North-South high-speed railway: The beginning of a new generation of infrastructure

Just worry "if only", Vietnam will not have any big projects

Sir, there are concerns about the form of investment in the North-South high-speed railway project when VinSpeed proposed to invest directly. Some opinions say that this national key project needs to apply public investment or public-private partnership (PPP) with the participation of domestic economic groups, and should not be assigned to a single enterprise for investment. What do you think about the above issue?

- I think the thinking of "national projects can only be done by the State" is an old way of thinking, no longer suitable in the current context.

If there is a domestic enterprise like VinSpeed - in parallel with support, Vingroup is capable, aspirational and ready to invest - then why not deliver? It is necessary to recognize Vingroup, with its ecosystem and experience in implementing large-scale projects, as one of the few associations qualified to successfully implement national-scale projects.

The advantage of assigning large projects to private enterprises with sufficient capacity, qualities and experience is not only saving budget capital in particular, national resources in general, but in my opinion, more importantly, speed and efficiency. We have seen many public investment projects behind schedule for decades, causing huge waste and especially missing the national development pace, causing Vietnam to lose opportunities and especially fall behind in development. In the international race, we are falling behind, even further behind, key opponents. I consider this one of the key points of the modern security and development concept of our country.

Vietnam cannot slow down any longer. Therefore, if the high-speed railway project, with its historical mission and functions, is accelerated for more than 5 years, as VinSpeed's plan proposes, the benefits for the entire economy will be huge, not measured in money.

I emphasize: Assigning Vietnamese private enterprises the capacity to implement this project is a prerequisite. This not only helps the country solve the " strategic infrastructure bottleneck", but also improves the capacity and strength of Vietnamese enterprises. It was a strategic move, not a risk. This is in line with the spirit of Resolution 68 of the Politburo on Private Economy which has just been issued.

Of course, " Providing" but not "unconditionally". The Supreme Principle that must be followed is to "ensure the harmony of interests" of the country, people and businesses.

But if we let it be done by the private sector, when there are risks to the progress and quality of the project, who is responsible, sir?

- First of all, the assignment of large projects to private enterprises must be based on two fundamental factors. One is the trust of the State and society in businesses. Two is the national responsibility, which binds both businesses and the State. Trust must be associated with clear responsibility.

It is important to establish a reasonable mechanism for both sides to share risks and ensure national interests. We should not worry about the future in a "fake" way. In each project, in the spirit of " fearing the future", there are often hundreds, thousands of " mishap" situations like that, and then dare not do anything. If we follow that logic, it is certain that no major project can be implemented.

Some people think that allowing private private transportation to operate easily leads to monopoly, affecting the interests of passengers. What do you think about this anxiety?

- I think that understanding is the wrong nature of the problem. Public transport, even when the private sector is implemented, is still in the legal framework of the State, subject to the binding of the conditions of commitment between the State and enterprises. Businesses can not arbitrarily "exclusive" in the way. Responsibility to ensure fairness and social benefits are of the State. Here, it is necessary to have a state that has just created a true development and has a national responsibility in a substantive way, not only all responsibilities for businesses.

To operate effectively while still ensuring harmony of interests, it is necessary to design a transparent, supervised, and technical standard management mechanism - not to choose negative ways of not allowing the private sector to do it.

Putting faith in the capacity and responsibility of businesses

Another issue is the development of the high-speed railway line to serve both socio-economic development and national defense and security. If we assign it to the private sector, will it ensure that there are no conflicts of interest, sir?

- All regulations related to national security can and should be bound in contracts, technical designs, coordination plans, etc.

There are two points to note: One is the trend of the times, accordingly, the private sector is very active in activities related to national defense and security - participating in the production of "dual-use" products, providing "special" services, often associated with high technology. Second, at present, the Government's management capacity has changed a lot, there is no reason for "lack of productivity" in such core issues.

Just following the "old" way of thinking, doubting, fearing that the private sector will harm to eliminate them from such activities is really not in line with the spirit of the "four strategic ministries" - four Resolutions on Science and Technology Development, International integrations, Law Reform and Private Economy - that the Party has just issued.

The fact that the country's development has recently pointed out the same thing. In the past, we did not think to be a private airport. But then when it was entrusted by the State, Vietnamese private enterprises did and did well, thereby helping even the country's national defense and security. Therefore, with projects with importance of national security, thinking is needed to trust the private assignment, even early delivery, in the spirit of trust with businesses and the State enough tools to ensure the most complete commitment to national security and defense.

But what if the project loses? Will the State suffer the losses as is being worried?

- Market economy is cope with risks. All projects have "risks" elements. Consolidating the consequences, to the project loss, the benefits of the parties are necessary. But it is important to be clearly agreed upon from the beginning of the conditions, possible capabilities, responsibilities on each party, the risk monitoring mechanism ... when in any situation, how to support, what the accompanying conditions are ...

It is impossible to require private enterprises to do everything but without a reasonable risk sharing mechanism. The State cannot be "in private and invincible" here, especially those individuals or organizations that are responsible. The spirit here is to accompany each other for a big goal, not to put all the burden on either side.

According to the proposal, this railway project will be invested, managed, operated and traded by enterprises for 99 years. With such a long time, Suppose the business cannot continue to do business, how should we handle it, sir?

- First of all, when assigning a business to invest in such a large and long-term project, all binding terms of responsibility and obligations must be clearly stated in the contract. If this can be done, the story of "supporting that businesses cannot continue to do business" will no longer be an vague worry.

The important thing is to have faith in the capacity and sense of responsibility of the business, while setting up a suitable "risk reduction" mechanism. That is the right way of governance and development.

Thank you for sharing!