The issue of publicity, transparency and accountability of state agencies in the constitutions of Vietnam

Accordingly, the Law on Access to Information stipulates that information content must be disclosed: Legal documents; administrative documents with general application value; internatio[r]

THE ISSUE OF PUBLICITY, TRANSPARENCY

AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF STATE AGENCIES

IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF VIETNAM

Professor Phan Trung Ly

Saigon International University, Vietnam

Nguyen Trung Thanh

Environmental and Social Science Institute, Vietnam

Abstract

The Constitutional Law plays an essential role in the Vietnamese legal system, especially the regulations

on the organization and operation of state agencies Along with the development of the Constitutional Law, in Vietnam, the principles of publicity, transparency and accountability have also gradually been formed and become one of the requirements of the state of law, one of the principles of organizing and operating of the state and society, and

The birth of the 2013 Constitution is the basis to specify publicity, transparency and accountability

in the areas of life, especially in the operation of state agencies Based on the related provisions of the 2013 Constitution, the legal framework of publicity, transparency and accountability of the state apparatus have been gradually completed.

Keywords: publicity, transparency, accountability, constitution, Vietnam

Acknowledgement: This research is funded by the Project titled “Công khai, minh bạch và

trách nhiệm giải trình trong tổ chức và hoạt động của các cơ quan hành chính nhà nước đáp ứng yêu cầu xây dựng nhà nước pháp quyền xã hội chủ nghĩa” (Code Number: 41/2019/HĐ -

ĐTCT-KX.01/16-20, being imlemented by the Environmental and Social Science Institute, Vietnam)

1 Introduction

The need for publicity and transparency has a long history in both politics and economics In the United Kingdom and the United States, since the early 1900s, a large number of small investors have demonstrated the ability to exert significant political pressure on the government to set standards for corporate disclosure, protect them from deception and insider trading That reflects significant changes in the nature of business and investment in the US, as some companies have become too large to avoid oversight and the number of small investors has increased significantly In the 1920s, the American Investment Banking Association tried to promote financial disclosure, and the New

York Stock Exchange officially recommended that all listed companies publish quarterly reports on the minimum financial information At the same time, the American Institute of Accountants began promoting the development of auditing and accounting standards, and encouraged the Stock Exchange

to go in this direction In 1933, the New York Stock Exchange announced that from that time, it would require independent audits of companies wishing to be listed on the exchange

By 1934, the Securities Trading Act allowed the establishment of a governing body, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to oversee a range of new mandatory activities for corporate information disclosure Companies whose securities are listed on national stock exchanges are therefore required to submit periodic reports In the following years, the Commission worked with the American Institute of Accountants to set new standards and principles of accounting and auditing After World War II, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly acknowledged the right to “freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”1But with the expansion of bureaucratic systems in many countries and with the emergence

of multinational corporations and large intergovernmental organizations, new concentrations of power led to the withholding of information from people affected by them At the same time, the Cold War led to the rise of an extremely secretive national security complex in the traditional fortress

of transparency in the United States

A key milestone for transparency was the introduction of the US Freedom of Information Act

in 1966, which was then strengthened in 1974 In the 1980s, transnational networks of civil society activists have launched campaigns to demand information from international organizations, especially the World Bank The East and West have negotiated a number of arms control agreements, including verification rules that make the security facilities of the two sides increasingly transparent to each other But the real explosion of global demand for publicity and transparency was in the 1990s At that time, the end of the Cold War with the spread of democratic rules, the power of civil society organizations and the proliferation of independent media around the world have increased pressure

on the governments to demand disclosure of information for their citizens At the same time, global economic integration has prompted international investors (and governments of rich countries) to publish national and business accounts in emerging economies, especially in the wake of the Asian crisis, which many people blamed the excessive secrecy of Asian corporations and governments International financial institutions, which promote major economic integration, require information from governments and then post that information on websites Those international organizations themselves face strong pressure from activists around the world to publicly disclose their analysis and decision-making processes All of these needs are supported by the development of information technology, making it easier than ever to find and share information

Sweden proudly proclaimed the first country to adopt the Freedom of Press Act, which required access to government information, in 1766 Finland was also the country that soon adopted, with the Act on Openness of Public Documents in 1951 The United States followed shortly with the Freedom

of Information Act in 1966, although until 1974 when the Act was strengthened in response to the Watergate scandal, the new implementation began The number of countries that passed the Freedom

1 Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

of Information Act (FOIA) increased, with five more in the 1970s and six more in the 1980s By the 1990s, a wave of nations began discussing the government’s need to increase transparency, with 12 countries enacting Free Information laws South Africa has strong, transparent provisions enshrined

in the 1996 constitution Also in the 1990s, the United States passed the Electronic Freedom of Information Act to expand the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and correct information not available in hard print

However, even in countries with strong Freedom of Information laws, officials who want to hide the information find ways to keep it a secret In the case of the United States, for example, the implementation of the law did not meet expectations Part of the problem is a shortage of funds and personnel to respond to the 600,000 requests made by the law each year Some agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Energy and the State, take an average of one or two years to respond And often, these responses include heavily empty documents Worse is the implementation of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act in 1996, which required government agencies to create computer databases, electronic documents, word processing documents and even emails which were accessible by the public to create “e-reading rooms” that contain important information and to publish an annual report on their Freedom of information Although many agencies had created the necessary websites, many of them were difficult to find and incomplete, and comply with electronic information requests encounters all the problems with paper documents

As the world integrates, international organizations are becoming important factors in the debate

on transparency These organizations are particularly interesting factors, because they are on both sides at the same time: require greater transparency from others, but often resist the application of transparency principles to themselves

For many years, the World Bank (WB) and especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have pressed their member governments to provide public information on a range of their own economic and financial data They argue that such transparency is necessary if countries want to attract foreign investment Since 1996, the IMF has had a set of special data disclosure standards for countries that have been or are seeking to access international capital markets Countries that have not tried to integrate into the global economy are expected to follow a less stringent joint data disclosure standard The IMF has also adopted a Code of Conduct for Financial Transparency and has issued

a Fiscal Transparency Handbook Thus, publicity is a historical concept whose establishment and development is the premise and prerequisite of democracy in the activities of human society

2 Understanding publicity, transparency and accountability in Vietnam

2.1 Publicity, transparency

The term “transparency” is understood to be open, frank and honest in all communications, transactions and activities In public administration, transparency is understood as appropriate, reliable and timely information about the activities of the government and agencies in the administrative system must be readily available and accessible

According to the Vietnamese General Dictionary, edited by Nguyen Nhu Y, “publicity” means

“not hidden and secret, but everyone knows it” (16) The phrase “Publicity” often accompanies and attaches to the phrase “Transparency” Also, according to the dictionary, transparency is “clear” (16)

With such meaning and nature, “publicity and transparency” are always used as an effective measure

to prevent and combat negative behaviours in organized activities, especially activities of the agencies which are given public power

In Vietnam, in the Report on the corruption investigation in Vietnam, chaired by the Central Committee for Internal Affairs, published in 2005, has identified that building a public and transparent society to prevent and combat corruption is a very important solution Institutionalizing the Party’s policies and the 2005 Anti-Corruption Law has identified publicity and transparency in activities of agencies, organizations and units as the most important measure to prevent corruption In a press release at the 3rd Anti-Corruption Dialogue, held in June 2008 by the Central Steering Committee for Anti-Corruption - Government Inspectorate - Embassy of Sweden in Vietnam concluded that

“Publicity and transparency are the keys to ensure successful fight against corruption”

In the operation of the state apparatus, “publicity” means that all activities of the state must

be announced or disseminated, transmitted on the mass media, making it easily accessible to all people “Transparency” means not only to be open, but also to be clear, not hidden, not complicated, and not difficult for citizens to access information Transparency is always linked to responsibility, requiring government and officials to publicize the implementation process for interested parties In this respect, transparency has a close relationship with accountability, because accountability tends to

be public and ensures the conditions for disclosure

2.2 Accountability

According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), accountability consists of two groups: vertical accountability and horizontal accountability Horizontal accountability is the mechanism of restraint - counterbalance between the three branches of legislative, executive and judicial power Vertical accountability is the relationship between citizens and the public - those who are empowered to make decisions, but citizens have the ability to influence that decision-making process (18)

Accountability is also recognized under two levels: accountability in the state agency system and accountability to society (17) Accountability in the state system is the responsibility to report and explain

in advance to the superior or supervisory authorities about a specific issue or about their activities Meanwhile, the implementation of accountability to society is a responsibility carried out by officials and public servants who are the holders of power, representing the state, with the other party which is the people and must be attached to people’s participates directly or indirectly Because when people are involved in the activities of state agencies, there is a basis to monitor the contents and the process of work performance, thereby creating a basis to make a request for the implementation of accountability When referring to the government’s accountability, the research views suggest that government accountability is often seen in two main dimensions: (i) political accountability - the explanation of politicians to citizens of their political responsibility for related issues; (ii) explanation in the legal aspect that is the explanation of civil servants and officials when letting events occur that affects the correctness in the performance of duties and public duties With the explanation of the politicians, the explanation to the voters, to the people; explanation of officials and public employees in their performance of duties and official duties, the explanation to the leaders, and related people, affected

by the decisions and acts of officials and civil servants (19)

In Vietnam, accountability is understood as obligations of state agencies, organizations and officials, civil servants and authorities, to publicize, explain and clarify information to people and other organizations on a regular basis and /or when required, and take responsibility when there are any consequences Ensuring accountability associated with the concepts, mechanisms and legal provisions

on publicity, transparency and democracy in the activities of public authorities In recent years, ensuring the transparency of state administrative agencies is mentioned as one of the requirements of improving the efficiency of state management, ensuring democracy in the state’s operations and a requirement of the implementation of international commitments

On a large scale, accountability is the responsibility of ensuring the publicity and transparency

of the entire state apparatus Many legal documents of countries around the world as well as Vietnam approach and regulate this responsibility Accountability basically means to make sure the people, the state and non-state organizations have the legal basis and the ability to compel state agencies and civil servants to explain what they have done and have not done in the course of duty External accountability

is expressed in various forms, in which the people and non-state actors play a key role in requesting the branches and levels to perform the accountability

Thus, domestic and foreign research works have common points when acknowledging accountability as a term related to the expectations of the people and mandators for the responsibility

of the authorized people All authorizations go hand in hand with accountability Accountability is an acknowledgment of responsibility for every action, product, decision or policy made by an attorney

in leading, managing, and performing the work, in association with the obligations to report, explain and justify the consequences caused The obligation of explanation is understood as fulfilling the obligation to provide adequate information, the obligation to justify the actions of the authorized person in the past, present or future and to suffer punishment if causes consequences Therefore, the term “accountability” needs to be understood in terms of “attributable to responsibility” - that is, what happens must be responsible, so that the subject of power can reward or punish authorized people

3 Publicity, transparency and accountability in Vietnam’s constitutions

3.1 Publicity and transparency in Vietnam’s constitutions

Right after independence, President Ho Chi Minh on behalf of the nation, proclaimed the establishment of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on September 2, 1945 and the 1946 Constitution

was evaluated as progressive and democratic as any constitution in the world on civil rights: “The

Parliament has a public meeting, the public can listen The media is allowed to report on the Parliament’s discussions and resolutions” 1 and “the court sessions must be public, except in special

cases 2, which also shows the publicity and transparency in the implementation of laws on the rights and obligations of legislatures and the people

However, due to the historical context and practical conditions, the law has not prescribed that the State must make the information and data created during the operation, administration and management of the state public and transparent

1 Article 30, The 1946 Constitution of Vietnam.

2 Article 67, The 1946 Constitution of Vietnam.

Thus, the legislative ideology of the 1946 Constitution only stipulates the publicity of meetings

of the Parliament (the legislature of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) or information related

to judicial activities of the Court (justice agency at that time) As the original law, the Constitution

of 1946 has not shown the principle of publicity, transparency of operations, administration, state management, as well as the right to access to information of the people (the owner of the country) Therefore, the policies and laws in this period did not reflect the responsibilities and obligations of public offices in the disclosure and transparency of the data and created information

The 1992 Constitution has expanded democracy with the rule that “citizens have the right to be informed”1 However, the responsibility to proactively and transparently disclose information in the Constitution is still not specified

The 1992 Constitution and its amendments in 2001 do not provide information in disclosure and transparency, but in the spirit of democracy, the implementation of the civil rights law, the 2005 Anti-Corruption Law - the first law defined the concept of publicity, transparency and generalized the principle of publicity and transparency in the activities of agencies, organizations and units when participating in the country management Accordingly, publicity is the announcement, provision of official information about a particular document, activity or content by an agency, organization or unit2; policies, laws and the implementation of policies and laws must be public, transparent, fair and democratic; agencies, organizations and units must publicize their activities, except for contents classified as state secrets and contents prescribed by the Government3 In addition to defining the responsibility for information disclosure and transparency of agencies and units, the Law also specifies forms of information disclosure for people The promulgation of the Anti-Corruption Law

in 2005 was marked as an important step in the implementation of democracy and human rights and continued to be shown in the amended Anti-Corruption Law in 2007 and 2012 However, The Law on Anti-Corruption is just a “sub-law”, with no legal value in adjusting other laws

In addition, the 2007 Ordinance on exercise of democracy in communes, wards and townships covers a wide range of issues related to public disclosure and transparency of information to the people with the principle of implementing publicity and transparency in the process of exercising democracy

at the commune level4 Basically, the Vietnamese state administrative apparatus is organized in 4 levels: Central, provincial, district and commune The commune is the smallest administrative level, but the entire population is under the direct management of this level, so the regulation of publicity and transparency

at the commune level also helps people access information in law implementation on the publicity and transparency of the state

In the spirit of democracy, human rights and gradually building a socialist rule-of-law state, the

2013 Constitution clearly stipulates “The State creates conditions for citizens to participate in state and

social management; openness and transparency in receiving and responding to citizens’ opinions and recommendations 5 This is considered a principle of publicity and transparency when all state management agencies have the obligation to receive and respond to people’s opinions and requests when required The

1 Article 69, The 1992 Constitution of Vietnam.

2 Clause 2, Article 2 , T he 2005 Anti-Corruption Law.

3 Article 11, The 2005 Anti-Corruption Law.

4 Article 2, Ordinance on exercise of democracy in communes, wards and townships.

5 Article 28, The 2013 Constitution of Vietnam.

appearance of publicity and transparency in the Constitution - The original national law is very important and meaningful, it shows the ideological orientation for “sub-laws” to follow Publicity and transparency are then considered as a compulsory principle when formulating laws in particular and building a socialist rule of law state in general

Institutionalizing and concretising the 2013 Constitution, the Law on Access to Information in 2016 and the Law on Anti-Corruption in 2018 also stipulate in detail the principles of disclosure, form of disclosure and which content created by government agencies to be disclosed

Accordingly, the Law on Access to Information stipulates that information content must be disclosed: Legal documents; administrative documents with general application value; international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a signatory; international agreements to which Vietnam is a party; administrative procedures, work-handling procedures of state agencies; Disseminate information and guidance on the implementation of laws, regulations, and policies for fields under the management of state agencies; Draft legal documents in accordance with the law

on promulgation of legal documents; content and results of referendums, assimilation of people’s opinions on matters falling under the deciding competence of state agencies, which are submitted for collection of people’s opinions in accordance with law; schemes and drafts of projects on the establishment, dissolution, merging and division of administrative units, adjustment of administrative boundaries; Strategy, program, project, scheme, plan, socioeconomic development plan of the country

or locality; sector planning, field and mode, results of implementation; annual work programs and plans of state agencies; Information about state budget estimates; report on implementation of state budget; settlement of state budget; cost estimates, implementation and final settlement of capital construction programs and projects funded with state budget capital; State budget procedures; Information on the allocation, management and use of official development assistance capital and non-government aid as prescribed; information on management and use of relief and social allowances; managing and using people’s contributions and types of funds; Information about the list of public investment projects, programs, public procurement and management and use of public investment capital, the situation and results of implementation of public investment plans, programs and projects; bidding information; information on zoning and planning land use; land prices; land acquisition; compensation, site clearance, and resettlement plans related to projects and works in the locality; Information on activities of investing, managing and using state capital in enterprises; report

on evaluation of operation results and classification of enterprises; report on monitoring the public performance of financial information of the enterprise and the state agency representing the owner; information on the organization and operation of state enterprises; Information on products, goods and services that have a negative impact on health and the environment; conclusions of examination, inspection and supervision related to environmental protection, community health, food safety and labour safety; Information on functions, duties, powers, organizational structure of agencies and affiliated units; tasks and powers of cadres and civil servants who directly handle people’s affairs; internal rules and regulations promulgated by state agencies; Periodic working reports; Annual financial reports; statistical information on branches and fields of management; national database of sectors and fields; information on recruitment, employment, management of cadres, civil servants and public employees; information on the list and results of programs and scientific topics; The list

of information must be publicized according to the provisions at Point b, Clause 1, Article 34 of this Law; name, address, telephone number, fax number, email address of the state agency or person

acting as the focal point receiving the request for information provision; Information related to public benefits, health of the community; Information on taxes, fees and charges; Other information must

be disclosed in accordance with the law and be proactive in disclosing other information created or held by them

On the other hand, the 2018 Anti-Corruption Law also stipulates that information must be public:

“1 Agencies, organizations and units must publicize and be transparent according to law provisions

on the following contents: a) Implementation of policies and laws with contents related to the lawful rights and interests of officials and civil servants; workers; officers and soldiers in the armed forces and citizens; b) The arrangement, management and use of public finance, public assets or funds mobilized from other lawful sources; c) Organization and personnel work of agencies, organizations and units; codes of conduct of empowered people; d) The implementation of policies and laws that do not fall under the cases prescribed at Point a, b and c of this Clause but must be public and transparent according to law provisions 2 Agencies, organizations and units directly handling affairs of agencies, organizations, units and individuals other than the contents of publicity and transparency prescribed

in Clause 1 of this Article must also be public and transparent of administrative procedures.”

The Resolution of the 12th National Party Congress also indirectly acknowledges the publicity and transparency in the management and administration of the country, with the overall goal of creating

a clean, strong and advanced Party and improving leadership and fighting power of the Party ; Building the organizational structure of the entire streamlined political system, effective and efficient operation, promoting the fight against corruption1 Thus, in order to have a strong and clean political system, repel corruption, it is necessary to improve the supervision of the people with the government

by applying publicity, transparency, democracy, human rights and the socialist rule of law state In the process of building a socialist rule-of-law state, the system of policies and laws of Vietnam has also been gradually improved, ensuring comprehensive, people-centred in policy formulation and implementation However, in order to implement the law on publicity and transparency effect or

“People know, people discuss, people do, people check, supervise” of President Ho Chi Minh, it is necessary to specify more on the ideology and awareness of the entire political system, cadres, civil servants and capacity, the people’s legal awareness of their rights and obligations

3.2 Accountability in Vietnam’s constitutions

The 2013 Constitution and various legal documents, such as the Law on Organization of the National Assembly (2014), the Law on Organization of the Government (2015), the Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents (2015), the Operation Law Monitoring activities of the National Assembly and People’s Councils (2015), the Law on Access to Information (2016), etc., provided information on the accountability of the Government and state administrative agencies Through research, we can generalize the accountability of state administrative agencies in Vietnam through the following contents:

Firstly, on the subject and the object of accountability in the exercise of state power.

The 2013 Constitution and various legal documents provide relatively specific provisions Article 94

of the 2013 Constitution states that: “The Government is responsible to the National Assembly for reporting

1 Resolution of the 12th National Congress.

its work to the National Assembly, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly and the President.” Accordingly, the accountant is firstly the Prime Minister, who is most responsible for all activities of the Government, and the state administrative system is accountable to the National Assembly for the Government’s activities and the assigned tasks; report on the Government’s work, etc The Prime Minister shall comply with the regime of reporting to the people through the mass media on important issues falling under the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s handling competence1; The Prime Minister “explain and answer questions from the National Assembly and the National Assembly Standing Committee”2

Next is the Ministers of ministerial-level agencies, who are the subject of accountability under the 2013 Constitution Ministers and Prime Ministers of ministerial-level agencies are personally responsible to the Prime Minister, the Government and the National Assembly for assigned branches and domains, together with other members of the Government are collectively responsible for the Government’s activities3; responsible for reporting to the Government and the Prime Minister, and

at the same time reporting to the People on important issues under their management4

In addition, the Government is also responsible for synthesizing, researching, explaining and receiving comments from relevant agencies, organizations and individuals; publicize information, publish explanatory reports on the Government’s Web Portal5

Besides, the 2005 State Audit Law stipulates that the state administrative agencies are one of the subjects responsible for reporting explanations on matters related to revenue and expenditure under the scope of regulation of the State Budget Law in 2002, together with the order and procedures for conducting audits, as well as the rights and obligations of state auditors, the obligation to report on explanations of state administrative agencies

The 2008 Law on Cadres and Civil Servants, stipulating the obligations of cadres and civil servants as the heads to be responsible for the activities of the agencies and units under their charge Closely connect with people, listen to their opinions and submit to their supervision6.

Secondly, the provisions on the content of explanation.

The explanatory subject is the Prime Minister, the content of the explanation is the tasks and powers prescribed by the law for each position, title of the Government member associated with the rationality, legality and effectiveness in carrying out that task, the title The Law on Organization of the Government (2015), Article 27 states: The Government must be responsible to the National Assembly for performing its duties and powers, for the results, effectiveness, management and administration of State administrative apparatus, policies and proposals proposed by the National Assembly The law also stipulates that the Prime Minister “is responsible to the National Assembly for the activities of the Government and the state administrative system from the central to local levels; on decisions and the results of its implementation within the scope of its assigned powers”7

1 Clause 6, Article 98, The 2013 Constitution of Vietnam.

2 Clause 2, Article 29, Law on Organization of the Government in 2015.

3 Clause 4, Article 95, The 2013 Constitution of Vietnam.

4 Clause 2, Article 99, The 2013 Constitution of Vietnam; Article 33 and 34, Law on Organization of the Government

in 2015.

5 Clauses 3, Article 34 and Article 36, the Law on Promulgation of Legislative Documents.

6 Article 8& 9, Law on Cadres and Civil Servants.

7 Clause 1, Article 29, Law on Organization of the Government in 2015.

For members of the Government, as heads of ministries, ministerial-level agencies, ministers and heads of ministerial-level agencies shall personally take responsibility for all aspects of their ministries and ministerial-level agencies’ work, direct the attached units to organize the implementation of strategies, plans, approved programs and projects, the tasks of the ministries and ministerial-level agencies assigned by the Government ”1

According to Decree 90/2013 / ND-CP, state administrative agencies in general, must explain all contents under its management, except for contents such as information related to the country’s secrets; related to the direction and organization of the performance of tasks and official duties within the state agencies; in the executive direction of superior administrative agencies with subordinate administrative agencies; information belonging to private secrets; information belonging to business secrets; contents that have been explained or have been settled by a competent agency.2

Thirdly, in terms of form and method of performing accountability

The forms and methods of the government’s accountability prescribed in Vietnam’s legal system are quite diverse

Objects of explanation are the Prime Minister and members of the Government: The Law on Organization of the Government (2015) stipulates that the Government’s accountability is accountable

to the National Assembly and the President periodically and even irregularly based on the request of the National Assembly, the National Assembly Standing Committee, and the President In addition, according to Article 80, the 2013 Constitution and Clause 2, Article 32 of the Law on Organization of the National Assembly (2014) also stipulates in detail the form of the National Assembly’s questioning

to the Government and consider answering interrogatories by the Government Accordingly, the interpellated person must answer to the National Assembly at the session or at the meeting of the National Assembly Standing Committee during the period between two National Assembly sessions,

in case of necessity, the National Assembly Standing Committee allows the person to give written response.” The Law on Supervisory Activities of the National Assembly and People’s Councils (2015) also stipulates that there are two types of questions of the National Assembly deputies: questions of the National Assembly deputies at the National Assembly sessions and the questions of National Assembly deputies in mid-session.3

For state administrative agencies, Article 11 of Decree 90/2013/ND-CP stipulates that the request for

an explanation is “executed in writing or directly at the responsible state agency Accordingly, the forms

of explanation of state administrative agencies are also carried out in two forms: written explanation and direct explanation The officer who receives the request for an explanation must honestly present the content of the request for an explanation in writing For the implementation of the explanation, the direct explanation requests have simple content, the presenter can explain it directly For other due diligence requests, the person conducting the explanation must carefully study the content of the request for explanation; collect and verify relevant information; work directly with requesters for clarification

of relevant contents if necessary; send explanatory documents to the requesters for explanation, in case

of necessity, publicize such explanatory documents as prescribed by law4

1 Article 34, Law on Organization of the Government.

2 Clause 1, Article 5, Decree 90/2013 / ND-CP.

3 Article 15 and Article 26, Law on supervisory activities of the National Assembly and People’s Councils (2015)

4 Article 13, Decree 90/2013 / ND-CP.