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

December 2, 2014

Myanmar Legal Update: Moving Toward Market Liberalization

Informed Counsel

Myanmar is in the midst of undergoing significant political and economic change. A full sixty-six years after its independence from Great Britain and after nearly fifty years of strict military rule, Myanmar has embarked on a path toward sustainable economic reform. The reform has, as its primary focus, the liberalization of most market sectors and the active promotion of foreign direct investment—objectives shared by Myanmar’s regional counterparts and consistent with Myanmar’s commitments as an ASEAN member country.

Thein Sein’s Government

Since the current civilian government took political control in 2010 under the leadership of President Thein Sein, the pace of Myanmar’s legal and regulatory developments to support foreign direct investment has been remarkable. From 2011, Parliament has passed more than 120 laws and a seemingly countless number of ministerial notifications and regulatory guidelines, many of which are aimed at facilitating market liberalization. With a substantial domestic commitment of resources and assistance from international legal and regulatory experts, Myanmar continues to evaluate, draft, and implement additional laws aimed at the country’s long-term economic reform goals, and so far, the results have been very good.

According to the World Bank, foreign direct investment is at record levels in Myanmar, growing from a paltry USD 330 million in the 2009–2010 fiscal year prior to implementation of the country’s economic reforms, then jumping to USD 1.9 billion in 2011–2012 and USD 2.7 billion in 2012–2013, to what is estimated to exceed USD 5 billion in the current period of 2013–2014.

This interest is based, in large part, on passage and implementation of Myanmar’s foreign investment laws and subsequent ministerial notifications. A primary facilitator of such foreign direct investment has unquestionably been the Foreign Investment Law of 2012.

Foreign Investment Law 2012

Myanmar’s Foreign Investment Law of 2012 replaced the country’s Foreign Investment Law of 1988, providing a vehicle through which foreign investors can obtain economic incentives from the Myanmar Government in return for foreign capital infusion. While companies engaged in certain designated activities—such as manufacturing, oil and gas extraction, and major infrastructure deals—are required to register under the Foreign Investment Law, for the vast majority of wholesale and retail trade investors, registration is optional.

While companies registered under the Foreign Investment Law will be subject to the same principles of company law as unregistered companies (and, in general, subject to the same environmental, labor, and other such regulations), registered companies have the advantage of a number of important benefits, including:

  • basic “guarantees” against nationalization and arbitrary state action and that invested foreign capital may be remitted in the same currency upon expiry of the term of the investment contract;
  • provisions for the repatriation of profits and invested funds on an ongoing basis, subject to payment of taxes and creditors;
  • long-term leases for permitted foreign or joint venture companies with terms of up to 50 years, which are extendable twice for further 10-year periods (i.e., to a maximum of 70 years); and
  • tax exemption for a period of at least five consecutive years, commercial tax relief, and customs and other tax relief.

In addition, interpretations by the Myanmar Investment Commission (MIC) and the ministries relevant to Foreign Investment Law applications are guided by subsequent issuances of defining MIC notifications. These notifications are some of the first documents that foreign investors and counsel can seek guidance from in order to determine whether the investment model is likely to obtain regulatory approvals.

The first set of defining regulations were announced in January 2013 with MIC Notification No. 1/2013, which set out categories of prohibited or otherwise restricted business activities for foreign investors. Changes to the regulations were most recently announced in August 2014 with MIC Notification Nos. 49, 50, and 51/2014. Specifically, Notification No. 49/2014 prescribes business activities which are:

  1. prohibited;
  2. allowed only in the form of a joint venture with a local partner;
  3. allowed only in the form of a joint venture with a local partner, subject to the relevant ministry’s approval; or
  4. permitted, subject to another condition. 

Overall, Notification No. 49/2014—the August 2014 Notification—which supersedes the January 2013 Notification, represents a step toward further liberalization of the Myanmar foreign investment regime. While some activities under the January 2013 Notification are now subject to tighter foreign investment restrictions, on the whole, the number of businesses that can be 100 percent foreign owned has increased. It is particularly notable that both wholesale and retail trading activities are omitted from the August 2014 Notification. Since this notification states clearly that activities not “expressly” prescribed in the notification may be undertaken by a 100 percent foreign-owned company, the formerly-restricted trade sector is now ostensibly open for foreign investment. 

This represents a potentially significant opening for foreign investors in a broad variety of trade sectors.  However, it remains unclear exactly how this will be interpreted over time by the MIC, which has broad discretionary authority for the approvals of all applications—a discretionary authority which has been criticized for encouraging inconsistency in the foreign investment review process. Initial indications are that each case will continue to be reviewed on its own merits by the relevant ministries and the MIC, even where a notification has not expressly restricted the activity. In fact, our experience suggests that internal policies at the relevant ministries and at the MIC will continue to be a factor in the review of foreign trade applications under the Foreign Investment Law and related investment laws, such as the recently enacted Special Economic Zones Law and the Myanmar Companies Act.

An Issue of Concern: Regulatory Interpretation

One of the ongoing issues of concern for many foreign investors is the fact that some uncertainty about regulatory interpretation remains. The laws and regulations are new and there is little historical guidance offered to many of the ministerial and governmental officers considering foreign investment applications. While internal guidelines do exist at various levels of review for the relevant government officers, there may exist inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of discretionary authority.  This is an issue that we believe will improve through time as officers develop expertise in dealing with a variety of foreign investment applications.

Qualifying Applications

The Foreign Investment Law and its subsequent implementing notifications provide guidance for qualifying applications, such as those requiring approvals of long-term land leases or those involving large capital investments. Smaller investments, such as those in the service sector, are not covered by the notifications, although it is possible that the reviewing ministries and the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration may nonetheless look to the notifications for guidance. Since the notifications were developed based on input from various governmental ministries, it is fair to assume that they represent insight into some of their policies. This is valuable for investors seeking to anticipate how investment applications may be reviewed and interpreted.

Opposition to Reform

To date, Thein Sein’s economic liberalization policies have been largely embraced domestically, but as certain business sectors are opened for foreign direct investment, some resistance has been met, complicating efforts to liberalize certain markets. It is not a surprise, however, that some local businesses are opposed to Myanmar’s liberalization plans, particularly those in the trade and import/export sector—a sector valued in excess of USD 12.4 billion as recently as 2012. Many local business leaders have voiced their concern that they will be unable to compete with international companies which have better access to capital, technology, and skilled labor. Some even fear certain trade sectors could ultimately be monopolized by international investors.

The historical facts, however, prove otherwise. While market entry by international investors has reduced market share and, in some cases, eliminated local businesses, history suggests that the benefits to an emerging economy from foreign direct investment outweigh the negatives. Access to foreign capital and technology, in turn, assists in the development of domestic industry and encourages a skilled and competitive workforce. It is argued convincingly that countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore are all examples of how such a model brings with it long-term benefits to a developing economy.

The Future of Myanmar

Myanmar, through the promotion of controlled foreign investment, seeks, at least in principle, to follow such a model. In fact, the Ministry of Commerce continues to consult with the World Trade Organization and other leading global institutions to determine how to best bring Myanmar’s economy and investment policy slowly in line with international practice. While imperfect, the Foreign Investment Law, its subsequent notifications, and the actions of Myanmar’s civilian government to encourage foreign trade all point down the path of long-term sustainable development. While many political and cultural challenges remain, we have reason to believe that Myanmar will maintain its commitment to economic trade reform.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
March 31, 2026
Against the backdrop of Vietnam’s rapid economic and technological transformation and its ambition to build a knowledge-driven economy, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law on Higher Education No. 125/2025/QH15 on December 10, 2025, The new law took effect on January 1, 2026, replacing Law on Higher Education No. 08/2012/QH13 of 2012 and its subsequent amendments after more than a decade of implementation. The new law reflects a significant policy shift toward enhancing the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions (“HEIs”)—universities and other university-level institutions. By granting broader autonomy, Vietnam aims to enable HEIs to operate more proactively, better respond to market needs, and improve the quality and efficiency of education and research activities. Comprehensive Institutional Autonomy in HEIs The new law marks a significant shift by granting HEIs comprehensive autonomy as a statutory right, within the bounds of the licensed scope of educational operation and the legal framework, rather than a conditional right as provided under the former law. Under the new law, HEIs are empowered to exercise autonomy over their academic expertise, training, scientific research, international cooperation, organizational structure, personnel, finance, and other higher education activities. The expansion of institutional autonomy is also accompanied by a correspondingly strengthened framework of institutional accountability. However, Vietnam maintains a certain degree of control and imposes restrictions on institutional autonomy in sensitive and strategically important areas. These controls and restrictions include limitations on training autonomy in the majors of teacher training, national defense, and security; and restrictions on financial and personnel management autonomy for HEIs under the administration of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security. New Model for Curriculum Development The new law removes the concept of “opening a training major” and focuses regulation on how training programs are developed and delivered. Under the previous regime,
March 31, 2026
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD) has issued a regulation imposing additional requirements for amending a company’s directors and signatory power to designate a foreign national as an authorized signatory of the company. This measure, effective April 1, 2026, has been introduced in response to the widespread use of Thai nationals as nominees to conduct business on behalf of foreigners, a practice considered to have an adverse impact on the country’s economic stability and security. The new measures are particularly concerned with changes to the authorized signatory structure of companies that originally had only Thai directors authorized to sign for and bind the company. Under the new rules, any amendment that results in a foreign national becoming an authorized signatory—whether solely or jointly—for such a company will be subject to additional verification. Directors signing an application to register such an amendment to the company’s authorized signatory structure are now also required to provide a statement confirming that all shareholders of the company have made genuine contributions and no Thai national has assisted with, supported, or participated in business activities in a nominee capacity. Implications Companies intending to appoint foreign directors as authorized signatories should be aware of the increased regulatory requirements and assessments. Additional documentation and confirmations may be required as part of the registration process.