While everyone is watching the heavyweight bout between the US and China over AI supremacy, a far more nuanced and perhaps more telling story is unfolding in Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, is often spoken of as a single bloc, but when it comes to technology policy, it’s anything but a monolith. The divergent paths being forged by neighbours Vietnam and Laos are a perfect illustration of this complex reality, creating a fascinating tale of two completely different philosophies on artificial intelligence.
On the surface, both nations are eagerly embracing AI. But look a little closer, and you’ll see they are building two very different futures. This isn’t just about code and algorithms; it’s about control, development, and national identity in the digital age. The choices they make now will define the future of ASEAN AI policies for years to come.
A Fork in the National AI Roadmap
Every nation worth its salt is drafting national AI roadmaps, but these documents are more than just technical blueprints. They are statements of intent. They reveal a country’s priorities, its fears, and its ambitions. In Southeast Asia, the contrast between Laos and Vietnam couldn’t be starker.
Laos, in a move that feels both ambitious and refreshingly collaborative, recently announced its National AI Strategy. As reported by CoinGeek, this strategy is being guided by UNESCO’s AI Ethics Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM). The goal? To build homegrown AI solutions to modernise foundational sectors like agriculture, education, and public services. It’s a development-first approach, focused on using AI as a tool for social and economic uplift.
Soohyun Kim, UNESCO’s Regional Director, hit the nail on the head: “Investment in research and development is fundamental to ensuring that artificial intelligence delivers real social and economic value.” Laos appears to have taken this to heart, with its national strategy aiming for a significant R&D investment increase by 2040. It’s a long-term play, planting seeds for future growth rather than building walls for immediate control.
Meanwhile, Vietnam has taken a sharp turn in the opposite direction. Its recently issued Directive No. 57 couldn’t be clearer: the priority is security. The government is mandating digital identity verification for anyone using online social media services. That’s right—no more anonymous accounts.
Identity, Security, and the All-Seeing State
Let’s be clear: Vietnam’s push for mandatory digital identity verification is a massive strategic move. The stated goal, according to the Ministry of Public Security, is to combat the scourge of fake accounts used for fraud, misinformation, and other online crimes. They also want to enforce age restrictions to protect minors, a noble aim that few would argue against.
But what does this really mean? It is essentially the digital equivalent of requiring an ID card to enter any public square or social gathering. On one hand, it could absolutely make the digital space safer. On the other, it hands the state an unprecedented level of control over online discourse. Anonymity, for all its ills, has also been a shield for political dissent, whistleblowing, and free expression. Removing it entirely is a trade-off with profound implications for civil liberties.
This isn’t just a policy; it’s a fundamental re-architecture of the country’s social internet. Imagine if every comment you posted, every group you joined, was directly and irrevocably tied to your government-issued identity. It’s a powerful deterrent for bad actors, but also potentially for anyone who wants to voice an unpopular opinion. Vietnam isn’t just dipping its toes in the water; it’s building a fortress, complete with investments in quantum-resistant encryption and domestic security chips to protect its own data.
Can Opposites Cooperate?
This brings us to the thorny issue of cross-border cooperation. For the ASEAN bloc to truly thrive, a degree of digital and economic integration is essential. But how can two countries with such fundamentally different AI philosophies work together effectively?
Laos is adopting an open, globally-guided framework from UNESCO, positioning itself to collaborate with other nations prioritising ethical, human-centric AI. This approach fosters trust and interoperability. Vietnam, however, is building a walled garden. Its security-first model, focused on state control and domestic technology, could make data sharing and cross-border digital services incredibly complicated.
Think of it like two neighbouring towns deciding how to build their road networks. Laos is adopting the international standard for traffic signs and road widths, making it easy for anyone to drive through. Vietnam is creating its own unique system, with special checkpoints and permits required for every vehicle. You can see how this would create friction at the border. While regional collaboration on AI ethics frameworks is happening, Vietnam’s hardline stance on identity could isolate it from these broader, more open initiatives.
Security Frameworks and the Sovereignty Question
The divergence is deeply rooted in the different regional security frameworks and national priorities of each country. Vietnam’s approach is a direct extension of its traditionally strong state control and focus on national security. Directive No. 57 is less a pure technology policy and more a national security doctrine applied to the digital realm. The emphasis on protecting state secrets during AI development, as mentioned in the directive, speaks volumes.
This highlights a key tension in the global AI race: the push-and-pull between open, globalised platforms and the desire for digital sovereignty. Vietnam is firmly planting its flag in the sovereignty camp. It wants to control its digital destiny, from the chips in its servers to the identities of its citizens online.
Laos, by contrast, seems to understand that as a smaller nation, its best path forward is through collaboration and leveraging global standards. By aligning with UNESCO, it gains access to a wealth of knowledge and a ready-made ethical framework, which is a sensible strategy for accelerating development without having to reinvent the wheel. Its challenges are different—not primarily about controlling a restive online population, but about lifting its economy into the 21st century.
The future for ASEAN AI policies will likely not be a single, unified strategy, but a patchwork of these competing philosophies. The pivotal question is whether this patchwork can be stitched together into a coherent whole, or if it will tear at the seams. Vietnam’s success in creating a “safer” internet will be watched closely, as will Laos’s progress in building an AI-powered economy from the ground up.
The implications are huge. Will Vietnam’s model become the template for other authoritarian-leaning states in the region? Or will the open, collaborative approach of Laos and its UNESCO partnership prove more fruitful in the long run, delivering greater economic and social benefits?
What do you think? Is mandatory digital identity a necessary evil for a safer internet, or a step too far towards state surveillance? And can a region as diverse as ASEAN ever truly find a common ground on AI? The next few years will be telling.
