But not only in the Government Office, a series of documents in the form of decrees, circulars, etc., recently prepared by the ministries--also have a lot of errors. Errors not only in the sentences, grammar ... but also in the content that is far from reality, lack of viability and inconsistency, unsynchronized with the existing laws.

At a certain angle, these regulations can be considered as the rules that are made "in the air-conditioned rooms" by the experts who just sit in the room to invent, without any survey and evaluation of the reality. Therefore, some regulations were fiercely protested by the public right after they were issued.  They had to be amended or canceled.

For example, the joint circular No. 06/2013/TTLT issued on February 28 of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Transport on production, import, trade of helmets prescribed that those who wear substandard helmets will be fined with VND100,000 to VND200,000.

Once it was issued, the circular was met with very strong reactions in the public. The Ministry of Justice also immediately gave objection.

The Ministry of Justice’s spokesman--Tran Tien Dung, said that the regulations forcing people to know the quality of helmets as a basis for sanctions is "unconvincing." The current management of the state over production, import, circulation and sale of helmets is not good. He said people are very difficult to detect, distinguish between genuine and fake helmets and it is even very difficult for the traffic police.

Colonel Dao Vinh Thang, head of the Hanoi Traffic Police, also said the sanctions under Circular 06 will be difficult to apply, because the police are not trained nor have equipment to distinguish poor quality helmets. Furthermore, the law does not allow traffic policemen to stop people to check whether their helmet is fake or not.

Due to the above reaction, the Circular No. 06 was withdrawn for amendment. However, this incident is alarming for the way of making policies at many ministries at present.

Three weeks before that incident, the Ministry of Education and Training issued Circular No. 04 (dated February 26) on the high school graduation exam 2013 regulations, which bans students from distributing recordings or images revealing exam cheating. Just a day after the circular was issued, it was discovered to be contrary to the Law on Denouncement.

Vu Duc Dam, Chairman of the Government Office, had to say that some contents in the circular were irrational and need amending.

“I’ve checked and see several unreasonable contents in the regulation, which violate people’s right to make denouncements. There still remain some inadequate regulations and they must be repealed regardless of who is the issuer. I’ve discussed the issue with the MoET leaders and was informed that Minister of Education and Training has requested an inspection and will amend the regulation,” Dam said.

Minister Vu Duc Dam recently admitted that many legal documents that were issued recently are not close to the reality and even not in accordance with law.

Previously, a decree of the government dated December 17, 2012, on funerals of public employees, was also strongly criticized. The decree says: "the coffin of the dead placed at the funeral home or the dead’s family must not have a glass window." The Ministry of Justice’s Legal Document Inspection Bureau requested to withdraw the regulation.

In fact, it is very common for coffins to have a glass pane for people to see the dead for the last time. "There is a spiritual element of as well as emotional factor which is sacred. Saying that to ensure hygiene, prevent the possibility of glass breaking and falling onto the face of the deceased or some other reasons to set this provision is unconvincing," said the bureau’s chief Le Hong Son.

In addition, Article 4 that bans dispersing or burning votive papers during the funeral is also unfeasible and is not supported by the public.

Besides the regulations that were withdrawn after issuance, many regulations were removed in the first draft, for example the regulations on removing the names of those who go abroad for two years or more from the family record books in the Law on Residence or the collection of road maintenance fee from electric bikes of the Ministry of Finance.

The amendment and removal of infeasible regulations during the compilation process may be normal, but the high rate of such regulations reflects the problems related to the thinking of policy makers in a number of agencies and departments.