On March 20, 2013, the University of Social Sciences and Humanities organized a conference to gather feedback on the draft amendments to the 1992 Constitution.Participating in the discussion on the Draft Amendment to the 1992 Constitution were representatives from the Party Committee, the Board of Directors, leaders of various units, professors, associate professors, Party branches; the Trade Union, the Youth Union, the Student Association, and the Veterans Association of the University. In his opening remarks, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pham Xuan Hang (Vice Chairman of the University's Policy Advisory Council, former Rector of the University) emphasized that the University of Social Sciences and Humanities is a leading institution in training in social sciences and humanities; therefore, contributions to the Draft Constitution must reflect the pioneering role of social scientists, contributing to the construction of a more complete Constitution that is more suitable to the practical situation in Vietnam. Many opinions were expressed regarding the "Preamble," noting that it was too long, not concise enough, and should be rewritten. According to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Mau Han, the "Preamble" must affirm the position of the constitutional framers. When writing the "Preamble," reference should be made back to the 1946 Constitution, and the thought and methods of Ho Chi Minh should be continued in the process of drafting the Constitution.
Other opinions pointed out that the sentence structure and wording in the Draft Constitution were unclear and ambiguous in several articles. Specifically, Associate Professor Dr. Vu Quang Hien suggested that all instances of the word "territory" in the Draft Constitution should be replaced with "region" because using only "territory" would not include maritime areas. Furthermore, some opinions noted that certain articles were too general and unclear, such as Articles 42 and 65. Conversely, many articles were overly detailed and contained unnecessary repetitions, such as Articles 3, 4, and 16. Suggestions were made to rewrite them more concisely and clearly. Regarding education, one opinion noted that the entire Constitution only mentions the word "education" 11 times, and only as an accompanying term; nowhere does it mention "schools, teachers, or lecturers." Regarding Article 42 of the Draft Constitution, "Citizens have the right and obligation to study," a suggestion was made to add: universal education should clearly specify the level... Over 20 speakers offered comprehensive and detailed feedback on the shortcomings and limitations of the Draft Constitution. The contributions also included proposals for amendments and additions to the Draft to better suit the current practical situation. In addition, many faculty and staff members of the University directly contributed their opinions on the Draft Constitution through complete and specific written documents. In the coming time, the University will continue to record and compile the feedback from its faculty and staff to submit a report to the Constitutional Amendment Drafting Committee.
