Vietnam: Former Principal Seeks Reputation Vindication in Appeal Over Extra Class Fees

Hanoi, Vietnam – A former principal, Nguyen Thi Binh, convicted of abusing her authority related to the collection of extra class fees, is seeking vindication and a fair verdict in her appeal trial at the Hanoi People's Court. The case revolves around the legality of a city decision capping tuition fees. On the morning of September 10, the court concluded its morning session for the appeal trial concerning Binh and former accountant Pham Minh Nguyet. Journalists were instructed to follow the proceedings via television screens in a designated press room, with only writing materials permitted. However, the audio feed for the televisions was reportedly not functioning throughout the morning, with court officials citing ongoing line repairs. Outside the courtroom, security measures were heightened. Binh, speaking after the morning session, expressed gratitude to the representative from the Ministry of Justice's Department of Legal Document Inspection for publicly stating that Hanoi's Decision 22/2013 was unlawful from its inception. Binh argued this assessment strengthens her position that her agreement with parents on fee collection, based on Ministry of Education and Training Circular 17, was compliant with regulations. Binh stated that she has dedicated her life to education and feels profound sadness that her reputation has been tarnished. She reiterated her stance of innocence since her indictment, asserting that she was merely fulfilling her duties as principal and did not intentionally act illegally. She appealed for a just and accurate verdict, and for the trial to be conducted publicly under the supervision of the press and the public. Lawyer Tran Hong Phuc, one of eight lawyers defending Binh, reported that the trial was in the questioning phase. He noted that representatives from the Hanoi Department of Education and Training and the Hanoi People's Committee maintained their view that Decision 22 was correct, aiming to control fee levels and prevent excessive charges. Conversely, Phuc stated, the representative from the Department of Legal Document Inspection asserted in court that setting maximum fee limits was unlawful. According to Phuc, the Ministry of Justice representative argued that Ministry Circular 17 outlines a fee agreement mechanism between parties, thus local authorities lack the authority to impose maximum caps. The representative also indicated that a national review found most provinces and cities do not issue regulations similar to Hanoi's, and the department had previously issued findings highlighting violations by the city's People's Committee. Phuc also mentioned that the Hanoi People's Committee representative was questioned in court about why the city had later abolished Decision 22 if the Department of Education and Training believed it to be correct. The trial was scheduled to continue on the afternoon of September 9. The case centers on allegations that Binh collected extra class fees exceeding the cap set by Hanoi People's Committee's Decision 22/2013. Over a month after Binh was sentenced to three years in prison in the first instance, the Ministry of Justice's Department of Legal Document Inspection and Organization issued a conclusion on May 4, determining that Hanoi's Decision 22, which imposed a 'price ceiling,' was inappropriate. The Ministry of Justice stated that the Hanoi Department of Education and Training's issuance of guidance documents for maximum fee application was 'inappropriate in form and authority.' The day after the Ministry of Justice's conclusion, on May 5, the Hanoi People's Committee issued a decision to completely abolish Decision 22/2013, effective from the date of signing. Source: VnExpress