Public opinion still continues to be against Dung’s appointment as head of Vietnam Maritime Administration, while the State inspection agency is also continuing to examine the implementation of laws for managing and use of sources of capital and assets at Vinalines.
An SGGP reporter conducted two interviews with Dinh Xuan Thao, president of the Institute for Legislation study of the National Assembly, and Ngo Van Minh, standing member of NA Committee for Law.
Dinh Xuan Thao: I disagreed with Minister Thang who justified his action as restoring order at Vinalines. Why did Minister Thang promote Dung to head of Vietnam Maritime Administration, when there was so much disunity? If I were in Thang’s position, I would withdraw Dung and not assign him a new, higher post given the background that Vinalines under his management suffered losses for three consecutive years.
SGGP Reporter: Some people said that the appointment of Dung as chief of the Vietnam Maritime Administration is degrading because the chair of Vinalines is appointed by the Prime Minister based on the suggestion of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Home Affairs and the assessment of relevant agencies while the chief of the Vietnam Maritime Administration is appointed by the Minister of Transport only.
Dinh Xuan Thao: Discord between the Chair and the CEO of Vinalines would prevent the development of this group, which means that Dung was unqualified to lead a unit. To assign him the post of head of Vietnam Maritime Administration was wrong! What was the purpose of moving Dung from Vinalines to the Vietnam Maritime Administration?
SGGP Reporter: Relevant organs stated that Dung’s appointment was made in accordance with regulations?
Dinh Xuan Thao: Dung’s wrongdoings have been confirmed and he is being hunted. People could not be satisfied with these explanations and justifications. Some National Assembly deputies said that the assignment of Dung is ‘unusual?’
Reviewing the appointment of Dung, we should learn many things from it and we have learnt from experience that we need to take initiatives in time and provide information to the public and the media.
SGGP Reporter: Do you agree with Minister Thang that during inspections, all agencies operated normally. And the promotion could not be affected by the annual inspection?
Dinh Xuan Thao: An official who is appointed to a new position still has to take responsibility for wrongdoings committed at their previous positions. I cannot say the assignment procedure is entirely performed in accordance with the law. Though the profile of Dung was quite “honest “, he should be ready to take responsibility for the wrongdoings.
Ngo Van Minh, standing member of NA Committee for Law said that he was not satisfied with Minister Dinh La Thang’s explanation of his action: Why is Duong Chi Dung still appointed as head of Vietnam Maritime Administration despite his wrongdoings?
SGGP: The separation of the Chair and the CEO of Vinalines aimed to ensure unity in this group and to speed up implementation of the sea strategy and the restructuring process at Vinalines, do you agree?
Ngo Van Minh: The public wonders that at the time Dung was appointed as chief of Vietnam Maritime Administration, the government inspectorate did not finalize its investigation at Vinalines. Why did the Ministry of Transport not wait until the inspection had finished, before making the appointment?
SGGP: According to the State Audit of Vietnam Agency’s reports from 2007 to 2010, Vinalines made profits but the Government Inspectorate said that it incurred losses?
Ngo Van Minh: At a recent press conference, Minister Thang had claimed that the appointment of Dung was done in accordance with regulations, I state that this is a wrong assignment!
The Minister said that, in that situation, some shipping firms, including Vinalines asked for assistance and the Ministry of Finance allowed them to enjoy depreciation relax and exchange rate gap. Based on this policy, Vinalines reported to do business at profit, with VND943 billion in 2007, over VND1.2 trillion in 2008, VND342 billion in 2009 and VND114 billion in 2010.
I do not accept that Minister Thang said that he doesn’t understand why inspectors did not make a suitable conclusion based on the Finance Ministry’s report. He deliberately pushed the responsibility on to the group, namely the Party cell of the Ministry of Transport.
Related article
