In just a few days, the Vietnamese Museum in Australia (VMA) will officially cut the ribbon for its grand opening in Sunshine (Saturday 17/10/2026).

To understand why a project bearing the mantle of preserving boat people history led to multi-year conflicts and opposing protests right on the eve of the Museum’s opening day, we must look back to the early months of 2023. That was the time when the Executive Committee of VCA-Vic for the 2022–2025 term began fulfilling its election campaign pledge: bringing the entire transformation process of the project to light.

The question of ownership since 2022

In the election for the VCA-Vic Executive Committee in late 2022, the ticket authorized by Mr. Nguyen Quang Duy won an overwhelming victory over the ticket of Ms. Diep Nguyen with approximately 70% of the vote, campaigning on a platform of reviewing the Museum project.

Fulfilling the promise made to voters, on 30/12/2022, General Secretary and Spokesperson Pho Quoc Van signed an announcement establishing an independent Subcommittee comprising prominent figures with legal expertise and an understanding of the project’s history. This Subcommittee defined its scope of work as the execution of the “Project to Construct the Vietnamese-Australian Cultural Centre and Museum” of VCA-Vic, not the VMA Company.

At the same time, the Executive Committee decided not to allow the VMA company to issue fundraising raffle tickets within the premises of the Year of the Cat (Quý Mão) Lunar New Year Festival, in order to avoid recognizing a company that had seized ownership of the Community’s project.

Immediately following this, an extensive analytical article online by an author named Nhan Nguyen, an active and very knowledgeable member of Community affairs (later TVTS learned his identity through letters he exchanged with former Community President Nguyen Phuong Vy), sounded an alarm bell with three core questions:

1.Who is the true owner of the Museum?

The project, conceived for nearly two decades, originally belonged to VCA-Vic. From the initial stages of applying for land in Footscray and receiving the first grant of $750,000 from Premier Daniel Andrews in 2018, to the petition campaign gathering over 10,000 signatures in early 2019, compatriots and all levels of government believed this was a project of VCA-Vic.

Yet by late 2019, an independent company (Vietnamese Museum Australia Limited – VMA) quietly came into existence on paper with ASIC and the ACNC. Although VCA-Vic was labeled a “founding member,” under Article 75 of the company’s Constitution, it had absolutely no ownership rights. The author analogized VMA to a “child born out of wedlock” because it was established without extensive consultation with compatriots.

2.Why is there no transparency regarding the list of contributors?

Despite repeated requests from compatriots to publish the list of sponsors (or at least receipt numbers and amounts) for the approximately $800,000 raised initially, VMA consistently evaded the matter or only made promises.

3.Where will the operating budget come from?

To operate a building estimated to cost around $2 million annually, relying on volunteer sources or vague feasibility studies is unrealistic. The risk of budget shortfalls could lead to the asset being “handed over” to another organization, or worse, pressure to mortgage community assets (such as the Ancestral Temple).

In response, Ms. Nguyen Phuong Vy maintained that establishing the company was legal and aligned with wishes. She compared the project to a child born after a 20-year gestation: whether defective or born out of wedlock, parents must nurture it into adulthood rather than “suffocating” it to death.

Le Dinh Anh speaking during the “Project Review” presentation while the screen displays the address for those wishing to reclaim their “brick-buying” money from the Museum Company. Photo taken at the hall of the Australian-Vietnamese Women’s Association, 19/2/2023. Photo: TVTS

The $17-million issue and the caveat

On Sunday afternoon, 15/1/2023, more than a hundred compatriots packed the Ancestral Temple in Sunshine North to attend the first public presentation of the Review Subcommittee (UBTX).

There, Dentist Dinh Hieu (Head of the subcommittee) posed a direct question to the audience:

-“Who supports the Project being under the ownership of the Vietnamese Community in Australia?” A wave of hands went up decisively in unison.

-“Who supports the Project being under the ownership of the Museum Company?” Across the entire hall, merely 3 hands were raised.

Dentist Dinh Hieu pointed out: According to the official document signed on 17/6/2019 between the Victorian Government and the Community Executive Committee (at that time led by Ms. Nguyen Phuong Vy as President and Mr. Nguyen The Phong as Vice President), the original English name of the project was “Vietnamese Australian Cultural Centre and Museum”. The initial objective placed the Cultural Centre serving the activities of Vietnamese Australians at the core, while the museum was merely a secondary part. However, over time, the project was altered into an independent museum, which could be designated for activities of other ethnic groups, as Ms. Phuong Vy had once posted on social media during debates.

From a legal standpoint, Lawyer Nguyen Tan Hai affirmed that VCA-Vic had a legal interest in the land parcel intended for construction in the City of Maribyrnong; therefore, the Executive Committee had engaged him to lodge a caveat to halt the land transaction in order to protect community interests.

Notably, Lawyer Hai pointed out that former President Nguyen Van Bon’s transfer of the project’s funds (approximately $17 million, comprising government funding and contributions from compatriots) to the VMA Company showed signs of invalidity. According to Chapter III, Article 11 of the VCA-Vic Constitution, all major transfers of assets must be approved by a vote of at least three-quarters of members at an Annual General Meeting or an Extraordinary General Meeting. Unilaterally transferring the funds without the approval of a general meeting was the pivotal issue requiring clarification.

The Executive Committee stated that it had sent an invitation to VMA representatives for a confrontation, but they declined.

The faction protesting against the Nguyen Quang Duy Community Executive Committee and Museum Board Director Lam Huu Loc (right photo) at the protest in front of the VCA-Vic office on 9/2/2023, which forced the office to close to avoid violence. Photo supplied

Carrying the Yellow Flag to protest in front of the community office

Entering early February 2023, tensions escalated into street protests. VMA and supporting individuals launched a signature-gathering campaign at Lunar New Year festivals (such as Richmond) and even went as far as Sydney, calling on people who were unaware of internal affairs to sign the petition. Notably, in a New Year greeting letter dated 6/2/2023, Mr. Bruce Mildenhall stressed VMA’s stance of “not participating in political activities of the Australian Vietnamese community”.

TiVi Tuan-san observed at the time: For a museum of Vietnamese refugees to declare itself “apolitical” had completely deviated from the objective when soliciting funds from political refugees.

It is also worth recalling that in 2022 prior to the state election, when Premier Daniel Andrews met community representatives and associations at the Tho Tho restaurant in Richmond, TVTS asked a Museum director why they did not name it the Boat People or Refugee Museum; he smiled and replied, “With a name like that, the government wouldn’t provide funding!”

Tensions erupted into street confrontations on Thursday morning, 9/2/2023. Following calls from VMA Board Director Lam Huu Loc and former leader Nguyen The Phong, a protest was staged directly outside the VCA-Vic office at 1/56 Nicholson Street, Footscray. The Action Group to Protect VCA-Vic (comprising Messrs. Le Trung, Le Dinh Anh, Truong Loi, among others) immediately rallied compatriots to come to defend the premises and the voice of the Executive Committee.

Following advice from the Victoria State Police to avoid violence and maintain safety, the VCA-Vic Executive Committee voluntarily closed the office for the day. The two groups confronted each other for more than an hour on the streets of Footscray.

At the scene, the Museum protest faction carried the Yellow Flag and questioned why the group protecting the Community Executive Committee did not carry the flag. A representative of the group supporting the Executive Committee, Mr. Le Dinh Anh, alongside several compatriots, retorted: This is a dispute over property, over transparency regarding the sum of $17 million. Bringing the Yellow Flag with Three Red Stripes—the sacred symbol of Vietnamese refugees—to serve factional conflicts and contests over money was a grave insult.

Mr. Le Dinh Anh (right corner) defending the Community Executive Committee explaining why they did not carry the Yellow Flag to protest against the Museum faction. (Photo supplied)

Upcoming Victorian state election: The “world-class” museum has finished construction, what comes next after the showy spectacle?

From debates in conference rooms to protests on the streets, a project once envisioned as the shared pride of Vietnamese refugees has turned into the cause of four years of persistent division among multiple factions, continuing all the way to its opening day.

And it promises to go even further through the lawsuit filed by Ms. Thuy Dang against the Nguyen Quang Duy ticket. This “do-or-die” battle, backed by the Museum group, has caused severe division by transforming a Community project into the property of a company, and now seeing their faction seeking to take over the Community Executive Committee itself.

(See further articles on tvtsonline.com.au since Ms. Thuy Dang ran for election in mid-June 2026)