HCMC is implementing Resolution 260/2025/QH15 (amending and supplementing several articles of National Assembly’s Resolution 98/2023/QH15 dated June 24, 2023, regarding piloting specific mechanisms and policies for the development of HCMC), with various specific mechanisms, particularly in accelerating major infrastructure projects.
Vice Chairman of the HCMC Bar Association Ha Hai stressed that without proper legislation, “daring to act”, especially in key projects like the Ben Thanh – Thu Thiem metro line, still entails risks that prevent state officials from acting with peace of mind.
Commencing construction requires sufficient site clearance and complete legal procedures. The most formidable hurdle remains site clearance, which is intrinsically linked to the interests of the State, enterprises, and citizens.
Currently, the mechanisms for determining land prices, along with the responsibilities for decision-making and supervision, remain somewhat ambiguous. Failures in harmonizing interests and perfecting the legal framework, particularly regarding land, would lead to challenges in achieving the expected progress. To accelerate major projects, it’s imperative not only to apply mechanisms but also to refine the law.
Resolution 260 outlines exemption from liability if procedures are followed correctly without personal gain, yet the criteria for such exemptions haven’t been clearly legislated. Meanwhile, current laws still explicitly stipulate legal liabilities.
In reality, even without personal gain, individuals can still be prosecuted for negligence causing serious consequences or violating regulations. If subordinates commit errors, superiors remain jointly liable. Therefore, current regulations are primarily encouraging, but not yet a “legal shield” robust enough for officials to confidently commit themselves.
Vice Chairman Ha Hai then explained why several state officials opt for safety over breakthroughs. It isn’t because they lack capacity or dedication, but rather because the law fails to protect them.
The overarching policy is highly accurate, yet it remains at the directional stage and hasn’t been fully translated into specific laws. Procedural agencies must still apply existing laws. Consequently, the gap lies in the fact that policies haven’t been legislated promptly, leaving implementers to confront legal risks.
Resolution 260 establishes numerous decisive policies such as TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) and the handling of stagnant major projects. This demand daring action and responsibility from state officials.
The mindset of fear is comprehensible, as the current legal corridor is insufficiently clear to protect those executing the tasks. Therefore, merely observing the manifestation of “not daring to act” and assigning blame to officials are inaccurate because the root cause lies in institutional inadequacies.
However, when a cautious mentality becomes prevalent, the implementation of specific mechanisms will inevitably decelerate. Dossiers are easily passed around, seeking multi-layered approvals and prolonging processing times. The consequence is not only delayed project progress but also negative impacts on the investment environment and the rights of citizens and enterprises.
Thus, the issue is not demanding officials to “commit at all costs,” but rather perfecting the institution so they possess a solid legal foundation to do so.
Finally, the Vice Chairman voiced his opinion on necessary mechanisms to truly safeguard those who dare to think and act within pilot models like Resolution 260.
It can be said that the mechanisms currently available for HCMC are abundant, even unprecedented. The issue lies in legislating those policies. This means amending and supplementing laws, clarifying overlapping and contradictory regulations, explicitly defining criteria for liability exemption, and simultaneously restricting the criminalization of economic and civil relations.
Only when the legal system is perfected, clear, and unified will executing and procedural agencies have a solid basis for application. Only then can state officials act with peace of mind, daring to think, daring to act, and daring to bear responsibility. In other words, for specific mechanisms like Resolution 260 to truly materialize, the crucial point is not issuing more policies, but rapidly perfecting the institution.
Furthermore, legislative work must be more closely aligned with reality. When lawmakers possess both solid legal expertise and practical understanding, the enacted laws will be feasible and truly serve as an anchor for the implementation process.
