Bùi Sỹ Lợi, former deputy chairman of the National Assembly's Social Affairs Committee. VNA/VNS Photo

The Ministry of Home Affairs is canvassing opinions on a draft decree to streamline the civil service, including whether civil servants that have been issued warnings or disciplinary measures should voluntarily leave their positions. 

Bùi Sỹ Lợi, former deputy chairman of the National Assembly's Social Affairs Committee, talks to the media about the proposed changes. 

In this draft decree, the Ministry of Home Affairs proposes civil servants or public employees voluntarily leave their positions after being given warnings or disciplinary measures, if such actions get approved by their higher managers. What do you think about this?

They should do so, in my opinion. If you received warnings or disciplinary measures, your credibility in office has gone. If you are considered for a penalty, that means you don’t have good performance originally. Therefore, leaving the position, in this case, is necessary.

Secondly, those who do not have the expertise or professional skills, and no practical capacity, they should also leave. No matter what you want to do, you must first have professional knowledge. If not, how can you do your job well?

Civil servants and public employees who are not enthusiastic and have no responsibility for their work are hindering the development of their units. Such cases also need to be cut off, creating motivation for state agencies and units.

In the case of those who don't have sufficient ability for their profession, they should leave as well. We don’t want officers who just come for attendance and those who can’t contribute anything to their units. 

However, there are opinions that officers, who are passionate and willing to work and take responsibility, make mistakes that lead to warnings or disciplinary measures. It would be a pity if we propose they leave and we might be losing talent in that case. What is your opinion?

I personally worry about that as well. Therefore, we have to consider carefully, fairly and impartially in every case, otherwise, we may cut off the wrong ones. People who are passionate, and willing to work and take responsibility can make mistakes. If mistakes are made not for personal profit, we should carefully consider letting them stay. We should not let them go in that case.

However, for those in high-ranking positions, if it's a very small wrongdoing for the sake of self-interest and personal gain, it harms the collective interests and the interests of the State. However, there can't be a "brain drain". For those who are misled because the salary is not enough to live, that is not a wrongdoing. There must be a mechanism to find a way to keep them.

And then there are those who are frank and honest, who dare to fight for collective interests but struggle in the face of obstacles. Such cases should not be included in the downsizing scale.

Sometimes people ask to leave, but you have to be determined to advocate for them to stay because they are really talented people. Maybe want to leave just for a certain reason, for example, they do not agree with the way their seniors operate the units.

Other noticeable things in the draft decree are two proposed ways of compensation for those who are encouraged to leave. The figure up for debate is between half and a month's basic salary. What do you agree with?

If we can pay a higher amount, I think it would be better. It can encourage them to leave or retire early, and provide them with a chance to find another job, before arriving at the retirement age when they are eligible for receiving pensions.

However, how can we execute it? If we pay higher for public officers means we have to have more funds for it, but where are our resources for it?

We have to all agree that resources for this have to come from the central government’s fund. We cannot leave it to local authorities when some don’t even have sufficient funds and resources. This leads to conflicts and unfairness.

We need to have a synthesise policy as well: for example, officers have to receive all the compensation at once, within a month. We can’t just give them monthly expenses for a month or half a month's worth of salary, because they can’t have sufficient funds for a new job. We have to carefully consider that.

So to execute this decree effectively, what do you think should be done?

The most important thing is that we have to have the funding before ordering local authorities to execute it. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, resources for social security allocated to localities had not been spent effectively in some areas. 

Don't make a manifesto: it's easy to just talk, but the implementation must have principles. I support both options proposed by the drafting committee, but they must address that fundamental issue.

On the other hand, it is also necessary to educate and provide information among cadres, civil servants and public employees to clearly understand the goals and meanings of downsizing and salary reform.

Those who are disciplined must be those included in streamlining as I just mentioned. Because if one does wrongdoing, what do you stay for? Meanwhile, people who are capable and dedicated to work may return, because the current flow is shifting from the public sector to the private sector.

The important issue of downsizing staff and apparatus is for the state agencies to operate effectively creating a driving force for development. To do so, people with intelligence and creative ability must be kept. If you keep incompetent people and push competent ones out of the system, there will be consequences. This has happened many times in the past. Therefore, it is necessary to change awareness and create consensus among civil servants and public employees about the importance of proper streamlining. VNS