Ensuring the substantive protection of property rights and the right to freedom of business is the true measure of the quality of a modern rule-of-law state, by the people and for the people.
This is the view shared by Mr. Nguyen Hung Quang, Managing Partner of NHQuang&Associates and Chairman of the Vietnam International Commercial Mediation Center (VICMC), with Business Forum Magazine Enternews.
How do you assess the requirement to protect rights such as property rights and freedom of business for the private sector in Resolution 68-NQ/TW (Resolution 68)?
I believe that, together with a number of other resolutions aimed at improving the socialist rule-of-law state’s institutional framework—such as Resolution 27/NQ-TW on continuing to build the socialist rule-of-law state in the new era, and Resolution 66/NQ-TW on renewing the law-making and law-enforcement process to meet the country’s development requirements in the new era—Resolution 68 affirms the urgency and reemphasizes the requirement to protect property rights, ownership rights, and freedom of business in the current phase of consolidating the building of the rule-of-law state.
In the context where the private sector is making a significant contribution to the economy with millions of business households and enterprises, protecting property rights and the freedom of business is a core factor in promoting fair competition, mobilizing private resources, and minimizing unnecessary administrative interference in business activities.
At the same time, the Resolution emphasizes the need to “strengthen trust between the State and the private sector” in a legal environment that is still undergoing many changes, with potential risks and high compliance costs. Therefore, protecting these rights is essential for creating a safe business environment, encouraging long-term investment, and motivating people to participate in the market.
In your opinion, to what extent are these rights currently ensured for private-sector enterprises in practice?
Property rights and the freedom of business for private-sector enterprises in Vietnam have seen notable legal and policy progress, with clear provisions in the Constitution, the Civil Code, and specialized laws such as the Law on Intellectual Property, the Land Law, the Law on Real Estate Business, the Housing Law, and the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights, along with international treaties to which Vietnam is a signatory and which relate to property rights—such as the TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property, the CPTPP, the EVFTA, and the EVIPA. Additionally, the State has made significant efforts to reform administrative procedures and remove business-related barriers (such as the Prime Minister’s Resolution 30, the series of Resolution 19, and Resolution 02).
However, in reality, these rights are still not fully guaranteed. “Sub-licenses,” excessive inspections, informal costs, and overlapping laws persist—practices that have limited business freedom, as reflected in the Business Law Flow report by the Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). In particular, the “criminalization of economic relations” and the lack of equality between the private sector and state-owned enterprises have made many businesses reluctant to scale up. Therefore, stronger and more substantive measures are needed to ensure real benefits for the private sector.
What recommendations would you make to improve the institutional framework to ensure property rights and freedom of business substantively and effectively?
Regarding property rights, it is necessary to amend laws related to land, business premises, investment, and intellectual property to further specify policies supporting and providing incentives for private enterprises—especially small businesses, innovative start-ups, and technology companies. More favorable conditions should be created for flexible business models and for shortening procedures for intellectual property registration and protection. It is also crucial to ensure equal access to public resources such as planning and investment information, science and technology, and public bidding and auctions. Law enforcement in this area must be as strict as in combating other offenses against public order.
In particular, I believe laws on state compensation and administrative procedures should be revised. We need to improve the quality of the judicial system—especially the courts—to enhance professionalism and judicial independence, so that the property rights of citizens and businesses can be better protected.
Regarding the freedom of business, there should be continued review and elimination of outdated business conditions and administrative procedures, and comprehensive reform of the “sub-license” system. Laws on sector-specific business conditions and administrative procedures must continue to be reviewed using methods to calculate compliance costs, assess legality, reasonableness, and consistency. Post-inspection regulations should be transparent, easy to understand, stable, and help businesses anticipate risks. Criminal, criminal procedure, civil procedure, and administrative procedure laws should be revised to ensure fair judicial access for citizens and businesses, in order to minimize the risk of criminalizing commercial business activities.
I believe the court system should have specialized courts or specialized judges to handle cases on commercial business, intellectual property, bankruptcy, recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and court-based mediation agreements—moving toward building a safe and equitable business environment.
Thank you very much!
By Yen Nhung, Business Forum Magazine Enternews, posted on May 22, 2025 (Vietnamese only)