UNPLEASANTNESS IN VISITING VIETNAM............Re: Ha?i quan Ta^n So+n Nha^'t ddo`i tie^`n ho^'i lo^. tha'ng 10 na(m 2003

A Boatman, dvnnguyen had an interesting post showing the unhappiness
of many, how many El Chino doesn't know, Boatmen who visited Vietnam.

El Chino translated for his readers.


Anyone who landed in an airport of another country has to pay some
fees (the author used the word Qua' Ca?nh fees which is not known as a
fee collected by the Vietkong), Vietnam's airport is no exception.
But the unbearable difference was in Vietnam , the (Boat) tourists
were harassed for bribe money both at Immigration Control and at
Customs Inspection.
The worse was while the Fathers and the Children(!,?) of both high and
low rank cadres (kan Bo)pocketed the bribe money noisily but they
don't even have chairs or sitting places for relatives who came to
welcome the (boat) visitors.

The welcoming delegation had to stay outside of the Airport either in
burning sun or , if they are lucky, in the dark of night. They have
to cock their head, roll their eyes and turn upward their noses to
detect their incoming loves ones(not dead ones as in the American
meaning OF the word but they are loved because they bring some money).

Certainly there were people who came back to show off their new wealth
but those are few. The majority of Boat visitors came back to visit
their relatives which is considered a duty and not a pleasure. For
pure touristic pleasure, one time is enough. One is cured for at
least 10 years.




dvnnguyen@aol.com (nguyen) wrote in message news:<20040103134310.01554.00001357@mb-m20.aol.com>...
> Hm, ai ddi to*'i phi tru*o*`ng nu*o*'c kha'c ma` ho?ng pha?i ddo'ng tie^`n
> qua' ca?nh pha?i ho^ng, va^.y thi` o*? VN cu~ng kho^ng ngoa.i le^.. Nhu*ng
> te^. o*? cho^~ la` VN bi. hoa.nh ho.e khi to*'i nha(`m moi tie^`n du kha'ch o*?
> kha^u la`m gia^'y to*` cu~ng nhu* kha^u la~nh ddo^`.
>
> Te^. ho*n nu*~a la` tie^`n thi` na`o qua' ca?nh, na`o... ho^'i lo^. cha con
> ca'n bo^. HQ lo*'n nho? ddu't tu'i a`o a`o ma` kho^ng co' ddu*o*.c ca'i ghe^'
> hoa(.c ddu*o*.c mo^.t cho^~ dda`ng hoa`ng cho tha^n nha^n ddo'n ru*o*'c. Mo^~i
> la^`n to*'i, tha^n nha^n pha?i ddu*'ng lo^' nho^', tro*.n ma('t tro*.n mu~i
> ro^`i la he't, quo* tay quo* cha^n ti`m ngu*o*`i ngoa`i na('ng chang chang
> hoa(.c kha' ho*n thi` da^.t do*` trong dde^m to^'i...
>
> So^' ngu*o*`i ve^` VN dde^? lo`e thie^n ha., dde^? a'o ga^'m ve^` la`ng, xue^nh
> xoang a(n cho*i chi? la` so^' i't, co`n ngu*o*`i thu*.c su*. ve^` tha(m con
> cha'u, ho. ha`ng mo*'i la` nhie^`u. Ngu*o*`i ta ba('t buo^.c pha?i ve^` ne^n
> ngu*o*`i ta ve^` hoa`i, cho*' co`n ddi du li.ch VN thi` chi? ve^` mo^.t la^`n
> la` ddu? o*'n to*'i 10 na(m sau va^~n co`n o*'n!
>
> nguyen

Now something is screwed up here ...and I don't think it is me. It seems to
me the comments / statements are sort of mixed up ...I really believe it
reflects the brain of the author.