Dr. Nguyen Sy Dung: 'The National Assembly reviews the law and sees group interests so it rejects it'

It is important that an appraisal process is put in place so that a policy can be explained, not that the National Assembly "rolls up its sleeves" to make laws.

In a recent legal session, the Prime Minister stated that the Party has identified one of the bottlenecks to development as institutions. The Government has also made efforts to submit many legal documents to the National Assembly for approval, but they have only partially met the country's development requirements, and there are still many shortcomings and inadequacies in institutional and legal development.

Because of that bottleneck, the Government focuses on institutions with the aim of gradually removing them so that legal institutions and policies are closer to life.

So what issues need to be resolved to bring the law closer to life is the content of the VOV reporter's interview with Dr. Nguyen Si Dung - former Deputy Head of the National Assembly Office.

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung talks with VOV reporters

PV:Sir, the National Assembly is the legislative body, but in Vietnam, up to 95% of legal documents are drafted by the Government and submitted to the National Assembly for approval. How should this be understood to correctly understand the nature of the problem?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:Legislative power is not the power to make laws, but the power to authorize the enactment of laws. That is why the Government submits 95% of legal documents. The Government has a greater need for laws. If it wants to regulate behavior, it must have laws, then submit them to the National Assembly. The National Assembly will consider the interests of voters and people with that law, consider whether that law can create conditions for the Government and ministries but also create conditions for the people. Therefore, legislative power here is understood as the power to pass laws, not the power to make laws.

PV:We still say that the law is being improved day by day; the quality of legal documents is being improved day by day, but in reality, there are many laws that are almost impossible to implement until there are guiding documents. Up to this point, we have not yet completely overcome the situation of “laws waiting for decrees”. How do you explain this?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:There are essentially two types of laws: detailed laws and framework laws. Detailed laws can directly regulate behavior. Laws that are enacted as a framework for action will be difficult to implement without specific guidance. The problem here is which law to choose. Some opinions support detailed laws, which must be enforced once enacted. Others believe that there should be framework laws so that the Government can proactively change them.

I think that if everything is fixed and clear, there should be detailed laws; but if the legislator himself does not know how it will be and does not have practical experience, then framework laws are appropriate.

Not only our country, but all countries have two types of laws like that. But if there is an effective, dedicated, and people-oriented civil service, more framework laws will be issued. That civil service will choose the best solution to handle it.

PV:Is it true that giving the power to draft legal documents to the Ministries will create conditions for these agencies to "insert" their own power into the law, sir?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:This is natural and cannot be eliminated, regardless of the ministry or agency. However, it is the responsibility of the National Assembly to assess this issue and to design a standard assessment process to be able to assess it. This is a very important job of the National Assembly.

If a law is issued and adjustments are made without an agency, it is very difficult. Therefore, when the Government gives the power to administer a law, the Government can give it to a Ministry, so it is not necessary to "give birth" to an agency. That is our way of making laws, the Prime Minister has also stipulated so it is probably good in our way. But to be good according to world standards, we need to re-evaluate this thinking when the law is issued, it will depend on the Prime Minister or the Minister.

In other countries, a law can be enacted to form an agency, which is a State agency, a competent public authority, and above that agency is only the law, not the Minister, or even the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister needs to amend the law; but if the Prime Minister or the Minister makes a mistake, that public apparatus, that public authority can prosecute the minister. If we follow such a world, the legal system will be trustworthy, and life's problems will be solved. If we put everything on the Prime Minister like now, it will be very difficult, no one has "three heads and six arms".

PV:With the current law-making process, is it difficult for the National Assembly and National Assembly deputies to remove or request amendments to laws, sir?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:This is not difficult at all, if the National Assembly does not let the ministries "persuade" or find ways to "connect". If the minister cannot explain to the National Assembly, the National Assembly will not accept it. The National Assembly is the appraisal body, if the ministry says this is beneficial to the people, it must prove it, and if it cannot explain, it may even have to resign. Thus, the appraisal process must be set up so that a policy must be explained, which is very important, not that the National Assembly "rolls up its sleeves" to make laws. If the National Assembly, in its appraisal, finds that there is a conflict of interests or group interests, it will reject it.

The reason we still have laws that are partial in their benefits is because of problems in the appraisal and drafting stages. The problem in the drafting stage is that the interests of the industry, local interests, and group interests are considered more important than the national interests and the interests of the entire population. The problem in the appraisal stage can arise in two cases: one is that the appraisal capacity and appraisal process are not good enough; the other is that the drafting agency may try to "persuade" them.

PV:A legal expert said that law making should be like "patching a tire". How should we understand this, in your opinion?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:It should be understood in a positive sense, only deal with the broken or problematic parts; if there is only one broken part, do not destroy the whole tire. Just like a house with a leak in one corner, remove a tile and replace it with another, do not demolish the whole house. Legislative activities that involve tearing down the whole house and rebuilding it will be very costly.

I support this point of view, but it needs to be understood more precisely that it must start from the problem, there is a problem to make laws, we should not think that laws are good and "give birth" endlessly. Let's make laws to solve the bottlenecks in life or the difficulties that people have to face. Thus, the National Assembly is an institution born to guard the freedom of the people, because they represent the people, are an appraisal body, an institution to limit the making of too many laws, not an agency born to make many laws to rule.

PV: So, in your opinion, how and from where should we "remove" so that our legal institutions and policies are closer to life?

Dr. Nguyen Si Dung:The most important thing, in my opinion, is to change the law-making process and philosophy. Make laws when life needs them, not for the sake of law. When life has problems, prove that the problem can only be solved by law.

Most importantly, in my opinion, the National Assembly Standing Committee must operate, because the right to interpret the law in our system belongs to the National Assembly Standing Committee. Whether a law is enacted against the law or not belongs to the authority of this agency.

PV: Thank you sir./.

According to VOV