Article 9 of the draft Law on Urban Development, recently submitted to the National Assembly (NA) on August 7, stipulates the mobilization of social resources for professional and technical activities to support administrative procedures. Integrating highly capable organizations and individuals into technical support tasks can substantially alleviate the heavy burden on administrative agencies, simultaneously creating immense convenience for ordinary citizens and local enterprises.
Importantly, the draft explicitly determines that this mobilization doesn’t alter the statutory authority or core responsibilities of state agencies, nor does it transfer state management authority to non-state entities or individuals. Ultimately, this serves as a fundamental principle to clearly demarcate which specific tasks can actively call upon societal participation.
Based on the draft’s principles, authorities can thoroughly research utilizing public resources for several operational phases. They can guide citizens in preparing dossiers, assist with declarations, digitally archive documents, systematically input data, verify the preliminary completeness of documents, provide technical online platforms, and handle the physical deliveries of final results.
Certain measurement and technical survey activities might be considered within the permitted scope of specialized laws. Heavy paperwork sectors like land management, corporate registration, environmental protection, and taxation can be selectively chosen for pilot implementation to carefully evaluate their efficiency.
This proactive measure effectively curtails repetitive administrative steps, ensuring dossiers are prepared correctly from the start. Meanwhile, civil servants can concentrate fully on critical tasks demanding professional evaluation and making final decisions.
A crucial point requiring further clarification is the precise connotation of “professional and technical support activities.” Although Article 9 stipulates that the mobilization of social resources doesn’t alter state authority, explicitly defining a “support task” will significantly limit conflicting interpretations. This generally ensures such tasks don’t directly alter citizens’ legal rights.
Ultimately, calling upon social resources for administrative support aims to supplement public service capacity, rather than forging an unavoidable intermediary bottleneck. In the end, citizens retain absolute rights to submit documents directly to state agencies for processing within the exact same statutory timeframe.
It’s crucial to publicly disclose the dossier processing pipeline to dispel the assumption that accelerating paperwork inherently requires middlemen. Simultaneously, authorities can establish feedback channels to report forced service usage.
While private entities can verify if dossiers meet checklist requirements, determining legal compliance for licensing remains the exclusive domain of state authorities. In the end, crucial tasks like approving applications are inextricably linked to state power. Meticulous demarcation successfully prevents conflicting scenarios where one unit assists preparation while possessing undue influence over final decisions.
Article 9 firmly establishes the unwavering principles of openness, transparency, and controlled execution. Consequently, selecting participating organizations can heavily rely on stringent criteria regarding legal status, professional competence, technological infrastructure, and historical compliance.
Information regarding participation conditions and final selection results could be publicly centralized on a single portal. This effortlessly curbs the lingering risks of monopolies and “backyard” cronyism. Moreover, regulatory control shouldn’t stop at the initial phase. Authorities can periodically evaluate units by closely examining perfectly prepared dossiers, average support times, and public complaints for operational improvement. This simultaneously helps citizens confidently select suitable service providers.
What’s more, absolute data confidentiality remains a particularly critical issue. When non-state organizations actively participate in dossier assistance, their access rights can be strictly limited to assigned tasks.
Meanwhile, the entire data exploitation process is stringently monitored. Implementation guidelines can explicitly define mandatory storage, formal return, or secure destruction of data upon completion. This tightly controls the illicit use of administrative data for targeted advertising, unauthorized brokering, or unlawful private data warehouses.
Furthermore, external systems digitally connecting with state agencies should undergo periodic security audits, accompanied by rapid-response mechanisms whenever unauthorized leaks occur.
In the end, mobilizing social resources doesn’t equate to recklessly transferring core responsibilities to private providers. State agencies still bear ultimate legal accountability for decisions within their jurisdiction, while participating organizations remain strictly responsible for the overall quality, precise accuracy, and legal compliance of their segments. Clearly defining these exact responsibilities right from the start successfully prevents frustrating scenarios where citizens are left blindly searching for someone to hold accountable.
Avoiding creation of mandatory cost layer
Article 9 of the draft Law on Urban Development officially entrusts the municipal People’s Council to establish a standard pricing framework for administrative support services, alongside offering preferential policies and necessary resources to guarantee smooth implementation. This robust pricing framework serves as a vital control tool, effectively curbing chaotic situations where each unit randomly applies different rates or inflates service prices.
While utilizing public resources can certainly inject fresh manpower, advanced technology, and streamlined support services, if ordinary citizens must pay extra cash for tasks inherently belonging to the state’s public service mandate, the true benefits diminish significantly.
Therefore, a golden rule must be explicitly clarified: people still reserve the absolute right to execute administrative procedures directly or online with state agencies, completely free from being forced into paid intermediary services. Supplementary services arising from highly personalized demands, such as at-home declaration assistance, express delivery, or specialized legal support, must remain strictly tied to voluntary selection.
A major concern is avoiding hypocritical scenarios where citizens in principle handle procedures independently, but in harsh reality must seek out and pay an intermediary just to receive adequate guidance. It appears social resource mobilization can easily morph into an oppressive new cost layer, fostering a toxic “pay more for faster service” mentality and spawning another bureaucratic door. Alongside standardized pricing, every specific service type, collection rate, and authorized provider should be publicly disclosed to curb hidden fees.
Furthermore, it’s reported that users voluntarily fund optional services, while the State directly commissions tasks to reduce bureaucratic overload. Targeted support policies should be considered for elderly or disabled groups so public resource utilization doesn’t widen public service inequality gaps.
Ultimate success hinges on practical outcomes. What citizens truly care about is whether their dossiers are resolved noticeably faster, require fewer supplements, and incur lower total costs. Successful mobilization genuinely elevates public service quality rather than shifting heavy burdens onto ordinary people and hardworking enterprises.
By Manh Hoa
