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

March 2, 2021

Thailand’s New Electronic Meeting Laws and Security Measures

Informed Counsel

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in the popularity of electronic meetings among businesses across the world, as physical meetings became unfeasible due to government lockdowns and regulations limiting gatherings to limit the risk of further spreading the disease. In Thailand, this turn of events has resulted in the promulgation of a new electronic meeting law to modernize rules that facilitate the convening of corporate entities’ statutory meetings as required under Thai law.

Electronic meetings in Thailand have been permitted to some degree since June 27, 2014, when the Announcement of the National Council for Peace and Order No. 74/2557 on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2557 (2014) first allowed the practice, subject to various restrictions. However, many companies considered two strict requirements under this announcement to be impractical: at least one-third of the quorum for the electronic meeting had to physically attend the meeting at the designated meeting venue, which implies that no more than two-thirds of the quorum could choose to attend the meeting via electronic means; and all participants of the electronic meeting (whether attending electronically or in person) had to be physically present in Thailand at the time of the meeting, which effectively prohibited overseas participation.

New Rules for Electronic Meetings

The new electronic meeting law, the Royal Decree on Teleconferences through Electronic Means B.E. 2563 (2020), came into effect on April 19, 2020, replacing the 2014 order and relaxing its most onerous limitations in order to facilitate meetings of directors and shareholders via electronic means during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The key relaxations codified by the royal decree include allowing all attendees to attend meetings via electronic means, such as by phone or videoconferencing, from anywhere in the world. Furthermore, there is no longer a physical attendance requirement, and notices (and enclosures) calling a meeting can be distributed to participants via electronic mail, replacing the standard postal requirement of the 2014 announcement.

The new royal decree also needed to introduce certain statutory protocols in order to safeguard the integrity of the new meeting procedures. First, the meeting organizer must keep records of the meeting notice that is sent out electronically, and must verify the identities of the participants before the meeting starts. There must also be an audio or audiovisual record of the entire meeting (except for secret meetings), and the electronic traffic data of all attendees (i.e., the log file of usernames and login/logout dates and times) must be kept as evidence. Minutes of the meetings must also be documented, whether in an electronic or physical format.

Similar to the previous law, the new royal decree applies to board meetings and shareholders meetings of both private and public companies in Thailand, as well as to meetings of partnerships, trade associations, and chambers of commerce. Companies may choose to hold electronic meetings regardless of whether their articles of association have any provision specially permitting this. In addition, the standard rules and conditions for physical meetings still apply to electronic meetings, for instance, appointment of a proxy is allowed at a shareholders meeting but not at board meetings.

Security Measures for E-Meetings

To supplement the new royal decree, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) issued a new set of mandatory security standards for electronic meetings in its Notification Re: Standards for Maintaining Security of Meetings via Electronic Means B.E. 2563 (2020). The notification, which came into effect on May 26, 2020, outlines various mandatory security measures and procedures for electronic meetings. It also regulates the role and functions of the “conference control system” and the “system controller.” While the new royal decree already addressed security measures to some degree through its statutory protocols, the MDES notification added the following key requirements:

  • Method of identity check. The meeting organizer may adopt any secured method of identity verification, such as username and password or one-time password.
  • Two-way communication. The meeting must have sufficient bandwidth to provide a clear and continuous communication channel—whether via interactive audio or video communication—to allow participants to interact and express opinions to one another without interruption throughout the meeting.
  • Conference control system. The chair of the meeting (or the system controller) must have technological access to control or restrict, whether permanently or temporarily, the participation of attendees during the meeting in case of necessity or emergency.
  • Access to documents and data. Attendees must be able to access documents and data presented during the meeting.
  • Voting mechanism. The meeting must grant access to the technological tools to facilitate voting by the attendees, whether in the form of a general vote or a secret vote;
  • Storage of records. The meeting must keep records and data in connection with the meeting, including method of identity check, method and results of votes, audio or audiovisual recording (except for secret meetings), attendees’ electronic traffic data, and occurrence of disruptions during the meeting (if any).
  • Troubleshooting. Attendees must be able to report disruptions and errors that occur during the meeting, and the organizer must arrange for proper solutions and preventive measures.
  • IT security standards. The meeting must meet minimum IT security in terms of confidentiality, integrity, accessibility, privacy and protection of personal data, and other IT security measures.

It has become a general and convenient practice for electronic meetings to be conducted via free or paid conference applications or platforms, such as MS Teams, Zoom, Google Meet, and so on. The Electronic Transaction Development Agency (ETDA) is empowered to verify and certify whether the conference control systems have the technical capabilities or functions to comply with the security measures set out by the MDES notification on e-meeting security. To date, several conference control systems have voluntarily completed the ETDA’s self-assessment, but only a few have opted to apply with ETDA for its official certification. Both groups are published on the ETDA website at https://www.etda.or.th.

Meeting organizers from all Thai companies should familiarize themselves with these new laws and rules on electronic meetings and carefully choose a conference control system that both complies with the regulations and is compatible with their needs. Regardless of the platform chosen, the royal decree and the associated MDES notification have taken a much-needed, modernizing step that significantly eases the process of corporate operations in Thailand. These developments are an encouraging indication of Thailand’s intent to facilitate international business in the country, and a welcome innovation for shareholders and board members.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
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
September 29, 2025
In September 2019, the government of Vietnam issued Decree No. 75/2019/ND-CP on Administrative Sanctions in the Field of Competition (Decree 75) to address the urgent need for clear sanctioning mechanisms following the implementation of the new Law on Competition in July 2019. However, after five years of enforcement, various gaps and inconsistencies have been exposed that hinder its application. These shortcomings have reduced the deterrent effect of the sanctioning regime, and created legal uncertainty for market participants. A recent case involving Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals’ acquisition of another chemical company—one of the first cases of economic concentration violation to be sanctioned by the National Competition Commission (NCC) since the Law on Competition took effect—highlights the practical difficulties under Vietnam’s competition law enforcement regime. In this case, although the transaction exceeded the statutory notification thresholds of economic concentration set out in the law, the parties failed to submit the required notification. This violation resulted in the NCC imposing aggregate fines of VND 1,423,982,880 (approximately USD 54,770) on the companies in September 2024. On appeal, Duc Giang – Lao Cai Chemicals argued that the chairman of the NCC was legally entitled to issue a warning as the key punishment instead of a monetary penalty. However, the chairman rejected the appeal, citing Article 14 of Decree 75, under which the specific penalty and level for “failure to notify economic concentration” is a fine, not a warning. While the chairman of the NCC is generally empowered to impose penalties, a warning cannot be applied if the specific regulation for a particular violation does not provide for it as a sanction. This example shows the inadequacy and inconsistency of the regulations on penalties for violations of competition law, and underscores the need for an amendment of Decree 75 to resolve such conflicts