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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review