Which Way for ASEAN’s AI Governance Approach?
When it comes to AI, Europe legislates, America puts its faith in market-driven innovation, and China steers it from the center. In contrast, ASEAN balances by consensus.
Across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, AI has become a key component of the region’s broader digital economy and digital integration goals. The ASEAN Responsible AI Roadmap and the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics provide baseline AI ethics principles and guidance for member states, with the overall approach being “soft”, non-binding, and consensus-driven.
These guidelines serve as valuable reference points for regional governments navigating rapidly evolving AI infrastructure and aiming to keep development and deployment in the public interest, fair, and transparent. Adoption of these guidelines and international standards could serve as a bridge to legal differences across regions, helping businesses, especially micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises, reduce compliance costs and enjoy a level playing field when accessing global markets. On the flip side, when domestic standards diverge, cross-border services and interactions with trading partners are compromised, and there is a risk of deepening the digital divide.
ASEAN opted for a voluntary, principles-based path. Was it a conscious strategy suited to the region’s diversity and uneven readiness for AI, or simply a temporary approach in the absence of a stronger regional framework?
This voluntary, principles-based AI governance approach might be a stopgap, but it risks fragmentation as member states adopt their own paths.
Historical Context
Historically, ASEAN has emphasized consensus and collaboration through roadmaps, declarations, formal and informal monitoring bodies, working groups, and multi-stakeholder consultation processes. This approach allows for greater flexibility and inclusivity when the member states share few political, economic, or development commonalities, providing space for innovation and “catching up,” without the weight of premature regulation.
This voluntary and adaptable approach has allowed countries to take individual approaches to AI governance, albeit at a cost. For instance, Singapore has steadily introduced AI strategies and ethical frameworks, including the AI Verify toolkit, prioritizing interoperability with global AI regulatory frameworks. Malaysia has established the national AI office as a central body for coordinating AI policy and implementation, while Indonesia has a national AI strategy and has recently announced plans for regulation to govern AI utilization.
Challenges and Opportunities
As member states take different paths to AI policy and governance, it is unclear whether this divergence was merely a temporary necessity. While in recent years ASEAN has grown in influence, it holds limited regional enforcement powers. Technological readiness across the region is patchy, with countries such as Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos remaining in the initial stages of AI development and deployment.
This voluntary, principles-based AI governance approach might be a stopgap, giving member states time to build capacity and innovate. However, it risks fragmentation as member states align with external regimes such as those of the European Union and the United States, with China adding yet another layer of influence through its expanding role in the region’s digital infrastructure.
Possible Futures
From here on, three futures are possible: consolidation, where ASEAN’s soft principles mature into common governance norms; fragmentation, where member states align with EU, US, or Chinese models; and hybridisation, where ASEAN’s framework mixes with external approaches.
Could it consolidate into a meaningful regional model? With a soft governance approach, ASEAN can give innovators the space to experiment while also keeping ethics and fairness on the agenda. This would allow all of the region’s diverse economies to participate, with an emphasis on building capacity, while remaining a strong, cohesive bloc.
However, without follow-through, it could slip into insignificance. ASEAN would need these voluntary principles to translate into practice, beginning first with a regional review mechanism to ensure consistent implementation across the member states.
Member states would need to set up national AI offices to ensure domestic uptake, with a mix of technical support and funding to enhance capacity and bring all states to par. Above all, for ASEAN’s approach to “stick,” it will need interoperability with global standards—from the EU’s risk-based AI Act and the US NIST framework to guidelines such as the OECD AI Principles and ISO technical standards.
Approximately 97% of all businesses in ASEAN are micro, small, and medium enterprises, contributing nearly 45% of the region’s GDP. For them, interoperability would be a crucial enabler to cross-border trade and investment.
Where ASEAN goes with this experiment is crucial. Emerging regions such as the Gulf Cooperation Council and the African Union are watching closely. It could prove that a flexible, soft-governance approach that balances innovation and trust could work in the right conditions, or it could become a cautionary tale of what not to do.
