There might be diverse approaches from which come principles, terms of reference or indicators to handle different situations. Here I shall mention only three major principles we often follow.

Firstly, we should base ourselves on the principle, securing the Party leadership, as affirmed in Article 4 of the Constitution. The Party leads the State and the society. This is a constitutional function and the principle of Party leadership. NA deputies who are Party members must strictly abide by Party guidelines and convince others to follow them to handle issues subject to different opinions. Meanwhile, they should listen tentatively and ask the Party to gather opinions from other NA deputies and voters to improve Party guidelines to gain popularity and comply with the law, avoid hastiness and imposition of subjective ideas.

Secondly, we should rely on the principle The law is supreme, as affirmed by many Party documents and State laws. The socialist law-governed State administers the country by law. NA deputies who are Party or non-Party members should rely on the law and handle issues by law when confronting diverse opinions. In case of a State with a ruling Party, any Party committees and Party members should set an example in obeying the Constitution and laws.

Thirdly, we should also base ourselves on the principle Popular content is the root. The people are the permanent root. The Party and State are a historical category. They should place the nation’s interests above all to handle matters involving contradictory opinions. The Party’s guidelines and State laws are in place to serve the people’s interests as our Party and State pursue no other interests than those of the people. This is the political and popular nature of our State, which is of the people, by the people and for the people.

It will be easier, more consistent and accurate to resolve matters involving contradictory opinions if we rely on the major principles mentioned earlier. In this spirit, let’s see how the 11^th NA analysed and resolved specific cases. The first example was the Government proposal of a special consumption tax to be imposed on motorcycle users. In this case, the Party’s Polibureau had no concrete guidelines and the law had no concrete regulations. There had been contradictory opinions between the Government and NA Committees. They all followed legal procedures to realise their function.

However, after considering their suggestions, the NA handled this issue based on popularity. The people simply argued that a motorcycle was a means of transport used by Government employees, workers, farmers and others. It was not a luxurious or hazardous means of transport of which users should be discouraged. It was another matter to limit the use of motorcyles to reduce traffic accidents and environmental pollution, and not the reason to include motorcycle in the list of goods subject to the special consumption tax. With these arguments, the NA decided to exclude motorcycle from the list.

The NA decision, based on popular opinions, met people’s wishes and was appreciated by them. That was a specific lesson on handling issues involving contradictory opinions.

The second example related to the Government proposal to keep drug addicts in rehabilitation centers for another two years after detoxification. In this case, the Party Polibureau had no concrete guidelines, and the law defined that the detoxification time should not exceed two years. Meanwhile, the people wished the State would issue any measure to control former drug addicts after detoxification. Different NA Committees had different opinions on this issue.

After discussing and analysing it from different angles, the NA agreed with the NA Legal Commission not to keep former drug addicts for another two years after detoxification. It issued a separate resolution on the management of former drug addicts after detoxification without prolonging their time in detoxification centers. This resolution met the people’s wishes and did not breach the law.

The third example concerned the Government proposal to award the hero title to a city. In this case, the Party Polibureau had guidelines about how to do it but the law had no relevant regulations.

The NA Standing Committee met in the spirit of observing the Party guidelines while taking specific steps to comply with law. Finally the Prime Minister made a submission to the NA to propose amendments to the laws being enforced at present. Only after the law was amended, he realised procedures to award the hero title to the deserving cities.

Through thorough discussions we knew how to secure Party leadership and the supremacy of the law. The Party leads the State, but it has to obey the law. The NA must operate within the law. The NA Standing Committee and the NA itself have no right to act against the law.

It seems that quite a few officials in the agencies concerned remain hesitant to raise opinions different from a Government proposal, particularly when that proposal stems from an initial Party guideline. The sense of accepting the Party leadership and support and strictly coordinating with the Government in any NA activities is in conformity with our Party and State principles. However, that obedience should comply with the law and meet people’s wishes. So, the NA must correctly realise its functions, tasks and rights to make its decisions more precisely in order to strengthen our Government, the NA, the Party and the entire political system. This is the principle and nature of our Party and State.

This is also people’s wish and demand. People require their representative agency to work decently, particularly to rely on consistent principles when handling matters involving contradictory opinions. The representative agency should be brave and not avoid any problems. Even initial Party guidelines and policies submitted by the Government, the NA Standing Committee and NA Committees to the NA for decision can be amended and added. Those agencies are living organisms and could make mistakes. It is natural.

Popular content is the root, the law is supreme, and the Party leads the State and the society. Of these three principles, gaining in popularity seems to be the most difficult and weakest because the concept is too general and soft and not as concrete as the other two principles. Another reason is that quite a few NA deputies seem to not really respect and understand their people, and are not fully responsible for working as a people’s representative. Is it correct to say that many NA agencies and deputies, particularly leading officials still avoid or just get around problems, and many of them remain nominal? Should we make greater efforts in our work to overcome such weaknesses in the coming term?