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​ 

February 20, 2023
On December 20, 2022, the Notification re: Rules, Procedures, and Conditions on Transfer of Energy Licenses of the Thailand Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) became effective. The notification sets out the new standard and procedure for transferring licenses for energy industry operation. The notable changes in the notification are provided below. Anti-Competition Consideration and Impact Assessment Report In considering the transfer of a license, in addition to ensuring the transferee meets all the qualifications for an applicant for the license, the ERC will consider if the transfer would (1) create a monopoly, reduce or restrict competition, or result in market dominance; (2) affect the contracting parties of the transferors or energy users; or (3) affect energy security or the public interest. In this respect, the vetting process for an application for license transfer would be separated into two different approaches. If the ERC believes that the transfer of the energy license would affect competition, energy users, energy security, or the public interest, the transferor will need to submit an impact assessment report on the license transfer to the ERC. In this regard, the ERC may establish a sub-committee or an independent consultant to contemplate the transfer at the transferor’s expense. However, if the ERC believes that the transfer of license would not lead to any impact, the transferor will not be required to submit the impact assessment. Also, if the license transfer is related to any transactions specified under the ERC’s Regulation re: Rules and Procedures on Merger and Cross-Shareholding in Energy Businesses, B.E. 2565, the ERC can combine the license transfer application with the M&A application. After approval, the ERC might require the transferee to periodically report to the ERC and comply with measures stipulated by the ERC. Therefore, an energy license holder which plans to carry out M&A
Read More
February 16, 2023
Thailand has issued a Royal Decree on the Supervision of Regulated Digital Identification Authentication and Verification Service Businesses B.E. 2565 (2022) (the “Royal Decree”), aimed at regulating business operators that provide digital identification authentication and verification services (“Digital ID Services”). The Royal Decree was published in the Government Gazette in December 2022, and will take effect 180 days from the publication date, i.e., on June 21, 2023. The key details and requirements of the Royal Decree are as follows: Regulated Digital ID Services Under the Royal Decree, the provision of the following Digital ID Services requires prior approval from the Electronic Transaction Development Agency: Identity verification service – Services for collecting and identifying information relating to the identity of a person, and verifying the connections between the person and the identity. Authenticator issuance and management service – Services relating to the connection between a person who has passed the identification process with an authenticator, and managing actions which are used to identify a person. Authentication service – A process to authenticate a person by inspecting his/her authenticator. Digital ID networks/systems – Provision of networks or systems used to exchange information for digital identification purposes, excluding services provided by an intermediary. Exempted Digital ID Services The Royal Decree also specifies a list of Digital ID Services that are exempted from supervision under the Royal Decree, as follows: Issuance of certificates to support the use of electronic signatures in accordance with the Electronic Transaction Act. Digital ID Services conducted for use within the operator’s own business only, and which do not involve the provision of such services to third parties. Other Digital ID Services as prescribed by the Electronic Transaction Committee. Qualifications of Business Operators The types of business operators qualified to operate Digital ID Services include (i) private limited companies;
Read More
February 8, 2023
Thailand has a robust legal framework for competition, with laws and regulations in place to prevent anticompetitive conduct and market concentration and to promote fair competition. However, as the business environment in the country continues to evolve, it is important for companies operating in Thailand to stay informed about the latest developments in competition laws and regulations. Generally, Thailand’s competition regime is based on the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (the TCA) and its implementing regulations, except for certain industries which are governed by sector-specific competition regulations. The TCA is designed to promote free and fair competition by suppressing anticompetitive behaviors. In this article, we will examine what businesses can expect in the coming year, and what they need to be aware of in order to stay compliant. A Maturing Regulatory Structure The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) is the agency responsible for enforcing competition laws and regulations in Thailand. The TCCT has the authority to oversee the market structure, act to maintain competitiveness in various industries, investigate misconduct, and take action against companies that engage in anticompetitive practices, such as abuse of market dominance, cartels, and unfair trade practices. It also has discretionary power to consider applications for a merger of two or more businesses that may cause monopoly or market dominance. While the TCA and the TCCT had limited success in the decades after the original TCA’s enactment in 1999, a new TCA in 2017 made several significant changes to the previous version of the law. The 2017 TCA guarantees the independence of the TCCT from political and business interventions. It also introduces administrative penalties for less-serious offenses, including non-hardcore cartels, unfair trade practices, and neglect of merger filing duties. Since then, the TCCT has been more active in its issuance of subordinate regulations to
Read More
February 7, 2023
Phuong Thi Minh Tran, an associate in Tilleke & Gibbins’ office Ho Chi Minh City, contributed the Vietnam chapter of Foreign Investment Review 2023, a recently published global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 29 jurisdictions worldwide. Published and distributed by Getting the Deal Through (GTDT), the guide discusses law and policy on oversight of foreign investment, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other important stipulations for foreign investors. The Vietnam chapter covers the following topics: Law and Policy: Government policies and practices, main laws and their scope of application (including details on investment promotional measures), definitions, rules for state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, relevant authorities and oversight, and national interest provisions. Procedure: Jurisdictional thresholds, national interest clearance, securing approval, the review process for competition clearance and associated penalties, involvement of authorities, facilitation of clearance, and post-closing regulatory powers. Substantive assessment: Substantive tests for clearance, authorities’ consultation with other countries and other relevant parties, transactional prohibitions and objections, mitigating arrangements and challenges to a decision, and protection of confidential information. Recent cases, updates, and trends: Relevant recent case law, key recent and ongoing developments. A PDF of the Vietnam chapter can be accessed through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also contributed the Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2023. To browse all 29 jurisdictions covered by the guide, please visit the Getting the Deal Through website.
Read More