If I Were Director-General of the Digital Economy

Let’s say I wake up tomorrow as the Director-General of Vietnam’s Digital Economy and Digital Society program under the Ministry of Information and Communications. I have authority, budget, and — most importantly — accountability for whether Vietnam’s digital transformation includes or excludes its rural majority.

Here’s what I would do in the first 100 days.

Day 1–30: Acknowledge the Gap

The first month is about telling the truth.

I would commission an immediate audit of our current digital inclusion metrics — not the ones we report internationally (internet penetration, smartphone ownership), but the ones that matter: active digital finance usage by geography, income, and age.

My hypothesis: we’ll find that “70% internet penetration” masks a reality where fewer than 20% of rural residents use digital financial services monthly. We’ll find that digital government services have below 10% adoption in provinces outside the major cities. We’ll find that our “digital transformation” is an urban phenomenon that we’ve marketed as a national one.

You can’t solve a problem you won’t name.

I would publish this audit publicly. Not as self-criticism, but as honest baseline-setting. You can’t solve a problem you won’t name.

Day 31–60: Change the Incentives

The second month is about realigning the system.

Right now, the Ministry of Information and Communications, the State Bank of Vietnam, and the Ministry of Agriculture each have digital inclusion somewhere in their mandates. None is accountable for the outcome. This is a feature, not a bug — diffuse responsibility means no one fails.

I would propose to the Prime Minister a Rural Digital Inclusion Taskforce with:

• Single KPI: Increase active digital finance usage in rural areas from approximately 20% to 50% by 2030
• Single budget line: Pooled from MIC, SBV, and MARD — not additional funds, reallocated funds
• Single point of accountability: Me. If it fails, I resign.

The political risk of this is obvious. The political opportunity is larger: whoever solves rural digital inclusion will have done something that matters beyond their tenure.

Day 61–90: Launch Three Pilots

The third month is about starting, not planning.

Three pilots. Three mechanisms — access, literacy, demand. All started within 100 days.

What I Would Not Do

I would not launch a national strategy document. We have enough of those. They are beautiful, comprehensive, and largely unimplemented.

I would not request additional budget. The money exists. It is allocated to digital infrastructure that benefits cities, to programs with vague inclusion mandates, to conferences about digital transformation. Reallocate, don’t add.

I would not create a new agency. Agencies create bureaucracy. Taskforces with sunset clauses create urgency.

I would not wait for perfect data. The audit in Month 1 gives us directional truth. Pilots in Month 3 give us ground truth. Perfection is the enemy of starting.

The Political Reality

None of this is technically difficult. The technology exists. The regulatory frameworks exist. The budget exists.

The incentive structure rewards avoiding accountability more than achieving outcomes.

The difficulty is political. Admitting the gap means admitting failure. Reallocating budget means taking from someone. Creating single accountability means someone can be blamed.

This is why digital inclusion remains unsolved. Not because we can’t. Because the incentive structure rewards avoiding accountability more than achieving outcomes.

A Director-General who takes this on will either succeed visibly — or fail visibly. There is no hiding in vague mandate language and incremental progress reports.

I think that’s exactly the job.