Beyond Patchwork Fixes in the 'Forest of Laws': Việt Nam’s Institutional Reform

For many years, the legal system has been developed through what might be called “patchwork fixes”—mending one spot here, adding another there—to address specific problems or satisfy the needs of particular sectors. People talk endlessly about “amending laws,” yet pay far less attention to the more fundamental task of “amending the mindset behind lawmaking.”

-

Lost in a “Forest of Laws”

For years, Việt Nam's legal system has been compared to a “forest of laws”: dense, complicated, overlapping, and difficult to navigate. [1] This metaphor is invoked with increasing frequency in the National Assembly and policy forums as a warning about the confusion facing the legislative machinery. While amending and consolidating laws are routine activities at every session, the great paradox is that the more amendments are made, the more persistent the bottlenecks remain. 

The system's rapid expansion in quantity has outpaced its coherence and stability. What is troubling is that people constantly discuss “fixing laws,” but rarely address the deeper issue: the need to “fix the legislative mindset.”

The consequences of this "forest" are clear. According to reports, “officials are afraid to act,” and projects that “were already progressing slowly now face difficulties on all sides.” [2] For example, a real estate project “must comply with at least 10 different laws, each of which is accompanied by a web of circulars and decrees that are often inconsistent or overlapping, leaving investors unsure which procedure should come first, which should follow, or whether a particular procedure is even required.”

This is reinforced by reports from the Việt Nam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI), which show hundreds of conflicting regulations across major laws (Land Law, Investment Law, etc.), forcing many projects to be shelved. [3]

This legislative chaos has been widely criticized. One National Assembly delegate warned that “a jungle of laws that is ineffective, low-quality, overlapping, and obstructive causes even greater damage” than "jungle law." [4] 

Several high-level officials concur. Phan Đình Trạc, head of the Central Internal Affairs Commission, acknowledged that “the structure of the legal document system is complicated, with many layers […] creating difficulties in referencing and implementation, and is one of the main causes of overlap and contradiction.” [5] Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính has also exclaimed: “With regulations overlapping like a forest, how can any special mechanisms function?” [6]

The root cause for this persistent situation lies in the lawmaking mindset. For many years, the system has developed through “patchwork fixes”—mending one part here, patching another there—to resolve specific issues or meet sectoral demands. Each ministry or agency tends to build its own “law,” protecting its legislative “territory.” This results in fragmented, siloed rules, leading to “laws stacked upon laws” and “decrees layered over decrees.”

This “patchwork mindset” is also evident in laws being drafted reactively, according to political terms or public sentiment. With dozens, even hundreds, of draft laws slated for amendment at many sessions, these fragmented fixes often create new contradictions. 

Furthermore, many draft laws are not fully assessed for impact, leading to weak effectiveness. upon enactment or delays due to missing implementation guidelines. One delegate even stated that both extremes — cost and benefit — must be evaluated when considering a legislative initiative, but in practice, this process remains largely superficial. [7] [8] 

Dr. Phan Chí Hiếu, president of the Việt Nam Academy of Social Sciences, observed that appraisal and oversight lack depth, while “the legal system remains cumbersome, multi-layered, with many types of documents issued by many different bodies.” [9]

Resolving the “Bottleneck of Bottlenecks”

To address the “bottleneck of bottlenecks,” a phrase used by General Secretary Tô Lâm in October 2024, it is not enough to simply amend laws. The key is to reform the lawmaking mindset itself.

First, every law must be placed within an overarching architecture, not exist as an isolated “island.” When drafting a law, lawmakers must identify its position in the legal order, how it interacts with other laws, and what conflicts must be anticipated. It is not possible, for example, to amend the Investment Law without considering its effects on the Land Law or Enterprise Law.

Second, a rigorous mechanism for impact assessment must be institutionalized, both before and after enactment. This tool, common in other countries but underutilized in Việt Nam, is needed not only to measure costs and benefits but also to detect contradictions early. This should be paired with a system for periodic review—essentially giving certain provisions an “expiration date” to force reassessment.

While Phan Đình Trạc, head of the Central Internal Affairs Commission, called for “a comprehensive review of legal normative documents to resolve the overlaps, contradictions, and inadequacies," [10] this is only the first step. More importantly, this review must become an institutional routine: cyclical, transparent, and with public results.

Third, Việt Nam needs a central body for “legal system design.” Currently, individual ministries draft laws in their own fields, but no single institution is responsible for ensuring systemic uniformity. The government could establish an inter-agency unit or independent commission to coordinate and ensure compatibility. The National Assembly could also require annual reports that assess implementation quality, system coherence, and compliance costs, not just the number of laws enacted.

Finally, the most important task is shifting the lawmaking culture from a “management mindset” to a “development-oriented mindset.” Laws are not tools of control; they are an infrastructure for encouraging innovation, protecting freedom, and fostering fair competition. When built with this purpose, regulations create space for innovation instead of restricting social activity.

***

Reforming this mindset will not occur overnight. An emphasis on systemic design may initially slow down the lawmaking process and policy implementation. However, that is likely only true in the early stages. In the long run, a stable, transparent, and less overlapping legal system will save society far more costs than producing laws quickly but with poor quality. Any coordinating body must also operate transparently, with accountability and mutual oversight, to ensure coherence rather than become another layer of power.

Việt Nam’s lawmaking today is not merely a matter of legislative technique; it is a measure of institutional thinking capacity. A modern society cannot function on a patchwork of legal “quick fixes” but needs a clear, flexible, and coherent legal architecture.

If Việt Nam continues to maintain the “patchwork mindset,” it will only expand the forest of laws, not find a path out of it. Conversely, if the country changes its approach—viewing law as a developmental infrastructure rather than a control mechanism—that will be the most fundamental step in removing the “bottleneck of bottlenecks.”

—

Nguyễn Đặng Thế Anh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Nov. 12, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.