Việt Nam’s Three-Layer Book Censorship: Protecting History or the Regime?

A proposal to impose three layers of review on books concerning history, leaders, and sovereignty threatens to add further restrictions to Việt Nam’s already tightly controlled publishing system. The looming threat of legal consequences would pressure authors, editors, and publishers into stricter self-censorship.

On the afternoon of Aug. 14, Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism Lâm Thị Phương Thanh explained proposed amendments to the Publishing Law, stating that certain categories of books would undergo three levels of scrutiny: appraisal by the publisher; a review of that appraisal by the supervising institution; and an examination of mandatory deposit copies, including comments from state regulators, prior to distribution. [1] 

This proposal targets works on revolutionary history, national security, sovereignty, and national heroes, with the government determining the exact categories.

The immediate public concern surrounding this proposal is well-founded, even if censorship is not new in Việt Nam. The 2012 Publishing Law already prohibits content that “distorts historical truth,” “denies revolutionary achievements” or insults eminent figures. Under this law, publishers cannot delegate the preliminary editing of sensitive subjects to publishing partners, and all publications must be submitted for mandatory inspection. [2]

This proposal is not entirely novel in substance, but it adds additional layers to an existing framework of control. By imposing three levels of review, the state places greater responsibility on individuals and institutions to filter out content deemed a threat to the Communist Party. Those who allow controversial material to slip through could face disciplinary action or criminal liability.

Effectively, the safest choice for any publisher is to outright reject a manuscript, while recent events highlight the bleak reality facing the publishing industry. 

In July 2026, author Nguyễn Thành Nam, Spiderum CEO Trần Việt Anh, and three officials at the Writers’ Association Publishing House were charged under Article 117 of the Penal Code in connection with the book Chuyện với Thanh – Lời kể mới về ánh sáng (Conversations with Thanh: A New Account of Light). Investigators accused the publishing officials of helping edit, publish, and promote a book that allegedly distorted history and insulted leaders. [3]

Following these allegations, Nguyễn Quang Thiều, chairman of the Việt Nam Writers’ Association, was removed from all his party positions, and the three publishing officials were expelled from the party. [4]

Though the case is still under investigation, the message is unmistakable: the risk of publishing extends beyond the author. Responsibility now implicates the entire editorial operation and the publisher’s supervising institution. In this environment, three layers of censorship will only exacerbate the fear of legal and career ruin. As some Facebook commenters have noted, “publishing is becoming an increasingly dangerous profession.”

As the rules tighten, the threat becomes more immediate and serious. The government will not need to officially ban books; if authors and editors harbor even modest concerns about a subject’s sensitivity or current relevance, the work of censorship will be completed long before a manuscript is formally assessed.

Strict controls might create the illusion of societal consensus by limiting the circulation of controversial books, but this does not mean that the public actually agrees. Historical writing remains one of the most contentious subjects. Censoring history leads to numerous consequences such as forcing researchers to avoid unsettling findings, weakening future historians, diminishing creativity, and opening a massive credibility gap between official narratives and other accounts of the past. [5]

Nevertheless, censorship cannot extinguish curiosity. Readers will discover alternative channels for “banned” information. When official publication becomes too risky, authors turn to PDFs, social media, or personal blogs. While this bypasses censorship, it removes the editorial oversight necessary to assess sources, making it harder for readers to verify claims.

Three layers of censorship cannot mandate genuine respect for leaders or revolutionary history. Historical reality is inherently complex and multifaceted. For instance, consider Phan Thanh Giản. Communist historians once fiercely criticized him for “allowing the six provinces of Nam Kỳ to fall into French hands when he served as chief plenipotentiary and signed the 1862 Treaty of Nhâm Tuất,” yet he was later honored for his contributions “across politics, diplomacy, and culture.” [6]

Similarly, the legendary story of teenager Lê Văn Tám acting as a “living torch” to burn a French ammunition depot in 1946 was later demythologized. The late historian Phan Huy Lê explained that Trần Huy Liệu had invented the story during the early resistance years to inspire morale. Trần Huy Liệu even told Phan Huy Lê, “Later, when the country is at peace, you historians should correct the record for me, in case I am no longer here.” [7]

Acknowledging the complexity of such historical figures and events does not equate to denying the past, “rewriting history” in bad faith, or acting as a “ba que (three stripes)”—a slur used against supporters of the former Republic of Vietnam. Reducing history to mere praise strips people of the ability to investigate its richness, pushing them further away from treating history as a genuine scholarly discipline.

---

In historical scholarship, a factual claim can be rejected when a document is forged, a date is wrong, or the evidence is simply insufficient. However, these same sources can frequently support competing arguments regarding motives, responsibility, and causation. Human knowledge advances because society distinguishes between errors of evidence and differences of interpretation. Being wrong about the facts is not the same as understanding them differently.

Unfortunately, the application of broad terms such as “distortion,” “insult,” “sensitivity,” or “political and ideological security” blurs that distinction. Historical knowledge remains trustworthy not because it is immune to challenge, but because it withstands repeated scrutiny or is corrected as new evidence emerges. Consequently, the three-layer straitjacket proposed by Lâm Thị Phương Thanh might reduce immediate “errors,” but it heavily risks suppressing the very disagreements necessary to establish the truth.

---

Cao Thúc Bình wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on August 19, 2026. The Vietnamese Magazine translated it into English.