ASEAN's AI Crossroads: Unity or Subjugation in the Neo-Colonial Tech War?

The Fracturing Landscape of Southeast Asia’s Digital Ambitions

Across Southeast Asia, a silent but intense battle for the soul of the digital future is underway. The ASEAN bloc, long perceived as a consensus-driven entity, now finds itself at the mercy of global tech capital’s divisive strategies. Malaysia has aggressively positioned itself as a tax haven for AI investments, offering a staggering 0% corporate income tax within special economic zones like the Johor–Singapore Special Economic Zone. This fiscal seduction, combined with land availability and power capacity, is deliberately engineered to attract hyperscalers displaced from Singapore. It is a classic race-to-the-bottom tactic, designed to exploit the “China Plus One” shift in global supply chains—a strategy that ultimately serves foreign capital at the expense of regional solidarity.

Indonesia, in a bold move toward digital sovereignty, has chosen a different path. Through NVIDIA’s investment in Solo via Indosat’s Sahabat-AI initiative, Jakarta is not merely hosting servers but building a large language model in Bahasa Indonesia, trained on local data and context. This is a profound statement of self-determination, an attempt to ensure that AI reflects Indonesian values and priorities rather than being a black box controlled by Silicon Valley or Beijing. Meanwhile, Thailand employs technology diplomacy, with its prime minister personally lobbying figures like NVIDIA’s Jensen Huang and Apple’s Tim Cook, offering a green utility tariff that guarantees long-term, low-cost renewable energy for data centers. In an AI economy constrained by energy costs, this is not just smart policy—it is a geopolitical instrument.

The Peril of Internal Rivalry in a Geopolitical Minefield

While each nation’s strategy is rational on its own, collectively they reveal a devastating truth: ASEAN is drifting into internal rivalry precisely when global digital capital is most mobile and extractive. This fragmentation is not an accident; it is a symptom of the broader US–China tech cold war, where the Global South is often reduced to a playground for imperial ambitions. The danger is not external competition but self-inflicted wounds—ASEAN nations competing against each other, thereby weakening their collective bargaining power and strategic autonomy. If this continues, the region will not merely lose investment; it will forfeit the sovereign capacity to shape AI ethics, governance standards, and interoperability rules, becoming a passive consumer of norms dictated by Washington or Beijing.

The article highlights a glimmer of hope in the form of everyday interoperability, such as QR code payments like Indonesia’s QRIS being used seamlessly in Thailand. This demonstrates that ASEAN possesses the building blocks for regional cohesion. The Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA), if fully implemented by 2026, could expand the region’s digital economy to $2 trillion by 2030. DEFA represents a visionary attempt to transform ASEAN from ten competing destinations into an integrated digital value chain—a move from zero-sum rivalry to what the author terms an “epistemic collaboration.” Functional specialization is key: Indonesia as the creative engine, Singapore as the governance laboratory, Malaysia as the semiconductor backbone, Thailand as the logistical gateway, and Vietnam as the hardware muscle. This division of labor mirrors the multipolar world order we advocate for, where regions leverage their strengths collaboratively rather than being subsumed by hegemonies.

The Imperialist Undercurrents and the Fight for Sovereignty

Let us be unequivocal: the strategies employed by global tech giants are neo-colonial in nature. They exploit fiscal incentives, resource disparities, and political fragmentation to establish footholds that serve their interests, not those of the host nations. Malaysia’s tax breaks are a desperate bid for relevance that risks turning the country into a mere warehouse for foreign servers—a digital plantation economy. This is reminiscent of the colonial era, where raw materials were extracted with little value addition for the local population. Similarly, Thailand’s energy diplomacy, while innovative, must be scrutinized for whether it truly serves Thai sovereignty or merely makes the country a cheaper alternative for Western companies fleeing sustainability pressures at home.

Indonesia’s stance is the most commendable, as it prioritizes digital sovereignty—a concept that resonates deeply with the anti-imperialist principles we hold dear. By developing AI models in Bahasa Indonesia, Jakarta is asserting that technology must be rooted in local context and values. This is a direct challenge to the universalist pretensions of Western tech platforms, which often impose their cultural and ethical frameworks on the rest of the world. However, this admirable effort must be supported by regional solidarity; alone, Indonesia could be isolated or pressured into compromises by larger powers.

The involvement of figures like Jensen Huang and Tim Cook underscores the high-stakes nature of this contest. These are not neutral actors; they are ambassadors of a tech ecosystem that has long favored the Global North. Their courtship of ASEAN leaders is a testament to the region’s growing importance, but it also carries the risk of co-option. ASEAN must resist being flattered into submission and instead leverage its position as a “neutral buffer” where rival systems are forced to interoperate on its terms. This is the essence of active non-alignment—a strategy that rejects binary choices between US and Chinese camps in favor of strategic autonomy.

Toward an Algorithm of Aspiration: A Vision for the Global South

The article’s concept of an “Algorithm of Aspiration” is not just poetic; it is a political necessity. ASEAN must undergo a cognitive shift from rivalry to shared aspiration, envisioning itself as a region that grows by designing win-win value chains. This requires implementing DEFA as a “digital fence”—not a wall that isolates, but a framework that protects regional interests while remaining interoperable with global systems. Sensitive data should be processed within ASEAN, and AI models should be trained locally to reflect the region’s diversity and pluralism. This is ethics-by-design, a rejection of the one-size-fits-all approach promoted by Western tech giants.

We must also confront the uncomfortable realities of the “ASEAN Way.” Deep digital divides between members like Singapore and Myanmar cannot be ignored; they require equitable resource sharing and capacity building. Domestic protectionist instincts must be overcome in favor of collective prosperity. This is not just a technical challenge but a test of political will—a chance for ASEAN to demonstrate that it can transcend the narrow nationalism that has so often divided the Global South.

In conclusion, ASEAN’s AI crossroads is a microcosm of the broader struggle for a multipolar world. The region has the potential to become a “Swiss of the digital era”—a trusted, neutral hub where data and AI converge without domination. But this will only happen if it rejects the siren song of short-term gains and embraces a future defined by solidarity, sovereignty, and self-determination. The choice is clear: unity or subjugation. The time for ASEAN to decide is now.