The Inspection Sector is No Longer “Immune” to Corruption
In response to the press, Mr. Quach Le Thanh, the Chief Inspector of the Government, acknowledged that the Inspection sector is no longer “immune” to corruption, citing “mainstream” reasons such as “various difficulties in detecting corruption within our own ranks; inability to control ‘inspectors’ due to time and spatial constraints, and the sheer volume of work” (?!)
He then proposed solutions that were equally “mainstream” and resolute: “We need to implement new measures to prevent the spread of corruption within the sector” and “Trust in the professionalism, conscience, and ethics of officials is paramount.”
Following the case of Mr. Luong Cao Khai and several major corruption scandals in the oil, electricity, and land sectors that have recently come to light, public opinion suggests that to effectively combat corruption and work towards building a clean government where officials do not wish to engage in corruption, and especially do not dare to, we need:
Firstly: to view the current “spread” of corruption as an avian flu pandemic, with corrupt officials akin to H5N1 viruses, showing complex mutations and resistance to legal “vaccines.” Given the perspective that “the risk of a pandemic is very high, and the likelihood of an outbreak is substantial,” the National Assembly and the Government must establish urgent action plans to mobilize all levels and sectors to combat this “disease”; focusing financial and human resources on major outbreak hotspots such as land and economy, as proposed by National Assembly representative Do Trong Ngan from Bac Giang. Immediate action is required; otherwise, when a pandemic occurs, the consequences could be unimaginable.
Secondly: to quickly finalize the legal framework against corruption, including not only specialized laws such as Criminal Law, Thrift Practice, and Anti-Waste Law, and the Anti-Corruption Law, but also supplementary laws like the Freedom of Information Law; Public Servant Transparency Law; and the People’s Oversight Law… with regulations aimed at protecting the interests of whistleblowers and those exposing corruption, to strengthen the currently robust and broad-based anti-corruption mechanisms involving the public.
Thirdly: to highly specialize the conditions for exercising power for civil servants, alongside standardizing appointment criteria, ensuring that officials exercising power rely not only on “professionalism, conscience, and ethics” but also adhere to the principle of the rule of law.
T.P.H
I No Longer Trust the Inspection Sector!
After the misconduct of Mr. Luong Cao Khai at the Thi Vai pipeline port, I no longer trust the inspection sector. It is absurd for inspectors to harass inspection subjects to make money. Is it because Mr. Luong Cao Khai could not live on his salary within the inspection sector, leading him to such actions? Or has “colluding” with those being inspected become an indispensable “need”?
These questions highlight that Mr. Luong Cao Khai acted against the ethical conscience expected of inspectors for the sake of dirty money. But what benefits arise when corruption and negativity have infiltrated public agencies that are supposed to be the “eyes and ears” of the people? The issue is that we must strive to reform the inspection sector immediately. The inspection sector needs restructuring and should select individuals who possess both integrity and capability.
I believe our country is not lacking people like this. The question is whether we have the courage to act decisively. There are many passionate individuals dedicated to fairness and the public good; hence, we must select such people for the inspection sector. Inspections should aim to uncover the truths surrounding issues connected to the rights of the entire populace, not merely serve to fill personal pockets. Those who enter the inspection sector solely for personal gain should resign or refrain from joining altogether.
TRI NGHIA
Publishing Inspection Results
Historically, when we think of inspections, we immediately consider the clarification of violations and corruption. In its true sense, the inspection work should be a continuous process, not just initiated in response to existing corruption or violations. However, the current reality shows that inspections are often conducted only when public outcry arises or when investigative agencies step in.
This situation should not occur within inspection work. Public opinion is an area that can be guided and can also be influenced by inspection results. Investigative agencies, as part of the executive, are tasked with clarifying evidence of violations and must rely on the conclusions of inspections to elucidate and uncover additional details in any case. This indicates that inspections are “one step behind,” while the nature and requirement of inspections should be to lead.
Inspections are not only about discovering and clarifying violations and misconduct, but they must also prevent potential misconduct that may arise from warning signs of violations and corruption. Currently, our inspection work primarily focuses on clarifying violations and misconduct, while the issue of preventing negative behaviors remains unaddressed.
In the process of examining the operations of localities, agencies, and enterprises, there are two main conclusions: satisfactory and unsatisfactory. However, regardless of how the conclusion is drawn, a comprehensive inspection report must propose solutions. Yet, it is rare for an inspection report to fulfill this requirement. Most inspection conclusions simply state whether there is corruption or misconduct and recommend whether to forward cases to investigative bodies or handle them internally…
If inspection work is conducted regularly and rigorously, it will undoubtedly prevent potential violations and misconduct. Of course, this is presupposed on the assumption that inspection work is entirely meeting the required standards.
Moreover, a significant factor contributing to the weakness of the inspection work, making it “not immune” to negativity, is the lack of transparency in conclusions. Typically, inspection conclusions are only made public when they pertain to major cases that garner widespread public interest. Not to mention, inspection conclusions published in the media are merely confined to brief news reports. If inspection conclusions were widely shared with the public, evaluated by professionals and affected parties, it would undoubtedly provide the most accurate findings.
Therefore, should we not establish a regulation that mandates the full publication of any inspection conclusion for public awareness? If inspection conclusions are widely disseminated through the media, public evaluation will surely scrutinize whether those conclusions are valid. If this can be achieved, can any inspection team afford to be “not immune” to corruption? Thus, we can address both transparency and accountability within the inspection work.
Regardless of how we frame the argument, when an issue is evaluated by “people’s experts,” it will be resolved at its roots and comprehensively. For, more than anyone else, the public understands that their rights are secured when transparency and openness are thoroughly enforced in any circumstance, not just within inspection work.
CHAN LUAN
