You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

March 31, 2026

Autonomy with Accountability: Key Changes under Vietnam’s New Higher Education Law

Subscribe to Updates

Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation.

The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities.

Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs

The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability.

However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security.

New Model for Curriculum Development

The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime, an HEI wishing to offer a new program would need to go through a procedure to open that major itself or apply for approval to open that major if the HEI did not have full institution autonomy—a process that was often administratively burdensome.

Under the new law, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) will issue a comprehensive list of training majors, from which HEIs must identify and register the majors they intend to offer as part of the licensing process for their educational operation permit.

At the same time, HEIs are granted autonomy to develop their programs within the registered training majors in compliance with the training program standards to be issued by MOET. In general, the principal/rector is authorized to approve the training programs of the HEI. However, certain specialized programs remain subject to approval by the competent state authority, including teacher education and health-related fields, and law-related fields.

To ensure continuity and stability during the transition, the new law establishes transitional arrangements for HEIs that either submitted applications for, or were approved to, open training majors before January 1, 2026. Specifically:

  • Valid applications submitted before January 1, 2026, will continue to be processed under the regulations that were effective at the time of submission.
  • HEIs may implement, within three years, approvals for opening of training majors issued before January 1, 2026, in compliance with the corresponding standards issued before that date.

Stakeholders should monitor forthcoming guidance from MOET regarding the consequences of failing to meet the three-year transitional deadline.

Abolition of University Councils in Public HEIs

The new law fundamentally alters institutional governance, by abolishing university councils in the governance structure of public HEIs, pursuant to the orientation of Resolution No. 71-NQ/TW dated August 22, 2025, of the Central Committee.

However, two categories of HEIs are exempt from this change. First, an HEI established pursuant to an international treaty between the Vietnamese government and a foreign government may continue to maintain the university council within its governance structure as provided under such international treaty. Second, university councils remain in place in private HEIs, where they continue to function as the governing body representing stakeholders, making decisions on development orientation, organizational structure, resource utilization, and accountability.

Foreign Branch Campuses Under Tighter Regulatory Alignment

The new law also reshapes the legal landscape for foreign branch campuses (“FBCs”) of foreign HEIs in Vietnam, moving toward governing FBCs under a legal framework that closely aligns with the regime applicable to a foreign‑invested private HEI. In particular, FBCs must now comply with the regulations applicable to foreign-invested private HEIs not only with respect to establishment and operation, as inherited from previous regulations, but also with respect to the organizational structure, as newly required under the new law.

Such changes establish a comprehensive legal framework governing FBCs in Vietnam, but also raise practical challenges in reconciling the structural and in-nature differences between FBCs and foreign-invested private HEIs, as well as navigating conflicts between Vietnamese law and the regulations of the parent university’s home jurisdiction. These challenges may persist unless the forthcoming detailed guidelines of the government provide special regulatory regimes to facilitate the adaptation of FBCs.

Classification of Training Locations

The new law introduces a formal legal definition of “training locations” for HEIs for the first time. Similar to the approach in the Law on Vocational Education passed on the same day, these include (i) headquarters, (ii) branch campuses, and (iii) the newly recognized “other training locations,” defined as places where all or part of a training program is delivered, under the management of HEIs, and in compliance with prescribed quality‑assurance conditions. “Other training locations” do not perform governance and management functions, and include premises owned by or lawfully used by the HEI, venues for joint training programs, and sites for practical training.

This change allows institutions to share facilities, such as sports fields, laboratories, and clinical training sites, and deliver training programs in a more flexible and effective manner, while maintaining compliance with prescribed quality‑assurance conditions.

Outlook

The new Law on Higher Education marks a significant shift in regulations toward modernizing Vietnam’s higher education system, bringing it closer to international standards, encouraging innovation, and promoting the sector’s sustainable development. The new framework also opens clearer and more transparent avenues for investment by introducing greater institutional autonomy and streamlining administrative procedures, reducing long‑standing regulatory bottlenecks, among other changes. At the same time, it imposes stricter quality assurance and compliance requirements. These heightened standards increase competitive pressure across the sector. Therefore, long‑term strategic planning as well as monitoring the upcoming detailed implementation guidelines from the government is essential for both existing and prospective investors.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 31, 2025
On September 29, 2025, Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC Office) published its Regulations on the Review and Certification of Binding Corporate Rules B.E. 2568 (2025) (the Regulations). The Regulations provide clarity on the PDPC Office’s approach to reviewing and certifying binding corporate rules (BCRs) under Section 29 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), and aim to facilitate international data transfers within a group of undertakings or enterprises (a “corporate group”). In conjunction with this development, the PDPC Office also approved BCRs for two companies operating in Thailand on September 30, 2025. This milestone represents the first concrete progress since the PDPC’s Notification on Criteria for the Protection of Personal Data Sent or Transferred to a Foreign Country pursuant to Section 29 of the PDPA B.E. 2566 (2023) came into effect in March 2024. Some key features of the Regulations are set out below. Categorization of BCRs BCRs are classified into two types: (1) BCRs for Controllers (BCR-C) and (2) BCRs for Processors (BCR-P). The category must be clearly specified when submitting the BCRs to the PDPC Office. Documentation Requirement The applicant must prepare and submit the application (a standard template may be provided by the PDPC Office in the future) along with supporting documents for review and certification in the Thai language. If the supporting documents are in a foreign language, a certified Thai translation should be provided. The translation must be notarized by a notary public or qualified person. Supporting documents may include, among others, a binding instrument such as an intra-group agreement, or a list of entities subject to the BCRs. Expedited Process Requirement Organizations with existing BCR approvals under the EU or UK GDPR, or from countries announced by the PDPC under Section 28, may apply through an
Read More
October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
Read More
October 29, 2025
On September 15, 2025, Thailand’s Senate approved a draft amendment to the Labor Protection Act (LPA), which is currently awaiting publication in the Government Gazette. The amendment, which will take effect 30 days after publication, extends labor protections to certain service contractors working for state entities, enhances maternity and spousal support leave, and updates employer reporting obligations. Expanded Protections for State-Contracted Service Providers The amendment adds a section to the LPA that extends core labor protections to individuals engaged by government bodies under service contracts. This provision covers workers hired by central, regional, and local government agencies; state enterprises governed by the State Enterprise Labor Relations Act; public organizations; and other state agencies when these entities retain individuals under service procurement contracts (or similar arrangements) and exercise supervision, direction, and control over their work. In such cases, the hiring agencies must provide terms no less favorable than those required under the LPA for remuneration, weekly holidays, traditional holidays, annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, working days and hours, and rest periods. Ministerial regulations will establish specific criteria for implementation. Disputes regarding rights and duties under this provision will fall under Labor Court jurisdiction. This change aligns the treatment of controlled service contractors with that of regular employees, addressing a longstanding coverage gap in the public sector. Enhanced Maternity Leave and New Caregiving Provisions The amendment includes a maternity leave entitlement of up to 120 days per pregnancy (an increase from the previous 98 days), unless otherwise prescribed by royal decree, and also introduces a new postnatal caregiving leave for mothers in complex medical situations who have used their childbirth leave, granting up to 15 additional days to care for children who are at risk of complications, have abnormalities, or have disabilities. This supplemental leave requires support from a medical
Read More
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
Read More