Bảo Khánh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on August 1, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.
From a “Suspended” Resolution to an Urgent Directive
“Anyone who disagrees, please give a like.” (A comment that drew over 2,000 likes.)
“I was never consulted, and I disagree. Electric vehicle technology is still unstable and very dangerous. Handling electric vehicle batteries is also very harmful to the environment. Don’t think short-term like this. Don’t just help each other sell electric bikes — that’s morally wrong.”
“Putting words in people’s mouths.”
These are three of the most popular comments on a recent Facebook post by the page Hà Nội Biz. The post was citing Báo Tin tức, a government-run news agency, which claimed that a majority of Hà Nội residents agreed with the proposal to ban gasoline-powered motorbikes starting in July 2026.
The actual public reaction online to Directive 20/CT-TTg, however, painted the opposite picture. Similar posts across social media were met not with support, but with widespread resistance, frustration, and skepticism. This stark disconnect between the official narrative and the public’s voice forces two critical questions: Were Hà Nội residents ever genuinely consulted on this ban? And if they were, were their opinions accurately recorded?
Consistent Public Backlash
In reality, the plan to restrict motorbikes in Hà Nội is not new. The idea has been on the table since 2017, when the Hanoi People’s Council passed Resolution 04/2017/NQ-HĐND, which outlined a plan to ultimately end motorbike operations in all urban districts by 2030.
Even back in 2017, the proposal became a hotly debated topic, drawing immediate criticism from experts. Transport specialists like Trần Thị Kim Đăng and Nguyễn Viết Trung argued that authorities must first improve public transportation and conduct thorough studies before implementing any ban. This sentiment was echoed by former officials like Ngô Anh Tuấn, then-Director of the Hanoi Department of Planning and Architecture, who called the 2030 timeline “hasty and groundless” without being tied to public transport progress.
In the years that followed, the core of this critique remained unchanged. Many still argued that any ban would be premature as long as the city’s public transport capacity was inadequate, while others stressed the need to assess the social impacts of banning motorbikes in low-emission zones. Yet, for reasons that were never made public, the plan appeared to be quietly “shelved”—until now.
A Sudden Revival
After the plan had been “shelved” for nearly eight years, Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính revived it on July 12, 2025. His new Directive 20/CT-TTg ordered Hà Nội to ban gasoline- and diesel-powered motorbikes from the area inside Ring Road No. 1, setting an aggressive start date of July 1, 2026.
The directive immediately sparked a familiar, heated debate. Experts once again warned that the city’s public transport infrastructure still could not support such a ban, while the public feared a looming crisis. A new dimension also emerged, with many questioning the practicalities of a mass shift to electric vehicles and some speculating that the ban was tied to VinFast’s corporate interests.
Despite the renewed outcry, authorities have yet to establish an official channel to receive or respond to these concerns and are simply proceeding with the directive’s rollout. The decision to push forward, in the face of years of consistent and well-documented public and expert opposition, strongly suggests that public opinion had little influence on the final policy.
Legal Tangles and a Muffled Public Voice
Việt Nam’s 2013 Constitution makes a clear promise.
Clause 1, Article 8 states:
“2. State agencies, cadres, civil servants, and public employees must respect the People, devote themselves to serving the People, maintain close ties with the People, listen to their opinions, and be subject to their oversight […]”.
Clause 1, Article 28 asserts:
“1. Citizens have the right to participate in the management of the State and society, to take part in discussions and make recommendations to State agencies on issues at the grassroots, local, and national levels.”
This raises a critical question regarding the motorbike ban: over the past eight years, where has the public’s voice been in a policy that directly affects the daily lives of millions? As of 2016, Hà Nội had 5.2 million motorbikes, the primary mode of transport for a majority of its working-class population.
Furthermore, the Law on the Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents (LND) explicitly requires the government to solicit opinions from those directly impacted by any proposed law. At a recent roundtable on July 18, 2025, an official from Hà Nội’s Department of Construction, Phan Trường Thành, insisted that the city had followed all procedures and held public consultations before passing the original 2017 resolution.
However, the sharp and consistent contrast between this official claim and the reality of public sentiment, both then and now, raises serious doubts.
From Local Law to Central Urgency
The 2025 gasoline motorbike ban continues the spirit of the 2017 plan, but it is being implemented through a different, more powerful instrument: an urgent Prime Ministerial directive, not a local law.
Under Article 4 of the 2025 LND Law, a Prime Minister’s directive is not an LND, meaning it does not carry legally binding coercive force. This recalls similar debates over the use of directives during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a directive is still an authoritative instrument that state agencies are expected to comply with to ensure unified leadership.
The Prime Minister’s power to issue such influential directives is reinforced by other legal frameworks. Article 98 of the 2013 Constitution grants the Prime Minister significant powers to ensure “the unity and continuity of national administration,” including the ability to suspend local council decisions. Furthermore, the 2025 Law on Government Organization expands these central powers, allowing the Prime Minister to intervene in local government matters in vaguely defined “necessary cases.”
In practice, while Directive 20/CT-TTg is not technically a law, it is backed by the overlapping political and legal authority of the central government, allowing it to function with the force of one and effectively bypass the standard legislative process.
Impact on Property Rights
Directive 20/CT-TTg raises serious questions about its impact on constitutionally protected property rights.
Property rights are fundamental civil rights and can only be restricted by law in cases of clear national necessity, such as for defense or public health. Likewise, Article 32 of the 2013 Constitution explicitly states:
1. Everyone has the right to own lawful income, savings, housing, personal property, means of production, and capital contributions in enterprises or other economic organizations.
2. Private ownership rights and inheritance rights are protected by law.
While some may argue that the directive only bans motorbikes in a specific zone, it still fundamentally restricts the lawful use of private property for millions of residents who live in or need access to the city center.
This is not a new legal debate in Việt Nam. There are clear historical precedents where similar restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional. In 2003, Hà Nội attempted to suspend motorbike registration in several districts, but the policy was scrapped in 2005 after the Ministry of Justice’s own Legal Document Review Department called it a violation of property rights. Similarly, the Ministry of Public Security was forced to drop its proposed “one motorbike per person” rule in 2005 for the same reason.
With Less Than a Year to Go
Currently, there is no official, direct mechanism for the public to engage in policymaking regarding the gasoline motorbike ban. With less than a year remaining before it is scheduled to take effect in Hà Nội’s Ring Road No. 1 zone, the window for meaningful consultation is closing fast.
While some indirect channels—such as expert workshops, media reports, and lawmakers’ interventions—still exist, they hardly represent the broader public voice. As the social media comments at the beginning of this article demonstrated, there is a vast and unacknowledged gap between the state’s narrative and actual public sentiment, leaving millions of citizens on the outside of a decision that will profoundly reshape their daily lives.
