As I had mentioned in my posting in November, “San Jose: ‘Saigon Business District’ wins“,the San Jose City council voted to name a part of San Jose “Saigon Business District” instead of “Little Saigon.” Well, in yesterday’s San Jose Mercury News, the newspaper reports that ” 2,000 push for ‘Little Saigon’“:
“About 2,000 supporters of naming a sliver of San Jose “Little Saigon” packed an auditorium on Sunday and threatened to try to recall Councilwoman Madison Nguyen unless the city council backpedals on a controversial recent vote. Nguyen, the first Vietnamese-American woman elected to office in
California, has come under fire since the council voted 8-3 on Nov. 20 to call the strip of about 200 businesses “Saigon Business District.” “I have no idea why she went against the will of the people,” said San Jose attorney Minh Dovan, who attended Sunday’s four-hour rally at the American G.I. Forum in San Jose. “She lost a lot of political capital.” Sunday’s crowd was one of the largest in San Jose in recent years to address a municipal issue. By a nearly unanimous show of hands, Little Saigon supporters in the auditorium voted to send a letter to the council asking the city to vote again on the issue. If that doesn’t work, Little Saigon boosters will ask Nguyen to resign. If she doesn’t, they vowed, they will launch a recall. “The community is outraged,” said Barry Hung Do.”
I can’t even imagine the fervor the Vietnamese-American community in San Jose has on this issue - to push this issue and vow for a recall of city council member Madison Nguyen. Then again, I don’t quite understand why Nguyen go against the will of her community either. Personally, as I have mentioned before, “Saigon Business District” just pretty archaic to me, while “Little Saigon” sounds more natural. Anybody in San Jose, especially if you live or work in this area, have any comments?
Send to: E-mail - del.icio.us - digg - Facebook
Other posts you might be interested in:
Blog RSS Blog Comments RSS
Efren wrote:
The best way to describe how these people are like are the Cubans in Miami: extremely Republican, extremely anti-communist, and overly nostalgic/romantic about their country before it became Communist. Saigon, otherwise known as Ho Chi Minh City, or at least the name Saigon, represents the romantic past that many older Vietnamese American immigrants have towards life before the Communist takeover, never mind that the city (and the mindset that it represents) no longer really exists.
This extremely small minority within the Vietnamese community is notorious for demanding recalls, cannibalizing, and silencing the rest of the Vietnamese American community politically if they don’t get their way, most conspicuously in Orange County. Many in these group also forget that, while the Vietnamese American community may represent a substantial group in San Jose, were not the only ones who elected Madison Nguyen into office. From what I’ve understood, she may have done some political missteps involving this, but from what I’ve read and heard, she is learning how to be a city council member fairly well fairly quickly.
I think it’s going to take those within the Vietnamese American community to stand up to the bullying by this extremely small faction who are threatening to recall Madison Nguyen that if the Vietnamese American community wants to yield political power here in the US, they will have to let go of the past and start thinking about their children’s future…here.
Posted on 11-Dec-07 at 1:58 pm | Permalink
Jesse! wrote:
Someone should update the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Saigon
Posted on 11-Dec-07 at 2:47 pm | Permalink
Simon Bao wrote:
It’s best to separate two unrelated issues - the actual selection of the name “Saigon Business District”, and the response to it from *some* in the VietnAmerican community.
I think the name “Saigon Business District” sounds boring and offers no appeal. But when Madison Nguyen initially suggested “New Saigon” and “New Saigon Business District,” she was attacked and, to some extent, vilified by some folks. That’s when accusations first began circulating that Madison Nguyen is a communist. (Yeah… that’s believable…) Supporters of the “Little Saigon” name told everyone in the SJ media that “New Saigon” is already the name of a shopping mall back home in communist-run Vietnam, and therefore the name “New Saigon” somehow evokes 1975, the fall of the Saigon government, the victory of the Communists, etc.
Well, the name “New Saigon” evokes no such things - that’s not just silly, those assertions are dishonest on every level and only indicate the far lengths some people will go to in order to get their way.
In fact, the name “New Saigon” had more appeal than “Little Saigon” to the non-Viet residents in the (heavily Latino) district, and to the other businesses in that district. There’s a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in that district and while they didn’t wish to be re-branded as “Little Saigon,” they did support the “New Saigon” name. According to SJ Mercury News coverage, even the Vietnamese-owned businesses in the district preferred that it NOT be officially rebranded as “Little Saigon.” They wanted a name that was not interchangeable with all the other “Little Saigons” in California and America.
So it’s not as if Madison Nguyen acted recklessly. Or failed to represent her district.
What troubles me about the reaction of *some* VietnAmericans - and I insist it’s only *some* - is the naked Tribalism it represents. The clearly stated expectation that Madison Nguyen should act and vote in accord with whatever somebody somewhere says that the Vietnamese residents in her council district want. Because Madison Nguyen is Vietnamese. So it just follows. She is there to do what Vietnamese want. Tribalism.
One can see it in Minh Do Van’s comment, “I have no idea why she went against the will of the people.” As if the only people Madison Nguyen is sworn to serve are the Vietnamese. As if Madison Nguyen is in office only to do the will of some very vocal Vietnamese
One can see it in the comment by Tran Mai, who thinks Madison Nguyen has somehow betrayed the VietnAmerican community, failed to do what that community wants her to do, failed to “represent” them.
And John, one sees it in your own comment, that you don’t understand “why Nguyen would go against the will of her community…”
Well, she’s an elected District Council member of a city in the United States of America. She’s not on council to do the will of her own ethnic community. Or any other community. Or anybody’s will. Not if she’s doing the right thing, and not if she’s upholding the oath of office she took. She’s not VietnAmerica’s Privately Owned Little Hand Puppet.
Not to say one has to agree with her vote. But this idea out there in SJ, that an elected official in the United States is supposed to simply go off and do what her own tribe’s “Community Leaders” want her to do, that’s appalling.
Posted on 12-Dec-07 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
TrucChi Tran wrote:
Truc Chi:
Dear all,
I’d like to send you the reply I sent to Pete Constant, SJ City Council for D1, and following that is the article from John Vu who was Policy Analyst for one of the San Jose City Councils. Please read that carefully and you will see Little Saigon in SJ is not only the Viet community’s issue, it also our city’s issue of how to deal with elected official who uses dirty politics to carry on her personal interests, who tries to satisfy her financial supporter who is the owner of Vietnam Town Project. This man got Vietnamese communist high level investors from VN into his project and because of this investment sector, they both (Madison and this owner) don’t want to have Little Saigon for this business district because their investors from VN hate that name.
My reply to Pete:
Dear Pete,
As a friend of our Viet community, I think you will understand why we have to recall Madison. Besides the fact that she betrayed her voters, she’s now also a bad example for our community’s youths. We must recall her to restore our City’s democracy, to protect our community’s pride, and to teach our youths of the following principles:
“Good politics is to serve people.
Dirty politics is to serve your hidden agendas. With those, you won’t last long!”
A Case Against Little Saigon
John Vu
In the 2004 city council race for District 7, the two front running candidates realized the importance of the Vietnamese American swing vote. There were promises to the Vietnamese-American community leaders of the possibility of naming a Vietnamese business area Little Saigon. The community had been trying for years to have a business area designated Little Saigon in District 7. When the then Councilmember Terry Gregory left office in 2005, Madison Nguyen and Linda Nguyen in their race to replace him also made this a campaign issue.
Last month, Councilmember Madison Nguyen made this a reality with the city council approved the name Saigon Business District for a one mile strip on Story Road, west of Highway 101. Yet afterward, Madison Nguyen finds herself in a political backlash with discussion of a recall. Her supporters dismiss this as an empty threat by a vocal minority group in the community. Most city council members think this is nonsense and will fizzle out. Behind the scene, the very powerful and influential lobbyist and consultant for Mayor Chuck Reed, Vic Aljouny, made his returned to the San Jose politics and started calling mainstream media and leaders to gather support for Madison Nguyen. The Mercury News ran three articles within two weeks stating the recall is uncalled for and that a dedicated and honest politician like Madison Nguyen “should not be recalled but cloned.”
So what is the political reality of this unfortunate political episode for the Vietnamese-American community and can the community reconcile?
The Sentiment
As reported in the Mercury News, over 2,000 people attended an open public meeting on Sunday, Dec 9 at the GI Forum. This is the largest crowd ever to be at a municipal political rally as noted by the Mercury News. They sat for 4 hours listening and cheering loudly as community and business leaders made cases against Madison Nguyen and the demand for the name Little Saigon.
A well dressed Hispanic man came to the event and noted:” It is ironic but a year ago, there was a huge banner in front of GI Forum by some members of the Hispanic community that said Madison does not represent District 7 and the Mexican American community.”
By coincidence, that same afternoon at the city hall, a Vietnamese-American group that supported Madison Nguyen paid over $4,000 to rent the rotunda for their coming out political event. Mayor Chuck Reed and Vic Aljouny attended the occasion. There were about 75 people in attendance. They talked about how they truly represented the community and expressed their strong support for Madison Nguyen.
The Three Stories
To the mainstream public, the words of the former San Jose Mayor Tom McEnery in his blog probably capture their best view – “While it is difficult to understand why Madison Nguyen was so blind-sided by the somewhat predictable events of the last few weeks (and the strong feelings behind them), the council supported her down the line.”
However, within the Vietnamese-American community, there are three stories well known. The second of three stories is reported here.
In April of this year, 2 months before the council voted on the approval of the naming of the proposed area on Story Road , Madison Nguyen requested the city staff and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to meet with the owner of Vietnam Town Mall on Story Road . The Vietnam Town Mall project is well known in the community for being delayed since the beginning of the year. Their financial problems are detailed an investigative article by the San Jose Business Journal in November by Sharon Simonson.
Besides her own meeting with Jimmy Nguyen, Sonny Nguyen (her investment partner) and Paul Krutko, San Jose City chief development officer to make a case for naming the area, this was the only meeting that Madison Nguyen asked the city staff as well as her own staff to meet with any members or business owners of the community before the June vote.
It was a high power meeting. In attendance were the deputy city manager, Madison Nguyen’s chief of staff, director of project management, director of neighborhood and business development, senior graphic designer and marketing and communication manager. The owner of Vietnam Town Mall (Tang Lap) had with him his two trusted aides who handled the finance and marketing of the Vietnam Town Mall project. The meeting was about the naming of the area. At the meeting, Tang Lap requested the naming to be Vietnam Town Business District and he was willing to pay for the maintenance of signs and banners.
The city staff felt uneasy and told him that they would take his proposal under advisement. At a follow-up meeting, the city staff told him that they could not accept his offer for it could give the appearance of allowing a private party to use public property to advertise or promote its business.
In private though, Madison Nguyen gave him the signal that she would arrange so that the area would be named Vietnam Town Business District. With confidence, he ordered the design of two granite signs with the chiseled words “Vietnam Town Business District.” The granite signs design was made available to the community by the company commissioned to do the work.
On June 5, at the urging of Madison Nguyen, the city council approved the Vietnamese naming of the proposed area. The community in the area in general was not informed by this decision. Dennis King, the executive director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, found out about the naming of this area a month later by accident as he was talking to an executive of the Wal-Mart store on Story Road .
Through the rumor mill, the Vietnamese-American community heard about the naming of the area. Tien Nguyen, the president of the Vietnamese-American Community of Northern California, asked her what the vote was about. She told him that the council had approved the naming of the area as Vietnam Town Business District.
He asked her again for clarification and mentioned the fact why not Little Saigon but Vietnam Town Business District. She replied that it was too late and the community never spoke up. He was stunned since the issue of this important to the community and Madison Nguyen never bothered to inform the community.
The Vietnamese-American press began to questions Madison Nguyen publicly and forced her to call a community meeting in August. At the end of the meeting, the packed crowd began to chant: “Down with Madison ”, “ Madison is a liar” for they felt she had insulted them with condescending comments and her hidden agendas.
Circle the Wagon
After the Sunday rally at the GI Forum, Mayor Chuck Reed went on a radio show to defend Madison Nguyen and her decision. Some callers called in and asked if there were hidden agendas and dealing behind the scenes.
Some city council members are talking about a compromise of calling it “Little Saigon Business District”. In the Green Room, some council members approached the mayor for the possibility of a compromise. He rejected and stood his ground.
In private, the city council members know that a polarizing politician would never last and they feel sympathetic to her predicament. They also realize that there are more to the story then told to them by Madison Nguyen.
Madison Nguyen was irritated when the Mercury News called her at her home about the Sunday rally. She told them:” You will see, I will serve out the remainder of my three years.” Her chief of staff, coming from a Hmong community in Minnesota and having dealt with various controversies before with Hmong elected officials, assures her that they have enough support from the community. The community will tear each other apart and all of these will become nothing more than noises she told her.
To Madison Nguyen, these people are do nothing people with no jobs and extremists. She wishes she had not said so in public and on recorded TV but what done was done. But what bothers her most is the realization that some of her closest supporters are deserting her and now she can only trust a few people for information even leaks out from her inner circle meeting.
A Community Reconcile?
In the rotunda, Vic Aljouny met up with Lan Nguyen, a candidate for District 8 city council to replace the Vice Mayor Dave Cortese, and chatted about the up coming campaign. Lan Nguyen opposed Little Saigon (It was reported wrongly that he changed his mind) along with his backer, Dr. Ngai Nguyen. He and Madison Nguyen never like each other until now. Madison feels he is a wheeler dealer and is a threat to her for they both share the same group of financial supporters.
Over at the GI Forum, Cam Van, another candidate for District 8 city council, made an announcement that she was misled by one of the organizers of the event at the rotunda and she had dropped him from her campaign.
The political process is now in motion and steps are taken that cannot be withdrawn. Within the general community, the sentiment is that that they have been misled and insulted by the Madison Nguyen and her special interest groups. On the other side, her supporters feel this is a great of opportunity to bring down Tien Nguyen and his anti-communist group who had changed their support for her after the election in 2005.
Whatever the outcome may be it will no doubt change the political paradigm of San Jose politics in general. The Vietnamese-American community came to this country as refugee out of the consequences of the political struggles between world superpowers. They were merely a pawn in the Cold War. Now they have to confront a polarizing political will that would either unite or destroy the community. And the issue is not the naming of Little Saigon anymore as the mainstream media and the city council are depicting to the public. The issue to the Vietnamese-American community, whether it is fair or not, is the ethical substance or lack of by the once golden child of the community – City Councilmember Madison Nguyen.
Posted on 23-Dec-07 at 10:18 am | Permalink
SImon Bao wrote:
Oh here we go. Standing up to The Evil Madison Nguyen is now compared to standing up to the communists. Let’s invoke image of some poor refugee community facing unity or destruction. Let’s drop in some vague but alarming references to Vietnamese communist high level investors, the secret hidden hand of Hanoi that’s influenced the naming of this San Jose business strip. That comment about how Madison Nguyen’s supporters seek to bring down Tien Nguyen and his anti-communist group.
When Efren first shared this 8Asians site with me, he did so by sharing the article on the naming of Little Saigon. My response to him then was that Madison Nguyen would soon be attacked as being a communist. It was inevitable. Defy the self-appointed mandarins and Fearless Leader type cartoon characters who insist they run all the Little Saigons in America, and you’ll inevitably be slandered as a communist so they can get rid of you.
Efren’s compared the nasty “I’m More Ant-Communist Than You Are” politics of Little Saigons to that in Little Havanas.
Better yet, compare it to Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible,” and even to the original Salem Witchcraft Madness. A small group of people who know what most terrifies their neighbors - witchcraft or communism - and who know they can terrorize, hold hostage, or destroy just about anyone simply by throwing out the accusation.
One need not even make a direct accusation. Just a hint of a wiff of some communist high level investors, menacing and scheming in the background, that’s all that’s needed.
One never needed any evidence in Salem that Goodie Pritchett had turned one into a newt. (”I got better…”) The accusation, no matter how preposterous, was enough to make the public demand that Goodie Pritchett be burned as a witch. Funny how, back then, even the accusers usually knew there was no truth to it, but still served some other purpose. Salem, 1692. House Un-American Activities Committee, 1950s. Little Saigon, 1970s-Present.
Welcome to Little Saigon, where accusations can be just as preposterous, and are still every bit as destructive.
Go Google up the phrase “Madison Nguyen” with the word “communist” and just guess what you find. Now check the dates of all those entries and pages and videos. Funny how the mandarins and Fearless Leaders in Little Saigon seem to have discovered this communist taint only *after* she didn’t do what they told her to do.
Posted on 26-Dec-07 at 3:02 pm | Permalink
Kristine wrote:
I am truly angered i was youngest the speaker at the strike I’m only 11!oh can this council not vote for Little Saigon they are to represent there district and the Vietnamese community came from all over San Jose they totally ignored 2000 peoples vote! Council Member Smith said that we can change the name if we want to yet he still voted for Madison’s idea why didn’t he choose our idea when we were trying to get the name Little Saigon!Madison was suppose to represent her district and most important the Vietnamese community she is wasting money and not fulfilling her promises!I say recall Madison!Go Little Saigon!
Posted on 01-Jan-08 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
T. Nguyen wrote:
Everyone who knows me personally will say I am more progressive than most so-called “left-wingers.” And I support the Little Saigon proponents in San Jose. I base my support for the SJ Little Saigonese on voluminous evidence that can mostly be confirmed in news articles and public documents from the City of SJ. I will highlight some of the evidence here.
First off, “Little Saigon” has come to symbolize (1) the Viet émigré community and (2) symbolic protest speech directed at the Regime in Vietnam for its on-going gross human rights violations (such as the enduring house arrest of beloved Buddhist monk leaders Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do after 32 years – go to Human Rights Watch for confirmation).
San Francisco, Houston and Orange County have officially designated “Little Saigon” areas without any noticeable controversy.
In February and April 2007 SJ councilmember Madison Nguyen (“MN”) arranged for the developer of the “Vietnam Town Plaza” (the “Plaza”) to meet with San Jose officials to make a case for naming the area, in which the Plaza is located, “Vietnam Town Business District.” This Area is also located in MN’s District. (Confirmation from MN’s calendar and news articles about this.)
The Plaza developer offered to pay to maintain the signs and banners for the Area. SJ officials ultimately declined to accept the offer because it would provide the appearance of allowing private citizens to use public property to advertise their business. (SJ City will confirm this when asked.)
A BBC Vietnamese language article has mentioned that Viets from Vietnam are helping build/investing in the Plaza.
However, the average worker in Vietnam makes around US$50 per month, so the only Viets in Vietnam rich enough to invest in the US are Regime officials and their relatives/friends. The Regime intensely dislikes the name “Little Saigon.” They can live with any other name with Saigon in it as long as it it not “Little Saigon.” In fact, the Regime is letting foreign developers build a business district in Vietnam called “New Saigon” on land the Regime confiscated.
After realizing it would look inappropriate to name the Area “Vietnam Town Business District,” between May and June 5, 2007 SJ councilmembers maneuvered to secretly approve the designation “Vietnamese Business District” for the Area. They did so by taking steps to evade the public (especially the SJ Viet American community) so that the SJ Viet American community did not know about the June 5 hearing (go to SJ City website to find this 6/5/07 approval).
30 hours later, the Viet Communist Party’s website excitedly posted the news of this “Vietnamese Business District” designation.
“Little Saigon” proponents began collecting signatures for a petition to rename the Area “Little Saigon.”
On August 15, 2007 some SJ officials, MN and her staff held a community meeting only about banner and sign designs for the Area. Nearly 150 “Little Saigon” proponents packed the small library room to speak, instead, about why “Little Saigon” is important to them. THREE people proposed three other names. “Little Saigon” proponents repeatedly asked MN to acknowledge that over 90% of the people at the meeting prefer the “Little Saigon” name. However, MN waited until 5 minutes before the meeting was to adjourn to take the mic. She announced that SJ would conduct a survey of only businesses and residents within a 1,000-foot radius of the Area, as this would be the “most fairest way” to find a name for the Area. Then she turned off the mic and would not let anyone respond on the record to this announcement.
On October 10, the survey results were announced. From the surveys that came back, “Little Saigon” came in first, with 44 votes. “New Saigon” received 8 votes. “Saigon Business District” came in last, with 6 votes.
However, on November 15, Mayor Reed, Vice Mayor Cortese, councilmembers MN, Liccardo and Chirco held a press conference to announce a compromise for the “warring factions” of “Little Saigon” and “New Saigon” proponents. The compromise would be the name “Saigon Business District” (which came in last in the “most fairest way” survey).
“Little Saigon” proponents were never invited to be part of any compromise talks.
The five SJ officials based their “New Saigon” faction on a petition signed by THIRTEEN people, but SIX OF THE SIGNATORIES HAD PUBLICLY WITHDRAWN THEIR SUPPORT PRIOR TO 11/15. The first person to withdraw had published a statement indicating that he was asked to sign under false pretense. He further stated that the person who asked him to sign the petition is a long-time backer of MN.
The “Little Saigon” petition, on the other hand, had 2,000+ proper signatures by 11/15.
On November 20, 2007 eight out of 11 councilmembers voted at a public hearing to approve the “compromise” SBD name. 1,000 “Little Saigon” supporters were at the meeting. Apart from a dozen MN supporters, no “New Saigon” faction was present. Again, MN stated that her compromise was necessary to make peace between the “New Saigon” and “Little Saigon” warring factions, and that the “New Saigon” faction consisted of hundreds of members from 13 organizations. MN was fully aware that 6 signatories had already publicly withdrawn their support. And she did NOT provide evidence that the remaining 7 signatories on the “New Saigon” petition each represents hundreds of people. She still has not provided any evidence despite requests to do so.
The other councilmembers who voted for “SBD” never provided evidence that a “Little Saigon” district would harm San Jose in any way, or that “SBD” would provide more of an economic advantage for San Jose than “Little Saigon.”
The burning question remains: Why did the 8 councilmembers spend so much energy to suppress the overwhelmingly popular “Little Saigon” name in a city that has the most Viet émigrés in the world for a city, and is considered the capital of Viet émigrés?
Mayor Reed’s predecessor, Ron Gonzalez, was indicted for corruption. Madison Nguyen’s predecessor resigned due to charges of corruption. Is the “Little Saigon” controversy in SJ part of the culture of corruption at SJ’s City Hall?
Something definitely does not smell right.
In December the San Jose Business Journal reported that the Vietnam Town Plaza development has stalled due to financial troubles. Look it up to read about how MN is indifferent to local investors’ anxious calls to her office to investigate the Plaza.
Posted on 12-Jan-08 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
H. Lam wrote:
From reading from these articles and videos from Youtube, I don’t see how Madison Nguyen prepresents the Vietnamese Community SJ. There were more than 2,000 people gathering asking her to use the name “Little Sai Gon”. But, she said there were other people who wanted other names. How many of those people who wanted other names? She didn’t say! If they didn’t care enough get together to support the name they like, I guest it is not that important to them. So, why Madison wanted to prepresent the minor silent group of Vietnamese? I guest they may be a small group of people, but have more money and power than the big group of Vietnamese that were vocal but have nothing to do except making trouble (for her)! In my opinion, if Madison does not prepresent the majority of the people and she does thing against people’s will, then we should revoke her.
I hope she is not following the foot step of our disgrace and shameless VP Nguyen Cao Ky. I hope she is not building the bridge for the CS Vietnamese to invest and grow in our new homeland. It’s so sad that such a bright star be fallen so quickly!
Posted on 15-Jan-08 at 5:55 pm | Permalink
Greg wrote:
May I suggest to all of you for the sake of your own liberties to reason with each other? You are all so caught up in a name and what you perceive it suggests without any evidence and are slandering a decent AMERICAN CITIZEN.
You may have immigrated from Vietnam or you may have been born here but you are AMERICAN CITIZENS living in a constitutional republic and being such you should know that we do not live by communist rule. You say Madison Nguyen does not represent the majority of the people? WHAT? I hope not since that is a democracy and we do NOT live in a democracy. What you are espousing is communist/socialist rule. A democracy is self destructive using the very means you are clamoring for. Please wake up and let your emotions subside and reason together. It seems to me that a few want to inflict their own wills on a community to the detriment of the whole.
Posted on 09-Feb-08 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
Quinnie wrote:
To Simon and Greg,
Are you the same person? Got to be …. if not, you guys can hook up …. go and live in Vietnam so you would appreciate more for the freedom and democracy that surely you do not deserve to have here.
Quinnie
Posted on 12-Feb-08 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
Simon wrote:
Quinnie, I have no idea who Greg is but here’s a word to you. When you disagree with someone’s views on an issue, don’t dumb down the discussion with a childish suggestion that they should go live elsewhere or don’t deserve freedom or democracy. When you resort to something like that, you undermine whatever your own views might be. You make it seem that you can’t or won’t argue the issue on its merits and prefer to just attack someone who disagrees with you. In a democracy, you can of course do that… but you’re unlikely to persuade others.
If the whole Little Saigon issue really matters that much to you, make your best case for your views. And live (somewhat more quietly) with the fact that there will always be people who think you are wrong.
Posted on 13-Feb-08 at 6:02 am | Permalink
julie wrote:
Simon:
You misundertood Quinnie’s statement. She asked Greg to go to Vietnam to experience what communism is about to appreciate the freedom and democracy that we have here in America. She is not attacking Greg because she disagreed with him. You guys need to live and experience life under communism to understand why the name “Little Saigon” means so much to the Vietnamese emigres.
Posted on 16-Feb-08 at 10:39 pm | Permalink
Simon Bao wrote:
Julie, I was born and grew up in Vietnam. Under communism. Been there. Done that. But I assure you, it is not necessary for Greg or anyone to live and experience life under communism in order to have a legitimate point of view on this “Little Saigon” issue.
All that’s necessary is that someone has lived and experienced life under a representative democracy. Because it is in THAT context that this issue is being argued. It is 2008, not 1968. This is about a very small commercial district in San Jose, California. It is not about a past civil war in another land. This is about an American city council, about local Chambers of Commerce, and it’s about all the interests of all the different Americans who live, work, shop, and invest in that little commercial district.
It is NOT about communism.
Posted on 17-Feb-08 at 4:51 am | Permalink
julie wrote:
Simon:
I am posting the experiences of communism down here for the readers to understand how life under communism is about. These are all the facts and parts of them are painfully still existing in Vietnam. May be you were lucky and was shed away from these unhumane experiences but the majority of the Vietnamese endured these human sufferings far worse than war. Reading throught these experiences, I hope the readers will come to understand why “Little Saigon” means so much to the Vietnamese emigres.
THE FALL OF SAIGON AND COMMUNISM
By Julie Nguyen
After April 30, 1975 when the U.S. decided to abandon Vietnam, the South of Vietnam endured the human suffering on an unmatched level far worse than war. The Communist victors unemotionally crushed the people‘s basic human rights. Their apparatus are covered by lies and deception. It is very difficult for outsiders to imagine the tragedy that the South Vietnamese had to go through. Only those who have suffered under communism can fully grasp the true nature of the system.
The regime considers religious faith a product of superstitious and uncivilized people; therefore, justifying its policy to abolish organized religions. Right after April 1975, they began to suppress religious groups in the South, many died in confinement and in mysterious circumstance. Dignitaries and intellectuals at all levels have been persecuted and imprisoned. Many of them were released in such a weakened condition only to await their impending death. They intimidated religious followers to prevent them from attending services at churches and pagodas. They forced clergymen and civilians to clear the land and to dig irrigation canals. These suppressive moves have resulted in tragic consequences for all religions and civilians’ life. The Vietnamese Communists had purposely immersed in tears of those who still live and sat upon the graves of those who had perished in the so called re-education camps. Any Vietnamese citizen can be detained at any time, and the communist authorities at all levels from central government to province have the power to jail people whenever they wish. One should not think that communist only imprisoned soldiers and officials serving under the former Republic of Vietnam. After their victory, they detained all those including civilians deemed not positive for their rule. Authorities have confiscated and destroyed books and newspapers published in the South and forced their ideology into all aspect of life. There is only one source of knowledge and culture: The communist party’s newspapers, the party’s books, and the party’s directions which every citizen must study and obey. Many civilians’ house and property were confiscated and they were herded into resettlement in parched land by the name “new economics zones”. They controlled the amount of money each person had by periodically generating new currency and had them exchanged at their unfair rate. They shipped fresh rice to their communist alliances to pay back for the debts while rationed the people’s food portion with coarse barley that only animals could eat. The police could search any home day or nigh or harass anyone anytime anywhere they wished. People who stayed overnight in places other than their residence had to obtain government permission. They have to report to local authorities, giving their length of stay and nature of their business. Once a week, adults had to meet with their neighbors to study and discuss party’s directions and government policies; and to criticize or report on words or deeds by their neighbors or family members that might be negative to the regime. All letters received from overseas were censured, screened before being delivered to the addressee.
THE NEW LAND AND MOVING FORWARD
Living in such a suffocated atmosphere, where the mental and physical needs are in constant trauma and despair, and being torn with their tradition rooted in their land, the South Vietnamese risked their life to venture to the treacherous seas to escape life under communism.
Half of those escaped perished at seas or in jungles on their risky way to search for freedom. A large number of innocent young girls and women were raped by Thailand pirates or taken away by them and no one will ever know the fate of these pitiful human beings. For those who could make it to the shore and in the moment of their greatest need, Americans and many people in the world opened their hearts to welcome the Vietnamese into their land.
The Vietnamese émigrés have flourished everywhere they resided. They put their trauma deep in their soul to move forward and focus on building their new life and assimilate in their adopted country. They worked diligently night and day to support their family. They learned new language and skill to quickly adapt to the new environment. After 32 years, they have created many successful Vietnamese communities, businesses and greatly contributed to their new country. Their children thrive at school and mostly the second generation of the Vietnamese has fully assimilated and has difficulty speaking their mother language. They come to love their new country and to enjoy the human rights existing in their new land of democracy.
To be continued in the nex post
Posted on 17-Feb-08 at 7:49 am | Permalink
julie wrote:
MOVING FORWARD AND THE MORAL IMPERATIVE OF THE NAME “Little Saigon”
After terminating those that deemed negative to their regime, the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) becomes Red Capitalists and have a lot of money.
They confiscated the assets, and properties of the well to do of South Vietnamese people. They pushed these people out to the dangerous seas to die after robbing them or herded them to the new economic zone to survive in uninhabitable condition. My family was in this situation when they had a campaign to eliminate the capitalists from the South of Vietnam. They ransacked and confiscated our home and herded us to the new economic zone, fortunately we managed to escape instead. The VCP becomes very rich and one of the most corrupted people on earth. They take all chances to squeeze money from people. There are briberies on all levels of government and society. They steal and loot the country’s resources. They sell Vietnamese innocent children and naïve young girls to become sex slaves for foreigners in Vietnam and abroad. They destroyed the moralities of the Vietnamese society which prides itself on honesty and self-esteem. They go on with their unending greed by confiscated lands from the elderly peasants and poor farmers. They sided with foreign investors to exploit the Vietnamese laborers for their profit. They confiscated foreign monetary aids for their own use and build shoddy constructions harming innocent civilians. They sell medical supplies aided by foreign countries to the market for their taking. The whole population is under their totalitarian web from which the Vietnamese people are unable to escape with their own power. Here in America, The VCP uses this blood money to play capitalistic activities, manipulate politics and to control the Vietnamese-Americans.
Currently, the most disheartening thing is their selling part of Vietnam land, the northern border, Spratly and Paracel islands to China. The patriotic Vietnamese students in Vietnam demonstrated against this horrendous invading and were harshly halted by the Vietnamese police. Frightfully while at the Chinese consulate, these Vietnamese police guarded safely the freedom of speech for the Chinese to say Spratly and Paracel islands are Chinese’s blood.
Facing the destruction of their motherland under the communist rule, being torn and in great pain by the sufferings of their own people in Vietnam, and their motherland being gradually lost to China, the majority of the oversea Vietnamese-Americans have a burning desire to have a free and democratic Vietnam surpassing anything else. This strong desire keeps enflaming a strong anti-communist sentiment in the Vietnamese- American community. The Heritage, Freedom, yellow flag with 3 red stripes of South Vietnam and the Little Saigon are the deep aspiration and statement of the oversea Vietnamese against the VCP, and the moral imperative that the Vietnamese-Americans must prevail.
Posted on 17-Feb-08 at 7:52 am | Permalink
julie wrote:
Simon:
I would like to present the facts about the “Little Saigon” issue that you and many readers here did not understand. On August 15 2007 at the Tully library, Madison said to her constituents that only those people and businesses within the 1000-ft radius of the area to be named can vote for the name of the business district. The stakeholders’ choice will be the choice that the city will honor. She instructed the RDA survey which is the public opinion survey sent out with 7 names to be voted. On Oct 10 2007, the survey returned with “Little Saigon” to be first place and was the stakeholders’ choice. “Saigon Business District” was last place. Madison and 7 council voted on “Saigon business District”. This is undemocratic. Following is the transcript words for words of what she said to her constituents at the Tully library.
“We hear a lot about “Little Saigon” tonight. Which is fine, we’re not object to that, no one’s object to that, I am not object to that. But what you need to understand is the protocol that’s going to take place after tonight’s meeting. Right? When we proposed a business district here, in the city of San Jose, we have a process that we go through. The people who are doing business on Story road right now, THE MERCHANTS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF THIS AREA, WILL HAVE THE BIGGEST INPUT, IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE NAME WILL BE. NOW, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU, LET’S SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF YOU INCLUDING MYSELF, LIKE THE NAME LITTLE SAIGON. RIGHT? BUT SINCE WE DON’T LIVE THERE, WE LIVE ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MILES DOWN, OUR INPUT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
I want to be frank with you so that you’re not surprised at how the process is going to work, and what the turnout’s going to be like. So, in the next couple months, what we’re going to do is we’re going to canvass the area again, pass out the names that are suggested today, and, in the next few weeks, we’re going to solicit names from the businesses on Story road, to see what the names are.
Let’s say we come up with four names. Vietnamese Business District, Vietnamese-American Business District, Little Saigon, and Saigon Town, we’re going to take those four names, we’re going to pass it out to all the merchants who are being impacted by this project. THAT MEANS THAT THE MERCHANTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE AREA, THEY WILL GET TO VOTE. Because at the end of the day, we live in a democratic society. Everyone has a voice, we have freedom of speech. SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GIVE US THE NAME. IT’S THE FAIREST WAY ON HOW WE’RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THIS RESOLUTION. So, I just want to be very frank with you, and this is probably the only opportunity that I have, to explain how the process works.”
Before the council’s vote night November 20,2007 Mayor Chuck Reed, Vice Mayor Dave Cortese, Council members Sam Liccardo and Judy Chirco with Madison signed on the memo to vote for “Saigon Business District’. Council member Forrest Williams on the Vietnam Liberty Television admitted that he promised Madison to support her on whatever name it might be for the business district made Madison’s manipulation the council to vote for “Saigon Business District” qualified for violating the Brown Act. Being caught to have the potential to be violating with the Brown Act, Madison and the Mayor rescinded the vote on February 11, 2008. On this memorandum rules:2-13-08 item: G2, they cited because of Integrity and Fairness of the concepts to our democracy they wanted to bring this naming issue to citywide election to vote. We all know that the purpose of bringing this naiming to the citywide election is to kill the name for good. At the same time on the same memorandum and on section 5, Madison and Mayor Chuck Reed directed staff to draft a Council policy that outlines a process to officially name areas/districts of the city that is modeled on the Council policy for changing street names and provides that proposals to name business districts must come from an organization representing the business in the district.
These facts from what Madison said at the Tully library that the FAIREST WAY only for people and businesses within 1000-ft radius from the area to be named could vote. Then being caught with the Brown act violation she wanted to bring it out to citywide election to vote and she said it is the TRUEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY on the Mercury news February 12, 2008. And now she is in the work to draft another policy to limit only organization representing the businesses in the district can vote. Readers please explain to me what kind of democracy is this? And what kind of representative system is this?
Posted on 17-Feb-08 at 9:25 am | Permalink
Mabury wrote:
Madison Ng and Chuck Reed asked the vietnameses community to accept the name “Saigon Business District and moved on with the city normal businesses. After finding out they might violate the Brown Act. They immediately asked the city council to rescind the last vote and put the issue on the Nov ballot. Instead of trying to resolve the issue quickly with the Vietnamese community They are draging the city of San Jose into a battle against the Vietnamese community. I hope all council members will try to resolve this issue quickly with the Vietnamese community so we all can put this issue behind.
Posted on 19-Feb-08 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
KA wrote:
As a Vietnamese American who grew up in America, its doesn’t really matter to me if Story Road have a Vietnamese name. But both Madison and Mayor Reed are not serious with their intention when they propose to have a Vietnamese name . Little Saigon is like a trade name that all Vietnamese American would like just like China town name in every city in America. 94% of people wishes to have that name so why Madison insisted that it has to be Saigon business district.
Does Madison had an agenda behind this name. If not why she insisted to have the name that people going to hate and not choosing the name most people like. She is risking her political for that ? What motivated her to do this?
I am sure some you out there hate the name but you are not all the voices of the people. You can hate but respect the polls.
We are just showing that we are united on this issue. We are not franatic as some of you put it. Again when the Mayor want to give a Vietnamese name in Story road he should consider the polls opinion , not turned around and just listen to Madison . She doesn’t represent all Vietnamese American in silicon valley.
If Mayor Reed serious with this then we wouldn’t have such a conflict today.
Sunday gathering is to show Madison and Mayor Reed that this is not a minority group but a majority of people. Not the expolitical prisoner and the unemployed but all the old the young and the educated as well.
I would be happy if Story road doesn’t have Vietnamese name but will not take Saigon business district name. So please understand we are not demanding or absurd or franatic. If its to have a name then listen to the people voice ,give the name they treasure.
Posted on 29-Feb-08 at 4:04 pm | Permalink
Andrew Tran wrote:
The people have spoken and that is Little Saigon or nothing. I attended the rally yesterday in supporting “Little Saigon” and feel I have done my share in supporting in what I believe in. I have a Tshirt that says I heart Little Saigons with the “s” to promote the idea of Little Saigon around the world. I want to differentiate my self with those communist Vietnamese. I do remember the reason I my life years ago in that one dark night in the vast ocean with a tiny boat. People have you forgotten already?
To those of you who oppose the idea or show disagreeement on why we are doing it, why don’t you show up and make your case instead of iddling by with yours boring philosophy. I know it cool to show that you are different than the rest of us. Yes, we are all stupid people and we like Little Saigons. What can you do about it?
Posted on 03-Mar-08 at 11:08 am | Permalink
8Asians.com » San Jose: 2,500 voices call for ‘Little Saigon’: An Asian American/Asian Canadian Blog wrote:
[...] As I had blogged about before, there has been quite a bit of controversy about a section of San Jose being officially designated by the city as “Saigon Business District” as opposed to “Litte Saigon.” San Jose has one of the largest Vietnamese-American populations in the nation. Apparently on Sunday, there was another huge rally in support of ‘Little Saigon’ before an upcoming vote, as written up in ” 2,500 voices call for ‘Little Saigon’ “: “Setting the stage for a climactic vote Tuesday night, more than 2,500 people converged at San Jose City Hall on Sunday to demand that the city name a Vietnamese retail area on Story Road “Little Saigon.” The spirited crowd waved the red and yellow flag of South Vietnam before the 1975 communist takeover, shouting “Little Saigon” in unison. Young families with babies in strollers and seniors seemed united in their rage against the city. The event organizers also revealed new information that they believe shows that Madison Nguyen - the councilwoman at the center of the controversy - had a “private deal” to oppose the name Little Saigon. The dramatic attempt to show political force came two days before the city council is set to vote again on what to call the area. Last November, by an 8-3 vote, the council approved “Saigon Business District” as the name - a move that led to an extraordinary backlash.” [...]
Posted on 03-Mar-08 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
Lori Dinh wrote:
What difference does it make to people of other cultures if the area is named Little Saigon or Saigon Business District? How is Saigon Business District more inclusive of other culture vs. Little Saigon? There are plenty of other cultures in the area but do they really care about the difference between the names? No. Then why not just give the people who actually cares what they want? For a city which boasts cultural diversity, San Jose council has proved itself to be culturally insensitive.
Posted on 03-Mar-08 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
Lanh Sach wrote:
Thank you Julie for your excellent articles. Please keep the Fire in you alive and lit the torches of the Earth with your writings. The Truth is universal. Not because 2008 America Politicians say Business is more important than People that the Truth must be bent.
Everywhere on Earth, there are the laws of Man and the laws of Heaven.
When the laws of Man are corrupted, the laws of Heaven will correct the courses of Life on Earth.
Posted on 06-Mar-08 at 10:39 am | Permalink