Even though several cases of corruption have been exposed, involving trillions of VND, punishments have remained largely administrative, several National Assembly deputies have said.
Chief of Government Inspectorate, Huynh Thanh Phong at the meeting
The NA’s Legislation Committee held a Q&A’s session on July 19 to discuss better ways to deal with corruption at state agencies.
Deputy Do Van Duong, member of the committee, cited a recent report that found violations that added up to VND3.4 trillion (USD161.62 million) in land management in one locality.
In all, auditing agencies have found wrongdoings involving VND68 trillion (USD3.23 billion) over the past three years.
“I find it hard to understand why in 2012 the State Audit of Vietnam proposed that only five of these cases be investigated further when they found so many. These are serious violations that have caused huge losses, and they should be strictly dealt with,” Duong commented.
Huynh Ngoc Anh, Deputy Tribunal President of HCM City People’s Court, agreed, adding that in most cases the investigative agency proposed only administrative measures to deal with cases of corruption.
“It is absolutely unacceptable," Anh said. "Who would be in charge of carrying out these administrative measures? It makes no sense in a fight against corruption."
Nguyen Van Hien, Chairman of the committee said, “It’s ridiculous to only propose a few administrative charges when dealing with cases of corruption worth trillions of VND. It makes me wonder if there isn't corruption inside the very inspection and auditing agencies that are supposed to be doing the policing."
In response to such comments, the Chief of Government Inspectorate, Huynh Thanh Phong, said the inspection agency conducted over 10,000 inspections annually. He added that, over the past five years, 108 leaders of state agencies that have been found to be involved in corruption cases and have been held accountable.
“Even though these inspections have shown some results, we are not yet satisfied," Thanh said.
Thanh denied that there was any motive behind not recommending further investigation into some cases. He cited the Agribank case, in which over 30 people, including the bank's general director, were prosecuted.
“In many cases it is difficult for authorities to clearly prove criminal activity because of the sophisticated techniques used by the violators," he noted.
He added that, due to the limited power of the investigative agencies, they do not have the authority to deal with wrongdoings themselves or prosecute any individual or group.
