While more capital is being invested in projects throughout Viet Nam, the management has not much improved. Is this why there are difficulties ascertaining if domestic enterprises are involved in corruption?

We need to re-examine the management of foreign investment capital. With Official Development Assistance management, we are required to distinguish between the responsibilities of international partners and ours.

Capital is distributed to the projects by international partners, who decide all the procedures from project assessment to allocation of work. Domestic enterprises normally give priority when bidding for work to partners from whom they can borrow capital.

A regulation that clearly indicates the responsibilities of domestic enterprises and international partners is being written by the Ministry of Planning and Investment and relevant agencies. Once issued, domestic enterprises and foreign partners won’t be able to blame each other when corruption is exposed.

Could Vietnamese enterprises fall into disrepute if found to be involved in corruption while doing business with foreign partners?

There have been inadequacies in the management of projects involving international partners, or when receiving foreign investment capital. This causes difficulties with the inspection and supervision of projects.

With some projects, all related documents are tightly controlled by international partners so when they return home, it will be hard to resolve problems when they arise.

Negotiation formalities between international partners and domestic businesses typically involve commission which has not been firmly stipulated.

As the limit between normal commission and bribes is fragile, there is an urgent need for agencies to set regulations which clearly distinguish between commissions and bribes.

In principle, presents offered by enterprises and individuals must be delivered to the agencies’ public funds. Leaders who receive money and presents and consider them as commission without informing agencies are acting illegally. Some individuals have been punished for the offence.

A huge sum is being spent stimulating the economy. What is the Government Inspectorate doing to ensure the public can be confident the money is being well spent?

We have reformed the administrative formalities to create favourable conditions for enterprises and individuals to conveniently run their businesses. The public can be assured the Government has wholeheartedly worked for the country’s development.

To prevent corruption while ensuring the transparency of the State budget are common tasks for the entire society. State officials should be the first to set an example. The more upright officials are, the more the public will trust the Government’s anti-corruption activities.

Simultaneously, the Government has moved to mobilise society’s involvement in anti-corruption activities and improve the supervision by the National Assembly and social organisations.

More importantly, the role of the media is especially appreciated by the Government as it plays an important part in highlighting good examples, as well as criticising unsatisfactory behaviour during the fight against corruption.

The Strategy on Anti-corruption, which was recently adopted by the Government, clearly stressed the significance of making information more transparent. The strategy also emphasised the necessity of publicising information apart from that covering national defence and security. The Government advocated for gradually publicising all issues, even the State budget would be disclosed in detail.

The Government assigned ministries, sectors and localities to re-examine and shorten all administrative formalities and procedures. In some localities, it takes 15 days to a month to provide enterprises with a licence. It used to take months.

Administration has also been decentralised to ensure each level has proper responsibility. This way issues can be resolved faster and more transparently.