MENNONITES GOAD AUTHORITIES: HCMC FOLLOW UP

UNCLAS HO CHI MINH CITY 000559 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PREL KIRF SOCI PGOV VM SUBJECT: MENNONITES GOAD AUTHORITIES: HCMC FOLLOW UP REF: HCMC 538 ¶1. (SBU) On May 24 we met with the HCMC External Relations Office (ERO) to follow up on the May 22 clash between Mennonite Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang and HCMC police. The ERO officials confirmed that Quang and all his followers had been released in the early evening of May 23. (Per reftel, on May 22, Pastor Quang and eight other followers were detained following a clash with police in HCMC's District 2. Officials sought to dismantle what they deemed to be illegal construction at Quang's residence.) At the meeting, we expressed concern that authorities did not appear to follow due process in the case. We also urged HCMC authorities to act with maximum restraint in dealing with Quang, although it did appear from our independent on-the-scene look that Quang's had violated zoning and building permits. ¶2. (SBU) The ERO officials said authorities had followed proper procedure. They notified Quang on the morning of the incident that his construction was illegal and ordered him, in writing, to stop. Quang refused and reportedly "threatened the inspector with a hammer." When officials returned in the afternoon, Quang was not complying with the stoppage order. He refused to cooperate with police when asked to hand over construction materials and to remove himself and his followers from the building site. During the ensuing altercation with police (as they sought to physically remove the Mennonites from the second floor of the building site and to seize construction materials), at least one police officer was injured and sent to the hospital for treatment. ¶3. (SBU) On May 25, the ERO faxed us a series of document to support its claim that local officials followed proper procedure. The first document, dated May 22 at 1020 hours -- the morning of the incident -- is signed by HCMC building inspectors. Entitled "Minute of Administrative Violation," the report details Quang's infractions of building and zoning permits, in particular the addition of a second floor to the premises. The document orders Quang to cease building code violations and to follow strictly what was authorized in the repair permit issued by local authorities. ¶4. (SBU) The document the ERO presented appears to have been countersigned by Pastor Quang. It also includes a handwritten statement from Quang in which he states that he did not consider his construction a violation because "he is entitled to raise the roof of his house and, as his building serves as a house church, he requires a larger, well ventilated space." Quang did not address the charge that he was adding improperly and illegally a second floor to his house. ¶5. (SBU) A second document was dated May 22 at 1450 hours, just before police moved to remove the offending structure. That document again noted building code violations and the refusal of Quang to comply with the earlier request to cease construction. The second document states that "because of the refusal of the owner to cease construction, the police are authorized to seize the offending construction materials and tools." A third document lists the tools and materials that the authorities confiscated with an appended note stating that Mrs. Quang refused to sign the confiscation receipt. By this time her husband already was in police custody. ¶6. (SBU) Comment: Our assessment is that the documents that we received from the HCMC ERO are authentic. While local authorities may be scrutinizing Quang more closely than others in the community, there is no doubt that Quang knowingly broke the law and ignored legitimate orders to cease construction. The documents provided by the ERO reinforce our earlier assessment based on our discussion with Mrs. Quang, other members of Quang's group and neighbors that Pastor Quang -- yet again -- exaggerated and distorted the facts. Unfortunately, by intentionally seeking confrontation with HCMC authorities, Quang not only put himself at risk, but also his small group of devoted followers. We will continue to urge HCMC authorities to act with maximum restraint, sophistication and understanding in responding to Quang. End Comment. Winnick