Within ASEAN, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Laos have each been enacting their own personal data protection laws in rapid succession, making it increasingly difficult for Japanese companies with multiple regional bases to even determine which country's laws to address first. I have personally heard from a legal affairs officer at a manufacturing company who said, "Just when we thought we had Thailand under control, Indonesia's full enforcement kicked in and threw our operations into chaos." Given that legal frameworks differ from country to country, it is dangerous to assume that "having GDPR-compliant internal policies is sufficient" without first accurately understanding the differences between each jurisdiction.

This article examines four laws—Thailand's PDPA (enforced in 2022), Vietnam's PDPL (scheduled for enforcement in 2026), Indonesia's PDP Law (fully enforced in 2024), and Laos's Personal Data Protection Law—and compares their key practical differences across four dimensions: scope of application, consent requirements, penalties, and cross-border transfer rules.

The intended audience is legal and compliance personnel at Japanese companies with manufacturing, sales, or R&D bases in ASEAN. By the end of this article, readers should have a clear understanding of the common governance framework applicable across all four countries, as well as a sense of the priority actions required for each individual base.

When examining data protection laws across these four ASEAN countries, it is helpful to organize the comparison around three axes: "scope of application," "consent and legal bases for processing," and "penalty levels." While each country's law was designed with reference to the GDPR, there are considerable differences in enforcement timelines and regulatory stringency. For example, even with respect to extraterritorial application alone, Thailand's PDPA and Vietnam's PDPL differ in their interpretive scope, meaning that the same fact—providing services to local users—can give rise to different compliance obligations. Deploying a headquarters-driven unified policy without understanding these differences tends to result in over-compliance in some countries and regulatory gaps in others. The following sections examine each of these three axes in turn.

All four countries share the common feature of extending their laws beyond personal data processing conducted within their own borders to also cover overseas operators. However, the reach and requirements vary considerably from country to country.

Thailand's PDPA applies extraterritorially to operators that offer goods or services to data subjects in Thailand, or that monitor the behavior of individuals within Thailand. This design closely mirrors the EU GDPR's "targeting criterion," meaning that simply providing cross-border services from Japan may bring an operator within its scope. Vietnam's PDPL covers not only organizations and individuals operating domestically, but also overseas operators that process data belonging to data subjects located in Vietnam. However, as enforcement is scheduled for 2026, some details of the implementing regulations have yet to be finalized, making it essential to continuously monitor the final text at this stage. Indonesia's PDP Law applies broadly to all data processing that has a legal impact within Indonesia, and in some cases requires overseas operators to appoint a local representative. Laos's current provisions primarily target domestic operators, and its explicit extraterritorial application provisions remain more limited compared to the other three countries.

In practice, one area where oversights frequently occur is when a Japanese parent company processes customer data belonging to its ASEAN subsidiaries. In Thailand and Indonesia, even if data is physically stored on servers in Japan, there is a possibility that local law will still apply—meaning the assumption that "our local entity handles compliance, so headquarters is not involved" may not hold. Since misjudging the scope of application directly leads to compliance gaps, the starting point for governance design is to visualize your company's data flows and map out which country's laws apply to each base.

As with the GDPR, personal data protection laws across ASEAN countries do not treat "consent" as the sole legal basis for processing. Having multiple legal bases available and selecting the appropriate one based on business realities is a fundamental principle in practice.

Thailand's PDPA provides six categories of legal bases: consent, performance of a contract, legal obligation, legitimate interest, public interest, and protection of life. Legitimate interest may be relied upon to the extent that it does not override the rights of the data subject. Vietnam's PDPL (effective 2026) treats consent as the default, while also providing exceptions for contract performance, legal obligations, emergencies, and public interest. The requirement that consent be "explicit, voluntary, specific, and informed" is broadly consistent with the GDPR's approach. Indonesia's PDP Law similarly enumerates six categories—consent, contract performance, legal obligation, protection of vital interests, public task, and legitimate interest—and with the law's full enforcement in 2024, establishing a response workflow for consent withdrawal has become a particularly urgent priority. Laos's legal framework is still developing, and at present, consent remains the primary legal basis.

One practical pitfall that is easy to overlook is the operational cost that comes with over-reliance on consent. As withdrawal requests accumulate, the administrative burden can grow far beyond initial expectations. In many cases, appropriately leveraging contract performance or legitimate interest can significantly reduce that burden. However, when relying on legitimate interest as a legal basis, maintaining records of a balancing test is a commonly recommended practice across all four countries—so rather than simply using it because it is available, it is necessary to proceed with documentation of the legal basis as an integral part of the process.

Penalty levels vary significantly from country to country and are a directly relevant axis for assessing risk across a corporate group. Looking at monetary amounts alone may lead one to think "it's not that serious," but when combined with orders to suspend operations or injunctions against data processing, the actual damage can far exceed the fines themselves.

Thailand's PDPA carries a maximum administrative fine of THB 5 million (approximately JPY 2 million), with criminal penalties of up to one year's imprisonment or a fine of THB 500,000 also potentially applicable. While the monetary amounts may appear lower than those in other countries, Thailand is already at a stage where enforcement precedents are accumulating, and the judgment that "we can still afford to wait and see" is becoming increasingly untenable.

Indonesia's PDP Law adopts a proportional approach, with penalties of up to 2% of annual revenue, meaning that the effective burden rises sharply for companies with larger revenue bases. However, there are reported cases where interpretations diverge as to whether "annual revenue" is calculated on the basis of global revenue or domestic revenue only, making it necessary to continuously monitor guidance from the relevant authorities. Like Thailand, Indonesia warrants close attention given that enforcement is becoming a real possibility.

Vietnam's PDPL is scheduled to take effect in 2026, and while tiered administrative sanctions based on the severity of the violation are anticipated, the details remain pending finalization of the implementing regulations. Gaining a thorough understanding of the structure of the legislation now will determine how quickly organizations are able to respond once enforcement begins.

As for Laos, while penalty provisions do exist, publicly available information on both the penalty levels and the enforcement framework is limited compared to the other three countries, making direct verification of official documents essential.

Prioritizing compliance efforts based solely on the monetary level of penalties risks being caught off guard in Thailand and Indonesia, where enforcement frameworks are beginning to take shape. Combining an assessment of past enforcement cases and regulatory authorities' operational posture is the starting point for effective risk management.

When tracking the data protection laws of four countries simultaneously—Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Laos—you repeatedly encounter the feeling that they are "seemingly similar yet fundamentally different." For example, while Thailand's PDPA and Indonesia's PDP share a similar statutory structure, lining up their cross-border transfer requirements reveals considerably different practical procedures. Assuming they are "roughly the same" based on the text alone will lead to painful consequences later. The three points of enforcement timing, penalty levels, and cross-border transfer rules directly affect prioritization decisions in the field, which is why there is value in placing them side by side in a uniform format rather than simply comparing statutory provisions. The comparison table below is organized from that perspective, allowing you to confirm similarities and differences at a glance. The background and key considerations for each item are explored in the sections that follow.

A cross-cutting comparison of the data protection laws of four countries across key items reveals a clear difference in regulatory maturity and practical compliance burden.

There are three differences from this table that are particularly worth keeping in mind from a practical standpoint. The first is enforcement timing. Thailand and Indonesia have already entered the enforcement phase, with investigations and corrective recommendations by authorities operating as real risks. Vietnam, on the other hand, is in a preparation period ahead of its 2026 enforcement, leaving time to build compliance frameworks now. The second is the difference in the design philosophy behind penalty levels. Indonesia includes a provision for revenue-based penalties (up to 2%), which is fundamentally different in concept from Thailand's fixed upper limit. Global companies need to approach this with a sensibility closer to the GDPR. The third point is Laos's uncertainty: since statutory interpretation and enforcement practices remain fluid at this time, building a response framework using the same standards as the other three countries can leave you caught off guard. Directly confirming with local authorities and law firms is especially important here.

Note that this comparison table is a reference summary based on information available at the time of writing, and the latest regulatory developments in each country should be verified regularly through official guidance.

When designing practical compliance measures across all four countries, the starting point for prioritization is separating "rules common to all" from "rules that differ by country."

Securing consent and legal bases for processing, protecting data subject rights such as access, correction, and deletion, notifying authorities in the event of a breach, and some form of restriction on cross-border transfers—these four requirements exist across all of Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Laos. When developing a group-wide privacy policy or internal regulations, solidifying this common foundation first allows a large portion of compliance across all four countries to be addressed in one effort.

The challenge lies in the differences. Looking at enforcement timing alone: Thailand has been fully enforced since 2022, Indonesia achieved full enforcement in 2024, Vietnam is scheduled for 2026, and Laos is still developing its framework—meaning the judgment of "whether to act now" varies significantly by country. Regarding the obligation to appoint a DPO (Data Protection Officer), Vietnam and Indonesia impose a mandatory requirement, Thailand requires one only when certain conditions are met, and Laos has no such provision at all—they are not aligned.

Cross-border transfer regulations deserve particularly careful attention. Vietnam has a structure close to a blanket prohibition with limited exceptions, and Indonesia requires government approval in certain cases. Thailand has a relatively flexible design, but even so, confirming whether the recipient country has an "adequate level of protection" cannot be skipped. From a penalty severity standpoint, Indonesia's adoption of a revenue-linked model at up to 2% of annual turnover—where risk escalates with business scale—is a point that cannot be overlooked.

Regarding Laos, many regulatory details remain unconfirmed at this time. It is difficult to say compliance is "complete" in the same way as the other three countries, and continuously monitoring official documents is the most substantively meaningful action available right now.

The four countries of Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Laos differ significantly in terms of legal maturity and enforcement status. Based on the author's experience speaking with local law firms across ASEAN countries and legal affairs personnel at Japanese companies, a clear pattern emerges: companies that assumed their GDPR compliance experience would be sufficient tend to stumble on country-specific requirements. This is precisely why a one-size-fits-all approach makes it easy to overlook on-the-ground risks.

The following sections take a deeper look at the unique requirements of each country's law and the challenges Japanese companies are most likely to face in practice. Please focus on the sections relevant to your company's countries of operation.

Thailand's Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was enacted in 2020 and fully enforced in June 2022. Modeled on the GDPR, it is positioned as one of the most well-developed data protection frameworks within ASEAN.

The basic scope of application covers businesses that collect, use, or disclose personal data within Thailand. However, even companies based outside Thailand are subject to the law if they offer goods or services to individuals residing in Thailand or monitor their behavior. This is the extraterritorial application provision, and it is relevant to Japanese companies operating e-commerce sites or apps targeting Thailand.

The core obligation is consent acquisition, with prior explicit consent as the general rule. However, six legal bases for processing are recognized, including Legitimate Interest, meaning not all processing requires consent. Data subjects are guaranteed rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, and data portability—a structure that should be easy to understand for those familiar with the GDPR. Businesses engaged in large-scale processing or processing of sensitive data are required to appoint a DPO (Data Protection Officer), and cross-border transfers require either confirmation that the recipient country has an adequate level of protection or the implementation of safeguards such as Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

Penalties include administrative fines of up to 5 million baht and criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to 1 million baht, with amounts varying depending on whether the violation was intentional or negligent. These figures are reference values at the time of writing; confirmation with official sources is recommended for the latest information.

From a practical standpoint, a notable feature of Thailand is the accumulation of enforcement cases by the supervisory authority, the PDPC (Personal Data Protection Committee). In contrast to Vietnam's PDPL, which is newly enforced and whose regulatory direction remains difficult to read, Thailand allows companies to build their compliance strategies with a reasonable understanding of the authority's stance. In practice, prioritizing the development of Thai-language privacy policies and bilingual (English and Thai) consent forms is a common approach. Starting there is the most realistic way to proceed.

Vietnam enacted Decree No. 13/2023 in July 2023, establishing a foundational framework for personal data protection. A more comprehensive Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL) is currently progressing through the legislative process with a target effective date of 2026; while Vietnam is a latecomer within ASEAN, the law is expected to feature a rigorous design.

Key Features

• Broad extraterritorial application: All organizations and individuals processing personal data of individuals in Vietnam are subject to the law. Japanese companies with overseas bases are also likely to fall within scope.
• Explicit consent requirement: Even at the Decree 13 stage, consent must satisfy four requirements: it must be voluntary, explicit, specific, and informed.
• Prior notification for cross-border transfers: When transferring personal data outside Vietnam, notification to the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) or submission of an impact assessment is required.
• Data localization: In combination with the Cybersecurity Law (2018), there are cases where an obligation to store certain data domestically arises.

Practical Considerations

Decree 13 has a limited track record of enforcement, and the regulatory authorities' enforcement policy has not yet been fully established. Since penalty levels are expected to be raised after the PDPL comes into force, a practical approach is to build compliance frameworks based on the current Decree 13 without waiting until 2026.

Regarding cross-border transfers, as with Indonesia covered in the next section, establishing an internal workflow that anticipates a two-stage process—"impact assessment (TIA equivalent) + regulatory notification"—tends to help reduce compliance costs after the law takes effect.

Indonesia's Personal Data Protection Law (PDP Law) was enacted in 2022 and came into full effect in October 2024. For companies operating in this vast market of over 270 million people, achieving compliance has become an urgent priority.

Key Requirements

• Legal basis for processing: In addition to consent, contract performance, legal obligations, and legitimate interests are also recognized.
• Data subject rights: The rights of access, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, and data portability are guaranteed.
• DPO (Data Protection Officer): Controllers and processors conducting high-risk processing are required to appoint a DPO.
• Data breach notification: Reporting to the supervisory authority within 14 days of a breach is required, with notification within 72 hours recommended.

Cross-Border Transfers

A condition for transfers is that the destination country must have a level of data protection equivalent to or higher than that of Indonesia. Where this standard is not met, contractual safeguards (a mechanism equivalent to standard contractual clauses) must be put in place. As Japan has not been granted an adequacy decision, individual protective measures must be established.

Penalties

Administrative penalties of up to 2% of annual turnover may be imposed, and criminal penalties (imprisonment and fines) are also stipulated.

Practical Considerations

Local subsidiaries in the manufacturing sector need to review their employee data handling policies to align with the PDP Law. Translating privacy policies into Indonesian and establishing consent acquisition workflows are also high priorities. Unlike the Laos law discussed next, it should be noted that an enforcement framework is being put in place.

Laos enacted an E-Commerce Law in 2017 and a Cybersecurity Law in 2022, progressively expanding provisions relating to personal data protection. As of the time of writing, a standalone Personal Data Protection Law is under development, and it is necessary to continuously monitor official documents for the effective date and detailed provisions.

Key Points of the Current Legal Framework

• In principle, consent of the individual is required for the collection and use of personal information.
• Data localization-type requirements exist under the Cybersecurity Law, such as obligations to provide information to government agencies.
• Penalties for violations tend to be lighter compared to the other three countries, but may be strengthened as the regulatory framework develops.

Key Differences from the Other Three Countries

While Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia each have standalone data protection laws, a practical challenge in Laos is that relevant provisions are dispersed across multiple laws. There are also reports of cases where the competent ministry differs depending on the nature of the matter, which can result in time being spent identifying the correct point of contact.

Practical Steps for Japanese Companies

• Work with local law firms to regularly verify the latest status of applicable laws and regulations.
• Prioritize establishing compliance with data handling obligations under the Cybersecurity Law (log retention, provision of data to authorities, etc.).
• Precisely because the legal framework is at an early stage of maturity, proactively applying a group-wide common data protection policy tends to contribute to risk reduction.

Given that the regulatory framework is still in transition, establishing internal rules at an early stage is considered effective from the perspective of reducing the cost of responding to future legislative changes.

When operating in all four countries—Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Laos—attempting to address each country's laws individually tends to inflate management costs. A two-tier structure, in which a common base policy is established and country-specific differential requirements are layered on top as an "override layer," is considered effective in minimizing confusion at the operational level. Since the procedures required for cross-border transfers also differ by country, it is advisable to begin designing these workflows at an early stage.

When operating in all four ASEAN countries, creating individual policies for each country inflates management costs. The practical solution is a two-tier structure of a "common policy + country-specific overrides."

Elements to Include in the Common Policy

• Definition and classification of personal data (general data / sensitive data)
• Data subject rights (access, rectification, erasure, portability)
• Principles for retention periods and disposal procedures
• Incident response workflow (detection → reporting → notification)
• Contractual requirements with data processors (subcontractors)

These are elements required in all four countries, and common standardization is unlikely to create legal inconsistencies.

Differences to Address in Country-Specific Overrides

Formatting override documents to reference the common policy as the "parent document" minimizes the number of sections requiring updates at the time of revision.

Operational Considerations

Each country's supervisory authority is independent, and it will not automatically be recognized that a common policy "satisfies local law." Country-specific overrides should always include references to the relevant article numbers of local laws and be retained as an audit trail. Specific procedures for cross-border transfers are detailed in the next section.

When transferring personal data from ASEAN countries to a Japanese headquarters, the appropriate procedure should be selected based on whether the destination country meets an "adequate level of protection." While the requirements of each country's law differ, in practice the following three routes are the primary options.

① Use of Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs)

• Thailand's PDPA and Indonesia's PDP Law recognize the execution of contracts compliant with standard contractual clauses established by the relevant authorities as a lawful means of cross-border transfer
• Execute a contract equivalent to SCCs between the Japanese headquarters and the local subsidiary, explicitly documenting the purpose, scope, and security requirements for data processing
• Storing contracts in a bilingual format with parallel local-language and Japanese text tends to facilitate smoother audit responses

② Conducting a Transfer Impact Assessment (TIA)

• Indonesia's PDP Law requires a TIA to pre-evaluate the level of protection in the destination country
• Assessment items include "the legal framework of the destination country," "the recipient's security posture," and "data subjects' access to remedies"
• It is important to document and retain the assessment results in a state where they can be presented if the authorities make an inquiry

③ Explicit Consent from Data Subjects

• Vietnam's PDPL treats explicit consent from data subjects as the default requirement for cross-border transfers, with detailed provisions governing the items to be included in consent acquisition forms
• Regarding Laos, implementing regulations are still being developed at this time; while obtaining consent serves as the baseline, there are cases where prior notification to the authorities is also required

Common Practical Checkpoints

• Prepare the recipient's (Japanese headquarters') privacy policy in the local language prior to transfer
• Reflect transfer records (what, when, and to where) in data mapping
• Establish a cycle of reviewing legal amendments and guideline updates every six months

Route selection must always be made after consulting the latest guidelines and official documents under local law.

Few Japanese companies have the resources to simultaneously address all four ASEAN countries at once. For this reason, the starting point is to clearly establish priorities based on one's own business model, site configuration, and risk tolerance. The following sections outline the decision criteria for outsourcing versus in-house development, as well as a priority matrix by site type.

When advancing data protection law compliance across ASEAN countries, the decision of whether to "outsource to a local consultant or handle in-house with an internal team" is a critical one in terms of both budget and practical effectiveness.

Cases Where Outsourcing Is Appropriate

• Initial assessments and gap analyses when entering a country for the first time
• Countries like Laos where legislation is still being developed and official guidance is limited
• Situations requiring local-language privacy policy translation and legal review
• High-stakes situations involving regulatory engagement or penalty risk (e.g., handling violation notifications under Indonesia's PDP Law)

Local consultants have relationships with regulatory authorities and are up to date on the latest enforcement trends, giving them the ability to read between the lines of regulations. Particularly in stages where guidelines are still being developed—such as Vietnam's PDPL ahead of its scheduled 2026 enforcement—access to local information tends to have a significant impact on the quality of compliance efforts.

Cases Where In-House Development Is Appropriate

• Countries like Thailand, where the PDPA has an established enforcement track record and internal knowledge has been built up
• Ongoing, routine tasks such as operating group-wide data mapping and consent management tools
• Cases where outsourcing costs accumulate to a significant amount due to multi-country policy management

The greatest advantages of in-house development are speed and cost efficiency, but challenges include the risk of staff turnover and keeping pace with legislative amendments.

The Hybrid Model as a Practical Solution

Many Japanese companies tend to adopt a hybrid model in which initial setup is entrusted to consultants, with operations then transitioned in-house. In such cases, limiting the outsourcing scope to "situations requiring legal judgment" allows companies to secure specialized expertise while keeping costs down.

The types and volumes of personal data handled vary significantly depending on a site's function. Misjudging response priorities can result in wasteful consumption of limited resources. Please use the following matrix as a reference and make judgments in light of your own company's site configuration.

Production Sites (Primarily Thailand and Indonesia)

• Employee data (attendance, payroll, medical checkups) is the primary subject
• The larger the workforce, the higher the risk of violations; therefore, establishing internal HR regulations should be the top priority
• Thailand's PDPA has been in force since 2022, and Indonesia's PDP Law came into full effect in 2024, meaning obligations have already arisen
• Priority: High

Sales Sites (Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia)

• Large volumes of external personal data are collected, including customers' names, contact information, and purchase history
• The greatest risks are gaps in obtaining marketing consent and cross-border transfers
• Vietnam's PDPL is scheduled to take effect in 2026, but working backward from the preparation period means action is needed now
• Priority: Highest

R&D Sites (Vietnam, Thailand)

• There are cases involving the handling of sensitive personal information, such as research subject data and biometric information
• Even when data volumes are small, strict consent and security management are required for handling sensitive data
• Priority: Medium to High (can become Highest depending on the type of data)

Laos Sites

• The legal framework is still being developed, and the immediate risk of sanctions is relatively low
• However, note that when used as a cross-border transfer destination, the regulations of the sending country apply
• Priority: Low to Medium

Setting priorities by combining site function with the nature of the data handled, and documenting the order of response, also contributes to accountability toward supervisory authorities.

Q1. If we comply with Japan's Act on the Protection of Personal Information, will we be covered in ASEAN as well?

There are many areas that will not be covered. Requirements such as the obligation to appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO)—which does not exist under Japanese law—obtaining individual consent for cross-border transfers, and notifying data breaches within 72 hours are mandated under the laws of various countries. It is safe to assume that compliance with Japanese law alone is insufficient.

Q2. Vietnam's PDPL is scheduled to take effect in 2026—is it necessary to start preparing now?

Early action is recommended. Tasks such as training local staff, localizing privacy policies, and data flow mapping tend to take several months. There is a risk that last-minute responses just before enforcement will not be sufficient.

Q3. Is DPO appointment mandatory even for small- and medium-sized sites?

This varies by country. Thailand's PDPA requires DPO appointment for processors above a certain scale, and Indonesia's PDP Law sets similar requirements. As Laos's requirements are still being developed at this time, it is necessary to regularly check official documents.

Q4. What specifically constitutes "appropriate safeguards" for cross-border data transfers?

Representative measures include executing Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), an adequacy determination for the destination country, and obtaining explicit consent from data subjects. Since the permissible measures differ by country, please refer to the guidance of the regulatory authority in the destination country.

Q5. If a violation occurs, can the Japanese headquarters also be subject to penalties?

In countries with extraterritorial application provisions, not only the local site but also the Japanese headquarters may be subject to penalties. Thailand's PDPA and Indonesia's PDP Law in particular explicitly provide for extraterritorial application. Early risk assessment in coordination with the legal department is important.

The data protection laws of four ASEAN countries, while influenced by the GDPR, each have distinct designs in terms of enforcement timelines, penalty levels, and cross-border transfer rules. Thailand's PDPA is already fully in force, Indonesia's PDP Law came into full effect in 2024, Vietnam's PDPL requires preparation ahead of its 2026 enforcement, and Laos remains in a transitional period of legal development. Understanding this "gap in enforcement timelines" is the first step in narrowing down which countries to prioritize.

The key practical points to keep in mind can be summarized in the following three areas:

• Building a common foundation first: Mechanisms for privacy policies, data mapping, and consent management can be shared across all four countries. The earlier these are established, the greater the return on investment tends to be.
• Clarifying country-specific overrides: Country-specific requirements—such as cross-border transfer restrictions and definitions of sensitive information—should be managed as separate layers and designed to override the common policy, making operations easier to manage.
• Regular legislative monitoring: Since subordinate regulations and guidelines across ASEAN countries are updated frequently, it is advisable to establish a quarterly review process.

For Japanese companies in particular, careful attention must be paid to the choice of legal basis for cross-border data transfers. Over-reliance on consent tends to increase the risk of withdrawal and the cost of record-keeping. Consider exploring the use of SCCs (Standard Contractual Clauses) and adequacy decisions at an early stage.

In accelerating ASEAN expansion, positioning data protection compliance not as a "cost" but as "an investment in earning the trust of local partners and consumers" is a perspective that will support a sustainable long-term business foundation.