Three rounds of firing were heard at New Delhi's international airport early Friday morning, but no one was injured, the Indian NDTV channel reported.
Police official said security forces have swarmed through airport after the firing was heard, but no one was injured, said the report.
The channel said security forces were investigating the nature of the incident, which sparked security scare at the airport.
BBC website earlier cited airport officials as saying that at least six gunmen were shot by Indian security force at the airport, but a later report said police had denied any casualties.
NDTV cited the police as saying that the firing was found from a man in a car. The car which has been driven away is being traced by the police.
Airports in India went on high alert on Thursday after the Bureau of Civil Aviation issued a hijack warning.
The move followed an anonymous mail sent to a news organization in Indian western state Gujarat last week, warning of terror strikes at three airports of Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore on the 6th of December.
India's Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and the National Security Guards (NSG) have been alerted after the warning was released.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Shooting heard at New Delhi airport, no one injured
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Vietnamese passport holders to be exempted from immigration declaration
Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Sinh Hung has given the nod to the abolition of entrance and exit declaration formalities at international airports for Vietnamese passport holders.
Hung has assigned the Ministry of Public Security to research and improve declaration procedures at road, railway, sea and river entrance and exit points.
This ministry has also been instructed to provide and exchange information about passengers, crew members, transport staffs, etc. who enter and exit the country with related bodies at border gates.
The Ministry of Health will assist people who enter or exit Vietnam in the filling in of health declarations under the regulations of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
State says ‘no’ to corruption
VietNamNet Bridge – State chief inspector Tran Van Truyen talks with Dai Doan Ket (Great Unity) newspaper about a decisive Government policy to combat corruption.
Offices and organisations are currently misusing different levels of ‘confidential’ documents to hide and limit the public of their clandestine actions. Will this problem be amended to ensure transparency?
Foreign consultants have made very clear that public transparency was the first compulsory condition to effectively fight corruption. This must go into the State’s policies and regulations on social management. People will not be able to provide adequate supervisory oversight, if everything is not transparent.
The State Inspectorate has already lodged a petition to the Government, asking it to re-stipulate the promulgation of documents it publishes, except those documents about national security and State secrets.
It is impossible to say that every document is confidential.
There is a Government policy which regulates that ministries and companies must have a "spokesperson" in charge of providing information to the press and the public. How do you evaluate the implementation of this in the past years? What does the draft plan say about the rights of the press and people in accessing information?
The "spokesperson" regulation has been implemented in many ministries and industries. This, in my opinion, is a sound measure to provide information to the press, through which people are able to understand the policies and laws of the Party and Government, as well as providing relevant information for civil authority activities.
Yet, the regulation has not yet been strictly implemented in many places. I have received many complaints from journalists and people about the problem. It is difficult to say in specific, but many ministries, central offices, cities and provinces are inadvertently or intentionally hiding information. They are also providing only part of the truth, which causes people to not be able to access sufficient information.
The State Inspectorate will complete the regulation in the draft plan about the corruption prevention strategy to maintain the role of "spokesperson" as a way to tell the truth to the press and people.
The pending report on property and income of government officials has not been finished. Why is it so late? Why have some offices refused to publicise the income of their staff?
Publicising income is a fundamental target to fight corruption, but it depends on each country’s conditions to implement it, of which the financial control system is a legal basis.
At present, transactions are mainly in cash. So, in essence, the portion of publicised income is very small, while the unpublished one is fairly big. It is only a formality, if we ask them to publicise their income immediately. Such publicity will only have an effect if national income is controlled through the banking system.
In addition, the constitution also regulates to not publicise some issues relevant to personal properties. In the coming time, the constitution will probably have to be amended, and legal documents created to help people have oversight over the property and income of government officials and civil servants.
Then, once it is discovered that people are embezzling funds, there must be methods to make the person accountable for his actions, even if he no longer works.
Is there any sanctions for officials who delay making their income public?
Although the State Inspectorate already supervised and tried to push organisations, many officials were very slow to publicise their income.
There are many reasons, I think.
Under the regulation, they must complete enumerating their property and income by December 31, 2007. But many officials in enterprises, cities and provinces could not finish it on time, because they had to concentrate on their economic development duties.
The draft plan on anti-corruption strategy by 2020 will expand the number of people required to declare their property and income, while regulating their accountability to explain the origin of their property and income.
It will also regulate payment through accounts for expenditures paid from the State budget to government officials.
