As Vietnam’s National Assembly convenes for its 10th session of the 15th legislature, a wave of legal reforms is sweeping through the country’s business and land management frameworks. At the heart of the current legislative agenda is the draft amendment to the Investment Law, a proposal that has sparked intense debate over which business sectors should remain subject to conditional requirements. Alongside this, practical questions about land use rights and administrative processes continue to challenge local authorities and citizens alike, reflecting the complexity of Vietnam’s evolving legal landscape.
On December 4, 2025, lawmakers in Hanoi turned their attention to the draft amended Investment Law, focusing especially on the review and potential reduction of business sectors that require special conditions for participation. The move is widely seen as a crucial step to untangle regulatory knots, cut compliance costs, and boost the competitiveness of Vietnamese enterprises. According to coverage by VietnamNet, Representative Lê Hoàng Anh from Gia Lai province voiced strong support for the government’s bold initiative to trim down sectors deemed outdated or redundant, aligning with the reformist spirit of Resolutions 66 and 68.
Yet, the debate is far from straightforward. Annex IV of the draft law, which lists the sectors subject to conditional business requirements, still includes several industries that many believe are misplaced. "Many contents are essentially technical product standards which could be regulated by specialized laws, not the Investment Law," Representative Lê Hoàng Anh argued, as reported by VietnamNet. He suggested narrowing the food business group, noting that food safety standards are already comprehensively addressed under existing legal frameworks.
For e-commerce, Lê Hoàng Anh proposed that business conditions should only apply to large platforms handling significant amounts of consumer data. This, he said, would prevent regulatory overlap with logistics, payment systems, or smaller e-commerce operations. The representative also pointed out that sectors like animal feed, aquaculture, plant protection drugs, veterinary drugs, and inspection services are primarily technical in nature and already subject to risk management through registration and inspection mechanisms. In his view, there’s little reason to keep these in the list of conditional investment business sectors.
Construction services, testing, and assessment, Lê Hoàng Anh added, are already governed by professional certification systems. Imposing additional business conditions in the Investment Law would not only be redundant but also reduce flexibility in practice. He advocated for a more dynamic approach: "Annex IV should list only high-risk sectors to be controlled by law, while technical standards and certifications should be regulated under specialized laws for flexibility and timely updates." Moreover, he recommended a periodic review mechanism every three years, so that sectors found to be obsolete would automatically lose their status, in line with practices from the OECD and ASEAN. He also called for the removal of vague language such as "other requirements" to prevent the proliferation of hidden licensing barriers.
The Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) echoed many of these concerns. In its official comments, the VCCI stated that "many sectors in Annex IV do not meet the criteria for conditional business sectors and suggests removing some specific sectors to ensure rationality, transparency, and reform spirit." For example, activities related to UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) research and manufacturing, the VCCI argued, should not be included since the main safety and security risks arise during use, not production. Imposing business conditions here, the VCCI warned, could stifle innovation and slow the growth of Vietnam’s budding UAV industry.
Other sectors also came under scrutiny. The management and operation of infrastructure facilities, such as crematoriums, need not require special business conditions, as investors already select capable operators. For fertilizers, product quality is tightly controlled through circulation recognition decisions, making further business conditions for trading redundant. The VCCI also noted that film services are already regulated by the 2022 Cinema Law, which mandates classification and licensing for each film, rendering additional business conditions unnecessary. In the gold sector, the Chamber recommended maintaining business conditions only for gold production, while treating gold jewelry and handicrafts as ordinary goods. Printing and coin casting, too, were proposed for removal from the list, as they do not align with the legal nature of conditional business sectors.
Underlying these debates is a broader concern about clarity and consistency. The criteria for defining "conditional business sectors" remain vague and open to broad interpretation. Many see the current amendment as a golden opportunity to standardize these criteria, retaining only those sectors that present genuine risks to public safety, health, security, or national defense. Technical requirements, circulation standards, and professional certifications, they argue, should be managed under specialized laws to ensure flexibility, reduce administrative burdens, and bring Vietnam in line with international norms.
Meanwhile, at the grassroots level, land management issues continue to pose challenges for both citizens and authorities. One recent case, reported by VietnamNet, involved a family who, in 2014, purchased a land plot from their local commune’s People’s Committee—which, as it turned out, lacked the authority to sell the land. The family paid in full, and by 2017, the area was included in a provincially approved residential development plan. Now, the family is asking: Can they be issued a land use right certificate, or "sổ đỏ," for their plot?
The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment responded that the case must be resolved locally, based on specific records and local regulations. While the Ministry could not provide a definitive answer, it outlined the general legal framework: current land law, under Articles 137 to 140, guides the issuance of first-time land use right certificates for households and individuals. The government has also provided detailed instructions under Decrees 101/2024 and 151/2025, specifying everything from documentation to procedural steps and the division of responsibilities between different levels of local government.
Ministerial Decisions No. 2304 (June 23, 2024) and No. 3380 (August 25, 2025) have further clarified administrative procedures in land management, detailing an 11-step process. This covers the order of implementation, methods, required documents, resolution timelines, responsible agencies, fees, forms, any conditions, and the legal basis for each procedure. Notably, if citizens disagree with a local authority’s decision, they are entitled to file complaints or initiate lawsuits under Article 237 of the Land Law and Article 7 of the 2011 Complaint Law—a crucial safeguard for protecting rights in what can be a murky administrative landscape.
All told, Vietnam’s current legislative moment is a balancing act between reform and regulation, central control and local discretion. As lawmakers debate how best to streamline business conditions and clarify land rights, the outcome will shape not only the country’s economic trajectory but also the everyday experiences of its citizens. The reforms under consideration promise to make Vietnam’s legal environment more transparent, flexible, and aligned with international standards—if, that is, the details are hammered out with the same boldness and care that the process itself demands.
