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

September 9, 2021

Employee Vaccine Mandates and Vaccination Status Data Privacy in Cambodia

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cambodian government has issued a range of policies and measures, including movement restrictions, necessary quarantines, prohibitions on large gatherings, and selective lockdowns. Simultaneously, business operators have been developing and implementing business continuity plans to manage their way through the pandemic and beyond.

With the wide availability of vaccines in Cambodia, some employers are considering whether to mandate workers to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, prompting the question: What are the legal risks and implications of such a mandate in Cambodia?

While the Labor Law does require employers to cover the cost of vaccinations against epidemics, during which the Ministry of Health (MOH) can also order extraordinary preventative measures at work sites, Cambodian law does not expressly prohibit employers from requiring employees to be vaccinated. There are also no laws or regulations specifying accommodation requirements for employees who refuse to be vaccinated due to health, religious, or other reasons. (It may be worth noting here as well that health checks are a regular part of the hiring process, and new employees have to submit to a health check before starting work.)

The government did issue a sub-decree on April 11, 2021, that requires vaccinations for public officials, and for certain groups of people, based upon their working and business conditions, to undergo vaccinations as determined by the MOH. The ministry has not yet issued any regulations mandating that employees of businesses in Cambodia receive a COVID-19 vaccine, or addressing the issue of employees who may want to opt out of vaccination.

Absent regulations from the MOH, the focus turns to the country’s Constitution, which in Article 31 guarantees all citizens equal treatment under the law without regard to race, color, gender, language, religious belief, political tendency, birth origin, social status, wealth, or other status. Additionally, Cambodian Labor Law prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, gender, religion, political opinion, ancestry, social origin, or union membership or activities. The authorities would likely decide on a case-by-case basis whether the conditions set out by employers are reasonable for a specific job, and whether they would constitute “discrimination in employment.”

From the above, it seems that discriminating against employees based on their willingness to be vaccinated would not contravene the Constitution or the Labor Law, but it is unclear whether rejecting or terminating an employee who refuses to be vaccinated due to religion or other protected status would be deemed discrimination in employment under Cambodian law. The Labor Law recognizes only two grounds for termination without the payment of severance: serious misconduct by the employee and force majeure. Therefore, if an employer terminated employment because the employee refused vaccination, it could be deemed termination without a valid reason, which would entitle the employee to compensation for the termination.

Nonetheless, the risk of this to companies mandating vaccination of employees against the coronavirus is low, as the Labor Law mandates that employers pay for vaccinations during epidemics and allows the MOH to order extraordinary preventative measures at work sites.

Vaccination Status and Data Privacy

Data privacy questions are also being raised during these uncertain times, as employers are interested in keeping track of the vaccination status of their employees, and many have wondered if this information would constitute “personal data” under the various data protection laws around the world.

Cambodia does not yet have comprehensive data protection legislation. The most recent update to the country’s data protection landscape was in the E-commerce Law, which contains provisions for the protection of consumer data gathered over the course of electronic communication—a scope that is limited to virtual or digital data protection. Other data protection matters typically fall under the right to privacy, which is protected in broad terms under the Constitution, the Civil Code, and the Criminal Code.

Cambodian laws also fail to define “personal data.” The E-commerce Law defines “data” as “a group of numbers, characters, symbols, messages, images, sounds, videos, information, or electronic programs that are prepared in a form suitable for use in a database or an electronic system.” Due to the absence of a definition of “personal data,” it remains plausible that in an employment context any employee data, including information concerning an employee’s vaccination, might be viewed by the regulatory and enforcement authorities as personal data of the employees.

Under Cambodia’s E-commerce Law, anyone who stores private information (in an e-commerce context) must use all means to ensure that such information is safely protected to avoid loss, access, use, modification, leakage, and disclosure of the information. Employers are obligated to pay for vaccinations during an epidemic and it would be necessary to keep records in order to prove that the employer has satisfied its obligations under Cambodian law. Nevertheless, under Cambodia’s Labor Law, in general, workers’ health records collected by medical personnel are confidential, and the information contained in them cannot be given to an employer or a third party (with some exceptions for the health and labor inspectors) that could identify the employee. Data extracted from the files that do not identify the individuals can, however, be used for public health.

Cambodian citizens have broad data privacy rights under Cambodian law of general application, and the country’s existing legal framework applicable to data protection implies a general disclosure or notification obligation. Personal data can only be collected, used, or disclosed for purposes that the individual understands and has consented to. Employers should thus obtain consent from employees regarding how their data will be used, and if the use differs from the purpose that was initially told to the employees, new consent must be obtained. In other words, storing or using information on employees’ vaccination status—which would be new information with a new purpose—would require new consent from the employees.

In the meantime, employers should obtain employees’ written consent to keep records of vaccination status on the grounds that the employer is obliged to pay for such vaccinations under the Labor Law and needs to keep records of its compliance with the law.

Conclusion

Like most countries, Cambodia does not have specific legal provisions addressing employee vaccination mandates in a pandemic, though the Constitution, the Labor Law, and other measures and regulations hint at how such an action might be viewed. As noted above, these do give reason to believe that such mandates face a low risk of being penalized. Another new and uncertain topic is whether keeping information on employees’ vaccination status would trigger data protection obligations. Under the circumstances, it is prudent for employers to treat this as they would other employee personal data.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is forcing governments, businesses, and individuals around the world to figure out how responses to these unexpected situations can be made to fit under existing legal frameworks. However, it is always safest to seek expert advice that is tailored to a company’s unique needs and challenges. With clear advice and measured actions, businesses will be able to pass the current volatility and strategize to their benefit in the months and years that follow.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may
August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore