanders concerning me (Tien The Nguyen). (a) They unfoundedly announced that: “From now on, we will not allow a group of distorters and destroyers against Lac Viet Radio to telephone in for discussing and urging. We do not consider them as our listeners (meaning that we exclude them from our audience). Concretely (meaning actually), we will not allow Mr. Tien The Nguyen to telephone in for discussing or arguing ....” (b) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien used uncultured words about Lac Viet Radio board in his talks with other Vietnamese seniors”; (c) They blatantly lied that: “In the general meeting of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Vancouver (17/04/2005), Mr. Tien attributed the unfounded pro-communist tendency to Lac Viet Radio”; (d) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien hurt Mr. G. [R.] – a UBC lecturer – while Mr. G. [R.] ([N., A. Q.) talked in a Lac Viet Radio broadcast”; (e) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien personally called Mr. G. [R.] many times in order to find fault with him, to admonish him and to deter him”. I think that Lac Viet Public Education Society obviously slandered me and they flauntingly violated the right of speak [sic] and the Radio Regulations, Part 1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3(a), (b), ( ) [sic], (d), (e), page 8 of 19.

[…]

The broadcaster’s Director of International Programs responded on November 10. She said, in part:

[…] Although there was no indication from the hosts’ words the exact broadcast dates of the programming, we trust the information you have provided and shall call them the programming broadcast on April 23 and April 30 of 2005. The relevant content of the taped programming is only about 3 minutes in length and it is mainly about an announcement made by the program hosts that you found non-agreeable. Apparently the same announcement was broadcast on

4

April 23 as well as April 30 of 2005 and you have taped both broadcasts of the announcement in the cassette. On your September 6, 2005 letter to the CRTC, you believe the Lac Viet radio programming has slandered you, and violated your right to speech as well as the Radio Regulations Part 1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e) […] After a thorough study of the transcript of the segments you have taped, we cannot find the Lac Viet radio programming has violated any of the above regulations. We do admit, however, it is very rare for our programs to issue a statement on air defending their ethics and principles. Nevertheless, I shall point out the fact that, on top of the numerous phoned-in comments you had made on air during the Lac Viet program before the April 23 & 30, 2005 incidents, you have sent letters to Lac Viet on March 20, 2004 and April 21, 2004, and you have published two full-page open letters on the Phóng Sự magazine in October (Enclosure 2) and November 2004 (Enclosure 3) respectively. Strong accusations were made against Lac Viet in those phoned-in comments, letters and announcements. Statements and accusations like, “On the morning of March 20, ... Your Program spoke about the ‘yellow flag’ using the same lines as the government of the communist party in Hanoi” (1), “... you insisted on ‘asking the opinions of the majority’ in the style of the Hanoi regime, ‘provocative and unfair’ ...” (2), “I hope the Producer and all of Lac Viet staffs will change and choose the correct mission for your Radio program in the near future” (3), “the 7 of you have sat on the head of the motherland and the people” (4), are slanderous and have seriously damaged the goodwill and reputation of Lac Viet and their producers, hosts, guests and supporters. It was only as the last resort that Lac Viet has decided to issue a statement on air. The nature of the problem in this case, we believe, is the difference in perception of what kind of program Lac Viet should be. Due to the training and expertise of the producers and program hosts, the target audience at that particular time slot (early Saturday morning) and the format of the program, we have decided from the very beginning that this radio program be informative but non-political and non-religious. Naturally our decision would not please everyone in the Vietnamese community and we have received anonymous complaint letters against Lac Viet for not displaying the Vietnamese nationalist flag (former South Vietnam national flag) at its functions and not playing the South Vietnam nationalist anthem at the beginning of the radio program. Those anonymous letters even jumped to the conclusion that Lac Viet is pro-Communist. However, we still believe the Lac Viet radio program is more beneficial to the Vietnamese Community if the program remains neutral of political standing and put the emphasis on education, community network and, for new immigrants, on how to adjust to life in Canada. Although Lac Viet has an open-line segment that welcomes listeners to phone in, we also have very strict regulations on how to handle phone-ins and who to put on air. We advise our producers to screen all incoming calls, be especially cautious when dealing with controversial topics and know when to move on from overly heated arguments or possibly abusive comments. Lac Viet is a live program and we as the licence holder of this radio station is [sic] ultimately responsible for all comments made on air, whether they are from the hosts, the guests or the callers. We can’t help but to stay on the conservative side. Nevertheless, it is not our intention to upset anyone with our programming. Should you feel deprived of your freedom to speak on air, that you were never

5

given a chance to defend yourself, or you feel you are not allowed the opportunity to express your points of view, we invite you to give us a written statement to address the issue on hand and we shall broadcast your statement on the Lac Viet program. When reading your statement on air, we will make it clear that the statement is supplied by you and that it only reflects your belief and points of view, not of the radio station. Please limit the length of your statement to 500 words, content of which should be fair and truthful. It should also be free of personal attacks and abusive comments. Please submit your statement to the undersigned in Vietnamese and English and we shall forward it to the CBSC for reference and advice. Should any part of the statement appear to be unsuitable for broadcasting on air, we shall inform you and work out the changes together. When the statement is announced on air, we will tape it for record. Please make use of this opportunity to let your opinions be known to our audience. […]

The complainant was not satisfied with the response and sent his ruling request to the CBSC on November 22. The broadcaster’s representative sent additional information regarding Mr. Tien’s letters to Lac Viet Radio on December 2 (noted above as being in Appendix B). On January 13, the complainant sent another letter to the CBSC, in which he made the following additional points. He also included an additional tape, the transcript of which is a part of Appendix A.

First, I would like to emphasize that I am complaining about LAC VIET PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY’s violations in their broadcasts such as the following. 1. LVPES/DPTLV has eliminated a large group of Vietnamese British

Columbians listeners (VBCLs) to their broadcasts and has not allowed these VBCLs (to call in) to participate in the discussions on numerous controversial issues presented. Therefore, LVPES/DPTLV has violated the right of getting information as well as the right of expressing opinions.

2. LVPES/DPTLV lied blatantly about the relationship between Mr. [C. R.] and Mr. Tien The Nguyen (Mr. Tien has not known Mr. [C.]’s telephone number). Being on air, Mr. [C.] only gave Mr. Nguyen the email address […]. You can check the fact with Mr. [R.].

3. LVPES/DPTLV presented unfairly many public controversial issues in Vietnamese British Columbians community; LVPES/DPTLV were frequently allotting more time and allowing more expressing-turns in the discussions on controversial issues to get more support for LVPES/DPTLV’s point of view and to suppress the con side.

4. LVPES/DPTLV frequently used and broadcasted coarse, aggressive and abusive languages in their broadcasts criticizing and attacking the opponents.

5. LVPES/DPTLV frequently encouraged anonymous callers-in (no names cited, no phone numbers cited) to criticize and to attack its opponents in almost all discussions on controversial issues presented.

6

Secondly, I would like to inform you that I sent to you by post one more audio tape, containing recorded witnesses supporting my above-stated points. […] Thirdly, […] I would like also to advise that you need not dealing [sic] with the controversial issues in the Vietnamese Canadian community contained in the taped broadcasts, although they really are the main causes of the conflicts in the Vietnamese British Columbians community. Fourthly, based on their behaviour, I think no one of the LVPES/ DPTLV’s staffs/members (including the president/the director) has the relevant qualification requested by the standards of CRTC and of CBSC. Probably, they committed mistakes because they did not read even did not understand the CRTC’s Radio Regulations and the CBSC Codes. […]

THE DECISION The B.C. Regional Panel examined the complaint under the following provisions of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics: CAB Code of Ethics, Clause 6 – Full, Fair and Proper Presentation

It is recognized that the full, fair and proper presentation of news, opinion, comment and editorial is the prime and fundamental responsibility of each broadcaster. This principle shall apply to all radio and television programming, whether it relates to news, public affairs, magazine, talk, call-in, interview or other broadcasting formats in which news, opinion, comment or editorial may be expressed by broadcaster employees, their invited guests or callers.

The Adjudicators examined all of the correspondence and reviewed the translation of the transcriptions of the relevant episodes. The Panel has concluded that the broadcaster was not in breach of the foregoing clause. On-Air Comments about Complainants The CBSC has had several opportunities to deal with the issue of comments made by on-air personalities regarding persons complaining about them. In CKAC-AM re the Gilles Proulx Show (CBSC Decision 94/95-0136, December 6, 1995), a listener sent two letters commenting on the treatment of listeners and the use of the French language by one of the station’s talk show hosts. Reacting with hostility to those complaints, the host broadcast, several times, the listener’s full name and city of residence, and added some outrageous and unwarranted personal attacks. The Panel found that this violated the Code and stated that,

other than for reasons of personal vindictiveness, there was no reason for Gilles Proulx to reveal the listener’s name and location (city) on air. Although she wrote a letter of complaint directly to the station management and to the host, the complainant did not consent to being identified on the public airwaves. A simple communication with a broadcaster, and even with the host of a talk show, is not tantamount to a waiver of the listener’s right to privacy. Had the host genuinely

7

wished to answer the charges which his critic had levelled against him, he could have done so by dealing with those issues which had been raised. Instead, he ignored the issues and tore after the messenger. By revealing the complainant’s full name and location, the host made it a simple task for any listener to identify her. It is clear to the Regional Council that the host infringed the complainant’s fundamental right to privacy in circumstances where there was no public interest, much less an overriding public interest, in revealing her identity on the airwaves.

In CIQC-AM re Galganov in the Morning (Invasion of Privacy) (CBSC Decision 97/98-0509, August 14, 1998), the host of a call-in show gave the complainant’s name on air, and insulted her for making her complaint to the CBSC. In this instance, the Quebec Panel also found the broadcaster in breach and made the point about the disproportionate position of the member of the audience

who does not benefit from the same access to the airwaves. The Council is of the opinion that the considerable power generated by the broadcast medium dictates that the person entrusted to wield this power will not abuse it by using it against relatively “defenceless” individuals.

The same situation arose in TQS re Gilles Proulx comments on Journal du midi (transportation strike) (CBSC Decision 03/04-0334, April 22, 2004), in which the Quebec Regional Panel dealt with a news broadcast in which the host had commented on a complaint that had been made against him regarding his views on an on-going strike. Proulx’s comments on the complaint began with the divulgation of the full name of the complainant and the identification of both the city where the complainant worked and that where he lived. Once again, the Quebec Panel found that the disclosures constituted

an unjustifiable exercise of the power of the microphone for petty and vindictive reasons. There was no conceivable justification for Gilles Proulx to mention [the complainant’s] name, much less to identify the city where he lives and that where he works, on the air. The host’s actions were taken in an atmosphere of nastiness and insult. That the complainant had written Proulx directly was a private matter, that he filed a complaint with the CRTC was also a non-public act. […] It should also be remembered that those who complain to the CRTC or the CBSC are not persons who have access to the power of a microphone and a broadcast licence. Those who receive such complaints and do have the power of a microphone and a licence must be conscious that those powerful tools have not been provided for personal retributive purposes. […]

And finally, there is the other example of a decision of the Quebec Panel in CJMS-AM re comments on two episodes of Le p’tit monde à Frenchie (CBSC Decision 04/05-0939, October 24, 2005), in which the Panel added that “The issue becomes a problem when the purpose is not benign,” which it was not in that decision.

8

The Application of the Foregoing Principles to the Present File In the matter at hand, the Panel finds that the broadcaster operated with great care and sensitivity. It was not brash in its statements. It was not condemnatory. It explained with considerable care its rationale for no longer permitting Mr. Tien to have access to its airwaves. In so doing, it explained its own policy of wishing to stay above the political fray on Vietnam-sensitive issues such as the broadcast of the Vietnamese national anthem and the display of the flag. Arguably, the statements were not even about the complainant but rather about the issues he raised. They were, in the Panel’s view, an excellent example of the principle of benign usage referred to by the Quebec Panel in the CJMS decision above. Most material of all, though, from the Panel’s perspective, is that it was Mr. Tien himself who rendered the entire matter public by publishing two open letters in Vietnamese-Canadian periodicals. He focused on the matters of concern to him and criticized Lac Viet Radio to essentially the same audience that would be potential listeners of the weekly radio program. Moreover, it was he who first chose to make these issues public. While the Panel concedes that the specific sensitivities of the Vietnamese cultural issues are beyond their knowledge, it is not those disputes that are at issue. It is the question of access. Mr. Tien had his. It is only fair for Lac Viet Radio to be able to respond. Not only did they do so but they did so temperately and even generously by inviting Mr. Tien back on their airwaves after they had decided not to do so. The Panel finds their fairness exemplary and considers that they have not breached the foregoing Code provision by their broadcasts. Broadcaster Responsiveness The CBSC always assesses the broadcaster’s responsiveness to the complainant, which is a responsibility of membership in the Council. It expects that response to be thoughtful and focussed on the substance of the complaint. In the matter at hand, the broadcaster was exemplary. Not only was the first letter long, thorough and thoughtful, but the broadcaster responded more than once and also agreed to provide further air time to the individual who had been so critical of it. The Panel considers that the response of the Director of International Programs constitutes an excellent acquittal of CHKG-FM’s obligation of responsiveness on this occasion. This decision is a public document upon its release by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. It may be reported, announced or read by the station against which the complaint had originally been made; however, in the case of a favourable decision, the station is under no obligation to announce the result.

1

APPENDIX A

CBSC Decision 05/06-0023 CHKG-FM re Lac Viet Radio

The following are the transcripts of the relevant portions (as isolated by the complainant) of Lac Viet Radio broadcasts, translated into English. April 23, 2005

woman’s voice: [...] serving the Vietnamese settlers in BC, regardless of their origin in the North, Central or South [region of Vietnam]. It is Lac Viet’s policy not to interfere [or be affiliated] with any other organizations’ activities, especially those with political affiliations. Lac Viet has never provoked hostility with any individual or any organization, but we will not hesitate to speak out in defense when our policies are being slandered. An illustrative example of this [slandering act] is the surfacing of anonymous letters. In that spirit [of speaking out in defense], we would like to announce that from now on, we will not accept any phone calls to the radio station from [people or organizations] that has been and still is displaying destructive intentions, slandering, accusatively labeling Lac Viet as communist-friendly. We do not view them as our listeners; specifically, we will not receive phone calls from Mr. Nguyen The Tien due to the following reasons: 1 Mr. Tien has used “un-educated” language to speak about the policy makers of Lac

Viet’s station. [translator note: the literal meaning was “uneducated language”, however, this term is a polite way of saying that the speaker, i.e. Mr. Tien had spoken using less courteous languages, but not quite “cursing” yet]. Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being said.

2 Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as “communist-friendly” at a meeting of the “Vietnamese Community in the Greater Vancouver Area”, on this past April 17, in the presence of more than 100 people.

3 Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] - also known as Mr. [R. C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided in Vietnam for a few years - when he was ON AIR. Not enough, Mr. Tien has even made several personal phone calls directly to Mr. [A. Q.] to insist and deter Mr. [A. Q.] [from co-operating with Lac Viet]. This resulted in Mr. [A. Q.] backing out from his promise to contribute regularly to the Lac Viet Station.

We regret having to publicize this announcement and that with the sole intention of protecting the safe environment of the Lac Viet station and the reputation of the policy maker group, as well as our volunteers and collaborators. We hope to continue to receive the active support from our loyal listeners. This will conclude our section on community news.

April 30, 2005

woman’s voice: [...] for more than 10 years of serving [muffled voice] our main goal was to create a safe and healthy environment for volunteers and to take part in programs to guide us -- the Vietnamese settlers in BC, regardless of our origins in the North, Centre or South [region of Vietnam] – toward the integration into the community. The Lac Viet’s policy is not

2

to be affiliated with any other organizations’ activities, especially those with political affiliations. Lac Viet has never provoked hostility with any individual or any organization, but we will not hesitate to speak out in defense when our policies are being slandered. An illustrative example of this [slandering act] is the surfacing of anonymous letters. In that spirit [of speaking out in defense], we would like to announce that from now on, we will not accept any phone calls to the radio station from [people or organizations] that has been and still is displaying destructive intentions, with slandering, accusatively labeling Lac Viet as communist-friendly. We do not view them as our listeners; specifically, we will not receive phone calls from Mr. Nguyen The Tien due to the following reasons: 1. Mr. Tien has used “un-educated” language to speak about the policy makers of Lac

Viet’s station. Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being said.

2. Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as “communist-friendly” at a meeting of the “Vietnamese Community in the Greater Vancouver Area”, on this past April 17, in the presence of more than 100 people.

3. Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] - also known as Mr. [R. C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided in Vietnam for a few years - when he was ON AIR. Not enough, Mr. Tien has even made several personal phone calls directly to Mr. [A. Q.] to insist and deter Mr. [A. Q.] [from co-operating with Lac Viet]. This resulted in Mr. [A. Q.] backing out from his promise to contribute regularly to the Lac Viet Station.

We regret having to publicize this announcement -- with the sole intention of protecting the safe environment of the Lac Viet station and the reputation of the organizers [of this station], as well as our volunteers and collaborators. We hope to continue to receive the active support from our loyal listeners.

Additional Broadcasts of August 20, November 6 and November 27, 2005 (it was unclear from the complainant’s correspondence and the tape itself which segments were broadcast on which of those dates).

Music Female voice: Dear listeners, the radio program of Lac Viet is now concluded. Wishing you a peaceful week and please tune in again for our next program. Male voice: Dear listeners, the following is the program of the Committee against Anonymous Letters, [scheduled] from 9:30- 10 am. We would like to affirm that the Committee against Anonymous Letters takes full legal responsibility for this program. Dear listeners, the Committee against Anonymous Letters was not established as a result of Lac Viet’s campaigning, but as a result of expressed concerns from various organizations and individuals who care about our community. [The establishment of this committee] was especially founded from the encouragement of individuals who had been framed and slandered by these anonymous letters. We would like to clarify further through the announcement the role of this Committee, which is to officially prevent and nullify the effects of the anonymous letters. We’d like to discuss further the meaning of this… The first intention is … to prevent the divisiveness of the community caused by these slandering and framing.

3

The second one is that if we can adopt a mentality with less criticism, less insults and slanders, then a better atmosphere can be created for our community’s activities. Furthermore, this would encourage people with an interest in the community to actively participate in the community, as well as create a positive model for the second generation [of Vietnamese] to participate in the community. We would like to elaborate further that we do not share the same point of view as Mr. Nguyen The Tien, which is to hide behind the flag and banners. The role of the Committee is to protect what’s right, so we need to stand in front of the flag, in front of the banner, not behind the banner like Mr. Tien’s sentiment. We’d like to also add that that viewpoint should be dependent upon the time. For example, take the case of the boxer Le Cung, who lives in the capital of the [Vietnamese] immigrants: Westminster, Little Saigon. Mr. Cung is a famous boxer and he has taken the yellow flag and made into a pair of shorts to wear while he boxes. If Mr. Cung was to come to Vancouver and box, I don’t know if Mr. Tien would run up to the ring and pull down the boxer’s short. I don’t know … But everything must be appropriate for the time. We live in a free country and besides hanging on to the traditional cultural values - which can be narrow-minded, we also need to assimilate into the society where we currently live. Mr. Tien himself had attended the press conference and during the entire press conference, had not expressed any concerns. Yet when he got home, he wrote with the intention of finding dirt. [Translator’s note: the speaker used an idiom which literally can be translated as “ruffling up the feathers to find the mark”. It’s commonly used to express a deliberate act to find faults where there may not be any]. So, we’d like to state that from now on, the Committee will not respond to Mr. Tien anymore … He can write whatever he wants in the newspaper. Cut/program changes? Sound Caller: In general, Vietnamese have a general observation that a person grow up to be a good person or not … is dependent upon 3 factors: one, is the influence of the family, two, is the education [that one receives in school] – but Mr. Tien is an educated man, a professor -- the third factor is society. Personally, I think that Mr. Tien, with his entire family being highly educated, why didn’t his family help him and let him speak so … [inaudible words]. Our ancestors had taught us that examine and blame ourselves first before we examine and blame others. Yet Mr. Tien’s letters are full of criticisms for others … I don’t know if he had examine to see if he had done anything for the community? I’d just like to remind him that he should examine himself first before he can continue to attack others … when he [reaches the point where he] can’t self-examine, we’ll help him. That’s all. Cut/sound. Female: listening… Hello? Caller male voice: I’m Mr. Tien, I’d like to express my opinion. Female: Yes, greetings, Mr. Tien. Please voice your opinion. Male voice interrupt: Please do speak… Caller: Hello…I’d like to express my opinion. Male: Yes. Please speak.

4

Caller: Today I will not answer you directly, because the newspaper Cong Dong has been printed … with the first issue. I will answer you in the paper Cong Dong. (male voice interrupts: Dear Mr. ...) I’d like to ask for the community’s permission to clarify my viewpoint, my political viewpoint, and my desires to serve the community. Female voice: Dear Mr. Tien, it’s like this … Dear Mr. Tien – Caller: First, in my thinking the Republic of Vietnam’s government follows the correct law of natural progression; the Ho Cao [translator’s note: Ho refers to Ho Chi Minh, by itself Ho can be a last name, but in old literature, it refers to the mythical fox that can adopt human form. Cao is a modern term for fox. Taken together, it’s a degratory reference to Ho chi Minh] regime is against the natural progression law. The pain of our people is that the right regime did not succeed in defending freedom and uniting and creating peace for the country. The antagonistic regime, with its trickery plans that had existed through many generations, had blanketed our entire people with an absurd Communist ideology and brought sufferings for all the people and painful shames for more than 3 million Vietnamese abroad. I’m devoted to contribute my part in the fight against the dictatorship of the single party rule to re-establish freedom for the nation. With the community abroad, particularly in BC, the Greater Vancouver area, I’d like to contribute whatever I can to fight against the Resolution 36 put forth by the Ho Cao regime of Vietnam. In practical term, from the beginning of 2004 till now, I’d like to report to the community that I have contributed about seven thousand dollars to the various organizations, groups with true intention of the [republic of Vietnam ]: Phong su magazine, 1000 dollars, Cong Dong magazine – with 4 consecutives issues support, each with a 250 dollars donation, totaling 1000 dollars, beginning with the first issue today; Vietnam Nguyet San online, 500 dollars; “coi nguon viet toc” book publishing 500 dollars; La phong group, 500 dollars, United democracy group, 1400 dollars; the Republic of Vietnam’s veteran’s group, 1200 dollars; Lac Viet Radio station 100 dollars with a new year wish this year, as well as the year before; in addition to the many smaller donations which I will not list here. Our culture has a saying, “money is where the person is”. The Bible says, “wherever the possession is, that is where a person’s spirit and feeling is”. I would like to affirm that with my viewpoint and wishes to serve the community. About the discussion, I will continue to discuss with you in the magazine. I will not enter in a discussion with you today. And I’d like to say that with each publication of the magazine, I have at least 2 writings – 1 of them will offend you. So I think that in the future, you will invite me on air again to discuss in further details. I’d like to say good bye and offer my apologies for bothering you during these last few minutes. I’m finished. Male: Yes, thank you Mr. Tien. I would like to say that in our opinion, that because Mr. Tien, … Mr. Tien himself had attended the press conference and during the conference had not voiced any concerns. Yet when he got home, he wrote articles with the intention of dirt-finding. So, I’ d like to clearly confirm that from now on, we will not respond to Mr. Tien. Mr. Tien can write whatever he wishes. Female: Hello? ... We have 3 minutes left. Please tell us your opinion. Male caller: I’d like to share with Lac Viet [my opinion] about what Mr. Tien just said. Female: Yes? Caller: I don’t know what Mr. Tien does that enables him to have so much money to give to the various organizations. Is he in an illegal business that would have given him that much

5

money? So with him … he should leave these organizations alone so they can do their share in strengthening the Vietnamese Community abroad. Female: Yes, thank you. Male: Is there anything you’d like to add? Caller: No… that’s all. Thank you Lac Viet. Male: Thank you very much. Female: Hello, Lac Viet is listening … we have about 2 minutes. Caller: I’d like to voice my opinion. Just half a minute. Female: Mr. Tien, you already had your say. I’d like to hang up now. Male: There’s only about 30 seconds left. We’d like to run the other program. Music We have an issue we’d like to express with our listeners. The left-winged Georgia Straight with the July 7th issue had written an article relating to Lac Viet and the issue of hanging the yellow flag of the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnamese Cultural day on June 18, 2005 here in Vancouver. In that article, the writer had quoted Mr. Lam Dang, a volunteer with Lac Viet. Lac Viet’s management and Lac Viet organization was not aware of that report, until Phong su magazine, in the August 15 issue had “in the name of the Vietnamese Refugees abroad,” condemned Lac Viet Radio. Since the articles in Phong Su and Georgia Straight had printed misleading information about Lac Viet, we would like to clarify the issues as followed: [translator’s note: the clarification that the host was about to read was not included in this cassette] Dear listeners, while we were reading the announcement, there were a few people who called in. We apologize but we cannot pick up the phone during those times. If you have an opinion to share, please call in to this number : 604-709-9616. Female: Lac Viet is listening. Female caller: Hello? Female: Yes? Caller: I’m a listener of LV. After your clarification that Mr. Lam is neither in the management team or was he nominated by you to be the spokesperson for the station, I’d like to ask why Phong Su magazine would make up such a thing to defame Lac Viet? What is your intention? In your article condemning Lac Viet, you also had confirmed that several people were motivated [translator’s note: unable to hear the exact word used. This is what it sounded to me] to see Lac Viet Radio and its management team to succeed.. Why did Phong Su know about these things yet did not print those positive comment about Lac Viet to encourage them? And now, you would fabricate stories to slander and defame Lac Viet?

6

So, what is your true intention? Are you trying to disrupt our community’s activities? But these activities had helped our community a lot, as evidenced by the invitation made by the Toronto Vietnamese community to Lac Viet Station, requesting that 1 hour of Lac Viet Radio Program to be broadcast in Toronto? I am not completely surprised to see how things unfold since Phong su magazine had printed misleading and untrue reports. [The publishers] were paid to publish these reports… [translator’s note: I can’t hear or make sense of what the caller was saying at this point due to the poor sound recording]. Perhaps from now on we should call Phong Su as Phong Xao [translator’s note: Xao means “lie”]. Male voice: announcement… Male voice: Mr. Charlie Smith had quoted 2 sentences in the paper and the rest are his inferences to implicitly express what he wanted to say. So we’d like to analyze the 2 quotes of Mr. Lam. The first quote: “we tried to bring people closer together, to share a laugh, to enjoy some food and entertainment there”. Dear listeners, when Mr. Lam presented the meanings of the Cultural day [he expressed] besides the main intention of commemorating the 30 years of Vietnamese, mainly political refugees, settlement in Vancouver, he also expressed the intention of bringing people closer. In truth, we also see this intention as a good intention, with nothing to question about. There’s no slandering like Phong Su had reported. The second quote: “We will try to be more careful next time since there are different ideas and this is public land, so we have to honor their beliefs.” This sentence was misrepresented by Mr. Smith as to imply that Mr. Lam Dang regretted having hung up the yellow flag. This is completely false. When Mr. Dang said that “we will try to be more careful”, he means, “ we will try to be more careful when we hang up the flag. It doesn’t mean that we will no longer hang up the flag. That unfortunate incidence … well, we’d like to insert here a little background information as to help you understand better the formation of the paper Georgia Straight. It is a completely left-winged paper. This paper was founded during the 70s, and was supported by a great majority of American draft-dodgers who had come to Canada to avoid army drafts and developed an anti-war mentality. The person who wrote to the editors was Mr. Doug [translator’s note: I couldn’t hear the name well. This is what it sounded like, but I can be wrong] Edward, a gay man and anti-war activist who came to Canada to avoid the draft. So he has what is called the Vietnamese syndrome. Whenever he sees the yellow flag with three red stripes, he is reminded of his betrayal to his own country, since he had fled to Canada. So he … well, in general, the anti-war activist these days have the same mentality of putting the blame on the Republic of Vietnam government for the American’s lost battle in Vietnam. Even those famous like Jane Fonda, had publicly apologized to the US army veterans and to the Americans for her mistakes in supporting North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Because of this guilty-mentality complex, they’re prone to be offended and like to put the blame on the Republic of Vietnam’s government. Whenever, they see the yellow flag with the three stripes, they react like this. With regards to his suggestions, should we follow it or not? Since the mentality of the anti-war people is similar to the mentality of a few Communist Party member, which is highly opinionated -- [the mentality is] “ I don’t know whether he really has reformed or not? Sometimes, looking on the outside, they’re reformed but … who can be sure that on the

7

inside, they’re reformed?” Nevertheless, since this is a suggestion, we’d received it and will analyze it before we decide whether we’ll follow it or not. Music. [woman’s voice]: “[. . .] serving the Vietnamese settlers in BC, regardless of their origin in the North, Central or South [region of Vietnam]. It is Lac Viet’s policy not to interfere [or be affiliated] with any other organizations’ activities, especially those with political affiliations. Lac Viet has never provoked hostility with any individual or any organization, but we will not hesitate to speak out in defense when our policies are being slandered. An illustrative example of this [slandering act] is the surfacing of anonymous letters. In that spirit [of speaking out in defense], we would like to announce that from now on, we will not accept any phone calls to the radio station from [people or organizations] that has been and still is displaying destructive intentions, slandering, accusatively labeling Lac Viet as communist-friendly. We do not view them as our listeners; specifically, we will not receive phone calls from Mr. Nguyen The Tien due to the following reasons: 1. Mr. Tien has used “un-educated” language to speak about the policy makers of Lac

Viet’s station. [translator’s note: the literal meaning was “uneducated language”, however, this term is a polite way of saying that the speaker, i.e. Mr. Tien had spoken using less courteous languages, but not quite “cursing” yet]. Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being said.

2. Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as “communist-friendly” at a meeting of the “Vietnamese Community in the Greater Vancouver Area”, on this past April 17, in the presence of more than 100 people.

3. Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] -- also known as Mr. [R. C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided in Vietnam for a few years- when he was ON AIR. Not enough, Mr. Tien has even made several personal phone calls directly to Mr. [A. Q.] to insist and deter Mr. [A. Q.] [from co-operating with Lac Viet]. This resulted in Mr. [A. Q.] backing out from his promise to contribute regularly to the Lac Viet Station.

We regret having to publicize this announcement and that with the sole intention of protecting the safe environment of the Lac Viet station and the reputation of the policy maker group, as well as our volunteers and collaborators. We hope to continue to receive the active support from our loyal listeners. This will conclude our section on community news. male voice: “Greetings to our listeners”… woman’s voice: [...] for more than 10 years of serving [muffled voice] our main goal was to create a safe and healthy environment for volunteers and to take part in programs to guide us -- the Vietnamese settlers in BC, regardless of our origins in the North, Centre or South [region of Vietnam] -- toward the integration into the community. The Lac Viet’s policy is not to be affiliated with any other organizations’ activities, especially those with political affiliations. Lac Viet has never provoked hostility with any individual or any organization, but we will not hesitate to speak out in defense when our policies are being slandered. An illustrative example of this [slandering act] is the surfacing of anonymous letters. In that spirit [of speaking out in defense], we would like to announce that from now on, we will not accept any phone calls to the radio station from [people or organizations] that has been and still is displaying destructive intentions, with slandering, accusatively labeling Lac Viet as communist-friendly. We do not view them as our listeners; specifically, we will not receive phone calls from Mr. Nguyen The Tien due to the following reasons:

8

1. Mr. Tien has used “un-educated” language to speak about the policy makers of Lac Viet’s station. Several seniors, who were witnesses, have told us about what was being said.

2. Mr. Tien had publicly accused the Lac Viet station as “communist-friendly” at a meeting of the “Vietnamese Community in the Greater Vancouver Area”, on this past April 17, in the presence of more than 100 people.

3. Mr. Tien has offended Mr. [N. A. Q.] -- also known as Mr. [R. C.], a Canadian professor who can speak Vietnamese because he had resided in Vietnam for a few years- when he was ON AIR. Not enough, Mr. Tien has even made several personal phone calls directly to Mr. [A. Q.] to insist and deter Mr. [A. Q.] [from co-operating with Lac Viet]. This resulted in Mr. [A. Q.] backing out from his promise to contribute regularly to the Lac Viet Station.

We regret having to publicize this announcement -- with the sole intention of protecting the safe environment of the Lac Viet station and the reputation of the organizers [of this station] as well as our volunteers and collaborators. We hope to continue to receive the active support from our loyal listeners. Music (same) Male voice: Announcement for the editors of the magazine Dien Dan Su That va Doi ngoai (DDST&DN) … the DDST&ST is a silent forum, in BC Canada, full of admiration for the spirit of democracy, and for the democratic fights for human rights. Our forum platform demands realistic discussion on democratic freedom and human rights. DDST&ST do not represent any organization or political groups. Our forum policy is to honor the truth and resolve to uncover any deceits and willful plans to benefit any person. [We do not allow] any distortion of the truth; accusation of calumniation; twisted the [journalist’s/ writer’s] words, demagogic fabrication; … attacking, defamation attacks, muddying people’s name; distorting the truth is the action of gangsters. It is our policy to relay true accurate information and do not allow defaming attacks. All the writings submitted to the forum must follow our terms, be conscious, innovative and constructive [to the forum/community]. [Inaudible gap] … editor DDST&DN: Mr. Phan The Vinh.

CBSC Decision 05/06-0023CH KG-FM re Lac Viet Radio

~

NN~~~~

tc$;-

,"'if:

1r~"=~ I

,"_I, "2..

~l:J:;

:t:""';:c"~!:

"'"..':"~ ~

~

;;';t~.3

'~!!Ii:~

;,;f:j:'i~"::

~.~ :~~

:::;;,.;:::,~;,~

c~.

,,' , . -

:~~t~

~~

~

~>~~.Q=.c;c.--...g,

;;~~~.Q=.'0~,..c-=;c=-

~.

" ,.

(,)

'. ,"\

",.. ~

.~ 'g-

:,,'" '"

;, ...c

~'Q

""~'.

~

"';',( =

.,:3

e

:fl~'£ ~

;~t;;j

;";:: ~

~'.j !~

I;

.c ~.3

c ~

( ~

.c...,

bO.c

c.

:i,;f.~";~

:: 1!!C

' -.

fJ) ~

e.- -=

~:0

(,) ~

~~

~;

-.0 =

t

. ~

~

;...

.,-" ~

-S

'"

-,.. ~~

l;f '! ~!i!?'i

, -- ...: c

=

..,.

'~~

~:i:~

~~

;; ~

:.~!J.'.'

'., (,)-,. =

.c .c~

U

~;o

. ~

., "".g

~

e~

' -

>

~..s-

~

t,) I:;

, -

0- 0

.: c'Q

5=

-.0

- ~

'

:"1 E' bO

~

~"~

.~

'-'-~

'C

0 IC

O .-

~'Q

'O.Q

>

(,)';9'0~

.'Q

(,).-=

>"4)

<4)

'>'

'Q-

= =

c. C'~

't4:)~>

."'i

- "4)

=

><

4)bOC

:=C

~~

1='.c

~U

c'Q

~

u--:.u...

po U ,=

-=

>

':::'-~

=

-C

0

C

u ~

'E

C

=-

~

cn

"4)~"o

~.-

cnC

S

'-~

._~>~

g

>".F

c.

~u'O

= ~

bO

.

..;Z~

~=

bO

'O

bO-c'Q

C'"~

-.0 -=

~

,~

C

-.

~E

--~-=

- ~

~~

u

>w

~-

C

cn

<4)-~

~",

~

-fi ~

~jf.f,;~

#

~

.

~.::~

,;:oS

:'::?

..u~.~~,~

~::

.oc.=~=,..==-

=-

-e~00 ;.

=~c~In00C~:;.-dE0'!.c=~.

e00

p§>~..0 ..

~

00c00

-C

cO

- -

u co-

00 ~

§. u

'Q

~>

. .J

(tU

. .-

~>

. -cu

~-

~00 =

.-

c~

"0:9=

>

-000 '>

-U

I..

.-.w

. "0-

.z.a 00

;>"

~

.S.-

.c ~

~

~

.-~

=

~

00- r-

=

..00°c.c

<0-.

~'i

N

~:~

~f

~=

.oe

~oS

~-

~¥-'

~"'t:~:"'!lg.~

:

t:i'~.

::~~

~o

'

~,

':~~.0«)

'..loW,~:=::

..;~~

.,"c-..

"

:~\J~

..~....J~~='...

-=~,~...-0-)'Qe'S=~=a"bOC

~O~bOC<0-(.I

=-cOg'0.bO=.u~-~:>(.I

j"-.; U

Q:= ~

I~

~,~.:~:';~

,

~~

(~~~~

~.oec',='{§

<

~~

~t._~C

'IG)~

'0. -..

"

e~

.-,:.

.e..,t

. c.>

~.><

",;;,~l'~

..l ~

~

~,-.c""C

c

"":! e

,::: ~

"0...c

~C

'cQ

~

...c g,

:;:.-, ~

~'8~

'0'" ~

,

,:g ~

';"'~~

~

.a'~

:g.] "i

~

(j .

"~

Co"..

~~

'C

(j0000c

c "

:0- ~

.,

-=

(j ;

,'i

ij .,'.

0,;..,f,)

~.ca'

-:-~

coo.

C'0'=~

(j

0=

~~

...:

.c~-oS~

OO

..,. C

-'00~

- ..

,- "V

~~~

C

.

~~

8--

;>

cc.~

~.c

Co

fJOO

-(j.~..

oo~-c~

-002"e.&

J ~

008~cC

f,)C

O.-

~(j.c~coo~

Cf,)c.g

c-o,cn.-

~-=

C

o

~.g-o

':>.~

ooo~

-=au;>

-g-~~;..,c

~

cc.c

0..

a'

.;"~?t*t'.:~

~~

c ";0 .~

!

... ~

.o

;~

]-§

~

~

~""

..,."lj5.;~

~:,:.

-~.'.;.~1..1

...1..1

,:,:,':g'>'3

..CO

-=~u

'.0eIQ'

=~

.'-5

: 8'

~.u...0

~

..f4J~=

-

~~

.- ~

:g~'>

. ~

~

=:

co=~

"5

-§~---=

::

~=

~-~~

~

~

"0 '~

0 ~

~~

. 0

e ..u

Q)

=>

< :

"0.

"--,-

C

~,I..I

.o~~

.80'u

=C

.

f4J,Qc~eIQ

-C

Oo~u

..-

bQ

:g,§->

,.c&

~gQ

.'==

c~~

;'t

~,..=

..'t,,~

.:!

'~1,r~

~.=

'"

-; co~

"'i~~

~~

,~~

~-

- '"

~

~~

~

.', c~

~

~.'D

e; ...

~

; ~~

';:i-5.-=~

~

~"...Q

=

'" ~

",.:

E

.A=

..

;.~-

~ '5 ~

~': -

~",-

--,,_.~~

"c"U

~

c.~'C

c'S~

0- -"0--

. '" ~

~..

~.

... ~

..'=

u~.

~

='

'-. ~

-;;.. ~

~--

=~

...

.-- -'" -~

-' "N

'>'

=

,~

~

~=

co -

.Q

~-

~=

"'=

..~~

- ~

C~

~

C--

... ~

. '"

~..

~

e~

- =

e

~

~-~

.- ""O

Q~

~~

S

'~:c'

~

~~

~C

". '"

~

.;..; =

.. ~

- 'S

..u" '"

~...

~-

~'"

~.-

-,S~

-co

>

~'

.~

g.SO

~

'S'c'C

'-~

";'c'-o ~

~>

. 'S

~~

~

~

~=

~

~~

.ce- ~

~C

J "'- ~

e

~I~

~

. ...

~~

'C~

~

~-

C

----.e.-

-N

~C

O'"

~~

.:s.~

.q.~~

.'\Q>

~

~

~ -'~

co =

-

,~.

-~

~'C

~

~~

'" ~

~

>'...

U

~

~r"f

=.:=

' ~

.~

~

-=

e.~

cO ~

C~

=

C~

~-~

-~

-S-=

...~

.- '5

~

4) ,"0

J;$ .-

~

X::-S

~

""~

~..u

e>

~C

~

-;...

~

c>

0' ~...

~

.

~.~

,.~~

',;

'. i

~:~j

-,

00c

"e-~>u.!.....~'6>9'\

.~.9.ci§ri~.;..,..""-:9~~

.""

..: ~

0--.e

..,.

~.s

~

u.'-~

.;>

.~

~"B

c 00

- =

.

~':!

..>

CO

~.soo,c.

=

=~

a

.- ~

~=':8!oo~.g~u ~.-

=-~

~

- '>' r§

s.-=

~.&

~

u

-~~

u0000C

c

'g-B-

.-

~~0 ,to'

~.cO

'::"..u.c-~

eo.

c~

QU

U...'"c~-=

..:

.c~-.c

~-:C

... c

~~-~'-'>

.

~~

,,-

~

c .

~w

e-

>

cU'

"cU.c

u-=Q

..-

u-=...

- -

eo-s

c

~

g~eoe:wC

-c)~

:E.§

ceo'"-c)c~.:~

~~

~

~u'Oo.:seo

~e..u

O'u>'g--

. ~

'U

i!~._.~

~~

~~

t!

~co~~~-c:O-C

-,:-'(;) ~

-

e'".s~~

.=

.-=

~~-~~~CoI ~

_.~~

'S'>

.~= ~

.a;:su~

~'SQO

'

c~

~'S

-5~~~

o'~b~e~=cV

~c~~

.- ~~

'5'>

' ~

g.§~

~~

~

c~- ~~

.;.~=

- .~~

~~

~]5.:"'

"s .g

u c

><

:IC

o!""..~.-~

~.c =

.&0'

y c

c .cuoCc~Q

O-

cOQ

:=y

"

.- Q

O~

B~

,>-c

=

QO

O'c

g"Co

'=C

r::~

]~0000~

=

~~

:~

4.

~.-~~

'8~-- .-~

~~

'>-0;'0'.:;ik~

-.-om

'-=~

--==

~~

:~

co-. u

.=

u -.

U~

~~

~

u

,C'"...D

t~.. =

."'-

-0---t'~

'=

e

=U

,w-,C

.c

~~

--,C

,w-"'~

co-.. "'-

om..

~

.- "Cm

-=..

0----,w

"..~=~

,>-U

'>'

O~

=

0-

~O

"==

'«~.U

,C. 0

=-0.--

..~'-

Fr

-==

c-.'c..

- '.I

.- -...ca'

U~

--'>

- o'~°S

co-C

O -

'10-";~

';>

om

,C~

=...

.ce-"

U'.

- ~

~~..s

.~

bO

- =.-oe.-cO

1;0

--. ~

'0~

_.~

0 _.~

CO

=~~

~'a~

>.

U

U--

~ =

.='

bO~

bOC

,CC

-CO

"'..s

-S-=

...-

U

~'to

~

:I:~-S-

.-

~~~

..."

~&

).~~

~

.=~~.-~~~co'-':s:

~:c., '

'S'()~

". .~l'

.. -

- .

~",.

...:,_.,

...

~>

.

'a~~:a

.§~~~'-O

~.~

~~

~1

~~'S

~'()

~

..~

~

~0- ~

~

~~

..

-'-0 ~

:;.~

~~

~

~

~ --

~~

oS

~

~

~a

~~

_.

-"'"

~

0.,;5'~

~

~'~

~

.~

'S

~-e~

~

~

~

~... ~

-

~~

~

~

~~

~

'

'S~

~

~~

~ ~

":,~'

~ -

. ~

J;~

~

: ~::.~

~

~

:..~~

~

~

-

~~

~.

o~~

\~

:z..

-~

~~

~

~

i ~

.~--~

. ~

.-0(,-

~~

~

.

~~

bQ

..~~

C) ~

~~

\~-

~ "j::'~

:-sO

,.,. ,"to

~

~~

,,;~b.""~

,.;r,'-~~

"e 'C

"'\' ~~-14)

.s >

.c-Ec

~

~1.0

c

~~

'4)--

»-~u

'"=

. ~

..Js;;.c~

c

~ e

~

>-

~-=

cc'B

~Q

,-~

'O.~

u

~'M

c: .-0--~.- ~~

I-

.5~")(.c~

-c

~Q

U

U

U

~~~

u; ~

.-o~~

. ec-~

-c

oS

.

bO~

S~

.c~!::"'S~

~cd C

- ~

~=

C~

°.c~

c

.'0

0 ..~

.cu

~= '-U

.=

~~O

-E~

.

C.s

=-

.~!

.~

.- e

~

.;;.;.[0 C~

~>

--0

-~~

:a-5.-

~e

00

.c ~

,

->.:!:g

&i~~

~..;'r.;

~~

: -5

~..; ~c=.cu

'-'oiij=~

~Q

'<a

.c .-

Co

~

s~~

ee

-~

~

e~a'

-~c

--'4)'14>

~=

>~

~ec-:5

~';a'O

u u

; c

>-

~."

a'~C

.- u

c;...~

~->

-~

OI~

O'~

.c

~=

Uu

O'~

.~

~

U~

~...~

'S~

---

..~

"5

q .~

01

~

c -~

.-

- -'~

cg-

~O

~..

>e-:X

~

~~

:o~

"e~F

i

~u~

c~

,

~

-

~-5

~

~C

:DC

~<

O~

C

~

U

~~

"C-'~

'14>~

C

>

-'S

'=

e

~.-

~

a'

~!O

...~~t-~

~

..-:

:s",~1U

-~~

'='

~'...

u'S

C~

O,=

e

4)>

-~~

.c~

U~

""'-

~C

o..:

~,

DC

C

..~!!.

C.~

""~

'~~

IU

... 0'

...

... ~

.-

C

~

-:5

~~

~:s

u~

~

~

,-

-=

--- ~

'IU

~~

oQU

..~'S

~.0

~

:

':3ee-:g,"0'"

0:C

~~

'IU~

-

. U

O~

-.:-DC

~

u C

'ou U

~

~.cO

_~U

~~

~

--eU.~

~~

'!t;'",)~

-=>

ICE

4:;~

,.>u\t

C

c~

>-

~'2E

;'D

C ~~

-c:

~~

~

.»ow

-

C_.C

-

~.B

:;'5~~

-

~co§ecoc£--0,c~>".

~ 7'La

('7i\ C

.) ~ 'r(:,

6--E~~-'"Dm

C~'Cu....:.c>~~...

~~Q~~~:!!':I-E>

...c-=c.'Cu...C-=-=..~c'«>~>

.=co

;;"Oc

u-~"8~6'Sc~=co~>

.-=cou~~u~~

;,~~

~~

s;,.'.~

~~

!'~

~'

~~~~~~~~a~~~~I'f.cC.c~

>.

->"'"~~~;.~~~~ucGo:JU~C'$;u'S:;"Q.'C.c'(G>

-.-.>-

~e~00~0~ -7-'>,>

-S

-eo.:'u~0~ueo=£-.-5=.->

<

;g~-6~.g~~.u-....c'>eo=-=>e";u>:!-...c~e&=~:='-'~0~.->,

-->.

&eo=£.r.~ee..-'8>

-~~~.c-:z

~~=a'

~.,;-§--"i)bOCgC~-W~

c.;z1F

-o~~0'-:F

-o

~Z~Q0~u-"S

~.c-'E~

c:"!!E

-

~c

0-.)~=00:zc~°c0~

~

Open letter

To: all the Viet-Ca who are concerned about the issue of anonymous letters to the LacViet Radio Station.

Dear madam/sir,

For the past several weeks, the above-mentioned issue has been repeatedly printed inseveral weekly newspaper ( Kien Thuc Cuoc Song, Ngay Moi, Thoi Su...) as well asbeing broadcasted on the 2 radio stations (Lac Viet and Tieng Nuoc Toi) in Vancouver.Just like you, I have also read and heard clearly the open letter from the radio station LacViet. I would like contribute my personal thoughts about this matter, with the hope thatthis "despicable act" would be brought to justice and be eradicated completely soon.

I see that the Lac Viet radio station, had called on the entire community to payattention to this matter so as to shed some light on this matter and to ensureappropriate punishment for the culprit, who's trying to destroy the community.This is an appropriate action to take and had been taken at the right time.

I believe that no one who genuinely have the heart of building a strongcommunity would readily decline to contribute their parts in taking care of thisserious act of destroying the community.

2. I would like to offer some suggestions to the Lac Viet station:a. You should publicize all (or at least) 14 anonymous letter ( according to

the figure released by your organization in March and lately) so thateveryone can see the seriousness of the situation. Also, this would be away to provide concrete evidences to the people who are concerned, so aseveryone can be on the look out for and help in finding the culprit.

You should also clarify and elaborate [your statement] that "in the public opinion" (likeyou have mentioned in your open letter), where and in which "NationalistOrganizations" the culprits may be "hiding". If you are just being so general and sovague, it could create unfortunate misunderstandings.

Last March, I have questioned your station: "Why did you combine the signed letterssent to you by 8 organizations with the 13 despicable anonymous letters andpublicize them all at the same time? [I] demand that you explain this in front of thecommunity!". You have ignored this request and did not reply [to the call]. Youcertainly have the capacity to understand what your attitude and your handling of thematter implies!

I am afraid, with the way you've written your letter this time, again you may havemade people who like to pay attention and analyze things, understand that (according

to your station's thinking) a.number of "Nationalist organizations" are protecting theculprit of those despicable anonymous letters!

3. I would also like to suggest with other true Nationalist organizations:If you have in your possession, these anonymous letters, please co-operate with theLac Viet station to publicize those letters in the newspaper or radio stations, so thosewho are concerned about the issue can gather more information. From there, theremay be some solid deductions about [where to look for] the culprits.

4. General suggestions:

Having lived 37 years under the Ho-Cao regime [translator note: literally: Sly-Foxregime. Word-play on the name ofHo Chi Minh. Ho, in old Vietnamese, meant"Fox", capable of deceitful appearances. Coo is a modem Vietnamese term for "fox".It implies trickeries], I cannot help but think about and caution all the people who areconcerned about the dirty and wicked destructive plans of the underground Viet Congaround us. I truly believe that a true Vietnamese Nationalist absolutely will notcommit this despicable act. Only those without-any-shame Viet Cong wouldheartlessly commit this heinous act. This would only be related to the resolution # 36of the Cao-Ho [Sly-fox] party and the subsequent instructions from the "evil-spiritedpolice-rule in Hanoi".

So, I sincerely hope that:

Those who are concerned will see this job of solving the anonymous letter problemlike a primary job with the side effect of uprooting the undercover network of VietCong in Vancouver, and neutralize the effect of the resolution 36!

Really hopeful!

If this letter offends anyone (who is not an under-cover Viet Cong), for any reasons, Isincerely apologize.

Respectfully yoursGreetings in Unity and Winning Determinations

Yours truly

Senior Nguyen The Tien

~'Q'

C\

fd~E-t

N0\~=I

r-..N(Y

')I~0\D~

.r-t

~

:j;~~c~~zc~'c0a-.c2u~Q,-C4)

'cf""

..c,S..cC

,Jc=

«

.- 0

..c..c..uC

,J a

~

e..e:=

0

z u'~

-.c~<

Q.)orn.c

.- .-

.-

~~

5O

Q"'oo

c=~

'<0

~;Q

"Cc>

OQ

~E

c..c~<

O-.cu

uc>C

~

=

e~

~

'<U

'S

C

~~

o-~

~

'" '-'

01)-..c='-~

~~

:ay

y~

0

.- '=

~

~.o

z~ a~

-9: "0>

.- -5

~

.-"0

- ..u

=

.- C

O

~

-"0 c

=<

0y

Ir, -~

f'-o -y

CIC-,"~-

oW

EC

O

.

cg c

~

~

,c

E~'-5~gECO

~=

>..&

:-ccceocoQ

,=.&:.&

:~C

'>

. >

. y

~

.- =

~CO c~ou

.&:.&

: .

- C

O.-

~E6-=c=

.- C

O

.&:

-~yoo.&

:c0

-'CO

Y

-

~~

CE.'~

= .&:

- {J.&:"U""

:IO~ "">.c

cc~~=~.

~o-."J>=.oC

CO

.Q

~

.- y

-y~~

>~

y y

.- y

=

Y<.0-

ceo. 00-

cco- '0

.-

.o.oX.o~

'Sy

y ~

y

y .-

'CO

'CO

~~

'CO

o1:)Y

YY

YY

CO

g -§

-§ -§

-§:?e.-=

-==

-=-=

.&:

.&:.&:.&:.&:.&:~

cC==c

~~~:2~~

.~; ,=0-y~y.=y

-;;-~.c-~~

*'0~-C

.)-.=ccoc<

0.=~-.g~~II":->

,

-:0c\C\C. 'co

'... Ii)

.=C.)~

-o~

~-.00

-=ccZ~

'f'O~

,..

rJ=~

...~=

cI: 0-V

~- 0-.0-=

~c

- (U

c.t).=.'=c

C.)-o

C.)

bO~

...,- C

-0-=U

'=.c

..g'=""

- C

bO-

~ C

rJ.=O

C...

=~

bO-D

.cC>

,c...u.=

u

..-

.c 10

.v ~

..

-e c 'c4)

~

C--

='0>

O"~

C.)

~

.t) g-

1;s.c~>

V--I~

O~

~

::::~-=

~

=

CN

~=

=C

~~

-.- ~

rJ.=

~-

V...C

c.""-=O

. c.-=.co--rJ.c~

OV

~~

<O

-V

~

,C

V,=

~~

~C

'=

.-2~

~E

c ~

'tO .-

-~

~

~

~~

.-

.- - <0 =

'9 - 'S

-.

00 ~

~C

.~>

.I;U

cQ

V,=

crJbOE

-=.=

C.cC

~1C4~

UtolI.c - --C

-c.e0"

-~

~ :.1-'>

'

~c~,~~

;0-5~ECo

Qo

.c~c>=~rQI..-~~~'=~;.~",c~='.;I;a:Q~".§c~~c.~:ay'9>,

<c'3

~o'Q

~'Co

MS~u.=~~e':2~;;-s.,~~Q

.Z~cO=~-0~0Qd~u~0~~00

,.§-a,...;.-

~..

~~~c

..:eQ

.I(Go-~

-=;-..

-=.

0~

,~.0

-g ~O

OC

=:g

~ -=.

-0-=

~

~

,~C

~':8-=-=

~

C.0--00-=~

V

I,~

-~

~

.~

.a00.-=

;.-

cO-fO

u ;.-

00-

..g~--=-0

C~

"tO~

-= .-

:.> ;.-

. .

'"'-fO--- .-o~~

:z:

="

~u:2y

61 ceus~ - 3>

00>

~

- C

- - '0

cO-U

oS

'C4)

e '>- .-

.z:.:a >

- ~

.o. ';'"

'8 oo~

5-

C

C

- C

~

e C

O

.-C

C

' ~

e ..:~

e

-=

:g.z:. '4>

-- - C

~

.z:. ~

~

-01)

C~

C

'0 ~

... 'do

() ~

() -=

01) ():o-

~C

~

-~

CC

O

c~

.-~

~

e.0

~

~

00

.- -

u C

-0 'U

~

C

O~

~

- ,~

~

.~.

>

'" ~

"'- --

~

~,0-

e~

--~

00 C

O

.-

C~

C

- --

-'

cO-

~

~~

eO

-

~

C

>-

~

'8~

~'<~~

:p~

~

u - -->

~

~N

>

-~

~

01)

,~~

...,g

0'~

-=

>

'C4)

-5. D

O

~-

~

C

C-

~

0 .-

<~

C...

~'-

--

~.-

;5~

~

~

-~

~

y

.'~

."

- ~

1-

~

~ '.4;

-=--

-< .-

~--

.0 =

00 ~

'>- 0

,~c...

-.z:.=

~~

cO

-~

~

~~

~

~

-='"

),.. -

=~

- .-.z:.

=C

~

>c

CI

~

~--

~

~

Iii Y

.-

~~

-0

'0~

co- u -.

=e

~.-

...() ,,('"

- -.0 --

=C

~

~

.~

,-

~'W

.~

...~-

~

Yooc-=

c,~

0 c

~

uc~

~

.z:.~~

.:;;. Y

c

Y -

() f'<~

0

-=

~.

>.

.g- ~

:g :.c- ~

~

.h.- .z:.

=I~

-,0

-~

'Q

c~-..,

~-"4.I"

.c ~

j;;

DO

c.- -

C

- >

-~. '-

-.h >

-~

. -

4'-

,~

c ,'0

,Qr-

-=-

=

0 S

Y

-=

O'.z:. ou.c

"0 =

,-

c c

=~

'Q

~

"'" -

.z:. _.,u.:

'-' c

() --00=

-:' 'cG

.c"C

~~

~"'I~

"=-O

_~,o.z:.'O

~..ft

- C

.-

.- -- c -

~

:.0 ~'.0

C~

.:c~c-

.5 ~

~

~';o."'e

'.;j--

~

~h '"

-c-- .-'-0

-- -0-

~~

CY

'O.z:..-

(j fI)

00...; Y .-

.c.

c- ,'O

~,~

~.=

O

US

=-

C ~

.c c ~

--~

.=

'O.'(U

c

~

-U~

~"'---

- ~

--

10

~

'C-

oo c~

~Or;.

--

-.z:.

,...~~

-~

e~

co U

\:.2

i-

bO

Y

V

~

... bO

C

,~

,~

E

~ ~

..; ~

e

=

I .0"':=

Q

0'c4>.~

-

e z

~.

.- .c

.- =

~

~

~;>

.-.cz'""-"

.cU

~-

:=0.

",. C

Q

-

"- II)

'Q

.oJ '=

-=

~

cc- .-

y 1n~

>:=

"O~

.c

.-Z

.c

~c

1cQ=

~

C

Q

~e

"C

=

- .-.

=:£

:.c'cQ~

.o...

- .c

=.c

.~ .-,

"" c

-""~

.g..c ~

.c=§.c

Q,

... c~

...

u

U

.- ...'=

>

.'" ~

e~

""

y =

>

."u~

.c

y I..

~.

'Qco

'" Q

, :0-

- -0

.-Z

.:J

.- ';I

>..-

>-

y "0

'Q

~. ~

U

c4>-bO

~

-0

~

.- C

.0

-g .-

~

u

>:Q

~

'<IS

~>

-

J(O~

~

... <

5>

~

I:; ~

...'O

,",-,'~

-

_.c ..,.u

coo' o'Q

bOC

.c.c-~

.E

c.-"'-..

- "0

>

"". '=

s

~

.- :2

'Q

~-

co ~

~

bO'~

0.. C

uu =

.§.oogu

(oJ~ oQubO.c2"

~.c ...

c-'"

~~

-

bOO

- 'Q

.. c'

=d

~o~

~E

N"'<

'3 .0.=

.-=

~

:0 ~

U

'.4)

II..

.-. (oJbO

e~

""->

Q

c I

~

U

,co'~

=c"

=""

.c~

Z

"'.c'=

u..

- .0

I.. .-

-'.~

-'Q-'"'"'

~

... '!£:

u ,-

E

E>

cu-~'=

e.-

.c.c bO

,.-, .

>

u c

~-

w

-u uo"'C

O'0

'u. ..

,." -~

'=

E

v .-

,- >

U

0

>

~

c ~

=,."

='0

=-=

-0 -

0' -

~

'=

,-

:I: 'Q

.'=s

P.

c 0

~::!

~Q

Y

c~-=

C

~

.u. ,,~

.c

.-cO

- ~.

._.c ~

1.?

u: ;>

00 c'-

e:3

u 00

E

~

~.

",. '0

~

co c

..J Q

O ""

,>.

0-

z~

.c'U

~~

_c c",(oJ-o

(4>oC

O

~

c:e-: -

.-'" .c~

_.~

~.-

-.c~u

:0 ...

_o'~,'C

I - '<

IS >

. -

~

,-(oJ

Q,

.c .=

go 0

.~.co-=

C

occo.c,~

~

:;-..u (oJZ

~co=

'Q

.c-c-~

",.1

u =

- "

,-

- -

., -

~

-

,~

- u

.c-

c ~

E

""" --

- '"

~~

=

OC

. ";I

U

'=

~

ue

'~

..

Qu'ct.)

'-~:Q

~

..c 'O

J ";:

~v-.

.c-~bo~

0.'6 c:..u

==

o.,

""'.' -

~

.. -

-. 'u

.~

CO

"" -

::. .;

~

'>- '0

- ,~

~

'Q~

~

~-Q

C~

';;

.c_C'"

v O

C -:J

. -

- ~

~

?-,

,=

=

.c~":

>.:::

.c .~

,~

~"B

u~-=

.u~

~>

. '0

~C

Q

O

.-.:6,=

>"".

Cc

.'~~

~-

-~

c

Z

-- ~

=

...

tIC)

Q,~

~

ce.cc~~

=0-

~

~

.>.'=

~

--

-.c

-=

'0 ~

=

.-' E

o ~

,~

v >

u..

,::> -

... -.

- .0.

~

,0;- '?-, E t-

'"' ~

.:6 ~

E =

~

.-

0 -.

'" ";:

E':':

V

~

>

",~

,>-

~

E

ce ~

z 00'0 ~

:.I

~

'OJ

'r: ~

~

,'u

= co;:

~ Z;:

~..'-

- -

,. -

..

w..J -,~-

U,-

'" ~

'- c

.- ct)

- ...

~~

'<

.:

.c ":J

.L:. 1-

?",;: ::

0 >

- ~

,~

...

a-

: ...

~-;:

..= ;."

.' ~

" "

-

;.:.""'c

c ..

(j ~

cO

,=

co~

g..;.

=~

(jcO

co

-.. 'cO

co

C~

(j

c ,=

~

=,;

E-o

~

'g ~

~

=

C

"C~

<

4) co

=~

;..,

c ~

~

lcO

e --

~

- =

I~

~.o

ZO

L.. co

-. 1-

~

c.c \I)

I~

~

,=

,~~

Q

~

=

C~

~

fC

~

.'...

- 0

~

~

~

~~

.

C

\I)

~

..g ,=

~

~

><

'=

C

O~

;..,

C

="""'

,,",,0 ~

~

CO

~

,~

Uz

CO

=

.. =

~

--=

:)~

C

.c'<~

"",' <

0 (j

(.I.c

,=~

C

,Q

~-

Co/-

,-'<

4>

~

,~

.- ~

~

..c c

~

~

'0 ~

C

~:

U;..,.-(

~

.- =

';'"

>

~

=~

U

C

CO

'cO -. =

. U

'.~

,0

,.;~

'O

~

~If::-.

,.;U~

E

-o<

r.,.., ~

~

..~

.c~

. .c

c~

=

;..,

U

.-~

~O

~

r~

,~

.:: 'Q

~

~

>C

':-:O-

.. ~

(.I 'cO

- -=

~

~

"fC

bO ,=

.c

'0 <'-I

= u >

~. -

'0 ~

C

O :0. C

O C

O ,~

:::= ~

.fC

~ ..g ,5 ~

ur, -

co.c.c ~

..,'-' =

C-~

O-

:. '>

'-=

<0

=

0'::coif::-.

~'::'<

t.I'cOE

-oc~

=

~

"f=~

""" fO

J<o=

'<o>

='O

~

-.::-.::>-~

-~

-'.cO

ccco~

=..."

fOJ"~

C~

~,- ~

-

~

-'cO

~,",",

.- ~

>

~

E

-o:J~

'fC

cO

><

-. ~

~"O

.:JC-"

C

(.Iu'O;;; '~

I~

:a'~

bO

~:J

~

~

.~

- C

<

Q.>

o'C

U

~

-~

co,,", =

.- >

~

C

> E

-o~

~

.. -

-'"".I r--:J...o~

<0- t:

'<cO

c ~

,~

C

C'N

~

~

,~

v: .c-

'W

_c-.C~

,~~

<

u._,:::,~"

C'

:J C

- '0'

,'0 UI~

~

~<

G,)'.oC

u'0

'W

A

~ -

I/) C

O ~

c-..-

c .c".Q

C

C

.:.. c

'01"" 'G

,)C

C~

?'-=-

'W:.

-0'""01/)0 ~

=

'0 ;.., >

1-

0 . ~

=

<cO

. ~ ~

'.:u '.G,) .c

.c -. '<cO

=

...

CO

- ~

.c-.gbO

.g-==

:i ~

.9: ~

~

'cZ

.~

~

.~=

'~

I~.~

.g -=

.g =

~

-=r,

~

<O

C=

-.OC

=

E'~

~'-'

F;I;;V

).",,1-if..)

.--'<

Q

~

E~

.-

~~

~

~

.c.-C

o :a

co-.c.~'"

c'8~c(0~C(Uc:

-=c:

~.

;0-~~c~-0-=C-~.

.cc,~..,~-0:c~

-.c.-.

<0-

>U

>

-,~

E

a'~

otU

Z

=U<

4)0 'r:;

>"

~

-a.-

,-~

.c

u u

'<0

~=

c:

'::0' ~

E: .-

C';:'0

-"0;>

0 C

o~

,,- <

~.

-0 -

C~

0

~

.-. ,~

~;>

o y

- >

. '

.~ ,~

'S

"" C

O

C~

~

""=

0

~

U

-:: c

. E

,~'~

.-td 0

~

u or:.

"'.c -0

.Q.5

~

,~

.: E

-;>0

~'O

~

--;:;""

':I (t.).

'",.c .-

":3- - ;>

0~

'>

. c.o

-::bO

c..

c ~

C/j "e

1-~

., or:.

~...

~.",

>.

,-..

~

<0

~

I/O

.- ,-

N

<0

or:.-0

;: -.

U.c

.cC

/j- c

-' ,-

-,~

-"r:~

'<

I>

.~

u"r=

0

e.c'C

'C

::-=

-=--

-':::

~

=

~::

~

~~

Z

-~

Z

c";:~'r=.c0.

-.';E(,I0~,Qc~~-; =

.c.cc=.c--'~-=..

:;-==~~-OD

=

-.0'COD

Ce-OJ

OJ

~~-C

~~';""

,-~:c0.c(,I

.cc=~OJ

,=.C~:5c=-

c~-OD

,CCO

.cOJ

c=,Q; ,,=O

DC02::

-7t

(;"\'\ {. ~

5~

u~u

~

a-=

I~

.: -

C~,!;so

OD

~

IS

~

U

~

..: ~

,~

-'=

,~

c '..

~

~I..

~...

,!;so~

~

=! I

=

:::

~

z-

,-.=

:::

.: U

u Z

c ,~

'=

"""~

.

:

~

.U.~

~

.: ~

~

-0(

-.- U

~.c

..:~

E-c

-'o~=

e-~

>

:S.c~

=

Z.~

c <

0.:

.~Q

" ,

- .-

.'Q

>.

=

.c r~

~

-=,=

u

\.,I -

=,Q

uZ

'o,-==

~<

O~

.:~

CU

"~-

.c -:0:

.: '."Q

~

c c

.c ~

O

D."'-~

.cc

- c

'2, (j

,~

,"':;:: Q

o

(j(4)O--~

OD

-

~.~

,c to

'~,~

~

~~

~

:o-.-

Z

.-c""(~

~

OD

~.c-

~,-

- 1'=

~

(8':S

.: .-

0 ~

oC

-=c-o(~

,Q-=

'0)

U~

~(jc

->c

~.~

e~

c'~

-=

,5 ,~

~

-=(j.c.r.~

-e

~c~

c

u~~

=

'" :0'

- =

z-~'~

='

- c

":) ;.

,~

~,~

c~

'=>'-

.c ,~

. tIe.-

u.r., >

CII

c t:

'>'

c ;0:,

,~

-- =

"0 -=

"',~

=

'

'=c;o~

=O

D,-

E~

~c

,~

o-~,se

(j~C

~~

cO:

~

~(j

,~~

E

~

~

Q

>

- :~

...'

- -~

.c

OD

CD

c'~

~-

c -

0

=~

-ES

.ge

,=

CD

'~

~

~

.c c-=

~":

-~c

0.- c

'- 1.1 ,-

~.-

~-~

't:>(

=.'

~~

~

.c §.

c '::

,- ...

'" -

~~

b

OPEN LETTER ( # 2)Triet Duc Chinh ( Senior Nguyen The TieD)

To: the entire true Vietnamese Community in DC(except the underground Viet Cong, under any disguise)

To the Elderly (female or male over the age of 75),To the Senior (female or male over the age of 60),To the various true Nationalists organizations,To the learned and the educated (female or male, regardless of age),To the local media outlets (stations [TV/radio] and newspaper/magazines),Warmly sent to all the dearest youths,

Dear all,

In this letter, I would like to discuss the meeting that had taken place this past 24th ofOctober evening, hosted by the Committee against the social evil of anonymous letter.[Translator's note: he used the tenD "te nan", which means social evils literally.Commonly used to describe prostitutions, drug addictions etc.]

For a report on the successful outcome of the meeting, please wait to hear it the radio orread it in the newspaper.

My viewpoint about the anonymous letter issue had been written clearly in [my] openletter in the Phong Su Magazine, issue # 66 (Sept, 15); I will not repeat it here because Itype too slow.

Here I would like to discuss only a few highlights of the meeting.

First, there were only about 30 to 40 people in attendance.Second, the policeman and the lawyer (who were previously publicized as will bepresiding at the meeting), were not present due to different reasons. So the meeting hadto conclude at around 3pm.Third, at the end of the meeting, Mr. Quoc Thinh had read a short note from the police:It was not appropriate for the police to attend because the anonymous lettersissue can be politically related (I did not tape record the meeting so 1 can notremember the exact wordings)

Fourth, there were not any congruencies in a few people's reports. A Mr. A had affirmedthat there was only 1 culprit for the anonymous letters, while a Mr. B had said that thereis a list of possible suspects (according to the police), and this would be brought to light

~s'

within the next two months. A Mr. C had answered a question, saying that they already!knew the identity of the culprit!

The four details outlined above are self-explanatory in different sense, I would likeyou to analyze [them] yourselves and will not discuss more; [I] hope you wouldunderstand.

sth, at the meeting there were a Canadian flag and a Republic of Vietnam's flag. Therewas sin~g of the Canadian national anthem "0 Canada" and "Nay cong dan oil Dunglen dap loi song nui. . ," Those were the appropriate things to do, but different with theLac Viet's policy- des{2ite Lac Viet station being the host of the meetin2.

In my opinion:It would be so wonderful if this Committee can persuade Lac Viet Radio Station

to start their regular programming each Saturday morning with the Republic ofVietnam National anthem! I believe that if this committee succeeded, it would havecontributed significantly to the unification of the community and avoided the case ofbitter fighting as you all have ~ken of during the meeting, It doesn't cost anything,and would have isolated the underground force of the sly-fox regime. [Translator'snote: Literally, he used Ho-Cao. Ho meant "Fox" in old Vietnamese, is part ofHo ChiMinh's name. This "Fox" were deceitful in appearance. Cao is a modern word for Fox.In this case, the author had used this term to describe the current Communist Regime,founded by Ho Chi Minh]. [I] hope you all remember the traditional Vietnameseteaching of "blame yourself first, then blame others", as transmitted by Confucianism,"use hatred to repay hatred, hatred will mount", according to Buddhism, and in theBible, "if people accuses you, then you follow them, carry their bags and help them".1 truly hope you'd do that, because you have not been brainwashed that much withMarxism-Leninist.

Sixth: the way I see it, there was an error worth criticizing; that is:Y 00 had hong the sign "COMMITTEE AGAISNT THE SOCIAL EVILOF ANONYMOUS LETTER" on top of 1/3 of the National Flag ( the

top portion).

I reasoned it as followed:This image said that the 7 of you have sat on the head of the motherland and thepeople. Did you all know that: back then, Confucius had requested that all theMandarins calTied the National Registry Books on their heads when they were movingfrom place to place, not on their backs or carrying in their baskets!

That image also said that the traditional yellow flag and freedom is no longer whole,not worth the respect! In [Vietnam], at this moment, who would have dared to do thesame thing with the yellow-starred red flag of the Sly-fox Party?

What do you think? Mr. Tue Son Tran Van Tho, Ma Thuong Vinh Tran quy An andMr. Hao, what do you think? Dr. Nguyen Duc Tung, what do you think?

-3

I see it as 2 possibilities: ei~er it was negligence or it was deliberate.

If it was due to negligence, then I conclude that your passion for and awareness of theRepublic of Vietnam have faded, so you no longer are sensitive about it.

If it was deliberate, then I view it as a statement of your political view point!

[I] hope the Committee against anonymous letters would let the community know ofyour opinions [on this matter] on air or in the printed news!

[I] respectfully hope that the true Vietnamese Community would raise their voice todiscuss together, democratically, on air or in the printed news, as well as in anycommunity gathering in this topic. We should not keeD auiet or iust be suDRortive for~

I sincerely wait for INTELLEGENT IDEAS as from the entire TRUE VIET-CACOMMUNITY-especially from the elderly, the senior as well as the learned, andeducated in the community regardless of their age.

With sincere thanks for your attention and time taken to read this open letter.

1

APPENDIX C

CBSC Decision 05/06-0023 CHKG-FM re Lac Viet Radio

The Complaint The CBSC received the following complaint, forwarded from the CRTC, dated September 6, 2005:

Dear CRTC, I am writing to complain about Lac Viet Radio Programme on CHKG-FM, Vancouver: Lac Viet Public Education Society Ðài Phát Thanh Lac Viêt FM 96.1 c/o 520 Kingsway Vancouver, B.C. V5T 3J9 Tel: 604-307-8785 Fax: 604-708-8785 In their two broadcasts (7:00-10:00 am), on April 23/2005 and on April 30/2005, Lac Viet Public Education Society (Dai Phat Thanh Lac Viet FM 96.1) broadcasted a “special announcement”. This announcement was repeatedly read three times: two consecutive times on 23/04/2005 – by Ms. Tamy Dao first (not recorded) and then by Ms. Hong Tuoi (recorded) – and once more on 30/04/2005 by Ms. David Nhung [sic] (recorded). In the announcement, they flagrantly violated the listeners’ rights of speak [sic] and made serious lies and slanders concerning me (Tien The Nguyen). (a) They unfoundedly announced that: “From now on, we will not allow a group of distorters and destroyers against Lac Viet Radio to telephone in for discussing and urging. We do not consider them as our listeners (meaning that we exclude them from our audience). Concretely (meaning actually), we will not allow Mr. Tien The Nguyen to telephone in for discussing or arguing ....” (b) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien used uncultured words about Lac Viet Radio board in his talks with other Vietnamese seniors”; (c) They blatantly lied that: “In the general meeting of the Vietnamese Community in Greater Vancouver (17/04/2005), Mr. Tien attributed the unfounded pro-communist tendency to Lac Viet Radio”; (d) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien hurt Mr. G. [R.] – a UBC lecturer – while Mr. G. [R.] ([N, A. Q.]) talked in a Lac Viet Radio broadcast”; (e) They blatantly lied that: “Mr. Tien personally called Mr. G. [R.] many times in order to find fault with him, to admonish him and to deter him”. I think that Lac Viet Public Education Society (Dai Phat Thanh Lac Viet FM 96.1) obviously slandered me and they flauntingly violated the right of speak [sic] and the Radio Regulations, Part 1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3(a), (b), ( ) [sic], (d), (e), page 8 of 19.

2

I wish (a) Lac Viet Public Education Society (Dai Phat Thanh Lac Viet FM 96.1) would be severely punished for their violations according to the Radio Regulations; (b) They should make written apologies and send those to me. They would announce their apologies on air during two broadcasts and in each one they would read their apologies twice; (c) They would publicize their apologies on the Vietnamese magazines: Thoi Su, Phong Su and Tu Do; (d) They would compensate me (indemnify me) for the loss of my reputation. I completely believe in your fairness in arbitrating. Thank you very much.

Broadcaster’s Response The broadcaster responded on November 10 with the following:

With reference to your letter to the CRTC dated September 6, 2005 concerning a Vietnamese program on CHKG-FM 96.1 called Lac Viet Radio, we have transcribed the segments of programming you had taped on a cassette (Enclosure 1). Although there was no indication from the hosts’ words the exact broadcast dates of the programming, we trust the information you have provided and shall call them the programming broadcast on April 23 and April 30 of 2005. The relevant content of the taped programming is only about 3 minutes in length and it is mainly about an announcement made by the program hosts that you found non-agreeable. Apparently the same announcement was broadcast on April 23 as well as April 30 of 2005 and you have taped both broadcasts of the announcement in the cassette. On your September 6, 2005 letter to the CRTC, you believe the Lac Viet radio programming has slandered you, and violated your right to speech as well as the Radio Regulations Part 1.1, Broadcasting Content, 3 (a), (b), (d) and (e). The above mentioned regulations are as follows: A Licensee shall not broadcast: (a) Anything in contravention of the law; (b) Any abusive comment that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an

individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability;

(c) Any obscene or profane language; (d) Any false or misleading news; or (e) Any telephone interview or conversation, or any part thereof, with any person unless (i) The person’s oral or written consent to the interview or conversation being

broadcast was obtained prior to the broadcast, or (ii) The person telephoned the station for the purpose of participating in a

broadcast.

3

After a thorough study of the transcript of the segments you have taped, we cannot find the Lac Viet radio programming has violated any of the above regulations. We do admit, however, it is very rare for our programs to issue a statement on air defending their ethics and principles. Nevertheless, I shall point out the fact that, on top of the numerous phoned-in comments you had made on air during the Lac Viet program before the April 23 & 30, 2005 incidents, you have sent letters to Lac Viet on March 20, 2004 and April 21, 2004, and you have published two full-page open letters on the Phóng Sự magazine in October (Enclosure 2) and November 2004 (Enclosure 3) respectively. Strong accusations were made against Lac Viet in those phoned-in comments, letters and announcements. Statements and accusations like, “On the morning of March 20, ... Your Program spoke about the ‘yellow flag’ using the same lines as the government of the communist party in Hanoi” (1), “... you insisted on ‘asking the opinions of the majority’ in the style of the Hanoi regime, ‘provocative and unfair’ ...” (2), “I hope the Producer and all of Lac Viet staffs will change and choose the correct mission for your Radio program in the near future” (3), “the 7 of you have sat on the head of the motherland and the people” (4), are slanderous and have seriously damaged the goodwill and reputation of Lac Viet and their producers, hosts, guests and supporters. It was only as the last resort that Lac Viet has decided to issue a statement on air. The nature of the problem in this case, we believe, is the difference in perception of what kind of program Lac Viet should be. Due to the training and expertise of the producers and program hosts, the target audience at that particular time slot (early Saturday morning) and the format of the program, we have decided from the very beginning that this radio program be informative but non-political and non-religious. Naturally our decision would not please everyone in the Vietnamese community and we have received anonymous complaint letters against Lac Viet for not displaying the Vietnamese nationalist flag (former South Vietnam national flag) at its functions and not playing the South Vietnam nationalist anthem at the beginning of the radio program. Those anonymous letters even jumped to the conclusion that Lac Viet is pro-Communist. However, we still believe the Lac Viet radio program is more beneficial to the Vietnamese Community if the program remains neutral of political standing and put the emphasis on education, community network and, for new immigrants, on how to adjust to life in Canada. Although Lac Viet has an open-line segment that welcomes listeners to phone in, we also have very strict regulations on how to handle phone-ins and who to put on air. We advise our producers to screen all incoming calls, be especially cautious when dealing with controversial topics and know when to move on from overly heated arguments or possibly abusive comments. Lac Viet is a live program and we as the licence holder of this radio station is [sic] ultimately responsible for all comments made on air, whether they are from the hosts, the guests or the callers. We can’t help but to stay on the conservative side. Nevertheless, it is not our intention to upset anyone with our programming. Should you feel deprived of your freedom to speak on air, that you were never given a chance to defend yourself, or you feel you are not allowed the opportunity to express your points of view, we invite you to give us a written statement to address the issue on hand and we shall broadcast your statement on the Lac Viet program. When reading your statement on air, we will make it clear that the statement is supplied by you and that it only reflects your belief and points of view, not of the radio station. Please limit the length of your statement to 500 words, content of which should be fair and truthful. It should also be free of personal attacks and abusive comments. Please submit

4

your statement to the undersigned in Vietnamese and English and we shall forward it to the CBSC for reference and advice. Should any part of the statement appear to be unsuitable for broadcasting on air, we shall inform you and work out the changes together. When the statement is announced on air, we will tape it for record. Please make use of this opportunity to let your opinions be known to our audience. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (###) ###-#### or fax to (###) ###-####. Notes: The original Vietnamese texts read: (1) “Cũng sáng 20/3, ... Quí Đài đã nói về “lá cờ vàng” theo kiểu nói của chính quyền

của đảng cộng sản Hà Nội.” (2) “... cái “tôn chỉ phi chính trị” mà Đài Lạc Việt đã chọn lựa mười nă về trước, kiên trì

nó đến nay và nhất định vẫ cố chấp nó như quý vị đã khẳng định khi “trưng cầu ý kiến số đông” theo kiểu Hà nội – “xách động và unfair” sáng 20-3.”

(3) “Tôi mong mỏi bà Giám đốc và toàn Ban Lạc Việt sẽ thay đổi đúng hướng cái tôn chỉ của Đài trong thời gian tới.”

(4) “7 vị đã ngồi lên trên đầu tổ quốc và dân tộc.” Enclosures: Enclosure 1: Transcript from cassette, segments of programming on April 23 & 30, 2005. Enclosure 2: Open Letter from Mr. Tien The Nguyen published on Phóng Sự magazine, October 2004. Enclosure 3: Open Letter from Mr. Tien The Nguyen published on Phóng Sự magazine, November 2004.

Additional Correspondence The complainant returned his Ruling Request by both regular mail and website form on November 22 with the following note:

In my understanding, the response sent to me and signed by Ms. [S. H.], Director of International Program, Fairchild Radio, did not exactly deal with the complaints I had submitted to CRTC and to CBSC. Would you please fairly arbitrate this dispute in order to enforce the CBSC's broadcating regulations and to consolidate the public's trust in CBSC. Would you please ignore the first form I sent to you. Thank you very much.

Fairchild Radio sent additional information to the CBSC on December 2:

Thank you for your email dated December 1, 2005. I understand the CBSC B.C. Regional Panel will study the case in the next meeting and we would like to provide you with the transcripts of the two letters sent from Mr. Tien The Nguyen to Lac Viet Radio program dated March 20, 2004 and April 21, 2004. These two letters are not new evidence. On our reply to Mr. Tien The Nguyen dated November 10, 2005 (also c.c. to CBSC), we have quoted from

5

them (on page 2 of our letter) but we did not include the whole body of the letters in our enclosure. As a result, the quotes might seem a little out-of-the-blue and might not do Mr. Tien The Nguyen justice. We have now included the original letters in Vietnamese and the transcription in English. Meanwhile, we shall not take further action on this case and will wait patiently for CBSC’s adjudication. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (###) ###-#### or fax to (###) ###-####.

The complainant sent another letter on January 13, 2006:

I would like to submit to you this supplemental document in order to clarify my complaint and ruling request submitted to you (CBSC File C05/06-0023). I hope this document would help you more in making a relevant decision on the issue. First, I would like to emphasize that I am complaining about LAC VIET PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY or DAI PHAT THANH LAC VIET FM 96.1 (LVPES/DPTLV)’s violations in their broadcasts such as the following. 1. LVPES/DPTLV has eliminated a large group of Vietnamese British Columbians

listeners (VBCLs) to their broadcasts and has not allowed these VBCLs (to call in) to participate in the discussions on numerous controversial issues presented. Therefore, LVPES/DPTLV has violated the right of getting information as well as the right of expressing opinions.

2. LVPES/DPTLV lied blatantly about the relationship between Mr. [C. R.] and Mr. Tien The Nguyen (Mr. Tien has not known Mr.[C.]’s telephone number). Being on air, Mr. [C.] only gave Mr. Nguyen the email address [...@...]. You can check the fact with Mr. [R.].

3. LVPES/DPTLV presented unfairly many public controversial issues in Vietnamese British Columbians community; LVPES/DPTLV were frequently allotting more time and allowing more expressing-turns in the discussions on controversial issues to get more support for LVPES/DPTLV’s point of view and to suppress the con side.

4. LVPES/DPTLV frequently used and broadcasted coarse, aggressive and abusive languages in their broadcasts criticizing and attacking the opponents.

5. LVPES/DPTLV frequently encouraged anonymous callers-in (no names cited, no phone numbers cited) to criticize and to attack its opponents in almost all discussions on controversial issues presented.

Secondly, I would like to inform you that I sent to you by post one more audio tape, containing recorded witnesses supporting my above-stated points. You will receive the tape in a few days later. In order to save your time and money, not all the whole recorded discussions were sent to you. Later, if you ask me to send you any whole discussion, I will then satisfy your request. Thirdly, I believe that precise translations of taped broadcasts into English will help you save your time and the tax-payers money in the would-be adjudication. Therefore, I would like to suggest you to hire licensed translators to help you. Moreover, I would like also to advise that you need not dealing with the controversial issues in the Vietnamese Canadian community contained in the taped broadcasts, although they really are the main causes of the conflicts in the Vietnamese British Columbians community.

6

Fourthly, based on their behaviour, I think no one of the LVPES/DPTLV’s staffs/members (including the president/the director) has the relevant qualification requested by the standards of CRTC and of CBSC. Probably, they committed mistakes because they did not read even did not understand the CRTC’s Radio Regulations and the CBSC Codes. Would you please ask LVPES/DPTLV to have qualified staffs and request them to have those relevant staffs by prohibiting the unqualifed ones. I think that this will enforce the CBSC Codes and the CRTC’s Radio Regulations; consequently, the public’s trust in CBSC and in CRTC will be consolidated.

Fairchild Radio sent the CBSC the English translations of the transcripts with the following letter:

On the following pages please find the English translation of the material submitted to the CBSC by Mr. Tien The Nguyen on January 12, 2006. Enclosure 1: English translation of Mr. Tien’s written excerpt of the Lac-Viet

programming, titled “Side A” Enclosure 2: English translation of Mr. Tien’s written excerpt of the Lac-Viet

programming, titled “Side B” Enclosure 3: Transcript of the cassette tape (side B only) provided by Mr. Tien, containing excerpts of the Lac Viet programming

According to the transcript, Mr. Tien only selected pieces of radio programming to support his argument. Those excerpts were cut and paste clips from different dates and were taken out of context. Many examples of ill-mannered tones and strong comments that Mr. Tien found upsetting were not even from the hosts, but the callers. My assumption is that by submitting the excerpts, Mr. Tien wanted to prove to the CBSC that the Lac Viet hosts are unprofessional broadcasters because they use “attacking intonation” that is “not suitable for a democratic discussion”, “nagging intonation” that is “only suitable for nagging a husband”, not properly addressing an elderly person knowing he is over 70 years old, using “heavy words without evidences”, interrupting callers’ opinions and cutting short callers’ calls. (Enclosure 1 and 2) However, what the pre-edited, heavily manipulated excerpts did not show was the fact that since its airing on 96.1FM in 2002, Lac Viet has served as a trusted forum for exchanging ideas. It provides fair opportunities to people of different points of view to express their opinions, whether they agree with Lac Viet or not. If the excerpts prove anything, it is that Mr. Tien himself frequently utilized this forum to express his opinion. Knowing all along that Mr. Tien did not agree with Lac Viet on many issues, the hosts of Lac Viet still put Mr. Tien on air and allowed him a lengthy talk to respond to accusations made by the Committee against Anonymous Letters and other listeners. Ironically, when he was put on air and encouraged by the hosts to voice his opinion, Mr. Tien stated more than once that he “would not answer (the accusations) directly today”, and he “would not enter into a discussion today”, but would “continue to discuss in the magazine”. (Enclosure 3) The disagreement between Lac Viet and Mr. Tien has a very complicated background. Issues like whether or not to display the Yellow Flag (resembling the flag of the former government of South Vietnam, a symbol of anti-Communist, anti-North Vietnam) and whether or not to sing the national anthem of South Vietnam at public functions are

7

controversies that split the community. Some people, especially the hardcore anti-Communists, interpret anyone’s refusal to perform the above as signs of “pro-Communist”, “turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the suffering of refugees”; while there are other people, though they identify themselves as anti-Communists, do not approve of the former government of South Vietnam and do not think this former government was a shining example of human rights, thus they do not support having the Yellow Flag as the symbol of their homeland. In the issues of the Yellow Flag and the national anthem, Lac Viet wants to remain neutral. It does not take side with the Communists, but it doesn’t take side with the Anti-Communists either. Many people including Mr. Tien are upset by Lac Viet’s decision of not displaying the Yellow Flag at its functions and not including the South Vietnam national anthem at the beginning of each program. Yet the majority of listeners agree with Lac Viet, resulting in a war of widely distributed anonymous letters, articles in newspapers and magazines, and threats. At one point, Lac Viet even called the police for help. Members of the Lac Viet program, together with other community groups, set up a committee called Committee Against Anonymous Letters. The Committee organized a press conference on October 24, 2004 and asked the police to sit on panel at the press conference. On the day of the press conference, a VPD liaison officer called and said because the topic was politically related and the threats of physical harms against Lac Viet contributors were under investigation, it would not be appropriate for the police to be represented. Mr. Tien is one of the most vocal in expressing his opposition to Lac Viet. He had called in the Lac Viet program – and was often put on air – almost on a weekly basis before Lac Viet made the statements on April 23 & 30, 2005. He has also been publishing numerous articles on newspapers, magazines and the internet to support his accusation. Mr. Tien is a well-known person and a man of resources, making generous contributions to newspapers and magazines. He confidently stated in his call to Lac Viet that “with each publication of (a certain) magazine”, he will have “at least 2 writings”. He even told Lac Viet upfront that of those two writings on the magazine, “one will offend Lac Viet”. (Enclosure 3) As a radio station, our job is to provide a fair and balanced radio program to our listeners but we will not put pressure on our producers and hosts regarding their political orientation. I can’t lie but admit that sometimes I do worry about their personal safety. Being labeled a pro-Communist is a serious matter, it could cause retaliation from some hostile extremists in the community. That is why the Lac Viet hosts were so frustrated, even appeared to be paranoid, over Mr. Tien’s numerous articles printed on media and his many speeches made at different community gatherings. (The Open Letters published on the October and November issues of Phόng Sự magazine under Mr. Tien The Nguyen’s name are examples of those articles, transcripts of which have been submitted to the CBSC with our November 10, 2005 reply). Our position remains the same as our November 10, 2005 reply. It is not our intention to upset anyone including Mr. Tien. If Mr. Tien feels he has been deprived of his opportunity to express himself, we welcome him to provide us a written statement to clarify his viewpoint and we shall read it on air. A bit of progress has been made since Mr. Tien’s letter to the CBSC dated January 12, 2006. On February 11, 2006 Mr. Tien called in live during the Lac Viet program. The special guest of the day was a famous singer-songwriter Mr. Tuan Khai Pham. The hosts assumed it should be a safe topic to allow Mr. Tien’s participation so Mr. Tien was put on air. According to our hosts, the conversation started politely. Mr. Tien remarked it was nice to have Mr. Pham on air in Vancouver. Then Mr. Tien started to change direction and made some unfavorable comments about a caller before him. The hosts hurried Mr. Tien to finish his

8

talking but thanked him for his opinion. Though briefly, Mr. Tien did speak on air for about two to three minutes (the hosts even let him finish reading his poem on air). This gesture showed our program’s sincere intention to move on and to compromise. We hope this little progress can be the first step to a long journey of understanding and working together. I understand the panel of CBSC will discuss the case on May 9, and we are ready to receive your judgement. Should there be any question regarding the case, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (###) ###-#### or fax to (###) ###-####.