Those who have been prosecuted can be expelled from the Party at any time.

When a party member is suspended from party activities for investigation and trial, the party organization can make a decision to take disciplinary action at any time, said Mr. Ha Quoc Tri.

Around Regulation 102Regarding disciplinary action against party members who violate the law, Mr. Ha Quoc Tri, member of the Central Inspection Committee, spoke with VietNamNet about the new regulations.

Mr. Ha Quoc Tri, member of the Central Inspection Commission. Photo: Thu Hang

This regulation clearly stipulates that violations up to the level of reprimand have a statute of limitations of 5 years; warnings and dismissals have a 10-year statute of limitations; and expulsion has no time limit. In particular, violations of national security, internal political protection, etc. are not subject to the statute of limitations for disciplinary action.

The reason for this addition is because during the implementation process, there were problems with state laws that have provisions on statute of limitations such as the Civil Service Law... so it had to be revised to be consistent.

However, the time limit for processing requests is higher than for citizens because party members have higher requirements.

Is it too strict, sir, that the regulations on party disciplinary action cover almost all areas?

This is not strict and it is not newly issued but has been revised for the third time. This regulation is extremely necessary, serving as a basis for considering disciplinary action against violating party members.

This must also be widely communicated so that party members can monitor the implementation. Now, we keep saying that party members have violated the law, but we don't know what the violation is. There must be regulations so that when party members violate the law, the level of violation can be compared with the regulations.

This is also a way for people to check, monitor and detect violations by party members. If people do not know what constitutes a violation, they cannot monitor.

"Dismissal" is not a form of discipline.

Regulation 102 sets out the principle that "party committee members who violate the rules to the point of being dismissed must be dismissed, not dismissed from office." Is this intended to overcome the long-standing abuse of "dismissal" discipline?

During the inspection and handling process, there were some cases where it was clear that dismissal was not a form of disciplinary action. Therefore, it must be clearly stipulated that disciplinary action must be in accordance with the Party's Charter.

Party members who violate the law must be dealt with to the extent of their violations. They cannot be "dismissed" but dismissed; or removing a party member's name is not a form of discipline but must be expelled.

There are currently four forms of party member disciplinary action: reprimand, warning, dismissal and expulsion; probationary party members are subject to reprimand and warning, but there is no form of disciplinary action of "dismissal".

So for a long time, the disciplinary action of "resigning" Mr. Dinh La Thang was disciplined by being dismissed from the position of Politburo member, and Mr. Nguyen Xuan Anh was dismissed from the position of Central Committee member, according to what regulations?

This is clearly stated in Regulation No. 260-QD/TW dated October 2, 2009 of the Politburo on the removal from office, dismissal, and resignation of officials.

In case a cadre or party member is disciplined and dismissed, he/she will be transferred and assigned to do other work, not the old job.

Crime is punishable by expulsion.

Regulation 102 sets out the principle: Party members who violate the law to the extent that they must be prosecuted for criminal liability must be prosecuted for criminal liability, not handled internally. Does this indicate that internal handling is taking place in practice?

In practice, this also happens, when disciplining party members, there is often a situation of negligence. That is why this is stipulated here to be binding.

In practice, there must be regulations to prevent violations of the law that should be handled according to the law from being handled internally.

When a violation of the law is brought to justice, the Party can not only discipline dismissal from office but also expel.

So how is the temporary suspension of Party activities like the case of Mr. Dinh La Thang understood?

When a party member is suspended from Party activities, he is considered to no longer be a member of the Party Committee. During the period of suspension from Party activities, he is no longer a party member and therefore cannot participate in the Central Committee.

The temporary suspension of Party activities is to serve the investigation and trial and may last until the court pronounces a verdict.

Once a person has been temporarily detained, prosecuted, and suspended from Party activities, it is considered that the disciplinary action within the Party is almost completed, just waiting for the procedure.

On the other hand, during the investigation and trial process, if the Party organization finds sufficient grounds to make a disciplinary conclusion, it will also carry out disciplinary action without waiting for the court to pronounce a verdict.

For example, in the case of Mr. Nguyen Xuan Son, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Vietnam National Oil and Gas Group, the court is still in phase 1 of the trial, but the Central Inspection Committee concluded that the disciplinary measure is expulsion from the Party.

That is, when the party organization finds that you have violated the law to the extent that you must be expelled, you must be expelled without necessarily waiting for the court to pronounce a sentence.

According to Vietnamnet.vn