But along with that, this press release of Bach Mai Ward People's Committee also raises a question that is not easy to answer: If the review has been carried out regularly, why has the case of Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngat been missed for many years?
According to the People's Committee of Bach Mai ward, after implementing the two-level local government model, the locality has implemented many documents to review vulnerable people's cases to support the settlement of administrative procedures. However, reality shows that Ms. Ngat - who suffered a stroke from 2021, completely lost her cognitive ability, and has not received social insurance benefits for 5 years - is not in the area to be detected and supported.
It is worth mentioning that this is not a "hidden" case.
Ms. Ngat's daughter herself has repeatedly come to state agencies to carry out procedures, request confirmation of documents, and find ways to complete dossiers to receive subsidies for her mother, including many times to the Ward People's Committee. Those trips mean that the family's special circumstances have been reflected to many agencies, including local authorities.
If so, why is there no coordination mechanism to identify this as a case that needs support?
The nature of the work of reviewing vulnerable people is not only to statistically count people who are receiving social allowances, but also to detect people who are facing barriers in accessing policies. An elderly person lying motionless for many years, completely losing consciousness, unable to receive their own allowance, is clearly a subject that needs to be concerned.
Notably, only after Lao Dong Newspaper reflected, the Ward People's Committee, Social Insurance and the paying unit quickly coordinated and completed procedures to hand over more than 177 million VND in allowances to the family. This shows that the obstacles are not impossible to remove.
The question is why wait until the press speaks out?
A serving administration should not only respond when an incident is reflected, but also proactively detect unusual cases right in the process of resolving administrative procedures.
In Mr. Ngat's case, if there was a closer connection between the local government, the social insurance agency, the payment unit and the residential group, it is very likely that the 5-year journey would not have happened.
Ms. Ngat's story has closed with the guarantee of her rights. But what people are waiting for more is not the affirmation that they will "continue to review", but a convincing explanation of why such a special case could go through many years, through many procedures, through many times of working with functional agencies but still not be identified for timely support.
Because only when that question is answered, the review of vulnerable people will truly become substantive, instead of just stopping at reports on the processes that have been implemented.
