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 5, 2026
Vietnam’s AI regulatory framework has reached an important milestone. While the Law on Artificial Intelligence No. 134/2025/QH15 (AI Law) established the foundation for AI governance, many practical compliance requirements were left to implementing regulations. On April 30, 2026, the government issued Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142), which took effect on May 1, 2026, and provides the first detailed guidance on the implementation of the AI Law. Although an official list of high-risk AI systems is still pending from the prime minister, Decree 142 provides valuable insight into how Vietnam’s risk-based AI regulatory framework will operate in practice. Risk Classification Framework The AI Law adopts a risk-based approach under which AI systems are classified as high-risk, medium-risk, or low-risk. Decree 142 builds on this framework by providing detailed guidance on how these classifications are determined. High-risk AI systems are determined based on factors such as (i) their potential impact on life, health, property, human rights, public interests, or national security; (ii) the sector in which they are deployed; and (iii) the scale of affected users or integration with critical infrastructure. The latest draft list of high-risk AI systems appears to follow these same principles. Medium-risk AI systems generally include systems that may mislead, influence, or manipulate users, particularly where users may not realize they are interacting with AI or AI-generated content. The focus is therefore on transparency and authenticity risks rather than broader societal or safety concerns. Low-risk AI systems are those that do not meet the criteria for either high-risk or medium-risk classification. Importantly, Decree 142 seeks to avoid over-classification. Certain systems may fall outside the high-risk or medium-risk regimes, including internal-use systems, office-support tools, technical editing applications, certain back-end processing systems, and AI systems used in artistic, gaming, cinematic, or other creative contexts. Providers must also review and
June 5, 2026
On May 11, 2026, Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security released a draft Child Protection Act (“CPA”) for public review. The draft CPA would completely repeal and replace the current Child Protection Act B.E. 2546 (2003). This represents the most comprehensive overhaul of Thailand’s child protection framework in over two decades, reflecting the government’s stated objective of modernizing the law to address evolving social challenges—including those arising from digital technology—and to promote greater coordination among government agencies, local authorities, and civil society. The public review period closes on June 9, 2026. Key changes introduced by the draft CPA that could have significant implications for businesses, particularly online platform providers, media companies, and entities operating child-related services in Thailand, are set out below. Expanded Definition of “Child” Under the current CPA, a “child” is defined as a person under the age of 18, excluding those who have attained legal majority through marriage. The draft CPA removes the marriage exception entirely, broadening the scope of the law’s protections to include all individuals under 18 without exception. Replacement of “Abuse” with Broader Concept of “Violence” The current CPA uses the term “abuse/cruelty,” which covers acts causing harm to a child’s liberty, body, or mind; sexual offenses against children; and using children in harmful or immoral activities. The draft CPA replaces this with the broader concept of “violence,” which encompasses any act or omission causing harm to a child’s body, mind, or development; abandonment or neglect; improper exploitation; and sexual abuse. Notably, the new definition adds developmental harm as a recognized category of injury and captures all forms of misconduct regardless of the child’s consent. New Standalone Definition of Sexual Abuse, Including Online Conduct One of the most significant additions in the draft CPA is the introduction of a standalone definition
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a