Institutional reform must not lag behind reality

At the morning session on February 27, the Government considered five important items, including the Draft Law on the Capital (amended), the Draft Law on Civil Status (amended), the Draft Law on Belief and Religion, the Draft Law Amending and Supplementing a Number of Articles of the Law on Overseas Representative Missions of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and the Draft Resolution of the National Assembly on coordination mechanisms and specific policies in the prevention and settlement of international investment disputes.

Notably, the guiding spirit of the session did not stop at “amending laws to meet deadlines,” but emphasized the requirement to renew legislative thinking toward greater practical alignment, enhanced flexibility, and effectiveness of implementation as the benchmark. In concluding the session, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh clearly stated that the overarching requirement is to “maximize decentralization and delegation of authority,” while simultaneously reviewing and cutting administrative procedures to reduce inconvenience and compliance costs for citizens and enterprises. This is not merely a technical administrative directive, but a repositioning of the role of law: law is not only for management, but must also facilitate development.

For many years, institutional bottlenecks have consistently been identified as one of the major constraints on the development process. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s statement that institutions must “move ahead to lead the way,” and must transform institutions from the “bottleneck of bottlenecks” into a “national competitive advantage,” may be regarded as the ideological core of this session. When the head of Government reiterated that building and improving institutions is one of the three strategic breakthroughs identified by recent National Party Congresses, this indicates that law-making is being positioned at the center of modern national governance.

If one examines the matters discussed, a relatively clear logic emerges: from organizing the development space of the Capital, managing civil status, ensuring the right to belief and religion, improving the quality of overseas representative missions, to preventing international investment disputes, all are directed toward enhancing national governance capacity in the new context. In other words, these are not isolated draft laws, but interconnected components of a process aimed at refining governance toward greater effectiveness, transparency, and adaptability to the requirements of integration.

Among these five items, the Draft Law on the Capital (amended) stands out as a major focal point. According to the content presented at the session, the Prime Minister and delegates proposed the establishment of specific, breakthrough, stable, and long-term mechanisms for Ha Noi, commensurate with its position, role, and distinctive characteristics as the Capital. Notably, the orientation of the amendment is not limited to addressing immediate shortcomings, but emphasizes a “century-oriented development” vision. The requirement for “long-term vision, deep thinking, and large-scale action” reflects that legislative thinking regarding the Capital is being framed within a broader context: building an administrative–political, cultural, scientific, and innovation center capable of leading the entire country.

More importantly, with respect to Ha Noi, the spirit of decentralization and delegation of authority was emphasized at a very high level. The Prime Minister clearly stated the guiding principle: “localities decide, localities implement, and localities take responsibility.” This directive carries significance beyond the scope of the Law on the Capital. It reflects a consistent shift in governance thinking: granting stronger authority to localities, accompanied by resource allocation, enhanced inspection and supervision, and control of power. Thus, decentralization here does not mean loosening management, but rather redefining more clearly the boundaries of responsibility between the central and local levels. Ha Noi is identified as a place to “set the example and take the lead,” and as a pilot locality for new mechanisms and policies, including matters that are difficult, unprecedented, or beyond the current framework. This is a highly practical approach: using a specific institutional space for experimentation, and then considering the possibility of replication based on practical results.

This spirit is further reflected in the Draft Law on Civil Status (amended). The session documents indicate that the Government focused on amendments aimed at enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of state administrative governance, while promoting decentralization and delegation of authority consistent with the two-tier local government model in the civil status field. This is an important indication. Civil status is closely linked to the daily lives of citizens; if procedures are simplified and authority is assigned to the appropriate level and locality, citizens are the primary beneficiaries. A well-designed law in this field is not only technically sound in legal terms, but must also reduce the time, effort, and costs incurred by citizens when carrying out basic personal status procedures.

With respect to the Draft Law on Belief and Religion, the highlighted focus is to ensure the full institutionalization of the Party’s guidelines and policies, while promoting the strength of great national unity. This issue requires a substantial balance between safeguarding rights and maintaining regulatory order. The emphasis on the right to belief and religion reflects an approach grounded in human rights and citizens’ rights; at the same time, the requirement to fully institutionalize the Party’s guidelines indicates that the law must continue to play a guiding and regulatory role in consolidating national unity and preventing the emergence of gaps that could be exploited.

At the level of external relations and international integration, the remaining two items are also of considerable significance. With regard to the Draft Resolution on the prevention and settlement of international investment disputes, the session documents record that members of the Government proposed incentive mechanisms for responsible individuals and agencies, as well as strengthened inter-agency coordination. This approach is appropriate, as international investment disputes are not merely legal matters, but are directly linked to risk prevention capacity, the protection of national interests, and the image of the investment environment. In parallel, the amendment of the Law on Overseas Representative Missions of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam toward clarifying organizational structure, functions, tasks, powers, and remuneration and talent attraction policies also reflects the requirement to upgrade the external relations apparatus in the context of increasingly intense international competition.

If one considers only the list of draft laws, this appears to be an extensive work program. However, what gives depth to the session is the legislative method emphasized by the Prime Minister. The directive that “matters that are mature, clear, and proven correct in practice should be codified; matters that are not yet mature or clear should be designed for pilot implementation” demonstrates a more open and evidence-based approach to law-making. This is an important line of thinking to avoid two tendencies that have previously caused practical difficulties: either excessive perfectionism—waiting until everything is fully complete before legislating—or premature codification of insufficiently tested matters, leading to repeated amendments. The thinking of “implementing while gradually expanding,” “neither perfectionist nor hasty, and not missing opportunities,” constitutes a balanced solution between the requirement for prudence and the demand for development.

In parallel is the requirement to improve the technical quality of legislation. The Prime Minister emphasized that drafting must be “easy to understand, easy to access, easy to implement, easy to examine, and easy to supervise,” while clearly explaining the “six whys”: why to remove, why to improve, why to supplement, why to cut procedures, why to decentralize and delegate authority, and why differing opinions remain. This is a noteworthy requirement, as it obliges drafting bodies not only to write legally sound provisions, but also to demonstrate the logic behind each amendment. When every change must answer the question “why,” policy quality becomes less subjective, less formalistic, and more persuasive.

From the perspective of implementation, the session also demonstrates significant time pressure. The Government plans to submit 34 dossiers and documents to the National Assembly, including 15 draft laws and resolutions at the First Session of the XVth National Assembly. With such a workload, the directive to “run while lining up” reflects a highly practical requirement: any dossier that is completed must be submitted immediately for appraisal, avoiding last-minute congestion and preventing schedule pressures from undermining quality. However, speed here does not simply mean rushing; it is accompanied by the requirement for close coordination between ministries and sectors and the agencies of the National Assembly, comprehensive impact assessment, transitional provisions, and the assurance of the Government’s role and responsibility throughout the entire process of the National Assembly’s consideration and adoption of laws.

From promoting substantive decentralization, cutting procedures, and expanding pilot implementation of new policies to tightening accountability in every amended provision, the Government is setting higher standards for the entire law-making process. When legislation is designed to be more streamlined, clearer, more closely aligned with real life, and more feasible, the ultimate benefit lies not only in the draft laws that are adopted, but in more effective governance, a more stable investment environment, and a public administration that better serves citizens and enterprises.