8th Putrajaya Forum 2026 Kuala Lumpur

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

BY

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS

SULTAN NAZRIN MUIZZUDDIN SHAH

AT THE

8^TH PUTRAJAYA FORUM 2026 KUALA LUMPUR

DATE: TUESDAY, 21 APRIL 2026

TIME: 9:00 AM

VENUE: MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND EXHIBITION CENTRE (MITEC), KUALA LUMPUR.

“ASEAN Security at the Edge of Emerging Technologies”

1. We meet at a time of great volatility. Tectonic shifts are occurring in the global geopolitical balance, causing friction between the moving parts. The contest for primacy between the resident and rising powers permeates virtually every field – political, economic, military and technological.

2. The rivalry in the security domain is taking place in an increasingly complex technology-driven landscape. I am therefore pleased that the 8^th Putrajaya Forum is convened to foster regional dialogue, share best practices and strengthen collaboration in ASEAN on this vital subject. The question before us is neither abstract nor distant. It is immediate, consequential, and deeply human: how shall we, as a region, secure our future in this era of relentless technological advancement?

3. In the more than 3,000 years of recorded history, war has remained a constant, undiminished by civilization and uninhibited by democracy. According to the historian Will Durant, across these three millennia, the world has enjoyed only 268 years of peace:^[1] Less than 10 percent of chronicled human time. The 20th century alone saw two world wars and numerous regional conflicts. It was hardly a century of peace, and numerous conflicts have followed since.

4. At the end of the First World War, warfare extended across land, sea, and air. Today, war is also waged across space and cyberspace. In fact, they are now central to modern warfare, as Ukraine and Iran have shown. And it will not stop there. To understand where conflict is heading, we must first understand the technology that drives it, and our fraught relationship with that technology throughout history. While technology predates formal science by thousands of years and is as old as humanity itself, history reveals a changing relationship between humans and the technology they create.

5. Two hundred years ago, thinkers like Ralph Waldo Emerson were already warning that the maker was becoming subordinate to the made; that humans were being shaped by their tools rather than the other way around. That insight has only deepened with time. Scholars observed that when technologies combine, they produce emergent consequences no one predicted, much as stable compounds in chemistry can, when mixed, become explosive. Joseph Schumpeter recognised that technology was not merely a product of economic growth but its primary engine.

6. And in our own era, we have repeatedly learned, and then seemingly forgotten, the hardest lesson of all: that we tend to build first and govern later. The atomic bomb was detonated before the world had any framework for its regulation. We must not repeat that error with AI, genetic engineering or the other converging technologies of this century. They demand governance in advance, not in retrospect. And there is one domain above all where the cost of governing in retrospect may prove irreversible: the health of the planet itself, a subject I will come to shortly.

7. Emerging technologies — artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology and advanced communication — are shifting the balance of risk. On the one hand, these technologies provide powerful tools to enhance security. AI can be deployed to deter cyber threats in real time, identifying anomalies and responding to attacks faster than any human operator. Practical analytics can anticipate risks, enabling preemptive action rather than reactive measures. Blockchain technology offers enhanced data integrity, ensuring transparency in transactions and reducing the risk of fraud and other illicit activities. Advanced surveillance systems, when governed responsibly, can improve public safety and disaster response, and satellite technologies can monitor environmental changes, contributing to climate security.

8. But these technologies also carry grave risks. The deployment of AI in military contexts could inadvertently precipitate conflict. Through automation bias, humans could place too much trust in machines, allowing them to make life-or-death decisions that break moral and legal rules. Mistakes caused by AI in nuclear systems could have catastrophic consequences. In the online realm, quantum computing poses a huge threat to online security, and deepfakes have the potential to destabilize society through dangerous distortions of truth. Critical infrastructure — energy grids, financial systems, transportation networks —are increasingly digitized, and therefore increasingly exposed to these risks. Consider the implications: a cyberattack on a regional financial system could disrupt economies across borders within minutes. A coordinated misinformation campaign could erode public trust in institutions. A breach of sensitive data could compromise national sovereignty without a single shot being fired.

9. Thus, the very tools that promise progress also carry the seeds of instability. In some ways, of course, our present dilemma is not new. Throughout human history, technology has been an ambivalent force, only as good or as evil as the humans who wield it. Early developments in mechanics —for instance, levers and counterweights — helped humanity move heavy objects and construct magnificent buildings. The also powered the siege weapons that could destroy those buildings. Trains and telegraphs revolutionized connectivity and communication, yet both played significant parts in mid-19^th century conflicts.

10. I would like to dwell for a moment on artificial intelligence, which sits at the nexus of the promise and peril before us. By 2040, AI could be a million times more powerful than it is today. Yet raw power has very little to do with wisdom, and nothing at all to do with values — and it is values, ultimately, that determine whether a technology serves humanity or threatens it.

11. A body of scholarship has emerged around what might be called “prosocial AI”; the proposition that artificial intelligence must be designed from the outset to reinforce, rather than erode, the social bonds that hold communities together. This is not merely a philosophical concern. It is a security argument. When AI systems are optimised for engagement, profit or ideological reinforcement rather than human wellbeing, they fracture social trust, amplify grievances and accelerate the conditions that precede conflict. An AI that divides is, in a meaningful sense, a weapon, even if no one intended it as such. The question of what values are encoded in these systems, and whose values they are, is therefore not a matter for technologists alone. It is a matter of statecraft.

12. The current dominant model of AI development is concentrated in the hands of a small number of powerful corporations and states. Its incentive structures reward scale, speed and market capture. What they do not reward, quite deliberately — as the recent legal case in the US against Meta and YouTube shows — is social cohesion, cultural plurality, or the long-term wellbeing of the communities whose data trains the systems, but whose values rarely shape them.

13. For ASEAN, this is not merely a theoretical concern. Our region’s extraordinary diversity, in language, religion, culture and governance, is precisely what makes us vulnerable to AI systems calibrated on the assumptions of others. An algorithm that does not see us accurately will not serve us well and may even harm us. We must therefore insist on AI that is prosocial by design: systems built with equity and inclusion at their core, that are transparent in their operations, accountable to affected communities, and auditable by independent bodies. This is not anti-innovation. It is the condition under which innovation earns its legitimacy. The question is not whether ASEAN will use AI. We will, and we already do. The question is whether we will be architects of its application in our region or merely its consumers.

14. Encouragingly, this thinking has already taken root in several of our member states:

• • Malaysia launched its own domestically developed ILMU large language model^[2] in 2025, built on nationally sourced data held within sovereign infrastructure.
  • Singapore identified the strategic need for sovereign AI as early as 2023, investing S$70 million in SEA-LION, a model trained across eleven Southeast Asian languages^[3].
  • Vietnam has enacted AI legislation^[4] emphasizing sovereignty over data, infrastructure and models.
  • Between 2020 and 2024 alone, the region released thirty-five LLMs^[5] with specific Southeast Asian applications.

15. For ASEAN, the opportunity is clear: technology will be crucial for sustainable development, driving progress in areas such as agriculture, healthcare and poverty alleviation. With 700 million people speaking over a thousand languages, AI translation alone could do more to unite our region than decades of diplomacy. And we do not lack the talent to build these tools ourselves. We simply need to provide the opportunities, and to reward that talent rather than watch it slip away.

16. What is less clear, and what this Forum is well placed to address, is whether these national efforts will remain isolated ventures or whether ASEAN will find the collective will to align them under a unified framework. Fragmented AI development could lead to incompatible systems, duplicated costs and competitive rather than cooperative outcomes. If, however, ASEAN can align on common data governance standards, shared benchmarks for cultural and linguistic representation, and coordinated computer infrastructure, the whole will be considerably greater than the sum of its parts. The publication of the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics^[6] is a promising start that should be built upon swiftly.

17. In advocating collaboration, we must not overlook the disparities that exist within our region. Technological capacity, regulatory frameworks, and institutional readiness vary across member states. These asymmetries can create uneven vulnerabilities. A weakness in one node of our interconnected system may become a point of entry for threats that affect us all.

18. There is a further dimension to the AI challenge that we must confront honestly, and it concerns the relationship between artificial intelligence and truth. Deepfakes, synthetic media and algorithmically amplified disinformation are already destabilising democratic discourse in our region and beyond. These are not merely nuisances; they are instruments of influence that erode the foundations on which governance and the social contract depend. ASEAN must invest urgently in AI literacy, not only for its technologists, but for its citizens, its journalists, its civil servants and its security establishments.

19. Let me turn to what I regard as the most under-acknowledged security threat of our era: one that does not manifest through missiles or cyberattacks, but is already displacing populations, destroying harvests, collapsing fisheries and redrawing coastlines across our region. I am speaking of ecological breakdown: the cumulative consequence of what we have taken from the planet without accounting for the cost.

20. Climate change, biodiversity collapse, ocean acidification, water scarcity and soil degradation are not environmental issues that sit alongside our security agenda. They are security threats that belong at its centre. They generate displacement and competition for resources. They cause the food insecurity and state fragility that precipitate conflict. Several ASEAN member states, including my own, are no longer waiting for these consequences to arrive: they are dealing with them as I speak. To treat planetary health as a separate conversation from security is not merely an analytical error; it is a strategic one.

21. Here the technology argument rejoins the planetary argument with renewed urgency. The same digital revolution driving ASEAN’s growth carries with it both the tools for ecological rescue and the mechanisms of further ecological destruction. Which of these take precedence depends entirely on the choices we make. Precision agriculture, the satellite monitoring of deforestation and illegal fishing, AI-optimised renewable energy grids, digital early-warning systems for floods and cyclones — these technologies are genuinely transformative, and ASEAN should deploy them without delay.

22. But we must be equally clear-eyed about the shadow side. By 2030, the number of data centres in Southeast Asia is projected to triple, driven by AI demand. Tech giants are investing billions across the region, and the opportunities for employment, connectivity, and growth are real. But so is the strain on our energy systems, our water supplies and our environment. A digital transition that merely displaces environmental harm is not progress. It is a reclassification. We must demand that the corporations benefiting from our infrastructure bear a proportionate share of its environmental costs. And we must treat the ASEAN Power Grid not as an infrastructure project but as what it truly is: a security initiative — one whose urgency has just been made painfully clear to every household in this region by the consequences of the conflict in Iran.

23. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is affecting the economic security of every ASEAN country. The surging prices of energy, fertilisers and transport are driving up the price of food, increasing production and distribution costs and fuelling inflation. Worst affected are the countries with low energy reserves. An economic crisis is looming. Livelihoods will continue to be affected for months even if the Strait is re-opened in the near-term. It is therefore imperative that negotiations to end the West Asian conflict are speedily and successfully concluded.

24. In my concluding remarks, permit me to bring us back to the founding notion of security enshrined in the ASEAN Charter: the concept of comprehensive security. Political, economic, social, cultural and conventional security form an indivisible whole, each dimension reinforcing the others. I have argued this morning that we cannot sustain any of those dimensions on a planet we are actively destabilising. Comprehensive security, properly understood, must therefore extend to the health of the natural world on which all human security ultimately depends.

25. Environmental security is not a luxury agenda to be deferred until wealthier times. It is the foundation on which every other aspect of planetary and human security rests. A region that cannot feed itself, water itself or protect its coastlines from inundation cannot be secure in any meaningful sense, however sophisticated its military technologies. I would therefore urge this Forum to adopt planetary health as a formal pillar of ASEAN’s comprehensive security framework, not as a gesture of environmental conscience, but as a recognition of strategic reality.

26. The security challenges currently facing the ASEAN region are numerous and varied: the territorial and maritime disputes; the prevalence of extreme poverty; ethnic and religious animosities; residual separatist and resistance movements; extensive corruption; human rights abuses; violence against minorities; drug trafficking and addiction; illegal immigration; smuggling. Each one of these challenges can be mitigated through the considered and equitable deployment of technology. Yet, if applied carelessly or in the service of narrow interests, technology could instead exacerbate them all.

27. The decisions we make today will shape not only our security, but also the character of our societies. Technologies are neither inherently benevolent nor malevolent. They reflect the intentions and values of those who design, wield and regulate them. Technology will inevitably shape our future; the real issue is whether we will shape technology in a manner that upholds peace, stability and human dignity. We must nurture a generation that is not only technologically proficient, but also guided by a powerful sense of moral responsibility: a generation with strong hearts, as well as brilliant minds. We must heed the wisdom often attributed to Aristotle: “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.”^[7]

28. As ASEAN stands at this “edge,” we must recognize that while competition drives innovation, cooperation is what gives it meaning. True security lies in working together, not in isolation. This means cooperating on AI governance frameworks that reflect our values and protect our peoples. It means working together on the environmental standards to which our digital infrastructure must be held. It means sharing early-warning capabilities and building regional digital literacy. And it means ensuring that the wealth generated by technology is distributed with fairness. Intelligence without ethics is dangerous. Capability without accountability is reckless. Progress without equity is, ultimately, unsustainable.

29. Security, properly understood, is not merely the absence of threat, but the presence of trust, resilience and shared purpose. ASEAN’s strength has always lain in its ability to navigate complexity through dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect. These qualities are more important now than ever. Let us proceed with wisdom, guided by principle, and united in purpose. May our efforts ensure that technology becomes a force for stability, not division; a source not of peril, but of progress.

1. Will Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon &Schuster), 81. ↑
2. https://www.ilmu.ai/ ↑
3. https://sea-lion.ai/ ↑
4. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=db49f552-9e96-48c2-8903-08d490d2c541 ↑
5. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/01/speaking-in-code-contextualizing-large-language-models-in-southeast-asia ↑
6. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ASEAN-Guide-on-AI-Governance-and-Ethics_beautified_201223_v2.pdf ↑
7. This quotation is falsely attributed to Aristotle, as it first appeared in the latter half of the 19^th century. The closest approximation to the quotation perhaps can be found in Politics 8.6: “Teaching is powerless without a foundation of good habits”. ↑