The United States has long maintained a global leadership position in AI, leveraging leading technology firms such as Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta to secure advantages in frontier technologies, including Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), Large Language Models (LLMs), autonomous driving, and intelligent robotics.
Meanwhile, China has surged forward by leveraging its vast market scale and a tight-knit innovation ecosystem. Through the efforts of leading technology firms like Baidu, Alibaba, and Huawei, China has achieved remarkable success in speech recognition, computer vision, smart city integration, and industrial AI applications. Guided by the “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” and a push for semiconductor self-reliance through projects like HiSilicon and Cambricon, China’s model is defined by “application-driven” growth.
Here, technology is deeply embedded into the fabric of national governance, public services, and manufacturing efficiency, focusing on solving practical societal challenges.
Currently, the global AI trajectory relies heavily on corporate self-regulation. Yet, as AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton has warned, when capital systems prioritise profit over social stability, simple “ethical self-discipline” is insufficient to guard against deep-seated risks.
These dangers include algorithmic bias that reinforces social inequalities, massive data privacy breaches, and the existential threat of loss of human control over AGI and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI).
China’s Global Governance Initiative (GGI) accurately identifies this as a “governance deficit”.; The current international regulatory framework lags far behind the pace of innovation, leaving developing nations on the periphery of rule-making. In response, China’s Global Security Initiative (GSI) emphasises that the governance of emerging technologies must be based on broad consensus and the establishment of international mechanisms with broad participation.
This GSI vision is not merely about defending against traditional threats like cyberattacks or deepfakes, it is about ensuring that all nations can equitably share in the AI dividend. The fiGSI promotes a vision of ”indivisible security” ensuring that the digital progress of one nation does not come at the expense of another’s security or sovereignty.
This is a crucial pivot for developing nations seeking to prevent the rise of a new “digital colonialism”.
Asean’s approach to AI governance is a natural extension of the ”Asean Spirit”.It is built upon the pillars of voluntary participation, principle-based guidance, and consensus-driven decision-making. Through instruments such as the Asean Guide on AI Governance and Ethics and the more recent Asean Responsible AI Roadmap (2025-2030), the region is gradually shaping its own normative order.
Unlike the European Union, which seeks a supranational regulatory body and the supremacy of regional rules over domestic law, Asean emphasises that each member state can implement AI governance according to its own developmental stage and political reality. This flexible approach provides pro-business, actionable policy recommendations that strike a balance between innovation and ethics.
There is a distinct discourse resonance between the “Asean Way” and the GSI in their shared emphasis on national sovereignty, non-interference, and respect for diverse development paths. This resonance objectively expands the legitimacy space for Asean members to choose their own technological paths. Asean does not seek to be “dominated” by any single security initiative; rather, it strategically utilises major power initiatives, including the GSI, to maintain its own autonomy in high-tech governance.
As a key regional actor in the AI race, Malaysia’s ambitions go beyond merely becoming a regional ”AI Hub”. We are building a robust security foundation that reflects local values.
This is evident in our policy evolution, from the National AI Roadmap 2021-2025 (AI-RMP) to the latest National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE), launched by the Science, Technology, and Innovation Ministry in 2024.
Furthermore, Malaysia has taken concrete steps by establishing the National AI Office (NAIO) and introducing the National AI Technology Plan 2026–2030. These documents signify a high-level commitment to strengthening talent cultivation, and industrial application, positioning AI as the core engine of national economic growth.
Against the backdrop of US-China tech rivalry, Malaysia has adopted an equilateral “strategic hedging” approach. Malaysia has skillfully converted its AI potential and strategic geographical location into a competitive advantage for attracting diversified investments.
We have successfully attracted significant investments from Chinese firms like Alibaba Cloud and ByteDance while simultaneously maintaining deep partnerships with Western tech giants like Microsoft and Google.
However, Malaysia’s role is shifting. We are no longer just passive recipients of technology; we are becoming active shapers of global AI norms. Malaysia’s case can serve as a “Global South” model for international platforms like the OECD, the Global AI Safety Summits, or the Digital Cooperation Organisation (DCO). As a proactive member of Asean, Malaysia can lead regional initiatives, such as an Asean AI Security Cooperation Mechanism, to turn regional consensus into a reference framework for international discussions.
By aligning with like-minded nations, we can enhance our agency in global rule-setting currently dominated by Western powers.
Malaysia is demonstrating a “third possibility” that AI development does not have to serve the interests of a few hegemons. Instead, it can be built on a foundation of sovereign equality, multilateral ethical deliberation, and shared dividends.
In conclusion, China’s Global Security Initiative offers an attractive governance paradigm for Asean by linking development with security in a way that respects local sovereignty.
Malaysia’s practice proves middle powers nations can transform geopolitical pressure into developmental momentum through proactive institutional design and strategic autonomy.
In the new frontier of AI, we do not need the Cold War logic of great power confrontation.
Instead, we require a future defined by multilateral participation and shared security. By championing a model that respects sovereignty and promotes inclusive growth, Malaysia and Asean can lead the way toward an AI era that is both innovative and secure for the global community.
Dr Liaw Siau Chi is an Associate Professor at New Era University College. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.
The SEARCH Scholar Series is a social responsibility programme jointly organised by the Southeast Asia Research Centre for Humanities (SEARCH) and the Centre of Business and Policy Research, Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology (TAR UMT)
Already a subscriber? Log in
Get 20% OFF The Star Digital Access
Cancel anytime. Ad-free. Unlimited access with perks.
