Civil Society as Essential Governance Partners

Effective AI governance cannot be built by governments and technology companies alone. Civil society organizations, rooted in communities, accountable to affected populations, and committed to protecting fundamental rights, serve as essential counterweights in policy ecosystems that might otherwise prioritize efficiency and innovation over equity and safety.

Yet across ASEAN, civil society leaders face a fundamental capacity gap. As AI systems proliferate throughout the region, affecting everything from content moderation to public service delivery to criminal justice, many grassroots advocates lack the technical literacy and strategic frameworks needed to engage meaningfully with AI governance debates. This gap doesn't merely limit civil society's influence, it weakens the entire governance ecosystem by excluding voices most attuned to AI's impact on vulnerable populations.

In 2025, during the Digital Rights in Asia-Pacific Assembly (DRAPAC) in Kuala Lumpur, AI Safety Asia (AISA) delivered intensive training designed specifically for ASEAN civil society professionals. The six-hour program equipped grassroots advocates with foundational knowledge, strategic insights, and collaborative networks to effectively engage in AI policy advocacy, transforming participants from concerned observers to capable participants in shaping the region's AI governance frameworks.

Bridging Technical Complexity with Advocacy Impact

The training addressed a core challenge: AI governance discussions often remain trapped in technical abstractions that feel distant from civil society's day-to-day advocacy work. Terms like "algorithmic bias," "data governance," and "AI safety" can obscure the concrete ways these systems affect human rights, digital freedoms, and community wellbeing.

AISA designed the curriculum to make these connections explicit and tangible. Participants explored not just what AI safety means in theory, but how AI systems concretely affect digital and human rights in ASEAN contexts. The program grounded technical concepts in real-world scenarios familiar to civil society advocates: content moderation systems that disproportionately silence marginalized voices, facial recognition deployed without adequate safeguards, automated decision-making in social services that replicates historical discrimination.

This approach transformed AI governance from an abstract technical domain into an urgent extension of civil society's existing human rights and digital rights advocacy, and a critical dimension of work advocates were already doing.

Building Regional Awareness and Strategic Capacity

Beyond foundational understanding, the training focused on developing participants' capacity to navigate the ASEAN AI governance ecosystem strategically. Civil society leaders learned to identify key players shaping AI policy in their regions, understand different stakeholders' incentives and constraints, and recognize where their interventions could prove most effective across the spectrum of AI risks.

This ecosystem mapping proved essential. Effective advocacy requires understanding not just what problems exist, but which institutions hold authority to address them, what policy windows might open for civil society input, and how to frame concerns in language that resonates with different audiences, from technical AI developers to government regulators to international human rights bodies.

Pre- and post-program surveys captured measurable shifts in participants' confidence navigating these strategic questions, moving from general awareness of AI governance challenges to specific understanding of regional gaps, opportunities, and intervention points.

Scenario-Based Learning for Real-World Impact

The program's most distinctive component employed wargaming methodology - immersive scenario exercises where participants collaboratively designed action plans addressing AI-related risks in realistic policy contexts. Rather than passive learning, participants actively practiced the strategic thinking and collaborative problem-solving their advocacy work demands.

These exercises served multiple functions. They built competence in rapid, context-appropriate response strategies, essential when AI systems are deployed faster than traditional policy processes can address their implications. They strengthened participants' ability to propose context-sensitive policies grounded in ASEAN realities rather than imported frameworks designed for different contexts. And they created space for cross-organizational collaboration, building networks among civil society leaders who could support each other's advocacy efforts beyond the training.

The wargaming module's design ensures the development of practical skills and collaborative relationships that translate directly into more effective advocacy.

By the program's conclusion, participants demonstrated not just improved understanding of AI governance challenges, but enhanced capacity to engage these challenges strategically.

This transformation represents exactly what ASEAN's AI governance ecosystem needs. As governments across the region develop AI strategies and regulatory frameworks, civil society voices grounded in community realities and human rights principles must shape those processes. The Kuala Lumpur training ensured more advocates possess the tools to do precisely that.

Strengthening Democratic AI Governance

AISA's civil society training in Kuala Lumpur reflects a broader commitment to ensuring that AI governance in Asia remains genuinely multistakeholder. Technology companies and governments bring essential expertise to AI governance conversations, but civil society brings something equally critical: accountability to affected communities and unwavering focus on whether AI systems actually serve human flourishing.

By building civil society capacity to engage effectively in AI policy debates, AISA strengthens the entire regional governance ecosystem. As AI systems continue reshaping societies across ASEAN, the civil society leaders equipped through programs like this will prove essential to ensuring that transformation serves justice, equity, and human dignity—not merely efficiency and economic growth.