Walk through Jakarta or Ho Chi Minh City, and you will see the signs of a digital revolution: QR codes at street food stalls, AI-powered logistics humming behind e-commerce platforms, and governments touting smart city initiatives. Yet beneath this optimism lies a question that will define the region’s future: Who governs the technologies that govern us?
Emerging technologies, from artificial intelligence, cloud computing, to data-driven platforms, are no longer abstract concepts. They shape how we work, learn, and even how states exercise power. In Southeast Asia, where political systems range from vibrant democracies to entrenched authoritarian regimes, the governance of these technologies is not just a technical issue. It is a question of sovereignty, ethics, and trust.
Tech Sovereignty
Several governments have embraced data localization laws, hoping to keep citizens’ data within national borders. On paper, this looks like a step toward autonomy. In practice, it often masks deeper dependencies. The chips powering AI systems, the cloud infrastructure hosting sensitive data, and the algorithms driving decision-making are controlled by a handful of global firms. Southeast Asia risks becoming a digital consumer rather than a digital creator, locked into extractive relationships that echo older patterns of economic dependency.
This dynamic is not unique to Southeast Asia. Dr. Abdul Rohman’s article, co-authored with KETEMU’s distinguished advisor, Professor Peng Hwa Ang of Nanyang Technological University, suggests that agile governance is essential in a world where technological change outpaces traditional regulatory models. But agility must not come at the expense of accountability. Without clear ethical frameworks, AI systems can amplify bias, surveillance can erode privacy, and automation can deepen inequality.
Governance Gaps and Ethical Blind Spots
ASEAN has made strides in cybersecurity cooperation and digital trade facilitation, but regional governance remains fragmented. National strategies often prioritize economic growth over rights-based safeguards. A report, authored by KETEMU’s founders, Dr. Sherly Haristya and Dr. Rohman, shows that civil society voices, essential for inclusive governance, struggle to gain traction in policy spaces dominated by state and corporate actors.
The ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics offers a voluntary framework built on seven principles: transparency, fairness, security, reliability, human-centricity, privacy, and accountability. Yet adoption is uneven, and enforcement is weak. While AI promises economic growth, its governance remains a patchwork of national laws and aspirational guidelines.
Case Study 1: Indonesia’s AI Ambitions and Governance Challenges
Indonesia launched its National AI Strategy to position itself as a regional leader in AI innovation. The roadmap emphasizes ethics, talent development, and infrastructure.
Yet implementation is uneven. A recent IBM study found that while 85% of Indonesian businesses report operational gains from AI, only 24% have clear governance processes in place. AI power is formidable, but the understanding of ethics remains limited. Although the quality of infrastructure and information and communication technologies has strengthened, the labor skills, digital literacy, and digital divide remain a lingering challenge. The case will be even more concerning if the continued disparity between rural and urban areas is left unaddressed.
The government is drafting a Presidential Regulation on AI and mandating AI regulations for sector-specific ministries. This roadmap aims to balance innovation with public protection, but success will depend on enforcement and capacity-building at the local levels.
Case Study 2: Vietnam’s Race Toward Ethical AI Governance
Vietnam is moving fast. In June 2025, it passed the Digital Technology Industry Law, introducing its first comprehensive framework for AI governance. The law adopts a risk-based classification model, similar to the EU AI Act, and mandates transparency, accountability, and human-centric design.
Vietnam’s approach reflects a balancing act to foster innovation, while safeguarding rights. Yet challenges persist. Centralized governance accelerates policy adoption but limits flexibility, raising concerns about transparency and public trust. UNESCO’s recent AI Readiness Assessment Report urges Vietnam to embed ethics deeply into its AI ecosystem to ensure inclusivity and fairness.
Inclusivity remains a blind spot. Despite official rhetoric about “AI for all,” disability inclusion is rarely prioritized. A review of 25 policy documents found only three that mention accessibility, and even then, as a protective measure rather than an empowerment strategy.
Regional Context: ASEAN’s Role and Limitations
ASEAN’s Expanded Guide on AI Governance and Ethics (2025) introduces principles for generative AI, addressing risks like misinformation, deepfakes, and IP infringement. However, the guide is non-binding. Without enforcement mechanisms, regional cooperation risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
The ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) offers a platform to harmonize AI policies and align governance with global standards. But progress is slow, and national interests often trump regional alignment.
Southeast Asia has an opportunity to lead, not by replicating Western or Chinese models, but by crafting governance that reflects its own values of community, pragmatism, and resilience. The question is whether policymakers will seize this moment or let the region drift into a future where technology governs without governance.
Recommendations:
| Recommendation | Why It Matters | Action Steps | Impact |
| Binding Regional Standards | Voluntary rules create uneven adoption | Convert the ASEAN AI Guide into a binding framework with compliance benchmarks | Harmonized standards boost trust and reduce fragmentation |
| ASEAN Tech Governance Council | National interests override alignment | Form a multistakeholder council under ASEAN | Inclusive policymaking; limits state/corporate dominance |
| Algorithmic Transparency | Public services lack accountability | Mandate disclosure & audits for high-risk AI | Builds trust, mitigates bias |
| Ethical AI Capacity Building | Talent gaps hinder implementation | Launch regional training programs with ASEAN & UNESCO | Strengthens institutional capacity |
| Digital Sovereignty Strategy | Data localization ≠ autonomy | Promote open-source AI, regional cloud, and chip partnerships | Reduces dependency, fosters innovation |
| Accessibility & Inclusion | Disability inclusion overlooked | Require accessibility standards, incentivize inclusive design | Ensures benefits for all citizens |
| Risk-Based AI Regulation | Innovation needs a safety balance | Adopt risk-tiered frameworks region-wide | Encourages innovation while protecting rights |