During the question and answer session on auditing this morning, June 5, the parliament was really "heated up" with many questions from delegates to State Auditor General Ngo Van Tuan about the "big cases" that have caused social headaches in recent times.
Responsibility from "major cases"
Pointing out the reality from the cases at Phuc Son Group and Thuan An showing the collusion of non-state enterprises with officials in public investment projects to profit from state assets, delegate Nguyen Manh Cuong, National Assembly Delegation of Quang Binh, said that private enterprises are not subject to state audit but these cases are all related to the use of public finance and public assets.
Therefore, delegate Nguyen Manh Cuong asked the State Auditor General to let him know whether there are any recommendations for the State Audit to participate in preventing and stopping violations through such cases.
Meanwhile, with the same content, delegate Trinh Minh Binh, National Assembly Delegation of Vinh Long said that recently there were a number of projects that had been audited but then the authorities still discovered violations in bidding. The delegate asked the Auditor General to explain this situation and what solutions are there?
Auditor General Ngo Van Tuan said that the State Audit is an agency established by the National Assembly, with the function of assessing, confirming, concluding, and recommending on the management and use of public finance and public assets. Thus, the unit subject to the State audit is the unit using public finance and public assets according to the provisions of law.
Recently, a number of major cases related to bidding, such as the Phuc Son and Thuan An cases, had errors in bidding. However, according to the Auditor General, both Phuc Son and Thuan An do not have state capital, so they “are not subject to state audit.” However, because they are related to a number of investors and contractors with state capital, the State Audit still reviewed all of them according to the documents they provided to make recommendations according to its authority.
In response to the question of delegate Nguyen Manh Cuong about the State Audit participating in preventing and stopping violations, the Auditor General said that the term “investigative audit” had been mentioned before but remained at the level of debate. He also saw that very few countries in the world have auditors performing the investigative function.
Not only the case at Phuc Son Group, Thuan An was questioned by delegates, delegate Mai Van Hai, Deputy of the National Assembly Delegation of Thanh Hoa province, said that recently in the case at SCB Bank, many companies had conducted audits but no signs of irregularities were detected. "Since then, many voters have questioned the responsibility of auditing and especially the responsibility of the State Audit in cases like SCB," delegate Mai Van Hai questioned.
Responding to this issue, Auditor General Ngo Van Tuan said that the incident at SCB Bank was not related to the State Audit and was not within the scope of the State Audit. According to him, SCB Bank is a public company and therefore subject to independent audit and affirmed that “the responsibility for the incident at SCB belongs to the enterprises that provided independent audit services”.
How to "not dare, not need to be corrupt"?
Delegate Vu Thi Luu Mai, National Assembly Delegation of Hanoi, said that the State Audit Office plays an important role in detecting corruption. Acknowledging that over the years, the fight against corruption has achieved positive results, but somewhere there is still the fear of making mistakes and being responsible. "So what should be done to strictly handle corruption, but still protect those who dare to think and dare to do," Delegate Vu Thi Luu Mai asked.
Answering this question, State Auditor General Ngo Van Tuan commented that "Delegate Mai's question is difficult" and said that it is necessary to do 3 things well if we want to continue to promote the prevention of negativity without reducing dynamism and creativity, as General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong once said "killing mice without breaking vases".
According to the Auditor General, it is necessary to first build an effective and strict prevention mechanism to prevent corruption, along with building an institution to detect and strictly handle corruption so that corruption is not dared. Finally, it is necessary to build an appropriate treatment regime so that corruption is not necessary.
In the face of the phenomenon of avoiding and shirking responsibility as has been the reality in recent times, according to Mr. Ngo Van Tuan, the cause is due to the sense of responsibility, qualifications and capacity not keeping up with the requirements and the direction is not close enough.
The solution that the State Auditor General proposed is to raise awareness and qualifications; perfect institutions to clearly define the rights and obligations of each civil servant and public employee. Mr. Ngo Van Tuan gave an example of civil servants in position A, what can they do, what can they not do, what are the benefits and benefits? From there, he proposed responsibilities associated with benefits along with inspection and supervision to quantify the cadres.
Also questioning the issue of the audit agency's responsibility in the face of corruption in recent times, delegate Ha Duc Minh, Lao Cai National Assembly Delegation, raised the situation when the State Audit entered the audit but did not detect any violations, but when the authorities entered the investigation, many major violations were revealed. Whose responsibility is this, the collective or the individual?
Regarding this issue, Auditor General Ngo Van Tuan said that Article 68 of the Law on Anti-Corruption clearly stipulates the responsibility of the auditing agency to intervene if no violations are detected.
Accordingly, with the audit report released not mentioning any violations but then the authorities intervened and determined that there were violations, in this case, Mr. Ngo Van Tuan said that depending on the responsibility, it will be handled criminally or administratively, from which the collective or individual responsibility will be clarified.
The State Auditor General said: "In nearly 30 years, the State Audit has not had any cases handled like that."
VN (according to Vietnam+)Source
Comment (0)