Draft Law on Supervisory Activities of the National Assembly and People's Councils (amended) To fully exercise people's power

The discussion session on the morning of October 24 at Dien Hong Hall on the Draft Law on Supervision Activities of the National Assembly and People's Councils (amended) was not only heated by the delegates' debates, but also extended by the concerns of voters nationwide when following through the media. Because supervision - if it only stops at "listening, recording and leaving it there" - then the People's power has not been fully exercised.

More importantly is the financial independence of the People's Council at the commune level.

At the discussion session, many National Assembly members pointed out a paradox: the People's Council is the representative body of the People, but the People's Council's supervisory power, especially at the grassroots level, is being limited. I highly agree with the discussion opinions of National Assembly member Vu Hong Luyen (Hung Yen) and National Assembly member Siu Huong (Gia Lai) when they said that it is necessary to clearly define the supervisory authority of the Delegation, because only when the People's Council Delegation's supervisory authority is legalized can we ensure the spirit of "being close to the people", especially when we are implementing a 2-level local government. Otherwise, the most effective and closest supervision channel to the people will be left empty. As delegate Siu Huong suggested, the draft law should more clearly define the responsibility of the People's Council Standing Committee in assigning tasks and monitoring the supervision results of the People's Council Delegation, ensuring that this activity is not a formality - Mr. Pham Van Hien, a voter of Hai Van ward, Da Nang city shared.

National Assembly Delegate Vu Hong Luyen ( Hung Yen ) speaks at the hall. Photo: Ho Long

Mr. Kieu Quang Ha, a voter of Bac Hong Linh ward, Ha Tinh province, frankly said: Legalizing the supervisory authority of the People's Council Delegation is very necessary, but more importantly, there must be financial independence for the People's Council at the commune level. Currently, if we have to ask for funding for supervision from the agency we are supervising, how can we be objective? If we do not untie this "bottleneck", supervision will hardly be effective. Therefore, in the regulations on ensuring supervision activities, it is necessary to specify more clearly the mandatory provision of resources and ensure financial independence for the People's Council.

This opinion has pointed out the biggest “bottleneck” in monitoring activities at the grassroots level - that is, financial dependence on the supervised agency itself. Therefore, many opinions believe that the regulation of having only one account holder, the Chairman of the People's Committee at the commune level, as in the previous 3-level local government model, should not be maintained. Instead, it is necessary to study and adjust so that the People's Council at the commune level has its own account holder, in order to ensure independence in activities, especially monitoring activities. Because currently, the commune level has expanded its scope, scale, and the nature of its activities is completely different from before.

In many localities, agencies and enterprises such as electricity, clean water companies, environmental sanitation units, regional tax offices, People's Courts, People's Procuracy... - although directly serving the people, are not under the management of the commune. When there are problems, the Commune People's Council wants to supervise but does not have the authority. Voters ask: If the Commune People's Council cannot supervise them, who will supervise? This is the reason why voters expect the Draft Law to expand the scope of supervision, not only "according to administrative levels" but also according to residential areas and people's livelihoods. When the Commune People's Council can supervise all agencies and units operating in the area, the new Law will truly be close to the people and touch their lives.

Post-monitoring - “the final point to complete”

Supervision does not stop at “discovering problems”, but must lead to “changes after supervision”. But that is a big “gap” in practice. “I agree with the viewpoint of delegate Nguyen Thi Suu (Thua Thien Hue Delegation) when she frankly said: The current law does not bind the responsibility to implement recommendations after supervision, leading to the situation where supervision is over and done with. Therefore, it is very necessary to clearly stipulate in the Law sanctions to ensure the implementation of supervision recommendations - this is the factor that affirms the effectiveness of this activity - Mr. Ngo Duc Thai - voter of Hung Nguyen commune, Nghe An expected.

In fact, many monitoring conclusions are “put in drawers” ​​by administrative agencies, reported late, responded to in a formal manner, or even had no specific feedback. Voters agreed with the delegates’ discussion and added: it is time to have a clear “post-monitoring”. Each monitoring recommendation is a “political order” - with a responsible person, a deadline for implementation, and a public report. The National Assembly Standing Committee can periodically publish a list of agencies and localities that are slow or do not implement monitoring conclusions, as a “soft sanction” but effective. The pressure for transparency will force the administrative system to move for real.

During the discussion, many delegates also raised an important aspect: the supervisory subject must also be supervised. The People's Council and its Committees cannot "assign tasks and then leave them there". The results of each supervision must be made public, the effectiveness must be evaluated, and they must be responsible to the voters. Only when the People's Council dares to reflect on itself, can its supervision activities have depth and create trust.

Monitor for change - not just for information

Supervision is not only a right, but also a measure of trust. The essence of supervision in a socialist rule-of-law state does not lie in “who supervises whom”, but in what the goal is after supervision. Supervision must create change, force action, not just to detect and then file away.

Many voters believe that it is time to consider supervision as a four-step closed cycle: choosing the right and accurate issue; in-depth and objective supervision; drawing clear conclusions with assigned responsibilities; and monitoring and urging implementation results. Only when all four steps are complete will supervision become the driving force to regulate public authority behavior. At that time, the People's Council of the commune will not only "listen to the people", but also "urge the government to act"; elected representatives will not only be the ones to reflect, but also the ones to create change.

As Vice Chairman of the National Assembly, Senior Lieutenant General Tran Quang Phuong concluded the session: no opinion was not accepted and explained. That is not only the commitment of the National Assembly, but also a reminder for all levels of government to look back at themselves - so that supervision does not stop at the parliament, but penetrates deeply into every locality, every life. When supervision truly becomes a power control capacity, is legalized, guaranteed by an independent and public mechanism, each supervision conclusion will be a commitment of the State to the People. And then, the People will truly feel listened to, respected, and protected - not only by promises, but by actions.

Source: https://daibieunhandan.vn/du-thao-luat-hoat-dong-giam-sat-cua-quoc-hoi-va-hdnd-sua-doi-de-quyen-luc-nhan-dan-duoc-thuc-thi-tron-ven-10392843.html