Danish Ambassador Peter Lysholt Hansen

Vietnam has clearly signaled its intentions by signing the UN Convention Against Corruption, but success depends on how well the country’s laws are executed, say Danish and Swedish envoys.

Swedish Ambassador Rolf Bergman: I am impressed by the way Vietnam has opened the doors and invited all the donors and other stakeholders to take part in a high level dialogue on anti-corruption twice a year. This is both a way of acknowledging the fact that Vietnam has a problem with corruption and it is also an invitation for us as donors to engage in an open and public discussion. This dialogue is gathering and engaging hundreds of people including the media. This is unique for Vietnam and I think it is an inspiration for others to learn from.

Danish Ambassador Peter Lysholt Hansen: Vietnam’s ratification of the UNCAC in June 2009 represents yet another significant policy and legal commitment by Vietnam to fight corruption. Vietnam has now joined the club of countries seeking to put on track the first true globally applicable international anti-corruption agreement. Denmark is particularly happy to see Vietnam ratifying the UNCAC as Denmark was the first of its development partners to support Vietnam in preparing for UNCAC ratification.

Vietnam has come a long way in terms of policies and laws to curb corruption, as reflected in the UNCAC ratification in June 2009, the Law on Anti-Corruption in 2006 and the approval of the National Strategy on Anti-Corruption toward 2020 and its Action Plan in May 2009. We believe that the real challenge now is translating the policy and legal framework into reality (dua phap luat vao cuoc song). This was also the conclusion of two extensive studies on the implementation of the Anti-Corruption Law sponsored by Denmark in 2007 and 2009.

What progress have you seen in the anti-corruption fight since your arrival?

Rolf Bergman: We have to realize that this is a symptom of society which is everywhere. I would hope that much of the efforts which have been put into fighting for economic development could be put also on the anti-corruption fight. But I’m quite frank with you when I say that of course we would like to see sometimes a little bit more speedy results.

What is the biggest hurdle to Vietnam’s campaign against corruption, in your opinion? What can be done to overcome this?

Peter Lysholt Hansen: The real challenge as we see it is to address the systemic roots of corruption, i.e. reduce the opportunities for corruption and increase the risks of getting caught. Increasing transparency and accountability is of paramount importance. The policy and legal framework is basically sound. The real issue is to shape incentives and build capacity to enforce the anticorruption policies. The provision on Asset Declaration in the Anti-Corruption Law is a case in point.

On the capacity side: a system needs to be established that can collect information, store and verify reports on asset declaration. On the incentive side: effectiveness depends critically on the probability of sanctions if officials fail to declare, wrongfully declare; and enforcement of sanctions if wealth cannot be attributed to official income.

Should anti-graft measures be considered the leading priority when Vietnam prepares to amend its laws after signing the convention?

Peter Lysholt Hansen: We think that the important thing is to address the specific challenges that Vietnam is facing. This requires unbundling the phenomenon of corruption in a Vietnamese context. While the UNCAC and the Anti-Corruption Law are sound instruments, corruption can only be curbed through a broader set of structural economic and governance reforms.

Transparency in procurement could also be strengthened. The oversight role of civil society on procurement, the planned introduction of e-procurement, the plan to establish regional bidding centers for centralized procurement, and reform of the handling of denunciations and the protection and reward of whistleblowers are entry points for enforcing the transparency requirements.

We think that corruption should be addressed in a holistic process of economic and political reform. Punishing corruptors is important yet it only addresses the symptom of a more systemic disease.

Allowing the media to perform investigative journalism is crucial. And allowing people to observe Ho Chi Minh’s dictum “People know, people discuss, people do and people check” (Dan biet, dan ban, dan lam, dan kiem tra) could also address the root of the corruption problem.

Also, according to our view the public-private nexus of corruption seems to be somewhat underestimated. E.g. Vietnam has chosen not to adhere to some of the UNCAC’s optional measures, such as private sector corruption, as these are not yet covered by national law.

What is one area you would like to see more reforms in Vietnam’s anti-corruption campaign?

Rolf Bergman: What we lack a little bit is implementation of the good [anti-corruption] laws. The main focus of the [Vietnamese] government is to see to it that the laws are implemented and carried out. We also repeat very often in our talks with the Vietnamese government the importance of the implementation [of good anticorruption] laws.

What is the role of public administration reform in the anticorruption campaign?

Rolf Bergman: Public administration reform can address corruption by simplifying procedures for ordinary people so they can easily access competent decision-making authorities. The government should downsize and cut down on government staff because we know that there is a correlation between number of staff you have to meet and level of corruption.

It is very crucial to strengthen systems for the recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion and retirement of civil servants and, where appropriate, other nonelected public officials. For example, they must be based on principles of efficiency, transparency, and objective criteria such as merit, equity, and aptitude; that includes adequate procedures for the selection and training of individuals for public positions considered especially vulnerable to corruption, and the rotation, where appropriate, of such individuals to other positions.

There should be no possibility of buying your job in the public sector.

Reported by An Dien