Re: Tin VN: Du+. Tha?o Su+?a DDo^?i Ho.c Phi'

["Toan" <toan@usa.net>]

It may be difficult any good answer to the question of affordability anh
Ai' Vie^.t asked at this point. The scope of this implication is on
economy, taxation and the government sector, as mentioned. These changes
are taking place, but how and where to is still yet discernable.
However difficult the answer, the question is a good one. It asks a lot of
things in the future tense as well, how and what next?

On the joke, I made an apology and do want to <invalidate> it. Please
pardon my negligence.

Toa`n
----------
> From: Aiviet Nguyen <aiviet@cat.syr.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <vnsa-l@csd.uwm.edu>
> Subject: Re: Tin VN: Du+. Tha?o Su+?a DDo^?i Ho.c Phi' 
> Date: Friday, 14 March 1997 7:27 AM
> 
> Anh Tuan Pham,
>   Agreed. Just remand you that both parts of VN did not earn the living 
> by their own economy. And in the pre-capitalist period, even in the US 
> and other developed countries, tuition used to be there.
>   I think if needed tuition would be OK, if it is introduced steps by
steps.
> Economy will have time to adjust. ( The policy of salary in the 
> government sector should be more flexible to change according with the 
> economy). A jumping function will put few generations of talented kids
> to street without training. Somebody told me that the tuition is 
> reasonable. But I don't know how a "cadre" can pay the college tuition 
> for his children with the salary of 100.00- 400.000/month.
> Cheers
> Aiviet
> PS: Concerning Anh Toan's joke on " cadre", I found it is not proper.
>  He might misunderstand the word " Ca'n bo^." as " Ca'n bo^. Phu+o+`ng"
>  who were mostly " Ca'ch ma.ng 30/4" and like to use this title to
corrupt.
>  However, "Ca'n bo^." means everybody who works for the government sector
>  including teachers, researchers, doctors... who cannot get any corrupt 
>  money. My cousin, who is son of an ex-" Dda.i u'y Qua^n lu+.c VNCH", is 
>  also " Ca'n bo^.". It is not fair to joke of them who are doing more for

>  VN than we are. And I suppose it was just a misuse of the word "cadre".
>  Sorry if I am wrong.  
>