The Vietnamese government has long been implementing a national project to digitize and store citizens’ data for administrative purposes. The scope of this data collection, however, has expanded significantly beyond basic personal information—such as details on an ID card—to encompass data on individuals’ assets, finances, opinions, preferences, habits, and even patterns of movement.
This comprehensive effort has drawn comparisons to China’s model for collecting citizens’ financial and credit data, raising questions about ideological alignment in matters of social governance. This close parallel inevitably invites suspicion: could China’s system of surveillance and citizen scoring one day be replicated in Việt Nam?
The government’s years-long efforts to collect citizens’ data in every conceivable aspect cannot help but provoke that lingering question. From there, many more arise: Is the massive and comprehensive control of data truly meant to serve an all-encompassing management model bordering on surveillance? If so, is such a system feasible, effective, or even desirable? What concerns does it raise, and what lessons can be drawn from foreign experiences with similar ambitious undertakings?
Collecting Citizens’ Data
The government’s collection of citizens’ financial, property, and income data is only one component of a much broader ambition: the drive to collect and “digitize” all citizen information.
This nationwide “digital transformation” of population data is the central objective of Project 06, which explicitly aims to “mobilize the participation of the entire political system” and the public to fulfill this goal. The project also defines this data as a “vital national resource, centrally managed, unified, and shared across the entire political apparatus.”
To centralize this effort, the Ministry of Public Security established national data centers earlier this year, granting itself full authority to store and access all information from state agencies and social institutions. In August, the Ministry inaugurated National Data Center No. 1, which Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính proclaimed as “the heart of the nation’s digital transformation” and is described as one of Southeast Asia’s largest and most advanced facilities.
In the future, the government envisions developing the app VNeID into a “super application” capable of meeting nearly all citizens’ needs—from performing and verifying transactions to handling administrative procedures. According to Major General Hoàng Anh Tuyên, Deputy Minister of Public Security, the essence of this application is the personal electronic profile of each individual, serving as the key instrument for citizens to become true “digital citizens.”
The data feeding into these centers originates from deliberate policies designed to extract citizen information. Each policy and initiative corresponds to a specific category of information, revealing the government’s intent and envisioned uses for the data. The table below provides an overview of these actions, illustrating how datasets are classified, organized, and integrated for specific purposes.
In the future, the government has set its sights on developing VNeID into a “super app” capable of meeting nearly all citizens’ needs — from executing and verifying transactions to handling administrative and civil procedures. According to Major General Hoàng Anh Tuyên, Deputy Minister of Public Security, the essence of this application is each person’s electronic profile, serving as the very means by which citizens become true “digital citizens.”
A Framework Without Oversight
In a recent commentary on the “Independent Day Gift” campaign, Dr. Nguyễn Đức Thành observed that although Việt Nam has established a legal framework for personal data protection, it remains incomplete and limited, lacking clear provisions on a “mechanism to regulate the State’s behavior.”
This is evident in the 2023 Decree on Personal Data Protection, which fails to clearly define the scope of state surveillance—particularly that of the Ministry of Public Security—over personal data. Although state documents and official media repeatedly emphasize “safety and transparency,” no independent mechanism or supervisory body currently exists to serve as a counterbalance to the Ministry, the agency that wields extensive authority over this data. In the absence of such oversight, any form of overreach remains possible.
Moreover, the scope of the ministry’s power continues to expand, mirroring the rapid growth of its data-collection systems. This expansion raises growing concerns about transparency and restraint in how personal data is accessed, analyzed, and potentially manipulated—affecting not only individual citizens but also domestic organizations and businesses.
By contrast, many countries have established clear data-protection policies and independent mechanisms to limit government access. The table below outlines comparative models adopted by several nations, juxtaposed with Việt Nam’s current approach.
Table: A comparative table of Việt Nam and several countries or regions regarding their mechanisms for storing citizens’ data.
Việt Nam and China’s Data Governance
Many international observers and analysts have long noted that Việt Nam is pursuing a digital transformation and citizen surveillance model strikingly similar to China’s.
In practice, numerous similarities exist between the two countries in their approaches to handling citizens’ data—particularly in policy planning, the development of governance models, and the administrative mechanisms tied to collecting and exploiting citizen information.
The table below highlights the collection and management of citizens’ credit data as a case study, comparing and illustrating the notable similarities in their respective governmental approaches to this matter.
Table: A comparative table of credit control systems between Việt Nam and China—two countries that share the same political regime and have maintained close political ties for many years.
An Unlikely Safeguard Against Government Incompetence
Even so, one optimistic point is visible: the scale of the Vietnamese government’s efforts to monitor citizens remains modest compared to a “data-built empire” like China—to borrow The Economist’s phrase.
Moreover, the instability and questionable efficiency of the digital data platforms developed by the government in recent years illustrate the limited feasibility of Việt Nam’s current approach. For instance, the VNeID app repeatedly malfunctioned as citizens attempted to link their bank accounts to receive the 100,000 đồng gift offered by the government for National Day.
A few months earlier, during the official completion of the provincial and municipal merger process, the same app suffered severe overloads—users could not log in, and in some cases, their personal information was displayed incorrectly.
Other government applications, such as VssID—which stores citizens’ social insurance and healthcare data—have also encountered misinformation errors, causing confusion. Perhaps the peak of public doubt about the government’s ability to protect and control citizens’ data came just days ago, when a cybersecurity breach exposed the national credit database at the CIC.
Inefficiency leading to errors naturally undermines public trust. Yet the erosion of trust may stem not only from doubts about competence but also from suspicions about intent—the fear that the government’s growing appetite for control reflects something deeper. Recently, Reuters once again issued a warning to businesses and investors in Việt Nam about the increasingly stringent surveillance policies enforced by the security apparatus.
As public confidence in the state wanes—and as international partners begin to question the country’s image as a trustworthy collaborator—one must ask: should the government’s policies and ambitions be seriously reconsidered? And is it not time to openly and rigorously assess the effectiveness and legitimacy of these initiatives?
Thiên Lương & Tịch Dạ wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on Sept. 19, 2025. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyright for the English version of this article.