Become a Member for $9.99/month

Editor’s note: Online denunciations regarding political and ideological issues have become increasingly common in Việt Nam’s political and social sphere since Tô Lâm came to power, first as state president in May 2024, and then as general secretary in August 2024.

Acting in the name of “patriotism,” “fighting historical revisionism,” or “protecting the foundation” of official political views, certain social media users have weaponized harsh language to discredit anyone whose perspectives deviate from the accepted line.

Numerous targets have faced public condemnation. These include an artist seen near the flag of the Republic of Vietnam, a historical figure previously criticized by official historiography but later praised, an exam question accused of promoting American educational ideas, and a book about a leader that departs from “official” materials.

While some campaigns fade after a few days or end with an apology, others yield severe real-world consequences. Recently, a book author and several publishing staff members were publicly denounced before being detained and prosecuted under Article 117 of the Penal Code.

This suffocating atmosphere of denunciation has drawn comparisons to China’s Cultural Revolution, echoing its zealous Red Guards and public “struggle sessions.”

Against this backdrop, we invite our readers to examine notable campaigns since Tô Lâm’s rise to power, exploring what is tentatively called a “Mini Cultural Revolution.”

Part 1 revisits the key subjects and incidents that this movement has brought before its tribunal.

Artists and the “Yellow Flag”

Less than a week after the National Assembly elected Tô Lâm as state president on May 22, 2024, a fierce wave of online denunciations erupted. This outrage targeted artists who had appeared alongside the “yellow flag,” the former flag of the Republic of Vietnam.

The initial controversy centered on singer Lê Như Ngọc Mai, known as O Sen Ngọc Mai, and her husband, artist Quốc Nghiệp.

On the afternoon of May 27, 2024, a video circulated online showing the couple in a United States bedroom adorned with both the U.S. flag and the flag of the Republic of Vietnam. This quickly triggered scrutiny of their “patriotism” and sparked calls for a boycott.

That evening, the pro-government Facebook page Tifosi capitalized on the outrage. The page published a post titled "Singer O Sen Ngọc Mai: Calls for 'spreading patriotism' at home but hangs the yellow flag in her bedroom abroad."

The Tifosi Facebook page accused the singer of having “just left the country, only to burn the bridge behind her,” and urged authorities to “guide O Sen Ngọc Mai toward the right ‘nature’ of things.”

The post, which stated, “Don’t let your heart face the yellow flag while your wallet faces the red flag,” has garnered more than 9,500 reactions and over 1,400 comments to date.

Following the mounting criticism, the couple was forced to issue an apology and an explanation. Authorities reacted swiftly; on the morning of May 28, Hồ Chí Minh City police met with the Hồ Chí Minh City Conservatory of Music, Ngọc Mai's former workplace. Later that afternoon, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism confirmed it was “verifying” the incident.

This wave of digital condemnation soon expanded.

By July 2024, singer Myra Trần faced similar backlash when 2019 images surfaced of her performing at a funeral in the United States where the “yellow flag” was displayed. On July 28, the Voice of Hồ Chí Minh City (VOH) reported that she was removed from the program “Anh Trai Say Hi” ("Big Brother Say Hi") following widespread boycott demands. Two weeks later, she issued a public apology :

“I realize there can be no adequate excuse. I fully and sincerely accept responsibility for my shortcomings and lack of understanding in failing to carefully look into and taking part in inappropriate programs in the past, and I bow in apology to the audience for my mistake.”

The campaign continued on Aug. 22, 2024, shifting focus to singers Phan Đinh Tùng and Phạm Khánh Hưng from the show “Anh trai vượt ngàn chông gai.” Both were criticized for past performances at events displaying the Republic of Vietnam flag. That evening, Tifosi posted :

“Even in Việt Nam, quite a few singers, for money... accept performing beneath the yellow flag with three red stripes. As true Vietnamese people, we absolutely cannot choose personal gain while trampling on the interests and honor of the nation and the country.”

This post has since disappeared from Tifosi’s Facebook page, and social media users relentlessly dug up other past incidents for condemnation.

In August 2024, singer Tóc Tiên became a target when images from a performance in the United States from approximately 15 years earlier were heavily circulated. Despite the time that had passed, the ensuing attacks and boycott calls pressured her into publishing an explanation and apology on Aug. 23, 2024.

Other entertainers, including Trấn Thành and Việt Hương , were subsequently singled out by public opinion and the press, forcing them to issue apologies as well. Throughout this period, official state outlets such as Công Thương , Công an nhân dân , and Đại đoàn kết published a stream of articles “reminding” artists of their patriotism and social responsibilities.

Gia Long–Nguyễn Phước Ánh

King Gia Long, born Nguyễn Phước Ánh, has long been a target of condemnation among historians and history students adhering to the Vietnamese Communist Party’s line. Any perspectives praising his historical contributions are swiftly denounced as “historical revisionism” or “distortion.” Under General Secretary Tô Lâm, one of the most intense waves of denunciation against Gia Long peaked around September 2025.

On Sept. 17, 2025, the pro-government Facebook page Xây Dựng Đảng, boasting over 62,000 followers, attacked efforts to reassess Gia Long’s legacy in a post titled “Nguyễn Ánh – Gia Long: An Unforgivable Crime.” The page accused “hostile forces” of attempting to “reverse history” and “exaggerate and glorify Nguyễn Ánh.” Arguing that his post-coronation actions were merely attempts to “consolidate his title,” the post questioned, “how can that be called a ‘contribution’!!”

Xây Dựng Đảng further depicted the Gia Long era as “a pitch-black picture” marked by “stagnant economics, backward agriculture, and dependent politics.”

Relying on traditional idioms, it stated, "Nguyễn Ánh was, from beginning to end, someone who carried snakes home to bite the family’s chickens and invited elephants to trample the ancestors’ graves.” It warned that anyone attempting to “tear down heroes who contributed to the country and whitewash those who sold out the nation for glory” is “guilty before the people and the country.”

That same day, Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn, former head of the Department of Propaganda and Training under the General Department of Politics of the Vietnam People’s Army, escalated the rhetoric. In a post titled “Nguyễn Huệ – Quang Trung and Nguyễn Ánh – Gia Long: Two Opposite Poles in National History,”

Tuấn condemned the growing trend of “historical revisionism” and “reversing history.” He attacked Gia Long for “trading the people’s sovereignty for the throne” and pursuing a “doctrine of seeking foreign aid and betraying the nation.” In contrast, Tuấn lauded Quang Trung – Nguyễn Huệ as a “national hero” of patriotism. The post garnered nearly 1,000 reactions, over 200 shares, and nearly 400 comments, with many users echoing his fierce criticisms.

The denunciations gained momentum throughout the fall. On Oct. 20, 2025, Facebook user Phan Trung Can published a viral post titled “Shameless Duplicity.” Rejecting any notion of Nguyễn Ánh as a “national hero,” Can wrote that “Nguyễn Ánh committed unforgivable crimes against the country and his clan.” He detailed accusations of using “every dark tactic to seize the throne,” which included “using Prince Cảnh as a hostage to the French,” “killing Prince Cải,” “imprisoning Lady Phi Yến until her death,” and “demolishing Thăng Long Citadel to take bricks and tiles to Phú Xuân to build the Huế capital.”

Can asked, “How could a national hero commit such despicable acts?” The post accumulated more than 3,800 reactions and over 1,500 comments, prompting Can to publish several follow-up denunciations.

On Oct. 28, 2025, the Facebook page Dòng Máu Việt, which has more than 464,000 followers, entered the discussion by posting a video titled “Nguyễn Ánh Is Not a National Hero.” The video argued that actions by “those who want to powder and rouge Nguyễn Ánh” were “a conspiracy to reverse history.” It alleged this was an effort aimed at “legitimizing the treason of foreign lackeys in the 20th century” and “smearing bloody resistance wars against the French and the Americans.”

By July 22, 2026, the video had reached more than 210,000 views, 8,200 reactions, and approximately 1,300 comments.

The vitriol against Nguyễn Phước Ánh eventually spilled over to other historical figures associated with the Nguyễn dynasty. Most notably, a subsequent campaign of criticism targeted Tả quân Lê Văn Duyệt, a founding meritorious official of the regime.

Tả quân Lê Văn Duyệt

In October 2025, Tả quân Lê Văn Duyệt became the center of a digital “anti-revisionist history” campaign. The attacks began shortly after the 193rd death anniversary ceremony for the historical figure, which was held in Hồ Chí Minh City from Sept. 21 to 23, 2025, and attended by numerous officials and guests.

Following the event, a coordinated wave of defamatory posts and videos flooded social media, driven by prominent accounts such as Én Bạc TV, Hòa Điên, Phan Trung Can, and Thăng Long TV. Én Bạc TV was among the first to ignite the outrage, posting controversial statements that labeled Lê Văn Duyệt a “national criminal” alongside disparaging remarks about King Gia Long.

In response to the escalating online vitriol, the Hồ Chí Minh City Department of Culture and Sports addressed the issue at a regular news conference on Oct. 16, 2025. A representative stated that the law strictly prohibits insulting eminent figures and national heroes. The department affirmed that Hồ Chí Minh City has consistently recognized Lê Văn Duyệt’s vital contributions to the formation and development of the southern region. This official recognition was previously reflected when a section of Đinh Tiên Hoàng Street—stretching from Bông Bridge to Phan Đăng Lưu Street in Gia Định Ward—was renamed Lê Văn Duyệt Street.

The representative further warned that spreading false information about Tả quân Lê Văn Duyệt showed signs of violating the Cybersecurity Law. As a result, the department asked the Department of Cybersecurity and High-Tech Crime Prevention and the Authority of Broadcasting, Television, and Electronic Information to work together to check, stop, and take legal action against the offending accounts.

Despite these government warnings, the defamation campaign continued.

On Oct. 23, 2025, Phan Trung Can published a defiant post titled “Does Lê Văn Duyệt Deserve to Be Honored and Have a Street Named After Him? ” Can argued that Lê Văn Duyệt merely “contributed to reclaiming land and developing the economy of Nam Kỳ,” entirely rejecting the assertion that he expanded the nation's territory.

Can also relentlessly branded Lê Văn Duyệt a “foreign lackey” who “betrayed the fatherland,” “invited elephants to trample the ancestors’ graves,” and “slaughtered his own people,” concluding that he “cannot be honored as a ‘national hero’” and “does not deserve to have a street named after him.”

As of July 17, 2026, the post had accumulated more than 1,500 reactions and over 1,100 comments.

Bảo Ninh’s “The Sorrow of War”

In late 2025, Bảo Ninh’s acclaimed novel “The Sorrow of War” unexpectedly became the focal point of an aggressive online denunciation campaign . The controversy began on Nov. 30, 2025, after the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism included the novel on a newly announced list of 50 exemplary Vietnamese literary and performing arts works spanning the 1975-2025 period. Almost immediately, heated debates erupted online, centering on the novel’s political stance and its grim perspective on war.

Prominent establishment figures championed the opposition. On Dec. 1, 2025, Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn, the former head of the Department of Propaganda and Training under the General Department of Politics of the Vietnam People’s Army, published a Facebook post urging organizers to revoke the honor.

Tuấn argued that the novel diminished the heroic qualities of soldiers and reflected a dangerous trend of “reversing history through literature and the arts.” The post garnered more than 3,200 interactions and over 1,500 comments, largely drawing support from self-identified veterans.

One such user, Vũ Tiến Cườm, commented:

"I am an anti-American war veteran [cựu chiến binh—reporter's note] from 1966 to 1975 and took part in four campaigns: Khe Sanh in 1968, Đường 9 Nam Lào in 1971, Quảng Trị in 1972, and Hồ Chí Minh in 1975. I was a reconnaissance soldier in the Quân Tiên Phong Division. […] BN [Bảo Ninh – reporter’s note] claimed that after dinner, gambling mats were opened. That is completely fabricated […]. I strongly oppose giving an award to NBCT [‘The Sorrow of War’ – reporter’s note] and request that it be revoked and that the content be removed from the Grade 12 textbook.”

Similarly, Associate Professor Dr. Nguyễn Cảnh Toàn attacked the work in a widely shared post. He claimed the novel represented “betrayal” and a “distortion of history,” drawing parallels between such literature and the “ideological transformation” that contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Facebook user Phan Trung Can also began a relentless posting against the book on Dec. 1, 2025. According to a review by Luật Khoa, Can published more than 40 posts on his personal page denouncing the novel.

The harassment soon escalated beyond social media posturing.

On Dec. 10, 2025, Can shared an image of a drafted petition addressed to the Ministry of National Defense and the Vietnam Veterans Association. The document demanded that authorities “prosecute” Bảo Ninh for “slandering and insulting the honor of the Vietnam People’s Army,” and “revoke the award given to ‘The Sorrow of War.’” While it remains unverified if the petition was ever officially submitted or acknowledged, the post attracted more than 9,500 interactions, over 2,200 comments, and nearly 500 shares.

In the comment section of that post, Can also wrote:

"This morning, I spoke with the full-time deputy head of the delegation and National Assembly delegate from Lâm Đồng Province, asking the National Assembly to review the honoring of and naming streets after several lackeys and traitors, as well as the granting of an award to a literary work that insults the honor of the Vietnam People’s Army and obscures the Vietnamese people’s war against U.S. imperialist aggression.”

This comment alone generated more than 1,000 likes.

On Jan. 9, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism released an updated list of the 50 exemplary works, quietly removing “The Sorrow of War.” The ministry stated that the adjustment was made after reviewing criteria, considering public opinion, and respecting the author’s wishes. Specifically, they noted that on Jan. 7, Bảo Ninh had sent a letter formally requesting the withdrawal of his novel from the honors list.

Fulbright University Vietnam and “Color Revolution”

These attacks eventually expanded beyond literary works and historical figures to target higher education, with one major institution repeatedly facing fierce online denunciation campaigns.

On Dec. 18, 2025, amid the ongoing controversy surrounding Bảo Ninh, the prominent Facebook page Đơn vị Tác Chiến Điện Tử Comrade Commissar (ComCom) posted a photo of the author alongside students from Fulbright University Việt Nam. The image was aggressively defaced with a red slash. Accompanying the photo was a caption noting that the university’s website had introduced Bảo Ninh as “Vietnam’s most famous writer.”

Ominously titled, “In the past, the Soviet Union collapsed partly because it loosened control over culture and education,” the post quickly gained traction. By 4:30 p.m. that afternoon, it had amassed roughly 2,500 reactions and hundreds of comments fiercely criticizing the university.

One user, Lý Nguyễn, commented:

“Fulbright is building a huge campus in the high-tech park. It is also right near several satellite universities, especially Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City. I’m telling you, in 10 years it will liberalize this city first, and in 20 years it will liberalize the whole country.”

The remark received more than 150 likes.

On Jan. 4, Phan Trung Can published a post titled “ Identifying ‘Color Revolution’ in Vietnam, ” which featured a photo of a Fulbright University Vietnam graduation ceremony. Can theorized that “the journey of color revolution by hostile forces in Vietnam” was directly linked to initiatives such as “[…] using international organizations in Vietnam, USAID, NGOs, etc. to fund investigations and surveys of the government apparatus to find weaknesses to attack; granting scholarships to students with ‘progressive’ ideas; building a 100% foreign-funded university in Vietnam based on the concept of ‘liberal education’ […].”

He further warned against “providing and sponsoring funding for research and seminars under the banner of ‘academic freedom’ beyond government management, as well as classless, apolitical literature and art.” The post accumulated nearly 4,000 reactions.

This was not the university's first entanglement with “color revolution” accusations. A similar crisis unfolded on Aug. 21, 2024, when Vietnam National Defense Television aired a report titled “Do Not Let Color Revolution Change the Color of Education.” Citing various Facebook comments, the broadcast alleged that a “color revolution” was seeping into the country's educational sector.

Following the broadcast, a wave of social media attacks targeted Fulbright University Vietnam. Numerous accounts accused the institution of being a hub that “nurtures color revolution,” “trains reactionary forces,” and serves “hostile forces.” The harassment included insulting language, boycott demands, and direct threats against lecturers and students.

Fulbright University Vietnam responded with a statement , clarifying that the content circulating online was entirely false and manufactured to manipulate public opinion. Subsequently, on Aug. 26, 2024, Việt Nam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stepped in to defend the institution, publicly expressing hope and confidence that the university would continue to positively contribute to the friendship and cooperation between Việt Nam and the United States.

Controversy , however, has stalked the university since its inception. In 2016, the decision to appoint Bob Kerrey—a former U.S. senator and military officer who served in the Vietnam War—as chair of the board of trustees sharply divided public opinion. The outcry was significant enough that Việt Nam’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was forced to issue an official statement addressing the matter at the time.

The Grade 5 History and Geography Textbook

By early 2026, a new wave of posts targeted the Grade 5 History and Geography textbook from the “Kết nối tri thức với cuộc sống” series. The textbook was condemned for including positive content about Nguyễn Ánh (King Gia Long) and the Nguyễn dynasty, while allegedly failing to allocate proportionate space to Nguyễn Huệ (King Quang Trung) and the Tây Sơn movement.

The controversy erupted shortly after the Ministry of Education and Training selected the series on Dec. 26, 2025, to serve as the unified national textbook beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

Phan Trung Can once again spearheaded the denunciation campaign, publishing multiple posts opposing the series and its historical curriculum. Across three consecutive posts from Dec. 27, 2025, to Jan. 3, 2026, he alleged the curriculum contained numerous “flaws,” questioned the construction of its historical narratives, and warned of the dangerous risk of “rewriting national history.”

On Jan. 2, Can published a post titled “ A Few Words to the Children. ” In it, he announced that he had petitioned the National Assembly, the government, and the Central Propaganda Department. Can claimed that “national history is being distorted, black and white are being confused, and right and wrong are becoming hard to distinguish," adding a warning that “step by step, they will rewrite national history.”

The post received more than 1,700 reactions and many supportive comments. For instance, user Trần Xuân Bình wrote:

“We must strongly oppose the introduction of the ‘Kết nối tri thức’ textbook series into teaching in the 2026-27 school year while many historical issues remain fiercely contested and unresolved!”

That same day, the Ministry of Education and Training mounted a defense. The ministry posted a warning on its official Facebook page regarding the spread of “false” and “distorted” information, attaching red-slashed screenshots of six offending Facebook accounts.

Taking legal action, the ministry requested the police to review and potentially penalize social media accounts disseminating misleading information. Targeted individuals included poet Bùi Chí Vinh, who subsequently hid his post, and Dr. Nguyễn Kiều Dung, who had repeatedly criticized Professor Vũ Minh Giang, the chief editor of the series.

Also on Jan. 2, 2026, the ministry issued an official response to the public outcry after reviewing the textbook's content. It argued that the spread of “false” and “distorted” information was creating “misleading assessments” that risked “causing public confusion and affecting the major policies of the Party and the state on education and training.”

The ministry rejected the accusations, clarifying that material regarding Quang Trung and the Tây Sơn movement is taught continuously from grades 8 to 11, whereas knowledge of the Nguyễn dynasty spans grades 5 to 11. It defended this structure as “consistent with the logic of historical development, appropriate to the goals and psychological characteristics of students’ ages, and in line with the perspective of the 2018 general education curriculum.” The ministry added that the arrangement ensures scientific accuracy by avoiding both idolization and moral judgments.

Undeterred, Can published a follow-up post on Jan. 3 titled “ Accountability of State Agencies: Dialogue Instead of Confrontation. ” Citing the Constitution, he demanded that the ministry publicly explain its decisions, asserting that accountability is “a measure of public-service ethics” and a fundamental duty of state agencies.

On Jan. 6, during a central press briefing, the Ministry of Education and Training justified its selection of the “Kết nối tri thức với cuộc sống” series, citing its alignment with the 2018 general education curriculum, stability in implementation, and nationwide supply capacity.

However, the ministry avoided addressing the ongoing controversies surrounding the Grade 5 textbook at the event.

Saturday Coffee Cultural Salon and the Panel on Trương Vĩnh Ký

In late May 2026, familiar figures like Phan Trung Can and Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn ignited yet another denunciation campaign, this time targeting the 19th-century historical figure Trương Vĩnh Ký. The speed of the backlash was notable; a planned cultural event in Hồ Chí Minh City centered on the figure was canceled just hours after their critical posts went live.

The controversy centered around the Saturday Coffee Cultural Salon. The venue had organized a panel discussion titled “Trương Vĩnh Ký as He Was,” which was scheduled for May 31 and featured researcher Cao Tự Thanh, with moderation by musician Dương Thụ. However, on May 29, all promotional materials mysteriously vanished from the salon's media channels. Shortly after, organizers officially announced the event's cancellation, vaguely citing “objective reasons” without further explanation.

Notably, exactly six hours before the salon's cancellation notice, Phan Trung Can published a Facebook post reviewing the life of Trương Vĩnh Ký. Branding the historical figure a “traitorous lackey” and a “national criminal of Việt Nam,” Can directly challenge the motives of the event's organizers.

“No matter whether it is framed academically or now repackaged as ‘coffee, meeting, and dialogue,’ or in any other form, it cannot whitewash Trương Vĩnh Ký, a man who sold out the country for glory, served as a lackey for the French colonialists who invaded Việt Nam, and was a criminal against the Vietnamese nation. If the Coffee Meeting and Dialogue program takes place to praise Trương Vĩnh Ký, then the image of musician Dương Thụ will be tarnished in the hearts of Vietnamese music lovers, and Trung Nguyên Coffee will no longer be the choice of patriotic Vietnamese people,” Can wrote.

The post quickly accumulated more than 1,100 reactions and over 350 comments from users echoing his fierce condemnation.

Three hours later, Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn published a post endorsing Can’s stance. Tuấn uploaded an image depicting Trương Vĩnh Ký, Gia Long, Phan Thanh Giản, and Lê Văn Duyệt, all defaced with red slashes. He captioned the image, “Nguyễn Ánh and three treacherous officials.”

This post drew even heavier traffic, generating more than 2,800 reactions, over 800 comments, and more than 400 shares on Facebook.

It remains unknown whether Phan Trung Can and Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn directly contacted the Saturday Coffee Cultural Salon, or if the organizers had simply observed the escalating threats online.

Nguyễn Thành Nam’s “Chuyện với Thanh”

In early June 2026, the online denunciation machine turned its attention on the book “Chuyện với Thanh – Lời kể mới về ánh sáng” by Nguyễn Thành Nam. This particular campaign escalated beyond social media, culminating in government intervention . The author and four individuals tied to the book’s publication were detained and prosecuted under Article 117 of the Penal Code.

Structured as a dialogue between a student named Thanh and a teacher named Thành, the book deviated from the official Party line in recounting the life of Hồ Chí Minh. Relying heavily on William Duiker’s renowned biography “Ho Chi Minh: A Life,” the book included many “sensitive” details.

Nguyễn Thành Nam faced severe condemnation for describing Nguyễn Tất Thành with phrases such as “rowing a boat to listen to singing as a child,” “running errands for the big brothers,” and “a 30-year-old youth wandering without a job.” He also controversially characterized the leader's quest to “find a path to save the country” as a “backpacking trip.”

Before his prosecution, Nguyễn Thành Nam was a highly respected figure. A well-known entrepreneur in Việt Nam, he founded FUNiX, served as the former general director of FPT Group, and lectured on Hồ Chí Minh Thought at VinUniversity. Known as an admirer of Hồ Chí Minh, he had frequently lectured on the leader’s life.

The attack against the book was once again initiated by Phan Trung Can. On June 3, Can took to Facebook to declare “Chuyện với Thanh” “a filthy book that must be recalled and destroyed.” He alleged that the book abused academic freedom to “distort history” and “insult” Hồ Chí Minh and the Vietnamese nation.

On June 4, Can posted again , demanding that the Central Propaganda and Mass Mobilization Commission order the editor-in-chief of Nhân Dân newspaper to retract two favorable reviews written by journalist Ngọc Đinh, which had been published on May 17, 2026.

Simultaneously, Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn demanded an explanation from the Writers’ Association Publishing House for licensing the work and called for government agencies to review the case.

The coordinated posts successfully whipped up public outrage. By that evening, Nhân Dân retracted the two articles , stating that the editorial board had deemed the content “no longer appropriate.” Media outlets like An ninh Thủ Đô, Znews, and Pháp Luật Plus followed suit, and major bookstores scrubbed the title from their shelves and websites.

On the afternoon of June 5, the Writers’ Association Publishing House announced a temporary suspension of the book's distribution to revise details based on "readers’ feedback." Curiously, this announcement vanished from their fan page just hours later.

On June 15, the Department of Publishing, Printing, and Distribution fined the Writers’ Association Publishing House 100 million đồng and seized nearly 424 million đồng in distribution proceeds. The agency cited two groups of content deemed “very seriously false,” noting “inaccurate” assessments of historical events and “inappropriate” language regarding Hồ Chí Minh and senior Party leaders.

The publisher was then ordered to recall and destroy all printed copies within 60 days.

On June 19, delegate Trần Thành Trọng criticized the book during the third session of the Hồ Chí Minh City People’s Council. Trọng urged authorities to investigate the matter, warning that repeated intentional conduct could warrant criminal liability.

Finally, on June 26, the Ministry of Education and Training issued Official Dispatch No. 3936 , mandating all universities to report whether they had invited Nguyễn Thành Nam to participate in any past or future academic activities.

In tandem with these measures, the ministry required educational institutions to review their speaker invitation procedures to ensure compliance with Party regulations, state law, and training objectives, formally noting the recall of “Chuyện với Thanh.”

The state media offensive escalated on July 2, when the Công an Nhân dân (The People's Police) newspaper published an analysis in its “Countering Peaceful Evolution” section. Written by Lt. Col. Lê Thế Cương, the article marked the first time the police’s official newspaper directly commented on the controversy. Citing examples from the text and the author's videos, Cương argued that Nguyễn Thành Nam had “abused” concepts of liberal education and academic freedom to distort history, insult the leader, and spread “historical revisionist” thinking.

On July 7, Hà Nội police detained Nguyễn Thành Nam alongside Trần Việt Anh, the founder of Spiderum, who had helped promote the book. Both were prosecuted under Article 117 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of “making, storing, distributing, or propagandizing information, documents, or items aimed at opposing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.”

These arrests only emboldened the critics to broaden their targets. Phan Trung Can demanded accountability from Nguyễn Quang Thiều, president of the Vietnam Writers’ Association, questioning whether the publication was a professional blunder or driven by political motives. Can also targeted cultural figure Đinh Tiến Dũng (known as Cù Trọng Xoay) for promoting the book to the public, insisting he could not escape responsibility. Shortly after, Dũng “voluntarily” withdrew from the television program “Anh Trai Vượt Ngàn Chông Gai” ("Brothers Overcoming Countless Challenges").

On July 8 the Facebook page “Chống luận điệu xuyên tạc”—boasting over 72,000 followers— published a hit list of alleged collaborators. Featuring an image of Đinh Tiến Dũng, the post named leaders from the Writers’ Association Publishing House, the Vietnam Writers’ Association, and major media agencies. This and similar posts drew thousands of reactions and support.

On July 11, Press Department director Lưu Đình Phúc pushed back on his personal Facebook page with a post titled “ The Conflation of Management Responsibility and Personal Views.” Republished by Tuổi Trẻ the following morning, the post criticized the wave of online “denunciations” as a dangerous “trial by social media.” He warned that information was being selectively edited, motives assumed, and political views unfairly attributed. According to Phúc, allowing “social media verdicts” to replace competent authorities could damage the information environment and social stability.

Reinforcing this boundary, Công an nhân dân published two consecutive articles on July 14 titled “ Criticism or Accusation? ” and “When Social Media Becomes a Place of ‘Judgment’ .” Appearing in the “Countering Peaceful Evolution” section, the pieces criticized internet users for preemptively convicting individuals and pressuring competent agencies to act while proper investigations were still underway.

On July 15, Hà Nội police arrested three top executives from the Writers’ Association Publishing House: director Nguyễn Thúy Hằng, editor-in-chief Đào Bá Đoàn, and Editorial Board head Nguyễn Văn Yên. All three faced prosecution under Article 117 on accusations of “making, storing, distributing, or propagandizing information, documents, or items aimed at opposing the state.” Strikingly, both Đoàn and Yên had largely escaped mention in the preceding online denunciations.

The History Exam in the 2026 High School Graduation Examination

In June 2026, another denunciation campaign led by Phan Trung Can and Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn struck again, this time targeting the Ministry of Education and Training over the high school graduation examination.

The controversy erupted on June 12, immediately following the release of the History exam . Hardliners took severe issue with the test using the neutral phrases “Saigon government” and “Saigon army.” Many commenters, particularly veterans and military generals, argued that these terms blatantly contradicted official state historiography.

Associate Professor Nguyễn Cảnh Toàn, a frequent voice in “anti-historical revisionism” campaigns, quickly escalated the situation. On June 12, he published a post demanding:

“History exam: Why not use ‘puppet army, puppet regime’ instead of ‘Sài Gòn government’ and ‘Sài Gòn army,’ Ministry of Education [Ministry of Education and Training]?”

The post drew more than 1,100 reactions and over 600 comments condemning the ministry.

Phan Trung Can spent that same day publishing a barrage of Facebook posts attacking the exam's wording. At noon on June 12, he declared , "First Literature, now History. They are testing the patience of a nation.”

By the afternoon, Can was citing a 2021 article from the Quân đội nhân dân newspaper, which argued that replacing “puppet army” and “puppet regime” with “Saigon government” was “unrealistic and detached from historical truth.” He followed up with additional posts arguing that the Republic of Vietnam was strictly an “illegal polity" and insisted that national reconciliation must never mean “recognizing the legitimacy of the Saigon puppet regime.”

Lt. Gen. Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn also joined the June 12 attacks, publicly objecting to the phrase “Saigon government.” He amplified calls for educational reform, sharing a post that demanded the government “listen and resolutely correct the problem.”

Posts by both Can and Tuấn generated thousands of reactions and massive comment threads. The comment sections were heavily populated by individuals identifying as veterans or active military personnel, all echoing the condemnation of the exam and demanding strict action to prevent “historical revisionism” and “historical distortion.”

“Liberal Education”

Before the outrage over “Chuyện với Thanh” and the History exam could even subside, another digital wave of attacks broke out on social media. This time, the outrage centered entirely on the phrase “liberal education,” once again placing the Ministry of Education and Training in the crosshairs of public criticism.

The controversy was sparked on June 19, when the ministry released the official answer key for the high school graduation Literature exam. Netizens quickly noticed the inclusion of the phrase “liberal education.” Specifically, in response to a social-discussion question about how to produce “Vietnamese Steve Jobses,” the answer key suggested building a “liberal and creative education.”

Coincidentally, on that very same day, the Journal of State Organization and Labor—an agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs—published a piece titled “Identifying and Struggling Against the Schemes and Tactics of ‘Peaceful Evolution’ in Education and Training.”

Written by Senior Lt. Col. Dr. Bùi Đức Hòa, the article criticized the model of “Western-style liberal education.” Hòa argued that elevating individual freedom and classless education risked eroding the socialist nature of the education system. Although the article was eventually removed from the journal’s website, the exact time of its deletion remains unclear.

By the afternoon of June 20, Phan Trung Can had reposted the entire article on his personal Facebook page, adding the caption: “ I suggest the leaders of the Ministry of Education and Training read this. ” The post drew more than 2,000 reactions and nearly 500 shares, with commenters widely agreeing that it offered a valuable analysis of the risks of “peaceful evolution” infiltrating the education sector.

The phrase “liberal education” subsequently became a target for fierce public criticism, with online mobs directly linking it to the concept of a “color revolution.” The backlash was so intense that several major institutional websites, including chinhphu.vn , the Ministry of Education and Training, and Fulbright University Vietnam, deleted the phrase from their online content.

During a July 7 meeting, Deputy Prime Minister Lê Tiến Châu used the phrase “liberal education,” prompting many newspapers to quote him. However, the media outlets almost immediately scrubbed the phrase from their reports. Concurrently, VinUni quietly rebranded its College of Arts and Sciences. Previously rendered in Vietnamese as the Institute of Liberal Arts and Sciences Education, it was hastily renamed the Institute of Social Sciences and Natural Sciences.

These recent cases demonstrate that social media denunciation campaigns primarily target events and actors wielding significant influence in public life. The victims span a wide spectrum, encompassing literary works, textbooks, exam questions, universities, media agencies, publishing houses, and professional organizations.

A recurring theme across these incidents is the deployment of politically charged accusations, including “distorting history,” “opposing the state,” “insulting the leader,” and “peaceful evolution.” Critics routinely demand that authorities intervene, works be recalled, events be canceled, and the involved individuals or organizations be investigated. Often, these online campaigns precede or parallel official state action.

Yet, the scope of these witch hunts extends far beyond high-profile institutional targets. Alongside the attacks on major organizations and public events, independent individuals who merely voice their opinions on social media are increasingly falling victim to these aggressive smear campaigns.

Hoàng Lam wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on July 23, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it to English.

Tô Lâm’s ‘Mini Cultural Revolution’: The Crusade Against ‘Revisionist History’ in Việt Nam

RELATED POSTS

Transnational Repression and Diplomatic Partnerships Under Tô Lâm

In His Third Year, Can Tô Lâm Actually Remake Việt Nam’s Political and Economic System?

“Let Only Red Flowers Bloom”—And How Its Politics Took Root in Vietnam

Hoàng Lam

Related Posts

The Vân Village Megaproject, Part 1: Tracing 20 Years of Delays in Đà Nẵng’s 44 Trillion Đồng Resort

A Comprehensive Timeline of the Red River Landscape Boulevard Project

Hà Nội Resident Fined 7.5 Million Đồng for Sharing ‘L.K.T.C’ Post on the Red River Project

First Came the Media Mergers and Closures. Now Việt Nam’s Civil Associations Are Next.

OPINIONS

Transnational Repression and Diplomatic Partnerships Under Tô Lâm

Vietnamese Schools Are Teaching Everything Except Freedom

Police Cleared the Flowers, but They Could Never Suppress Justice

POPULAR STORIES

Religion Bulletin – April 2026 – Việt Nam Passes Amended Religion Law As Authorities Prosecute Four Independent Protestants

Hà Nội ‘Justice Tree’: Social Media Users Demand Investigation into Former Lawmaker Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Việt Nam Culture Ministry Blocks Threads Posts Accusing Nguyễn Sỹ Cương

Post-1975 Tragedy: The Grim Reality of Life in Vietnam’s Re-education Camps

The Strait of Hormuz Crisis: How Việt Nam is Handling the 2026 Global Oil Shock