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 30, 2025

Inside Vietnam’s Latest Draft Law on Higher Education

Subscribe to Updates

Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges.

The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam.

Applicable Entities

In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education.

The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education landscape, the training of highly qualified human resources is no longer confined to HEIs but also involves research institutes, academies, and other specialized educational entities. By broadening the scope of regulation, the Draft Law provides a clearer legal foundation for institutions with higher education activities to conduct these activities, while simultaneously enhancing the state’s capacity to oversee, monitor, and safeguard the quality of teaching and research.

Institutional Autonomy of HEIs

Under the Draft Law, “autonomy” is defined as the right to make independent decisions and bear responsibility for accountability within the framework of the law. HEIs are granted comprehensive autonomy in matters of organizational structure and personnel, training activities, and international cooperation; autonomy in scientific research, technology, and innovation; and the highest degree of autonomy in financial management, asset utilization, and investment. This autonomy is only subject to limitation in cases where institutions fail to meet quality assurance standards or violate prevailing regulations on higher education activities. Importantly, the Draft Law no longer imposes conditions or requires a formal recognition mechanism for autonomy; rather, autonomy is the default entitlement of the HEIs under the law.

It should be noted, however, that the Draft Law addresses institutional autonomy only in relation to HEIs and does not extend this principle to other institutions with higher education activities. This distinction is logical, as the latter are primarily entities funded and maintained by the state through public budgets and facilities. Accordingly, their operations fall not only under the scope of the Law on Higher Education but also under broader regulations governing public assets, state budget management, and other related legal instruments. As such, institutions with higher education activities cannot exercise the same level of autonomy as HEIs and must remain subject to the financial, asset, and investment management authority of their respective state governing bodies.

University Councils

The Draft Law simplifies and harmonizes the regulations governing university councils across all types of HEIs, making no distinction between public and private entities.

Under the Draft Law, the university council is entrusted with key governance functions, including defining the institution’s strategic direction, determining its organizational structure, allocating and managing resources, and overseeing the implementation of strategic plans and accountability mechanisms.

Importantly, the council does not assume responsibility for day-to-day management or operations, which remain within the remit of the rector or principal. By establishing the council as an independent governance body, distinct from executive management, the Draft Law aims to strengthen transparency in decision-making and enhance the effectiveness of oversight within higher education governance.

The reference to the university council as representing “relevant stakeholders,” as well as the inclusion of “relevant stakeholders” in the composition of the council, may lead to significant legal, organizational, and practical challenges if not clearly defined. In addition, without specific criteria, the selection of stakeholder representatives may become subjective and susceptible to group interests or a lack of transparency. Therefore, the Draft Law would benefit from revision to clarify this concept.

It is worth noting that other specific issues of the university council such as eligibility requirements and procedures for personnel decisions will be addressed through government regulations, rather than being detailed directly in the law, as was the case in the previous framework.

Development and Implementation of Training Programs

Under the current regulations, except for certain specialized fields (such as those in health sciences), HEIs that meet the conditions for institutional autonomy can have their rectors decide on the opening of new training majors. For institutions that do not yet qualify for such autonomy, approval from the competent authority (e.g., the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET)) is required. A new training major may only be opened if it satisfies the prescribed conditions, such as requirements concerning faculty and facilities.

Meanwhile, under the Draft Law, the concept of “opening a training major” no longer exists. In particular, institutions must register their higher education activities, specifying the group of training majors (“nhóm ngành đào tạo” in Vietnamese) in which they intend to operate, and may only deliver training programs within the scope of such registered activities, except for certain special cases still requiring prior approval. Institutions are granted autonomy to design and issue their own training programs; however, these programs must be developed in accordance with the national training program standards issued by the minister of the MOET.

The objective of the Draft Law is to streamline and simplify administrative procedures by replacing the previous approval process for opening academic majors with a registration system for training programs. However, one outstanding issue in the Draft Law concerns the deadline for HEIs to complete the registration of their higher educational activities. The Draft Law neither provides a clear roadmap for registration nor specifies a transitional period for institutions that are lawfully operating under the previous “opening a training major” mechanism to adjust to the new framework. This gap may give rise to legal uncertainty, particularly regarding whether HEIs that have not yet completed the registration process may continue teaching and operating as usual, and whether any restrictions will apply to their activities during this transitional period. It is expected that, if the registration system for training programs is adopted, the MOET will issue detailed guidelines to avoid difficulties during this transitional period.

Academic Positions and Titles of Lecturers

The Law on Teachers, which was recently passed by the National Assembly in June 2025, stipulates that the titles of teachers are determined based on the professional requirements of each educational level and training qualification. However, it has not yet clearly defined the specific titles for lecturers. Therefore, the Draft Law has classified lecturers based on job positions and labor relations instead of administrative rank titles. Specifically, it categorizes lecturers into four types according to their labor relations: primary lecturers, co-primary lecturers, visiting lecturers, and post-retirement contract lecturers. Notably, the concepts of “co-primary lecturer” and “post-retirement contract lecturer” are entirely new in the Draft Law. In addition, for the first time, Draft Law formally recognizes the roles of teaching assistants and support staff, specifying their duties and employment conditions.

The Draft Law also redefines the titles of professor and associate professor as the highest academic honors, which may be held by lecturers in any employment category.

Branches of Foreign Higher Education Institutions in Vietnam

Under the Draft Law, branch campuses of foreign HEIs (FBCs) are to be established, organized, and operated in line with the regulations governing private HEIs established by foreign investors, subject to meeting prescribed operational conditions. In contrast to the current law, which focuses solely on regulating the “operation” of FBCs, the Draft Law broadens the framework by requiring compliance with rules on both “establishment” and “organization”, effectively placing FBCs under the same regime as foreign-invested private HEIs.

However, in essence, an FBC is an affiliated branch, under the comprehensive management of the foreign HEI that invested in establishing that branch. It remains under the control and management of its parent institution abroad, both in terms of academic program quality and governance structure. Applying the same requirements as those imposed on foreign-invested private HEIs for all three dimensions—establishment, organization, and operation—would create significant implementation challenges. Further, FBCs must not only comply with Vietnam’s educational regulations but also comply with the regulations and standards of the host country regarding the quality of educational institutions and educational programs. The fundamental differences between the two legal and educational systems could lead to many incompatible regulations, making it difficult for FBCs to harmonize the differences. Specifically, in cases where Vietnamese law and the parent institution’s regulations diverge on the same issue, it is unclear which framework an FBC would be required to follow.

Another critical challenge is the absence of a clearly defined legal status for FBCs in both the current law and the Draft Law. It is important to consider that FBCs are merely dependent units of their parent institutions, rather than independent entities. Therefore, it may not be necessary for FBCs to possess an independent legal personality. However, the absence of a clearly defined legal status for FBCs could create unnecessary complexity and overlap in the determination of rights, obligations, and civil liabilities between the FBC and its parent institution.

Outlook

The Law on Higher Education expanded the autonomy of higher education institutions, contributing to improved training quality, meeting workforce demands, and promoting the socialization of education in Vietnam. The amendments under the Draft Law make the law more suitable for practical realities, with a basis to overcome some overlaps in the legal framework, and in line with new development requirements in education.

This article was prepared with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins intern Hao Quoc Pham.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
Read More
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More