Become a Member for $9.99/month

At the beginning of 2025, motorbike taxi drivers were stunned when traffic fines suddenly surged under Decree 168/2024 , leaving them with no prior notice and no opportunity to speak up in time. [1]

At the start of 2026, sudden regulatory shifts struck again when a business found itself in turmoil as its cargo trucks were stranded at the border due to Decree 46/2026 . [2]

This was not an isolated case, as thousands of trucks were held up, throwing many companies into distress by these unexpected regulations. [3]

Both stories share a troubling common thread: policies with direct impacts on livelihoods are issued in a way that leaves affected individuals with almost no time to know, understand, or voice their opinions.

Sadly, these stories are becoming increasingly common in the context of breakneck lawmaking . [4] In such an environment, the voice of the public is lowered in volume, diminished in value, and severely compressed in time—leaving people completely unaware of when they even possess the right to speak.

“Ambush-style” Consultation

The formalistic nature of these drafting authorities is illustrated by the Ministry of Public Security, which quietly sought feedback on more than 20 draft legal documents during the 2026 Lunar New Year holiday. [5]

In the final days of the year, while bus stations are packed with travelers and households preparing for Tết, few notice numerous draft legal documents being posted for public comment in a secluded corner of the Ministry of Public Security’s website. [6] On paper, the procedures appear correct: documents are posted, contacts are provided, and deadlines are set.

However, consultation goes beyond mere publication and heavily depends on the location, timing, duration, and format of the release. These factors dictate whether the public has a genuine opportunity to contribute. When publication is merely formalistic, lacks transparency, or offers excessively short timeframes, it compromises the public's right to comment.

It is unclear when the ministry began drafting these 20-plus documents , which span decrees, circulars, and technical regulations. [7] Yet, right during the nationwide Tết holiday , a wave of these dossiers was released, with many allowing only nine days for public feedback. [8]

For instance, the consultation period for a draft decree on combating fake news and false information ran from Feb. 13 to Feb. 22, 2026—from the 26th day of the lunar year to the sixth day of Tết. [9]

Despite this being the first time Việt Nam introduced a draft legal document regarding fake news, state media remained largely silent. A Google search from that period reveals that only the website of the Ministry of Public Security published a notice on Feb. 18, the second day of Tết. [10]

It was only after the consultation window closed that state media began reporting on proposals like the creation of a national data center for combating fake news and increased fines for violations. [11] [12]

This near-total silence from state media drastically limits public access to information. Many remain unaware that these drafts exist, making it impossible for them to study the materials or provide input. The remaining draft documents faced identical circumstances.

Furthermore, releasing dozens of drafts simultaneously overwhelms the public. Between daily responsibilities and the holidays, few have the time or capacity to review multiple dense, highly technical dossiers.

This traps the public in a "confusing web of information" where meaningful participation is virtually impossible. Citizens are unlikely to know about, discuss, or voice their opinions on these laws due to such a quiet and opaque approach.

Regrettably, in a one-party system, such perfunctory consultation practices are no longer surprising. Often, people are not given the opportunity to speak at all, and are instead simply “ambushed” by legislation like Decree 168/2024 or Decree 46/2026 . [13] [14]

From Formalistic Consultation to Hollow Voices

In essence, policy consultation must be a two-way process. Drafting authorities are obligated to fully disclose information, the public must be given time to access and critique it, and all feedback must be transparently acknowledged.

When any part of this process is shortened or handled superficially, the true value of consultation is significantly diminished.

Rather than genuinely listening to public opinion, authorities have transformed the consultation process for many draft legal documents into a mere performance. Drafts are abruptly released, feedback windows are drastically minimized, and the recording of input lacks all transparency.

Over time, citizens grow indifferent to legislative processes and become reluctant to speak up, knowing that others will not meaningfully acknowledge their voices.

This erosion of civic participation is glaringly evident in the amendment process of the highest legal document: the Constitution.

The year 2013 was a milestone for constitutional engagement in Việt Nam. Numerous individuals and independent groups, including Petition 72 and “Together We Write the Constitution,” actively contributed opinions on amending the 1992 Constitution.

Although authorities refused to recognize their input and many participants reported facing harassment, their efforts sparked an unprecedented constitutional movement . [15]

However, when the Constitution was amended again in 2025 to facilitate the government restructuring under General Secretary Tô Lâm, the landscape was entirely different.

This newer process was executed rapidly over just 43 days and introduced sweeping changes, such as the elimination of district-level administrative units. [16]

Public consultation occurred in less than a month, running only from May 5 to May 30, 2025. [17] The authorities reported receiving more than 280 million comments with an approval rate of 99.75%. [18]

Throughout this accelerated process, the Communist Party maintained absolute dominance, leaving the National Assembly and the public on the sidelines . [19] Silence and hollow consensus entirely replaced the vibrant, forceful voices of 2013.

This identical pattern is visible in the recent amendment of the Cybersecurity Law and the revival of special economic zones. In June 2018, tens of thousands of citizens nationwide, alongside overseas Vietnamese communities, took to the streets to protest the draft Law on Special Economic Zones and the draft Cybersecurity Law. [20]

Yet, when the concept of special zones resurfaced in 2025 and the National Assembly passed an even stricter, amended Cybersecurity Law under expedited procedures, the public reaction was nonexistent. [21] [22]

There were no protests, no backlash, and no social media debate.

These stark contrasts reflect the fading voice of the public. A legal system cannot remain stable or transparent if it blocks the people directly affected by it from participating in its creation.

Furthermore, the institutions designed to represent the public risk deteriorating into mere figureheads within a one-party system. [23]

Overall, it is not just a single law or decree that is eroded, but the public's trust in the legal system itself. Once that trust completely deteriorates, the gap between the law on paper and reality in practice will only continue to widen, regardless of how many new legal documents are issued.

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on March 28, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.

References: +

1. Luật Khoa tạp chí. (2025, January 15). Nghị định 168: Hai phương án tốt hơn – và không đánh úp . Luật Khoa Tạp Chí. https://vn.luatkhoa.com/2025/01/nghi-dinh-168-hai-phuong-an-tot-hon-va-khong-danh-up/

2. Trường An. (2026, April 1). Ambush Lawmaking—Part 1: Việt Nam’s Decree 46 Supply Chain Crisis . The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2026/04/ambush-lawmaking-part-1-viet-nams-decree-46-supply-chain-crisis/

3. See [2]

4. Bối Thủy. (2025, October 17). Lawmaking at Lightning Speed: Việt Nam’s Citizens Pay the Price . The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2025/10/lawmaking-at-lightning-speed-viet-nams-citizens-pay-the-price/

5. The Vietnamese. (2026, March 2). New Draft Reveals the Ministry of Public Security’s Expanding Cybersecurity Firewall . The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2026/03/new-draft-reveals-the-ministry-of-public-securitys-expanding-cybersecurity-firewall/

6. Danh sách góp ý dự thảo . (2026). Bocongan.gov.vn. https://bocongan.gov.vn/chinh-sach-phap-luat/lay-y-kien-du-thao?tab=het-han-lay-y-kien

7. See [5]

8. Long, C. (2026, January 25). Lịch nghỉ Tết Nguyên đán Bính Ngọ 2026 chi tiết . Laodong.vn; Chuyên Trang Du Lịch . https://laodong.vn/du-lich/cong-dong/lich-nghi-tet-nguyen-dan-binh-ngo-2026-chi-tiet-1646464.html

9. See [5]

10. Ngân, M. (2026). Đề xuất điều chỉnh các biện pháp phòng, chống vi phạm pháp luật về tin giả, tin sai sự thật . Mps.gov.vn; Bộ Công an. https://mps.gov.vn/bai-viet/dieu-chinh-cac-bien-phap-phong-chong-vi-pham-phap-luat-ve-tin-gia-tin-sai-su-that-1770997071

11. DANH TRỌNG. (2026, February 23). Bộ Công an đề xuất lập Trung tâm cơ sở dữ liệu quốc gia phòng, chống tin giả, tin sai sự thật . TUOI TRE ONLINE; tuoitre.vn. https://tuoitre.vn/bo-cong-an-de-xuat-lap-trung-tam-co-so-du-lieu-quoc-gia-phong-chong-tin-gia-tin-sai-su-that-20260223115102032.htm

12. VnExpress. (2026, February 22). Dùng AI để tạo, phát tán tin giả có thể bị phạt 100 triệu đồng . Vnexpress.net; Báo VnExpress. https://vnexpress.net/dung-ai-de-tao-phat-tan-tin-gia-co-the-bi-phat-100-trieu-dong-5042864.htm l

13. See [1]

14. See [2]

15. Long, T. H. (2022, November 3). Phong trào Lập hiến 2013 – một lịch sử ngắn . Luật Khoa Tạp Chí. https://vn.luatkhoa.com/2022/11/phong-trao-lap-hien-2013-mot-lich-su-ngan/

16. Bảo Khánh. (2025, June 19). Fast-Tracked: Việt Nam’s 2025 Constitutional Amendment Explained . The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2025/06/fast-tracked-viet-nams-2025-constitutional-amendment-explained/

17. xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn. (2025, May 5). Kế hoạch lấy ý kiến Nhân dân về sửa đổi, bổ sung một số điều của Hiến pháp năm 2013 . Xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn. https://xaydungchinhsach.chinhphu.vn/ke-hoach-lay-y-kien-nhan-dan-ve-sua-doi-bo-sung-mot-so-dieu-cua-hien-phap-nam-2013-119250503234352214.htm

18. HẰNG, T. (2025, June 6). Nhân dân đồng thuận, thống nhất cao với nội dung sửa đổi, bổ sung Hiến pháp năm 2013 . Báo Nhân Dân Điện Tử. https://nhandan.vn/nhan-dan-dong-thuan-thong-nhat-cao-voi-noi-dung-sua-doi-bo-sung-hien-phap-nam-2013-post884943.html

19. Mai, H. (2025, March 21). Quốc hội và nhân dân đang hoàn toàn đứng ngoài quy trình sửa Hiến pháp như thế nào . Luật Khoa Tạp Chí. https://vn.luatkhoa.com/2025/03/quoc-hoi-va-nhan-dan-dang-hoan-toan-dung-ngoai-quy-trinh-sua-hien-phap-nhu-the-nao/

20. Khang, T. (2019, June 7). Một năm sau tổng biểu tình chống Luật Đặc khu và Luật An ninh mạng . Tiếng Việt; Radio Free Asia. https://www.rfa.org/vietnamese/in_depth/one-year-after-the-protest-against-the-sez-bill-special-law-and-the-cyber-security-law-06072019142743.html

21. Bảo Khánh. (2025, July 16). The Return of the “Special Zones”: A Silent Revival in Vietnam’s New Political Era. The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2025/07/the-return-of-the-special-zones-a-silent-revival-in-vietnams-new-political-era/

22. Trường An. (2025, December 12). The Quiet Passing of Việt Nam’s 2025 Cybersecurity Law. The Vietnamese Magazine. https://thevietnamese.org/2025/12/the-quiet-passing-of-viet-nams-2025-cybersecurity-law/ 23. Bui, T. (2025, March 6). The Declining Influence of the National Assembly in Vietnam’s “New Era.” Thediplomat.com; The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2025/03/the-declining-influence-of-the-national-assembly-in-vietnams-new-era/