The appearance of a term that has not been established as having an independent legal status in publicly disclosed administrative records cannot be regarded as a mere technical error. When the designation “Bani” is recorded in state documents as a religion, the issue no longer lies in wording, but shifts to the level of the rule of law and legal accountability throughout the entire process of drafting, review, and approval of administrative records.
The Editorial Board of Champa One holds that, in state management of religious affairs, the use of terminology in administrative documents must be based on specific legal grounds and applied consistently. The list of recognized religious organizations constitutes a mandatory legal basis to ensure accuracy and uniformity across the entire administrative system.
In practice, cases in Sơn Mỹ Commune (Lâm Đồng Province) and Xuân Hải Commune (Khánh Hòa Province) show that public records have used different designations such as “Bani,” “Cham Bani,” and “Bani Islam.” Beyond these two localities, in several other places where Cham individuals stand as election candidates, inconsistencies in recording religious affiliation in biographical summaries have also appeared.
The existence of multiple variants used by different localities to refer to the same belief community raises questions about the consistency of professional guidance and legal review procedures. When each locality applies a different designation, public opinion has grounds to suspect that no unified standardization in accordance with the current legal framework has been implemented.
If not promptly clarified and rectified, this legally unfounded manner of recording risks becoming a precedent. When one locality uses an unrecognized term without being required to provide an explanation, others may follow suit. The silent spread of a non-standardized designation would undermine the principle of uniformity in state administration.
In an exchange with the Editorial Board, Dr. Văn Ngọc Sáng noted that the use of a term without clear legal status in administrative documents can easily create the perception of a policy shift if no official explanation is provided. According to him, ambiguity in terminology within public records may intensify debate and generate unnecessary public pressure.
The issue does not lie solely in the word “Bani” itself, but in the consequences of inconsistency. When “Bani,” “Cham Bani,” and “Bani Islam” simultaneously appear within the administrative record system, such inconsistency may amplify debate within the community. State documents, instead of contributing to clarity and stability in public understanding, risk becoming a source of disagreement if they lack clear legal standards.
When “Bani” has not been established as having an independent legal status yet continues to be recorded in administrative documents, this is not merely a matter of terminological arbitrariness but also raises concerns about compliance with the law. The responsibility of the issuing and approving authorities, therefore, cannot be evaded. The law cannot be interpreted at will; any deviation in administrative documents must be clarified and accountability must be borne before the public.
The Editorial Board of Champa One calls upon the competent authorities to publicly clarify the legal basis for recording “Bani,” the reasons for inconsistencies among localities, and the corrective measures to ensure uniformity in accordance with current regulations.
If the matter is not transparently explained and conclusively addressed, the repercussions will not be confined to the administrative sphere. In a context where issues of religion and identity are inherently sensitive, legal ambiguity may heighten suspicion, deepen divisions in viewpoints, and stimulate extremist currents of opinion. Latent disagreements risk accumulating into a public flashpoint, causing unnecessary disruption within the community.
Once debate moves beyond academic exchange and turns into open confrontation, controlling the consequences becomes far more difficult. Preventing the emergence of such flashpoints does not begin with managing aftermaths, but with accuracy, consistency, and accountability in every administrative document.
The final question remains: in the absence of a clear legal basis, on what grounds is “Bani” recorded in administrative records and who will bear responsibility before public opinion?
