by Our Political Affairs Editor
Vietnamese President and Communist Party General Secretary Tô Lâm is currently in Colombo after concluding his state visit to India. During his visit to India, he met Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Droupadi Murmu, and senior officials to strengthen defence and economic ties between the two countries. However, India did not invite him to address its Parliament. Sri Lanka has now gone further by giving him the privilege of addressing Parliament, one of the oldest democratic institutions in Asia. That decision deserves criticism, not celebration.
Tô Lâm is not a democratic leader. He is the head of a one-party authoritarian state where opposition parties are banned, independent media does not exist, and critics of the government are routinely arrested. He rose to power through Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security, the institution responsible for surveillance, political policing, and suppression of dissent. His background is not in democratic politics but in state security and control.
Under Tô Lâm, Vietnam has intensified its crackdown on activists, bloggers, journalists, labour organisers, and environmental campaigners. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Reporters Without Borders have all documented systematic repression in Vietnam. Citizens have been jailed under vague “anti-state” laws simply for criticising the government online or participating in peaceful activism. Independent unions are effectively banned. Courts are heavily influenced by the Communist Party. Political dissent is treated as a security threat.
Sri Lanka should not ignore these realities simply because Vietnam is economically successful. Economic growth does not justify authoritarianism. Vietnam’s factories, export numbers, and foreign investment cannot erase the fact that basic political freedoms are heavily restricted. A government should not receive democratic prestige while denying democratic rights to its own people.
One of the clearest examples of the hypocrisy of Vietnam’s current leadership was the “gold steak” scandal involving Tô Lâm in 2021. While ordinary Vietnamese citizens were struggling economically during the pandemic, he was filmed in London eating an extremely expensive gold-covered steak at Salt Bae’s restaurant. The video caused public anger because Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party still claims to represent workers, equality, sacrifice, and socialist discipline. The image exposed the gap between communist rhetoric and elite behaviour.
The response of the Vietnamese authorities made the situation worse. Instead of accountability, criticism was suppressed. A Vietnamese noodle vendor who mocked the video online was reportedly arrested. That incident showed how intolerant the system has become toward criticism and satire. In democratic societies, political leaders are mocked every day. In authoritarian systems, mockery becomes dangerous because leaders fear public embarrassment.
Tô Lâm’s leadership also represents a deeper political contradiction. Vietnam’s ruling party still presents itself as revolutionary and socialist, but many of its actions directly contradict the values it once claimed to defend. Ho Chi Minh repeatedly spoke against corruption, privilege, and detachment from ordinary people. He emphasised humility and discipline among party officials. Modern Vietnam increasingly looks like a system where a powerful political elite protects its own authority while suppressing criticism from workers, activists, and ordinary citizens.
There are also many documented cases involving victims of state repression. Land-rights activist Can Thị Theu reportedly described leaving prison by saying she had “left a small prison and returned to the big prison”, referring to life under Vietnam’s political system. Activist Trương Văn Dũng reportedly endured surveillance and intimidation but said, “I will not budge.” Blogger Nguyễn Chi Tuyến reportedly refused to plead guilty because “he hadn’t done anything wrong”. These are not violent extremists. They are people punished for political speech and activism.
Vietnam’s government always defends these actions using the language of national security and stability. That is common in authoritarian states. Governments claim critics are “anti-state” threats in order to justify repression. But peaceful criticism should not be treated as a crime. A country cannot call itself free while imprisoning people for expressing opinions.
Sri Lanka should understand this issue better than most countries because it has its own history of authoritarianism, censorship, emergency laws, and political repression. Sri Lankans know what happens when governments accumulate excessive power and silence critics. That is why giving parliamentary prestige to an authoritarian ruler is such a poor decision. It weakens the moral credibility of Sri Lanka’s democratic institutions.
This does not mean Sri Lanka should avoid diplomatic or economic relations with Vietnam. States will always pursue trade and strategic cooperation. But there is a difference between maintaining relations and publicly glorifying authoritarian leaders. Inviting Tô Lâm to address Parliament sends the wrong message. It suggests that democratic values can simply be ignored when economic or geopolitical interests are involved.
Tô Lâm currently controls both the presidency and the Communist Party leadership in Vietnam, making him one of the most powerful leaders the country has seen in decades. Many analysts have already warned that Vietnam is moving toward a more centralised and security-driven political system under his rule. Internet censorship has expanded. Repression of dissent has intensified. Political power has become more concentrated.
Sri Lanka should not pretend otherwise. Parliament is supposed to represent democracy, public accountability, and political freedom. Giving its platform to a leader accused of systematically suppressing those values is not diplomacy. It is political hypocrisy.
