To realize this goal, Party members in private enterprises must be highly innovative. According to Mr. Ta Minh Duc, Director of Tam Duc General Clinic One Member Limited Liability Company, the pioneering role of enterprises and Party members in the private sector will help improve the substantive competitiveness of private enterprises in the new period. This will also help enterprises move beyond the old mindset of competing through capital flows or pursuing “group interests” and “cronyism.”

As an entrepreneur, how do you view the role of building Party organizations in private enterprises and Party members engaging in the private economy? And in your opinion, how should the State support the private sector?

In my view, Party members participating in the private economy is completely normal if their activities comply with the law, are transparent, and do not abuse power or political relationships for personal gain.

Real estate enterprises are proactively restructuring cash flow to reduce dependence on bank loans.

In fact, since Regulation 15-QD/TW in 2006, Party members have been allowed to engage in the private economy without limits on scale, with the requirement that they set an example in complying with the law and the Party Charter. An entrepreneur who is a Party member, if they create jobs, pay taxes fully, innovate technology, and compete transparently, should be respected like any other entrepreneur. But if they exploit relationships, internal information, land, licenses, or preferential credit for personal gain, they must be strictly handled.

Regarding support from the State, I believe what enterprises truly need today is a stable, transparent, and predictable environment. Specifically: long-term stable policies, reduced compliance costs and administrative procedures; legal transparency on land, taxation, and investment; support for digital transformation and technological innovation; development of a healthy capital market so that enterprises are not overly dependent on bank credit; and the creation of a level playing field among state-owned, FDI, and private enterprises.

This spirit is also emphasized in Resolution 68-NQ/TW, in which the State defines its role as “enabling and serving,” rather than administratively intervening in ways that run counter to market principles; while also ensuring property rights, freedom of business, and equal competition for the private sector.

With Resolution 68, the private economy has been identified as one of the most important drivers of the economy. Therefore, Party members engaging in the private economy need to further promote their pioneering and leading role, contributing standards that create value for society, rather than being viewed only from the perspective of asset ownership.

In your opinion, is the growth of private enterprises in Viet Nam still maintaining a capital-based competition model, and has this model reached its limit?

In my view, the clearest sign is that the economy must spend increasingly more capital to generate one additional unit of growth. This is reflected in Viet Nam’s ICOR, which fluctuated around 5.8-6.4 during the 2015-2024 period. In other words, to generate one additional dong of GDP, the economy needs nearly six dong of investment capital. This is a sign that growth still relies heavily on expanding the scale of investment rather than improving the efficiency of resource use.

Meanwhile, the current context has changed. Capital costs are no longer as cheap as before, the population is beginning to age, and the advantage of low-cost labor is declining. The concern is not that Viet Nam lacks capital, but that capital-use efficiency remains low, with each dong of capital generating limited new productivity.

Data from the Statistics Office under the Ministry of Finance show that Viet Nam’s labor productivity in 2025 is estimated at around VND245 million per worker, equivalent to about USD9,800 per person. This figure has improved, but it still shows that there remains very large room to improve the quality of growth, especially compared with industrial economies in the region. We ourselves, as enterprises, are also very “impatient” and are making efforts to improve this issue.

So what needs to change for private enterprises and Party members engaging in the private economy to truly promote their pioneering and leading role in creating value for society, sir?

We should not understand “moving away from capital-based growth” as reducing investment or restricting borrowing. Enterprises in any economy need capital to develop. The important thing is to shift from the mindset of using capital to “expand in size” to using capital to raise productivity.

If capital is invested in automation, data, R&D, workforce training, supply chain management, branding, or export market expansion, then it is the kind of capital that helps enterprises build substantive strength.

Therefore, the question is not how much an enterprise borrows, but whether each new dong of capital creates higher productivity. As an enterprise, we focus on increasing revenue per worker, improving inventory turnover, maintaining stable and more sustainable profit margins, and, further, strengthening and increasing international competitiveness. A resilient and strongly developing enterprise, while ensuring business integrity, is the result of change that promotes such a leading role.

From your perspective, where will the new growth drivers of Vietnamese private enterprises lie in the current context?

I believe there are five important drivers.

The first is management productivity. Many Vietnamese enterprises do not lack will or market opportunities, but they lose out in their ability to manage cash flow, inventory, customer data, or capital costs. When the scale of an enterprise grows while its management methods remain manual, efficiency will decline very quickly.

The second is technology and innovation. Resolution 68-NQ/TW sets the target that by 2030, the private economic sector will have around 2 million enterprises, contribute 55-58% of GDP, and increase average labor productivity by about 8-9.5% per year. This is a very clear policy message, showing that the private sector does not only play the role of creating jobs or increasing revenue growth, but must also become a force that raises national productivity.

The third is deeper participation in value chains. Vietnamese enterprises need to move from simple processing to higher value-added stages such as design, quality standards, logistics, branding, and distribution.

The fourth is green transition and digitalization. These are no longer slogans but are becoming mandatory conditions for participating in global supply chains, especially in export sectors.

The fifth is the development of long-term capital sources. We expect policies to strongly promote the development of bond markets, stock markets, investment funds, insurance, and pensions to create sustainable capital sources for the private sector.

Respectfully, thank you!