關於 college student self introduction ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

泰晤士報人物專訪【Joshua Wong interview: Xi won’t win this battle, says Hong Kong activist】

Beijing believes punitive prison sentences will put an end to pro-democracy protests. It couldn’t be more wrong, the 23-year-old says.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joshua-wong-interview-xi-wont-win-this-battle-says-hong-kong-activist-p52wlmd0t

For Joshua Wong, activism began early and in his Hong Kong school canteen. The 13-year-old was so appalled by the bland, oily meals served for lunch at the United Christian College that he organised a petition to lobby for better fare. His precocious behaviour earned him and his parents a summons to the headmaster’s office. His mother played peacemaker, but the episode delivered a valuable message to the teenage rebel.

“It was an important lesson in political activism,” Wong concluded. “You can try as hard as you want, but until you force them to pay attention, those in power won’t listen to you.”

It was also the first stage in a remarkable journey that has transformed the bespectacled, geeky child into the globally recognised face of Hong Kong’s struggle for democracy. Wong is the most prominent international advocate for the protests that have convulsed the former British colony since last summer.

At 23, few people would have the material for a memoir. But that is certainly not a problem for Wong, whose book, #UnfreeSpeech, will be published in Britain this week.

We meet in a cafe in the Admiralty district, amid the skyscrapers of Hong Kong’s waterfront, close to the site of the most famous scenes in his decade of protest. Wong explains that he remains optimistic about his home city’s prospects in its showdown with the might of communist China under President Xi Jinping.

“It’s not enough just to be dissidents or youth activists. We really need to enter politics and make some change inside the institution,” says Wong, hinting at his own ambitions to pursue elected office.

He has been jailed twice for his activism. He could face a third stint as a result of a case now going through the courts, a possibility he treats with equanimity. “Others have been given much longer sentences,” he says. Indeed, 7,000 people have been arrested since the protests broke out some seven months ago; 1,000 of them have been charged, with many facing a sentence of as much as 10 years.

There is a widespread belief that Beijing hopes such sentences will dampen support for future protests. Wong brushes off that argument. “It’s gone too far. Who would imagine that Generation Z and the millennials would be confronting rubber bullets and teargas, and be fully engaged in politics, instead of Instagram or Snapchat? The Hong Kong government may claim the worst is over, but Hong Kong will never be peaceful as long as police violence persists.”

In Unfree Speech, Wong argues that China is not only Hong Kong’s problem (the book’s subtitle is: The Threat to Global Democracy and Why We Must Act, Now). “It is an urgent message that people need to defend their rights, against China and other authoritarians, wherever they live,” he says.

At the heart of the book are Wong’s prison writings from a summer spent behind bars in 2017. Each evening in his cell, “I sat on my hard bed and put pen to paper under dim light” to tell his story.

Wong was born in October 1996, nine months before Britain ceded control of Hong Kong to Beijing. That makes him a fire rat, the same sign of the Chinese zodiac that was celebrated on the first day of the lunar new year yesterday. Fire rats are held to be adventurous, rebellious and garrulous. Wong is a Christian and does not believe in astrology, but those personality traits seem close to the mark.

His parents are Christians — his father quit his job in IT to become a pastor, while his mother works at a community centre that provides counselling — and named their son after the prophet who led the Israelites to the promised land.

Like many young people in Hong Kong, whose housing market has been ranked as the world’s most unaffordable, he still lives at home, in South Horizons, a commuter community on the south side of the main island.

Wong was a dyslexic but talkative child, telling jokes in church groups and bombarding his elders with questions about their faith. “By speaking confidently, I was able to make up for my weaknesses,” he writes. “The microphone loved me and I loved it even more.”

In 2011, he and a group of friends, some of whom are his fellow activists today, launched Scholarism, a student activist group, to oppose the introduction of “moral and national education” to their school curriculum — code for communist brainwashing, critics believed. “I lived the life of Peter Parker,” he says. “Like Spider-Man’s alter-ego, I went to class during the day and rushed out to fight evil after school.”

The next year, the authorities issued a teaching manual that hailed the Chinese Communist Party as an “advanced and selfless regime”. For Wong, “it confirmed all our suspicions and fears about communist propaganda”.

In August 2012, members of Scholarism launched an occupation protest outside the Hong Kong government’s headquarters. Wong told a crowd of 120,000 students and parents: “Tonight we have one message and one message only: withdraw the brainwashing curriculum. We’ve had enough of this government. Hong Kongers will prevail.”

Remarkably, the kids won. Leung Chun-ying, the territory’s chief executive at the time, backed down. Buoyed by their success, the youngsters of Scholarism joined forces with other civil rights groups to protest about the lack of progress towards electing the next chief executive by universal suffrage — laid out as a goal in the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s constitution. Their protests culminated in the “umbrella movement” occupation of central Hong Kong for 79 days in 2014.

Two years later, Wong and other leaders set up a political group, Demosisto. He has always been at pains to emphasise he is not calling for independence — a complete red line for Beijing. Demosisto has even dropped the words “self-determination” from its stated goals — perhaps to ease prospects for its candidates in elections to Legco, the territory’s legislative council, in September.

Wong won’t say whether he will stand himself, but he is emphatically political, making a plea for change from within — not simply for anger on the streets — and for stepping up international pressure: “I am one of the facilitators to let the voices of Hong Kong people be heard in the international community, especially since 2016.”

There are tensions between moderates and radicals. Some of the hardliners on the streets last year considered Wong already to be part of the Establishment, a backer of the failed protests of the past.

So why bother? What’s the point of a city of seven million taking on one of the world’s nastiest authoritarian states, with a population of about 1.4 billion? And in any case, won’t it all be over in 2047, the end of the “one country, two systems” deal agreed between China and Britain, which was supposed to guarantee a high degree of autonomy for another 50 years? Does he fear tanks and a repetition of the Tiananmen Square killings?

Wong acknowledges there are gloomy scenarios but remains a robust optimist. “Freedom and democracy can prevail in the same way that they did in eastern Europe, even though before the Berlin Wall fell, few people believed it would happen.”

He is tired of the predictions of think-tank pundits, journalists and the like. Three decades ago, with the implosion of communism in the Soviet bloc, many were confidently saying that the demise of the people’s republic was only a matter of time. Jump forward 20 years, amid the enthusiasm after the Beijing Olympics, and they were predicting market reforms and a growing middle class would presage liberalisation.

Neither scenario has unfolded, Wong notes. “They are pretending to hold the crystal ball to predict the future, but look at their record and it is clear no one knows what will happen by 2047. Will the Communist Party even still exist?”

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1119445/unfree-speech

Ideologies just got mixed into doctrinal basis ...

For my friends who are interested in the Evangelical Theological Society, please take a look at this important message from past president Stan Gundry, who, like me, is vitally interested in the continuing health of the Society. He has given me permission to copy it here.

WHENCE AND WHITHER ETS?
An Open Letter to the Members of ETS
Stanley N. Gundry
President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1978

The following resolutions were adopted in the last business session of the 2015 national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society:
(1) We affirm that all persons are created in the image and likeness of God and thus possess inherent dignity and worth.
(2) We affirm that marriage is the covenantal union of one man and one woman, for life.
(3) We affirm that Scripture teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage as defined above. This excludes all other forms of sexual intimacy.
(4) We affirm that God created men and women, imbued with the distinct traits of manhood and womanhood, and that each is an unchangeable gift of God that constitutes personal identity.
In the immediate aftermath of this business session, many ETS members were deeply troubled that any ETS members would vote against these resolutions. The post-ETS blogs of a few ETS members and the comments of their followers expressed dismay that anyone who claims to be evangelical and subscribes to the Doctrinal Basis of the Society would cast a negative vote.
But there was also a significant minority that opposed and voted against these resolutions. These members were troubled that such resolutions would be introduced, that they were not ruled out of order or at least tabled, and that they were passed by a significant majority of those present and voting. I was among the minority that voted “Nay.”
Why? It is a question that deserves to be answered because I am convinced that the future of ETS depends on our repudiation of what happened in that session and that ETS members must realize that resolutions of this nature are not consistent with the nature of the Society. In fact, the issue at stake is whether or not ETS will remain committed to the original purpose for which ETS was formed. I have not taken even an informal poll of others who voted against the resolutions, but I have discussed the matter with enough members to give me confidence that many members agree that the future of ETS is at stake.
My history within ETS uniquely qualifies me to address the concerns these resolutions raise. I have been immersed in the culture and affairs of ETS since my student days in the 1950s and 1960s. I knew on a first-name basis many of the first-generation ETS members. I was taught by some of them. I have been a full member of the Society since about 1968. I have attended most national meetings since 1970, and in the 1970s I was an active participant in the Midwestern section of ETS, serving also as president of that section and on its leadership committee. Then in 1978 I served as the national president of ETS and planned the program for the 30th Annual Meeting of ETS in collaboration with Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, followed by serving the allotted time on the ETS Executive Committee. Relevant to the concerns at hand, my first-hand knowledge of the workings of ETS and its Constitution, most especially the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of the Society as stated in the Constitution, and my acquaintance with many of the founders and first-generation members of ETS give me insight into their intentions in forming the Society.
So why did I vote against the resolutions? Because the resolutions went beyond the Doctrinal Basis of the Society and were inconsistent with the clearly stated Purpose of ETS. But I run ahead of myself and it is a bit more complicated than that. So let me start at the beginning, the resolutions themselves.
First, it is unfortunate that the resolutions were presented at the last business meeting and then discussed and voted on as a group. My understanding is that those responsible for the agenda did not anticipate that the resolutions would be controversial and so they were scheduled to be considered in the last business session. This was not inconsistent as such with the ETS Constitution or Bylaws, but in a case like this, members should have had advance warning of the nature of the resolutions and ample opportunity to discuss them among themselves and on the floor of the business meeting. Further, many members had already left the conference or were absent for other reasons. Thus, members could not deliberately consider in advance whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS; and, given the time constraints of the program, there was not sufficient time to debate the merits of the individual resolutions and to vote up or down on each one.
The resolutions were so poorly stated that they needed such careful consideration. For instance, the second resolution ignored the question of biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. And given the diversity of views on divorce and remarriage within ETS, is this really a question on which ETS should be taking a position even in the form of a resolution? What about the third resolution? Viewed superficially, who could possibly object to that resolution? But looked at more closely, “sexual intimacy” and “all other forms of sexual intimacy” are squishy descriptors. Are they intended to refer to physical sexual intimacy, and if so, are holding hands, kissing, or hugging forbidden? My fundamentalist and separatist father would have thought so, but what about the membership of ETS? Would we have a consensus on that question?
And what about the fourth resolution affirming “distinct traits of manhood and womanhood”? While I suspect all members of ETS (even those of us who self-identify as biblical egalitarians) believe that men and women in many respects are complementary to one another, many of us also believe that the terms “manhood” and “womanhood” are reifications of socially and culturally conditioned patterns of behavior more than they are descriptors of biblically supported male and female characteristics. Rather than being biblically supported, the terms tend to refer to stereotypical lists of alleged gender characteristics to which men and women are expected to conform. Even self-avowed complementarians have no consensus on what constitutes “manhood and womanhood,” so why would a scholarly society like ETS that includes both complementarians and egalitarians even take such a resolution seriously?
So I return to the opening statement of this first point—scheduling the resolutions for consideration as a group at the second business meeting without prior notice meant there was not adequate time to consider and debate the merits and wording of the resolutions and it made it impossible to carefully consider whether or not voting on such resolutions was even consistent with the Purpose of ETS.
Second, this broader issue needs to be considered by the Society. Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society? I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Members tend to forget that ETS was never intended to have a doctrinal statement to which members had to subscribe. We have a “Doctrinal Basis,” one that originally had one affirmation: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. Years later, the Trinitarian statement was added to the Doctrinal Basis out of concern that anti-Trinitarians such as Jehovah’s Witnesses might successfully claim membership in ETS. But even with that addition, it remains a Doctrinal Basis, not a doctrinal statement. Some members seem not to understand and/or remember the significance of the fact that we function as a scholarly society with a Doctrinal Basis. But even many who remember that we have a Doctrinal Basis all too easily and sloppily refer to it using the phrases “doctrinal basis” and “doctrinal statement” interchangeably, suggesting they do not really understand (or perhaps accept) the significance of the distinction. But this distinction is at the very heart and Purpose of ETS. A bit of historical context will be useful here.
When ETS was formed in 1949, evangelical biblical and theological scholarship was just beginning to emerge from its decline in the dark days of the modernist-fundamentalist debate and the loss of so many mainline denominations and associated colleges, seminaries, and missionary agencies to the takeover of these institutions by theological liberals. For at least fifteen or twenty years, fundamentalists and evangelicals at the local church and grassroots level had a profound suspicion of serious biblical and theological scholarship. But in the mid and late 1940s, this began to change as scholars who were willing to self-identify as fundamentalists (in the classic meaning of that term) and/or evangelical began to find each other, come together, and realize that in spite of all that divided them, they held one thing in common—the Bible and the Bible alone in its entirety is God’s Word written, it speaks truthfully on whatever it intends to say and teach, and hence it is the only rule for Christian faith and practice. Eventually in 1949 many of the fundamentalist and evangelical scholars who shared this conviction agreed there was a need for a scholarly society where members shared the same basis on which conservative scholarship and research should be discussed and debated. On that Doctrinal Basis, they formed the Evangelical Theological Society.
It is easy to forget, or perhaps many ETS members do not know, how deep and sometimes rancorous the divisions were that otherwise separated these same scholars. These divisions ranged from matters of church polity to biblical hermeneutics to the various loci of systematic theology. In fact, dispensational and amillennial theologians were accustomed to trading charges that the hermeneutical methods and theological systems of the other undermined the authority of Scripture. Scholars who practiced secondary separation risked their reputations if they joined with other evangelical scholars who practiced only primary separation or who were inclusivists. At least four of the ETS presidents in the first twenty years of the society would have been sympathetic to what is now known as biblical egalitarianism, a matter over which ETS members today have profound disagreements. Yet these scholars came together in ETS as did Pentecostals and cessationists, believer-immersionists and paedo-sprinklers, Arminians and Wesleyans and Reformed and Lutheran, as well as those who held to congregational, or presbyterial, or episcopal church polity.
A quick scan of the listing of ETS presidents over the past sixty-seven years and the institutions they represented makes the same point. Schools represented range from Wycliffe College, to Dallas Theological Seminary, to Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, to Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, to Moody Bible Institute. The theological spectrum represented by ETS presidents is also quite remarkable. As I look at the list I can identify at least twelve presidents associated with one of five or six varieties of Presbyterian and Reformed communions, thirteen who were dispensationalists, five who were covenant premillennialists, one Pentecostal, three Wesleyans, and twelve sympathetic with biblical egalitarianism.
Throughout its history, ETS has been a demonstration of the Purpose for which ETS was formed: The Purpose of the Society shall be to foster conservative biblical scholarship by providing a medium for the oral exchange and written expression of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures.
So I return to the opening question and statement of my second point—“Is it even appropriate for resolutions to be introduced, debated, and voted on that go beyond the Doctrinal Basis and officially stated Purpose of the Society?” I believe the answer is a clear and unequivocal “No!” Why? Because such resolutions are inconsistent with the Purpose of ETS and the reason why we have a Doctrinal Basis and not a doctrinal statement.
Third, the introduction and passage of the four-fold resolution package and the internet conversations following the 67th Annual Meeting are symptomatic of the desire of some ETS members to move the Society in the direction of precise, doctrinal, and interpretive clarity and definition, ideally in the form of a doctrinal statement and other “position statements.” I am trained not only as a theologian but as a church historian; consequently I am inclined to be skeptical of conspiracy theories unless there is compelling evidence. Nevertheless, based on the evidence, some of us are now wondering if there is a conspiracy within ETS to:
1) ease out biblical egalitarians,
2) exclude women from the leadership of ETS,
3) let qualified women scholars know they are not part of “the old boys network,”
4) shut down discussion of contentious ethical and theological issues,
5) marginalize those who do not come out on the “right side” of those issues,
6) “pack” the nominating committee so as to get their compatriots in the positions of leadership,
7) question the evangelical and inerrantist bona fides of those who ask hard questions and come up with answers that most of us are not persuaded by, and
8) propose and pass a poorly framed set of four resolutions that makes the Society sound more like the Family Research Council or the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood than the intentionally diverse “medium for the oral and written expressions of thought and research in the general field of the theological disciplines as centered in the Scriptures” as stated in the ETS Purpose statement.
Lest I be misunderstood, I do believe that theological boundaries are important within the church and its institutions, and as an evangelical Protestant, I believe it is appropriate for churches and parachurch organizations to draw those boundary lines, based on their understanding of Scripture. But ETS is not a church and it was formed to serve a clearly defined purpose. It is significant that it takes an 80% majority vote to amend only three things in the ETS constitution—the Doctrinal Basis, the Society’s Purpose, and the requirement for an 80% majority to amend the first two items. The founders of our Society could hardly have made it clearer that they regarded the Purpose and Doctrinal Basis of ETS to be essential to the organization they were creating.
Why is it important to guard the integrity of the original Purpose and Basis of ETS? I will answer with another question. What better forum is there for collegial discussion and debate of complementarianism and egalitarianism, open theism and classical theism and all points in between, eschatology, the “new perspective” on Paul, and yes, even the question of whether same-sex “marriages” can be defended biblically, than a forum where we have agreed to appeal to the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice, the Bible, God’s Word written?
Copyright © 2016 by Stanley N. Gundry. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[USA]_List of lots of scholarship in the US. Please help to share and tag your friend. You can google the name of the scholarship to get direct link!

Xin gửi đến các bạn một số học bổng cho chương trình Cử Nhân, Thạc sĩ, Tiến sĩ, Học giả tại Hoa Kỳ. Ngoài ra, tại các ÐH Mỹ (top 200) đều có học bổng cho chương trình Thạc sĩ & Tiến sĩ, các bạn tham khảo trên website của Department tìm hiểu về Fellowship, Research Assistantship, Teaching Assistantship.
National Universities Rankings: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/…/national-un…

1. Southeast Asia Youth Leadership Program (SEAYLP)
http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/yseali.html
This intensive four-week exchange program in the United States aims at promoting high-quality leadership, civic responsibility, volunteerism, and respect for diversity. Each year, five Vietnamese high-school students and one teacher (who acts as chaperone) are selected for this program and are joined by similar groups from other Southeast Asian countries. It is designed to enable teenagers, ages 15-17, and teachers to travel to the United States for a program focused on building a sense of community, developing civil society and economic institutions, and recognizing the commonalities among Southeast Asians and Americans.
Timeline
July-August: Call for applications
September: Submission of applications to the Embassy; screening and interviews
October: Nomination of finalists to Washington
November: Selection results available from Washington; departure of selected candidates
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

2. Undergraduate Intensive English Language Study Program (UIELSP)
This program enrolls undergraduate students in the East Asia and Pacific region who demonstrate the potential to become student leaders in an eight-week intensive English Language course at colleges and universities in the United States with a focus on English language acquisition, leadership skill building, and civic education and engagement. It also provides participants with an introduction to American institutions, society and culture.
Timeline
Oct-Nov: Call for applications
December: Deadline for submission of applications to the Embassy
Dec-Jan: Screening of applications; interviews of shortlisted candidates
February: Nomination of finalists to Washington
March: Selection and placement results available from Washington
June: Departure of selected candidates
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

3. Global Undergraduate Exchange Program (Global UGRAD)
This program provides scholarships for one semester or one academic year of study at a U.S. university. The goal is to provide a diverse group of emerging student leaders, from non-elite and under-represented groups, with a substantive exchange experience at a U.S. college or university, with in-depth exposure to U.S. society, culture and academic institutions. Students are selected based on 1) academic record, 2) leadership skills and potential, 3) community involvement and extra-curricular activities, and 4) English proficiency (minimum TOEFL score of 525 (paper-based) or 70 (iBT).
Timeline
September: Call for applications
November: Deadline for submission of applications to the Embassy
Nov-Dec: Screening of applications; interviews of shortlisted candidates
December: Nomination of finalists to Washington
March: Selection results available from Washington
June: Placement information available
July: Departure of selected candidates (whole academic year program)
January: Departure of selected candidates (semester program)
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

4. Fulbright Vietnamese Student Program
The Fulbright Vietnamese Student Program is a competitive, merit-based scholarship program which recruits and nominates young Vietnamese professionals for Master’s degree programs at U.S. universities. Approximately 20 to 25 fully-funded scholarships are granted on an annual basis for students in social sciences and humanities. Successful applicants will receive support in university placement and a full scholarship which covers tuition and fees, monthly stipend, round-trip airfare to the U.S. and health insurance. Selection is based on study objectives, work experience, understanding of the chosen field of study, impact potential, leadership, academic excellence and English proficiency.
Timeline
December: Grant announcement
April: Application deadline
June – July: Application review and semi-finalist selection
September: Interviews & finalist selection
October: Finalists take GRE/GMAT/TOEFL iBT
November: U.S. universities placement
April - May: Confirmation of final university placement
May: Pre-departure orientation
June – July: Medical check-up and visa application
July – August: Departure
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

5. Vietnamese Fulbright Scholar Program
The Council for International Exchange of Scholars (CIES) assists in the administration of the Fulbright Scholar Exchange Program for faculty and professionals. Started in 1998, the Program recruits and nominates Vietnamese scholars for placement by CIES as lecturers and researchers in U.S. universities for terms of three to 10 months. From six to eight scholars from Vietnam travel to the United States on an annual basis.
Timeline
October: Deadline of application submission
November – December: Peer Review Panel
January: Interview the shortlisted candidates
End of January: Submission of semi-finalist candidates to Washington
February - March: Selection results available from Washington
April – July: Affiliation and Visa Process
August: Pre-departure Orientation for the departing grantee
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

6. Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program
This is a one year, non-degree, full scholarship program offered to promising mid-career professionals who have proven track records of leadership and a strong commitment to public service. Participants in the program spend one academic year at a leading U.S. university doing their self-designed program of academic course work, participating in professional affiliations off-campus, field trips, special workshops and seminars in their field of study.
Timeline
April: Call for applications
May: Information sessions held in Hanoi and HCMC
Early August: Deadline for submission of applications to the Embassy
Aug-Sep: Screening of applications; Institutional TOEFL for shortlisted candidates; interviews
October 1: Nomination of finalists to Washington
October: Finalists take official iBT
Feb-Mar: Selection results available from Washington
March/April: Departure for the U.S. (fellows needing Long Term English)
May: Placement results available
June-August: Departure for the U.S. (fellows not needing Long Term English)
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

7. Ambassador’s Fund for Cultural Preservation – AFCP
Since its creation by the U.S. Congress in 2001, the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation has provided financial support to more than 640 cultural preservation projects in more than 100 countries. The AFCP shows the depth of the U.S. respect for the cultural heritage of other countries. Ten preservation projects in Vietnam, averaging $20,000 each, have been funded by the AFCP, ranging from intangible heritage such as the Then Music of the Tay minority to tangibles such as pagoda statues, museum collections and historical/architectural monuments. In 2010, a major project ($74,500) was granted to Hanoi Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism to preserve the 18th century O Quan Chuong Gate – the only one of the 16 gates that remains of ancient Hanoi, as a gift from the U.S. Ambassador to the people of Hanoi as the city celebrated its 1000th birthday.
Timeline for the 2011 AFCP program:
October: Calls for proposals from Vietnamese organizations
Nov: Proposal Screening
December: Submission of proposal to Washington
July: Selection results available from Washington
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

8. Small Grants Program for civil society organizations
The Small Grants Program is designed to assist countries around the world to strengthen democracy, human rights, civil society, and rule of law, and to combat extremism in their countries by making grants of up to $20,000 to local non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations. Proposals must support program activities that promote democratic practices, including civil society, freedom of information and independent media, transparency in government, NGO capacity building, rule of law and judicial reform, civic education, conflict resolution, human rights, ethnic, minority and women's rights.
Timeline
March: Call for proposals from Vietnamese organizations
May: Submission of proposals by Vietnamese organizations
May-June: Proposal screening by Embassy Committee
June: Submission of shortlisted proposals to Washington
August: Selection results available from Washington
Contact: Contact info: Tel: 84-4-3850-5000; Email: [email protected].
Source: http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/educational_exchange.html…

9. VEF Fellowship Program for 2018 (?)
The Fellowship application and selection process is open, competitive, and transparent. Applicants do not need to pay any fees to anyone in order to apply or be considered for a VEF Fellowship. Winners are chosen based on individual merit, including academic performance and preparation, intellectual capabilities, English proficiency, and the potential for contribution to scientific education and research.
Contact: fellowship@vef.gov, information@vef.gov
Source: http://www.vef.gov/details.php?mid=6&cid=392
10. VEF Visiting Scholar Program 2017 - 2018 (?)
VEF Visiting Scholar Program (VSP) for Vietnamese nationals, who already hold a doctorate in any of the fields supported by VEF, namely, in the major disciplines of sciences (natural, physical, and environmental), mathematics, medicine (such as, public health), and technology (including information technology). Fields include the basic sciences, such as, biology, chemistry, and physics, as well as agricultural science, computer science, and engineering. Priority this year will be given to applicants, whose field of study focuses on climate change (environmental sciences) or on nuclear energy, provided that all other qualifications are equal.
Contact: vs@vef.gov, information@vef.gov
Source: http://www.vef.gov/details.php?mid=7&cid=393