THE use of artificial intelligence (AI) brings promises of benefits and concerns of harms to society. Governments are building policies and regulatory frameworks at an urgent pace to direct AI technologies towards positive outcomes and to mitigate risks as they arise.
Malaysia is not to be left behind. Multiple stakeholders are diving into the fray, spearheading initiatives to drive AI development, adoption and use such as the release of national-level guidelines and the establishment of a National AI Office. The government has also indicated strong political will to advocate for AI safety in Southeast Asia and drive the participation of the region in international rules-setting for AI.
Key questions
Khazanah Research Institute’s (KRI) latest report AI Governance in Malaysia: Risks, Challenges and Pathways Forward answered key questions on AI risks, governance challenges and feasible pathways forward. It offers a snapshot of the current landscape, conceptual framework of AI risks and an indication of present gaps and challenges in technology governance. The report also laid out a set of policy recommendations in line with the government’s direction at the national level while recognising international pressures and trends.
KRI offers a localised typology of AI risks, based on extensive stakeholder consultations. Drawing on in-depth interviews and a roundtable with stakeholders and subject matter experts, KRI found three main types of AI risks that are of specific concern in Malaysia.
The first is the risk of being left behind in technology adoption. The second is the risk of unsafe AI and unintended consequences. The third is the risk of malicious use of AI.
The debate on balancing technology regulation with unrestrained innovation stems from the tension in mitigating these different types of risks.
Lack of readiness
KRI distinguished between risks directly linked to AI and risks linked to a lack of AI readiness, which will exacerbate the risks. Improving AI readiness is one way to implement policy that addresses existing gaps in governance, capacity, education and resources, instead of speculating about uncertain risks in the future, such as artificial superintelligence.
Therefore, five key AI governance challenges, based on KRI’s research, should be prioritised and addressed.
First, there is a lack of collaboration and coordination among agencies, with fragmented efforts limiting cross-sector collaboration and alignment.
Second, insufficient government capacity hampers effective governance. It is important to address any shortages of skilled professionals and a lack of frameworks that integrate technical, legal and ethical dimensions.
Third, traditional regulatory mechanisms struggle to address AI’s unique complexities and to effectively translate policies into enforceable legislation.
Fourth, it is difficult to balance regulation while facilitating innovation. Excessive regulation may stifle growth, while insufficient oversight risks the unethical use of AI.
The fifth challenge involves issues beyond Malaysia’s control, as AI is a global and networked technology. There is a need for a supply chain approach to governance and robust shared definitions of what AI is and what it can do. Malaysia is in a good position to strengthen its own AI governance and influence the global conversation.
Global governance
In strengthening its own AI governance frameworks and mechanisms, Malaysia can play a role in the global governance of AI. KRI makes the following six policy recommendations.
First, focus on national coordination of existing initiatives and actors. Ensuring efficient information flow within the AI governance ecosystem enables joint action to be coordinated.
Second, participate in international collaboration and global governance processes. Establish Malaysia’s position on global governance debates and engage strategically in international rules-setting as well as other global discussions.
Third, establish an agile and fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for AI by considering a whole spectrum of regulatory mechanisms alongside legislation. This may include using softer approaches, emphasising flexibility.
Fourth, strengthen data governance frameworks that build trust and safeguards. Malaysia’s existing data governance frameworks need to be fortified for AI-related risk scenarios. Strong and trustworthy common principles for data sharing are needed to build better technology for the local context.
Fifth, cultivate understanding of AI impacts and how to manage them among experts and laypeople. There is a need to connect experts across different disciplines and localities to strengthen expertise on AI governance. Consumer and civic education is the next step after AI literacy campaigns. Including non-experts in AI governance discussions can promote critical thinking and collect diverse perspectives on technology adoption.
Sixth, support research and oversight on AI impacts by having independent oversight on AI use, especially adverse effects. Collecting data on AI-related harms and high-risk use of AI by the government and large corporations can help hold AI deployers accountable. Systematic tracking of AI adoption by small and medium enterprises can also help inform industrial development.
The recommendations presented in this report point towards the necessity of funding to implement effective policies and initiatives. Without adequate financial support, the ambitious goals set forth for AI governance may remain unfulfilled.
Securing funding that aligns with the nation’s strategic vision for AI might pave the way not only to managing risks but also to capitalising on the opportunities presented by the technology.
