the hands of the Party, but a gradually active forum for the public to check
Government and Party activities. Concomitantly, legislative–executive interaction
has been cacophonic rather than entirely polyphonic, demonstrating the increas-
ingly active role of the democratic institution. Below are some vivid examples.
First, in the last decade, the country has seen contentious interpellations broad-
cast to the public via live television. Through the congressional forum, a number of
active delegates have advocated for more governmental accountability on societal
issues such as corruption, inflation, educational degeneration, environmental
pollution, and transportation congestion.
Second, in spite of having not yet been practiced since its introduction in 2001 ,
the new tool of the vote of confidence has served as the instrument for legislators
to challenge the Government in some cases. To illustrate this point, in dissatis-
faction with the government’s response to serious socioeconomic issues, some
progressive legislators have sought to apply the vote of confidence mechanism to
the relevant ministers.
47
Furthermore, in late 2010 , frustrated by the Vietnam
Shipbuilding Industry Group’s failure to repay the laden loans of US$ 4. 5 billion,
a senior legislator even called for a vote of confidence in the prime minister.
48
Third, the new century has witnessed the unprecedented phenomenon of rejection
by the National Assembly of several projects initiated by the Government. First worth
mentioning is the famous express railway case. On June 19 , 2010 , with 37 percent for
and 41 percent against, the National Assembly rejected the Government’s proposed
US$ 56 billion Hanoi–Ho Chi Minh City express railway project.
49
The case drew
tremendous attention due to the socioeconomic implications of this huge project.
During a month of deliberation, while the government tried to use persuasion to pass
the project, a myriad of legislators and the public openly criticized it via mass media,
on grounds including its cost and benefits that the majority of the people could not
see. Eventually, the concordance of the public and majority of legislators won. That
was the first time in modern Vietnamese history that democratic institutions were
successful in frustrating a project of the Government.
In another case, on March 29 , 2011 , with 35 percent for and 44 percent against,
the National Assembly rejected the draft Law on the Capital City by the
(^47) “Quoc hoi se Bo phieu Tin nhiem Bo truong Le Huy Ngo” (The National Assembly will vote
confidence in Minister Le Huy Ngo),http://vietbao.vn/Xa-hoi/Quoc-hoi-se-bo-phieu-tin-
nhiem-Bo-truong-Le-Huy-Ngo/ 10861674 / 157 ; “Toi Chinh thuc De nghi Bo phieu Tin nhiem
Bon Bo truong” (I officially appealed for a vote of confidence in four ministers),http://
vietbao.vn/Xa-hoi/Toi-chinh-thuc-de-nghi-bo-phieu-tin-nhiem-bon-bo-truong/ 40034148 / 157.
(^48) “Vu Vinashin: Yeu cau Bo phieu Tin nhiem Thanh vien Chinh phu” (The Vinashin Case:
appealing for a vote of confidence in members of the Government),http://laodong.com.vn/
Tin-tuc/Vu-Vinashin-Yeu-cau-bo-phieu-tin-nhiem-thanh-vien-Chinh-phu/ 18782 (last visited
September 27 , 2011 ).
(^49) “National Assembly Rejects Express Railway Project”http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/
201006 /National-Assembly-rejects-express-railway-project- 917324 (last visited September 27 ,
2011 ).