Conference to implement legislative guidelines for the 16th National Assembly term - Photo: GIA HAN
I read that news report with agreement. Legislation has long been the most difficult area to hold accountable, and a set of metrics could change that.
But immediately following that feeling of agreement comes a question. What will we be grading?
The correctness of this policy is clear. Resolution 66 of the Politburo, issued on April 30, 2025, frankly pointed out that our lawmaking mindset is still heavily focused on management, the legal system is still overlapping and contradictory, procedures are cumbersome, and policy responses are slow.
These "problems" exist partly because it's rare for anyone to be named when a law is enacted and causes problems. Using scoring results as a basis for evaluating leaders, as the Deputy Prime Minister said, is a way to hold a specific person accountable. That's a welcome step forward.
I understand the allure of numbers. The easiest indicators to measure are always those that can be counted: how many documents are submitted on time, how many bills are completed in a quarter. This pressure is even greater when the 16th term has 192 legislative tasks, with the Government alone bearing 171. But this is also where I see the need for caution. If the main measure is progress and quantity, then what the system is encouraged to create will be many laws and quick implementation, not necessarily good laws. And a hastily enacted law, overlapping another law, only creates the very problem that Resolution 66 aims to cure.
For professionals like us, the quality of a document lies not in how quickly or slowly it is produced, but in its longevity.
A decree that just came into effect already needs amendment. A clause that can be interpreted in two ways sparks debate between businesses and enforcement agencies. A new regulation creates yet another type of sub-license. These are the kinds of things that legal life has to deal with every day.
A truly effective set of KPIs should therefore place greater weight on the more quantifiable aspects. Is policy impact assessment being conducted seriously, or merely as a formality?
The question is whether the feedback reaches the right people who are affected. And most importantly, has the proposed policy answered the question posed by the Deputy Prime Minister himself: which bottlenecks does it address and which compliance costs does it reduce for citizens and businesses?
Scoring progress is easy, but scoring quality is difficult. However, that difficulty is precisely what makes it worth measuring. Fairness is also necessary. There is no absolute measure of quality. Assessing impact, consistency, and compliance costs are all difficult to quantify, and anyone who has ever worked in policymaking understands that. Because of these difficulties, the pilot phase starting in the third quarter of this year is a valuable time to explore and find a suitable set of criteria, rather than rushing to finalize them.
A good KPI should also include rewards for boldness, for documents that dare to pave the way and proactively accept controlled risks, in the spirit that Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Nguyen Khac Dinh mentioned at the conference. Because if the measure only punishes mistakes and delays, lawmakers will choose the safest option: not proposing anything new.
I think of a law like a bridge. People don't praise a bridge because it was built quickly, but because it withstands many floods and carries the daily flow of traffic. The same applies to laws. Ultimately, the deciding factor isn't how many laws we create in a quarter, but how many years those laws remain valid and useful.
Once the metrics are targeted, KPIs will cease to be a pressure to achieve results and become a reminder of what all regulations should aim for.
Source: https://tuoitre.vn/cham-diem-de-co-nhung-dao-luat-tot-hon-10026062812380663.htm
