-2-
•
I was approached, together with my son, DINH XUAN SON ("Son"), by Mr. Ho who told me through an interpreter that he could help my daughter, DINH THI BICH CHINH ("Chinh"), and my son-in-law, LE TU PHUONG ("Phuong"), and their children to obtain resettlement to a third country overseas if I answered his questions. He said he was from the British Embassy, and I cooperated with him because I am very concerned about the fate of my children and grandchildren.
5. Mr. Ho asked me a number of questions about various matters concerning my daughter and her husband. The questions were often long and confusing, and the interpreter sometimes helped by suggesting the right answer to help my daughter. Although Mr. Ho seemed like a polite man, I did not trust either of the interpreters assisting him. I suspected that they had connections with the police or government and that they did not always accurately report my statements to Mr. Ho. Because of my fear, I was extremely careful not to say anything critical of the Government of Vietnam because I do not want to get me or my daughter or my family into trouble.
6. There is now produced and shown to me a statement ("the Statement") in the Vietnamese language marked Exhibit NTH-1 which I have been informed is a translation from the English language of an affidavit sworn by Mr. Ho of the British Embassy, Hanoi on 18 December 1992, and which purports to be a record of two meetings with me on 30 November 1992 and 2 December 1992.
7. I do not have any recollection of having given all the information which Mr. Ho states was given during those meetings, nor do I recall Son, who was with me throughout the meetings, giving such information.
8. The Statement is not an accurate record for the following
reasons.
9. In approximately 1978, during the anti-Chinese campaign in Vietnam, I fled to Ho Chi Minh City with Son and others of my children. Chinh remained in Hanoi with my husband, DINH XUAN QUANG ("Quang"). We did not return to live in Hanoi until 1990 after my daughter and her family left for Hong Kong. Therefore, I have no personal knowledge of the matters concerning my daughter or her family during those years. I had almost no contact with Chinh or Phuong during those years. I deny that I stated as facts the matters which the Statement purports to record as my statements of fact about such matters.
10. Regarding paragraph 7 of the Statement, I confirm the dates and length of meetings reported. I confirm the use of two interpreters. I believe that there was a problem with the competence of the first interpreter, Mr. Quang, that forced Mr. Ho to terminate the meeting prematurely because almost the identical questions were asked in the second meeting. I do not