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

January 10, 2020

Decree 99 Provides Guidance on Higher Education in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates

On December 30, 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree 99/2019/ND-CP detailing and guiding the implementation of the amended 2018 Law on Higher Education (Decree 99). Decree 99 will take effect on 15 February 2020, and sets out, among other things, conditions for the establishment of campuses in Vietnam of foreign higher-education institutions, regulations on governing boards, and the autonomy and accountability of higher-education institutions.

Particularly, in regard to the establishment of campuses of foreign higher-education institutions in Vietnam, Decree 99 provides that such institutions must be legally operating, qualified educational institutions in accordance with the regulations of their country of establishment, and must have investment capital of at least VND 500 billion (approx. USD 21.5 million). The educational programs at these campuses must also be accredited or approved by a competent state agency in accordance with the laws of the country of establishment.

The amended 2018 Law on Higher Education, issued in November 2018, stated that the government would issue detailed regulations on the procedures to establish and recognize governing boards. More than a year later, Decree 99 finally provides these regulations on governing boards, and appointing and dismissing the chair and other members, for public and private institutions, separately. Within six months from the effective date of Decree 99 (i.e., 15 August 2020), higher-education institutions must complete the establishment of their governing boards.

Under Decree 99, higher-education institutions have been conferred a degree of autonomy in academic activities, organizational structure and personnel, and matters of finance and assets. For example, they are entitled to issue and implement their own internal regulations on admissions, training, technology, and domestic and international cooperation in accordance with law. In addition, they have the right to determine and publicly announce their admissions methods and criteria in line with the regulations of the Ministry of Education and Training, except in the areas of defense and security, which must comply with regulations of the direct management agency.

Meanwhile, higher-education institutions are accountable to their students, owners, state management agencies, and related parties for ensuring educational quality in accordance with the law, their internal regulations, and their commitments.

For more information on Decree 99, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Employment

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 16, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Yangon has contributed the Myanmar chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Myanmar chapter was prepared by Kyaw Min Tun, an associate in the firm’s Myanmar office. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Myanmar chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
Read More
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Vientiane have contributed the Laos chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Laos chapter was prepared by associates Naiyane Xaechao and Sayphin Singsouvong. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Laos chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
Read More
January 16, 2026
Employment law specialists from Tilleke & Gibbins’ office in Phnom Penh have contributed the Cambodia chapter to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce from International Employment Lawyer. This comprehensive global guide, covering 50 jurisdictions worldwide, addresses the complex issue of workplace restructurings, with a particular focus on the needs of multinational companies. The Cambodia chapter was authored by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Chanvisal Lok, associate. The Q&A-style chapter provides in-depth analysis of key areas related to workplace restructuring, including: Reduction in workforce; Restructuring or reorganization of the business; Changing terms and conditions; and Areas to watch. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to the Guide to Restructuring a Cross-Border Workforce 2026. To browse the full guide for all 45 jurisdictions, please visit the International Employment Lawyer website.
Read More
January 14, 2026
Employers operating in Thailand can enforce post-employment noncompete covenants, but success depends on precise drafting and strong evidentiary support. Thai courts will uphold restraints that protect legitimate employer interests and are fair and reasonable in duration, geographic reach, and substantive scope. Overbroad covenants, however, draw judicial skepticism and may fail unless they are drafted in severable, defensible components tied to the employee’s actual role. This article synthesizes recent trends in Thai case practice, explains how Thai courts assess reasonableness in employment restraints, and provides a practical litigation-focused framework for drafting enforceable covenants, preparing evidence, and pursuing relief through the Labor Court. The Legal Framework and Its Practical Implications Thai courts evaluate noncompete covenants under general principles of contract enforceability and public policy, with particular focus on whether a restraint is necessary to protect a legitimate employer interest and proportionate to that objective. In employment matters, this analysis is shaped by the employee-protective tenor of Thai labor law and by the Labor Court’s equitable discretion in determining appropriate remedies. The practical takeaway is that standardized or broadly drafted covenants rarely survive scrutiny. Courts look for a demonstrable nexus between the employee’s actual exposure to confidential information, trade secrets, or customer relationships and the scope of the restraint. Where that nexus is weak or the restraint operates as a blanket prohibition, courts are inclined to decline enforcement or limit relief to a narrowly tailored prohibition. The employer interests most commonly recognized as legitimate in Thai practice include the protection of trade secrets, confidential business information, and goodwill tied to identifiable customer segments or territories. Courts are more likely to enforce restraints where employers can clearly document what information is at risk, why particular customer relationships matter, and how the employee was involved with those assets. Judges also look closely at the
Read More