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

February 25, 2021

Vietnam Issues New Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection

Subscribe to Updates

On February 9, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) finally released the full text of the Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection (the “Draft”) for public consultation, after having released an outline in December 2019, with an ambitious goal for the Draft to be promulgated and take effect on December 1, 2021.

The Draft is divided into six chapters and 30 articles, providing comprehensive coverage of personal data protection and some brand-new requirements. Notable contents of the Draft include the following:

  1. Re-categorization of personal data into basic personal data and sensitive personal data;
  2. New data processing requirements, including new legal bases for data processing and disclosure without consent; specification of the forms of consent; regulations for data processing for research and statistical purposes and automated data processing; and time limits for data retention;
  3. New data protection measures, including de-identification/encryption requirements, appointment of data protection officers, data accessibility from government authorities, and registration for processing of sensitive data and cross-border transfer of data;
  4. Establishment of a new Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) under the MPS; and
  5. New administrative sanctions for violations, including fines of up to 5% of the revenues earned from violating activities.

Among the various newly introduced requirements proposed in the Draft, Article 20 (Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) and Article 21 (Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data) are notably problematic, and seem infeasible for the operation of various businesses and industries.

Article 20 – Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data 

The Draft’s Article 20 requires that sensitive personal data be registered with the PDPC prior to processing. The scope of sensitive personal data as defined in the Draft ranges from specific types of data such as gender, biometrics, criminal records, and location to very broad concepts such as political and religious views and social relationships.

Among the required contents of the registration application for processing of personal data is an impact assessment report that clearly points out the potential harm to data subjects due to such proposed processing and measures to manage, minimize, or eliminate such harm. The PDPC will process the applications within 20 working days from the date of receipt of a valid application, which means the date that all information and documents provided in the application are acceptable to the officers in charge.

Although the government’s intent is to protect persons and entities covered by the Draft from any improper and harmful processing of their personal data—a laudable goal—this registration requirement potentially creates a huge impact on businesses in terms of time, costs, and administrative procedures. In reality, almost every company, whether local or overseas entity, needs to process its employees’ sensitive data (such as health data, criminal records, etc.) for various legitimate purposes. To be eligible to do so under the Draft, companies will have to prepare and submit applications to the PDPC for approval. Not only will this impose significant costs on companies in terms of time, money, and human resources, but it is highly doubtful that the PDPC would have sufficient resources to process the expected volume of applications within the specified timeline.

Article 21 – Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data

Similarly, Article 21 of the Draft requires that, before transferring Vietnamese citizens’ personal data out of Vietnam, the following four conditions be fulfilled: (i) consent must be obtained from the data subjects; (ii) the original data must be stored in Vietnam; (iii) the data transferor must have proof that the recipient country has personal data protection at a level equal to or higher than the level specified in the Draft; and (iv) a written approval for transfer must be obtained from the PDPC.

The Draft provides an exemption to the foregoing requirement, when there is (a) consent from the data subject, (b) approval from the PDPC, (c) a commitment from the data processor to protect the data, and (d) a commitment from the data processor to apply measures to protect the data. (It is unclear from the wording of the Draft whether the data transferor needs to meet one or all of these criteria to be eligible for the exemption, but presumably all four must be met.)

In order to obtain a written approval from the PDPC, an application must again include an impact assessment report with an assessment of potential harm and measures to manage, minimize or eliminate such harm. The PDPC has 20 working days from the date of submission to process applications for approval.

It is apparent that these requirements in Article 21 could create a barrier to trade and the flow of data, and increase cost, time, and human resources requirements for companies across many industries. For example, there are a significant number of multinational companies operating in Vietnam that need to regularly process personal data, and they usually process such data in a selected country outside of Vietnam or use cloud services with physical servers located outside of Vietnam. This practice is very common for many industries, including e-commerce, banking, travel, education, health care, etc. If all companies sending personal data overseas have to store data in Vietnam, it would create huge costs and additional work and overhead for them. Moreover, the process for applying for approval from the PDPC would unavoidably delay transactions and data transfers, which usually need to be processed instantly.

The Draft is open for public consultation from February 9 to April 9, 2021, and merits the urgent attention of industries, associations, and businesses to share comments with the MPS in order to develop legislation which is effective as well as feasible for implementation, balancing data subjects’ rights with the smooth operation of business.

As the effective date for this legislation could come later this year, it is also important for companies to get a head start on evaluating data transfers and processing within their own organization, and start formulating plans.

For further information about the Draft, please contact us at [email protected].

Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 10, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) recently released draft guidance on records of processing activities (ROPA) for personal data controllers and processors under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The draft guidance, which was presented to the public on July 7, 2026, addresses both controller records of collection, use, and disclosure of personal data and processor records of processing activities carried out on behalf of controllers. If implemented, the guidance will significantly expand organizational expectations for ROPA preparation, maintenance, and use across all sectors. Key Takeaways The draft guidance contains several important implications for organizations subject to the PDPA: ROPA reframed as a core accountability tool. The guidance elevates ROPA from an administrative record to a central accountability mechanism, connecting controller duties with recordkeeping obligations. ROPA as a source for privacy notices and governance documents. ROPA should serve as the primary source for privacy notices and align with consent management, retention schedules, DPIAs, incident response plans, and vendor contracts. Expanded scope across all activities. ROPA must cover all processing activities across the organization—including security, finance, HR, and external contractors—with correct controller or processor classification for each. Ongoing maintenance and auditability. ROPA must be updated for any change to systems, purposes, or processors, reviewed at least annually, and maintained with version control and a designated owner. Enhanced vendor, processor, and cross-border transfer requirements. Organizations must document all processors, external recipients, and cross-border transfers, specifying purposes, access scope, and destination countries. Linkage with risk assessment, DPIAs, and LIAs. ROPA should assign risk levels to each activity and identify when data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) or legitimate interests assessments (LIAs) are required, functioning as a risk-management tool. ROPA and data breach readiness. Incomplete ROPA can delay breach response and notification. Organizations should map data flows, vendors,
Read More
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More