Talking about the implementation of the UN convention against corruption in Vietnam, UNDP’s advisor Jairo Acuna-Alfaro suggested that Vietnam oversees the assets of government officials as in other countries.

Mr. Jairo Acuna-Alfaro.

Now that Vietnam has ratified the UN Convention against Corruption, what does the country commit to doing regarding asset declarations and conflicts of interest?

Article 8 of UNCAC is about codes of conduct for public officials, and it calls for State Parties, now including Vietnam, to promote “honesty and responsibility among its public officials”. In particular, article 8.5 calls for the establishment of “measures and systems requiring public officials to make declarations to appropriate authorities regarding among other things outside activities, employment, investments, assets and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of interest may result with respect to their functions as public officials”.

Formally speaking, Vietnam already has comprehensive legislation on asset declaration, yet in practical terms, its implementation is unrealistic and there is not much value in not making these declarations publically available. The former is corroborated with the huge number of public officials and civil servants involved, and the latter by the absence of monitoring the accuracy and veracity of the declarations.

What are other countries’ experiences in terms of asset declaration/disclosure by civil/public officials? What are the sanctions for the late, untruthful declarations?

Each country’s legal and normative framework regarding assets declarations is different. Yet, one element in common are regulations concerning the disclosure of assets and interests to help prevent conflicts of interest among public officials and civil servants. As it increases the transparency of decision-making processes promotes accountability for public office holders for their actions.

The scope of disclosure also varies considerably from country to country. Some countries prefer to restrict disclosure requirements to senior office holders or those in sensitive positions, others require declaration of less senior public officials. Only a few countries (including Vietnam) require asset disclosure of all public officials and civil servants at all levels. However, the best results tend to be one where they restrict the declaration to senior public officials, as it is more realistically manageable.

In terms of sanctions, again, different countries have different provisions. In Mexico, for example the non declaration of assets leads to a temporary suspension from the post for up to 15 days. If the omission persists for 30 days after the date of suspension, the official’s contract can be annulled. In terms of making inaccurate statements, Mexico’s legal system stipulates a suspension for no less than three days and no more than three months (depending of the severity of the offence the official can also be dismissed for between one to five years).

In the case of The Philippines, failure of an official or employee to correct and submit their asset declaration may lead to suspension from one to six months if it is a first offense. In it happens again the official in question can be dismissed from public service. The Philippines also stipulates criminal charges including imprisonment not exceeding five years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) for violation of the requirements of asset declaration, or both.

In addition, there is a penalty against the Head of Office and/or the Chief or Head of the Personnel or Administrative Divisions who fail to perform duties relative to the processing of asset statements.

Another example is Thailand. In this country, any person that intentionally fails to submit an asset declaration must vacate his or her office as from the date of the expiration of the time-limit set . They are not allowed to take a position as a State official for the period of five years as from the date of their leaving of office.

There is a separate system for officials to declare their property/income every year. Of course, no one should have access to personal accounts - but, is it true that in some countries, everyone can have access to the information on income of Government officials?

Yes, in some countries, the public can have access to asset declarations and statements in one way or another. These countries include Latvia, Mexico, Romania, Uganda, the United States, the Philippines, and Thailand, to name a few.

In fact, without public access or oversight, or fair and effective enforcement, disclosure will likely have a limited impact. Variations also exist in terms of methods of recording and publishing declarations, including institutions and bodies in charge of monitoring and evaluating disclosure.

The Philippines for instance has set up a Data Bank System to store statements of assets, and liabilities installed in the Office of the Ombudsman to capture statements filed at the Central Office.

This system has the potential to track compliance by producing a report showing a list of filers who filed statements in previous years. It might also be useful in trend analysis by providing data about the yearly percentage increase.

The public has access to declarations and statements but with certain limitations. Public access to asset declaration is defined in the Philippines’ law that ten days after they have been filed, any person is allowed to copy or reproduce the declarations by paying a reasonable fee. Asset statements are available to the public for a period of ten (10) years after receipt of the statement.

For Thailand, the National Counter Corruption Commission inspects the change of assets and liabilities, and prepares an inspection report. Such a report shall be published in the Government Gazette. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in Thailand provides information to the public in terms of ownership and shareholders participation in enterprises and business.

This can also help in identifying which private corporations, public officials have interests involved. For South Korea, declarations made by top and middle level public officials are published by the Government in a national public gazette. These are available in public libraries and are also widely reported in the press.

What could Vietnam do to improve effectiveness of assets declarations already compiled?

As mentioned earlier, Vietnam is one of the few countries in the world with the widest scope of disclosure involving the entire civil service system. This is proving to be difficult to manage and implement given the huge amount of declarations and the limited resources available to the agencies in charge of verifying and monitoring accuracy.

Several options can be considered for the near future, including (i) random verification, (ii) reducing the scope to senior public officials and civil servants, (iii) giving autonomy to provinces to verify and check accuracy of declarations, (iv) allowing non-governmental groups and media to have access to declarations under certain conditions. These options are not exclusive of one another and a combination of them can be implemented relatively easy.

For the longer term, careful consideration needs to be placed in (i) reducing the scope of public officials and civil servants that need to declare and international experience suggests limiting it to a few selected senior positions, (ii) making them available for verification, and (iii) strengthening the agency in charge of monitoring.

Vietnam is drafting a separate law of protecting whistle blowers. Could you kindly provide some experience from other countries? No country can ensure absolute security for whistle blowers but how do you maximize protection?

This is a very good question, and requires careful consideration. This is precisely one of the key findings of a 2005 diagnostics survey on corruption by the former Central Committee on Internal Affairs. The great majority of civil servants and business staff were not enthusiastic in fighting corruption as they are afraid of being victimized, and not protected.

Very few countries have put in place specific legislations regulating the protection of denunciators or whistle-blowers who report corrupt practices. Global Integrity’s report available at http://report.globalintegrity.org/ provides valuable information from international experiences. In this report, Japan and the United Sates are among the few countries that have launched whistle-blower protection acts. In the case of Japan, the act is to protect workers reporting misconducts of businesses.

There is no act that specifically protects public sector whistle blowers. They are in principle treated and protected the same as other workers. However, there are some exceptions for public sector servants and, in some cases, the National Public Service Act, the Official Ethics Act, and others can have priority over the general Whistle-Blowers Act.

In practice, according to the Global Integrity, the Whistle-Blowers Protection Act does not seem to have been firmly established in the public sector. Public sector whistle-blowers seem to face substantial negative consequences, such as losing their jobs, being relocating to less prominent positions, or other forms of harassment.

Global Integrity also highlights that in some Southeast Asian countries (Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia), attempts to introduce whistle-blower and witness protection programmes have been made. Also, Malaysia has introduced a witness protection programme in Parliament as part of efforts to protect whistle-blowers in corruption cases.

Under this bill, the Attorney General approves applications by whistle-blowers who have met an exhaustive list of criteria, including passing physical and mental examinations. In the case of the Philippines, there are eight pending whistle-blowing bills in the House and Senate. The currently existing legal framework that protects witnesses of criminal acts in the Philippines is known as the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act.

Funds and facilities are needed to implement measures to protect denunciators, which are regulated by UN Convention on Anti-Corruption. Is it very costly? For example,“to take the witness’s testimony via modern telecom equipment”?

Again, this is a very good question that requires careful consideration in the Vietnamese context. But rather than thinking about “costly” procedures, it may be much more appropriate to consider “benefits” from an effective implementation.

Xuan Linh