Re: Tru*o*`ng So*n Road ...to Mr. Tuan Pham

[Tuan Pham <tuan.pham@unsw.edu.au>]

Dear Hai

Thanks for your clarification. As a person who has
"nothing to lose" my philosophy is very much to play by ears
and look to others to guide me on what's acceptable and what's
not. If there is a limit to be pushed then I'll rather let the
Vietnamese
passport holders push it. There are more suitable forums when
I feel like doing a Rambo. So when my interlocutor commented
that things were becoming "too politic" for him then I felt
I could not comment any further!

Cheers
Tuan Pham


>On Sat, 24 May 1997, Tuan Pham wrote:
>
>> I agree that discussions are needed. But as soon as it becomes
>> relevant then it becomes too politic :) There's a saying that
>> a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. Perhaps
>> I could paraphrase it and say that a little discussion is worse than
>> no discussion at all :) Let's leave it here.
>
>Anh Tuan Pham and other folks in this thread,
>
>When you said "as soon as it becomes relevant 
>then it becomes too politic", I assume that you are talking about vnsa 
>and the policy we have here about not talking politics things. 
>
>I would like to make clear that vnsa policy about talking politics is not
>a blanket policy in the sense that no political topic is allowed or that
>the discussion can go only to a certain depth. It is hard to pintpoint
>exactly those that are considered acceptable and those that are not,
>because this depends pretty much on the contemporary situation in Vietnam. 
>
>However, a general rule of thumb is that as long as the discussion remains
>general (without calling and criticising people by names) and rational,
>Straightforward, free of rhetoric and insinuations, then it is fine. 
>Indeed, I agree with you that "a little discussion is worse than no
>discussion at all". I also think that from time to time, timely and
>controversial issues are vital for a forum to remain interesting and
>intellectually stimulating. So we have no blanket rules regarding
>political discussions, we simply ask you to use your best judgements
>regarding vnsa situation as well as VN's contemporary situation in
>deciding what to write. 
>
>An example of what I mean by acceptable discussions, which you perhaps may
>think not acceptable on vnsa: We have had a very interesting and
>constructive discussion about growth and income inequality, and I think
>pretty much our opinions converge: most of us agree that developing the
>economy should enjoy the number-one priority at the moment. 
>
>It is then natural to ask the next question: what should VN do to ensure a
>high-growth economy? To be more specific, which development model do you
>think VN should follow? I have four models in mind: South Korea, Taiwan,
>Singapore, and Thailand. We could have an interesting discussion about
>which economical and political lessons VN can draw from these models, as
>well as which model you think VN is likely to follow (in which area). As
>long as the discussion remains rational, high-quality, with "scientific"
>arguments, I think it would be very interesting and constructive for many
>of us.
>
>Best, Hai.
>