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

April 15, 2020

Vietnam Issues Guidelines on Cloud Computing for E-Government Deployment

Subscribe to Updates

On April 3, 2020, Vietnam’s Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC) issued Official Letter No. 1145/BTTTT-CATTT to provide guidelines on a set of technical criteria and specifications for cloud computing solutions for e-government deployment (the “Guidelines”).

State agencies and organizations will rely on these Guidelines to assess and select solutions or lease cloud computing services for the development of e-government. Private-sector entities are also encouraged to refer to these Guidelines when setting up and deploying their own cloud computing platform solutions.

The set of technical criteria and specifications include two groups of criteria: Group 1 – technical criteria and specifications, and Group 2 – criteria for information security.

Group 1 includes criteria, specifications, and features related to: (1) virtual machines, (2) storage devices, (3) networks and software-defined networking, (4) physical machines, (5) administration and operation, and (6) integration and other relevant requirements.

Group 2 includes requirements related to: (1) basic requirements on information security features and (2) requirements for setting up security configurations for cloud computing infrastructure.

These two groups are specified in detail in the Guidelines and its annexes. Annex 1 related to Group 1 sets out the minimum technical criteria and specifications for cloud computing infrastructure, and sets out a table to describe features, criteria, and specifications for each specific feature. If a feature has only one criterion or technical specification, a cloud computing solution is evaluated as “passing” when the solution provides that feature and “not passing” if the solution does not provide that feature. If a feature has many different criteria and specifications, that feature is evaluated as “passing” when all criteria and technical specifications are met or “not passing” when at least one of the criteria or technical specifications is not achieved. Similarly, Annex 2 related to Group 2 sets out the minimum technical criteria and specifications for information security of cloud computing infrastructure.

The Guidelines also provide the concept of cloud computing (definition and basic characteristics of cloud computing), the classification of methods for deploying cloud computing (public cloud, private cloud, hybrid cloud, and multi-cloud) and the classification of cloud computing service provision models: IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) – suitable for private cloud deployment; PaaS (Platform as a Service) – suitable for public cloud deployment; and SaaS (Software as a Service) suitable for public cloud.

Furthermore, the Guidelines provide two options for deploying a cloud computing platform: self-deployment, administration, and operation; or leasing professional cloud computing services from other companies.

With regard to the option of self-deployment, administration, and operation, state agencies and organizations are required to have an experienced, capable team to build, administrate, operate, maintain, and ensure information security of the platform. Therefore, they are recommended to implement the second option of leasing professional cloud computing services. However, for certain information systems with specific requirements and which require system administrators to self-manage and operate, state agencies and organizations need to consider hiring professional enterprises to build cloud computing infrastructure. After the system is built, the professional enterprises will hand it over, transfer technology, and provide training and guidance on system administration and operation.

With the option of leasing professional cloud computing services, the MIC recommends that state agencies and organizations prioritize the selection of cloud computing service providers which meet technical criteria and specifications and are on the list announced by the MIC. Selected cloud computing service providers must comply with relevant laws and regulations on network information security, comply with stipulated technical standards, and fulfill technical criteria and specifications stipulated in these Guidelines.

For more information on the cloud computing technical criteria and specifications, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

February 23, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) released its draft Guidelines on Personal Data Protection in the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. The draft guidelines, which translate data controller and data processor compliance obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) into measures tailored to AI development and deployment, are open for public comment until February 25, 2026. At a public hearing session on the draft guidelines held on February 19, the PDPC emphasized that its approach to AI is not to hinder innovation but to develop practical guidance supporting safe deployment while ensuring data protection. Although the guidelines are not legally binding, they indicate the regulator’s expectations and the likely direction of interpretation and enforcement. Scope of Application and Role of Stakeholders The guidelines will apply to all data controllers and data processors in Thailand, and to overseas data controllers and data processors whose data processing falls within the extraterritorial scope of the PDPA. The draft guidelines distinguish the roles of parties involved in AI deployment. Users of AI who determine the purpose of use and designate the input data, and retain outputs generated by the AI, are considered data controllers. In contrast, AI model providers or system integrators that process personal data under the instructions of the data controller are generally regarded as data processors. However, if an AI model provider utilizes user data for its own purposes, such as model fine-tuning or training, it may instead be classified as a data controller. Key Obligations for AI Data Collection and Use The basic principles of data processing under the PDPA must be maintained throughout the AI implementation lifecycle, from design to decommissioning, emphasizing accountability and privacy-by-design principles. The draft guidelines also stipulate the following: Data processing agreements (DPAs) should include model training prohibitions,
Read More
February 10, 2026
Data center and cloud investments are forming a major focus of private-sector investment in Thailand, with tech giants like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and TikTok, as well as numerous telecom and data center companies, committing significant outlays to data center and cloud development. The country’s Board of Investment (BOI) approved projects worth THB 1.87 trillion in 2025, and THB 746 billion of this was from planned data center investments—by far the largest amount from any single industry. Thailand’s swift rise as a regional data center hub is fueled by surging demand for cloud, AI, and digital services, as well as large-scale investments from global tech firms. The country’s strategic location, competitive power costs, robust fiber infrastructure, expanding IT talent, and supportive government policies—including BOI incentives and streamlined approvals—have made it an attractive destination for scalable and sustainable digital infrastructure investments. The BOI’s proactive approach in updating promoted categories and providing both tax and non-tax incentives further ensures Thailand’s continued growth in this sector. 2025 BOI Changes for Data Centers In the middle of 2025, the BOI responded to the remarkable trend by updating investment‑promotion categories across various sectors (e.g., machinery and electrical equipment, public utilities, digital and innovative industries) to accommodate growing investment in data‑center projects. Before the change, which was detailed in a notification that has applied to investment promotion applications submitted from July 1, 2025, onward, data‑center projects under BOI promotion were granted a single A1 incentive (an eight‑year corporate income‑tax exemption) and subject to one uniform set of conditions. The July 2025 notification restructured promotion for data centers into two categories based on power‑usage efficiency: high‑efficiency data centers and other data centers. Under these rules, qualified high‑efficiency data centers are eligible for an eight‑year corporate income tax (CIT) exemption, while for other data centers this exemption is
Read More
February 4, 2026
On November 18, 2025, Vietnam’s Ministry of Finance released for public consultation a draft decree on administrative sanctions in the field of crypto assets and crypto asset markets (the “Draft Decree”), intended to implement Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP dated September 9, 2025, on the pilot crypto asset market in Vietnam (“Resolution 05”). While Resolution 05 sets out who may participate and under what conditions, the Draft Decree addresses a more practical question for market participants, i.e., what happens if those conditions are not met. In doing so, the Draft Decree offers important insight into how Vietnamese regulators intend to supervise, discipline, and ultimately shape the crypto market during the pilot phase. Regulatory Scope and Overall Sanctions Architecture The Draft Decree applies to both domestic and foreign organizations and individuals engaging in crypto-related activities in Vietnam’s market. Covered entities include: (i) crypto asset issuers; (ii) crypto asset service providers, including trading platforms and market operators; (iii) Vietnamese and foreign investors participating in the pilot market; and (iv) other organizations involved in the offering, issuance, or provision of crypto-related services in Vietnam. The breadth of this scope is deliberate. It appears to reflect a regulatory view that cross-border structures, offshore platforms, and indirect participation may not necessarily insulate market actors from compliance obligations once they operate within the pilot framework. For the crypto industry, this may mark a shift from regulatory ambiguity toward a more explicit articulation of jurisdictional reach. At first glance, the Draft Decree’s monetary penalties appear restrained. The maximum fine per administrative violation is capped at VND 200 million (approx. USD 7,700) for organizations and VND 100 million (approx. USD 3,800) for individuals. However, focusing solely on fine levels risks missing the point. The Draft Decree also places great regulatory weight on supplementary sanctions and corrective measures, including: (i)
Read More
January 30, 2026
Thailand’s Data Privacy Day 2026, hosted by the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC), underscored the country’s commitment to strengthening personal data protection, advancing regulatory maturity, and preparing organizations for the next phase of PDPA enforcement. The event marked a clear shift from policy-level compliance toward “Privacy in Action,” signaling that operational readiness and real-world implementation are now priorities. The Office of the PDPC also emphasized that data protection is now a national economic enabler that supports digital trust, competitiveness, and sustainable growth, not just a compliance obligation. The following insights summarize the key takeaways from the Data Privacy Day 2026 event. PDPA in Real Life: What Happens to Your Data Today The Office of the PDPC provided concrete data on enforcement trends and real-world compliance issues facing organizations across Thailand. Complaints and trends. The Office of the PDPC’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) Center recorded 2,672 PDPA-related complaints as of January 2026, with the highest volumes involving failure to comply with the data minimization principle, collection without lawful basis, and use and disclosure without lawful basis. Administrative penalties. Several administrative penalties have been imposed on data controllers and data processors across various sectors, including government, healthcare, retail, SMEs and e-commerce, ranging from tens of thousands to several million baht. Most violations stemmed from weak security measures, failure to notify data breaches within the required timeline, absence of a data protection officer (DPO) when required, and noncompliance with governance requirements such as the Record of Processing Activities (ROPA) and data processing agreements with data processors. Case studies. The Office of the PDPC highlighted specific examples of violations: Hospitals misused personal data for purposes beyond their intended scope (e.g., using personal data collected for providing medical services to send birthday cards) Vendors compromised systems due to inadequate password
Read More