Vietnam's government is facing mounting challenges as it undertakes significant personnel policy changes aimed at tightening operations within the Ministry of Public Security (MPS). The restructuring, which has shed thousands of positions, has raised questions about transparency and government efficiency, particularly concerning the funding and management of public security.
According to recent reports from the Ministry of Public Security, adjustments made since 2018 have led to the elimination of six general departments, numerous police posts, and thousands of subordinate units. These changes have been framed under the leadership of Party Secretary To Lam as part of necessary reforms aimed at reducing the financial burden on the state budget.
Critically, assessments are being made of the motivations driving such reforms. Dr. Nguyen Huy Vu, based abroad, pointed out four main reasons behind these changes. Firstly, the MPS is seen as key to Lam's own power, providing him with resources to enforce policies. Secondly, the ministry acts as the Party's apparatus for social control, which explains why Lam is hesitant to reduce its size drastically. Thirdly, creating enemies within forces like the army or police could undermine Lam’s authority, especially at a time when his reputation is still being solidified. Fourthly, the lack of clear direction and planning is evident, as management decisions appear to be made hastily, often characterized by the metaphor 'running and rearranging the line' without sufficient groundwork.
A significant concern remains the opaqueness surrounding the exact number of personnel within the Ministry of Public Security. Observers note this lack of transparency serves to shield financial decisions from public scrutiny, impeding accountability. Previously, former Minister of Public Security To Lam announced varying figures—at one point citing 1.5 million personnel involved, but later contradicting this with claims of inadequate local police presence. The inability to provide clear data fosters distrust and perpetuates public belief of preferential treatment toward police forces.
Reflecting on this notion, former lieutenant colonel Vu Minh Tri remarked on the evident favoritism the MPS receives compared to other sectors such as healthcare and education, which receive much less funding. The processes for personnel promotion within the police ranks also seem biased, favoring previous officers with quicker ascents to higher military ranks.
International expert Professor Carl Thayer from UNSW Canberra previously estimated the total personnel involved with public security at around 6.7 million. He confirmed this figure includes approximately 1.2 million MPS employees, alongside civilian self-defense officials and municipal forces. The overwhelming figures suggest not just personnel presence but broad societal engagement across various sectors.
A new regulatory framework founded upon Government Decree focuses on the institutional overhaul of civil service and military personnel management. Clear guidelines dictate policies for early retirement, management assessment, and other operational processes within governmental organizations. This decree puts forth compelling reforms to improve the administrative functions across departments and agencies, presenting obligations to hire based on performance and competency orders.
The decree ensures various categories of officials, including civil servants and military personnel, are retained or reassigned based on performance metrics, enhancing accountability and efficiency. A proactive stance ensures periodic evaluations every three years to assess candidates for retention or promotion, incentivizing high performance across the government hierarchy.
Filtration processes require departmental leaders to evaluate performance on defined criteria, targeting reduction of bureaucratic excesses. Institutions will have to balance between maintaining necessary personnel levels and reducing costs—but without compromising public safety or operational efficiency.
Future appointments and career advancements will henceforth depend significantly upon the evaluated performance of existing civil servants, sharpening focus on efficiency with the premise of ensuring national interests without hindering service provision. The intended goal is to provide flexible structures capable of responding to public needs without extensive bureaucratic drag.
While such measures present opportunities for operational enhancement, they also bear scrutiny over implementation, particularly how authorities may utilize discretion when defining 'essential personnel.' Ongoing dialogue shapes how reforms play out—whether as genuine attempts to build responsive governance or as mechanisms to consolidate power under the party’s influence.
This combination of administrative reform aims at maintaining both the popular and political faith toward sustained governance, signaling to citizens the intentions of accountability and institutional improvement.