“Consecutive Failure to Perform: A Two-Strike Policy for Civil Servants”

Termination for consecutive years of unsatisfactory performance

On May 7, the Government submitted to the National Assembly the draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Officials and Civil Servants. According to Minister of Home Affairs Pham Thi Thanh Tra, the draft law supplements a mechanism to eradicate the “lifetime tenure” mindset by introducing provisions on screening and dismissing officials who fail to fulfill their duties.

Regarding the regulations on performance evaluation and ranking of officials, the draft proposes four levels: Excellent; Good; Satisfactory; and Unsatisfactory. Based on this evaluation system, the draft clearly outlines the consequences for officials who are rated as “unsatisfactory.”

Specifically, officials rated as unsatisfactory will be considered for reassignment to a lower-level position or dismissed by the managing authority if they are deemed unfit for the organization’s requirements.

The amended law clearly states, “Officials who receive an unsatisfactory rating for two consecutive years shall be dismissed by the managing authority.”

Furthermore, according to the draft, the performance evaluation results of officials will be recorded in their personnel files and communicated to the evaluated officials. These results will also be publicly announced within the organization or unit where the official works.

This amendment to the Law on Officials and Civil Servants also clarifies the procedures for resignation and retirement of officials. Accordingly, officials who wish to resign must submit a written request to the competent authority for consideration and decision-making.

The competent authority must provide a written response, clearly stating the reasons if the resignation is not approved. Resignation requests will not be granted if the official is under disciplinary action or criminal investigation.

Addressing subjective and formalistic performance evaluations

The National Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Justice acknowledged that the draft law’s provisions embody the requirements set forth in Conclusion No. 121 of the Central Party Committee. These requirements include a drastic reform of the method for recruiting and evaluating officials and civil servants within the political system. It also involves screening and removing those who lack virtue, capacity, and reputation from their positions.

Additionally, the proposed regulations contribute to addressing a common limitation in the evaluation of officials and civil servants, which has been predominantly subjective and formalistic rather than substantive.

Furthermore, the reviewing committee cited Conclusion No. 105 of the Politburo, which mandates the inclusion of asset and income declaration, as well as the control of declaration verification, in the criteria for evaluating officials and party members. It also emphasizes the importance of linking these criteria to the performance of the agency, organization, or unit and the sense of responsibility and public satisfaction.

Therefore, the reviewing committee suggested that the drafting agency consider appropriate regulations to institutionalize the above content.

Some opinions also noted that the purpose of evaluating officials as a basis for dismissal is a new aspect. Thus, it is recommended that the Government, during the implementation process, develop clear and transparent criteria that can be quantified. These criteria should ensure a link to task performance, public service ethics, a sense of responsibility, and public and business satisfaction.

“At the same time, consider promoting the application of digital technology, automatic evaluation criteria to monitor, store, and analyze the work results of officials objectively, limiting subjectivity, and ensuring fairness and transparency in the screening process,” the reviewing committee emphasized.

There were also suggestions to differentiate between the evaluation of officials who do not hold leadership or management positions and those who do. This distinction aims to ensure fairness and avoid mechanical application when considering appropriate measures for unsatisfactory performance for these two groups of officials.