For some indigenous communities in Vietnam, speaking their mother tongue carries a high risk – particularly when practising a religion or belief. Restrictions on indigenous languages have been imposed on Khmer Krom Buddhists, Montagnard Christians, Hmong Christians and many other indigenous religious groups.

Thanks to the power of advocacy, there are some signs of hope. Yet these improvements are few and far between.

It is an internationally protected right for indigenous communities to use their own language and culture. Moreover, according to Vietnam’s constitution, ‘every ethnic group has the right to use its own language and system of writing, to preserve its national identity, and to promote its fine customs, habits, traditions and culture’.

But what happens in practice tells a different story.

‘The authorities did not like it...’

In most regions, the use of both spoken and written indigenous languages during religious services has been severely limited, or outright prohibited.

These restrictions are deeply rooted in government suspicion.

The Communist Party of Vietnam has long been distrustful of large gatherings of indigenous people, suspecting them of seeking to build their own independent state or plotting to overthrow the government.

‘We had a Christmas celebration with banners in different languages such as Jarai [and] Ede,’ explained one Christian from an indigenous people group. ‘The authorities did not like it, so they forbade us from using the banners in our languages.’

Khmer Krom Buddhists

The Khmer Krom are an indigenous group located primarily in south- western Vietnam, who speak the Khmer language. Like many indigenous religious communities, Khmer Krom Buddhists have experienced numerous violations of their language rights, as well as their right to freedom of religion or belief.

For example, Khmer Krom Buddhist monks are supervised by the government whilst conducting their religious ceremonies, and the content of religious books and teaching materials in Khmer language is strictly controlled and restricted by the authorities. Several Khmer Krom temples have been threatened with demolition, and in some cases these threats have been carried out.

‘[The government always suspects] that we use our language to teach other things and that our intention is antigovernmental,’ said a Khmer Krom representative.

A positive step forward?

Several years ago, the government seemed to take a positive step forward. They introduced a programme of Khmer language classes in public schools where Khmer Krom students are the majority.

This policy should mean that the native language is taught for two to three hours per week. In practice, however, the programme was not implemented consistently. The state provided poorly- written materials, and students have been forbidden from bringing Khmer textbooks over from Cambodia.

In response to this, several Khmer Krom Buddhist monks teach Khmer in their temples. Local authorities have opposed this, however, and several religious teachers have been intimidated and even imprisoned.

Rare signs of hope

In December 2022, CSW published a report called ‘Belief and Belonging’, which explores the intersection between freedom of religion or belief and indigenous rights. Alongside the accounts of harassment, monitoring, fines and arrests, one participant shared a few small signs of hope:

‘Thanks to advocacy on freedom of religion or belief, there is some improvement. We can now use our language a bit in some church meetings. For example, some people are allowed to use the Bible in their language, including Ede. In some churches, they can use their language. Sometimes they can even use banners in their language. But it is case-by-case, not an overall improvement. It depends on the local government. It is not a consistent policy.’

This is encouraging. But such accounts are rare, and even when there are improvements, the progress described is not enough.

The government of Vietnam is failing to uphold its citizens’ right to freely practise their religion or belief, in their mother language. This flagrant gap between policy and practice must be addressed.