The vote of confidence must be genuine.

According to the plan, at the 6th Session of the 14th National Assembly, which opens on October 22nd, one day will be dedicated to conducting a vote of confidence for those holding positions elected by the National Assembly. Following the session, at the 9th Conference of the 12th Central Committee, a mid-term vote of confidence will also be held for members of the Politburo and the Secretariat.

The mid-term "rating" of members is an opportunity to see how that trust is demonstrated? What are the responsibilities of each person holding a position in the Party, Government, and National Assembly? What issues arise regarding the mechanisms for supervision and implementation of supervision to ensure that the confidence vote is always objective and substantive?

Trinh Xuan Thanh also received over 75% of the votes to be elected as a National Assembly representative, didn't he?

Isn't it true that some party committee leaders and unit heads receive awards one day and are disciplined the next, even though they previously received a high percentage of votes of confidence, unmatched by anyone else?

There are also cases where, based on individual capabilities and internal circumstances, one can foresee a low confidence vote, but when the results are announced, when the person being considered for promotion or appointment to a leadership position is appointed, the number differs significantly from reality, and even the person who directly signed the ballot doesn't understand why.

It's a reality, and sadly, it exists in many places and at many levels. Even if not openly acknowledged, the phenomenon of vote-buying does exist.

What caused this situation?

It is readily apparent that a segment of cadres and Party members seem to lack the spirit of struggle, self-criticism, and criticism. They are indifferent to everything, turning a blind eye, easily overlooking the shortcomings and limitations of those being evaluated.

Another group deliberately avoids confrontation, flattering leaders with relationships based on self-interest.

How can we then expect truly objective voting?

Furthermore, the issue of abusing power and using official positions and authority as a cover for wrongdoing has been discussed for a long time, but it has not yet been brought under control.

Therefore, some people, despite lacking the qualifications, use their authority as leaders to pressure subordinates, party committees, and party organizations.

So how can we say that the vote of confidence was truly democratic?

The monitoring of officials and those in positions of power by organizations, associations, and citizens seems clear and easy to implement, but regulations and requirements are one thing, and reality is another.

And the question of what mechanisms, and how, can organizations, associations, and citizens monitor power and those in power? remains a difficult one to this day.

When power goes unchecked, when those who commit wrongdoing or face public criticism still get promoted, when votes of confidence are not measured by effectiveness, and when those in positions of power believe they are above all, including the law, then votes of confidence are of little significance.

Therefore, when asked, "Has the confidence vote process been truly objective and transparent? Do the people truly trust the authenticity of the votes and confidence ballots for these positions?", the answer will frankly be: no.

Therefore, after confidence votes, only those with integrity will be moved. And that is why the people hope that those who represent them will speak the true voice of the people, and will demonstrate honesty, impartiality, and objectivity through their votes.

Only then will those being "evaluated" clearly understand their responsibility to correct themselves, to set an example, and to strive for improvement. And only then will the people believe that the vote of confidence for those holding positions elected by the National Assembly is truly substantive.