Personnel planning: correct but accurate?

The story of “husband planning wife” has recently stirred up public opinion about planning, appointing, and promoting officials in the state apparatus. The question is: is this planning correct (process) but is it accurate (choosing the right person)?

Mr. Nguyen Dinh Huong (former Deputy Head of the Central Organizing Committee): Calling for integrity and self-respect is hopeless.

Recently, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc has repeatedly said that in the recruitment and appointment of officials, we must “find talented people, not relatives”. I expect the Prime Minister and the Government to find a solution to this problem so that the philosophy of “finding talented people” for the apparatus can be effective and put into practice, not just stopping at slogans or moral appeals.

We have three methods to get people into the system: one is election, two is examination, three is appointment. Up to now, the appointment method has created the most loopholes, is the most easily abused, is complained about the most, and is the most negative.

Election is a good method, implemented for some positions, but recently I heard that there has been "running", at least with the recent manifestations (in the National Assembly election, there were cases where names had to be removed due to various violations), public opinion has the right to doubt the shadyness in it.

Or public opinion still speculates and whispers during each Party Congress season about the "lobbying" situation here and there; for this person and that person.

I believe that open and transparent recruitment methods with clear standards and criteria, and close public supervision, are key to personnel work.

At that time, if anyone's "family member" is truly talented, worthy, and surpasses other candidates to be planned and appointed to a leadership position in a public and transparent manner, then surely public opinion will not gossip.

Of course, for agencies and units where it is deemed inappropriate to have family members as leaders or hold important positions, the law needs to have clear prohibitions.

I have been involved in personnel work since the 3rd Party Congress and have been involved in this work for half a century. Once, a senior Party leader asked me why there was no plan to train and educate children of leaders to be sent to the Central Committee, the Secretariat, and the Politburo?

I replied that for many years, the Politburo did not have such a policy, so many children of seniors and comrades holding high positions in the Party and State still did normal jobs, in normal positions.

But that was in ancient times, the previous leaders were always conscious of preserving and not taking advantage of their position for personal gain.

Nowadays, socio-economic conditions are different. Many people see that titles are linked to salaries, so they compete for seats and places for their relatives, as General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong pointed out the reality of "first, descendants, second, relationships, third, money, fourth, intelligence" in personnel work.

Therefore, the problem cannot be solved by simply appealing to morality, calling for integrity, appealing to people's self-respect. That is hopeless. We must analyze the causes, and then propose the right, strong, and drastic measures.

Fighting corruption and negativity in general and fighting corruption and negativity in personnel work in particular cannot be successful if it stops at just shouting and calling.

Mr. Gian Tu Trung (IRED Institute): Without conscience, the process is also ineffective.

Read stories about officials appointing their wives and children and everyone answers that it is "due process" (meaning "according to the law").

Never before has this phrase been used so commonly as it is today. It would be disastrous if “correct procedure” were “unscientific” and “unconscionable”. Therefore, I think of two aspects of the problem: conscience and science. Without conscience, procedures and laws can be invalidated, bent, or even broken.

Regarding conscience: each person, each position has its own values, and along with values ​​come standards. Being a citizen has the values ​​and standards of the people. Being an official has the values ​​and standards of an official. I think that when signing those appointment decisions, you must have known that it would cause a lot of trouble, even if it was “according to procedure”, even if it was in line with the conscience of the signer.

Regarding science: when responding to the press “in accordance with the procedure”, in fact, journalists, readers and people still do not know what the procedure is and what is correct. The appointment of civil servants in the state system is truly like a “secret society” for outside observers like us.

In democratic states, one can clearly distinguish three groups: politicians, officials and civil servants. Politicians are products of election. Officials are products of appointment. Civil servants and public employees are products of recruitment.

Most processes are scientific, when implemented, they are public and transparent, and the person implementing them also requires conscience and self-respect. And if errors are discovered, an official's position can be fired, an official's position can be dismissed, and a politician's career can be ruined.

We are trying to build a democratic society and a democratic state. The story of family appointments may be small in the news but it is not small in the democratic cause. It is necessary to clarify this specific story so that people can feel secure that civil servants and officials will be able to make decisions that affect them.

It is more necessary to build a scientific appointment process and implement it publicly and transparently so that future appointments do not cause questions or scandals.

Mr. Vu Quoc Hung (former Deputy Head of Department)Central Inspection Commission): Must "examine" those who have the authority to promote officials

The selection of officials and talents must be open and transparent. But now, elections, nominations, and examinations are just formalities, not substantial.

They say it is the right process, but what is the process? Because nowadays they call it democracy, that is, a vote of confidence, but when the boss puts his relatives in, how many people in the agency dare to say the opposite? Nowadays, the tendency to be respectful and avoidant is quite common, so when the boss's relatives are put in there, how many people dare to say the opposite. And is it safe to say the opposite? Everyone is afraid.

Although it is a process, it is in accordance with the process but the quality is not guaranteed, it is not democratic, transparent, and public. If you want to do it, it must be done publicly, democratically, transparently and there must be agencies and people doing the work of organizing and cadres who are carefully selected.

Now it is necessary to rectify and review the agencies and individuals doing personnel work so that they truly have two qualities: purity, impartiality, and selflessness, and at the same time must have the qualifications, evaluation methods, and methods of approaching reality and the masses to grasp these people.

At this time, inspection and supervision activities are more necessary than ever. Supervision must be carried out even for the leaders; those who have the power to promote and appoint officials must be reviewed under the "lens" of the 11th Central Resolution 4. At the same time, it is necessary to take control of the functional agencies, and review from the central to local levels.

In my opinion, we must review from the central level, especially those who have the power to promote officials, to see if those people have the right qualities or not...

According to Tuoi Tre