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​ 

March 16, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has broadened the definition of institutional investors, expanded the types of qualifying investments, and updated financial qualification thresholds for various investor categories through a revised notification on the definitions of institutional investors, ultra-high net worth investors, and high net worth investors. The amended framework, which came into force on March 1, 2026, adds digital asset business operators, investment planners, and investment consultants to the roster of entities recognized as institutional investors, and broadens the definition of investment to account for digital tokens. Expanded Definition of Institutional Investors Under the SEC’s revised notification, the category of institutional investors now expressly includes digital asset business operators licensed under the Royal Decree on Digital Asset Businesses B.E. 2561 (2018). This addition recognizes the growing role of digital asset platforms and service providers in Thailand’s investment ecosystem and aligns the regulatory treatment of digital markets with that of traditional markets. The definition of institutional investors now also encompasses investment planners and investment consultants approved by the SEC. Previously, only SEC-approved investment analysts held this status; the expansion covers a broader scope of professionals who possess comparable expertise and experience in evaluating investment opportunities. Broadened Investment Definition The revised framework now defines investment to mean direct or indirect investment in a wider range of assets beyond deposits. Specifically, the definition covers: Securities under the Securities and Exchange Act Derivatives under the Derivatives Act Investment tokens offered to the public Government-issued digital tokens (G-tokens) as specified in a separate SEC notification This expansion ensures that financial status assessments reflect the full spectrum of an investor’s holdings, including emerging digital assets. Updated Financial Qualification Thresholds The amended SEC notification also provides updated qualification thresholds for angel investors, ultra-high net worth investors, and high net worth investors. While the core criteria
March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier