How to tighten public investment?  Scattered public investment causes policymakers major headaches and costs major national economic losses. Resolving the issue is no easy task. At a recent Vietnam Fatherland Front Central Committee conference in Hanoi, Minister of Planning and Investment Bui Quang Vinh pointed out public investment’s excess expenditure helped fuel the skyrocketing inflation in the past years. “Who are responsible for inefficient investment?” he questioned, blaming the uncertainty on loopholes created during State decentralisation and lax management at the grassroots level. Leading economists concur with Phuc’s view but are far less united on how best to address the problem.   Public investment is a major headache for lawmakers when the "Give' and 'Take' mechanism still exists Vietnam, only recently emerging from low-income nation status, needs large infrastructure investments—but its sporadic nature has caused alarming unsettled debts. At a National Assembly (NA) Standing Committee meeting in September 2013, Ksor Phuoc, head of the National Assembly’s Ethnic Council, implied money has been wasted building State agency offices resembling “palaces” or “tourist sites”. NA Deputy Tran Du Lich urged localities to change their public investment philosophy, extravagant offices and luxury cars are indefensible considering current economic difficulties and should be abandoned in favour of “road, school, or hospital projects.” Tightening public investment was fiercely debated at the December 2013 National Assembly session. NA Deputy Truong Van Vo stressed the necessity of legislating individual responsibility in public investment management. He said laws like the Law on Corruption Prevention and Control and the Law on Thrift Practice and Waste Prevention must be respected and enforced. NA Deputy Huynh Van Tiep identified legal loopholes in project appraisal, implementation, and management that lead to massive wastes of capital and human resources. Clarifying the rights and responsibilities of agencies, organisations, and individuals is imperative, he said, adding transparency in public investment management should also be encouraged. Tiep insisted leaders ostensibly overseeing any resource misuse or flagrant inefficiency must be disciplined for their wrongdoing. Serious offences deserve criminal prosecutions.  Fellow NA Deputy Nguyen Thi Hong asked the government to explicate clear public investment project criteria that takes the solvency of individual agencies and localities into account. Many projects underwhelm expectations with delays caused by capital shortages or misuse following completion. NA Deputy Pham Trong Nhan sees the crux of the matter as clarifying the relationship between socio-economic development goals and the appraisal of investment plans in a fair and objective manner. He also underlined the need to carefully distribute annual investment allocations among regions and between short and long-term plans.  VOV