On August 7, 2025, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 219/2025/ND-CP on foreign workers working in Vietnam (Decree 219), introducing substantial reforms to the management of foreign employees. Taking immediate effect upon issuance, and superseding earlier regulations on foreign employees under Decree No. 152/2020/ND-CP as amended by Decree No. 70/2023/ND-CP (collectively referred to as “Decree 152”), Decree 219 sets out clear timeframes and application requirements for work permit issuance, while adopting more flexible policies to support business operations. The key new provisions are as follows: 1. Relaxed Requirements Regarding Job-Posting Under Decree 152, employers were required to follow a complex process to apply for work permits or work permit exemption certificates for foreign employees. This included posting an advertisement for any position the employer wished to fill with a foreign employee on a designated online portal for a given amount of time, to demonstrate that the company tried, but failed, to find a suitable Vietnamese candidate for the position. This job-posting step now only applies when the foreigner will work in Vietnam under a local labor contract. Foreigners coming to Vietnam as intra-corporate transferees (i.e., as secondees) or working under service contracts are exempt. The job-posting period is also reduced from 15 calendar days to five business days. Employers may also now post the advertisements on multiple websites instead of only the online portal of the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (now the Ministry of Home Affairs after government restructuring) or the provincial-level employment service center. 2. Work Permit Application Dossier Previously, employers were required to complete a preapproval step, whereby they had to submit a dossier explaining their foreign labor demand that required approval from the labor authority. Once approval for the foreign labor demand was granted, the approval dossier was an integral part of

With the shift in US policy to discourage DEI programs among government and private-sector employers, some companies have been cutting back. But US companies should be cautious in eliminating their DEI programs globally, as some elements of these programs are obligations under local laws in Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia.

In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that

On June 20, 2025, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance issued Instruction No. 19116 to clarify when board members and company directors must receive salaries and pay payroll taxes. Board members and company directors who are not considered employees are subject to a withholding tax. This category consists of people who complete services for a nonresident individual and people who perform independent work for a company in Cambodia. Board members and company directors who are considered employees, including those appointed by a foreign head office to temporarily manage a company in Cambodia, must pay payroll taxes on any salary they receive, regardless of whether they are paid by a local or foreign branch of the company. The above obligations apply regardless of whether the person has a work permit. Board members and company directors are exempt from paying payroll tax if they: Are not present and not performing a regular management role at the company despite being registered on the company’s statutes or patent tax card; Participate only in board meetings and occasional shareholder meetings; and Do not receive a salary from a company in Cambodia. Overall, this instruction provides an important clarification regarding the tax obligations of board members and company directors. Companies should pay attention to the classification of their board members and directors and be mindful of the exemption.   This article was written with the assistance of Tilleke & Gibbins interns Amelia Gemma Erickson and Amrin Keat.