The use of e-signatures on emailed denouncements in corruption cases was under consideration by National Assembly delegates in their discussions on anti-corruption legislation.
 |
| People should be encouraged to denounce corrupt officials (Illustration photo) |
Dao Trong Thi, chairperson of the National Assembly (NA) Culture, Education, Youth, Teenagers and Children’s Committee believed that verified emails could be more effective than traditional postal complaints at a meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee’s discussion on the draft Law on Denouncements on August 23.
Nguyen Van Hien, Chairman of the NA Justice Committee said that when accusations of corruption had been made, it was important that such information was not made public online until further investigations had been completed. She cited the potential damage to the reputation of senior officials as an example of possible issues with the system.
At the discussion, delegates also discussed expanded ways in which complaints could be made, including by fax, phone, or via newspapers or online forums.
The NA Law Committee said these forms were already regulated by the Law on Anti-corruption.
The committee noted that those submitting their accusations should be compelled to provide their full name and personal details.
However, many NA deputies were also concerned about how to protect anti-corruption witnesses, suggesting the draft Law on Denouncement should beef-up the role authorities at different levels played in protecting potential whistle-blowers.
NA Vice Chairman Huynh Ngoc Son said the draft law should also include policies to provide help for whistle-blowers who were the victims of revenge attacks.
The NA Law Committee admitted that Vietnam still had a lot to learn about anti-corruption witness protection measures.
At a discussion on the Law on Weights and Measures on August 23, the NA Committee for Science, Technology and Environment said fines for petrol station fraud were not high enough. It suggested that the punishments should be 40 to 50 times the level of the fraud discovered.
