In Vietnam, the lack of transparency in land compensation as well as hurdles and unclear provisions in access to land use by enterprises and businesspeople have created big differences between market prices and compensation rates of the State, paving the way for corruption by related authorities. It has been the root cause of the problems and complaints in recent years. Such is the view of Prof. Dr. Dang Hung Vo at the seminar on land planning in 2020 and land use in 2015 organized recently in Hanoi. Vietnam Business Forum had an interview with Mr Dang Hung Vo. Luu Hiep reports.
Vietnam recognizes land ownership of the entire people, different from other countries, how do you explain on such provision?
In fact, Constitution of 1959 provided ownership including private ownership on land. Meanwhile, Constitution of 1980 defined that land and natural resources belong to ownership of the entire people and managed by the State on their behalf. The same clause is applied in Constitution 1992. Therefore, the Land Law 2003 has to comply with the ownership of the entire people and without further elaboration.
The Land Law 2003 defines more specifically the ownership of the entire people as the rights to possession, decision and usage. The usage of land belongs to the people that the State designates, leases or recognizes the use of land. Therefore, the Land Law 2003 defining the land ownership of the entire people is not different from private land ownership in other countries. In reality, private ownership in other countries is limited while ownership of the entire peoplein Vietnam is expanding the right of land users.
There is no mention to possession as possession of land is very vague. As for the right to decision, the State only decides on planning and objective of land use. Land users can have the rest ofland use rights including transferring, leasing, collateral, succession, investment, donation, etc.
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has recently proposed private land ownership, what do you think?
Such amendment is necessary as it complies with international practice and promotes international integration. Since the foundation of the Land Law is the recognition private land ownership. Ignoring such a view, the Land Law remains unclear with shortcomings, no matter how many amendments are made. If the present land use right is not different from ownership, why should we continue to complicate the concept? making land users with all the rights of possession, usage and transfer cannot be regarded as true ownership. This makes the real land trading cannot be called trading and must be regarded as transferring. The land collateral must be declared as “collateral of land use right”. Land is property, but property is different from property right. The law is unclear in selling and buying, property collateral and trading, causing prolonged complaints among the people. In fact, it is only amendment in wording; the content on property of the entire people has ready become private ownership.
And regarding the right of the land users, in many cases the State takes back the land without asking for the consent of the users?
True, there are abuses of land recovery in certain areas but they are not related to ownership. We should not think that ownership by the entire people means the State can use that right freely. The Land Law 2003 provides clearly the cases the State can recover the land, for instances, the State can take back the land for wholly foreign invested projects, infrastructure projects, projects for national defence, security and public utilities. Nonetheless, while applying such provision, many localities expand at will that right.
What must be amended is the mechanism of land recovery. The State cannot take back the land for the economic interests of others without the consent of the owners.
Many law makers and experts believe that ownership by the entire people or state of non-ownership on land has led to the widespread abuse of land use, how do you think?
True, there are widespread abuses of land use, turning the ownership by the entire people into private ownership. Therefore, instead of land ownership by the entire people, it should be diversification of land ownership such as national ownership under central management, ownership under local authorities, ownership by communities, ownership by legal person and individual ownership.
It is time to consider the land ownership in the direction of diversified ownership. Most of the countries in the world recognize private land ownership. Only with diversified ownership can we avoid the present confusion and comply with international practice. Any way, for all cases of ownership, the State can have the ruling in the interests of national security.
Vietnamese
