Commenting on the draft Law on Thrift Practice and Waste Prevention, Associate Professor Dr. Hoang Xuan Lam, member of the Central Committee of the Vietnam Fatherland Front and Chairman of the Council of Friendship University of Technology and Management, warned: “The most serious legal contradiction in the draft law is the expansion of its scope to include the private sector.”

Specifically, Article 1 of the draft law defines its scope to include "the production, business, and consumption activities of organizations, households, and individuals." An entire chapter (Chapter 3) is devoted to setting principles on the “consumption of citizens” in the context of thrift and anti-wastefulness.

These provisions directly contradict the core principles of Vietnam’s 2013 Constitution. Article 32 affirms: “Everyone has the right to own lawful income, savings, housing, means of living, and means of production... Private ownership and inheritance rights are protected by law.” Article 33 states: “Everyone has the right to conduct business in industries and trades not prohibited by law.”

These are constitutional rights. Under Article 14, they can only be limited by law “in cases necessary for reasons of national defense, national security, social order and safety, social ethics, or public health.”

Associate Professor Lam emphasized that any intervention in how an individual or business uses their own resources under the pretext of “waste prevention” is an excessive interpretation and goes beyond the lawful boundaries for restricting rights.

An inefficient investment by a private business is a commercial risk - not a violation of public resource management. Similarly, if a person chooses to spend on what might be considered “luxury” goods or services, that is their legitimate right to use their lawfully owned assets.

How can one quantify or prove “wastefulness” in household shopping or in a failed business investment that doesn't violate current laws?

“Setting ‘frugal consumption’ standards and imposing them on the public is not only unrealistic in practice but also infringes upon individual freedom and property rights,” Lam analyzed. “Such interference creates a dangerous precedent for arbitrary intervention in citizens' economic and social lives, contradicting the spirit of a rule-of-law state and a market economy.”

Risk of creating another bureaucratic layer and legal overlap

Another concern raised by Lam is that despite the stated goal of reducing administrative overlap, the draft law could end up creating a new layer of bureaucracy by introducing general regulations on oversight mechanisms.

Chapter 2, Section 3, of the draft lays out rules for “inspection, auditing, and supervision of thrift and waste prevention,” potentially operating in parallel and even conflicting with provisions in the Law on Inspection, the State Audit Law, and other specialized legal codes.

In reality, the issue of overlapping inspections and audits has long caused frustration and financial burdens for businesses and agencies. A company may be subject to dozens of inspections in a year, sometimes from multiple authorities focusing on the same issues.

While there is currently a coordination framework between the Government Inspectorate and the State Audit Office to minimize redundancy in annual inspection plans, the draft law fails to offer a clear coordination mechanism or to define jurisdictional boundaries between “thrift and waste prevention inspections” and other sector-specific inspections or state audits.

This raises important questions: After a public investment project has already been audited by the State Audit Office, can it then be subjected to another inspection under this law to evaluate “wasteful behavior”? Which agency’s conclusion will carry more legal weight? Who will resolve contradictions between agencies?

“If the law doesn’t include a dedicated chapter on coordination principles and clear divisions of scope and authority, it may worsen the very problem it intends to solve, leading to administrative chaos and more burdens for those being audited,” Lam warned.

Furthermore, assigning identical responsibilities for “inspection, supervision, and law enforcement” across multiple levels without a designated lead agency risks omission, delay, or fragmented enforcement. The lack of clarity also adds to the bureaucratic burden on those being regulated.

Don’t let “innovation” become a shield for negligence

Clause 4, Article 35 of the draft law states: “Officials, public servants, civil servants, and representatives of state-owned capital in enterprises who commit wasteful acts or violations in organizing waste prevention efforts may be considered for exemption or reduction of legal liability as provided by relevant laws and competent authorities.”

Lam noted that the absence of specific criteria for “exemption or reduction of legal liability” opens the door to subjective interpretation or even abuse, undermining public trust in the rule of law.

A clause that is overly lenient and lacks clearly defined limits may be misinterpreted as a protective “shield” for poor performance or negligence - especially if the “waste” stems from actions taken in the name of “innovation.”

Binh Minh