Who should call the shots on AI? Youth debate the big question

This article captures insights and takeaways from a youth debate on AI governance in ASEAN. Speakers were assigned their positions. The below views form part of debate arguments presented during the event, and should not be attributed to the participants, Malaysiakini or other participating organizations.

AI is becoming increasingly part of our everyday lives, shaping how we work, communicate, and make decisions. But as AI becomes smarter, one question remains: who should be responsible for keeping it safe?

Should governments regulate AI, or should the companies developing it take greater responsibility for their own tech?

That question took centre stage at the first debate session of the SEA Youth Summit 2026, held at Sunway University, where youth delegates explored whether AI requires stronger government oversight or greater reliance on industry self-regulation.

With Microsoft as the Knowledge Partner, the session gave young participants a platform to share their perspectives on AI safety and governance in the region.

Organised by KiniEvents and Malaysiakini and co-organised by the Delegation of the European Union to Malaysia, the inaugural SEA Youth Summit featured interactive debates, policy roundtables, cross-border networking and industry-focused dialogues spanning AI Safety Regulations, Sustainable energy, Inclusive entrepreneurship and education. 

Microsoft highlights the different ways people experience AI across ASEAN 

Nabila Hussain, Director of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Microsoft Malaysia, said the rapid development of AI and technology has made regulation a growing global conversation, with policies and safeguards needed to shape a digital world that works for everyone.

She pointed to ASEAN’s young and rapidly connected population, with 210 million people under the age of 35 and 125,000 new Internet users coming online each day. But as technology reaches more people across the region, the way it is accessed, understood, and experienced can vary significantly across communities and cultures.

She stressed the importance of recognising different levels of digital knowledge and ensuring that diverse voices are heard. She encouraged delegates to practice digital empathy and digital vigilance, consider how technology and content affect different communities and remain active in conversations with governments, technology companies, educators and others. “AI and the digital economy are both multi-stakeholder and global by default, which is why collaboration and shared understanding will be essential as we navigate what comes next,” said Nabila. 

Safeguarding youth in the age of AI 

Madeline Shepherd, Director, Digital Safety - Asia at Microsoft, said the company was supportive of moves from governments to develop stronger safeguards when needed to protect young people using AI, but cautioned that such measures should focus on reducing risks rather than restricting access to the technology.

She said young people should be able to use AI safely and confidently, with safeguards that take into account their individual needs and stages of development.

Speaking during a pre-event debate workshop for the SEA Youth Summit 2026, Madeline said the question was no longer whether young people would encounter AI, but how they would interact with it and what protections would be in place.

She said Microsoft’s approach is guided by its Safe Participation Framework, which focuses on three areas: safety by design, age-differentiated experiences, and education and empowerment.

Under the framework, platforms should identify foreseeable risks before launching a product and put appropriate safeguards in place. For younger users, AI experiences should also be adapted according to age, including limits on content or features that may be harmful.

However, Madeline stressed that regulation and product design alone could not address every risk. Young people also need the skills to recognise when something is wrong, question what an AI system tells them and seek help from a trusted adult or support service when necessary.

Debating the motion

The debate asked whether governments should take the lead in regulating AI, or whether companies should be trusted to regulate themselves. Six delegates from across Southeast Asia argued opposite sides of the motion. Speakers were assigned their positions. The views below are the speakers’ debate arguments and do not reflect the positions of their countries or governments.

Arguing for government regulation

Lai Khanh Linh: Strong oversight where AI affects people’s lives

Opening for the government side, Linh argued that governments should play an active role in regulating AI, especially where it affects people’s lives, rights, data and safety. In her view, governments have both the duty and the legal power to protect the public. She suggested limits on high-risk AI, more openness about how data is used, and rules based on the level of risk. She also said communities in developing countries and indigenous communities could face extra risks as AI grows, including the misuse of their land, data and cultural information. Stronger oversight, she argued, would help make sure AI development protects human rights, the environment and vulnerable groups.

Danica Tacbas: Regulation and innovation can work together

Danica argued that governments can work with industry experts to build the technical knowledge needed to regulate AI well. Companies may understand their own technology best, she said, but society as a whole should decide what level of risk is acceptable.

Danica, who was named Best Debater of the session, said independent oversight is important so no single group holds too much control. She also pointed to the role of public policy in helping workers adjust to automation through retraining, reskilling and social protection. Regulation and innovation can go hand in hand, she said, with more flexibility for lower-risk AI and stronger testing, transparency, auditing and human oversight for high-risk systems.

Chua Ying Hui: Rules provide protection, even when they are not perfect

Ying Hui compared the roles of companies and governments. Companies are driven by business goals, she said, while governments are responsible for public welfare. She pointed to deepfakes and AI scams as examples of harms that self-regulation has not been able to prevent on its own.

Governments can set laws and penalties in a way companies cannot do for themselves, she argued, and even if rules sometimes trail behind the technology, they still offer some protection. She also raised concerns about young people relying heavily on AI chatbots, and said oversight could help prevent overdependence and other harms.

Arguing for industry self-regulation

Chittawut Chuengwutigool: Keeping room for AI in medicine, education and research

Opening for the opposition, Chittawut said existing laws and guidelines already provide some oversight of AI. He argued that new laws can take time to pass and may be out of date by the time they take effect, while companies can respond to new risks faster through internal policies, testing and safeguards.

He warned that broad rules could slow progress in areas such as medicine, education and scientific research, and could raise costs for smaller companies and start-ups. He supported self-regulation within existing laws, along with targeted action to keep markets competitive and AI widely accessible.

Nagesen Asathampy: Balancing safeguards with growth

Nagesen said AI is already being used well beyond everyday apps, including in cancer detection, disaster prediction and spotting financial crises. He questioned whether governments are better placed than companies to manage the technology.

He argued that overly strict rules could make the region less attractive to technology companies and investors, and used the semiconductor industry as an example of how regional cooperation creates jobs, investment and skills. Companies also face pressure from customers, shareholders and boards to use AI responsibly, he said. Citing a Stanford study, he noted that the share of US companies without responsible AI policies fell from 24% to 11% in 2025.

Hezron Kowardi: Protecting privacy and individual rights

Hezron questioned how much control governments should have over AI, especially when it comes to privacy and individual rights. He noted that government use of AI can also raise concerns, such as surveillance.

He argued that companies have good reason to avoid harmful uses, because losing public trust affects their customers and profits, and consumers can hold companies to account by choosing not to use their products. Hezron made clear that the opposition was not arguing for no government role at all, but asking how much control is right. Competition, consumer choice and existing laws, he said, can also provide accountability while protecting privacy and rights.

The debates at the SEA Youth Summit 2026 gave young delegates from across the region a chance to hear different views on issues that will shape their future. From AI regulation to wider questions around technology, work and society, the discussions showed that there are no simple answers to many of these challenges.

As the summit ended, the delegates left with different perspectives to consider, as well as a better understanding of the issues facing the region.

Watch the full debate HERE and learn more about the SEA Youth Summit via the official website or visit KiniEvents Instagram for a closer look at the day’s highlights. 

#SYS2026 #SEAYouthSummit2026 #ASEANYouth #YouthVoices #YoungLeaders