According to the orientation outlined by HCMC Party Secretary Tran Luu Quang at the 9th expanded Conference of the HCMC Party Executive Committee for the 2025-2030 term, the municipality will continuously bolster decentralization, assigning supplementary public investment tasks to localities, notably including Build – Transfer (BT) projects.
As jurisdiction expands, the pressing demand is clearly delineating decision-making scopes alongside executors’ exact responsibilities. Regarding this, Assoc Prof Dr Cao Vu Minh from University of Economics and Law (Vietnam National University-HCM) explained decentralization must be irrevocably tied to personal responsibility. The ultimate decision-maker must bear personal accountability before the law for any consequences stemming from their decisions; only then should advisory personnel’s liability be examined.
It’s crucial to clarify personal responsibility, essentially preventing situations where individuals hide behind the collective to make self-serving decisions. When violations inevitably occur, the accountable person must be swiftly identified.
For delegated tasks, if every single move requires seeking opinions, processing times will drag on endlessly. In a rapidly fluctuating socio-economic landscape, developmental opportunities emerge for merely a brief window; they can easily be squandered if the bureaucratic timeline is overly protracted.
Consequently, Dr Minh believes authorities need to boldly shift toward a post-audit mechanism, creating optimal conditions for grassroots levels to proactively act plus bear responsibility. He proposed architecting a control mechanism right from the outset:
- Controlling legality, unequivocally pinpointing who holds decision-making authority at each stage, essentially preventing power abuse or passing the buck;
- Controlling procedures, safeguarding progress while detecting deviations early;
- Controlling transparency.
Ensuring openness plus creating conditions for independent entities to access information must be executed according to regulations. Those holding public power must unequivocally answer for their decisions. This mandate is being materialized by HCMC as it prepares to issue a specialized directive on inspecting the rollout of the Law on Urban Development.
For Dr Le Thi Thu Hien from the Academy of Politics Region II, integrity in public service execution must be fiercely upheld when decentralization becomes more robust. Power control needs executing right during the implementation phase, ensuring every decision falls under the right jurisdiction. It must specifically delineate distinct responsibilities of the advisor, decision-maker, and inspector.
In sectors spanning land, urban planning, alongside finance, demands for accountability must be fully met to curb the risk of actors exploiting policies for illicit gains. The mechanism must remain crystal-clear so officials dare to take responsibility, preventing them from dodging duties.
Inspection tasks also need a sharp focus, zeroing in on decisions directly impacting citizens alongside areas prone to spawning vested interests. Vu Son from the Institute of Regional Development Research and Consulting (under HCMC University of Economics) argued that inspecting new mechanisms must strictly tie to each work phase to spot inadequacies early.
Regarding responsibility delineation, Dr Nguyen Van Dao from Van Lang University pointed out the necessity to clearly map out liabilities across the workflow chain. It’s crucial to know exactly who advises, appraises, decides, plus supervises. Digitizing workflows heavily assists in auditing alongside pinpointing liability whenever necessary.
A special-class metropolis needs authority commensurate with its tasks, but this power must always anchor to clear-cut responsibilities. Cadres and civil servants must acutely understand exactly where their power limits lie.
Former Vice Chairwoman of the Vietnam Fatherland Front Central Committee To Thi Bich Chau commented that as localities are handed extra autonomy, supervision efforts need to stick closely to the implementation process. The overarching spirit is that wherever power is bestowed, accountability must closely follow.
Internal inspections are absolutely essential, but they can’t substitute oversight coming from the public. Citizens directly bear the brunt of policies, meaning grassroots feedback holds immense value. Through the watchful eyes of the Vietnam Fatherland Front, inadequacies can be spotted early on.
When power is heavily decentralized, it’s increasingly critical to promote social supervision. Oversight isn’t meant to pile extra pressure onto officials; rather, it aims to help the government better wield its assigned powers.
The Front needs to actively listen to the public’s voice, acknowledging effective practices while petitioning to untangle bottlenecks. Supervision must carry out straight from the grassroots, morphing into an integral piece of the power execution process, instead of only grabbing attention once problems flare up.
When locals are allowed to participate and visibly see their legitimate ideas resolved, consensus toward the administration is solidly reinforced. For officials, a transparent oversight mechanism helps clarify liabilities while recognizing highly effective practices.
The ultimate goal is to ensure power is wielded following regulations strictly for the common good. Simultaneously, it helps cadres acutely grasp their delegated powers, boldly execute tasks within their remit, and own up to their decisions.
Executing “6 clears” principle
In Directive 22-CT/TU issued by the HCMC Party Committee regarding the leadership and direction for implementing the Law on Urban Development, the Committee demands strict adherence to the “clear person, clear task, clear timeline, clear responsibility, clear jurisdiction, clear outcome” principle.
It further pushes for robust decentralization inextricably linked to power control, accountability, and the fierce fight against corruption, wastefulness, and negativity.
