OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS FOR SOUTHEAST ASIA
For Southeast Asia, this moment reveals both potential and pitfalls.
On the one hand, it highlights a niche leadership space for the region: crafting practical, context-specific norms around AI harms tied to gender, children and disinformation, rather than waiting for broad frameworks patterned on Western models. This is a realistic goal, especially since the region already has its own declaration on the protection of children from online exploitation and abuse.
If the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) can build on this momentum, there is an opportunity to develop regional principles on AI-generated sexual and gender-based harms, deepfakes and child protection. This could signal to AI companies that compliance with safety expectations is non-negotiable.
On the other hand, the Grok bans also underscore the risks of fragmentation. If governments unilaterally block or permit high-risk AI tools without shared standards, global firms will navigate a patchwork regulatory environment, and vulnerable groups may be left exposed where protections are weakest.
Moreover, unilateral bans may push harmful content into less regulated spaces or drive users to circumvent restrictions, undermining regulatory objectives.
To translate this moment into sustained leadership, Southeast Asian countries will need to deepen regulatory capacity and work towards ASEAN-level cooperation on enforcement.
Using Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines’ Grok decisions as case studies, policymakers can design clear expectations for AI providers, particularly for high-risk systems, including risk assessments, safety-by-design requirements for image tools, rapid takedown obligations and meaningful engagement with regulators before market entry.
In doing so, Southeast Asia could emerge not merely as a reactive regulator of AI harms, but as a contributor to global AI governance norms reflecting regional social, legal and political contexts.
Source: CNA
