•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
After a year of implementing Resolution 68-NQ/TW on developing the private sector, Vietnam’s business community and overseas Vietnamese in Canada say the most positive change has been the State’s shift in how it positions its relationship with the private sector—from control to partnership, protection, and enabling development.
To turn trust into capital, technology, and substantive cooperation, Vietnam needs to narrow the gap between policy and implementation, build a dedicated liaison hub for overseas Vietnamese, remove bottlenecks in technology transfer and intellectual property, and design “soft landing” programs that allow overseas Vietnamese enterprises to test business in Vietnam.
In an interview with a correspondent in Canada, Ms. Nguyen Quynh Lan, former official of the Canada Export Development Corporation (EDC) and current Vice President of the Canada-Vietnam Business Council, said Resolution 68-NQ/TW sends an important signal about development thinking.
She noted that the significance lies not only in adding policies to support enterprises, but also in recognizing the private sector more clearly as a force to be protected, partnered with, and enabled for long-term development.
From her experience at EDC, Ms. Lan said Canadian investors build trust through more than tax incentives; they also look for consistency and predictability in the legal environment. “The first question is not only what incentives they will receive, but whether their rights will be protected, whether contracts will be enforced, and whether dispute resolution mechanisms are transparent and fair.”
Resolution 68-NQ/TW has begun to address these concerns through clearer political commitments on protecting property rights, ensuring contract enforcement, and delineating criminal liability from administrative liability. For entrepreneurs, she said, this matters because enterprises need assurance that ordinary economic relations will be handled appropriately in a modern business environment.
According to Ms. Lan, the change is also reflected in the quality of dialogues with Canadian partners. Where discussions previously centered on policy risks and stability concerns, conversations are shifting toward concrete opportunities.
Areas of interest include the green economy, fintech, high-tech agriculture, and other technology-intensive sectors—signaling a qualitative shift beyond purely numerical indicators.
Looking at Vietnam’s current stage, Ms. Lan argued that the private sector must play a central role in raising national competitiveness, fostering innovation, and linking with overseas resources.
Based on experiences of Vietnamese businesspeople and experts in Canada, she said Vietnam can better leverage two main resources: international trade networks and technological capacity.
She urged Vietnam’s private sector to “leapfrog” in technology rather than follow the linear path taken by earlier industrialized economies. High-value areas she highlighted include applied artificial intelligence, fintech, smart agriculture, and the digital economy—fields with potential for Vietnam and where the Vietnamese-Canadian expert community can contribute substantively.
Ms. Lan also pointed to the presence of many Vietnamese IT professionals working in Canadian tech groups, banks, startups, and the country’s innovation ecosystem. If a suitable framework exists, she said, this workforce could become a technology bridge—helping Vietnamese firms access management experience, technical solutions, international standards, and North American partner networks.
Ms. Lan cautioned that overseas Vietnamese should be treated as strategic partners, not merely sources of remittances. If engagement is viewed only through a financial lens, she said, incentive policies may remain broad and non-specific.
By contrast, if overseas Vietnamese are treated as technical, commercial, and knowledge partners, Vietnam can create mechanisms for deeper involvement in policy co-design—from rule setting and piloting models to linking domestic firms with international markets.
From these insights, Ms. Lan offered three proposals.
First, Vietnam could establish a specialized “Trade Desk” to assist overseas Vietnamese. Ms. Lan said Canada already uses a Trade Commissioner model—a professional trade-promotion liaison stationed at embassies, consulates, and economic centers.
Vietnam could explore a reverse model by creating dedicated units in key provinces to connect overseas Vietnamese with domestic firms, regulators, and the investment ecosystem, reducing procedural friction.
Second, Vietnam should prioritize technology as a launchpad to attract overseas resources. Compared with land, manufacturing facilities, or large credit needs, Ms. Lan said technology is a sector where overseas Vietnamese can contribute more quickly and with fewer barriers.
However, she emphasized that the legal framework for technology transfer, intellectual property, data protection, and remote-work models must continue to improve. Removing these bottlenecks would send a positive signal not only to the IT community but also to the broader knowledge and entrepreneurial diaspora.
Third, Vietnam could adopt the Canadian “Soft Landing” model to help foreign enterprises test the market. Such programs typically provide advisory services, workspace, initial support, and connections with local partners, enabling firms to pilot before making major investments.
Ms. Lan said Vietnam could design a similar program for overseas Vietnamese seeking to test business in Vietnam.
Ms. Lan concluded that Resolution 68-NQ/TW has opened a doorway for the private sector and overseas resources. The next task, she said, is to make that doorway truly accessible through clear steps, professional support hubs, and a transparent legal environment so investors can see a long-term path.
With consistent policy implementation and concrete networks, she said, financial capital, technology, knowledge, and the overseas Vietnamese network in Canada can become an important part of Vietnam’s development journey.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
